SCHISMATICS SQUIRMING

In the July 1993 issue of the Angelus, the Society tries to deflect the issue of schism by quoting from an article in the May-June 1993 issue of Latin Mass magazine. That article was an interview by publisher Roger McCaffrey with the professor (retired) of canon law, formerly of the University of Florence, Count Neri Capponi. Actually the SSPX's arguments were put forth in the format of a response to a charge of scandal laid at the doorstep of a Fr. Eugene Heidt, who had been forbidden by his local Bishop, the Reverend William J. Levada, of the Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon, to use the Tridentine Rite of the Mass.

This article also quotes Society apologist Michael Davies from his letter to Thomas Case, author of the excellent Fidelity magazine article (Society of St. Pius X Gets Sick) exposing the Star Wars dark side of the force at work in the SSPX. Unfortunately Mr. Davies put his foot in his mouth; rather, the Society and Mr. Davies have put their collective feet into his mouth. Mr. Davies had said, "The priests of the Society (of St. Pius X) are more than justified in acting to save souls without the approval of the local bishop..." and "What the Society of St. Pius X is doing, Mr. Case, is enabling the flock who have been abandoned by the chief Shepherd to lead the fully Catholic life which would be impossible for them at present within the official strictures of the Church... (We're looking at what I've underlined here - Editor).

Let us hear what Count Capponi says in the part of the article that Fr. Heidt and the editors of the Angelus failed to include for their programmed readers. Here are the pertinent quotes from the interview.

McCaffrey: "My own view is that no matter what you can say about 1988, the fact is that by 1990 or '91, three Lefebvre bishops consecrated another bishop for the diocese of Campos, Brazil. And they can play with words, but the fact is that the Pope had appointed a bishop to the diocese of Campos. Now the Lefebvre bishops said: 'We're consecrating this bishop for traditional Catholics in Campos, he's not claiming jurisdiction.' But de facto he is claiming jurisdiction in that diocese. And I claim that is schismatic in tendency - is schismatic. Do you agree?"

Capponi: "I agree perfectly."

Count Capponi went on to say, "Not only does this action in Campos definitely have a schismatic flavor about it, but I should say that some attitudes - not of all members of the Society of St. Pius X, but of quite a lot of them - are becoming increasingly schismatic."

McCaffrey: "Well, let me give you an example. They have actually made a statement about the new code (of Canon Law), saying they don't adhere to it. And that's the only code we have - agree?"

Capponi: "Exactly. I think that they exaggerate there. It's all very well for a jurist to criticize the technical wording of the new code, say that it is imprecise, say that it is ambiguous at times. But not to adhere to the new code is - well, there are schismatic tendencies."

McCaffrey: "There is such a thing as a 'spirit of schism' - and I think there is a spirit of schism among the leaders of the Pius X Society. Do you agree?"

Capponi: "Exactly."

With this exchange we can easily wonder where Mr. Davies is coming from when he states that the priests of the Society are justified in acting without permission of the local ordinary to save souls. It also would be interesting to see how Mr. Davies gets around the lack of faculties to hear confessions and perform marriages which the Society does on a regular basis. To save souls, Mr. Davies? How, with confessions that aren't confessions, and marriages that aren't marriages?

It would have behooved Mr. Davies to have taken counsel of a luminary in canon law such as Count Capponi before he defends the schismatic operations of the SSPX. As if that isn't enough to doubt what could be called the Catholic integrity of Mr. Davies we also have his quote about the SSPX being outside the "official strictures of the Church." Nice of Mr. Davies to admit that the SSPX is outside the Church for that is where schism takes you. But he also talks about the flock leading fully Catholic lives. So let's take a look at that and see what Count Capponi has to say about the Society and the example they give "their flock."

McCaffrey: "In America, (the interview took place in the Count's apartment overlooking the Arno River) some will accuse me of aiding and abetting the Lefebvrites because of your response to schism and attending Mass, and fulfilling one's obligation (the Count had said that if you have a three-ring circus at your church and an SSPX offered Mass was down the street, a Catholic would fulfill his obligation by attending Mass at a Society mission or chapel). In this there is no argument. But, it should be obvious that if one will experience a diminution of the faith because of a steady diet of Novus Ordo nonsense, then one may well also experience a diminution of the faith with respect to an ongoing association with the SSPX because of the content of its sermons, writings and publications. Therefore one must be continually on his guard when around the SSPX.

