I have been reading comments from all kinds of people about the Congregation for Bishops’ announcement yesterday that the decree of July 1 1988 that had recorded the excommunication, latæ sententiæ, of the four bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) consecrated by Mgr Marcel Lefebvre three days earlier had been remitted. People’s reactions, not surprisingly, reflect their own deep-seated opinions and prejudices about a range of issues, some connected with that of the excommunication, some not. I don’t believe this blog is the appropriate place to express my opinions about the subject. But I am struck by the woolly-mindedness of many commenters, including some with sound knowledge of the subject. So I’m going to engage in a few reminders about context.
The provisions under which the traditionalist bishops were declared excommunicate had only been in force since 1951, pursuant to measures inserted into canon law to deal with the Chinese Patriotic Church set up after the Communist takeover
The four bishops, along with their consecrator, were excommunicated latæ sententiæ [1] pursuant to a provision in canon law (Code of Canon Law – 1382) worded as follows:
A bishop who consecrates someone a bishop and the person who receives such a consecration from a bishop without a pontifical mandate incur an automatic latæ sententiæ excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
What is generally overlooked is that the penalty that resulted in such controversy in 1988 had actually been instituted to deal with a very different set of circumstances, and also that it had not in force for very long. Before 1951, consecration of a bishop without a papal mandate incurred not excommunication, but only suspension a divinis. On April 9, 1951, the Pope, in direct response to the Chinese communist government’s decision to set up a separate, “national” church in that country with its own self-appointed episcopacy [2], decided the institution of ipso facto excommunication for all bishops, whatever their rite or nationality, who had not been appointed or confirmed by the Apostolic See, as well as for any bishop involved in their consecration [3].
The measure was reaffirmed by Pius XII in 1958, again in connection with the specific circumstances of the Chinese crisis:
No one may legitimately confer episcopal consecration unless in advance the particular papal authorization is in [the consecrating bishop’s] possession. Through this criminal act there is carried out a most serious attack on the unity of the Church Itself. Therefore, for such a consecration performed against divine and human law, there is established the penalty of excommunication [4].
The argument that the 1988 consecrations were carried out because of a state of necessity is often quoted—and is ultimately a matter of opinion; less well known is the fact that the 1951 decree deemed to form the legal basis for the excommunications does not appear to have been intended to cover bishops not destined to be promoted to a vacant diocese
The four bishops, Mgr Lefebvre and their supporters have moreover always held that they acted out of necessity [5]. And this argument has been pretty systematically quoted in connection with the issue, so I don’t need to cover it in depth. Of course the existence of a state of necessity is inevitably a matter of opinion, but opinion in the Church has moved overwhelmingly, in recent years, in favour of the Traditionalists. Benedict XVI has proved noticeably more desirous to end the scandal of division within the Catholic Church than his much more modernist predecessor, who didn’t really seem that bothered about the situation that arose in 1988. The extravagant idea that any Catholic who agreed with the reasoning that the 1988 consecrations were justified by necessity was himself ipso facto excommunicate, which circulated widely at the time, is in particular never heard nowadays.
What is less often discussed is that, despite the institution of the 1951 measure specifically to deal with that organisation, the Vatican has, to the best of my knowledge, pronounced no official sentence of “schism” or “excommunication” on the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association. More puzzlingly, though, from the purpose intended by the Holy Office, the 1951 decree appears to cover only those who are consecrated as residential bishops, for this is the actual case which the Holy See intends to condemn [6]. For that reason, among others, I have always doubted that the 1988 “excommunications” were even valid in the first place.
From a legal point of view, the Pope unquestionably holds the power to remit what his predecessor decided on the basis of a canonical provision that had only been instituted for circumstantial reasons and had not been explicitly applied in the vast number of cases where it would have been applicable. This is what he chose to do.
Issues that are either irrelevant (the nauseating views of Mgr Williamson) or inaccurate (the idea that the SSPX is schismatic or not Catholic) are best left out of the debate
I don’t intend to comment extensively on the particular case of Mgr Williamson, about which my friend Andrew Sullivan says this:
This vile anti-Semite and Holocaust-denier has just been allowed back into the Catholic Church … I am truly, deeply ashamed of my church for this action and hope this provokes such an outcry it is reversed.
