Betrayal by Three New Priests

On Sunday night, May 20, when the Archbishop arrived back at the Seminary at a late hour from Kansas, somewhat tired and travel-weary, no sooner had he stepped out of the car than he was served with a civil court summons in a suit to evict the Society from the seminary property here in Connecticut, a suit filed by Fathers Cekada, Dolan, Jenkins, Kelly and Sanborn. Those standing by noticed and will not easily forget the look of pain on the face of the Archbishop, who it must be remembered was their Father in the Priesthood. Now according to the old Code of Canon Law, anyone citing a Catholic Bishop before a civil judge incurs automatic excommunication (Canon 2341). Hence, according to the only Code of Canon Law which they themselves recognize, these five priests are excommunicated!

Then a few days later, an event which should have taken by surprise no Catholic familiar with the Gospel story of the betrayal of Our Lord, but which has nevertheless caused deep shock and heart-ache and scandal to countless Catholics: of the four newly ordained Priests who had freely requested and received Ordination within the Society of St. Pius X at the hands of its Founder, Archbishop Lefebvre, after freely taking on the evening before with their hand on the Gospels a solemn oath of Fidelity to their Superiors, two of the four, on the stormy afternoon of May 23, amidst flashes of lightning and torrents of rain, walked out of the Seminary and went to join the nine Priests who defected last year, and two days later a third, already absent, announced that he was doing the same. And it was night.

A few facts will highlight the nature of this deed. Firstly, we now know that very soon after the defection of the Nine one year ago, these three actually told someone that they intended to lie low in order to get the priesthood. Certainly over the course of one whole year their words and actions in the Seminary were of a nature to persuade everyone, priests, seminarians and even visitors from outside, that they would be loyal to the Society. Did they for one whole year live a lie?

Secondly, on the very eve of their Ordination, in accordance with the Traditional requirements of Mother Church, all three took a solemn Oath of Fidelity at the Altar of God, with their hand touching the Gospels before the Blessed Sacrament in the opened Tabernacle, swearing amongst other things that they would respectfully obey their Superiors in the Society of St. Pius X. The complete text of this Oath and the signatures of all three are enclosed with this letter.

The alterations made to the text by one of them suggest he was not at ease, and indeed to swear such an Oath at all each of them must have found or been given a way of justifying or rationalizing to himself and to others what he did. However, if before God they here committed perjury, then their receiving of Holy Orders in such a state will have been, thirdly, a grave sacrilege.

Fourthly, towards the end of the Traditional Ordination ceremony, each of the three placed his hands between the hands of the Archbishop, for the Archbishop to ask him in Latin, "Do you promise to me and my successors reverence and obedience?" Each of the three answered distinctly, "Promitto", meaning "I promise".

Fifthly, the at least apparent breaking, within ten days, of these solemn Oaths and Promises, taken together withpiece  all the other circuмstances of this latest defection, has caused and will continue to cause a terrible scandal to Catholics; not only to those attached to Tradition who supported and assisted these three because they trusted them to follow Archbishop Lefebvre in defense of the Faith, but also to countless others not yet attached to Tradition who will wrongly but understandably say that if Tradition fosters such disloyalty, then they want none of it.

By way of comment upon these facts, let three quotations for the moment suffice. On May 27 of this year, Fr. Sanborn said from the pulpit in Traverse City, Michigan, "I am very pleased to announce three of the four Priests who were ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre on May 13 have decided to come with us. This makes me very happy because I trained them, and so not all the fruits of my labor as Rector of the Seminary were lost."  (Does Fr. Sanborn realize what fruits he is laying claim to?).

On April 28 of last year, just after the split between the Society and the Nine, Archbishop Lefebvre said at the Seminary to all the seminarians, including the three who have just defected: "I hope you will make the good choice. But you must choose. If you agree with the position and attitude and orientation of Fr. Kelly, then follow Fr. Kelly. If you think Mgr. Lefebvre is right, then follow the attitude of Msgr. and the Fraternity. But you must be clear ....  honest. Do not say: I will be silent until after my ordination. That is wrong! God knows that! That is a lie before God..... not before me. I am nothing. But before God! You cannot do that! " That is precisely what Fr. Dolan said, i.e. "I knew how to keep quiet until my ordination". I cannot understand him doing that! A future priest doing that??"

And on May 30 of this year, one of the three latest defectors, when reproached by a lady that such a blow as these actions of theirs might have killed the Archbishop, replied "Oh, he's 78 years old anyway. Mark you, I'm grateful to him, because without him I wouldn't be a priest".

People might ask how such a thing could happen inside a Seminary, and whether the same will not happen again. The answer is that Jesus saw to the very depths of the human heart (John VI, 65,71), but still chose to allow an Apostle to be unfaithful. As for Jesus' Priests, we can only see into human hearts, in the words of the Ordination Rite itself, "as far as human frailty allows us to know". Also there comes a point of mistrust at which the service of God seizes up and a Catholic Seminary can no longer operate, because charity "believes all things and hopes in all things" (1 Cor. XIII 7). However we are keeping our eyes open, and one seminarian has already been asked to leave since the defection, who under questioning clearly shared the defectors' way of thinking.

Fr. Richard Williamson

http://www.sspxseminary.org/publications/rectors-letters-separator/rectors-letter/68.html

I just read this in the book of Ridgefield Letters. Its shocking. It makes me wonder about how this affects the fruit of their later work considering how sin can blind or cloud the intellect and cause people to fall into more errors. Hopefully the Lord has long since forgiven them if they were ever guilty.

