Dissipating Ambiguities
The Second Vatican Council says, "the faithful...should be closely attached to the Bishop
as the Church is to Jesus Christ and as Jesus Christ is to the Father." St. Ignatius of Antioch the successor of St.
Peter in that See wrote, "let no one do anything concerning the Church in separation from the Bishop."
It is well to remember this authentic teaching of the Catholic Church when reviewing the extra
synodal legislation, which Bishop Bruskewitz has just enacted and which is promulgated in this issue of the Southern Nebraska
Register. Because certain organizations and groups have been, either directly or indirectly, asserting that membership in
them does not contradict membership in the Catholic Church and leading even some people of good will astray in this, our Bishop
has found it necessary to dissipate ambiguity and overcome any confusion in the minds of Catholics in the Diocese of Lincoln
about these matters. Despite the fact that the anti-Catholicism of most of these organizations and groups is frequently open
and apparent, some of their members and leaders have been trying to sell their evils to the unwary or uninformed, and sometimes
to give the impression that the Catholic Church is divided or undecided about some of these groups and organizations. We applaud
and thank our Bishop for this service of clarification.
The Second Vatican Council states, "The Bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern
the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, their exhortations, and their example, but, over and
above that, also by their authority and sacred power..." Bishop Bruskewitz has told us that he would feel he had failed
in his office and in his duty to protect the Catholic Faith, unless he acted as he did.
This extra synodal legislation was enacted only after the Bishop engaged in extensive consultation
over many months with innumerable inquiries and discussions. We expect that the forbidden groups and organizations shall make
as much use as they can of the secular media to oppose our Bishop and our Diocese. Let us pray that all Catholics in the Lincoln
Diocese will be obedient to our Bishop and let us pray as well for the conversion of any who may dissent and thus incur the
serious sins and ecclesial penalties listed in the legislation.
Extra Synodal Legislation
All Catholics in and of the Diocese of Lincoln are forbidden to be members of the organizations
and groups listed below. Membership in these organizations or groups is always perilous to the Catholic Faith and most often
is totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith.
- Planned Parenthood
- Society of Saint Pius X (Lefebvre Group)
- Hemlock Society
- Call to Action
- Call to Action Nebraska
- Saint Michael the Archangel Chapel (SSPX)
- Freemasons
- Job's Daughters
- DeMolay
- Eastern Star
- Rainbow Girls
- Catholics for a Free Choice
Any Catholics in and of the Diocese of Lincoln who attain or retain membership in any
of the above listed organizations or groups after April 15, 1996, are by that very fact (ipso facto latae sententiae) under
interdict and are absolutely forbidden to receive Holy Communion. Contumacious persistence in such membership for one month
following the interdict on the part of any such Catholics will by that very fact (ipso facto latae sententiae) cause them
to be excommunicated. Absolution from these ecclesial censures is "reserved to the Bishop." This notice, when published in
the Southern Nebraska Register, is a formal canonical warning.
By mandate of the Most Reverend Bishop of Lincoln
Reverend Monsignor Timothy Thorburn, Chancellor - March 19, 1996
THE HAWAII CASE
In an incident, in Hawaii, back in 1991, Bishop Ferrario of the Diocese of Honolulu excommunicated
six Catholics for various activities as he outlined them in his canonical warning. The excommunication and subsequent charge
of schism because of the actions of these laymen was overturned by Cardinal Ratzinger. As might be expected the Society was
delighted. So one might expect that laymen patronizing the Society would be unconcerned about the action of Bishop Bruskewitz.
But, there is a critical distinction between the two situations; they are not analogous (similar).
In the matter in Hawaii the issue essentially was about the actions
of the people in question as opposed to their support of the Society's schism. These people were essentially charged
with producing a radio program "through which you have caused grave and serious harm, namely, confusion, scandal and heresy,
impugning the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the Roman Missal (1970) and further aligning yourselves with the Pius
X schismatic movement."
Cardinal Ratzinger determined from an investigation that "it did not result that the facts
referred to in the above-mentioned decree are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense..." Thus did Ratzinger set aside
the excommunications. The main point revolved around the activities of these individuals rather than
their association with the Society. In the matter of the Diocese of Lincoln, the point of contention specifically is membership
in, or, association with the Society itself, rather than actions as with the individuals in the Hawaii case.
