From the
archives - Published from 1982-96, Fidelity magazine was the predecessor of Culture Wars.
The Story of the Vanishing Schism:
The Strange Case of Cardinal Lara
By John Beaumont and John Walsh
From the March 1994 issue of Fidelity
magazine
Writing the
following article has been a sad but necessary task. As the article shows, a
distinguished Catholic prelate has been the subject of much disinformation by a
group which although now outside the Catholic Church, claims to uphold Catholic
tradition. The authors have made many efforts in private to persuade those who
have published this material to set the record straight. Sadly, this has not
been done. We feel obliged therefore to bring the truth into the public domain
in order that innocent Catholics may no longer be misled in this matter.
Rosalio Jose Castillo
Lara was born on September 4th 1922 at San Casimiro, near Maracay, in
Venezuela. He was ordained priest in 1949. He was consecrated a bishop, with
the Titular See of Praecausa, in 1973 and then made an Archbishop in 1982. Pope
John Paul II made him a Cardinal in 1985. As Cardinal he was President of the Pontifical
Council for the interpretation of Legislative Texts from 1985 to 1990. He has
also been President of the Disciplinary Commission of the Roman Curia since
1981 and is President of the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic
See. Cardinal Lara is also Dean of Nostra Signora di Coromoto and is a member
of the Congregation for Catholic Education, of the Supreme Tribunal of the Holy
See, of the Papal Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and of the Papal
Commission for the Vatican City State.
All in all the
Cardinal's career has been that of an eminent Roman canon lawyer and diplomat.
His life has been one of loyal service to the Catholic Church. However,
surprising as it may seem, according to many so-called "traditionalist
Catholics," belonging to the Lefebvrist Society of St. Pius X, or
apologists for that group, Cardinal Lara is in reality something of an ally of
their cause. Furthermore, he is said by them not just to be a closet
sympathizer, but a man who has spoken out publicly. It has even been said that
he supports their arguments. How on earth can this be, one might well ask. The
answer to this, unpleasant though it is, reveals a great deal about the
attitude of the Society of St. Pius X towards the truth. However, to understand
the case of Cardinal Lara, we must first go back to the year of 1988. The story
starts in June of that year.
Schism and
excommunication: the events of 1988
The consecration of four
bishops without a papal mandate by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on June 30th,
1988, resulted in an automatic excommunication for the Archbishop, his
co-consecrator, Bishop Antonio Castro de Mayer and the four new bishops. In
addition, the Holy Father issued an Apostolic Letter, Ecclesia Dei in
which he declared that the consecrations constituted an act of schism and that
anyone formally adhering to the schism would also be guilty of that offense and
automatically excommunicated. Despite the fact that the very tradition which
the Society of St. Pius X purports to defend insists that Catholics must obey
disciplinary decisions of the Apostolic See and that there is no appeal against
such decisions (Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, Ch.3),
the SSPX rushed around trying to find a non-existent justification for
Archbishop Lefebvre's actions. Among the many purported justifications, a
favorite was to play "the Canon Law cards." The canon
lawyers don't accept that there is a schism was a frequent cry. This plea is a
superficially attractive one, since most people are used to seeing how in a
municipal legal system the courts always have the last word and assume that
this must also be the case in Church law. The impact of this form of pleading
is particularly strong in the United States, given the role of the Supreme
Court as the perceived guardian of the Constitution. However, Church law is not
like municipal law. That this is so should, of course, be obvious in the light
of Vatican I and Pastor Aeternus, referred to earlier. In view of the
widespread ignorance of the teaching of the Church, it might be useful to quote
directly from that document:
"We teach and
declare. . . that by the disposition of the Lord, the Roman Church possesses
preeminence of ordinary power above all the Churches: and that this power of
jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff which is truly episcopal, is immediate. This
power obligates shepherds and faithful of every rite and dignity, both
individually and collectively, to hierarchical subordination and true obedience,
not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in those
pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world;
so that by maintaining with the Roman Pontiff unity of communion and unity in
the profession of the same faith, the Church of Christ may be one flock under
one supreme Shepherd. This is the teaching of Catholic truth. No one can
deviate from it without danger to faith." (emphasis added).
