Condoning Archbishop Lefebvre's Consecrations -- Isn't That Sinful?

[numealinesimpet]

I am not going to make a specific comment on above but could you be tighter please in your thinking - if you are talking about ‘sin’ you are always talking about the subject. if you are discussing an action you can speak of ’ matter’. I cannot see the sense in saying objectively ‘sinful’ - can somebody enlighten me if they think I am wrong?? Just for those who are not Catholics for a sin to be commited there must be: matter, knowledge, consent. If any of these is missing there is no sin. If the knowledge is only vague or the will slightly involved then there would be sin but not grave sin even if the matter were in itself grave.

Yes, I’ve just come on to this thread but i noticed a lack of the proper terminology: the action, considered precisely as a material phenomenon (such as the physical shooting of a passer-by) may be a material sin. It becomes a formal sin only if it is done with the consent of the will, coupled to the knowledge that it is wrong. These categories of thought will allow the issue to be discussed clearly, otherwise it will go round in circles.

Now, by Canon Law (canons 1323, 1324 +1321 to be exact) the action, seen as an action, of consecrating bishops without papal mandate is excused penalty if the defendant believes there is a State of Necessity. This provision explicitly applies even if the defendent is culpable in making an erroneous judgment that there was a state of necessity. (i.e. even if there were no state of necessity, and the defendent should have known this but, through his own fault, did not know that there was no state of necessity). As far as I can see, canon law actually allows a defendant to have committed a sin of omission (culpable) in misjudging the existence of the state of necessity, and still protects him from sanction. I think the original question that started this thread was: granted that Mgr Lefebvre was protected from sanction by the above paragraphs of Canon Law, can we say that he committed either a material or a formal sin in the process, and if so, would we be wrong to support him?
Do I read you correctly here, DavidJoseph?

 

[numealinesimpet]

Oh yes it can hold! It’s a well-known fact that the excommunication of St. Athanasius was done as a result of coercion on the part of the Arians. We’re talking about that papal pronouncement and no other. Besides, you seem to forget that we’re comparing the situation of St. Athanasius vs. Pope Liberius with that of Archbishop Lefebvre vs. Pope John Paul II. Lefebvre’s excommunication wasn’t under duress.

Actually, for the purposes of the debate, let’s leave Mgr Lefebvre to one side just for now. I haven’t equated Lefebvre & Athanasius; we are exploring the implications of the Liberius-Athanasius episode. When we have considered the historical evidence, I maintain that it will throw light on the question of Lefebvre … but to repeat, I do not equate the two situations.

It’s a well-known fact that the excommunication of St. Athanasius was done as a result of coercion on the part of the Arians.

Well, that view was not unanimously held. I have read in Wand’s ‘History of the Church’ (quoting from memory, but the phrase is memorable enough) that in the case of Liberius ‘Flattery succeeded where threats had failed”. On the other hand, Athanasius himself, at at least one point, thought that Liberius had given in to threats…
See newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm#V
St. Athanasius, writing apparently at the end of 357, says:

“Liberius, having been exiled, gave in after two years, and, in fear of the death with which he was threatened, signed”, i.e. the condemnation of Athanasius himself (Hist. Ar., xli); and again: “If he did not endure the tribulation to the end yet he remained in his exile for two years knowing the conspiracy against me.”

See catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/athanc.htm

St. Athanasius and the Current Crisis of Faith
Some Catholic apologists have attempted to prove that Liberius neither confirmed the excommunication of Athanasius nor subscribed to one of the formulae of Sirmium. But Cardinal Newman has no doubt that the fall of Liberius is an historical fact. This is also the case with the two modern works …] just cited and the celebrated Catholic Dictionary, edited by Addis and Arnold. The last named points out that there is “a fourfold cord of evidence not easily broken,” i. e., the testimonies of St. Athanasius, St. Hilary, Sozomen, and St. Jerome. It also notes that “all the accounts are at once independent of and consistent with each other.”
…]
The opposition to the anti-pope Felix made it imperative for Constantius to restore Liberius to his see. But it was equally imperative that the Pope should condemn Athanasius. The Emperor used a combination of threats and flattery to attain his objective. Then followed the tragic fall of Liberius. It is described in the sternest of terms in Butler’s Lives of the Saints:

About this time Liberius began to sink under the hardships of his exile, and his resolution was shaken by the continual solicitations of Demophilus, the Arian Bishop of Beroea, and of Fortunatian, the temporizing Bishop of Aquileia. He was so far softened, by listening to flatteries and suggestions to which he ought to have stopped his ears with horror, that he yielded to the snare laid for him, to the great scandal of the Church. He subscribed to the condemnation of St. Athanasius and a confession or creed which had been framed by the Arians at Sirmium, though their heresy was not expressed in it; and he wrote to the Arian bishops of the East that he had received the true Catholic faith which many bishops had approved at Sirmium. The fall of so great a prelate and so illustrious a confessor is a terrifying example of human weakness, which no one can call to mind without trembling for himself. St. Peter fell by a presumptuous confidence in his own strength and resolution, that we may learn that everyone stands only by humility.

According to A Catholic Dictionary of Theology (1971),

“This unjust excommunication [of St. Athanasius] was a moral and not a doctrinal fault.”

The point of the last remark is that the signing by Liberius of an equivocal document that ‘gave comfort’ to the Arians without actually promulgating heresy is, in the scale of things, a much graver incident than the disciplinary question of the excommunication of Athanasius. It was thoroughy considered during Vatican I on the question of papal infallibility, and was a factor in preventing the council from allowing that every solemn pronouncement of a pope is infallible. But perhaps this is getting too far off the present topic, except that it illustrates that in the actual situation it is not always possible to disentangle different theoretical issues.
Mgr. Rudolf Graber, Bishop of Regensburg, writes,

What happened over 1600 years ago is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria is the whole Universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was undertaken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transferred to a different level. Exile is replaced by banishment into the silence of being ignored; killing, by assassination of character.

Athanasius and the Church of Our Times, p. 23.

 

[numealinesimpet]

… Pope John Paul II didn’t commit any unjust action against Archbishop Lefebvre.

There is a widespread misconception that Mgr Lefebvre et al were excommunicated by Pope John Paul II. In fact, the only document declaring the excommunication was a letter in the Italian newspaper “l’Osservatore Romano” signed by Cdl Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops. This letter is invalid as a decree of excommunication because
*(1) it cites certain paragraphs of the Code of Canon Law while simply ignoring canons 1323, 1324 +1321 (which indemnify against penalties). This is like getting a ticket for a parking offence that names the area where you were parked, but omits to mention that you were parked there on a Sunday, when the ‘No Parking” rule is suspended;
*(2) More seriously, the article does not carry a protocol number, which is necessary for any official, legally-binding document. This is like being given, not an official parking ticket with date and serial number, but a short informal letter in your local paper announcing that you have a parking fine!
*(3) The Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops was not the “competent authority” to carry out such a decree.
It was often stated by the less observant that Pope John Paul II had excommunicated Mgr Lefebvre et al in the Motu Proprio * Ecclesia Dei Adflicta. * The supporters of Lefebvre pointed out that JPII had only referred to the excommunication as an already-accomplished fact; he did not, in fact, then or afterwards, proclaim it on his own authority. This has now been confirmed by no less a personage than his Holiness Benedict XVI. In the letter from the present Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, we read the following

… the removal of the latae sententiae excommunication formally declared with the Decree of the Prefect of this Congregation [num: i.e. Cdl Gantin, NOT the Pope] on July 1, 1988.

I note with approval the contrast between the “letter to the papers” of Cdl Gantin in 1988 with the following by Card. Giovanni Battista Re in 2009:

Based in the faculty expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, in virtue of the present Decree, I remit to Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta the censure of latae sententiae excommunication declared by this Congregation on July 1, 1988, while I declare deprived of any juridical effect, from the present date, the Decree emanated at that date.
Rome, from the Congregation for Bishops, January 21, 2009.
Card. Giovanni Battista Re
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops

There is nothing like this in Cdl Gantin’s letter of 1988, which simply hangs in a vacuum. Notice that Cdl Battista Re enunciates clearly
*who is issuing the decree, and in what capacity
*at what level of authority the new decree is being promulgated
*what precise document is responsible
*At what date the new legislation comes into effect.

It cannot be maintained that Pope John Paul II either issued, or confirmed, Cdl Gantin’s irregular promulgation. If the Church were functioning better there would be no doubt about what is and what is not mandated. But Canons 1321 - 4 give the opinions of Mgr Lefebvre et al. legal force. His correct invoking of the protection of the law was never contradicted by any pope. All that happened was that Cdl Gantin’s decree (which, being without a protocol number, was invalid) was never publicly repudiated. The only official action taken so far has been that of Pope Benedict, when he remitted (through express permission of Cdl Battista) what he identified as the decree of the Congregation for Bishops. I often heard it urged against the SSPX that they had been excommunicated by the pope. We always replied that it was by Cdl Gantin, not the pope. It is good to see Pope Benedict clear this up.

Students of Recent Church History (and we greybeards with long memories) know that in the 70s there was a strong movement in the Church against what was described as ‘the excessive legalism of the past’. In reply it was always countered that this ‘legalism’ is nothing more than a straighforward statement of the facts of the case, without which it is impossible to do business. It is with tremendous relief that I see a return in recent years to the former practice.

 

[numealinesimpet]

To all:
I think we’ve gotten away from the original topic and intent of this thread, namely, discussing whether or not it’s objectively sinful **on our part **merely to condone Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions. This isn’t about whether Archbishop Lefebvre himself did right or wrong.

Well, on the basis of the reasons given in the postings above, I think that we are not only justified in condoning Mgr Lefebvre’s actions, but we are under a moral obligation in justice & charity to publicly rehabilitate his name.

 

[DavidJoseph]

Well, on the basis of the reasons given in the postings above, I think that we are not only justified in condoning Mgr Lefebvre’s actions, but we are under a moral obligation in justice & charity to publicly rehabilitate his name.

Well, all I can say is that if you think there’s nothing sinful about condoning Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions, then you better darn well be right because if you’re not, it could create problems for you on Judgment Day.

 

[iluvburpees]

Archbishop Lefebvre acted out of necessity. He saw the modernism and liberalism showing up in the church and all the horrible things happening in the Church. He greatly feared for the future, or lack thereof, of the traditional mass, so he did what he knew he had to do. I truly believe that he is in heaven and interceding for his beloved society.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Well, all I can say is that if you think there’s nothing sinful about condoning Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions, then you better darnn well be right because if you’re not, it could create problems for you on Judgment Day.

Well, let’s take it step by step. As cailíndeas reminded us, we will get confused if we do not employ the Church’s categories of thought.
**Did Mgr Lefebvre behave rashly (which would have been a sin of imprudence)?
*No, because he had been patiently lobbying the Vatican for years on end, with no reply from them. Only when they realised that, instead of dying quietly, he would consider consecrating a successor without their consent, was there any response: and even then he was not being given a fair hearing. The month before the consecrations, in a public sermon, he enunciated clearly his reasons, and why they were justified in both natural justice and in Canon Law.
**Did Mgr Lefebvre commit a material sin in proceeding with the consecrations?
*No, because his case was clearly covered by canons 1323, 1324 +1321. Remember that it was Pope John Paul II himself who promulgated the New Code of Canon Law (in 1983). Lefebvre made no secret of his dissatisfaction with the New Code, but he accepted it in obedience to the Holy Father. The relevant paragraphs of Canon Law did not say “Everybody who believes he is in a state of necessity – except for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre – is indemnified from penalties”.
**Did he then commit a formal sin with the consecrations?
*That is up to the Judgment of God, who sees the heart. Yet he would have committed such a sin only if he was lying about his belief that he was in a State of Necessity. He explained clearly, and many times, that the Church was descending into chaos with no positive indication that it would right itself in the forseeable future.
The only response he received from his opponents was either to deny the crisis in the Church, or to obstinately misinterpret his actions as due to either nostalgia or arrogance or both. At no time was he given a fair and open hearing. therefore the lay observer has no need to presume bad faith on his part.
*Even if he was justified, then, would it still be a sin, material or formal, for us to condone his actions?
If an action is without sin, how could it be sinful to praise it? Well, there is one possibility: the action could be taken out of context and used as a role-model for inappropriate situations. I reply that, on the contrary, every crisis in the church has left us with some hard-earned lessons. I will not go through the historical catalogue of crises at this point, though this could be done. One relevant lesson of the post-Vatican II crisis must be: to look more closely at the true nature and due limits of law, and hence of Obedience. Actually, it’s all in S. Thomas Aquinas, who wrote in the 13th Century; but we have forgotten it in the Twentieth.
With your patience, I will paste some reflections on this, as it bears directly on the topic of this thread.

 

[numealinesimpet]

**On the Nature of Law:
Divine, Natural, Ecclesiastical, Civil, Positive **

According to St Thomas Aquinas, a Law is
A precept of Right Reason
For the Common Good
Promulgated by the legitimate Authority.
Thus an attempt at a law that is either impossible, or unreasonable, or not directed to the Common Good, or not validly promulgated, is not a law at all but an abuse of authority which we are under a moral obligation to resist, otherwise we are participating in the sin by compliance with the offence against justice.
The law subsists in several categories, the later ones “inside” the earlier.
First is Divine Law which flows from the Nature of God Himself and the Nature of Reality…
e.g. All created things exist for the Glory of God.
Within this is** Natural Law** which flows from the nature and structure of Creation, and within this the nature and structure of Man, body and soul.
e.g.* Man must use his free will to do good and avoid evil.*
Within this again is Evangelical Law, which derives from the fact that Man is raised above his natural state and called to supernatural Life for eternity. It was to this end that Christ established His Church.
e.g. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, thy whole strength and whole mind: and thy neighbour as thyself.
These Laws contain general principles. God saw to it that we have, within this framework, more specific laws that apply to particular situations. These laws may be adapted to changing situations, unlike the more general laws already cited. These particular laws are termed
Positive Law which derives from the lawful authority, derived from Christ, of appointed lawmakers within the Church. In general, these are collected and set out in the code of Canon Law.
Some of these laws were given from the mouth of Christ Himself, e.g.* “Going therefore, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…”*
Others,
Ecclesiastical Laws, were delegated to His Church, of whom Peter and his successors are His Vicar on Earth: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven…”
Civil Law is that part of Positive Law that “Renders unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”. A Civil Law that contradicts or nullifies Ecclesiastical or Natural or Divine Law is ipso facto invalid.

Holy Mother Church helps us not least by providing Positive Laws to guide our daily conduct, and then enforcing them.

Subordinate laws sometimes fail to achieve their purpose. They are merely applications of higher general laws to particular situations. Yet the particular or concrete situation can vary infinitely. It is impossible for positive law to envisage and provide for all these situations, even exceptional situations. This is why dispensations from law have always been allowed, often even foreseen, even by God. [This paragraph adapted slightly from *“The Episcopal Consecrations” by Rev. Fr. F. Pivert, ISBN 0-935952-54-3, page 4].

We must beware of the fallacy of believing that the collection of written, positive laws constitutes the whole of Law. They must not be stretched beyond their context. In every generation, new situations arise that must be dealt with by reference to the higher categories of law and justice. Then the Church in her wisdom may or may not enact new positive laws.

Examples that spring to mind in the modern age are: the question of the Just War given the existence of weapons of mass destruction: the question of which medical procedures, formerly unheard of, are licit and pleasing to God: organ donation? IVF?

In considering novel situations, we must be extra vigilant that we are hearing the authentic voice of the Bride of Christ, which can be none other than a faithful echo of that of the Bridegroom.

In the very nature of things, a Law cannot contradict one on a higher level of this hierarchy. An attempt to promulgate a Positive Law that contradicted the Natural or the Divine Law would be ipso facto invalid. Thus no conceivable Positive Law could legalise direct abortion.

The crisis precipitated by the situation in the Church and the World after Vatican II – which it is absurd to say was actually foreseen and intended by the majority of the Council Fathers (if by any at all) – requires very careful contemplation on these things.

 

[603304529]

numealinesimpet: your posts are great. They explains things very well. Now, if people will just consider them carefully…

 

[numealinesimpet]

Granted the above, (I take it that silence means consent), the following questions are still sometimes asked:–
(i) given the supreme power of the pope infallibly defined by Vatican I, surely it is inadmissable to contradict him in any way?
The second question is,
(ii) Can it not be proven, especially given the words of Ecclesia Dei, that the SSPX from 1988 were in schism? It cannot possibly be right to condone a schism.
Well, to these the supporters of Mgr Lefebvre do have an answer.
Cath Answers exists to promote fair debate on relevant issues. I hope some will agree to debate the above points. The Arian King of the Visigoths (in modern Spain), intrigued by the two sides he was hearing from the Arians and the Roman Catholics, proclaimed a 3-day debate in his presence, after which, he declared, a decision would be made, which would be enforced throughout his kingdom. The Roman Catholics won the debate, and the king was as good as his word.
Tragically, his new Catholic Kingdom had not long to last before it was over-run by the Moslems (through the treachery of one man, a Catholic in the African port who accepted bribery to allow the Moslem fleet passage across to Iberia (Spain), without giving the alarm, as he was pledged to do. He died at a ripe old age, loaded with Moslem honours and privileges.) It took seven centuries to drive them out, but they did it.
On such slender threads does history really hang – despite the Marxist claim that it is all inevitable. No, real human beings, by their free actions, have really changed the course of history. I submit that we are at another such crossroads now.

 

[numealinesimpet]

The first question, then, is whether Mgr Lefebvre’s actions can be justified given the very strong words of Vatican I…

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.htm#6
**FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL (1869-1870)
Session 4 : 18 July 1870
First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ

Chapter 1 

On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter **

…
3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44].
4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.
5. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the Church, and that it was through the Church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.
6. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.

I reply that, although Peter’s jurisdiction is as stated, the decree refers only to his use of this primacy, not to its abuse. The argument, pushed to an absolute statement allowing no exceptions, proves too much…

My assertion is supported by the episode where Paul “withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed”. No-one has ever claimed that Paul exceeded his bounds by doing this.

It would also imply that the correct response of S. Athanasius & Bp. Eusebius of Samosata would have been to acquiesce in their sanctions, “obey” Pope Liberius, and allow the Arian heresy to rampage unhindered. To those who have insisted on CAF that the only possible course of action is to “obey the pope and pray”, I have asked, “What then would you have advised Athanasius to do?” I have asked one poster this same question three times without receiving a reply.

Other examples may be found in Scripture and indeed in ordinary jurisprudence, where it is an accepted principle that “It is not necessary to state the obvious”. For example, Sola Scriptura Protestants deny the perpetual sinlessness of Our Lady by quoting the Scriptures, “No man is without sin” and “The just man sins seven times a day”. The Catholic rebuttal of this is that, on their logic, these passages prove too much. They must apply not only to Our Lady but to Jesus Christ Himself. Reductio ad absurdum.

In the Lefebvre case, it is clear that the situation is not as clear-cut as meets the eye: it was Cdl Gantin, not Pope John Paul II, who issued the decree of excommunication, as confirmed last year by Pope Benedict XVI. Perhaps the then pope should have ruled with a firmer hand and prevented, or reversed, this abuse of ostensive authority by Cdl Gantin. The authority was given to the popes not so that the Catholic Church was to be their personal property, but precisely to build it up. That is the very meaning of the word “authority”: “building up”. Mgr Lefebvre was correct to point to the crisis in the Church, announce that he would take the action envisaged by Canons 1321 –4 of the New Code of Canon Law, and then to take it.

These limits can be seen by a study of the very definitions of Law, Obedience and Authority (e.g. on earlier posts on this thread). The SSPX have acted as 'the Loyal opposition" despite the various dubious actions taken against them.

