Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Message-ID: Date: 6 Aug 90 00:36:54 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Bell Labs (Liberty Corner) Lines: 104 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Cathy wrote: According to Canon Law, ordaining bishops outside the authority of the Pope is an offense which results in automatic excommunication. No hearing is necessary. The Catholic Church did not excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre; he excommunicated himself. There is no need for a trial. Because of the way the Church is structured, consecrating bishops without the consent of Rome is, pretty much by definition, starting your own church. Even if Lefebvre is 100% right, he's still a not a Roman Catholic. Excommunication is a recent penalty for this offense. Prior to some time in this century, it only merited suspension. If Lefebvre is right, then the excommunication is null and void, because it has been forced on him for his adherence and defence of the Catholic faith. As any canon lawyer can tell you, an excommunication need not be valid. Besides natural law considerations, there are also stipulations right in the code of canon law stating situations under which penalties do not apply. Whether Lefebvre is right or not really depends on the facts of the case. Because he is opposing the Pope, anyone who professes to agree with him had better have *very* good reasons for doing so. One can cease to be a Roman Catholic in two ways: - heresy - schism Well, maybe three. I think canon law distinguishes apostasy from heresy. Both heresy and schism have technical definitions. Heresy is out of the question in Mgr. Lefebvre's case. He's doctrinally Roman Catholic. That was one of my principal points about the lack of trials in his case. He has asked to be tried by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the competent tribunal in doctrinal matters. Rome has refused to do so. The real question is schism. That's where the technical details come in; perusal of the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on schism is in order. There's a difference between disobedience and schism. Schism involves more than just mere disobedience to legitimate authority. Mgr. Lefebvre is indeed disobeying canon law, but there's nothing intrinsically evil about that. It all depends on the reasons for his disobedience. The first law of canon law is that the salvation of souls is the supreme law. Laws that conflict with that are null and void. Mgr. Lefebvre's position is that, in order to perform his episcopal duty of preserving people's Catholic faith, he has to oppose some of what currently passes for Catholicism. (By the way, there is a Brazilian bishop helping him, Mgr. de Castro Mayer.) Lefebvre is doing just what's always been done. He says Mass the same way, administers the Sacraments the same way, teaches the same doctrines. His seminarians study St. Thomas Aquinas, papal encyclicals, the classical Catholic moral theology, etc. This is more than can be said of most Catholic seminaries today. The Catholic doctrinal teaching that he holds and teaches makes it quite impossible for him to go into a real schism. He believes that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, is infallible in defining matters of Faith and morals for the whole Church, possesses jurisdiction over the whole Church, etc. There are only two ways for him to fall, as I see it. One is to fall into doctrinal error on the nature of the Papacy or the Church. I doubt that this will happen, though time will tell. At present, neither he, nor any of those who sympathize with him, have this particular problem. The other way is to deny that John Paul II is Pope. There are groups that have fallen for this. I have in mind particularly the Palmar de Troya sect in Spain. They have their own Pope, Cardinals, etc. Lefebvre shows no sign of tolerating this view, either. He *is* disobeying the Pope, but everything really hinges on whether his disobedience is justified or not. For those who think that all is well in the Church, well, there's not much I can say. For those who know that there are major problems, well, inform yourselves about this man. Besides -- isn't due process one of those evil Modernist heresies from 18th-Century Liberalism? I assume this is meant as humor. Neither the Pope nor the bishops are tyrants; they are bound by the natural law, divine positive law, and, in the case of everyone but the Pope, the provisions of canon law. There are two standards being applied. Mgr. Lefebvre finds an ipso facto excommunication applied to himself, while American bishops who, judging by their actions, are out and out heretics, remain in positions of authority, there to destroy the Catholic faith of their flocks. There is a more positive side to all this. Perhaps now that Mgr. Lefebvre is considered excommunicated, the Catholic bishops can lend him their cathedrals for priestly ordinations, in the spirit of ecumenism. :-) Joe Buehler