I’ve noticed recently that several of the traditional Catholic websites have been using the phrase in the title of this thread to compare some of the words and actions of some Catholics who are still in ‘full communion’ with the Catholic Church with the current ‘irregular’ status of the SSPX.
Here are some examples I’ve seen used like this:
socon.ca/or_bust/?p=8698
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/05/how-about-this-bishop.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_McBrien
americanpapist.com/2008/06/obama-cardinal-george-and-pfleger.html
Fr. Pfleger was recently suspended by Cardinal George for not accepting a reassignment to run a parochial school but not for any of his previous antics (can you imagine sending your children to a Catholic school he was directing ? !). This is just a sample of what I’ve seen over the last year or two about those Catholics who are ‘in full communion’ while the SSPX’s status remains ‘irregular’.
I have to admit it makes me wonder at times. And no, I don’t assist at a SSPX church.
I feel that we need to stop dragging the SSPX into every event that happens in the Catholic Church. First of all, it’s not fair to them. Some people drag them in as martyrs, which the Society is not, as Pope Benedict made very clear in his statement cited by At Trent. However,the Society should not be a scapegoat either . . . also clearly said by the Holy Father.
It would be more appropriate for the lay Catholic to try to understand Church law and how it works.
You mention Fr. Pfleger. Father is a diocesan priest. As such, he is free to express any opinion he wants to express. He is a secular man, just as you are. He is not a consecrated religious. We, religious, are not free to express opinions and make statements that are in conflict with the feelings and thoughts of our superiors. Diocesan priests have no such superiors. They govern themselves.
A bishop governs his diocese. A diocesan priest promises to obey his bishop. When he disobeys, the bishop has the authority to suspend him. He cannot suspend him for nonsense behavior. That is not allowed by Canon Law. If Father belonged to a religious community, the case would be different. The superior has absolute power over those whom he governs. The bishop only has power over the laity. He can silence the laity. To silence a priest is a little more complex. The bishop would have to prove that the priest is teaching heresy. This requires a hearing. Heresy is no small charge.
The only similarity between this case and the Society is the disobedience to authority. Canon Law does not allow it. Once you are suspended, you are in an irregular status. You may receive the sacraments, but you may not administer them.
Some have mentioned theologians who teach at universities. Catholic universities are not under the jurisdiction of the bishops. A bishop can take away the university’s right to call itself Catholic. He cannot suspend, fire, dismiss or take any disciplinary action against a priest or religious who teaches at the university.
That being said, there are two exceptions to this rule. First, a university that is owned by a diocese does fall under the jurisdiction of the local bishop. Second, a pontifical university is usually placed under the watch of the local bishop, even though it falls under the jurisdiction of the Vatican. This was the case of Father Charles Curran at Catholic University of America. CUA is a pontifical university and the local bishop was the chancellor. He has the duty to oversee the university’s fidelity to orthodoxy. In that particular case, Father Curran still remains a priest in good standing with the Catholic Church. His license to teach theology was taken away. He was not suspended, because there were no grounds to suspend him. He had not violated Canon Law and he was not a religious whose superior can suspend for other reasons.
It is important for us to understand that suspensions can only be used by certain people in very specific situations. We can’t just go around suspending every priest who dissents. Church law does not allow this without a fair trial.
In the case of direct disobedience, insubordination, does not require a trial. The Church can proceed to suspension. There is also the case of certain sins such as child abuse, violation of celibacy (not chastity, big difference), and other sins identified either by Canon Law or by religious superiors. These do not require a hearing.
We have to be very gentle with ourselves. We tend to get ourselves to upset, when we don’t understand the rules.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