To date, Rome has upheld this legislation. But one thing is clear and that is that apparently
many more bishops seem to feel that, out of charity, Catholics need to be warned to stay away from this anti-Catholic group
and the danger it poses to their faith.
Caught In The Lie (reprinted from the Fall 1996 issue of Latin Mass magazine - the underlined words were added for clarification)
The Society of St. Pius the Tenth is at it again (have they ever stopped?). It resorts to lies
and distortions to try to create an image of itself as being composed of Catholics in good standing rather than the schismatics
and neo-heretics they are. What follows is self-explanatory, but I've added the address for Fr. Scott in case you'd like to
ask him some questions about this. Do let me know if you get a response will you?
The following letter was sent on June 14, 1996, by Fr. Gerald Murray to the US District
Superior of the Society of St. Pius X, Fr. Peter R. Scott, of the traditionalist order founded by the late excommunicated
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. It was written to protest misstatements and to correct misquotations of Fr. Murray's remarks to
us (Latin Mass magazine) in the Fall 1995 issue. That issue, together with the Summer 1996 issue in which Fr. Murray changes
his position is still available. Place orders to: Back Issues, Latin Mass Magazine, Subscription Department, 1331 Red Cedar
Circle, Fort Collins, CO 80524. Cost:$6.50 each, $3.25 a piece if ordering 5 or more copies.
Fr. Peter R. Scott, District Superior (Transferred to Australia in August of 2002)
c/o Regina Coeli House
2918 Tracy Avenue
Kansas City, MO 64109
Phone: 816-753-0073, Fax: 816-753-3560
June 14, 1996
I was recently sent a copy of your pamphlet, "Is the Society of Saint Pius X Schismatic?
Excommunicated? Rome Says No." In this publication you make use of modified quotations from my interview in the Fall
1995 issue of The Latin Mass. You have intentionally misquoted me and even put words into my mouth. I shall illustrate
this flagrant dishonesty below.
But first some preliminary observations. You state that I have a doctorate in canon law (a J.C.D.).
I do not have a J.C.D., and nowhere in my interview do I claim to have this degree. You made that up. You also assert that
the Gregorian University, where I completed my license and where I am currently studying for a doctorate in canon law, "says
that the Society of Saint Pius X is neither in schism, nor is it excommunicated... and that anyone can fulfill their Sunday
obligation by attending the Society's Masses." The Gregorian has not said anything of the sort. The contents and conclusions
of my license thesis are my own, not the Gregorian's.
My license thesis was approved and graded solely by my moderator -- who, by the way, did not
agree with my conclusions regarding the possible invalidity of the declaration of excommunication issued by the Holy See against
Archbishop Lefebvre and the other bishops involved. It was incorrectly reported in The Latin Mass that I successfully
defended my thesis, thereby implying a public defense by an academic board, but that is not the case. No such public defense
before the canon law faculty is required for a license thesis at the Gregorian (but it is required for a doctoral thesis).
In any event, even supposing a public defense, it should be clear that my thesis is my work,
and the Gregorian University as an institution is not the author of my conclusions.
Following the publication of my interview and excerpts from my thesis in The Latin Mass,
I have rethought and changed some of my conclusions, and I stated those emendations in a letter to be published
in the Summer 1996 issue of the same magazine. I enclose a copy of that letter for your interest.
Now as to the specific fabrications and deceptions in your pamphlet, I include below my actual
words from the interview in The Latin Mass, and your falsified version:
1) You say that I said: "I have received a doctorate in canon law and I've studied this
topic, the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre, for my doctorate thesis."
I actually said: "I have received a license in canon law and I've studied this topic, the
excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre, for my license thesis."
2) You say that I said: "They're not excommunicated as schismatics, because the Vatican
has never said they are."
I actually said: "They're not excommunicated as schismatic as far as I can see, because
the Vatican has never said that they are."
3) You say I said: "...You can...show that Lefebvre himself was not excommunicated and therefore
no one else was."
I actually said: "Or you can attempt to show that indeed Lefebvre himself was not excommunicated
and therefore no one else was."
4) You say I said: "The Holy See has never stated that mere attendance at a Mass said by
a priest in the Society of Saint Pius X constitutes a schismatic act."