The Fathers of Vatican I
further declared that: "[A] decision of the Apostolic See, whose
authority has no superior, may be revised by no one, nor may anyone examine
judicially its decision." The Council Fathers then went on to
formulate the whole of this teaching in a canon to which an anathema was
attached. Every true Catholic respects this teaching. It is the tradition of
the Church. As evidence of this, one need only cite the consistory of March
10th, 1418, in which Pope Martin V asserted: "[N]o one may appeal from
the supreme judge, that is the apostolic seat or the Roman Pontiff, Vicar on
earth of Jesus Christ, or may decline his authority in matters of faith."
This teaching, which is
binding on all Catholics, is enshrined in the Code of Canon Law: "The
Bishop of the Church of Rome. . .Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal
Church on earth. . .enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary
power...which he can always freely exercise" (Canon 331,
emphasis added). In addition "there is neither appeal nor recourse
against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff." (canon 333 [3])
There is, then, no
Supreme Court above the Pope. It is the Pope who possesses supreme legislative,
executive and judicial power. Because he is the supreme lawgiver of the Church,
he is not legally bound by past ecclesiastical laws, but by divine law alone.
As the supreme judge of the Church, he himself is judged by nobody, because
there is no higher judge on earth than he. He has the right to decide all
Church disputes, and there is no appeal to a higher court against his judgment.
As St. Augustine famously put it, "Roma locuta est, causa finita
est." But, as we have said earlier this is not what the person in the
street is accustomed to. On the contrary, what he or she sees every day,
particularly in the American Judicial system, are seemingly secure judgments
being overturned by a higher court until very often the Supreme Court has the
final say. The law and the lawyers say what goes and thus the attraction to
some of the opinions of eminent canonists. And they don't come much more
eminent than Cardinal Rosalio Jose Castillo Lara.
Enter Cardinal
Lara
So what does Cardinal
Lara say about the question of Archbishop Lefebvre? And what do the apologists
for the SSPX say that Cardinal Lara says? Well, as far as the latter is concerned,
that is easy to discover. One only needs to look at almost any article written
in defense of the SSPX (or any pro-SSPX web site; Ed. Note) in order to find
the inevitable reference to the cardinal, usually prefaced by a comment about
his great abilities as a canon lawyer, something which no one, least of all the
present writers, would wish to deny. After this comment, the SSPX apologist
will go on to say, in the most definite terms that Cardinal Lara believes that
the episcopal consecrations by Archbishop Lefebvre on June 30th,
1988 do not constitute an act of schism. We could give many examples of such
statements, but a selection of typical ones must suffice. Let us start with the
(former; Ed. Note) Superior General of the SSPX, Fr. Franz Schmidberger. In his
pamphlet, The Episcopal Consecrations of 30 June 1988 (London 1989),
Fr. Schmidberger states that the view of Cardinal Lara is that the
consecrations did not constitute an act of schism (p.47). Turning to the
bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, it is only necessary to quote one
of them, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais. Again, we find the same view expressed
shortly after the consecrations in a letter to the District Superiors of the
SSPX. Cardinal Lara is cited as authority for the view that "le sacre
du Juin 30 n'est pas un acte schismatique" (Lettre circulaire No.50
aux sup. de districts,..., Rickenbach, Sept. 15th, 1988).
The same approach is to
be found when one turns from actual members of the SSPX to its supporters. For
example, one Frank Denke, writing in the July 1990 issue of The Angelus, the
SSPX in house journal, repeats the same party line. Another apologist, Teodoro
Dominguez, again in The Angelus, this time in March 1993, gives the
same account, just in case readers have not yet gotten the message. The former
acknowledges his source, which unsurprisingly turns out to be Fr.
Schmidberger's pamphlet referred to earlier. The latter gives no references at
all.
Enter Michael
Davies
Inevitably on a question
of this kind, as with any question of whatever kind concerning the SSPX, the
doyen of SSPX supporters, Michael Davies, has had his say. This was in the form
of an article, "Who is Schismatic?," Part II of which (the
relevant part in this context) appeared in the December 1990 issue of The
Angelus (not another article on schism, one might well ask. Does the SSPX
have nothing else to write about?!). Interestingly, and unlike most of the
other writers, Davies purports to quote Cardinal Lara verbatim. Davies' treatment
of this matter is worth considering in some detail, because it is very
enlightening on the whole subject of SSPX apologetics and its methodology.
