Take it however you wish but so far two popes have acknowledged that the consecrations were illicit. The opinion of various people who have “studied Canon law” is of no consequence to the decision of the legitimate authority of the Church, the Holy See.
You must know that a Pope “acknowledging” something as being this case
does not make it so Ipso facto. Every one who knows anything about Canon law will tell you that although the Pope is the Supreme legislator, the person in question has a rite to be judged by Canon Law
as it is written. It just so happens that there are clauses written in Canon Law which nulify this particular Law, which I will show later.
You say that the opinion of those who have studied Canon law, canon lawers etc is of no consequence since the Pope is the ligitimate authority. Yes, everyone knows the Popes authority as Supreme legislator, however
a person is entitled to be judged as the law is written. New laws cannot be written/altered after the fact and the person charged with transgressing it!
Lets look at the facts:
Card. Bernard Gantin threatened to excommunicate the Archbishop if he prceeded with the consecrations.
The grounds was Canon 1382 -
Can. 1382 “Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.”
This is clear.
Card. Gantin also called it a “schismatic act” and attempted to apply Canon1364 S1 - " An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 §1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in Can. 1336 §1, nn. 1, 2 and 3."
Pope John Paul echoed Cardinal Gantins accusation of “schismatic mentality” and threatended general excommunications.
Dealing firstly with Canon 1382: The excommunication for alleged abuse of episcopal powers was not incurred. This is because because a person who violates a law out of necessity is not subject to a penalty as per canon 1323 §4. This is the case even if there is no real state of necessity. ( which of course I dispute)
If someone inculpably- not through his own fault thought there was a case of necessity he would not incur the penalty according to canon 1323 -70. And even if the person
culpably thought there was (which was not the case in this instance) he would still not incur the penalty as per canon 1324 §3, §1, 80.
Who will deny that the Archbishop ***at least thought ***there was a necessity even if there wasn’t? Canon Law thus excuses him from the penalty as per the above mentioned Canons.
Canon law also says that no penalty is incurred ever without committing a (subjective) mortal sin - canons 1321 §1 & 1323 70. Archbishop Lefebvre stated clearly and repeatidly that he was bound in conscience to go ahead with the consecrations as her feared tremendously for the survival of the Catholic priesthood. He belived that he was obeying God in doing so. This, even if he was wrong there was no subjective sin on his part. This also confirms the nullity of the penalty.
You state that:
"This defense was tried and rejected by the Holy See."
No it was not. I have studied the documents issued - both public and private correspondance - for many years and in no way did the Holy See address the arguments and appeals to these canons. It is well known that Archbishop Lefebvre asked to be tried in Rome but it was denied. His right to a fair hearing and trial was refused. He appealed under the above mentioned canons, as was his rights, and was not answered. If you can provide the document from the Holy See in which his defence (including the above mentioned) was ***tried and rejected *** as you claim, then I would very much like to see it.
