While people may argue about evidence, doubt, etc., I am here quoting from authoritative Catholic sources which outline the role of suspicion, doubt, probability and all of those principles in moral theology, along with how it relates to the sacraments, so we are on the same page. I do not intend to argue or debate, I am simply presenting information. For those who wish to reply, please read through carefully before doing so. The quotes are not difficult to understand.
“Practical doubt, or doubt as to the lawfulness of an action is, according to the teaching of moral theology, incompatible with right action; since to act with a doubtful conscience is obviously to act in disregard of the moral law. To act with a doubtful conscience is therefore, sinful; and the doubt must be removed before any action can be justified. It frequently happens, however, that the solution of a practical doubt is not attainable, while some decision is necessary. In such cases the conscience may obtain a "reflexive" certainty by adopting an approved opinion as to the lawfulness of the action contemplated, apart from the intrinsic merits of the question. The question has been much discussed among different schools of theologians whether the opinion so followed must be of greatly preponderating authority in favour of liberty in order to justify an action the lawfulness of which appears intrinsically doubtful, whether it must be merely more probable than the contrary one, or equally probable, or merely probable in itself, even though less so than its contrary. (See Moral Theology; Probabilism.) The last, however, is the theory now generally accepted for all practical purposes; and the principle that lex dubia non obligat--i.e. that a law which is doubtful in its application to the case in hand does not bind--is universally admitted. It must be observed, however, that where the question is one not merely of positive law but of securing a certain practical result, only the "safer" course may be followed. No opinion however probable, is allowed to take precedence of the most certain means of securing such ends; e.g. in providing for the validity of the sacraments, in discharging obligations of justice, or in avoiding injury to others. Thus doubtful baptisms and ordinations must be repeated conditionally.” — The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, 1909
“If the uncertainty concerns the validity of an action which must certainly be valid, it is not lawful to act on mere probability unless, indeed, this is of such a nature as to make the Church certainly supply what is needed for the validity of the act. Thus, apart from necessity, it is not lawful to act on mere probability when the validity of the sacraments is in question. Again, it is not lawful to act on mere probability when there is question of gaining an end which is obligatory, since certain means must be employed to gain a certainly required end. Hence, when eternal salvation is at stake, it is not lawful to be content with uncertain means. Moreover, the virtue of justice demands equality, and as such excludes the use of probability when the established rights of another are concerned.” — Probabilism, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 12
"The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required. This intention need not necessarily be of the sort called actual. That would often be practically impossible. It is enough that it be virtual. Neither habitual nor interpretative intention in the minister will suffice for the validity of the sacrament. The truth is that here and now, when the sacrament is being conferred, neither of these intentions exists, and they can therefore exercise no determining influence upon what is done. To administer the sacraments with a conditional intention, which makes their effect contingent upon a future event, is to confer them invalidly. This holds good for all the sacraments except matrimony, which, being a contract, is susceptible of such a limitation." — Intention, The Catholic Encyclopedia
I will transcribe here some other relevant information from "The Sacred and the Profane". Please know that Bishop Kelly provides references for what he quotes from others, so people may verify them.
https://archive.org/details/sacredand-profane/page/11/mode/2up
Principles for approaching the situation, p. 25
1.) “. . . facts are not presumed (as certain), but must be proved.”
2.) “. . . the burden of proof rests upon him who makes the assertion.”
3.) “In a practical doubt about the lawfulness of an action one may never act.”
4.) “In conferring the Sacraments (as also in [the] Consecration in Mass) it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course.”
P. 71, Habitual intention insufficient
Habitual intention is insufficient to validly confer a Sacrament. “. . . there is no consecration if a priest in the delirium of a fever pronounces the words of consecration over bread and wine on the table at his bedside; the same holds for any one attempting to confect a Sacrament while intoxicated, insane or asleep.”
Canonist speaks on p. 64
Fr. Augustine does not say: if a ceremony took place regardless of the circuмstances or persons involved, the sacraments are supposed and presumed to have been conferred validly. He says: “if the matter and form required . . . have been properly applied by the respective minister, they are supposed and presumed to have been conferred validly.” This refutes the notion that if a ceremony took place, regardless of the circuмstances or persons involved, it must be “deemed valid.” Directing his attention specifically to the question of Holy Orders, Fr. Tixeront [author of the history of dogmas] puts it this way:
When the bishop who performs the Ordination belongs to the Catholic Church and performs the functions of his ministry in a normal fashion, there can be no doubt about the validity of his Ordinations, if carried out according to the prescribed form.
