Catechism Of the Crisis In the Church
PART 29
This selection concludes the “Catechism of the Crisis.” It is a continuation of last month’s questions concerning the Society of St. Pius X, the episcopal consecrations, and relationships with Rome.
92) What is the Society of Saint Pius X?
The Priestly Society of Saint Pius X is a congregation of priests founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. It was officially erected in the diocese of Fribourg, Switzerland, on November 1, 1970, by the diocesan bishop, the Most Reverend François Charrière. On February 18, 1971, the Society received a letter of praise from the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy at Rome, Cardinal Wright. The Society, thus, was recognized by the competent authorities; it is a work of the Church.
How big is the Society of St. Pius X at this time?
Today [2009], the Society numbers 509 priests regularly ministering in 63 countries on all the continents, and seminarians and Brothers. It is aided by two auxiliary congregations of nuns (the Sisters of the Society of St. Pius X and the Oblates of the Society of St. Pius X). Some thirty friendly congregations work with it towards the same end.
What are some of the friendly congregations that work with the Society of St. Pius X?
Among the friendly congregations of men working with the Society of St. Pius X one can name the Benedictine monks of France, Brazil, and the United States; the Capuchins of Morgon, the Dominicans of Avrillé, and the religious of the Society of the Transfiguration at Merigny, in France; and the Redemptorists on Papa Stronsay Island, in Scotland. On the feminine side, there are the Benedictine nuns in France and Germany; the Poor Clares of Morgon, France; six traditional Carmels; the cloistered Dominican nuns of Avrillé; the Little Sisters of St. Francis in France and the Franciscan Sisters of Christ the King in the United States; the teaching Dominican Sisters of the congregations of Fanjeaux, Brignoles, and Wanganui; the Sisters of the Transfiguration at Merigny and the Little Handmaids of St. John the Baptist at Rafflay, France; and the Consoling Sisters of the Sacred Heart and the Disciples of the Cenacle in Italy.
Other traditional religious communities exist in other parts of the world.
93) What ends does the Society of St. Pius X pursue?
The primary and principle end of the Society is the formation of good priests and their sanctification. In the present crisis of faith, it also has the mission of keeping whole and inviolate the Catholic Faith.
Is there a link between these two ends?
A true reform of the Church can only come about by a reform of the priesthood. Only good and holy priests will be able to reignite in the hearts of the faithful the love of God and enthusiasm for the Faith. It was the catastrophic state of official seminaries that pushed Archbishop Lefebvre to found the Society. In almost every official seminary, fundamental truths of faith are denied and spiritual formation is deficient. Sometimes they teach rebellion against the teachings of the Church and incite the seminarians to sin.
94) Was the suppression of the Society of Saint Pius X valid?
It was Bishop Pierre Mamie (successor of Bishop Charrière as bishop of Fribourg) who signed the May 6, 1975, decree of suppression of the Society of Saint Pius X shortly after Archbishop Lefebvre had had discussions with Cardinals Garrone, Wright, and Tabera. Archbishop Lefebvre always contested the validity of this suppression both for reasons of legal procedure and of justice (for, in reality, the Society was peremptorily suppressed because of its fidelity to the Catholic Faith and to the traditional Mass).
Why did Archbishop Lefebvre contest the legal proceeding that ended in the suppression of the Society?
According to canon law, a bishop can no longer suppress a religious congregation (or a clerical society of common life) once it has been erected officially in his diocese; only Rome can do this.1 Now, the Society of St. Pius X was officially erected by Bishop Charrière in 1970. Archbishop Lefebvre judged that his successor no longer had the right to suppress it. Only Rome, and not the diocesan bishop, could do so.
Is this legal argument absolutely decisive?
Archbishop Lefebvre always considered this legal argument to be decisive—especially since the Vatican never responded.2 However, the Archbishop’s resistance was not based essentially on quibbles of legal procedure, but on fundamental reasons touching on faith and morals. Thus, even if one should grant that the suppression of the Society of St. Pius X was licit (which some still maintain to this day3), these reasons stand, and the suppression does not become just simply because it is licit. For a judgment can very well respect the formalities of law yet be profoundly unjust and immoral.
Can the suppression of the Society of St. Pius X be considered as unjust and immoral?
The suppression of the Society of St. Pius X was unjust and immoral not only because of the injustices and the lies by which it was brought about (the bishops of France waged a campaign against what they decried as the “wildcat seminary of Ecône” even though the seminary was perfectly in order!), but especially because of the purpose for which it was done: the imposition of the New (ecumenical) Mass and the errors of Vatican II. They had to prevent priests from receiving and in turn transmitting Catholic theology and the Mass. This purpose being totally illegitimate and contrary to the common good of the Church, so was the suppression of Ecône.
