On this point you have to be very careful not to confuse people. Let’s break it down into small pieces
- Archbishop Lefebvre did violate Church law when he ordained four bishops. The Society and the Archbishop claim that they were in a state of emergency and they claim fear.
For newcomers to this debate, the canon law in question is in canons 1323, 1324 +1321. Find the complete text at
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept: … 4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;
num: Mgr Lefebvre explained that he was under grave fear, based on the situation of the Church at that time, that if he did not maintain the SSPX against the tidal wave of error that was engulfing the Church; then he, being not a private citizen but a Bishop charged with continuing the Apostolic Succession under pain of mortal sin, would be guilty of dereliction of duty. This fear may or may not have been justified (I personally believe it was) but, right or wrong, it was his honest opinion. Therefore he was, according to Canon Law, exempt from penalty.
7/ a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 or 5 was present.
num: A very interesting paragraph. Look carefully, and you will see that **it endows a subjective opinion with the force of law. ** This kind of legislation is not normal jurisprudence for the very reason that it makes the law unenforceable. The SSPX and their sympathisers have reiterated this from the very beginning. This was not in the Old Code of Canon Law. Mgr Lefebvre (and others) opposed the New Code! But, loyal sons of the Church as they were, once it was promulgated in 1983 they accepted it! Now, in 1988, they were perfectly entitled to invoke it.
Can. 1324 §1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed:–
5/ by a person who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience if the delict is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;
8/ by a person who thought in culpable error that one of the circumstances mentioned in ⇒ can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5 was present;
num: Mark well!
Even if the accused ought to have known better, if he thought the matter was serious enough, he is indemnified against the ultimate penalty of excommunication, and some lesser penalty or a penance must, under the law, be substituted…
10/ by a person who acted without full imputability provided that the imputability was grave.
That was dealt with in the paragraph above. The SSPX are exempted from full imputability under the law and hence are released from the ‘normal’ penalty by this provision of Canon Law.
§3. In the circumstances mentioned in §1, ** the accused is not bound by a latae sententiae** penalty.
Well, that is precisely the penalty that was hurled against Mgr Lefebvre and the others in a newspaper article that ***did not have a Vatican protocol number *** and hence was not an official document carrying the force of law, but only the personal opinion of the author (who was not identified as the Pope).
There are about half a dozen reasons, therefore, why these alleged excommunications were null and void from the beginning.
Pope John Paul II responded that these canons did not apply in this situation.
But that is exactly what he did not do. In fact, to this very day no official Vatican document or source has answered the point made by the SSPX. What Pope John Paul II did was to ignore the objection. But no Court of Law on the planet would accept this.
Let me give an analogy. In Ireland, it is illegal to park where there is a double yellow line. Except on a Sunday, when parking laws do not apply.
Suppose I get a parking ticket for parking on a yellow line, and I protest that the alleged offence occurred on a Sunday. And suppose that, instead of the fine being rescinded without further ado, or without my being invited to Circuit Court to plead my case, the objection was ignored and I was simply told to pay up!
In fact, the one and only ***official *** action taken on the matter was Pope Benedict’s
Motu Proprio that quietly lifted the decree of excommunication, without – let it be noted – requiring one single retraction from the SSPX. To me that speaks volumes.