From the recorded interview of February 10th, 1988 in Munich, Germany. This interview was conducted by Frs. Kelly, Jenkins, and Sanborn, and those who were being questioned were Drs. Hiller & Heller, witnesses to the +Thuc consecrations
Fr. Sanborn asked him: “Did he [Thuc] place both hands on the head of Guérard des Lauriers?” Dr. Hiller responded: “I don’t know what is prescribed. I think yes.” When Dr. Heller was asked if Thuc had laid hands on the head of Fr. des Lauriers, he refused to answer. He said that he could not be expected to remember such details. It was the opinion of Hiller and Heller that the consecration had been done correctly; but it is not the function of witnesses to give opinions. As Fr. Lydon says: “Witnesses report facts; they are not to give opinions or judgments on the meaning of what they saw or heard.”
Short biography of Archbishop Thuc by Fr. Cekada, p. 72
Ngo-dinh-Thuc entered the seminary, obtained doctorates in canon law, theology and philosophy in Rome, and was ordained to the priesthood on December 20, 1925. He taught for a while at the Sorbonne, and returned to Hue in 1927, where he taught in the major seminary and in the College of Divine Providence. He was appointed Apostolic Vicar at Vinh-long, and on May 4, 1938, was consecrated a bishop and named Titular Bishop of Sesina. At Vinh-long, he organized the diocese, as well as devoting some of his time to the University of Dalat.
Simulation of a sacrament, p. 81
If Archbishop Thuc simulated saying Mass, the Mass would be invalid. If he simulated an episcopal consecration, as Fr. Cekada accuses him of simulating saying Mass, it would be an invalid consecration. No bishop would be made. This would be true even if he were in full possession of his faculties. Speaking of Thuc’s concelebration, Fr. Cekada said: “Mgr. Ngo’s justification for his action by maintaining that he only simulated the celebration of Mass — simulation of a sacrament, incidentally, is a grave sin — does not increase our confidence in his grasp of sacramental theology.”
The problem, of course, is not Archbishop Thuc’s grasp of sacramental theology. His three doctorates preclude ignorance of sacramental theology. Nor indeed does one have to have a doctorate in theology to know that it is wrong to pretend to say Mass or to bestow episcopal consecration on non-Catholics. The explanation lies elsewhere.
Testimony of Bishop Barthe on the mental state of +Thuc, p. 87-88
The consecration of Fr. des Lauriers was on May 7, 1981. Carmona and Zamora were consecrated on October 17, 1981. The statement of Bishop Barthe questioning the validity of these consecrations was published in La Docuмentation Catholique on February 21, 1982 - No. 1824. In it he said:
Certain Catholics are asking me what must be thought of the clandestine ordinations by Monseigneur Ngo Dinh Thuc. Here is that which I can respond: ...
I voice the most express reservations about the value [valeur] of these ordinations: because of the person of him who did them. Already one time before, on January 11, 1976, Monseigneur Thuc proceeded to some ordinations of this type at El Palmar de Troya. On order from Rome, the apostolic nuncio of Spain immediately recalled “after attentive examination of the facts relative to the presumed episcopal ordinations” that the consecrating prelate was excommunicated, as well as those ordained themselves. Monseigneur Thuc left Italy where he resided, to come to live in the diocese where we received him fraternally; but I avow that the way in which he explained his “mistake” has never been very clear. It is even less so for the ordinations done in his house at Toulon. It is permitted to ask oneself up to what point he was well aware of the acts which he did and to what point his liberty went. What to think, today, of the affirmations of his regrets and of his promises?
Newsletter Testimony, Archbishop Lefebvre on Archbishop Thuc, and Fr. Sanborn p. 86
A newsletter which supports Mgr. Ngo [dinh-Thuc] describes him as a ‘timid asiatic who was easily influenced,’ and continues:
Once again, realize the fact that Mgr. Ngo, physically and psychologically worn out, . . . only wants peace and quiet . . . It should be noted that this prelate has acquired some complexes, and that age doesn’t help things.
Fr. Cekada also noted that Archbishop Lefebvre “. . . who knew Mgr. Ngo, observed that he never recovered from the death of his brothers.”