I hasten to add that they were not the only group in the Church to fight this pitched battle that has now lasted a whole generation. But it is Mgr Lefebvre who is under present discussion.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

John Paul II sowed NO confusion, indifferentism, or scandal – except maybe in the minds of those who wanted to see such things. Does that mean that we as Catholics must agree with or approve of every little thing a pope says or does? Of course not! There were things Pope John Paul II did that, if I were pope, I probably wouldn’t have done. Same with Pope Benedict XVI. But while I don’t like the Assisi gatherings, it’s wrong to say he was promoting indifferentism there. Rather, folks like yourself have CHOSEN to believe that he was. Besides, John Paul II isn’t here to defend himself, so there’s really no reason to rehash all the “bad” that he allegedly did anyway.

Back to the topic of the thread. If anyone wants to discuss John Paul II and what all he did or didn’t do, start another thread please.
Gottle of Geer:

Attacking the bishops ordained by the Archbishop does nothing at all to show the Vatican bishops are not as bad, or even worse. At least one can be confident that SSPX Masses are valid - they don’t use “cookies”, & never have. It is pointless to complain of the faults of the SSPX, when the swamp of iniquity presided over by Rome is so much deeper - let Rome put its own house in order, before nagging at others.

JP2 and his scandalous conduct - including the Assisi abomination - had a considerable effect upon the decisions made by the Archbishop; the behaviour of JP2, which was a continual assault upon the Catholic Tradition, is therefore very much to the point. Bad Popes whose acts are public cannnot expect not to be criticised for their acts, precisely because of their exalted, & highly responsible, position. To flatter them because they are dead is no way to behave, because of the fruits of their evil example; for these too often outlive them.​

Had I chosen to talk about the behaviour of the late Pope toward Marcial Maciel, you would have had a point: because the favour shown to him was favour shown to a man who was not widely known to be a criminal; so that the Pope’s favour to him was not as objectionable as behaviour known for long and by many to be evil would have been. The Assisi abomination, like the Balamand Declaration, falls into this second category. Both of these are insults to the Faith, and therefore have exceptional power to scandalise millions who know no better. It is out of the question that a Pope guilty of such things should not be blamed. One the contrary, some in the Church are still Catholic & Christian enough to condemn evil even when the evil-doer is a Pope. It is no part of a Pope’s vocation to betray the Faith and scandalise the faithful - but that is what that Pope did. It is a bad sign for the Church, if evil on that scale, & in such circumstances, is held to be compatible with heroic sanctity - it is to be hoped that he is not damned, but he is certainly no Saint.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You may have a point. Did Lefebvre think that the majority of Bishops were modernists?? He would have to have strong credible evidence. Remember, opposing the traditional Mass isnt modernism, however I am willing to concede you have a point.

Most Masses in the US are invalid -** unless** cookies are no longer used. What is the good in not being in (alleged) schism, if the alternative is to be starved of one of the sacraments ?​

For the details of the persistent use of invalid matter in the US, with episcopal knowledge, read the last chapter or two of “Pope Paul’s New Mass”, by Michael Davies. This means that stipends that have been given for Masses which have not in fact been offered. And that is stealing. Are there any crimes* not* committed in the US Catholic Church ? I’m beginning to wonder, I really am.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Most Masses in the US are invalid -** unless** cookies are no longer used. What is the good in not being in (alleged) schism, if the alternative is to be starved of one of the sacraments ?​

For the details of the persistent use of invalid matter in the US, with episcopal knowledge, read the last chapter or two of “Pope Paul’s New Mass”, by Michael Davies. This means that stipends that have been given for Masses which have not in fact been offered. And that is stealing…

Yes, Gottle of … and by Canon Law, the guilty priests are under pain of Mortal Sin either to say the Masses again properly, or to refund the stipends.
Because of the Troubles, many Irish priests were martyred during the Penal Days, and many records destroyed. Therefore, for an entire century, up until the 1950s, the De profundis was said after every single Low Mass in Ireland for the repose of the souls of those for whom a Mass had been pledged, and then not offered.

The scandal of the invalid “Cookie Masses” was fully reported to Rome, but for ten years nothing whatever was done about it.