Capponi: "I don't mean to be laudatory about the Society of St. Pius X. The Society has many faults. I don't agree with lots of things that they do. I mean their attitude in moral theology is very strongly Jansenistic. Their attitude is sometimes extremely uncharitable. And, as I say, there's a strong spirit of schism now in the Society that did not exist at the time of Msgr. Lefebvre. In a sense, curiously enough, Msgr. Lefebvre kept that spirit out."

McCaffrey: "Except at the end. Did you know that after he broke with Rome, he wrote to Archbishop Mayer of Campos, urging him to consecrate a bishop for the diocese of Campos?"

Capponi: "That is going in the schismatic direction."

McCaffrey: "But Michael Davies would agree with you that at least until the very end, Lefebvre was strongly inclined to maintain a unity, a formal unity."

Capponi: "What I criticize Lefebvre for is not so much his action, is not so much as having violated canon law, as having gone back on one of the most ancient, the most fundamental human attitudes: Once you have given your word, you don't go back! He had signed. Once you sign, once you agree that the person with which you have come to an agreement is trustworthy, and you agree with him - you stick to your agreement! You don't go back on it!" <<End of article>>

It was just a tad self-serving for the editorial staff of the Angelus to fail to quote all that Count Capponi had to say about the direction the Society has been going; especially since the death of the Archbishop. But this article merely confirms what we have been saying about the SSPX - and I'll say it again.  From all that I've seen and learned about the Society, it is in schism and exhibiting Jansenist tendencies thereby embracing heresy. The only thing left is apostasy (a complete rejection of the faith) and one can wonder if that is not too far down the road as it creates its own doctrine out of its Jansenism.

As far as Mr. Davies own Catholicity is concerned, what is one to think? Being perceived as a "traditional" Catholic writer he is in the curious position of telling Catholics that they can save their souls through a schismatic sect while leading fully Catholic lives by embracing the Jansenism of the Society of St. Pius the Tenth. But then the SSPX is a good outlet for Mr. Davies' books about the Society and Lefebvre; and I don't think he donates them, which I would say biases him just slightly.

FROM WHERE, TO WHERE?

Back in '88, we heard from Archbishop Lefebvre that the new bishops he and Bishop de Castro Mayer consecrated that June would have the responsibility of serving exclusively the needs of the SSPX; that they would not be assigned to any particular geographic locale to perform their ministry. The reason for this, we were informed, was so the SSPX could not be accused of being in schism. If the newly consecrated bishops were to exercise their ministry for a specific diocese without the blessing of Rome their actions would, in fact, be schismatic because they would be assuming an illicit jurisdictional role.

The consecration of a bishop for the diocese of Campos, Brazil, after de Castro Mayer died was clearly a schismatic action; the Society denies it - naturally. But, once again this brings up the question as to the SSPX's legal standing with Rome. If you have a copy of Michael Davies' book, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, published by the Angelus Press, the Society's in-house publishing arm, turn to page 444 of volume one (there are 3). Davies explains that in the decree by Francois Charriere, Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg, Switzerland, the Society was established for a six year period, ad experimentum, which could be renewed with tacit (not spoken; implied or inferred) approval for another six years. After that time the Society, according to the decree, could be "erected definitely in our diocese by the competent Roman Congregation." Ad Experimentum means, essentially, "we'll give it a try and see how it goes." Any extension of the Society's existence, therefore, would depend on the result of the experiences gained during these two six year periods.

While the Society was canonically established, a "competent Roman Congregation" never established the Society as per the decree of Bishop Charriere.  The tacit approval of Rome was withdrawn during the first six years and the Society, it should be noted, had no authority to operate outside of Bishop Charriere's diocese.  It had, therefore, no authority to established itself in other countries wherever it pleased.