I don’t think any regular reader of this blog can accuse its author of complicity with antisemitism. Of course Andrew, who claims to be a Catholic, is right to call Williamson vile. Yet someone of his intelligence ought to see that of the four SSPX bishops, Williamson is the only one who desperately wants to avoid reconciliation with the Holy See, and is prepared to go to any lengths, however vile, to that end. Because he has been doing this deliberately, all we are seeing here with his nauseating negationist comments is collusion between two extremes, Williamson’s followers and the progressists, who, albeit for opposing reasons, both don’t want the SSPX’s status within the Church regularized. It’s obvious that the controversy was deliberately stirred up by both those parties in a sickening attempt to prevent the remitting of the 1988 decree. But Williamson wasn’t excommunicated for being a thoroughly nasty man. And the Holy See was right to ignore those who tried to pretend otherwise.
Of course, as Father Z. pointed out, the remitting of the excommunications changes very little outside of the personal canonical situation of the four prelates involved [7]. They are still suspended. The SSPX still operates irrregularly, at least if the Church’s applicable norms are considered prima facie. But now, with Summorum Pontificum in 2007 and now this, an impulse has been given to move further and it is essential that the momentum is maintained.
A final word on the issue of schism. The SSPX bishops, their clergy and those laity who frequent them are Catholics. Damian Thompson, carried away by moralistic anger, states that:
I do not wish to belong to the same Church as Williamson.
A Catholic who, for some grave reason, on a matter not involving faith or morals, feels bound in conscience to disobey the Pope in a particular instance without wishing to sever himself from the Church or deny the authority of the Pope, cannot be said to be in schism. Even if Damian doesn’t like it, the SSPX bishops, clergy and laity are, and always have been, Catholics. What now needs to be done urgently is to give the SSPX a proper canonical status so that the Fraternity can continue its work as a fully integrated part of the Universal Church.
_______________- In other words, the excommunication was automatically incurred as an immediate and direct consequence of the act in which they engaged, the decree merely serving to record the fact ex post. [↩]
- The Chinese Patriotic Association set up by the Chinese government has illegally consecrated over a hundred bishops without a papal mandate. [↩]
- The 9 April 1951 Decree establishing the automatic penalty of excommunication for the consecration of a bishop reads as follows: “Decree concerning the Consecration of a Bishop without Canonical Appointment. The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, in virtue of a special faculty established for it by the Supreme Pontiff, publishes the following Decree: A Bishop, of whatever rite or dignity, who consecrates as a Bishop someone who is neither nominated by the Holy See nor expressly confirmed by that same See, and he who receives consecration, even if coerced by grave fear (c.229, §3, 3), incur ipso facto excommunication most especially reserved to the Apostolic See. This Decree takes effect from the date of its promulgation.” [↩]
- Pius XII, Apostolorum Principis (1958). [↩]
- Canon law recognizes necessity as a circumstance, which exempts from all penalties in case of violation of the law (New Code of 1983. Canon 1323, sec.4), provided that the action is not intrinsically evil or harmful to souls; in this latter case necessity would only mitigate the penalty. But no latæ sententiæ penalty can be incurred by anyone who has acted in this circumstance (CCL 1983 Canon 1324, para.3). [↩]
- Fr. Eduardo Regatillo, Institutiones Juris Canonici (Santander: Sal Terrae 1956), 2:600: “Anyone who is to be promoted to the episcopacy needs the canonical appointment by which he is constituted Bishop of a such a vacant diocese. In practice, it may be doubted whether only those who are to be consecrated residential Bishops are affected – that is, those who are consecrated for a diocese now in existence – or also titular bishops (who are created for an extinct see or diocese), or bishops who are consecrated for no diocese. From the purpose intended by the Holy Office, the decree appears to cover only those who are consecrated as residential bishops, for this is the actual case which the Holy See intends to condemn. This new type [of offense] differs from the one mentioned in canon 2370, where the canon refers to consecrations performed without apostolic mandate (described in canon 953). The new decree, on the other hand, punishes consecrations performed without pontifical appointment. An appointment designates the person and bestows the title [to an office]. A mandate grants the permission to confer the consecration.” Regatillo’s interpretation is confirmed by a reading of Pius XII’s encyclical Ad apostolorum principis, especially paragraphs 47-48: “47. From what We have said, it follows that no authority whatsoever, save that which is proper to the Supreme Pastor, can render void the canonical appointment granted to any bishop; that no person or group, whether of priests or of laymen, can claim the right of nominating bishops; that no one can lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of the Apostolic See.[18] 48. Consequently, if consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred.[19].” (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical on Communism and the Church in China, June 29, 1958). [↩]
- The retroactive situation of Mgr Lefebvre, who died excommunicate and unrepentant, does not appear to have been clearly considered. [↩]
True Christians today should stand out for their distinctive way of life, just as they did in the first century. Accordingly, Jehovah’s Witnesses strive to adhere strictly to the precepts established by the first Christians. Their efforts to pattern their lives after the teachings of the Bible are noticed by others.