After the usual bending
of the knee to the great ability of Cardinal Lara as a canonist ("It would
be hard to imagine a more authoritative opinion" [p.201], Davies gives a
direct quotation from the July 10th, 1988, issue of the Italian newspaper, La
Repubblica, in which Cardinal Lara is said to have commented on the
episcopal consecrations. Here is what Cardinal Lara is supposed to have
said, according to the quotation in Davies' article:
"The act of
consecrating a bishop (without a papal mandate) is not in itself a schismatic
act. In fact, the Code that deals with offenses is divided into two sections. One
deals with offenses against religion and the unity of the Church, and these are
apostasy, schism, and heresy. Consecrating a bishop with [sic] a papal mandate
is, on the contrary, an offense against the exercise of a specific ministry.
For example, in the case of the consecrations carried out by the Vietnamese
Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc in 1976 and 1983, although the Archbishop was
excommunicated he was not considered to have committed a schismatic act because
there was no intention of a breach with the Church."
This quotation has
become something of a sacred text within SSPX circles. It is frequently
referred to when the question of schism and the SSPX is raised and appears in
later writings, notably in Fr. David Belland's article on schism (yes, another
one!) in the May 1993 issue of The Angelus (p.23).
But, let us return to
the Michael Davies article. The rationale for the use of the quotation of
Cardinal Lara's words there is easily stated. The central thesis of Davies'
article is, of course, that Archbishop Lefebvre is not a schismatic. Davies
begins this section of the article by stating: "Canon lawyers without
the least shred of sympathy for Msgr. Lefebvre have repudiated the charge of
schism made against him as totally untenable" (op cit, p.20). He then
makes reference to Cardinal Lara, a canonist of course, with regard to various
matters relating to the issue of schism. Davies then concludes by saying that
there is no basis whatsoever in Canon Law for accusing Archbishop Lefebvre of
the offense of schism. Now, it is inevitable that, in view of what Davies has
written thus far, that his readers can only infer that Cardinal Lara is also of
the opinion that there is no schism in the Lefebvre case.
So what is the truth
about Cardinal Lara? Is he in reality a secret Lefebvre supporter, perhaps one
of those people in high places about whom we were always being told by the
SSPX. Readers may remember the standard account of this. These men, it was
said, were sympathizers of Archbishop Lefebvre in private, but not prepared, or
able, to act in public in accordance with their beliefs. On whether Cardinal
Lara was a closet Lefebvrist, ready now to spring to the SSPX's defense in
public, the present writers were naturally skeptical, though a little curious.
Of course, as we have seen earlier, once one understands the true Catholic
teaching on papal primacy, and sees the falsity of the version peddled by the
SSPX, in which all papal decisions are up for review, one realizes that the
opinions of a cardinal, however eminent, cannot stand against a clear decision
by the Vicar of Christ, the Successor of St. Peter. However, as we have also
seen earlier, once people are cast adrift from a true understanding of the role
which law plays in the life of the Church, individual legal opinions take on a
life of their own and are likely to be used as a purported justification for
disobeying the Church authorities. And on that basis, what Cardinal Lara seemed
to be saying did provide some encouragement to such people. Yet, could it
really be the case that a man then in the position of being the President of
the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, was of the
opinion that the major text in the Lefebvre case, the Apostolic Letter issued
by Pope John Paul II under the name Ecclesia Dei, was wrong in its
main conclusions? Surely not. There did, however, seem to be one obvious way in
which to find out. Why not ask the cardinal himself? He was surely in the best
position to know what he said, if anything on the occasion in question. The
other obvious step to take was to find out whether the report of the Cardinal's
comments contained in La Repubblica was in the same terms as in
Michael Davies' article. So we decided to make some inquiries. The result of
making them was interesting -- to say the least.
The real
Cardinal Lara puts the record straight
The first thing we did
was to write to Cardinal Lara, explaining that he was being quoted as stating
that Archbishop Lefebvre was not in schism, and asking him to clarify exactly
what he had stated on the occasion in question. Cardinal Lara's reply was as
follows:
"You bring to
my attention a matter of importance. You asked if I could tell you what exactly
I said in the interview of 10th July 1988. The substance of what I said is as
follows:'In the case of Lefebvre and the four priests consecrated bishops by
him, there are two offenses canonically speaking, that they have committed. The
fundamental offense is that of schism, that is, refusing submission to the
Roman Pontiff and breaking communion with the Church. This offence they had
already previously committed. Only that, now, the second offense, that of
consecrating bishops, formalizes, in a certain sense, and concretizes the
first, and makes it explicit. Schism is a delict which can be personal. It does
not require having a number of people. Individuals can do it on their own.