There wouldn't have been a Fr. Rostand fairy-tale district superior.  
When it comes down to it it's not that difficult to tear down someone's reputation.   It has been said before but an amicable separation would have been the greater benefit to the Church. Nuff said

The 'Nine' left the sspx after disagreements with +ABL.  So what?  Neither side was guilt-less and neither side was completely pure in their interests or decisions.  

Decades later...Both sides were spiritually fruitful (and still are), so whatever mistakes they made, they obviously repented and God blessed them.  Life happens.  People need to move on and quit re-opening this wound and let it heal.

I too wonder the same. Yet my wonderings are in the direction:  What would have been had Msgr. Lefebvre acknowledged the criticisms of the Nine, made the necessary corrections, and stopped seeking an amicable relationship with Wojtyła?

It seems to have turned out well for ABL in the end. Would it really have been best if he did as you suggest? Maybe there would be no difference (I'm talking about relations with the pope, not the 9). I think he was doing his duty pretty well given the circuмstances.

I too wonder the same. Yet my wonderings are in the direction:  What would have been had Msgr. Lefebvre acknowledged the criticisms of the Nine, made the necessary corrections, and stopped seeking an amicable relationship with Wojtyła?

But you have it completely backwards.

The Nine were supposed to do as they solemnly vowed to do, acknowledge and obey the direction and criticisms of +ABL, stop wanting to dictate which Mass to celebrate, stop concerning themselves about the status of the popes and simply do what they were ordained to do - concern themselves with doing all of their priestly duties as best as they can for the salvation of souls and for the greater glory of God, that's what was expected of them, that's why they were ordained. Not to scandalize and drive a wedge in the whole trad effort for generations.

 But that's all they had to do, just do what they were actually supposed to do, and for that, maybe, just maybe God would have rewarded them and the whole trad world with thousands, maybe 10s of thousands of more good, holy priests and bishops - who knows what else? 

But no, they gave into their stinking pride - and for what?        

Oh, give it a rest.  Utterly pathetic.  This has been the perennial hypocrisy of the SSPX, where their very raison d'etre rests upon the notion that one's conscience trumps the requirement for obedience to even the putative "Vicar of Christ", and yet you're evil if you have to disagree with +Lefebvre.  Give it a rest.  They could have gone about it differently, but in principle they were absolutely right and +Lefebvre was wrong.  +Lefebvre was in a hopeful phase in the early 1980s that can hardly be distinguished from the attitude of +Fellay and the very reasons that the Resistance have broken off from SSPX.

What would you do if you had to assist at Mass "offered" by one Mr. Stark?  Obey +Lefebvre and just receive doubtful Sacraments?

1. In principle they were wrong; they only "happened" to be right about 30 years early. Which = being wrong, being lucky. It's like a broken clock. It's 3:40 PM, but the clock reads 7:53. Ooooh, The clock is ahead of it's time! *4 hours 13 minutes later* Look! It's 7:53 PM! That clock *knew*. It was ahead of its time!

You can't oppose someone good saying they're "bad" and then jump up and down and celebrate when that person goes bad in 30 years. You had no way of knowing that; so you were simply WRONG, and only COINCIDENTALLY right -- EVENTUALLY. But that's like a broken clock being right sometimes. Timing is PART of being right. There was no bad orientation or dead-end path being pursued by the SSPX when the Naughty Nine left. The SSPX was still favored by God, solidly defending the Faith, etc.

And no, our hindsight doesn't count against +Lefebvre's *eventually* unsuccessful deal with Rome. +Lefebvre did NOT do ANYTHING that +Fellay did. He didn't change/compromise/contradict himself in pursuit of a merely practical accord. He was against that idea, and history shows he rejected any such deal. HE had to try, for history's sake. Now we all have the luxury of knowing how far gone Rome is -- thanks to +Lefebvre's efforts. HE *had* to try. No one else SHOULD try today, however, because there is no reason to believe Rome has changed. On the contrary, all the evidence points to the fact that things are WORSE in Rome today. So no, +Lefebvre's actions must not be confused in any way with +Fellay or Fr. Pagliarani's.

If they wanted to leave for their sedevacantism and other personal opinions (how to handle disputed marriages -- human beings still have to eat, live, die, get married -- during the Crisis in the Church, etc.) then they should have just left. They didn't have to sue +ABL and try to steal the name, steal countless properties, chapels, Faithful, etc. That wasn't right then and it still wasn't right.

2. We've been through this discussion earlier in the Resistance's history. If you want me to bump some threads, I guess I can do that. It might take time to dig it up however. Suffice to say, NO, there is no resemblance between the Resistance and the Naughty Nine.

3. What the heck are you going on about a Mr. Stark? Are you talking about Iron Man? What does that have to do with the SSPX?

I am puzzled by the current canonical status of the SSPX, but in 1982 the Society was either in a state of suppresion or it was merely a pious union, ala a confraternity like the Sacred Heart Auto League.

The SSPX is a mere pious union or confraternity like the Sacred Heart Auto League, yes. But the status of the SSPV is even lower 

The priests in question (9+3) never took a solemn vow for anything related to the SSPX. The engagements with SSPX, whether temporary or perpetual, are not vows and, canonically, not even promises on the level of an ordination promise of obedience. In fact, the SSPX could never receive a solemn vow from anyone. Those are reserved to religious orders, not even religious congregations of common life let alone a community like explicitly says that it exists without vows.

I am puzzled by the current canonical status of the SSPX, but in 1982 the Society was either in a state of suppresion or it was merely a pious union, ala a confraternity like the Sacred Heart Auto League.

I thought it was a little higher, but what do I know. The term "Papal rite" sticks in my head for some reason. I think I heard it in a video of Fr Coenraad speaking about ABL and the formation of the SSPX.

Still, what does it mean if someone makes a promise before the Blessed Sacrament at their ordination? Nothing?