Bishop Williamson to be expelled from SSPX?

[i_am_a_Catholic]

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

I think you might have missed the simpler point on this one good brother

Bishop Williamson will be kicked out of the SSPX. That is totally within their jurisdiction and a matter outside the Canon law of the church to begin with.

At this point (after being kicked out of the SSPX), Bishop Williamson will be in a rather odd situation for sure though …

 

[JReducation]

I think you might have missed the simpler point on this one good brother

Bishop Williamson will be kicked out of the SSPX. That is totally within their jurisdiction and a matter outside the Canon law of the church to begin with.

No it’s not. The SSPX claims to be Catholic. If it’s a true Catholic society of apostolic life, then it must follow the same laws as the rest of us.

In addition,you cannot dismiss an ordained man or a brother in solemn vows without laicizing him. Only the Holy See can laicize. To dismiss from an institute without laicizing is to kick someone out of their home. Every person has a right to a home. You have to laicize so that the person can then make a new life in a new home. There is no place for deacon, priest, bishop or brother among the laity. We have to belong to some institute or some diocese.

At this point (after being kicked out of the SSPX), Bishop Williamson will be in a rather odd situation for sure though …

Actually not any different from what he’s in now. As it is, the bishops of the SSPX are not being welcome with the SSPX. They each have to ask to come back individually, not with the Society. He would have to find another group to pick him up, start a group of his own, negotiate with Rome (which has always been Rome’s plan) or become a schismatic bishop.

I did not miss it. Reread what I wrote. If they decide to dismiss him without following the canonical process, then the SSPX is acting outside the law. I addressed that above. But then the SSPX will be acting as if it were a law unto itself, something that every bishop and religious superior will look at with concern.

One must remember, there are only 500 SSPX priests. There are more than two million religious priests and brothers and I don’t know how many diocesan deacons, priests and bishops around the globe. The Vatican is not about to tell larger group that the SSPX can do whatever it likes when it likes, but the rest of us cannot do so.

I don’t foresee this dismissal taking place until the rest of the issues between the Vatican are closer to a solution. I foresee the SSPX trying to follow Canon Law, if it truly wants to come home. This means that Bishop Williamson will have his day in court, if he wants it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[triumphguy]

How can one be a profound thinker if they cannot even grasp something historically recent as the Holocaust? Just saying…

You would have to be a really “profound” thinker… as in plumbing the depths!

 

[JReducation]

You would have to be a really “profound” thinker… as in plumbing the depths!

That’s the good thing about being either a cleric or a brother. Pope Benedict said that we are to put distance between us and the Holocaust denials or else.

When the pope speaks directly to you, there is no doubt that he is not expressing his personal opinion, doing wishful thinking, trying to teach something or just doing something the way he likes it. He’s giving you an order.

At that point, you no longer think. All thinking comes to a dead stop. Therefore, we don’t have to think profoundly or otherwise about the Holocaust. The pope has decided for us what we are to think. Life can be so sweet at times.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Filii_Dei]

That’s the good thing about being either a cleric or a brother. Pope Benedict said that we are to put distance between us and the Holocaust denials or else.

When the pope speaks directly to you, there is no doubt that he is not expressing his personal opinion, doing wishful thinking, trying to teach something or just doing something the way he likes it. He’s giving you an order.

At that point, you no longer think. All thinking comes to a dead stop. Therefore, we don’t have to think profoundly or otherwise about the Holocaust. The pope has decided for us what we are to think. Life can be so sweet at times.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Well agreed, Brother JR. Obedience can be very liberating.

 

[triumphguy]

That’s the good thing about being either a cleric or a brother. Pope Benedict said that we are to put distance between us and the Holocaust denials or else.

When the pope speaks directly to you, there is no doubt that he is not expressing his personal opinion, doing wishful thinking, trying to teach something or just doing something the way he likes it. He’s giving you an order.

At that point, you no longer think. All thinking comes to a dead stop. Therefore, we don’t have to think profoundly or otherwise about the Holocaust. The pope has decided for us what we are to think. Life can be so sweet at times.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Well said!