So while the Society was canonically established, it quickly departed from Bishop Charriere's decree.  Lefebvre was suspended a divinis in the mid-70s and he was told to close up shop.  Relations with Rome became strained to the breaking point which was reached with the episcopal consecrations in 1988.  All rhetoric aside, the Society has not had any legitimate standing in the Church since the 1970s and certainly never had any authority to operate outside of Bishop Charriere's diocese in Switzerland.   The SSPX is, and has been, in a state of schism.

While the Society will argue that Rome agreed in principle to the consecration of one bishop in the protocol signed by Lefebvre in May of 1988, one is not four, nor was it permission to consecrate bishops outside of the conditions contained in it.  The agreement for the consecration of a bishop is not the same as permission to do so.   The Society also argues from the point of necessity as the reason for the consecrations.  That the matter of necessity existed was, and is, subjective and arguable.

Lefebvre could have abided by the protocol and then let Rome renege - if that was its intention, though I'm sure it wasn't.  That would at least have provided him with some kind of token justification, though it could not provide a legitimate basis, to perform the consecrations.  My guess, and, yes, it is only a guess, is that some person, or persons, among Lefebvre's entourage put pressure on the weak-minded Archbishop to get him to go back on his agreement to the protocol, though he seemed to have been comfortable enough with it to sign it.  I personally do not think Lefebvre any longer had the mental strength of mind to oppose people within his own ranks.  As he died but three years after the 1988 episcopal consecrations, it may well be that a medical condition affected his thinking processes.  At least this would provide him with some excuse for his actions for without it, his excommunication meant eternity in hell.

But why would those around Lefebvre want to submarine the agreement?  I believe that certain individuals saw an agreement with Rome as a threat to their position as well as to the small empire run by the SSPX.  Remember, these are elitists who, in their pride, believe that only they know it all.  What the leaders, and many of the priests, of the Society do not lack is pride of which they have an abundance and "Pride goeth before a fall."  Adherence to the protocol would have placed Society priests under the authority of Rome, which really would chaff them no end.  As it would have required them to bend a knee to Rome do I think it likely they'd willingly do that?  Not hardly!

Society supporters may play whatever mind games they wish and,  argue it whatever way they will, but, the 1988 episcopal consecrations were schismatic acts.  The consecration by the Society of a bishop for the diocese of Campos, Brazil was a schismatic act.  The continued illegal operation of the SSPX is schismatic. The Society of St. Pius the Tenth is, incontrovertibly, a schismatic sect.

AND WHILE WE'RE AT IT

Let's talk about this word schism. Canon 751 (new code of course, for it's the only one we have, though the Society constantly refers to the previous edition of Canon Law of 1913 to try to argue it case for they like the old discipline better than the new) defines schism as "the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

In the Fall of 1993 there transpired a debate between Dr. E. Michael Jones, publisher of Fidelity magazine and Michael Davies. In this debate Michael Davies argued that, strictly speaking, the SSPX was not in schism - that the Society did not violate the "letter" of the law.  Dr. Jones argued that there was more to the law than just the letter of the law.  Dr. Jones is quite correct for there are two parts to the law, the second being the spirit of the law - the reason for its existence.

To understand the law one has to know the mind of the legislator.  It is not enough to say that one has obeyed the letter of the law, he must also live and act according to its spirit.  If we look again at Canon 751 we find that it says two things: firstly, that one must submit to the legitimate commands of the Pontiff, and, secondly, one must be in communion with the members of the Church who are subject to the Holy Father.

In the first case we ask, has the Society submitted itself in obedience to the Holy Father? The obvious answer is that it has not.  Its houses are not directly, or indirectly, (through a local ordinary) under the jurisdiction of Rome - nor are its chapels, missions, or schools.  One may only refuse obedience to any lawful authority when that authority commands that which is forbidden and morally wrong.   This the Society has never been asked to do.  Therefore, its refusal is a schismatic act.

In the second case, it is NOT in communion with those who are subject to the Holy Father as it refuses to associate with Catholics loyal to Rome.  The Society rejects the Indult (a priest has called it Satanic) and it virtually refuses to acknowledge the Mass of Paul the VI as having legitimacy.  It does not request permission of the local ordinary to set up shop in a diocese and its priests answer to no one but itself in their comings and goings and in their operations.  Therefore, and on both counts, according to the letter of the law, and, according to the spirit of the law, the Society is guilty of schism.

