It is my understanding that the professor of Canon Law at Econe accompanied Archbishop Thuc on this venture. If this episode is to be used as the basis of demonstrating the “senility” of Archbishop Ngo-Dinh-Thuc, then one must argue that Archbishop Lefebvre and his canon lawyer must have been equally senile. Of course, Father Noel Barbara is elderly and occasionally forgetful. Perhaps he is also senile. And what are we to say of Bishop Guerard and Bishop Carmona’s inability to recognize that they were being consecrated by a doddering old fool? (Quod absit.) Are we then to consider anyone whose thoughts or actions we find offensive as senile? Let us now turn to the issue of senility, or to use the more precise psychiatric term, dementia. Here we indeed have an example of fools stepping where angels fear to tread. Few things are more difficult to determine than the presence of minor and subtle degrees of dementia. . . . Polemicists speak of the necessity of the “full command of reason.” If by this phrase one understands that the individual is at all times logical, then almost everyone involved in the current controversies—where lack of reason is so often manifested—would be administering invalid sacraments. I would suggest, however, that what is meant by this phrase is not that a priest at all times be some paragon of reasoning ability, but that he know what he is about when confecting a sacrament. There is absolutely no evidence that Archbishop Thuc did not know what he was doing or that he was acting unwillingly. It is absurd to suggest that a person can go through a three-hour relatively public and highlydemanding ceremony such as an episcopal consecration, and not know what he is doing. . . . Allow me to conclude by stating that the diatribes asserting that Archbishop NgoDinh-Thuc was suffering from “senile dementia,” “mental impairment,” “doubtful lucidity,” or “lacked the full command of reason,” to say nothing about their declaring him “insane,” are patently absurd and the supposed evidence offered for such affirmations only exists in the minds of those who would use insinuation and innuendo to αssαssιnαtҽ his character. Even if appropriate testing had been performed and some mild loss of memory or cognitive function demonstrated, there would be no grounds for declaring him incompetent. What is at issue is competence and in psychiatry, as well as in theology, an act is considered “sane” or “rational” (sacramental theology would add “human”) when the person who performs it knows what he is doing and freely wills to do it. Not having examined the Archbishop personally, I am not in a position to give any psychiatric opinion as to the state of his mentation. However, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it seems patently obvious that we must consider him to have been fully aware of what he was doing and in no way either “conned” or coerced. In essence, we are forced to assume that he acted in his right mind and was fully competent. We simply cannot go around declaring those whose actions, judgments and thoughts we find personally abhorrent are somehow mentally defective. To do so is plain and simple calumny.

But let us also focus on the evidence for Bp. Thuc’s sanity. What follows is a brief scorecard of eyewitnesses who knew Bp. Thuc and could testify regarding his sanity at the time of the consecrations in 1981:

What is the evidence of the eyewitnesses who knew Archbishop Thuc?

1. Dr. Hiller and Dr. Heller. These are the two German eyewitnesses of both these consecrations. They knew Archbishop Thuc intimately, having seen him regularly when the Archbishop resided in Munich for a number of months. They have both testified under oath, one in writing, the other orally, with God as their witness, that Archbishop Thuc was in full command of his faculties when he performed the above mentioned consecrations. These laymen are well-educated, intelligent, and alert; there is absolutely no reason to doubt their veracity or their ability to judge the Archbishop’s state of mind.

2. Fr. Noël Barbara. Fr. Barbara went to see Archbishop Thuc in the Spring of 1981 and then again in January 1982. He thus saw him both before and after the consecrations. Fr. Barbara has sworn, in writing, with God as his witness, that both times he found Archbishop Thuc to be in full use of his mental faculties, and that he answered the questions put to him about the consecrations clearly. Fr. Barbara also wrote, immediately after the January visit, notes concerning his conversation with Archbishop Thuc. These notes reflect the clear mind of the Archbishop, as he answered questions with clarity and distinct memory.