 

[JReducation]

Well agreed, Brother JR. Obedience can be very liberating.

Well said!

Last week, I gave the brothers a talk on obedience. I told them that Franciscan obedience is not about leaving your brain at the door. But if you follow Francis’ teaching on obedience, your brain will get more mileage with less wear and tear.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Hokomai]

That’s the good thing about being either a cleric or a brother. Pope Benedict said that we are to put distance between us and the Holocaust denials or else.

When the pope speaks directly to you, there is no doubt that he is not expressing his personal opinion, doing wishful thinking, trying to teach something or just doing something the way he likes it. He’s giving you an order.

At that point, you no longer think. All thinking comes to a dead stop. Therefore, we don’t have to think profoundly or otherwise about the Holocaust. The pope has decided for us what we are to think. Life can be so sweet at times.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I am not convinced, Brother, that one can stop thinking in this way, or that it would be desirable to do so. I used to know quite a few communists, and they had a similar approach to the ‘party line’. I was not comfortable with their approach, and I am not comfortable with yours. Critical thinking, in my view, should never be put aside, even if for some reason we decide to follow the lead of another person. I think much harm to many people could have been avoided had uncritical thinking been avoided.

 

[Chatter163]

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.

If the SSPX adhered to canon law (by recognzing the current Code), then there would have been no suspensions or excommunications in the first place, would there? There would be no need to establish a process for regularization, would there? They would already be regular.

Sorry, just seems an odd frame of reference when discussing a group that has not adhered to the framework.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Very interesting. Thanks for contributing Br JR - especially the idea of confirming without permission of the bishop in charge. There is obviously a problem with authority and obedience. The whole thing is odd.

 

[Lormar]

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.

You ought to get a trademark on that last sentence. Think of the possibilities! T-shirts, coffee mugs, hoodies…all with Oh, what a tangled web we weave when from Rome we take our leave emblazoned on them.

It is a mess. And there is more than just a single irony involved in it. Every day I thank God and our Blessed Mother that I was delivered from it. There are few graces in my life that have topped that.

 

[Lormar]

Very interesting. Thanks for contributing Br JR - especially the idea of confirming without permission of the bishop in charge. There is obviously a problem with authority and obedience. The whole thing is odd.

They are convinced that there is enough of a crisis still within the Church to warrant their actions.

 

[pnewton]

I am not convinced, Brother, that one can stop thinking in this way, or that it would be desirable to do so. I used to know quite a few communists, and they had a similar approach to the ‘party line’. I was not comfortable with their approach, and I am not comfortable with yours. Critical thinking, in my view, should never be put aside, even if for some reason we decide to follow the lead of another person. I think much harm to many people could have been avoided had uncritical thinking been avoided.

Franciscans do not put asied critical thinking as much as critical thinking occurs on another, a higher, level. Namely, there is already a deep understanding of the nature of God, Church authority, the Petrine ministry and the humility of St. Francis. Let us say that you are a new student of Tae Kwon Do who knows nothing of the sport. You have researched your instructor to discover his is both learned in the sport and has an excellent history of teaching the sport. Once you have arrived at that understanding and made your commitment, then you place yourself under his tutalege. If he said that he was going to start with a certain block, would you question this or would you challenge him that another block, punch or kick would be a better place to train, based on your internet research? Of course you would listem and obey. Because of the higher lever of critical thinking in decidine on this instructor, you suspend your critical thinking in lesser areas of trust.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I am not convinced, Brother, that one can stop thinking in this way, or that it would be desirable to do so.
It’s possible, it just takes practice.
I used to know quite a few communists, and they had a similar approach to the ‘party line’.
The Church isn’t a bunch of communists nor like any other organization out there. It’s in a catagory all its own with its “party line” coming from God.
I was not comfortable with their approach, and I am not comfortable with yours.
I’m not completely comfortable with it either, but we aren’t religous and lack a complete understanding of the approach and have been socialized to see such an approach as “wrong.”
Critical thinking, in my view, should never be put aside, even if for some reason we decide to follow the lead of another person. I think much harm to many people could have been avoided had uncritical thinking been avoided.
The history of and positive impact of the religous orders disproves this.

