#42: Contradiction (The Expulsion of Bishop Williamson - Part III):In post #40, we noted the expulsion of Bishop Williamson, the reasons adduced for said expulsion (i.e., refusal to close the
Eleison Comments and his "unauthorized" pastoral visit to Brazil), and the convenient impact said expulsion was perceived to have upon negotiations between the SSPX and Rome, according to the SSPX German District spokesman, Fr. Andreas Steiner.
In post #41, we discussed the historical tensions surrounding the relationship between Menzingen and Santa Cruz, resulting from Dom Thomas Aquinas's refusal to abandon the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, and the punitive response by Bishop Fellay as both punishment and coercion, which led to Bishop Williamson's "unauthorized" pastoral visit.
In this third and final installment regarding the subject of Bishop Williamson's expulsion, we examine the doctrine of necessity to consider applied to Bishop Williamson's pastoral visit, in order to determine whether, according to Catholic doctrine, it was truly "unauthorized" (and consequently, whether or not his expulsion, in such measure as it was based upon this pastoral visit, was just):
In July and September/1999,
The Angelus included an English-language edition insert of
SiSiNoNo featuring a brilliant 2-part theological study defending the 1988 episcopal consecrations. Part I of that study concerned the doctrine of necessity and the duties and powers of priests and bishops trapped therein; Part II concerned the application of this doctrine in the face of the Pope's "no."
https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_July/The_1988_Consecrations.htmhttps://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htmEssentially, the article (and the SSPX) argued the following points:
1) There existed a state of grave general spiritual necessity, because:
-"Many souls"
-"are threatened in spiritual goods"
-"of great importance (e.g., faith and morals)"
and
"are without hope of help from their legitimate pastors."
2) In that situation:
-There is a duty,
sub gravi (i.e., grave), on the part of bishops,
-To come to the assistance of the faithful,
-With the jurisdiction springing from the request of the faithful (not the authorization of the superior),
-And to refuse to do so is a mortal sin.
3) In carrying out this duty, Archbishop Lefebvre had no obligation to receive permission from the Pope because:
- "In such extraordinary circuмstances, says Dom Grea, the episcopacy proceeded "resolute in the tacit consent of its Head rendered certain by necessity" (op. cit. vol.I, p.220). Dom Grea does not say that the consent of the pope rendered the bishops certain of the necessity. On the contrary, the necessity rendered them certain of the consent of the pope. Precisely why did the necessity render the consent of their Head "certain," consent that in reality those bishops were ignoring? - Evidently because in necessity the positive judgment of Peter is owed." (Ibid, Part I)
4) And as regards the "no" of the Pope:
-"It makes no difference to what we have just said if recourse to the pope is made materially impossible by external circuмstances, as in the historical cases recalled by us [in Part 1]. But it is the pope himself who is favoring or promoting a course for the Church infected by neo-Modernism which threatens the goods fundamental to souls, goods indispensable for the salvation of souls, e.g., faith and morals. If the pope himself is the cause or partial-cause, and even, given his supreme authority, the ultimate cause of the grave and general spiritual necessity in which there is no hope of help from the lawful pastors, then what effect will recourse to the pope obtain in such circuмstances? He will be physically accessible, but morally inaccessible. Recourse to him will be certainly physically possible but morally impossible, and if it be attempted, it will result naturally in the pope's saying "No" to the act which the extraordinary circuмstances require "in order that adequate provision be made" (ST, op. cit. in Part 1) for the grave general necessity of souls." (Ibid, Part II)
And:
-"These circuмstances, however, will have the effect of rendering the duty of help more difficult and perhaps even heroic on account of the easily foreseeable consequences. It will be denied that there is any state of necessity! The rebuke implied in the act of helping the people will draw down upon whoever does so revulsion and unjust accusations." (Ibid, Part II)
and finally:
5)
"For that reason the subject, having prudently examined the circuмstances and been informed by the “doctrinal rules” or by the “principles of theology and law” that it is “beyond the power of legislator” to bind anyone to respect the law when it causes grave harm to so many souls, and that to obey in such a case would be “evil and a sin,” he may not - indeed, he must not - submit to the law or to the command“on his own authority,” “by his own judgment.” Hence, by his own initiative, he refuses submission “without recourse to the superior,” that is to say, without any dispensation or approval on the part of the said superior. The reason, writes Suarez, is: that in such a case the authority of the superior cannot have any effect; indeed, even if he were to will that the subject, after having had recourse to him, should observe the law, the latter would not be able to obey him because he must obey God rather than man and hence in such a case its is out of place (“impertinens”) to ask for permission." (Ibid, Part II)
Now, these quotes are applied to the case of allegedly "unauthorized" episcopal consecrations (i.e., consecrations which are, in truth, authorized by the state of necessity regardless of what the superior -in this case, the Pope- says).
It does not take much imagination to see all these principles applied to the case of Bishop Williamson's pastoral visit to Brazil:
1) When Bishop Fellay levied a punitive sanction against Dom Thomas Aquinas's monastery and faithful for not going along with the sellout of Tradition to modernist Rome, and refused to provide the sacraments of Order and Confirmation (and presumably also holy oils?), he immediately created a state of grave general spiritual necessity, because there were now "many souls" who were "threatened in spiritual goods" of "great importance" and who were "without hope of help from their legitimate pastors."
2) Yet Bishop Williamson -as bishop- had the grave duty to come to the aid of the faithful, which he could not refuse without committing mortal sin.
3) In the performance of this duty, there was no obligation to obtain the consent of Bishop Fellay,
because that consent was owed.
4) And had Bishop Williamson nevertheless asked permission, it would have been predictable declined, because though Bishop Fellay would be
physically accessible, he would be
morally inaccessible (i.e., Because Bishop Fellay, same as John Paul II above, was the ultimate cause of the necessity!), which nevertheless would not relieve Bishop Williamson of the grave duty the request from Santa Cruz had placed upon him.
Moreover, Bishop Williamson's action was heroic in view "of the easily foreseeable consequences:"
Implicitly, Fr, Bouchacourt's letter (quoted in post #41) stating confirmations had already been scheduled to be performed less than two months after Bishop Williamson's visit was a pre-emption of the claim of necessity...if such scheduling could be substantiated.
But as we discussed, if Bishop Fellay had already interdicted Dom Thomas Aquinas, then why were confirmations scheduled? And why was Dom Thomas Aquinas calling upon Bishop Williamson if such was the case?
5) At any rate, we arrive with Suarez at the same conclusion:
"
For that reason the subject, having prudently examined the circuмstances and been informed by the “doctrinal rules” or by the “principles of theology and law” that it is “beyond the power of legislator” to bind anyone to respect the law when it causes grave harm to so many souls, and that to obey in such a case would be “evil and a sin,” he may not - indeed, he must not - submit to the law or to the command“on his own authority,” “by his own judgment.” Hence, by his own initiative, he refuses submission “without recourse to the superior,” that is to say, without any dispensation or approval on the part of the said superior. The reason, writes Suarez, is: that in such a case the authority of the superior cannot have any effect; indeed, even if he were to will that the subject, after having had recourse to him, should observe the law, the latter would not be able to obey him because he must obey God rather than man and hence in such a case its is out of place (“impertinens”) to ask for permission." (Ibid, Part II)
Consequently, we conclude that the expulsion of Bishop Williamson, in such measure as it was based upon this heroic pastoral visit, was unjust.
Topic: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX (Read 45616 times)