Lefebvre and his followers, inasmuch as they refused submission to the Pope,
were already, by that fact itself, in schism. The intent of the act of
consecrating bishops is already to create a church with its own hierarchy. In
this sense, the consecration of bishops becomes an act of schism. One should
keep in mind, however, that the act of consecrating bishops is not in itself a
schismatic act. In fact, in the Code, where offenses are treated, these two are
treated in two distinct headings. There are delicts against religion and the
unity of the Church. And these are apostasy (i.e. renouncing the faith), schism
and heresy. Consecrating a bishop without pontifical mandate is, on the other
hand, an offense against the proper exercise of one's ministry. For example,
there was an excommunication of the Vietnamese Archbishop, Ngo Dinh Thuc in '76
and '83 for an episcopal consecration, but it was not considered a schismatic
act because there was no intent to break with the Church. Ngo Dinh Thuc
represents a pitiable situation, as there is some mental imbalance.
With regard to
Econe, Lefebvre and the four priests, they are under two excommunications: one
for the offense of schism, the other, reserved to the Apostolic See, for the
offense of consecrating a bishop without a pontifical mandate.' I hope that
this is helpful for you." (Letter to John Beaumont, dated May 26th, 1993).
We next obtained a copy
of the report in La Repubblica. We found that Cardinal Lara's
statement to us was virtually word for word what he was reported as saying by La
Repubblica (in the latter the cardinal then went on to answer other
questions put to him by a journalist concerning the Lefebvre case).
Now compare Cardinal
Lara's statement with his words as reported by Michael Davies, bearing in mind
that, as we have seen, the express purpose of Davies' article is to establish
that Archbishop Lefebvre was not in schism. What has happened is that in the
Davies version two vital passages have been omitted, one which comes before the
passage he quotes and one which comes after. Remarkably, or perhaps not, in
both of these other passages Cardinal Lara states quite unreservedly that Archbishop
Lefebvre committed the offense of schism. Thus, the cardinal whose statement is
used to lead to an irresistible inference that there is no schism, turns out to
believe the exact opposite.
Michael Davies
is puzzled
What, it may be asked,
does Michael Davies have to say about this matter? We wrote to him to find out
and received a very interesting reply. In assessing this it must be stated
firstly that we have no reason to doubt his statement to us that the quotation
which he used had been taken from "a French Journal," where
it had appeared in the same shortened form. What is disturbing, however, is his
statement that: "I note firstly that he [Cardinal Lara] does not deny
making the statement that I attributed to him in The Angelus" (letter
to John Beaumont, dated June 11th 1993). He later adds: "As the
Cardinal has reiterated his testimony in his letter to you I would appreciate
knowing precisely what is the false impression given as a result of using this
quotation in my article" (Ibid).
This expression of
puzzlement by Michael Davies is surprising. It must surely be obvious that
there is a false impression given and that it is caused by the
omission of the vital passages which occur both before and after the passage
quoted by Davies. The "before" and "after"
set what Cardinal Lara says into its true context. Look at what the Cardinal
does in fact say. He begins by stating that in the Lefebvre case there are two
offenses, the fundamental one being that of schism (this
alone is the exact opposite of the thesis of Davies' article). He then explains
exactly what schism is and discusses various aspects of that offense. He then
concludes with a final categorical statement that Archbishop Lefebvre and the
four bishops have committed the offense of schism. Davies,
therefore, omits two absolutely explicit statements by Cardinal Lara completely
contrary to Davies' thesis and yet, despite all of this, claims to be puzzled
that anyone should allege that he had given a false impression in his article.
According to Michael
Davies, then, it is legitimate to use out of a quotation those words which,
when quoted in isolation, superficially seem to support one's case, and to
ignore the surrounding text. Does this mean then that the police, when told by
a suspect in a murder investigation, "I did hit him, but it was in
self-defense," are entitled to omit the second clause and put the
first one in on its own as a full confession of guilt? Of course not. On
reading Michael Davies' approach to this question the present writers were
reminded of the world of Lewis Carroll's Alice. To Davies not only is it "When
I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean," but "When you
use another word, I can simply ignore it at my pleasure." (see Through
the Looking-Glass, Ch.6).
