There are a couple of fine points that posters are missing.
Bishop Fellay is the Superior General of the Society. He must be obeyed, whether he’s right or wrong. That comes with the job description. Unless a superior orders something that is either sinful or against Church law, he must be obeyed.
Disobedience of a direct order from a major superior is sufficient cause for dismissal in any institute.
The Society of St. Pius X is not a religious community. It is a secular institute that currently has no canonical status in the Church. Therefore, the members do not have canonical rights. They are subject to the authority of the Superior General to whom they promise obedience. There is no appeal, because they lack canonical standing in the Church. They cannot take the case to the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. Even though they are a Society of Apostolic Life, they have no canonical standing. The Sacred Congregation has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. This leaves Bishop Fellay free to dismiss without being challenged.
Even if the Society had canonical standing, it still remains a secular institute. It would have the canonical right to dismiss members. The Superior General cannot dismiss anyone from the clerical state. He can only dismiss from the Society. In that case, the priest or bishop is automatically suspended until he finds a bishop who will incardinate him into his diocese. However, a suspended deacon, priest or bishp cannot be incardinated until he is cleared by the Holy See. If Bishop Williamson were to be dismissed and if he were not already suspended, he would be suspended upon dismissal. He must find a bishop to take him under his wings and that bishop would have to apply to Rome to reinstate him.
Only religious in solemn vows and perpetuallly professed members of Pontifical Secular Orders may not be dismissed by the Major Superior without Rome’s consent to dismiss. They may be suspended, but not dismissed without the Vatican’s permission. But this does not apply to the Society. They are not in solemn vows, nor are they a Secular Order.
The Holy Father had ordered Bishop Williamson to put distance between him and his position on this issue. Defending himself in court may appear to be a defense of his position. I say may appear to be, because for all I know he may just be defending that he is being wrongly accused, which is a whole other defense. But if he’s arguing that his position had validity and that the German Government has no right to penalize him, then he’s still hanging on to his position. This is a postion that clergy and religious may not hold on to, by papal orders to all of us.
Because Bishop Williamson is a secular priest, he has one defense, if the Society allows it. Normally, the promise of obedience made by secular clergy only includes pastoral duties, not personal positions, even if they are positions that are contrary to faith and morals. Bishops can only demand that their clergy desist from making such statements if they do harm to the work of the diocese or in this case, to the work of the Society. If he can prove that his position does not do harm to the work of the Society and that hiring this lawyer is not harmful to the Society, he may have a case. But there is still the problem of who’s going to hear his case. The Roman tribunal cannot hear his case, because it has no jurisdiction over a group that has no canonical status. So we’re back at square one. He’s at the mercy of Bishop Fellay. Moral law is on Bishop Fellay’s side, even if Canon Law cannot be invoked on this matter.
If I were in such a tight spot, I would just drop the lawyer and pay the fine.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
. I know and understand why Traditionalists need to distance ourselves from the far-right but its Roman Catholicism not Historicism. Maby JFK conspiracy theorists should be denied communion next…