After the February 1988 interviews with Dr. Hiller and Dr. Heller, Fr. Sanborn concluded, in no uncertain terms, that there must have been something seriously wrong with the mind of Archbishop Thuc for him to have done the things he did. Even when he later became an avid defender of the Thuc consecrations, he still acknowledged that insanity and senility were two of three possible explanations for his behavior. “It is true,” he wrote, “that Abp. Thuc was either insane, senile, or extremely gullible in order to have done the things that he did.”
Fr. Barbara and the Mental State of Archbishop Thuc, p. 89-90
Fr. Noel Barbara, who published the journal Fortes In Fide, interviewed Archbishop Thuc in March of 1981 and again in January of 1982. Subsequent to these interviews, he suggested three possible answers to the question of whether or not Archbishop Thuc was “in possession of his faculties.” Fr. Barbara wrote:
The relapse into profanation of the sacrament of order (the latest consecration conferred in a sect was on 24 Sep 1982) and the lack of firmness in his promise not to lapse again make it permissible to ask an essential question. Was this old man, over 85 years of age, in possession of his faculties, did he realize what he was doing in imposing his hands so easily on no matter whom? Was he truly responsible for his acts? There are only three possible answers to this distressing question.
— No. Thuc was not in possession of all his faculties; he was not responsible and did not incur the penalties provided by the Law. But then the consecrations conferred are not valid, since the consecrator was not in possession of his faculties for the performance of a responsible act.
— Yes. The consecrator at these consecrations was in full possession of his faculties. The consecrations are valid but consecrator and consecrated have incurred all the penalties provided by the Law and Thuc is truly a scandalous bishop.
— We do not know with certainty. Perhaps he was in possession of his faculties, and perhaps he was not. That would leave a doubt hovering over the censures incurred, but also over the validity of all these ordinations.
Fr. Davis, Moral Theologian, quoted on p. 92-93
To quote Fr. Davis again:
“In conferring the Sacraments (as also in [the] Consecration in Mass) it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course. The contrary was explicitly condemned by Pope Innocent XI. To do so would be a grievous sin against religion, namely, an act of irreverence towards what Christ our Lord has instituted; it would be a grievous sin against charity, as the recipient would probably be deprived of the graces and effect of the Sacrament; it would be a grievous sin against justice, as the recipient has a right to valid Sacraments, whenever the minister, whether ex officio or not, undertakes to confer a Sacrament. In the necessary Sacraments, there is no doubt about the triple sin; in Sacraments that are not necessary, there will always be the grave sacrilege against religion.”
For those interested, Bishop Kelly, from p. 95-98, outlines in detail, with appropriate references, the value and definition of positive doubt, negative doubt, etc.
Positive Motives That Correspond to Reality, p. 98
That “the positive motives” for doubting that Archbishop Thuc had “the full command of reason” “correspond to reality” is made plain by a consideration of his behaviour from the end of 1975 until his death in 1984. His behavior was manifestly incompatible with the behavior of a Catholic Archbishop and former seminary professor with three doctorates who was also, according to Fr. Cekada, “a bishop with great pastoral experience and a brilliant academic background in theology, philosophy and canon law.” That is to say, it was incompatible with the behavior of such a man who was in full possession of reason. From the consecrations at Palmar de Troya to the consecration of the Old Catholic bishop Christian Marie Datessen in September of 1982, the pattern of abnormal behavior is plain to see for any honest observer.
Hence, the doubts as to the validity of the Thuc consecrations are objective because “the positive motives” for doubting that Archbishop Thuc had “the full command of reason” “correspond to reality.” The doubts are also positive because the lack of the “full command of reason” in the minister of a Sacrament is a valid motive for doubting validity. The doubts about the validity of the Thuc consecrations are therefore prudent doubts since they are both positive and objective.
Being "worn out" does not make one insane.
There is no evidence that the sacraments were invalidly performed.
There is no evidence that the rite was incorrectly said.
There is no evidence that anything was wrong.
There is nothing to support a sacramental defect.
In the above, the only critique of +Thuc comes from clerics who "can't understand" why he ordained certain people (mostly related to the Palmaranians). But this isn't evidence. Who can know why any person does certain things?
YOU CAN'T JUDGE SACRAMENTS BY THE INTERNAL FORUM. YOU CAN'T JUDGE SACRAMENTS BY READING HEARTS.
Topic: Is there evidence that +Thuc ordinations are invalid? (Read 1353 times)