3. Fr. Gustave Delmasure. This priest, who was a well-respected traditional priest in France, former pastor of a parish in Cannes, went to see Archbishop Thuc in March of 1982. He has given sworn testimony, with God as his witness, that he found Archbishop Thuc to be in his right mind, and that he responded to his questions with swiftness and clarity.

4. Bishop Guérard des Lauriers. In a personal interview with Fr. Joseph Collins, Bishop Guérard des Lauriers, who himself had been consecrated in May, 1981 by Archbishop Thuc, attested to the fact that the Archbishop was in his right mind. He said that the rite of consecration was followed integrally by Archbishop Thuc, and that he (Thuc) was of sound mind throughout the ceremony. (Bishop Guérard des Lauriers was a well-known Dominican theologian who taught at the Lateran University in Rome, and who advised Pope Pius XII on the definition of the dogma of the Assumption in 1950).

5. Fr. Philippe Guépin. Fr. Guépin is a traditional priest who says Mass for a large group in Nantes. He was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1977, and was asked to leave the Society of St. Pius X in 1980 because he refused to recognize John Paul II as pope. He knew Archbishop Thuc at Ecône, and had prolonged conversations with him. He has attested that Archbishop Thuc was in his right mind.

6. Fr. Bruno Schaeffer, who was ordained by Abp. Thuc in 1982 (after the episcopal consecrations) told Fr. Guépin that Abp. Thuc was completely in his right mind, and that he observed the rite of ordination perfectly.

7. Eyewitnesses who saw him and knew him in Rochester, New York, where Abp. Thuc stayed in 1983 and 1984, also attested to the fact that even at that time, shortly before his death in 1984, Abp. Thuc was in his right mind, and offered daily Mass. To this list we may also add the name of Mr. James Condit, Jr., of Cincinnati, Ohio, who met Bp. Thuc in Northern Kentucky in early 1982. Mr. Condit told me personally that he had found the bishop to be of entirely sound mind and that he had offered Holy Mass with great decorum. Furthermore, the bishop had distributed Holy Communion without any help from then-Fr. Louis Vezelis, who was also present, and this at an attendance of over 100 adults and children, according to Mr. Condit’s recollection.

While I am also aware of also other eyewitnesses who are on record testifying to Bp. Thuc’s sanity and mental stability, including Bp. Robert McKenna, Fr. Neil Webster, and Fr. Francis Miller.  With all of this eyewitness testimony sufficient to allow us to have moral certitude regarding Bp. Thuc’s lucidity, it is reasonable to ask the following questions: [A]re all these people liars? All of these eyewitnesses say the same thing, even though they knew Abp Thuc at different times and in different circuмstances. Are they all lying? It would be ridiculous to say such a thing. Those who would have us believe, for whatever reason, that Archbishop Thuc was not lucid are telling us to conclude that all the eyewitnesses cited above are BOLDFACED LIARS. That would mean that faithful Roman Catholic priests, some of them ordained for fifty years or more, and who have labored for the salvation of souls their whole lives, are LIARS, calling down the authority of God to witness to their wicked lies. This they would do shortly before they go to God for judgement, and in such important a matter as an episcopal consecration. This supposition is absurd and very uncharitable. There is no better testimony than that of sworn eyewitnesses. No one can reasonably fault someone for taking the word of reliable sworn eyewitnesses. I remind you that the classic, time-tested, and universal way in which to establish a fact is the sworn eyewitness testimony of reliable witnesses. It is the way in which every court of law determines the fact of crime or innocence. Based on such testimony, human beings are either exonerated or condemned, sometimes to death. The law courts of the Catholic Church operate on the sworn testimony of reliable witnesses. Most importantly, our Blessed Lord sanctioned the practice with divine approval: And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. (Matthew 18:16) And in the Gospel of Saint Mark, Our Lord upbraids the disciples for not having believed the witnesses of his resurrection. (Mark 16:14).

 “checkmated”