|
|
QUESTION 11
Wasn't ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE excommunicated for
consecrating bishops unlawfully? |
|
| JUNE 29, 1987 Archbishop
Marcel Lefebvre, experiencing failing health, aware of his
episcopal duty to pass on the Catholic Faith
and seeing no other way of assuring the continued ordination of truly Catholic
priests, decided to consecrate bishops and announced that, if necessary, he will
do so even without the pope’s permission. |
 |
|
Above:
"Operation
Survival" on June 30th 1988. From left to right:
Bishops de Galleretta, Tissier de Mallerais, de Castro
Mayer, Archbishop Lefebvre, and Bishops Williamson and Fellay |
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
The
four new bishops after receiving their crosiers and being
enthroned |
|
|
JUNE 17, 1988
Cardinal Gantin, Prefect of the
Congregation for Bishops, officially warned the
Archbishop that, in virtue of canon 1382 (1983 Code of Canon Law), he and the bishops
consecrated by him would be excommunicated for
proceeding without pontifical mandate and thereby
infringing the laws of sacred discipline. |
|
|
|
JUNE 30, 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre, together with
Bishop de Castro
Mayer, consecrated four bishops.
JULY 1, 1988
Cardinal Gantin declared the threatened excommunication (according to canon 1382) to have been incurred. He also called the consecrations a schismatic act and declared the corresponding excommunication (canon 1364 §1), as well as threatening anyone supporting the consecrations with excommunication because of
“schism".
JULY 2, 1988
In Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, the
pope repeated Cardinal Gantin’s
accusation of schismatic mentality and threatened generalized excommunications (cf.
QUESTION
12).
Now, the excommunication warned of on June 17, for abuse of episcopal powers (canon 1382), was not incurred because: |
 |
|
Bishop de
Castro Mayer
gives a brief sermon during
which he declares that his
participation in the ceremonies
serves as a profession of Faith. |
|
|
|
-
A person who violates a law out of necessity* is not subject to a penalty
(1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of
necessity1:
-
if one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty
(canon 1323, 70),
-
and if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic
penalties2 (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).
|
FOOTNOTES
FOR ITEM 1
*
("The
state of necessity, as it is explained by jurists, is a state in which the
necessary goods for natural or supernatural life are so threatened that
one is morally compelled to break the law in order to save them."
(Is Tradition Excommunicated? p. 26 [APPENDIX
II])
1
And yet objectively there is. (Cf. Is Tradition
Excommunicated?
pp.27-36 [APPENDIX II])
2
Excommunication for unlawful consecrations (canon 1382) or schism
(canon 1364) are of this kind. |
-
No penalty is ever incurred without committing a subjective mortal sin (canons 1321 §1, 1323 70). Now, Archbishop Lefebvre made it amply clear that he was bound in conscience to do what he could do to continue the Catholic priesthood and that he was obeying God in going ahead with the
consecrations (Cf. the
Sermon of June 30,
1988, and Archbishop
Lefebvre and the Vatican, p. 136 [APPENDIX
II]). Hence, even if he had been wrong, there would be no subjective sin.
-
Most importantly, positive law is at the service of the natural and eternal law and ecclesiastical law is at that of the divine law
(PRINCIPLE
8). No “authority,” [PRINCIPLE
9] can force a bishop to compromise in his teaching of Catholic faith or administering of Catholic sacraments. No “law,” can force him to cooperate in the destruction of the Church. With Rome giving no guarantee of preserving Catholic Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre had to do what he could with his God-given episcopal powers to guarantee its preservation.
This was his duty as a bishop.
-
The Church’s approving the SSPX
(QUESTION
2) allow it what it needs for its
own preservation. This includes the service of bishops who will guarantee to
maintain Catholic tradition.
|
|
MORE
ARTICLES RELATED TO THIS TOPIC |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