I actually said: "As far as I can see the Holy See has never stated that mere attendance
at a Mass said by a priest in the Society of Saint Pius X constitutes a schismatic act."
5) You say I said: "Could you go to a Society of Saint Pius X chapel to receive good doctrine?
That seems better to me than hearing truly heretical sermons, e.g., denying hell, or that divorced and remarried people could
receive Communion."
What I actually said in response to a question from the interviewer ("You're not encouraging
people to attend these Masses, but you're simply saying -- and by the way, Cardinal Ratzinger implied this, too, in a press
interview -- that just attending that Mass doesn't mean they're schismatic." Ratzinger said he knew people who attend SSPX
Masses 'in the conviction that they are still in full communion with the Pope.' He called for an 'attitude...of generosity
towards these people, many of whom are anguished. 'So you're on the one hand not advocating that people attend these Masses,
but, on the other you're saying that it is not a schismatic act, necessarily") was:
"Let's say that you knew that the priest at your parish was teaching things contrary
to the moral law or Catholic doctrine. Let's say he denied the existence of Hell, or taught that divorced and remarried people
could receive Communion, and you knew that he was being tolerated by your local bishop. Could you go to an SSPX chapel to
receive good doctrine? That seems better to me than hearing truly heretical sermons. I may be wrong, but I think you have
a more important right to be at peace in your Faith than to listen to heresy."
You have misquoted me extensively in support of your propagandistic assertions. You naturally
ignored my critical remarks directed towards the Society of St. Pius X in the interview.
I cannot expect you to cite what is not in your favor. But I can and do expect you to report
my remarks truthfully and completely, and in their proper context, in your publication. Instead, you have fabricated and falsified
my remarks. This is thoroughly dishonorable and disreputable. And it is entirely shameful to attempt to legitimize your claims
by invoking my wrongly alleged status as a doctor of canon law.
I demand that you withdraw this publication from circulation immediately. To do otherwise is
to engage in public lying about what I have said. The public record of my remarks in The Latin Mass contradicts you.
You have an obligation in truth and justice not to spread falsehoods, and in particular not to represent me as saying things
I did not say, while leaving out the things I did say, but which you wish I had not said.
A refusal to remove this misleading pamphlet from circulation would confirm for me that your
misrepresentation of my words was indeed wholly intentional, and that you are remorseless regarding your falsification of
my actual statements.
I expect you to do the honorable thing and immediately withdraw this pamphlet. If you refuse
to remove this pamphlet from further circulation, I will be compelled to take action to uphold my right to be accurately quoted
for publication.
Rev. Gerald E. Murray, Rome, Italy
The last I heard was that the Society was still circulating the pamphlet referred to by Fr.
Murray. If anybody finds out anything different, please let me know.
A LAST NOTE
Below is a list of Fidelity Magazine articles which shed more light
on the phenomenon of the SSPX. You can contact Fidelity at this address and telephone number immediately below. If
you want to go to these articles on this website, click on ARTICLES below to take you to the index.
Fidelity Magazine / 206 Marquette Avenue / South Bend, IN 46617 / (219) 289-9786
ARTICLES
- The Society of St. Pius X Gets Sick, - October 1992
- Letters (to the Editor) - December 1992
- Letters (to the Editor) pages 11, 12, 13 & 14, subtitled
Graces Emanating from her Skirt; The Ravings of a Sick Mind; Mr. Case Responds;
and "Well, what can one expect, that's Gregory" February 1993
- The Tridentine Rite Conference and Its Schismatic Cousins,
Part 1, February 1993
- The Tridentine Rite Conference and Its Schismatic Cousins,
Part 2, March 1993
- Schism, Obedience and the Society of St. Pius X - October 1993
- Commentary - How I Won the Debate - October 1993
- Marcel Lefebvre: Signatory to Dignitatis Humanae - March 1994
- The Story of the Vanishing Schism: The Strange Case of Cardinal Lara,
- March 1994
- In the Line of Fire: Fr. John Rizzo, ex-SSPX - May 1995
- No Ordinary Bishop - June 1995
- Commentary - The Vanishing Schism Revisited: Will The Real Cardinal Castillo
Lara Please Stand Up (Again)? - November 1996
- The Schism of Lefebvre: A Review of Charles P. Nemeth's The Case of Archbishop
Marcel Lefebvre - March 1995