 

[i_am_a_Catholic]

No it’s not. The SSPX claims to be Catholic. If it’s a true Catholic society of apostolic life, then it must follow the same laws as the rest of us.

In addition,you cannot dismiss an ordained man or a brother in solemn vows without laicizing him. Only the Holy See can laicize. To dismiss from an institute without laicizing is to kick someone out of their home. Every person has a right to a home. You have to laicize so that the person can then make a new life in a new home. There is no place for deacon, priest, bishop or brother among the laity. We have to belong to some institute or some diocese.

The SSPX however is not a validly recognized order of the Catholic Church.

The SSPX are simply like a group of priests banding together, forming a group and giving themselves a title. So if these group of priests decide that one priest does not deserve to be in the group, they can kick that priest out of the group. This would be outside the jurisdiction of the church.

In the case of SSPX, if they did kick out Bishop Williamson, it would be to simply tell the ‘SSPX faithful’ that he is not part of the SSPX. I am pretty sure that the Catholic Church has no jurisdiction on this matter in that sense.

The only matter the Church has control over is the issue of banding together and forming a group called SSPX in the first place. Regarding that, the church has already spoken. Further than that, it would be meaningless for the church to speak about it.

In short, the church would have no jurisdiction to speak of the exclusion of someone from a group that the church sees to be illegitimate to begin with.

 

[triumphguy]

The SSPX however is not a validly recognized order of the Catholic Church.

The SSPX are simply like a group of priests banding together, forming a group and giving themselves a title. So if these group of priests decide that one priest does not deserve to be in the group, they can kick that priest out of the group. This would be outside the jurisdiction of the church.

In the case of SSPX, if they did kick out Bishop Williamson, it would be to simply tell the ‘SSPX faithful’ that he is not part of the SSPX. I am pretty sure that the Catholic Church has no jurisdiction on this matter in that sense.

The only matter the Church has control over is the issue of banding together and forming a group called SSPX in the first place. Regarding that, the church has already spoken. Further than that, it would be meaningless for the church to speak about it.

In short, the church would have no jurisdiction to speak of the exclusion of someone from a group that the church sees to be illegitimate to begin with.

When you’re trying to be more Catholic than the Pope then you need to be seen to be acting more Catholic than the Pope, and this includes following Canon Law.

Especially if you want to get back inside the Barque of St. Peter at some point.

 

[i_am_a_Catholic]

When you’re trying to be more Catholic than the Pope then you need to be seen to be acting more Catholic than the Pope, and this includes following Canon Law.

Especially if you want to get back inside the Barque of St. Peter at some point.

Very true. But there is no Canon Law that determines how an illegitimate group should determine membership. So this ‘membership’ can be revoked or given as they prefer.

 

[Stylites]

Very true. But there is no Canon Law that determines how an illegitimate group should determine membership. So this ‘membership’ can be revoked or given as they prefer.

I believe your logic is faulty in that a priest is a priest and a bishop is a bishop. The SSPX cannot have their bread and eat it, too.

 

[JM3]

The SSPX however is not a validly recognized order of the Catholic Church.

The SSPX are simply like a group of priests banding together, forming a group and giving themselves a title.

Incorrect.

From the SSPX:
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre,
“Having founded the Society of Saint Pius X and undertaking its government as Superior General from 1971 to 1983, he continued to assist the Society by his wise advice until his death on Monday of Holy Week, March 25, 1991, anniversary of the priestly ordination of the Sovereign Priest, Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

“On November 1, 1970, the Society was officially recognized by Bishop Charriere, Bishop of Fribourg in Switzerland; its constitution was warmly approved by Cardinal Wright, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, the following February.”

 

[triumphguy]

Very true. But there is no Canon Law that determines how an illegitimate group should determine membership. So this ‘membership’ can be revoked or given as they prefer.

If they don’t mind staying outside the walls forever, and proving by that action that they are just a schismatic sect…