ANOTHER SCHISMATIC STEP

The lie has again been put to Society claims that its allegiance truly is to Rome.   The Society is now handing out what the Church calls Decrees of Nullity - annulments.  Years ago a couple could only obtain an annulment through Rome.  In recent years, however, that has been changed so that the matter can be handled at the diocesan level.

I know of a young couple in the Chicago area who were "married" in 1993 by the Society.  The young lady was a Presbyterian, and, I later found out, had been married in that sect.  If she and her intended had been validly baptized then their marriage (as Presbyterians) was valid, though illicit, because only the Catholic Church has legitimate jurisdiction with respect to the administration of the sacraments.   But I don't know for a fact that they had both been validly baptized.  In all honesty, I don't know much about this situation at all because the Society, it seems, is hiding something for it refuses to talk about it.

At the beginning of September, 1993, I sent a letter to the District Superior, Fr. Peter Scott asking for details such as the pertinent points of Canon Law which the SSPX used to justify a rendering of a Decree of Nullity.  I had given him a month to respond and had asked that he not make it necessary that I resend my letter by certified mail (return receipt).  Fr. Scott forced me to this last extremity wherein he then refused to accept the certified letter.

I then sent a letter to the principals involved, also twice, once certified, and received the same response.  I then sent a letter to another priest stationed at the District Headquarters for the United States where Fr. Scott is located, using the same approach.  This priest also refused to accept my certified letter.  In all cases the first letter I sent to these individuals can be assumed to have gotten through.   If not, then what logical reason could they have had for refusing the certified letter unless they knew what it contained.  Additionally, the chance that all the first letters failed to reach them, or at least one of the destinations, is problematically remote as is also the probability that all three individuals would have refused to accept my certified letter without knowing what it contained.

Understandable it is that the Society doesn't wish to talk about this jurisdictional act of schism.  I can't say I blame it for it's just another indication that it is, indeed, creating its own church.  The Society, having no jurisdiction, legitimately cannot make a determination of annulment.  But, in another case of flip-flopping, it has taken jurisdiction from the local bishop though Lefebvre said that by consecrating bishops, he was not claiming jurisdiction because to do so is a schismatic act.  But the Society has, nevertheless, done just that.

Since the alleged "decree" of annulment by the Society, this young woman has "married" the young man with whom she had been keeping company for a couple of years.  These two are living as man and wife, without the benefit of the sacrament of matrimony (see Faculties & Jurisdiction), and all on the word of the Society.   The situation is now complicated with the arrival of children for these two.

I have been asked if the Pauline Privilege might not somehow be invoked in this case but the answer is no.  With the Pauline Privilege we are dealing with two non-baptized individuals.  If one of these parties receives baptism they may then marry regardless of their former condition.  And again, even if that were the case, the Society has no jurisdiction or faculties to officiate at marriages.  All attempts at that are absolutely INVALID.

What we have is the SSPX picking and choosing what laws of the Church it will or will not obey based solely on whether or not those laws support their position.  With its own liberal interpretation of Church law, it initiates its own brand of divorce not unlike the Protestants or the annulments of the "Conciliar Church," as the SSPX calls the Catholic Church, that the Society so sanctimoniously condemns.

There would seem to be no further evidence needed to demonstrate the schismatic nature of the SSPX.  For those that still wholeheartedly support the Society all that can be said is that there are none so blind as those who will not see.  Viewing it objectively, the Society, schismatic, embracing heresy, handing out annulments, has erred gravely and thereby placed itself outside any realm of claim to be Catholic.  But even this is not the worst of it.  Because the Society lacks jurisdiction, which can only be conferred by Rome or the local ordinary, all confessions heard by Society priests and all marriages performed by them are invalid.  This is why the Society so desperately uses every angle it can think of or devise to convince those who patronize it that it is legitimate and in some sense in communion with Rome.   But try as it may, it just isn't so.