95) Was the suspension inflicted on Archbishop Lefebvre valid?
On July 22, 1976, Archbishop Lefebvre was struck with a suspension a divinis. This suspension was as invalid as the suppression of the Society of St. Pius X, for Archbishop Lefebvre was never summoned before the competent tribunal, and the only reason for his suspension was his attachment to the Tradition of the Church. “Sine culpa nulla poena”–if there is no guilt, the penalty is null and void.
What is a suspension “a divinis”?
The suspension a divinis is a penalty depriving clerics of their right to exercise the functions of holy orders. If the suspension had been valid, Archbishop Lefebvre would no longer have had the right to celebrate Mass nor administer the sacraments.
96) Shouldn’t he have obeyed anyway?
The pope and the bishops have received their authority from Christ for the protection and defense of the Faith. The general rule is, of course, to obey them. But should they happen to use their authority against the very purpose for which it was conferred on them—that is to say, by wishing to impose acts sinful or inimical to the Faith—then their subordinates have not only the right but even the duty to resist them: “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
Is it really permissible to disobey authorities of the Church for the sole reason that one judges their orders to be unjust?
A simple personal injustice or a measure that one deems imprudent cannot justify a refusal to obey. But it is quite something else when the order given goes directly against the divine law; that is to say, when faith or morals are at stake. In this case, “obedience” would not be a virtue, but a vice. It would be in reality disobedience—while the apparent “disobedience” would prove to be the true obedience (obedience to God rather than men).
Is this teaching in conformity with the popes’ teaching?
Leo XIII wrote in the Encyclical Diuturnum Illud:
The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated. If, therefore, it should happen to any one to be compelled to prefer one or the other, viz., to disregard either the commands of God or those of rulers, he must obey Jesus Christ, who commands us to “give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” [Mt. 22:21], and must reply courageously after the example of the Apostles: “We ought to obey God rather than men”[Acts 5:29]. And yet there is no reason why those who so behave themselves should be accused of refusing obedience; for, if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null.4
Don’t these words of the Pope concern only the civil authority?
Leo XIII’s words were written in regard to the civil authority, but they express a principle. They hold in general for any and all authority.
97) Is it licit to resist the pope?
When the pope abuses his mandate and causes the Church serious harm, one has not only the right but even the duty to resist him.
Are there examples in Church history of such resistance to the pope?
At the very beginning of the Church, St. Paul stood up against St. Peter who, out of fear of displeasing the Judeo-Christians, no longer wished to dine with the converted pagans. This was a serious decision because it risked causing a split and might favor the false opinion that the practice of the Jewish law was incumbent on Christians. St. Paul declared: “But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was deserving of blame” (Gal. 2:11).
What do the Doctors of the Church have to say about such resistance to the pope?
St. Thomas commented on St. Paul’s resistance:
It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, “Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.”5
Do other theologians teach the same thing?
John de Torquemada (1388-1468) explicitly states that it is not out of the question that a pope might “command something contrary to natural or divine law.”6 In support of his assertion, he cites Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), who stated that one ought to obey the pope in all things, provided that he not rise up against the general discipline of the Church, in which case one should not follow him, unless there were a sound reason for doing so. He reiterates that one should withstand a pope if he
should wish to undertake something contrary to the constitution of the universal Church, such as, for example, deposing all the bishops or something else of this kind which would introduce disorder into the Church.7
Can you cite other examples?
Thomas Cajetan (1469-1534), the great commentator of St. Thomas, wrote in a work devoted to the defense of the papacy:
It is necessary to stand up to a pope who would rend the Church….Otherwise, why should it be said that authority was given to build up and not to destroy (II Cor. 13:10)? Against a bad usage of authority, one will employ the appropriate means: by refusing obedience in what is evil, by not seeking to please, by not keeping silent, by rebuking, by inviting the authorities to make the necessary reproaches following the example of St. Paul and in accordance with his precept.8
Is this teaching on resistance against the pope particular to the Dominicans?
Francis Suarez (1548-1617), who is considered to be the greatest Jesuit theologian, taught:
Should the pope prescribe something against good morals, he should not be obeyed. Should he undertake something that is obviously against justice or the common good, it is licit to resist him.9
The same Suarez teaches elsewhere that the pope would become schismatic
were he to wish to excommunicate the whole Church or were he to seek to change all the liturgical ceremonies that rest on apostolic traditions.10
Did St. Robert Bellarmine mention resisting the pope?
St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) also teaches that it is licit to resist a pope who would harm the Church:
Just as it is licit to resist a pope who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him if he attacks souls or disturbs the civil order or, above all, if he tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will.11
But is it not defined that submission to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation?
Just as membership in the Church (at least by desire12) is necessary for salvation, so is submission to the pope (the submission which is precisely one of the conditions for belonging to the Church). This truth was defined by Boniface VIII in his Bull Unam Sanctam.13 But this submission obviously does not imply an unlimited obedience. Cajetan explains in his commentary on the Summa Theologica:
If someone, for a reasonable motive, holds the person of the pope in suspicion and refuses his presence and even his jurisdiction, he does not commit the delict of schism, nor any other whatsoever, provided that he be ready to accept the pope were he not held in suspicion. It goes without saying that one has the right to avoid what is harmful and to ward off dangers. In fact, it may happen that the pope could govern tyrannically, and that is all the easier as he is the more powerful and does not fear any punishment from anyone on earth.14
Haven’t certain saints declared that holiness is incompatible with dissent against the pope?
Some saints may have advanced this pious exaggeration, but in any case that remains their personal opinion, which is contradicted, as we have seen, by many other saints. What is true is that in the matter of submission to the pope, complete, filial, and trusting obedience is the normal rule. But the reality of the rule does not mean there are never exceptions. Now there is currently in the Church a quite exceptional crisis.
Can the Society of Saint Pius X and allied communities consider themselves to be subject to the pope?
The virtue of obedience is a summit between two opposite vices: insubmission and servility. In the current crisis, true obedience consists neither in accepting the prevailing errors under the pretext that they are favored by the popes (which would be servility), nor in refusing the authority of the popes under the pretext that they are bad (the attitude of those called “sedevacantists”). True obedience consists in accepting the authority of the pope as pope, in praying for him, and respecting his person while actively resisting the bad orientations he wishes to impart to the Church. Such is the attitude of the Society of Saint Pius X and allied congregations, who can therefore say that they are indeed in a state of submission to the pope.
1 Canon 493 of the 1917 Code establishes this rule for religious congregations (“supprimi nequit nisi a Sancta Sede”). Canon 674 extends this rule to societies of common life without vows, which is what the Society of St. Pius X is.
2 The tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura refused to examine the case brought before it by Archbishop Lefebvre.
3 The debate bears upon the precise statute under which the Society of Saint Pius X was instituted at Fribourg (society of common life or a simple pia unio). On this subject, see the life of Archbishop Lefebvre by Bernard Tissier de Mallerais (Marcel Lefebvre: A Biography [2002; Angelus Press, 2004], p.481) and the article by Canonicus in Le Courrier de Rome, No. 286 [476], pp.3-6.
4 Leo XIII, Encyclical Diuturnum Illud, June 29, 1881, §15 (online at www.newadvent.org/library/docs/).
5 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 33, Art. 4 (online at www.newadvent.org/Summa/).
6 Juan de Torquemada, O.P., Summa de Ecclesia, Part I, Bk. IV, c. 11.
7 Ibid., Bk. II, c. 106.
8 Thomas Cajetan, O.P. De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii (Angelicum, 1936), No. 412 [emphasis added]. Francis de Vitoria, O.P., teaches the same: “If the pope, by his orders and his acts, destroys the Church, one may resist him and prevent the execution of what he commands” (Obras [BAC, 1960], pp.486-87).
9 F. Suarez, S.J., Opera Omnia (Paris, 1856), X, 321 (Tractatus de Fide Dogmatica, disp. 10, sect. 6, n. 16).
10 F. Suarez, S.J., Tractatus de Caritate, disp. 12, sect. 1, n. 2.
11 St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J., De Romano Pontifice, II, 29.
12 Three conditions are necessary for really and truly belonging to the Church: baptism, faith, and submission to legitimate authority. But those who are not really members of the Church can, if really necessary, be saved by a supernatural desire to belong to the Church; they are then said to be members in voto (by the wish, by the desire). This desire, inspired in the soul by the Holy Ghost, can be explicit (in a catechumen who is preparing for baptism, for example) or implicit (in someone who does not know the Catholic Church). A person having what is called “baptism of desire” (that is to say, a truly supernatural desire for baptism) is thus a member of the Church, not in fact (in re) but by intention (in voto). Sometimes it is said (in a manner of speaking) that such a person belongs to the soul of the Church without being in its body.
13 “Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff” (D 469).
14 Thomas Cajetan, O.P., Commentarium in II-II, 39, 1.
Current Issue