True Christians are zealous evangelizers, as they were centuries ago
For instance, the New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that Jehovah’s Witnesses are known as “one of the best-behaved groups in the world.” The Deseret News of Salt Lake City, Utah, observed that Jehovah’s Witnesses “promote strong family ties and develop productive and honest citizens.” The newspaper added: “Members believe in a strong moral code. They believe smoking, overdrinking, drug misuse, gambling, sexual promiscuity and homosexuality are spiritually damaging practices. They teach honesty and good work habits.”
The Witnesses also take to heart their responsibility to be zealous evangelizers. Commenting on this the New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “The fundamental obligation of each member . . . is to give witness to Jehovah by announcing His approaching Kingdom. . . . To be a true Witness one must preach effectively in one way or another.”
Clearly, true Christianity is much more than membership in one of the many religions of Christendom. Jesus himself foretold the rise of counterfeit Christians. (Matthew 7:22, 23) Jehovah’s Witnesses invite you to learn what Jesus taught and put it into practice. That is what it means to be a Christian. Jesus said: “If you know these things, happy you are if you do them.”—John 13:17.
——————————————————————————–
* One dictionary defines a Christian as someone who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or who follows the religion based on his life and teachings.
What if a baptized adult Christian sexually molests a child? Is the sinner so wicked that Jehovah will never forgive him? Not necessarily so. Jesus said that 'blasphemy against the holy spirit' was unforgivable. And Paul said that there is no sacrifice for sins left for one who practices sin willfully despite knowing the truth. (Luke 12:10; Hebrews 10:26, 27) But nowhere does the Bible say that an adult Christian who sexually abuses a child—whether incestuously or otherwise—cannot be forgiven. Indeed, his sins can be washed clean if he repents sincerely from the heart and turns his conduct around. However, he may still have to struggle with the wrong fleshly impulses he cultivated. (Ephesians 1:7) And there may be consequences that he cannot avoid.
Depending on the law of the land where he lives, the molester may well have to serve a prison term or face other sanctions from the State. The congregation will not protect him from this. Moreover, the man has revealed a serious weakness that henceforth will have to be taken into account. If he seems to be repentant, he will be encouraged to make spiritual progress, share in the field service, even have parts in the Theocratic Ministry School and nonteaching parts in the Service Meeting. This does not mean, though, that he will qualify to serve in a position of responsibility in the congregation. What are the Scriptural reasons for this?
For one thing, an elder must be “self-controlled.” (Titus 1:8) True, none of us have perfect self-control. (Romans 7:21-25) But a dedicated adult Christian who falls into the sin of child sexual abuse reveals an unnatural fleshly weakness. Experience has shown that such an adult may well molest other children. True, not every child molester repeats the sin, but many do. And the congregation cannot read hearts to tell who is and who is not liable to molest children again. (Jeremiah 17:9) Hence, Paul's counsel to Timothy applies with special force in the case of baptized adults who have molested children: “Never lay your hands hastily upon any man; neither be a sharer in the sins of others.” (1 Timothy 5:22) For the protection of our children, a man known to have been a child molester does not qualify for a responsible position in the congregation. Moreover, he cannot be a pioneer or serve in any other special, full-time service.—Compare the principle at Exodus 21:28, 29.
