Counter-Reformation Association

NEWS AND VIEWS

La Guerche, Main Street, Monks Kirby, Near Rugby CV23 OQZ England

Autumn  AD 1994                                                                                                      Michaelmas
Beata Mater, et intacta Virgo, gloriosa.
Regina mundi, intercede pro nobis ad Dominum.

THE STRANGE CASE OF ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE
The issue of Mgr Lefebvre’s putative excommunication, for his 30 June 1988 consecrations of four bishops without the mandate of John Paul II, has recently been treated from a canonical standpoint by Charles P. Nemeth, in his book The Case of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (Angelus Press 1994). The book’s principal thesis is that Mgr Lefebvre did not incur the putative excommunication.
Mr Nemeth is both an academic and a practising lawyer, and his study is interesting in itself and a stimulus to further reflection on this important matter. The work, however, does present a number of difficulties, not the least of which, for an English reader, is that it is written in American. It also contains a number of errata, which tend to compound the effect of the American vocabulary and style. For example, the absence of any indication as to the ending and beginning of two consecutive sentences on page 52 gives rise to a very strange assertion; and we are puzzlingly told on page 59: ‘“A full discussion of these possibilities will occur supra.’”
A certain over-hastiness is shown by the author in his Preface, where he tells his readers that a ‘“latae sententiae excommunication [is] posed for the act of consecration [without a papal mandate] under Canon 1382 of the New Code of 1983 and Canon 2370 of the 1917 Code’“. Later, on page 34, he correctly states: ‘“In the 1917 Code, the unlawful consecration was met with suspension latae sententiae... On 9 April 1951, the Vatican upgraded the suspension penalty to an excommunication.’
It must also be noted that Mr Nemeth’s understanding of theology falls far short of his legal expertise. His treatment of sedevacantism in particular (e.g. page 137) displays a quite shocking ignorance of the subject.
The primary question, however, is the validity of Mr Nemeth’s analysis of the excommunication issue. It is amusing, as well as informative, to have a canonical defence of Mgr Lefebvre based largely on the ‘“novas habitus mentis’“ - the liberal principles - introduced in the New (Conciliar) Code. Mr Nemeth contends that under the principles of the 1917 Code, there are no relevant factors which prevent Mgr Lefebvre’s canonical crime from being imputed to him, and thus he would have incurred the excommunication. By contrast, under the Conciliar Code it is arguable that the crime is not imputable to him. In any event, it is certain, Mr Nemeth holds, that the liberal principles of the Conciliar Code admit mitigating factors, and that the penalty of excommunication had to be replaced by a lesser one.
The paradox of Mr Nemeth’s position is that, if the Conciliar Code had not been promulgated, he would not have been able to defend Mgr Lefebvre. His counter-charge against the conciliar authorities is that they effectively acted as though Mgr Lefebvre were subject to the principles of the 1917 Code, not to their own.
Against Mr Nemeth’s position, it may be objected that there can be aggravating as well as mitigating factors in regard to canonical crime; and that in Mgr Lefebvre’s case his canonical excuses were flimsy, whereas his defiance of the putative papal authority of John Paul II was of the most blatant kind. In regard to Mgr Lefebvre’s letter of 2 June 1988 to John Paul II, Mr Nemeth writes of him (page 21) as ‘“ingenuously’“ deducing that the consecrations would not be contrary to the mind of the ‘“Holy See’“, because Cardinal Ratzinger had offered a consecration for the 15th August. A consecration, following a reconciliation with Conciliar Rome in accordance with the terms of the 5th May Protocol, and with John Paul II’s mandate, was indeed not contrary to the mind of the ‘“Holy See’“. Any consecrations apart from such a reconciliation most certainly were contrary to the mind of Conciliar Rome.
Mgr Lefebvre’s defiance of John Paul II’s supposed papal authority could hardly have been more blatant. The consecrations were not simply in themselves contrary to Canon Law; they took place against the express will of John Paul II, and in overt defiance of a Monitum addressed to him personally by the putative Roman Pontiff (9 June 1988), as well as the Monitum of Cardinal Gantin as Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops (17 June 1988).
Nor did the consecrations lack an aggravating context. They expressly sealed Mgr Lefebvre’s refusal of a reconciliation with Conciliar Rome, and his resolve to continue his providential work in entire independence of the conciliar authorities. That is why the consecrations were prima facie not only subject to a latae sententiae excommunication as illicit, but also as an act of schism: a refusal to accept the authority of the supposed Roman Pontiff.
Were, then, the consecrations illegitimate? Did Archbishop Lefebvre incur the putative excommunication for consecrations without an Apostolic Mandate? Of course not; but not on the grounds advanced by Mr Nemeth. Mgr Lefebvre was objectively justified in consecrating the new bishops, without the mandate of John Paul II, because of the schismatic, heretical and heresy-favouring nature of the Conciliar Reform, with the consequent urgent need of the Church for Catholic bishops. He had stated the apocalyptic reality of Conciliar Rome  ‘“Rome Antichrist’“  in his 1987 letter to the bishops-elect.
In spite of his vacillating but continued recognition of John Paul II as a valid Pope, and therefore as possessing papal authority, Mgr Lefebvre no more recognised his acts as valid pontifical acts than did the sedevacantists and sedeprivationists. For the latter, John Paul II had no papal authority, and therefore could not perform papal acts. For Mgr Lefebvre, he did possess papal authority, but  as Bishop Tissier de Mallerais was to argue later  he was, because of his doctrinally erroneous ideology, morally incapable of exercising it and governing the Church.
For sedevacantists, sedeprivationists and habemuspapamists alike, the Holy See was impeded from acting (Sede impedita). The facts of the situation abundantly demonstrated the general Sede impedita thesis. Emergency measures were justified   indeed demanded   by that fact. Actions beside the law are justified in emergency not dealt with by the law, when access cannot be had (at least morally to the legislator. Law also ceases automatically when, through changed circuмstances, it has become harmful, impossible or irrational. That was certainly the case in 1988, as it is still.
Mgr Lefebvre’s freedom from excommunication for illicit consecrations is not to be sought in the liberal principles of the Conciliar Code, in the manner of Mr Nemeth’s ‘“Trial by Canon Law’“. It is to be found in the authority and power of the Catholic Church to perpetuate her life when almost all her institutions (including the Vatican)’have been expropriated by schismatics and heretics.
W. J. Morgan  29 IX 94