Skip to content

A Pope as a “Manifest” or “Public” Heretic

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

QUESTION: In 2004 the SSPX Canadian publication “Communicantes” published “Sedevacantism,” a lengthy critique of that position by Fr. Dominique Boulet. One of his principal arguments against sedevacantism was that, whatever you may think about the post-Conciliar popes, they are not really “manifest,” “public,” or “notorious” heretics, as canon law understands those terms.

What’s your response to this? And how are these terms defined?

RESPONSE: The key theological principle behind sedevacantism is found in the treatises of pre-Vatican II canonists and theologians and may be summed up as follows: If a pope as a private individual embraces some heresy and then professes it to others openly in some fashion — theologians use various terms to characterize this heresy: “public,” “notorious,” “manifest,” or “openly divulged” — he puts himself outside the Church and automatically loses his office.

Father Boulet, like so many other anti-sedevacantist controversialists, makes two errors: (1) He confuses the sin of heresy with the crime of heresy, and (2) He confuses generic terms applied to heresy before the 1917 Code of Canon Law (manifest, notorious, public, etc.) with the more specific meanings these terms were given after the 1917 Code.

I. HERESY: CONFUSING
“SIN” WITH CANONICAL “CRIME”
———————————————————————-

The principal flaw in Fr. Boulet’s argument — and one that runs through his lengthy article from beginning to end — is that he utterly confuses two aspects of heresy:

(1) Moral: Heresy as a sin (peccatum) against divine law.

(2) Canonical: Heresy as a crime (delictum) against canon law.

The moral/canonical distinction is easy to grasp by applying it to abortion, which likewise can be considered under the same two aspects:

(1) Moral: Sin against the 5th Commandment that results in the loss of sanctifying grace.

(2) Canonical: Crime against canon 2350.1 of the Code of Canon Law that results in automatic excommunication.

Fr. Boulet, like so many other anti-sedevacantist controversialists, seems to think it is the second aspect of heresy — heresy as a crime against canon law — that renders a public heretic incapable of becoming a true pope or that automatically strips him of his office if he falls into heresy after has already been elected to it.

Consequently, Fr. Boulet quotes at great length criteria from the Code of Canon Law that are used to determine when a crime is imputable, public, notorious, pertinacious, etc. Any “heresies” of the post-Conciliar popes, he maintains, do not meet these canonical standards, so (he concludes) there is nothing to the sedevacantist case.

But all this is barking up the wrong tree. It is not heresy in the second sense (crime against canon law), but heresy in the first sense (a sin against divine law) that prevents a public heretic from becoming or remaining pope. This is clear from the teaching of pre-Vatican II canonists like Coronata:

“III. Appointment to the office of the Primacy [i.e. papacy]. 1° What is required by divine law for this appointment: … Also required for validity is that the appointment be of a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded.”…

“2° Loss of office of the Roman Pontiff. This can occur in various ways: … c) Notorious heresy. …“If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici [Rome: Marietti 1950] 1:312, 316. My emphasis.)

Divine law removes the heretical pope. One need not therefore look to all the criteria laid down for crimes against canon law.

To attempt to do so in the case of a pope, moreover, is to commit a “category error” — to ascribe to something a property it could not possibly have. A pope, as Supreme Legislator, is above canon law, and therefore cannot commit a crime against it, so no evil act he commits can be properly called a “crime.” It can only be called a sin, because he is subject to the divine law alone.

II. MISTAKEN ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT
“MANIFEST,” “PUBLIC,” “NOTORIOUS”
——————————————————————––

Most anti-sedevacantist controversialists over the years have, like Fr. Boulet, made exactly the same error. Why? The answer lies in their false assumptions about the meaning of technical terms.

The long line of theologians and canonists over the centuries who examined the question of a heretical pope distinguished between two general types of papal heresy according to the “notice” or “publicity” it received.

(1) “Occult” (i.e., secret or hidden) heresy. (E.g., written in a diary, uttered in private to a few discreet people, etc.)

(2) A second type of heresy that is not occult. (E.g., published in an official document, proclaimed in a public discourse, etc.)

For the latter, the various theological and canonical treatises did not always use an identical term, but instead employed a variety of expressions to describe the papal heretic or his heresy: “public,” “notorious,” “manifest,” “openly divulged,” etc.

These were generic terms that did not have a uniform meaning in sources and authors before the 1917 Code, and were simply used in contradistinction to “occult.” (See F. Roberti, “De Delictis et Poenis,” schemata praelectionum [Rome: Lateran 1955] 80–1) Authors writing after the 1917 Code about the question of a heretical pope continued to use the same generic language to distinguish between occult and non-occult heresy.

Because of this, Fr. Boulet and many others like him have fallen into anachronism about the terminology. They mistake this generic language used by authors writing about papal heresy before the Code, and subsequently taken up even by authors after the Code, as an indication that all the minute criteria of the Code’s criminal legislation must be satisfied before a loss of papal office can kick in.

This, alas, is a fatal error, so none of their arguments on this point can be used against the sedevacantist case.

Filed in Sedevacantism: Objections | | Comments (4)

The “Canonized” Mass and Abp. Lefebvre

Thursday, August 16, 2007

QUESTION: In your Quidlibet article “Quo Primum: Could a Pope Change It?” I read your comment that a future pope after St. Pius V could, as a supreme legislator, abrogate this Bull.

However, I still wonder why the Bull then states that “and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified,” which could only possibly be done by a future pope? This specification in the Bull would just make no sense then.

RESPONSE: In times past, various persons and institutions — kings, lower ecclesiastics, the faculty of the University of Paris, etc. — claimed the right to review, modify or revoke papal legislation.

The phrase quoted is simply standard legal language directed against attempts to do this.

QUESTION: Has the Bull, apart from juridical value, no dogmatic value?

RESPONSE: It is an ecclesiastical law regulating how priests are to say Mass, and is not a dogmatic pronouncement.

If it had indeed been a dogmatic pronouncement, the pre-Vatican II manuals of dogmatic theology would have treated it as such, but I know of no manual that does so.

QUESTION: Some authors state that the Bull contains a “canonization,” which in itself can never be revoked?

RESPONSE: Archbishop Lefebvre invented this idea, and I was present when he came up with it. Here is my recollection of how it happened:

When I was a seminarian at Ecône, Switzerland in the mid-1970s, Archbishop Lefebvre was giving us a conference in which he was discussing his battle with Paul VI, why the New Mass was wrong, and why Catholic priests had the right to say the old Mass.

On one such occasion, the Archbishop was speaking half-extemporaneously. As part of a digression, he was searching for some sort of analogy to describe the status that Pope St. Pius V gave to the old Mass.

The Archbishop finally said that St. Pius V “canonized” the Tridentine Mass. He then smiled at the cleverness of his offhand analogy, and said that, of course, when a pope “canonizes” a saint, another pope cannot undo the canonization. So, Paul VI cannot abolish our right to celebrate the “Mass of All Time.” It has been “canonized.”

Although I saw heads all around me nod in agreement, even then, the argument struck me as a really strange. The only thing I had ever heard the verb “canonize” applied to was the process of making a saint. This, I would later discover, was exactly the case. The analogy was completely false.

However, since Archbishop Lefebvre himself had offhandedly said that the Tridentine Mass was “canonized,” it became part of the SSPX party line/creation myth — itself “canonized” — and passed on from generation to generation. I wonder how many SSPX clergy were taught this and still believe it.

Traditional Catholics in general and SSPX in particular should really abandon phony arguments like these — especially when so many convincing arguments based on real principles can be made against the New Mass and the New Religion.

Filed in Canon Law, Lefebvre, Trad Controversies | | Comments (0)

Seminary High Schools after Vatican II

Thursday, August 9, 2007

THE AUGUST 9, 2007 issue of The Wanderer contained an article by James K. Fitzpatrick on the demise of seminary high schools after Vatican II.

Seminary high schools, also called “minor seminaries,” once played a major role in fostering priestly vocations. These institutions provided boys who felt inclined towards the priesthood with a spiritual and academic formation appropriate to their age, and prepared them for the higher studies that would come in the later stages of the seminary program.

Seminary high schools were a great success, and before Vatican II most priests started on their road towards ordination in such a school. I myself graduated from one in 1969, and I am forever grateful to God for what I received.

Mr. Fitzpatrick says that up until about 10 or 15 years ago, he was inclined to defend these institutions. An article in The Washington Post (!), however, changed his mind.

“Facts are facts,” Mr. Fitzpatrick says. Not one of his classmates from Cathedral High, a seminary high school in New York, went on to become a priest.

In the late 1960s, he notes, there were 122 high school seminaries in the U.S. with a total enrollment of about 16,000. Now there are just seven with a combined enrollment about 500.

Quigley Preparatory Seminary in Chicago, closed in June after 102 years in existence, has seen just one graduate ordained in the past 17 years .

Most men being ordained in U.S. seminaries these days, Mr. Fitzpatrick observes, are older, often in their 30s and 40s.

“What are we to conclude? Is this another unfortunate sign of the materialism and loss of Catholic identity in the modern world? Or is it more a situation where the Church has learned that it is better for young men to be a bit older and with more life experience before they begin their training for the priesthood and religious life.”

Did the graduates of these institutions, Mr. Fitzpatrick asks, go on to become “good priests”?

“The large wave of defections from the religious life in the 1960s and 1970s,” he answers, “included large numbers of religious who were in training from their early teenage years.”

Mr. Fitzpatrick ends his article with an anecdote about a religious brother he admired, but who abandoned his vocation. He then closes with the following sentence:

“He had been living as a member of the order since his early teens, through his high school, college, and young adult years.”

From this, readers are meant to infer that the pre-Vatican II system of seminary high schools was the cause for so many to abandon their vocations.

These comments prompted me to send Mr. Fitzpatrick the following letter:

* * *

Dear Mr. Fitzpatrick,

In your article on seminary high schools (Wanderer, 9 August 2007), you wonder why these institutions ceased to attract potential young vocations to the priesthood, and you claim that “there is no self-evident answer.”

Well, I can give you one: Vatican II destroyed the Catholic priesthood.

I studied at a seminary high school in Milwaukee during the years 1965-1969 and I witnessed this from the inside. As the changes in doctrine, discipline and worship began to touch each facet of Church life, I saw good and holy priests whom I admired turn into heretics, time-servers or disheartened apostates from the priestly state.

What idealistic young man would aspire to become part of such a mess?

My minor seminary, De Sales Prep, soon closed its doors, as did my seminary college, St. Francis. The massive new complex that housed both institutions (completed in 1963) was transformed into offices for the metastasized diocesan bureaucracy, exercise facilities for the Milwaukee Bucks and a retirement home for priests.

The major seminary, founded in 1848, shut down its academic program in July of this year. The few students who remain in the empty and downsized building take courses at a small religious order seminary nearby.

Before Vatican II all these institutions were thriving. One hundred and twenty-five boys entered with me as freshmen in the seminary high school. The Rector told us that after the twelve, hard years of study that would follow, just a small number of us would be ordained — “only” twenty-five.

To deny that Vatican II emptied these seminaries and destroyed the Catholic priesthood is to deny reality. From the time of St. Benedict (+543), religious institutions received boys, formed them spiritually, educated them and prepared them to be monks, priests and religious — a practice repeatedly commended by the popes.

But what flourished before the Council withered after it — nearly instantly — yet people like you refuse to read the writing on the wall.

I know the usual excuse Wanderer types make for the post-Vatican II mess: the Council was not properly “interpreted,” it restated all the traditional doctrines, etc.

However, as I quickly discovered in the seminary when I tried to use Vatican II’s statements against modernists, the documents are rife with double-talk, ambiguities and terminal logorrhea.

(If this were not so, by the way, the CDF statement on Lumen Gentium’s “subsists in” that you’ve been doing cartwheels over would not have been necessary. Forty years, and it still needs to be “clarified”?)

The Vatican II documents are classic modernist claptrap of the type St. Pius X condemned in Pascendi: Catholic-sounding on one page, doctrinally subversive on the next. This was method and intention of the periti [theologians] — Rahner, Schillebeeckx, de Lubac, Congar and, yes, Ratzinger — who massaged the language of the texts as they were being written.

If we wish to restore the Catholic priesthood, the only “light” in which we should “interpret” the Vatican II documents should be that of a bonfire — in which we burn every single copy.

Sincerely yours…

Filed in Priesthood, Vatican II: Effects | | Comments (0)

Frankenchurch Rises Again: Ratzinger on the Church

Monday, July 16, 2007

ON JUNE 29, 2007, the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), with Benedict XVI’s approval, published “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church.”

Our local paper carried a short article on it entitled “Pope Says Others Are Not True Churches.” The writer portrayed the Vatican document as anti-ecumenical and as a return to the pre-Vatican II teaching that “Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation.”

Similar accounts appeared elsewhere in the popular press. Many commentators linked the statement to Benedict XVI’s approval of the Motu Mass, and treated it as another sign that he was “turning the clock back” or restoring pre-Vatican II teachings.

Naturally I received a lot of questions about it from parishioners. One said, “No salvation outside the Church! Boy, the paper makes Ratzinger sound like Pius IX.” And indeed it did.

But by now traditional Catholics should be wary of how the popular press covers religious questions. It is simply not a reliable source for information, especially for anything touching upon doctrinal matters. The media applies to religion — especially Catholicism — the same false liberal/conservative, left/right polarities it applies to politics.

So it came as no surprise to discover that the Vatican statement was nothing more than a rehash of Vatican II heresies on the Church — heresies that Ratzinger himself had earlier refined and developed in two CDF documents published during the reign of John Paul II.

These heresies I refer to collectively as Frankenchurch. This system posits a “People of God” and a Church of Christ that is not identical with the Roman Catholic Church and somehow broader than it. It is an entity created from “elements” of the true Church that are possessed either “fully” (by Catholics) or “partially” (by heretics and schismatics).

The lightning strike that sent this monster lumbering off was Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), which stated the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church — rather than IS the Catholic Church.

When Lumen Gentium first appeared in 1965, many non-Catholic commentators viewed the “subsists in” as the Church’s retreat from her teaching that she is the one, true Church of Christ. It implies that this church can now “subsist” elsewhere as well. Post-Vatican II theologians developed a whole new ecclesiology (theology of the Church) based on this notion.

Ratzinger’s June 2007 declaration now attempts to reconcile Vatican II’s “subsists in” with the traditional doctrine on the Church — that the one, true Church of Jesus Christ is the Roman Catholic Church.

The document consists of five questions and responses. The following points should be noted:

.
I. A Change in Doctrine?
——————————————————————
The first question that Ratzinger’s statement poses is whether Vatican II changed the Catholic doctrine on the Church.

Not surprisingly, the answer is no — Vatican II “developed” this doctrine, “deepened” it, and “more fully explained” it.

The CDF statement cites no pre-Vatican II pronouncements from the magisterium for us to compare with the new doctrine. Indeed, the footnotes for the document do not cite even one pre-Vatican II pronouncement or source. Everything is Vatican II and beyond — a sure sign that Vatican II did change Catholic doctrine on the Church.

To answer the question, the CDF merely trots out a 1965 statement from Paul VI that Lumen Gentium “really changes nothing,” that “that which was uncertain is now clarified,” and that everything “is now put together in one clear formulation.”

But apparently not clear enough, because after 47 years, Ratzinger must put out a document to answer the question…

.
II. What Does “Subsist In” Mean?
——————————————————————
“What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?” the document asks.

It replies that “‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.”

Please note it well: subsistence does not mean identity (as in “is”) but possessing elements.

And with “elements” there appears, green-skinned and neck-bolted, the head of the Frankenchurch monster.

According to Vatican II, John Paul II’s Code of Canon Law and Ratzinger’s Catechism of the Catholic Church, all those who have been baptized — Catholics, heretics, schismatics — are incorporated into the “People of God.” This endows them with “degrees of incorporation” into, degrees of “communion” with, or “elements” of, the Church of Christ, which work out as follows:

(1) Catholics: Full incorporation or communion, or all elements of the Church of Christ.

(2) Schismatics and heretics: Partial incorporation or communion, or some elements of the Church of Christ.

Having all elements of the Church is best, but having just some of them is pretty good too.

If you are in the second category and “partially incorporated,” you have “invisible bonds of communion” that somehow attach you to the Church of Christ.

That is why I call it “Frankenchurch.” The Church is not an integral entity, but a monster stitched together with visible and invisible bonds, full and partial, from disparate parts — Catholics, heretics and schismatics.

Thus, according to Ratzinger: “It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine” — no citations to Boniface VIII or Leo XIII are given, alas! — “to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.”

Christ’s Church “is present” and “operative” in heretical and schismatic bodies? Has Ratzinger here merely given us a “clarification” or a “clearer formulation” of the Catholic doctrine on the Church enunciated by Pope Leo XIII?

“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

Or again, can we say that Ratzinger’s statement “really changes nothing” in Leo XIII’s teaching that he who separates from the Pope “has no further bond with Christ”?

.
III. Why Not Just Say “Is”?
——————————————————————
Well, Frankenchurch, that’s why.

Ratzinger’s statement explains that Vatican II adopted “subsists in” rather than “is” because it “comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are ‘numerous elements of sanctification and of truth’ which are found outside [the Church’s] structure, but which ‘as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity’.”

The purpose, then, of adopting “subsists” was to float the partial communion or “elements” theory of the Church — and thus promote the cause of ecumenism.

This much is clear from Ratzinger’s next statement: “Separated churches and communities” — schismatics and heretics, in other words — possess both significance and importance in the mystery of salvation, and “the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation.”

• • •

The remaining two questions in the CDF statement are devoted to demonstrating how the Frankenchurch ecclesiology — partial communion, elements, particular churches, etc. — applies first to schismatics and then to heretics. These need not detain us here.

What we have said should be sufficient to demonstrate that the popular perception of Ratzinger’s declaration (a return to pre-Vatican II doctrine) was the opposite of the reality of it (a rehash of the ecumenical Frankenchurch heresy).

Finally, Ratzinger and company surely knew that the popular press would give the declaration a “traditionalist” spin. Why issue it now?

Coupled with the Motu Mass, a document that will be perceived as pre-Vatican II in tone — “Pope Says Others Not True Churches!” — is precisely what Ratzinger needs to hoodwink gullible traditionalists.

Then they, too, can be “fully incorporated” into his Frankenchurch…

For more on Ratzinger’s errors on the Church, see:

The New Ecclesiology: An Overview
The New Ecclesiology: Documentation
Resisting the Pope, Sedevacantism and Frankenchurch
Ratzinger: 99% Protestant
Ratzinger’s Dominus Jesus: A Critical Analysis
Communion: Ratzinger’s Ecumenical One-World Church

Filed in Benedict XVI | | Comments (1)

Splendor of Raiment: The Bishop’s Dress Code

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

QUESTION: I recently came across a picture of Bishop Clarence Kelly wearing a stole over a purple shoulder cape with a black cassock underneath, and I remember seeing old photos of Bishop Francis Schuckardt dressed just the same way. Were they both correctly dressed?

Also, I’ve seen newsletters from SSPX and several other traditionalist organizations that show their bishops offering Pontifical High Mass or conferring Holy Orders, but in some cases they don’t seem to be wearing all the proper episcopal vestments either.

What gives? Am I just being too picky? Are some of the bishop’s vestments optional? Or are they required?

RESPONSE: The vestments that a bishop is supposed to wear for any solemn liturgical function are all minutely regulated by the rubrics — the laws and norms that govern how the Sacred Liturgy must be performed.

According to these norms, Bishops Kelly and Schuckardt were indeed both dressed incorrectly, as were the other bishops depicted in the newsletters you sent along.

The rubrics for Low Mass do not leave me, a priest, free to omit wearing an amice or a maniple. So too, the rubrics for Pontifical High Mass and ordinations do not leave a bishop free to perform these functions without wearing all the prescribed vestments.

Since the rubrics that govern ceremonies celebrated by a bishop are highly detailed and complex, some traditionalist laymen, and even some clergymen, affect the attitude that such matters are trivial and not worth worrying about.

This, alas, betrays not only a contempt for a vast body of liturgical legislation developed over centuries, but also an ignorance of the spirit of the Sacred Liturgy. The Church’s ideal for public worship is not the rapid Low Mass, but rites that are conducted with as much solemnity and splendor as possible. The high point for this occurs when a bishop celebrates Pontifical High Mass.

Even non-Catholics acknowledge its singular beauty and significance. The English art critic John Ruskin (1819–1900) said that the apex of all Western Civilization was Pontifical High Mass in a Gothic cathedral.

Before turning to the specific “wardrobe malfunctions” of the traditionalist prelates depicted in the newsletters mentioned, I will define some terms, and then list the principal elements of correct dress prescribed for a bishop by the Church’s liturgical legislation (the Caeremoniale Episcoporum and Roman decrees) and approved commentaries.

I. What is Pontifical Mass?
————————————————————-
The general term “Pontifical Mass” refers to a Mass celebrated by a bishop that follows special rubrics which add to the dignity and solemnity of the celebration. It is called “Pontifical” not because the rite is somehow connected with the pope, but rather because it is celebrated by a pontifex — the Latin term for a high priest, which the rubrics sometimes use to refer to a bishop or prelate.

There are two usual forms of Pontifical Mass properly speaking:

(1) Pontifical High Mass: The bishop is assisted by at least 18 ministers, including an Assistant Priest, Deacon and Subdeacon.

The first part of Pontifical High Mass takes place not at the altar, but at a chair in the sanctuary (either at a throne on the Gospel side or at a backless chair called a faldstool on the Epistle side). A special book called the Canon Episcopale takes the place of the altar cards used by a priest, a hand-candle (bugia) is held next to a book when a bishop reads from it, and there are five servers to handle the additional items required (book, hand-candle, miter, crozier and the gremiale, a small apron for protecting the bishop’s vestments).

The bishop is vested in his “pontificals,” that is, not only the usual vestments that a priest wears for celebrating Mass, but also additional vestments proper to his rank that in one way or another signify the fullness of the priesthood that he possesses.

(Readers can get some idea of the complexity of Pontifical High Mass by viewing the DVD of Bishop Dolan’s 1993 consecration to the episcopate.)

(2) Pontifical Low Mass: The bishop is assisted by one or two chaplains (who stand next to him at the altar), two acolytes, four torchbearers, and (if necessary) a Master of Ceremonies.

The rite is conducted at the altar, and for the most part, follows the rubrics for Low Mass celebrated by a simple priest. The Canon Episcopale and the hand-candle are used, and if one of the chaplains is a priest, he assists the bishop by performing some functions of a deacon.

In addition to the Mass vestments worn by a simple priest, the bishop wears a purple zucchetto (skull-cap), pectoral cross and his everyday ring. If a bishop confers Major Orders during Pontifical Low Mass, however, he obliged to wear the same vestments as prescribed for Pontifical High Mass.

II. The Bishop’s Choir Dress.
————————————————————-
A bishop who is to celebrate Pontifical High Mass ceremonially recites the prayers of preparation for Mass and is solemnly vested for Mass by the deacon and subdeacon, either in the sacristy or in the sanctuary of the church itself.

For this, the bishop does not wear his usual black cassock trimmed with red. Rather, the rubrics assume that he arrives for the vesting ceremony wearing the more formal “choir habit,” which for a bishop consists of the following:

1. Purple choir cassock.
2. Purple choir cincture with two tassels.
3. Zuchetto. (Skullcap)
4. Rochet. (A knee-length garment of lace and linen with close-fitting sleeves trimmed in red. It is a sign of prelacy.)
5. Purple cape. (The mozzetta for an Ordinary, the mantelletta for other bishops.)
6. Pectoral cross on a green and gold cord.
7. Ring.
8. Purple socks. (Yes, purple socks!)
9. Roman clerical shoes with buckles.
10. Purple biretta.

In past ages, bishops wore this uniform all the time, until in 1870 Pius IX instituted a less cumbersome everyday uniform for bishops (called the habitum pianum). The Church nevertheless retained the more formal choir habit for solemn occasions.

III. Vestments Required for Pontifical Mass.
———————————————————————-
Attired in his choir habit, the bishop reads the Psalms of Preparation, during which the Master of Ceremonies invests the bishop with the special footgear (items 1, 2). The bishop then recites several prayers that recount the symbolism of the vestments and has his hands washed. After this the Deacon, Subdeacon and Assistant Priest solemnly vest him with the rest of the items. Here is what is required:

1. Buskins. (Loose-fitting leggings in the liturgical color of the day that the Master of Ceremonies puts on the bishop’s legs and then ties.)
2. Sandals. (Special fabric shoes, also in the color of the day, that the Master of Ceremonies puts on over the bishop’s buskins.)
3. Amice.
4. Alb.
5. Cincture.
6. Pectoral cross on a green and gold cord. (Strength against enemies; the victories of the Cross and the martyrs.)
7. Tunic. (Made of light silk, the color of the day. This is the garment of a subdeacon, symbolizing joy.)
8. Dalmatic. (Also of light silk, and slightly shorter than the tunic. This is the garment of a deacon, symbolizing salvation and justice.)
9. Gloves. (Color of the day, embroidered with crosses. Acceptance of the Sacrifice)
10. Chasuble.
11. Miter. (Two types are used at the same Mass: a precious miter with jewels and gold embroidery that is worn in procession and for shorter periods of time during Mass, and a golden miter that is worn when the bishop sits for longer periods of time. Helmet of salvation against the snares of the enemy.)
12. Pontifical ring. (Sevenfold gift of the Holy Ghost.)
13. Crozier.
14. Maniple. (Put on in the sanctuary at the prayer Indulgentiam.)

The symbolism of some items is self-evident, but three in particular merit an additional comment:

(a) Buskins and Sandals. The bishop’s feet are vested, according to the medieval liturgist Durandus, as an allusion to the verse that the liturgy applies to the Apostles themselves: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the Gospel of peace.” (Nabuco, Ius Pont., 179)

(b) Tunic and Dalmatic. Bishops at Pontifical Mass must wear the vestments of a subdeacon and deacon because in bishops, said the medieval liturgist Durandus, “the degrees of all the Major Orders are most eminently present.” (Nabuco, Ius Pont., 182)

(c) Gloves. The vesting prayer for the gloves contains an Old Testament allusion: Jacob covering his hands when he presented his offering to his father to obtain a blessing; the bishop prays that through his sacrifice he may likewise receive a blessing, that of divine grace.

Above and beyond the particular symbolism of each vestment, moreover, the vestments for Pontifical High Mass represent another truth when taken together. Unlike a simple priest vested for Mass, a bishop who pontificates is “covered” from head to foot, immersed, as it were, in the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ.

One bishop told me that, the first time he was being vested for Pontifical Mass, he felt like a lamb being dressed for slaughter.

IV. Some Dress Code Violations
————————————————————-
Here are some of the more obvious dress code violations perpetrated by the various traditionalist bishops depicted in the newsletters I mentioned:

(a) Not wearing the tunic and dalmatic to confer Major Orders. “A bishop,” says the rubricist Nabuco “cannot confer sacred orders without pontifical vestments.” (Pont. Rom. Exp. 1:160)

Hence when a bishop must confer Major Orders (subdiaconate, diaconate, priesthood, episcopacy) but cannot celebrate Pontifical High Mass, he may celebrate Pontifical Low Mass, but he must wear all the pontifical vestments, including the pontifical tunic and dalmatic. (See Nabuco, Pont. Rom. Exp. 1:165; 1:261, 231)

When a bishop confers the sacred orders of subdiaconate, diaconate, priesthood or episcopacy, he is exercising the fullness of the priesthood. Omitting to wear all the vestments that symbolize his power is a glaring fault.

(b) Not wearing the pontifical buskins and sandals. Whenever he wears the pontifical gloves, a bishop is also required to wear this ceremonial footgear. Nabuco explains that the covering of the hands and feet is “correlative” and together they form “one vestment.” (Ius Pont., 179)

No matter what rubrics a traditionalist bishop follows — Pius X, Pius XII or John XXIII — all three require a bishop to wear the buskins and sandals (1) whenever he celebrates Pontifical High Mass, and (2) even when he confers Major Orders (subdiaconate, diaconate, priesthood, episcopate) at Pontifical Low Mass.

The John XXIII rubrics allow the bishop to put the buskins and sandals on in his room. The old rubrics prescribe that the Master of Ceremonies puts them on the bishop as he recites the Prayers of Preparation in the sacristy.

Omitting the required footgear is a serious fault, moreover, because “all tradition bears witness that the use of such vestments in solemn Masses and other sacred functions is most ancient.” (Nabuco, Ius Pont., 179)

(c) Wearing gloves at the end of Pontifical Mass. After the bishop has read the Offertory Verse and is seated, the deacon and subdeacon remove his gloves.

The bishop does not wear them again during Pontifical Mass, and “he must not put them on again after Communion.” (Le Vavasseur, Fonctions Pont., 1:26; SRC Decr. 3213 ad 6)

The only exception was when the Ordinary of a Diocese granted the Apostolic Blessing and Indulgence from the throne after the Last Gospel. (SRC Decr. 3605 ad 9)

(d) Wearing a stole over the mozzetta or mantelletta. One of these two purple capes is a part of a bishop’s choir habit (see section II). It is common to see traditionalist bishops of various persuasions wearing stoles over their capes when they impose hands at an ordination conferred by another bishop.

Though it is widespread, the practice is completely incorrect: “The Sovereign Pontiff is the only Prelate who may wear a stole over his cape,” (Nainfa, Costume of Prelates, 231), and specifically, “A stole should never be worn over the mantelletta.” (McCloud, Clerical Dress, 97)

The underlying reason is that the choir habit is worn primarily for formal assistance at the Divine Office, while the stole is principally a liturgical vestment worn for conferring sacraments and bestowing blessings.

At an ordination a prelate who is assisting in the sanctuary simply imposes hands while wearing his choir habit.

(e) Combining the choir habit and the ordinary cassock. This offense improperly combines two forms of clerical dress. It is as odd as a priest wearing a surplice over his clerical suit.

It violates what liturgical books call “the rule of harmony” or “the law of equilibrium.” According to this rule, “the main parts of a Prelate’s costume should match one another in material as well as in color. For instance, a Bishop should not wear a purple mozzetta over a black cassock.” (Nainfa, 237)

So the suspicion of our correspondent was correct: Bishop Kelly and his nemesis were improperly attired.

But in the matter of two-tone habits and incorrectly worn stoles, these two prelates had plenty of company: Archbishop Lefebvre regularly wore this mismatched outfit when I was in SSPX in the 1970s, and the bishops he consecrated all seem to have continued this “tradition.”

* * * * *

As regards any traditional Catholic bishop, it is indeed “now the brightness of souls rather than splendor of raiment that commends the pontifical glory unto us,” as the Preface for the Rite of Episcopal Consecration so eloquently proclaims.

That said, however, the Church herself established and minutely regulated a complex system of visible, material signs that point to the invisible, spiritual realities of a bishop’s powers. Those few real bishops who now possess these powers should be meticulous in learning and applying the rules that the Church’s law and traditions impose upon them when they exercise the fullness of their priesthood.

On this point, the bishops would do well, perhaps, to ponder the words of St. Theresa of Avila:

Know this: It is by very little breaches of regularity that the devil succeeds in introducing the greatest abuses. May you never end up saying: This is nothing, this is an exaggeration. (Foundations, 29)

Today, in liturgy as in theology, a casual or even contemptuous attitude towards the rules prevails in many traditionalist circles. It is often, alas, the product of ignorance, laziness or pride.

It is true that we faithful Catholics are far from the day when we could everywhere perform the Sacred Liturgy with the splendor that it truly deserves. But that may well be because most of us are also far from saying with St. Theresa:

I would give up my life a thousand times, not only for each of the truths of Sacred Scripture, but even more for the least of the ceremonies of the Church. (Life 33:3)

—————————

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CLEMENT VII. Caeremoniale Episcoporum. Ed. Malines: Dessain 1906.
LE VAVASSEUR, L, & J. Haegy. Les Fonctions Pontificales selon le Rit Romain, 6th ed. Paris: Gabalda 1932. 2 vols.
MISSALE ROMANUM. “Orationes dicendae ab Episcopo quando in pontificalibus celebrat.”
MCCLOUD, Henry J. Clerical Dress and Insignia of the Roman Catholic Church. Milwaukee: Bruce 1948.
NABUCO, Joachim. Ius Pontificalium. Paris: Desclée n.d.
_______, Pontificalis Romani Expositio Juridico-Practica. New York: Benziger 1944. 3 vols.
NAINFA, John A. Costume of Prelates of the Catholic Church. Baltimore: Murphy, 1926.
PONTIFICALE ROMANUM. “De Consecratione electi in Episcopum.”
SC RITES (“SRC”). Decreta Authentica. Rome: Polyglott 1898. 7 vols.
_______. Decree 3213. Olmucen. 5 March 1870.
_______. Decree 3605. Neapolitana. 23 February 1884.

Filed in Liturgy: Misc | | Comments (0)

Can an Excommunicated Cardinal be Elected Pope?

Monday, June 25, 2007

QUESTION: The Constitution of Pope Pius XII that establishes the rules for a papal conclave says the following:

“34. No Cardinal, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, in-terdict or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever can be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, we suspend such censures for the effect only of this election, even though they shall remain otherwise in force.” (Cons. “Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis,” 8 December 1945)

I have several questions about this:

(1) What is the Church’s interpretation of this passage?

(2) Does it lift all excommunications, ecclesiastical impediments and censures for all the participants in a papal conclave? Does this also include the cardinal who has been elected pope, because that is what the term “passive” election seems to mean?

(3) If so, the passage means an excommunicated cardinal can be validly elected pope. Doesn’t this shoot down the fundamental principle behind the entire sedevacantist case?

RESPONSE: Over the years, many traditionalist writers in the SSPX camp, such as Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, Michael Davies, Fr. Dominque Boulet, and the Dominicans of Avrillé — and even conservative writers such as Fr. Brian Harrison — have cited this passage as a definitive answer to sedevacantism. Pius XII explicitly suspended any excommunications, ecclesiastical impediments and censures whatsoever for whoever was elected pope, so (their argument goes) a heretic could be elected a true pope.

But is this a correct principle to draw from the passage? We will address the broader question first, that of interpretation.

.
I. INTERPRETATION OF LAW
————————————————————————
Generally speaking, “interpretation” in canon law comes either from a public authority, such as the pope, his curia, etc. (this is called authentic interpretation) or from another recognized source, such as the teaching of canonists (and this is called doctrinal interpretation). (For a complete discussion, see Abbo and Hannon, 1:17.)

I have not been able to find a papal or curial pronouncement interpreting or explaining the passage in question. It appears with essentially the same wording in papal election legislation promulgated by Clement V (1317), Pius IV (1562), Gregory XV (1621), and Pius X (1904). So, its meaning must have seemed self-evident — at least to curial types.

Where there is no interpretation from a public authority — and this is frequently the case in canon law — you look to other passages in the Code and to the teaching of canonists (academic experts in canon law) to find out what the terms mean. By following this procedure, the meaning of the passage in Pius XII’s constitution becomes clear. So, we will now slog through the terminology.

(a) Censures. The “excommunication, suspension and interdict” that the pontiff mentioned are censures — punishments that ecclesiastical law inflicts on a wrong-doer to get him to repent. (For an overview, see Bouscaren, Canon Law, 815–6) Cardinals are exempt from incurring censures, except in cases where the law specifies otherwise. (Canon 2227.2)

In a papal conclave cardinal elector or a pope-elect who had nevertheless somehow incurred an excommunication would face some nearly insurmountable obstacles. The effects of this censure bar an excommunicate from administering or receiving sacraments, exercising jurisdiction, voting, appointing others to offices, and indeed, being elected to church office at all. (See Bouscaren, 831–4.) That would leave the pope-elect nothing but waving from the balcony and riding in the popemobile. (Not mentioned by Bouscaren…)

Censures are also sometimes called medicinal penalties because their purpose is to cure the wrongdoer’s stubbornness. This distinguished them from vindictive penalties, which directly expiate a crime, independent of whether the wrong-doer repents. (Bouscaren, 846.)

(b) Ecclesiastical Impediments. The term “other ecclesiastical impediment” mentioned in Pius XII’s Constitution is a more generic category.

One such impediment, for example, is the vindictive penalty of infamy — loss of reputation due to some horrible crime. Among other things, this penalty renders the criminal ineligible for church offices, dignities, etc. (Bouscaren, 849.)

This impediment, then, like excommunication, would bar a cardinal from either voting in a conclave or from being elected pope.

.
II. SUSPENSION OF CENSURES AND IMPEDIMENTS
————————————————————————
Having established the meaning of these terms in paragraph 34 of Pius XII’s Constitution, we can easily see the point of the law: to avoid endless wrangling about the validity of papal elections.

It then becomes easy to answer the second question: “Does it lift all excommunications, ecclesiastical impediments and censures for all the participants in a papal conclave?”

The answer is yes.

Does paragraph 34 also cover the case of an excommunicated cardinal who has been elected pope?

Again, the answer is yes, because the Constitution used the terms active and passive election, which mean, respectively, being able to vote and being able to be elected. So it is indeed correct to say that Pius XII’s Constitution explicitly allows an excommunicated cardinal to be validly elected pope.

.
III. AN ARGUMENT AGAINST SEDEVACANTISM?
————————————————————————————-
So now, the final question: “Doesn’t this shoot down fundamental principle behind the entire sedevacantist case?”

But here, the answer is no.

Most SSPX types, many sedevacantists, and even intelligent academics like Fr. Harrison assume that excommunication is the starting point for the sedevacantist argument, which they believe, goes something like this:

• Canon law imposes an automatic excommunication on a heretic.
• Excommunication prevents a cleric from voting to elect someone to office, being elected to office himself, or remaining in office once he has become a public heretic.
• Paul VI and his successors incurred this excommunication for public heresy.
• Therefore, they were not true popes.

Take away the possibility of excommunication with ¶34 of Pius XII’s Constitution (the anti-sede argument goes), and the sedevacantist argument disappears.

But they misunderstand. Excommunication is a creation of ecclesiastical law, and it is not the starting point for the sedevacantist argument. In fact, it has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Rather, for sedevacantism the starting point is another principle entirely: that divine law prevents a heretic from becoming a true pope (or remaining one, if a pope embraces heresy during the course of his pontificate.) This principle comes straight from those sections of major pre-Vatican II commentaries on the Code of Canon Law that deal with election to papal office and the qualities required in the person elected.

Here are a few quotes:

“Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself… [T]hey must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Maroto, Institutiones I.C. 2:784)

“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment… Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded.” (Coronata, Institutiones I.C. 1:312)

“All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible [to be elected pope]. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics.” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Can. 2:415)

Thus heresy is not a mere “ecclesiastical impediment” or censure of the type that Pius XII enumerated and suspended in paragraph 34 of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. It is instead an impediment of divine law which Pius XII did not suspend — and indeed could not have suspended, precisely because it is one of divine law.

.
IV. SUMMARY: APPLES AND ORANGES
————————————————————————
Paragraph 34 of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis suspends the effects of censures (excommunication, suspension, interdict) and other ecclesiastical impediments (e.g., infamy of law) for cardinals who are electing a pope and for the cardinal they finally elect. Thus, a cardinal who had incurred an excommunication prior to his election as pope would nevertheless be validly elected.

This law concerns only impediments of ecclesiastical law, however. As such, it cannot be invoked as an argument against sedevacantism, which is based on the teaching of pre-Vatican II canonists that heresy is an impediment of divine law to receiving the papacy.

Anti-sedevacantist controversialists should therefore stop recycling arguments based on the passage in question. It has nothing to do with the position they oppose.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABBO, J & J. Hannon. The Sacred Canons. St. Louis: Herder 1957. 2 vols.
BOUSCAREN, T. & A. Ellis. Canon Law: A Text and Commentary. Milwaukee: Bruce 1946.
Bullarum, Diplomatum et Privilegiorum Ss. Rom. Pont. Turin: Vecco 1847.
CLEMENT V. Constitutiones Clementinae. 1317. Cap. 2, Ne Romani ¶4, de elect. I, 3 in Clem.
CODE OF CANON LAW. 1917.
CORONATA, M. Institutiones Juris Canonici. 4th ed. Turin: Marietti 1950. 3 vols.
GREGORY XV. Bull Aeterni Patris, 15 November 1621. In Bullarum 12:619–27. ¶22
MAROTO, P. Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Rome: 1921. 4 vols.
PIUS IV. Bull In Eligendis, 9 October 1562. In Bullarum 7:230-6. ¶29
PIUS X. Constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica, 25 December 1904. ¶29.
PIUS XII. Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 8 December 1945. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 36 (1946). 65–99. ¶34.
WERNZ, F. & P. Vidal. Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian 1934. 8 vols.

Filed in Canon Law, Sedevacantism: Objections | | Comments (0)

The “Error” of Pope Nicholas I

Saturday, June 9, 2007

QUESTION: I’ve been having a debate with someone about sedevacantism. To prove that the Pope taught error in an official document, my opponent pointed out the letter of Pope Nicholas I to the Bulgars (Dz 335), in which the Pope says that those baptized in the name of Christ are not to be rebaptized (see Ott, 353, and Summa III, Q66, A6.)

Ott says it is an open question. St. Thomas in the body of the article seems to say that you need to use the explicit Trinitarian formula, while in the answers to the objections, he says the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ by a special inspiration.

Was Pope Nicholas in error?

RESPONSE: No. The theologian Pesch (Praelectiones Dogmaticae de Sacramentis 1:389) reproduces the whole response of Pope Nicholas, and states that the pope was not being asked about the form for baptism, but about the person of the minister; and so he correctly responded that as regards the minister, all depended on his intention.

QUESTION: My opponent also fired several statements at me, one of which was from Pope Adrian VI: Many Roman Pontiffs were heretics, the last of them was John XXII. Apart from not being able to find any Pope Adrian VI in any handy reference work, John XXII says himself that he never taught any such doctrine or even taught any such thing. Is the quote of Adrian genuine?

RESPONSE: The supposed quote from Adrian VI has been floating around for years.

The only source I have seen cited for it is Paul-Marie Viollet, Papal Infallibility and the Syllabus, (1908). During the reign of St. Pius X, this work was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books. (Decree, 5 April 1906. See R. Naz, “Viollet, Paul-Marie,” Dict. Droit. Can., 7:1511)

I have never been able to locate Viollets book to check the primary source alleged for the quote.

QUESTION: Thanks for your response on Adrian VI and on Nicholas I. Im not satisfied with your citation from Pesch — that the Pope was referring to the person of the minister and to his intention — because the passage in Ott (353) is speaking of the form.

RESPONSE: Ott is only a one-volume overview. It is unwise to rely upon Ott alone when discussing complex or disputed issues in the history of dogmatic theology.

Pesch was indeed correct. Other longer treatises on the sacraments say that the phrase in the response in nomine Christi did not refer to the form of baptism but to (a) a quality of the minister such as his intention (Doronzo, de Baptismo, 70; Pohl, Sacraments 1:224), or to (b) the distinction between the baptism of Christ and the baptism of John (Solà, de Sacramentis, ¶47-8).

All are agreed, however, that the response of Nicholas I was a private response — so it would not have any bearing on the sede vacante issue. The authorities we sedevacantists cite all refer to a pope who is a public heretic.

QUESTION: Moreover, St.Thomas (III.66.6) is also treating of whether the form in the name of Christ is sufficient for validity, and Dz 335 reads:..if indeed they have been baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity or only in the name of Christ (Here he speaks of either/or.)

I dont want to be a pest, but I dont want to give an answer I cant defend. However at the bottom of my Denziger Hunermann, there is a footnote that goes with this passage (Dz.H. 646): For the interpretation of this sentence, cf. O. Faller, “Die Taufe im Namen Jesu bei Ambrosius”: Festschrift 75 Jahre Stella Matutina I (Feldkirch/ Vorarlberg 1931) 139-150; G. Barielle: DThC 2/I (1905) 184.”

If you have the time and the access to any of this material could you see what they say about this issue?

RESPONSE: The last citation is to an article in the Dictionnaire de Thélogie Catholique that discusses at great length the phrase in the name of Christ in the Fathers. The DTCs explanation of the passage in St. Ambrose cited in Nicolas Is response is in part as follows:

Sometimes in the Fathers, a question arises about baptism conferred in the name of the Lord or in the name of Christ. Such an expression does not permit one to believe that there existed a baptism conferred in the name of Jesus Christ alone, to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Ghost.… The passage that follows in the treatise clearly shows that St. Ambrose was not speaking about the formula to be pronounced while conferring baptism, but rather about the faith in the Trinity required [on the part of the adult recipient] for the validity of baptism. Baptême daprès les Pères Grecs et Latins, DTC 2:184.

Finally, SSPX-ers and those who hold a similar position inevitably point to cases of alleged papal errors (Honorius, Liberius, John XXII, etc.) in order to justify their contention that one may “recognize” someone as a true pope, yet simultaneously “resist” his teachings and laws. Catholic apologists, historians and theologians, however, have repeatedly — and I mean repeatedly — demonstrated that the allegations against these popes are false.

By continuing to circulate these allegations, SSPX-ers and the like put themselves in the theological company of the Gallicans, the Old Catholics and many other enemies of papal infallibility — not a great place to be for anyone who claims to defend Catholic tradition.

Filed in Sedevacantism: Objections | | Comments (2)

Quo Primum: Could a Pope Change It?

Thursday, May 17, 2007

QUESTION: During a recent argument with a Novus Ordo friend, she told me that (according to her priest) popes can change whatever they want, as long as it is not dogmatic. We were discussing Quo Primum. I told her that it was forever, but she said that even if the pope said forever another pope can change it. What would you say to that?

REPLY: On this point, shes right.

A (true) pope is the supreme legislator for ecclesiastical law and has the power to change ecclesiastical laws enacted by his predecessors. Quo Primum was an ecclesiastical law, and a true pope did indeed have the power to abrogate it or modify any of its provisions.

The forever clause was merely a type of legal boilerplate common in all sorts of papal legislation.

In the 1960s faithful Catholics seized upon this language as a justification for disobeying the new liturgical legislation while simultaneously recognizing Paul VI as a true pope. This was unfortunate, because anyone who knows a bit about canon law can refute the argument very easily.

The argument also obscures the real reason for adhering to the traditional Mass and rejecting the New Mass: The old rite is Catholic. The new rite is evil, inimical to Catholic doctrine (on the Real Presence, the priesthood, the nature of the Mass, etc.) and a sacrilege.

If you send me your postal address, though, Ill send you a consolation prize: some copies of a booklet I wrote, Welcome to the Traditional Latin Mass, that compares the old Mass and the New Mass.

Give a copy to your friend and tell her to give it to her priest. That should keep him busy for quite awhile!

QUESTION: So you are saying that a real pope can change a Papal Bull decree that another pope has made in perpetuity? Why would a pope decree something for all time, if another pope could change it?

REPLY: If it was a disciplinary Bull (establishing a church law), yes, another pope could change it.

The language was simply a standard formula in church legislation that referred to one of the qualities a law is supposed to have: stability.

Frequent changes in laws harm the common good because people do not know how to act — hence, laws are supposed to be relatively stable. But a human legislator (unlike God) cannot foresee all future circumstances, so his successor has the power to change existing laws if he decides the circumstances warrant it.

This reflects a general principle in law: An equal does not have power over another equal. No pope who used perpetuity in his disciplinary decrees understood the term to mean that no future pope could ever amend or replace his legislation.

And popes did in fact change some of the provisions of Quo Primum, even before Vatican II. In 1604, for instance, Pope Clement VIII issued new regulations for the Blessing at Mass, and in 1634 Pope Urban VIII changed the wording of the Missals rubrics and hymn texts.

Traditionalists should stop using the Quo Primum argument. It’s a canon law urban legend — as in “alligators in the sewers,” rather than Urban VIII!

Filed in Canon Law, Trad Controversies | | Comments (2)

Bp. Mendez, SSPV and Hypocrisy

Tuesday, September 11, 2001

Introduction

Bp. Mendez’s secret consecration of Bp. Kelly in 1993.

In early 1995 the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV) an­nounced that the Rev. Clarence Kelly had been secretly consecrated a bishop on October 19, 1993 by the re­tired Bishop of Arecibo, Puerto Rico, the Most Rev. Alfred F. Mendez CSC, who had just died on January 28, 1995.

      Up to this point, traditional Catholics in the U.S. had heard nothing from Fr. Kelly and Fr. William Jenkins about Bp. Mendez — but an awful lot from them about Archbishop P-M. Ngo-dinh-Thuc, the retired Archbishop of Hué, Viet-Nam.

      By 1995 Frs. Kelly and Jenkins had conducted a lengthy campaign impugning the validity of the episcopal con­se­crations Abp. Thuc had conferred on two traditionalist priests (Guérard des Lauriers and Moises Carmona) in 1981. Frs. Kelly and Jenkins portrayed Abp Thuc as a crazy and erratic old geezer with unsavory connections, who for those reasons — lay readers were meant to conclude — could not be trusted to confer episcopal consecration validly.

      Fr. Kelly’s own consecration by the aged Bp. Mendez, however, cast an entirely different light on his anti-Thuc tirades. Bp. Mendez, it soon emerged, had engaged in a lot of fairly erratic conduct of his own, some of it extremely disedifying. In conferring an ordination for SSPV in 1990, moreover, Bp. Mendez had actually mispronounced the essential sacramental form in such a way that the validity of the ordination was doubtful.

      Below you will find a list of facts, notes and questions about Bp. Mendez, most of which I circulated in this form in the early 1990s. The picture of Bp. Mendez that emerges is that of a worldly prelate with some strange ideas, not very devoted to the traditional cause, who behaved very bizarrely more than a year before he consecrated Bp. Kelly and whose mental competence was challenged by his own sister just eight days before the con­se­cration.

      My purpose in raising these points is not to denigrate an old bishop, but to demonstrate that Bp. Kelly and Fr. Jenkins’ repeated condemnations of Abp. Thuc’s actions are a case of what is these days politely called “cognitive dissonance,” and in a more forthright era, was referred to as “hypocrisy.”

      This should set off alarm bells for the younger clergy and laity in the SSPV orbit who have been indoctrinated into the “Thuc Bad-Dirty/Mendez Good-Pure” myth­ology, and seen families di­vided, relationships ruined and sac­raments refused.

      The facts of the “Mendez affair” should lead this new generation to research the “certitudes” they have been handed by Bp. Kelly, just as we did in the 1980s, and to reject them once they inevitably discover (as we did) that they have no basis in Catholic theology or canon law.

— A.C. September, 2001

———

Who was Bishop Mendez?

  • A Holy Cross Father (the order that runs Notre Dame University.) Conse­crated bishop 1960 for Arecibo, Puerto Rico.
  • Retired early 1974. Lived in Carlsbad CA, near San Diego. Died January 1995, age 87, Cincinnati.

How did he first get involved with Fr. Kelly & SSPV?

  • His long-time secretary/housekeeper was Natalie White, writer of anti-Novus Ordo articles in 1960s.
  • Miss White was a close friend of Fr. William Jenkins’ parents, hence the initial connection.
  • A number of American traditional priests in Pius X met Mendez in late 1970s. He talked a somewhat conser­vative line, but never did anything.

Bp Mendez in ’73: “Married priesthood” is the “ultimate solution” to the vocations problem. 

When he headed his diocese, was he an anti-Modernist like Abp. Lefebvre?

  • No. Evident from eulogy in his dioce­san newspaper:
  • As a priest in 1950s, Mendez pro­moted pre-Vatican II nuns’ lib move­ment — sending sisters to study at Notre Dame where liberals would cor­rupt their faith.
  • After Vatican II “he supported the ini­tiatives of sis­ters who were looking for new horizons.”
  • In 1960, Mendez became first bishop in world to make a Cursillo “retreat.” (Cursillo = political-religious move­ment which originated in Spanish-speaking countries before Vatican II. A leftist/modernist oper­ation which used Communist mind-con­trol/indo­c­trin­ation techniques on par­ticipants: sleep deprivation, exhaus­tion, emo­tionalism, public confes­sion of sins, group criticism of individual partici­pants. Also notorious for gross litur­gical abuses. Those involved in Cursillo became leaders of mod­ernist program during and after Vatican II.)
  • As a new bishop in 1961, Mendez “began the Cursillo movement in Puerto Rico, and he made the Diocese of Arecibo its pioneer.”
  • Mendez promoted other liberal initia­tives which would “laicize” Church and undercut priest’s role. From be­ginning of Vatican II, “he dedicated himself to the restoration of the per­manent [married] dia­conate,” and he “opened horizons and positions for the laity well before Vatican II ended.”
  • Was member of CELAM, leftist South American bishops’ organiza­tion.

Mendez concelebrates the Novus Ordo for the 1974 Holy Cross Centennial.

Was Bp. Mendez a traditional­ist after he retired?

  • Did weekend help-outs & weddings for Novus Ordo.
  • Raised funds for ultra-Modernist Notre Dame University, celebrated public Masses there.
  • In 1981–82, ordained priests at Notre Dame using new rite.
  • Said mutilated Paul VI version of tra­ditional Mass (parts missing), but even this only because of influ­ence of his traditionalist housekeeper.
  • Never took public stand against Novus Ordo and Vatican II.
  • Is never once known to have of­fered old Mass in pub­lic at traditional chapel.
  • Promoted compromise initiatives to pull traditional Catholics into Novus Ordo church: Indult Masses, special Tridentine Ordinariate under JP2, and Fraternity of St. Peter.
  • At same time, also encouraged semi­narians to join “conservative” Novus Ordo organizations such as Legion­naires of Christ.
  • Dressed in coat and tie when traveling & visiting laity.
  • In 1985 observed 50th ordination an­niversary by being “principal concele­brant” of a Novus Ordo at Notre Dame.
  • In 1989 sits silently by as Miss White and a visitor argue about the teachings of Fr. Leonard Feeney. Then the bishop informs his somewhat per­plexed vis­itor: “She’s a theologian.”
  • In June 1989, when told by traditional priest that traditionalists should not work with modernists, Mendez replied: “Don’t be against the new. Just be for the traditional.”

The Pontifical that Bp. Mendez used for the 1990 ordination: The prayer is actually for ordaining just ONE priest instead of two, and Bp. Mendez garbled the form.

Didn’t Bp. Mendez show he was a tra­ditionalist by ordain­ing two priests for SSPV in September 1990?

  • Had no wish to be identified publicly as traditional Catholic or even associ­ated with ceremony.
  • Arrived, as usual, in lay clothes.
  • Performed ordination ceremony in se­cret.
  • Followed Novus Ordo rules and did not ordain can­didates to subdiaconate before. (Subdiaconate is when semi­narians take on celibacy obligation.)
  • Refused to wear all the traditional vestments.
  • Insisted ceremony not be videotaped: “Get that thing out of here!”
  • When he arrived at Preface of Ordin­ation, which contains the essen­tial sacramental form, sud­denly began rac­ing through it so quickly that it was incomprehensible.
  • Became angry when asked to repeat es­sential part.
  • Then repeated it in way that prompted following exchange: Fr. Kelly: “Did he get it right that time?” Fr. Thomas Zapp: “I think so.”
  • Ceremony continued on basis of “Think so.”
  • Fr. Zapp says he cannot vouch for cer­tain that Mendez finally said essential words properly.
  • Bishop’s conduct during ceremony was such that af­terwards in sacristy Fr. Kelly shook his head, told Fr. Zapp: “Never again. I’ll never do this again.”
  • Mendez used a false name to disassoci­ate himself from ordination: “Bishop Francis Gonzalez.”
  • Lied and denied in writing that he per­formed ordi­nation, calling it “an ugly rumor.” (Letter to Fr. Scott, 17 October 1990)

Description of a Bp. Mendez “Mass” in 1992: No crucifix, no chalice (he used an anniversary trophy cup); no chasuble, cincture, maniple. Just Novus Ordo garb. He handled hosts “like poker chips.”

Didn’t this involvement with SSPV at least influ­ence Bp. Mendez in a more traditional direction after 1990?

  • We merely reproduce points from writ­ten ac­counts given by three traditional Catholics who had no ax to grind against the bishop. These accounts re­late Mendez’s actions and statements when he came to visit them in Detroit on July 1–3, 1992. Among other things, Bp. Mendez:
  • Arrived dressed as layman (blue suit). Hinted he dressed this way because someone wanted to kill him. Dressed in lay clothes during entire visit.
  • Said he wouldn’t consecrate a bishop for SSPV, adding: “They should patch up their differences with the Society of St. Pius X, and Williamson can make them their bishop.”
  • For saying traditional Mass during visit, Mendez used no altar stone, no crucifix, no altar cloths, no amice, no cincture, no maniple, no stole, no chasuble, no chalice, no chalice veil, no Prayers at Foot of Altar, no Last Gospel, no linen purificator for Precious Blood (used paper towel). Vested à la Novus Ordo in only alb & stole. Used metal wedding sou­venir cup for chalice, Vaseline jars for cru­ets. Handled hosts “like poker chips.”
  • Said that the vernacular Mass was for the poor, but that the Latin Mass was for the rich.
  • Told a nun in traditional garb that her habit should be “more simple,” and said he favored short habits.
  • Told nun he didn’t want her to accom­pany him to airport lest be identified as a religious, much less a traditional­ist.
  • Said the Church “has too much doc­trine,” and that Fr. Sanborn pays too much attention to doctrine, “which is not so important.”
  • Mentioned how he went on cruises and serves as a chaplain “for all denomina­tions.”
  • Proudly related how he lobbied bish­ops at Vatican II to approve married deacons.
  • Volunteered to ordain his host a priest if his wife dies.

  • Analysis of an old-time trad who spent three days with Bp. Mendez in 1992: “I fear he would not have the right intent mentally if he were to consecrate a priest to a bishop today … he is 100% liberal Novus Ordo… like my spiritually dead children who adore the world… uses profanity… sign of a feeble mind.” This visit occurred 15 months before Bp. Mendez consecrated Bp. Kelly in Oct. 1993

    Boasted about worldly Hollywood connections. Mendez himself related following anecdote: he went a Las Vegas dinner dressed (as usual) in coat and tie. A few days later, he ran into actor Tony Curtis who was at the din­ner. Seeing the bishop dressed for a change in a clerical collar, Mr. Curtis told him: “I’m not the actor, Bishop! You are!”

  • Sprinkled his conversation with hells and damns.
  • Claimed he had a secret organization of priests num­bering 300 to 400, and secret seminaries training priests to in­filtrate the Vatican II church.
  • Stated that Cardinal Ratzinger was re­ally working for him (Mendez).
  • Began to weep, and said that if God wanted him to admonish John Paul II, God would have to prove it with a miracle. Mendez thereupon asked a sis­ter present to perform a miracle by lighting a candle miraculously — a re­quest he repeated to her on two other occasions during his visit.
  • Written comments in 1992 from horri­fied host and his wife, both long-time traditional Catholics, and both reliable and sensible people: “Mendez is a mod­ernist bishop. He is aware of the traditionalists, but is very much in tune with the go­ings-on in the Novus Ordo Church.” “I am in fear that the Bishop would not have the right intent mentally if he were to con­secrate a priest [to be] a bishop today. There is not a traditional bone in his body. He is 100% liberal Novus Ordo. He is equal with my spiritually dead chil­dren who adore the world and all the evil in it.”

There was a controversy sur­round­­­ing Bp. Mendez’s death. What were the details?

  • In January 1995, SSPV brought him to Cincinnati to show him a church property they hoped he would buy for them. During stay, bishop took ill, went into hospi­tal, was released, died suddenly on Saturday, January 28, at age of 87.
  • Because of their extensive involve­ment with him, SSPV wanted to bury Mendez as if he were really a tradi­tional Catholic. They hur­riedly orga­nized a traditional Requiem for Tues­day, and planned a quick burial at Fr. Kelly’s convent in Round Top NY.
  • Bishop laid out in SSPV school chapel in Cincinnati. Was first time he is known to have appeared in vest­ments at a public Mass in traditional Catholic chapel.
  • Mendez’s family strenuously objected, obtained an injunction against burial and in­stituted lawsuit (Laugier vs. Jenkins, Common Pleas, Hamilton Cy., A95–507, Judge Nay).
  • Case heard February 7. Number of in­teresting points:

  • Bp. Mendez: Promotor of the leftist Cursillo movement, married deacons, and nuns’ lib.

    Mendez’s sister testified that Fr. Jenkins and Miss White (bishop’s housekeeper, friend of Jenkins family) tried to keep family from seeing bishop.

  • Also testified Miss White completely took over bishop’s life in later years. “She bossed him. Took care of every­thing. Disposed of his money. Dis­posed of everything.”
  • When Mendez visited relatives in Puerto Rico, every Mass he celebrated for them was in Spanish. His last visit there: April 1993.
  • Bishop’s family had doubts about Mendez’s mental compe­tency for pe­riod from October 1, 1993 onwards.
  • On December 6, 1994, shortly before bishop’s death, he signed new will making Fr. Kelly’s group the benefi­ciary of his $1 million-plus fortune.
  • On January 26, only two days before bishop’s death, Fr. Kelly typed up a document for bishop to sign, request­ing burial at Round Top.
  • Judge said bishop’s supposed signature “looks like some sort of Japanese hi­eroglyphics to me.” In decision, judge added: “If this were a probate court, I think the Probate Court may have said this was not knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily entered into. Could have been undue influence, could have been completely unappreciative of what he was doing; the word he was doing or anything else. As far as I’m concerned, Exhibit Number A is of no value to this Court.”
  • Judge gave bishop’s family custody of body.
  • On February 11, Mendez buried in Arecibo Cathedral with Novus Ordo.

When and how did SSPV an­nounce that Bp. Mendez made Fr. Kelly a bishop?

  • Announcement first made February 8.
  • SSPV priests called special parish meetings at chapels to explain.
  • Image of Mendez presented to laity: a traditionalist.
  • Supposed proofs: Some correspon­dence between him and Lefebvre. Stories told of “signs from God” indi­cating consecration should proceed, angels singing be­fore Mendez’s death, and how his episcopal lineage can be traced to St. Pius X.
  • Reaction: Some laymen quite uneasy. Suspect Mendez not really traditional, full story not being told.

What information has come out so far about the supposed consecra­tion itself?

  • Ceremony held October 19, 1993 at Mendez’s house in Carlsbad CA.
  • Was a secret ceremony held at altar set up in a bed­room.
  • In addition to Mendez and Fr. Kelly, the 5 SSPV priests were present. Apparently no one else.
  • Photos taken, but no video.

Why was the consecration per­formed in se­cret?

  • Mendez wasn’t really a traditional Catholic. Still believed in Vatican II church. Wanted to remain in good graces with Novus Ordo colleagues. Had he acted publicly, Novus Ordo au­thorities would have declared him ex­communicated.
  • Also, had consecration been public and announced while Mendez was alive, faithful in SSPV chapels would have wanted to meet the heroic prelate who honored their leader. But had devout lay people en­countered at any great length the reality of the Novus Ordo Mendez (rather than the image pre­sented after his demise), they would have been hor­rified.

One of FIVE different certificates — but this one is mistakenly cobbled together based on an ordination certificate for a PRIEST. Why didn’t Bp. Mendez spot the difference?

Did Bp. Mendez issue a proper certificate?

  • SSPV circulated five different ac­counts or documents:
  • First, SSPV informed laity that Mendez issued a cer­tificate — but that he signed it “Gonzalez.”
  • Second, document headed “Si Diligis Me.” Mendez states he conferred epis­copal con­secration, but does not iden­tify who he conse­crated, nor where and how.
  • Third, 20 October 1993 document ti­tled “Attestation of Episcopal Conse­cration.” Appears to be signed by Mendez, and says he consecrated Fr. Kelly. Also signed by Frs. Jenkins and Skierka who attest that Mendez signed document.
  • Fourth, 10 November 1993 document, with slightly different title: “Declar­ation of Episcopal Consecra­tion.” Appears to be signed by Mendez. Text similar, but not iden­ti­cal, to document three. Signature wit­nessed by house­keeper Miss White, (!) Frs. Jenkins & Baumberger.
  • Fifth, 20 October 1993 Latin docu­ment apparently signed by Mendez, but neither witnessed nor bearing a visible seal. Text was from a priestly ordi­nation certificate, doctored up for the occasion.
  • None of the documents attest (as Fr. Kelly earlier claimed was necessary to accept valid­ity of a “secret” consecra­tion) that “due matter and form” were used, that “qualified witnesses” to the rite were present, etc.
  • Successive appearance of five different accounts or documents seems rather fishy, particularly given fuss Fr. Kelly made over documentation of Thuc consecra­tions. Are some documents “improved” versions, for­mulated under technicalities of mental reser­va­tion? It is fair to wonder.

“No time”? Or SSPV priests fear that Bp. Mendez’ conduct would horrify trads?

Why was there no video?

  • Fr. Jenkins stated that events devel­oped quickly and that there was no time to arrange for one.
  • Explanation doesn’t seem credible. All you needed was camera and videocas­sette. A baby could have done it.
  • More reasonable to believe that SSPV feared video would demonstrate either that (1) Mendez did not act like a tradi­tional Catholic clergyman, or (2) at time of the consecration there was evi­dence of men­tal impairment. (See be­low.)

Fr. Kelly made many charges against the Thuc consecrations. Couldn’t these same charges also be made against his own?

  • First objection of Fr. Kelly against Thuc consecra­tions: charge that they were supposedly always open to ques­tion because they were “secret.” Also claimed they were performed under “sordid” circumstances which de­meaned the sacrament.
  • Fr. Kelly’s consecration: Performed in secret in a chapel set up in a bedroom.
  • Fr. Kelly subsequently claimed main reason for con­sidering Thuc consecra­tions “dubious” was that Thuc never issued a proper certificate. (Claim was for­gotten when Latin certificate written out in Thuc’s own hand was pro­duced.)
  • Fr. Kelly’s consecration: Five different documents, none with identical con­tents, one signed with a false name, none of them meet­ing criteria Fr. Kelly claimed were necessary to accept validity.
  • Other charges from Fr. Kelly: Thuc had unsavory connections, was sup­posedly not tradi­tional Catholic.
  • Fr. Kelly’s consecrator, Bp. Mendez: Connections with Cursillo, Notre Dame, sundry Novus Ordo organiza­tions. Public and private cele­brations of Novus Ordo, said mutilated version of traditional Mass. Big on married deacons, nuns’ lib, shortened habits, wearing lay clothes, interde­nomina­tional chaplaincy, Hollywood, and be­ing “for the traditional,” but not “against the new.”

Bp. Kelly’s anti-Thuc book: His hypocrisy in the Mendez affair was so obvious that he had to write a 323-page BOOK defending Bp. Mendez.

In Fall 1993, Fr. Kelly began pub­lishing a multi-part arti­cle, at­tack­ing Abp. Thuc’s com­pe­­tency. What of the “mental state” of Bp. Mendez?

  • Should be noted, first of all, that Fr. Sanborn published sworn testimony from Thuc’s friends and enemies alike, all of whom unan­imously attested to Thuc’s complete competence.
  • Members of Mendez’s own fam­ily, however, testified under oath in court that they believed bishop’s com­petence was ques­tionable after October 1, 1993.
  • Court testimony: From Oct. 1–11, 1993 Mendez was in San Diego hospi­tal for stroke, pneumonia, operation. Uncon­sci­ous for 5 days.
  • Mendez’s sister visited him in hospi­tal in October 1993. Testified Mendez didn’t recognize her for 3 days. After that: “Then he recognized me, and he didn’t recognize me. It was so funny. He was mixed up.” “Afterwards he went, and then they took him out of the hospital, and they would not let me go near him or anything.”
  • Consecration took place October 19, 1993, only 8 days after Mendez re­leased.
  • In spring 1994, Fr. Ebey, Provincial of Holy Cross Fathers, visited Mendez in California. He testified: “I found the Bishop to be very confused, I thought it could be Alzheimers. I’m of course, not a doctor and not eligible to make medical opinions, but I do have mem­ories of my family who have suffered from this; and I was worried about it.”
  • Fr. Ebey also phoned Mendez in November, 1994: “I can tell you he was confused in November of 1994.”
  • Testimony of Mendez grandnephew: He visited bishop in January 1995. “It was difficult and unsettling to have to continuously remind a per­son who he was and who his family was; and how he used to visit them… I knew he was in ill physical and mental state, defi­nitely.… I just didn’t think he was all there… Well, I would say that even af­ter spending an hour, hour and a half there, he, you know, may have re­membered my name after repeating to him enough times.”
  • No motive for family or Fr. Ebey to lie about Mendez’s mental state. They all testified before Fr. Kelly’s con­secra­tion was revealed. Further, grand­nephew stated that family had no in­terest in bishop’s will.
  • Other strange behavior before this pe­riod: In 1992 Mendez visit to tradi­tionalist family in Detroit, odd busi­ness about “miracle of the candle,” strange statements (as­sas­sin­a­tions, se­cret net­works, etc.)
  • During same visit (at age 85), Mendez asked to be taken to restaurant for cocktails and dancing with his host’s wife, whom he just met, and whom he ad­dressed as “Honey” and “Dear.” Constantly pointed out beautiful women in airport and during a visit to a mall. Talked about how many good-looking women there were in his vis­its to Las Vegas. Made a scan­dalous comment to a girl in a travel agency. Hosts were appalled.
  • Strange behavior/obsessions of this type (sexual) sometimes appear in older men losing control of facul­ties.
  • Consider what SSPV’s advice to the laity would have been, had even half the foregoing been said of Abp. Thuc.
  • Sad but ironic. Accusation Fr. Kelly falsely made against “mental state” of Thuc now boomerangs against Mendez, Fr. Kelly’s own supposed con­secra­tor.

So is it “Bishop” Kelly now? What about his fu­ture confir­mations and priestly ordina­tions? Should we con­sid­er them valid or not?

  • As noted in discussion of Thuc conse­cra­tions, it doesn’t take much to con­se­crate a bishop validly. One must ob­jec­tively and fairly apply the same principles to this case.
  • But must admit that there is a real problem here: Mendez family mem­bers testified there was a compe­tence question from Oct. 1, 1993. Conse­cra­tion took place on Oct. 19.
  • May indeed happen now that someone will challenge Mendez will. If after lengthy battle over estate, judge rules Mendez legally incompetent during period, va­lidity of Fr. Kelly’s consecration then open to ques­tion. Then also his ordinations, con­fir­ma­tions.
  • Advisable that potential sem­inarians and recipients of confirmation defer receiving Orders, Confir­mation, until issue of Mendez’s com­pe­­tency is resolved.
  • [Note from 2001: Information which later emerged demonstrated that, at the time of Bp. Kelly’s consecration, Bp. Mendez was indeed mentally competent to confer a sacrament.]

Concluding Note

If you are a dyed-in-the-wool SSPV sup­porter who still doubts the hypocrisy of Bp. Kelly and SSPV on the Thuc vs. Mendez question, I suggest this ex­per­iment: re-read the foregoing notes and sub­stitute the name “Thuc” each time “Mendez” appears above.

    Then imagine what conclusions Bp. Kelly would tell you to draw about “un­savory associations” and “doubtful sacraments.”

    “For with the same measure that you shall mete withal it shall be measured to you again… Hypocrite, cast first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to take out the mote from that of thy brother.”

Addendum

Bishop Mendez and “Bishop Lili”

 

Nothing rots like a “Lili”…

I COMPILED the foregoing fact sheet about Bp. Mendez in 1995 only because Bp. Clarence Kelly and Fr. William Jenkins had long engaged in a campaign to unfairly vilify Abp. P.M. Ngo-dinh-Thuc. This they employed as grounds for dividing families in my parishes and for publicly refusing members sacraments — based on nothing more than guilt by association (via yours truly) with things Abp. Thuc had (supposedly) done in the 1970s or 1980s.

Once SSPV revealed in January 1995 that it was Bp. Mendez who had consecrated Fr. Kelly, the hypocrisy of the Kelly-Jenkins campaign against the exiled and impoverished Vietnamese archbishop became obvious. Demonstrating that Bp. Kelly and Fr. Jenkins’ principles were false became merely a matter of showing that they themselves did not follow them.

Since the Kelly-Jenkins strictures against innocent laymen still continue nearly 30 years later, it will be useful to point out additional instances of SSPV’s hypocrisy over the Mendez affair as they come to light. Hence this “Addendum.”

One tale Bp. Kelly and Fr. Jenkins endlessly circulate against Abp. Thuc is that he ordained and consecrated Jean Laborie, a man with schismatic connections who was trying to work his way into the traditional movement in 1977, and who was allegedly a “known homosexual.”

Bp. Kelly employs the latter phrase at least seven times in his book The Sacred and the Profane, where he solemnly warns us: “Let us not forget that Archbishop Thuc fell so far as to consecrate a known homosexual…”

Repeating the story is meant to impugn the archbishop’s judgment and to reinforce the Thuc-was-tainted/Mendez-was-pure narrative. SSPV true believers can hold their heads high, and proudly proclaim, “No siree, our bishops are not tainted by connections to a bishop who consecrated a ‘known homosexual’!”

But not anymore, it seems, thanks to the 2018 media coverage of the clerical sex abuse crisis.

For the supposedly “pure” Bp. Alfred E. Mendez himself committed the same “sin” as the tainted Abp. Thuc, when in March 1974, he “consecrated” the Most Rev. Miguel Rodriguez as his hand-picked successor to episcopal see of Arecibo, Puerto Rico,

Bp. Mendez praises his successor’s “vocation program.”

Let us first hear Bp. Mendez lavish praise on Bp. Rodriguez in an article entitled “The Priesthood Today.”

“The last class ordained was the largest in the Island’s 475-year history. And this year [1979] my successor, Bishop Miguel Rodriguez, CSSR has 44 natives in Philosophy and theology, almost half the entire number of seminarians of Puerto Rico. Indeed, prayer is the answer, and vocations the answer to prayer!” (The Jesuit, Summer 1979)

An investigation tracing the long history of clerical sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Miami, however, reveals another facet to the vocations promotion program that Bp. Mendez’ successor had so enthusiastically undertaken:

“Two unrelated sources, both priests, speak of a flamboyantly gay bishop in Arecibo, Puerto Rico, named Miguel Rodriguez Rodriguez, who was known to his pupils as ‘Lili.’ These sources claim that during the 1970s and 80’s, Lili treated Arecibo like his own personal harem, urging cute young men into the priesthood and plying them with gifts and money in exchange for sexual favors. Rome allegedly interceded in 1990 and banished Lili to a secluded monastery, where he remained until his death 20 years later. Several of Lili’s erstwhile pupils landed in Miami in the 80’s and 90’s. Naturally, they were disinclined to take their celibacy oaths too seriously.” (Brandon Thorp, “The Catholic Church’s Secret Gay Cabal,” Gawker, 7/28/11)

Most Rev. Miguel Rodriguez: Bp. Mendez’ own “Jean Laborie.”

If we were to give these revelations the full Kelly-Jenkins treatment reserved for Abp. Thuc, we would now remove our glasses, slowly shake our heads and solemnly intone in our best basso profundo voices: Surely, Bp. Mendez knew how depraved Rodriguez was! Shouldn’t he have investigated Rodriguez thoroughly before consecrating him? Or even publicly opposed the consecration? Doesn’t this show Bp. Mendez’ complete lack of judgment in conferring Holy Orders? Or was early-onset Alzheimers’ perhaps the real reason for Bp. Mendez’ unusually early retirement at age 66? Did this affect his attitude towards Rodriguez? Can’t you see? Bp. Mendez’ consecration of the “known homosexual,” Bishop Lili, taints the all the ordinations and consecrations that Bp. Kelly performs, even 45-years later! Who would want to be associated with that?

You get the drift.

But since we are Christians, we’re not supposed to keep on throwing stones at someone over his past sins — still less, impose the darkest and vilest interpretation imaginable for a person’s actions where a more charitable and likely explanation is possible.

So, in the case of Bp. Mendez with Bishop Lili, as in the case of Bp. Thuc with Jean Laborie, it is likely that both prelates had been deceived somehow about the character of the persons they were consecrating. (Abp. Thuc, in fact, said as much later.) It is difficult to imagine that a Catholic bishop of the pre-Vatican II generation would have knowingly and willingly acted otherwise.

But even if both prelates had known the real character of those upon whom they laid hands, their episcopal misdeeds would not descend with the orders they conferred, forty years later, to successive generations of clergy — still less, in such a way as to allow Bp. Kelly and Fr. Jenkins to refuse sacraments to Catholics associated with them.

Am I engaging in “moral equivalence” here? Not exactly.

For Abp. Thuc’s supposed consecration of a hole-in-corner schismatic — who was never heard from again, by the way, until Bp. Kelly and Fr. Jenkins spread his name everywhere — was imprudent and objectively evil, to be sure.

Not like the rest of men… nor even this publican!

But it was moral small potatoes when compared to Bp. Mendez’s consecration of Bishop Lili. Bp. Mendez’ successor corrupted a generation of young clergy, and his misdeeds, now nearly forty years later, are part of an ongoing clergy sex abuse scandal that will probably bankrupt the archdiocese of Miami and scandalize Catholics in Florida for generations to come.

Thus the tale of Bp. Mendez and Bp. Lili.

The moral, for Bp. Kelly, Fr. Jenkins and others like them?

Those who, as the Gospel says, “trusted in themselves as just and despised others” may one day well discover that their condemnations of someone else’s “sins” have come back upon their own heads.

May their young colleagues in SSPV learn the lesson, even if their elders do not.

— December 9, 2018

Filed in Abp Thuc, Trad Controversies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments (0)

June 29, 1989 Letter to Fr. Kelly

Thursday, June 29, 1989

Filed in Trad Controversies | Tagged , , , | Comments (0)