Some may ask, 'Have not some committed other types of sin and apparently repented, only to repeat their sin later?' Yes, that has happened, but there are other factors to consider. If, for example, an individual makes immoral advances to another adult, the adult should be able to resist his or her advances. Children are much easier to deceive, confuse, or terrorize. The Bible speaks of a child's lack of wisdom. (Proverbs 22:15; 1 Corinthians 13:11) Jesus used children as an example of humble innocence. (Matthew 18:4; Luke 18:16, 17) The innocence of a child includes a complete lack of experience. Most children are open, eager to please, and thus vulnerable to abuse by a scheming adult whom they know and trust. Therefore, the congregation has a responsibility before Jehovah to protect its children.
Well-trained children learn to obey and honor their parents, the elders, and other adults. (Ephesians 6:1, 2; 1 Timothy 5:1, 2; Hebrews 13:7) It would be a shocking perversion if one of these authority figures were to misuse that child's innocent trust so as to seduce or force him or her to submit to sexual acts. Those who have been sexually molested in this way often struggle for years to overcome the resulting emotional trauma. Hence, a child molester is subject to severe congregational discipline and restrictions. It is not his status as an authority figure that should be of concern but, rather, the unblemished purity of the congregation.—1 Corinthians 5:6; 2 Peter 3:14.
If a child molester sincerely repents, he will recognize the wisdom of applying Bible principles. If he truly learns to abhor what is wicked, he will despise what he did and struggle to avoid repeating his sin. (Proverbs 8:13; Romans 12:9) Further, he will surely thank Jehovah for the greatness of His love, as a result of which a repentant sinner, such as he is, can still worship our holy God and hope to be among “the upright” who will reside on earth forever.—Proverbs 2:21.
Three things are concerning about Pope Benedict XVI's decision to re-instate these men. First, as a group they have been openly atagonistic to the changes brought about by Vactican II. Since these men have not been required to repudiate their prior statements regarding Vactican II should the laity infer that the current Pope is equally antagonistic to these changes?
Second, the dramatic reversal of this decision in such a short time frame (20 years) is disturbing. Either Pope John Paul II was wrong to excommunicate these men or Pope Benedict is wrong to reinstate them. There is no middle ground here. The lack of any theological explanation leaves the laity with the strong impression that this decision was made for political reasons.
Third, Richard Williamson views are indeed relevant. The Church should be collectively embarrassed that a nutter like this was allowed to reach a position of leadership in the first place. We finally get rid of the guy (though I agree his excommunication was not principally due to his anti-Simitic views), we should at least have the common sense and decency not to allow him back into the Church.
@John from Atlanta: You have a point about the dichotomy between the two decisions (1988 and 2009). But neither decision was made for political reasons. Indeed, the Holy See's position in 1988 was that the decision was not theirs to take, since the bishops would have become excommunicate ipso facto, entirely by their own doing.
In reality, the double standard applied to the Chinese Patriotic Church after 1951 and to the SSPX many years later shows that the John Paul II's Holy See was being slightly disingenuous. Ultimately, the grounds invoked were disciplinary (lack of submission to the Pope) rather than theological, and in the matter of discipline there is rather more room for flexibility. Put otherwise, times have changed and in 2007, the disciplinary perspective has shifted dramatically.
Regarding Mgr Williamson's views, I was not suggesting they should be brushed under the carpet. Being a negationist is not grounds for being excommunicated. It is certainly unacceptable for anyone in a position of authority. So it is to be hoped that the SSPX, which has already expressed its displeasure, will take the appropriate action.
Update: Mgr Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX, in an interview with Genevan newspaper Le Temps, has distanced himself from Mgr Williamson: