M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=15577
Has anyone seen the La Stampa story (I can only find what appears to be the journalist’s blog in Italian)? Or is there news of this from another source?
- Status
Has anyone seen the La Stampa story (I can only find what appears to be the journalist’s blog in Italian)? Or is there news of this from another source?
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
This would not go over well. Bp. Williamson - his extremely controversial comments on the holocaust aside - is notwithstanding a very profound thinker and associated at least symbolically with those in opposition to any accord with Rome. Expelling him would almost certainly appear (regardless of any genuine good reasons) as nothing other than an attempt to forcibly silence and dismiss any legitimate criticism or concerns of the leadership of the SSPX (or Menzingen [sp?]).
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
A vagus bishop is nothing new so one more won’t make much of a ripple. Apparently, you can become a validly ordained bishop with a documented lineage quite easily if you know who to go to.
That’s my impression, anyway, from what I’ve read. The barque of Peter sails on.
That’s my impression, anyway, from what I’ve read. The barque of Peter sails on.
C
Cristiano
Guest
This is the original article in Italian
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/homepage/documenti/dettaglio-articolo/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-18066/
This is the Google translation if you prefer:
translate.google.com/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fvaticaninsider.lastampa.it%2Fhomepage%2Fdocumenti%2Fdettaglio-articolo%2Farticolo%2Flefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-18066%2F
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/homepage/documenti/dettaglio-articolo/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-18066/
This is the Google translation if you prefer:
translate.google.com/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fvaticaninsider.lastampa.it%2Fhomepage%2Fdocumenti%2Fdettaglio-articolo%2Farticolo%2Flefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-18066%2F
J
Joe_5859
Guest
The most important words are “could be”. Let me know if it actually happens. 
M
Melchior_1
Guest
The SSPX have no canonical status, so they can’t expel him unless they themselves leave the Church.
If His Grace ignores their expelling, they have no teeth or recourse to actually enforce it.
If His Grace ignores their expelling, they have no teeth or recourse to actually enforce it.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
SSPXs are not “traditional Catholics.” They’re schismatics plain and simple, so I could not care less what they do with their alleged bishops. Though disassociating themselves with a Holocaust denier is always a good idea.
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
Well, I don’t know about that. I agree that the SSPX has no canonical powers or authority in actuality; notwithstanding, it does have its own rules and internal laws that could be put to use. At times and for some, “loyalty to the Superior General” can itself be, as it were, a law.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
I’m pretty sure the laws and rules which are in place are given teeth by Canon Law. Anything that a Superior General can do, His Grace Fellay can’t do because he lacks the canonical authority to do so.
M
Moore11
Guest
Getting rid of Williamson and bringing Asia back into line would be very very good. With all the bad news lately I think this is a sliver of positive news.
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
Pfff. All Bishop Fellay has to say is “Williamson is out” and that’s the end of it. Whatever their status, if a group wants you out, you’re out.
If he wants to be clever, he can let Bp. Williamson expel himself. Just let him continue his current course and wait. It would help the Society’s image and get rid of a loose cannon. Double bonus.
There are positive and negative traditionalists. The positive ones perceive Something (or Someone) in the Tridentine Rite and derive many secret graces from traditional practices. They want this for everyone. They mourn the modern mass with the distracting populist accretions.
Negative traditionalists bang on about Rome and the latest progressive folly. They seethe. Their Catholicism is defined in a negative way: what they are against.
The Society had a clear-out of sedevacantists at one time and this could be another episode of something similar.
If he wants to be clever, he can let Bp. Williamson expel himself. Just let him continue his current course and wait. It would help the Society’s image and get rid of a loose cannon. Double bonus.
There are positive and negative traditionalists. The positive ones perceive Something (or Someone) in the Tridentine Rite and derive many secret graces from traditional practices. They want this for everyone. They mourn the modern mass with the distracting populist accretions.
Negative traditionalists bang on about Rome and the latest progressive folly. They seethe. Their Catholicism is defined in a negative way: what they are against.
The Society had a clear-out of sedevacantists at one time and this could be another episode of something similar.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
I must admit that I find this to be a peculiar attitude for a self-styled traditionalist to hold. I thought you and others would be in favor following Canon Law and the regulations for Societies of Apostolic Life.
L
Lormar
Guest
Whether Bishop Williamson stays or goes is of no consequence to me, but I have come to take any news flashes from any other source other than the pope himself or the “upper management” of the SSPX with a grain of salt. I often get the impression that these other news sources are just looking to kick up dust.
M
Moore11
Guest
Everyone understands and gets the irony of the SSPX Kicking someone out for disobedience. It does not need to be pointed out as a gotcha moment for traditionalists. Or as an inconsistency in traditional thought. But rather lets look at this as good thing because Williamson is a huge problem.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
That’s what I was thinking also. Although La Stampa is a reliable source, the article is still basically reporting on a rumor. I thought perhaps those with better connections might know something about all this.
Well, I will settle back and continue to pray for reconciliation.
H
Hokomai
Guest
Do you have any examples of his ‘profound thoughts’?
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
I’m sure he’ll get due process.
J
JReducation
Guest
With all due respect, is anyone here, beside myself a major superior? Is anyone here a Canon Lawyer (I’m not)?
There are some issues here.
First:
No member of a society of apostolic life, religious order, religious congregation or diocese can be dismissed without the written consent of the Holy See. That’s Canon Law.
Second:
To be dismissed, except for child sexual abuse, there must be a trial which can only be held by the Church, not the institute that is doing the dismissing. The proper superior begins the dismissal process by making the request and presenting the evidence against the accused. The accused has the right to appeal to the Holy See. Remember Fr. Corapi. The Holy See can hand down a ruling or can send the matter to the tribunal for a trial. It’s up to the Holy See. If the Holy see hands down a ruling, there is no appeal. If a tribunal hands down a ruling, either side can appeal to the next highest tribunal all the way up to the pope himself… No institute has the legal authority to put anyone on trial. A diocese can put its men on trial, because dioceses have tribunals recognized by the Church.
Third:
If the SSPX dismisses the bishop, without going through the proper canonical process, then it is acting outside of the law. This will only create more concerns with the curia. It begs the question on the part of every major superior, “Is the SSPX a law unto itself? Why can they do this, get away with it and the rest of us cannot do this?” I doubt that the Holy See will want to tackle that question. It’s better for the Holy See to let the SSPX do its thing and then declare it illegal.
Fourth:
The only response that the Holy See can give to the rest of the major superiors around the world is that the SSPX is not in full communion with the Church; therefore, the Church has no jurisdiction. This will only affirm what many SSPX supporters have been denying. Many SSPX supporters continue to say that the SSPX is in communion with the Church and that there is no such thing as partial communion or an imperfect communion. If it is truly in full communion with the Church, it must follow due process established by the Vatican and by Pope John Paul II, not by the SSPX. Pope John Paul II was the last pope to review the laws regarding dismissal when he abrogated the right of a sex abuser to a trial before dismissal and established that any bishop (for diocesan clergy) and any major superior (for religious) could initiate dismissal proceedings without a trial or even a preliminary hearing. However, neither the bishop nor the superior can dismiss. They suspend and do the paperwork. Only the Holy See can dismiss. Bishop Fellay cannot suspend Bishop Williamson, because both of them are already suspended. Bishop Fellay has not legal right to be functioning as a priest either, except to celebrate a mass in his room. The plot thickens.
Fifth:
That’s the law. The SSPX would have to act outside of the law. If it chooses to act within the law, I foresee that Bishop Williamson is not going anywhere, since the bishop is unlikely to cooperate with a Church tribunal. If he submits to a Church tribunal and the tribunal rules against him, the tribunal has the authority to place him somewhere. The tribunal cannot leave any ordained man (deacon, priest or bishop) or any religious in solemn vows out there on his or her own. The other option would be for the tribunal to dismiss him from the clerical state. He would then be mandated to live out the rest of his days as if he were a layman (laicization). He’ll never be a layman, but he will not have any of the rights, duties or benefits of being a cleric. I don’t foresee Bishop Williamson complying.
Maybe this is why the Italian report concludes by saying that there is no official comment from the SSPX generalate and if there were to be a dismissal, it’s not in the near future.
MY GUESS is that the SSPX will wait to be regularized and then throw the problem into the hands of the Holy See. From where I sit, it sounds like the most prudent thing to do. Bishop Fellay, as the superior general, has the authority to keep any of his men out of circulatioin. Whether the man complies or not is another question that none of us can answer.
The irony here is that one of the allegations against Bishop Williamson is that he administered Confirmation without Bishop Fellay’s permission. Legally, he does not need Bishop Fellay’s permission. He needs the permission of the bishop of the diocese where the confirmations took place.
The concern is misplaced. Bishop Fellay has no jurisdiction in any diocese on this planet. He cannot grant permission to confirm. He can only grant permission to travel for the purpose of confirming. From there, it’s up to the local bishop. Yet, why is this not a concern to anyone except the Church? Administering Confirmation without the permission of the diocesan bishop is a serious violation of Church law. Confirming without Bishop Fellay’s permission is a violation of the constitutions of the SSPX. The constitutions do not trump Canon Law unless the are 200 years old or more.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
There are some issues here.
First:
No member of a society of apostolic life, religious order, religious congregation or diocese can be dismissed without the written consent of the Holy See. That’s Canon Law.
Second:
To be dismissed, except for child sexual abuse, there must be a trial which can only be held by the Church, not the institute that is doing the dismissing. The proper superior begins the dismissal process by making the request and presenting the evidence against the accused. The accused has the right to appeal to the Holy See. Remember Fr. Corapi. The Holy See can hand down a ruling or can send the matter to the tribunal for a trial. It’s up to the Holy See. If the Holy see hands down a ruling, there is no appeal. If a tribunal hands down a ruling, either side can appeal to the next highest tribunal all the way up to the pope himself… No institute has the legal authority to put anyone on trial. A diocese can put its men on trial, because dioceses have tribunals recognized by the Church.
Third:
If the SSPX dismisses the bishop, without going through the proper canonical process, then it is acting outside of the law. This will only create more concerns with the curia. It begs the question on the part of every major superior, “Is the SSPX a law unto itself? Why can they do this, get away with it and the rest of us cannot do this?” I doubt that the Holy See will want to tackle that question. It’s better for the Holy See to let the SSPX do its thing and then declare it illegal.
Fourth:
The only response that the Holy See can give to the rest of the major superiors around the world is that the SSPX is not in full communion with the Church; therefore, the Church has no jurisdiction. This will only affirm what many SSPX supporters have been denying. Many SSPX supporters continue to say that the SSPX is in communion with the Church and that there is no such thing as partial communion or an imperfect communion. If it is truly in full communion with the Church, it must follow due process established by the Vatican and by Pope John Paul II, not by the SSPX. Pope John Paul II was the last pope to review the laws regarding dismissal when he abrogated the right of a sex abuser to a trial before dismissal and established that any bishop (for diocesan clergy) and any major superior (for religious) could initiate dismissal proceedings without a trial or even a preliminary hearing. However, neither the bishop nor the superior can dismiss. They suspend and do the paperwork. Only the Holy See can dismiss. Bishop Fellay cannot suspend Bishop Williamson, because both of them are already suspended. Bishop Fellay has not legal right to be functioning as a priest either, except to celebrate a mass in his room. The plot thickens.
Fifth:
That’s the law. The SSPX would have to act outside of the law. If it chooses to act within the law, I foresee that Bishop Williamson is not going anywhere, since the bishop is unlikely to cooperate with a Church tribunal. If he submits to a Church tribunal and the tribunal rules against him, the tribunal has the authority to place him somewhere. The tribunal cannot leave any ordained man (deacon, priest or bishop) or any religious in solemn vows out there on his or her own. The other option would be for the tribunal to dismiss him from the clerical state. He would then be mandated to live out the rest of his days as if he were a layman (laicization). He’ll never be a layman, but he will not have any of the rights, duties or benefits of being a cleric. I don’t foresee Bishop Williamson complying.
Maybe this is why the Italian report concludes by saying that there is no official comment from the SSPX generalate and if there were to be a dismissal, it’s not in the near future.
MY GUESS is that the SSPX will wait to be regularized and then throw the problem into the hands of the Holy See. From where I sit, it sounds like the most prudent thing to do. Bishop Fellay, as the superior general, has the authority to keep any of his men out of circulatioin. Whether the man complies or not is another question that none of us can answer.
The irony here is that one of the allegations against Bishop Williamson is that he administered Confirmation without Bishop Fellay’s permission. Legally, he does not need Bishop Fellay’s permission. He needs the permission of the bishop of the diocese where the confirmations took place.
The concern is misplaced. Bishop Fellay has no jurisdiction in any diocese on this planet. He cannot grant permission to confirm. He can only grant permission to travel for the purpose of confirming. From there, it’s up to the local bishop. Yet, why is this not a concern to anyone except the Church? Administering Confirmation without the permission of the diocesan bishop is a serious violation of Church law. Confirming without Bishop Fellay’s permission is a violation of the constitutions of the SSPX. The constitutions do not trump Canon Law unless the are 200 years old or more.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
P
pnewton
Guest
I admit that I found that rather ironic myself. My own lay opinion is that this is a mess. I have absolutely no idea beyond that except that I am glad I do not have to deal with it. Oh, what a tangled web we weave when from Rome we take our leave.
I
i_am_a_Catholic
Guest
How can one be a profound thinker if they cannot even grasp something historically recent as the Holocaust? Just saying…
- Status