Michael Davies' defense
was to claim that the statement which he used from Cardinal Lara was "to
reinforce the point I was making that consecrating a bishop without a papal
mandate is not in itself a schismatic act" and that this was the "precise
topic" which he was discussing in his article. But, once more this is
misleading. We quote again what Davies writes in the paragraph immediately
before that relating to Cardinal Lara: "Canon lawyers without the
least shred of sympathy for Msgr. Lefebvre have repudiated the charge of schism
made against him as totally untenable." (op cit, p 20).
In addition, as we have
seen the fundamental thesis of the article was not whether consecrating a
bishop without a papal mandate is an intrinsically schismatic act, but whether
Archbishop Lefebvre was in schism; and on this question Cardinal Lara has
something important to say which the reader does not get to know about.
Michael Davies
on schism
Michael Davies' approach
to the question of schism is a strange one. Davies seems to be obsessed with
the question of the distinction between schism and consecrating a bishop
without a papal mandate, arguing, it seems, that the two can never meet.
At one point in our
correspondence he stated that consecrating a bishop without a papal mandate "is
not a schismatic act." On another occasion he wrote that it "is
not in itself a schismatic act" nor "an intrinsically schismatic
act." The first statement is not anything stated by Cardinal Lara. It
is also incorrect as a general proposition. The second and third statements are
true, but Davies falls into error by concluding that what is meant by them is
that such a consecration can never be an act of schism. This is not
the case at all.
Cardinal Lara is not
saying (nor does the Church) that consecrating a bishop without a papal mandate
can never be an act of schism. All that he is saying is that such a
consecration is not automatically always a schismatic act. As is clear, schism
is, inter alia, the refusal of submission to the Pope on a
matter relating to the unity of the Church. Theologians have shown that
consecrations without a papal mandate may be performed in certain very narrowly
defined emergencies without attacking the unity of the Church (witness the
attempt by apologists for the SSPX in 1988 to use these cases until it became
clear that none of them applied).
However, as the Holy
Father pointed out in Ecclesia Dei the consecration of bishops whereby
the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated, is a matter of supreme
importance for the unity of the Church. As a result, then, consecration without
a papal mandate will usually amount to a schismatic act. Such an action is evidence
of schism, and it is especially strong evidence where, as
in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre, the consecrations were not just in the
absence of a papal mandate, but also against the express will of the Pope as
conveyed to Archbishop Lefebvre in the most formal and serious terms.
At one point in his
correspondence with us Michael Davies did make something of a correction. He
recognized that if he had access to the full statement of Cardinal Lara at the
time he wrote his article, he would have prefaced the quotation with something
on the following lines: "although he maintains that Msgr. Lefebvre was
already a schismatic before the consecrations, Cardinal Lara accepts that the
act of consecrating. . .etc."
Unfortunately, this is
again misleading. Firstly, the reference to a possible schism before June
30th, 1988, distracts from the clear statement of the Cardinal that on June
30th "the consecration of bishops becomes an act of schism."
Secondly, the whole idea of schism as something which always switches on and
off at a specific instant in time is a flawed one, though one to which "traditionalists"
are curiously prone. Schism is something which grows. It can suffuse a person
or organization and develop over a period of time. That this is in fact the
case can be shown, ironically enough, by a perusal of Michael Davies' own
writings. That Archbishop Lefebvre and his organization were treated by Rome as
having schismatic tendencies from a very early date can be seen from the
following quotations, ail of which are taken from Volumes 1 and 2 of Davies' Apologia
Pro Marcel Lefebvre:
"What is indeed
at issue is the question--which must truly be called fundamental of your
clearly proclaimed refusal to recognize, in its whole, the authority of the
Second Vatican Council and that of the Pope. This refusal is accompanied by an
action that is oriented towards propagating and organizing what must indeed,
unfortunately, be called a rebellion." (letter of Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre, October
11th 1976).
"We cannot
therefore take your requests into consideration because it is a question of
facts which have already been committed in rebellion against the one true
Church of God." (Ibid).
"Pray to the
Holy Spirit, dear Brother. He will show you the necessary renunciations to help
you to reenter in the path of a full communion with the Church and with the
successor of Peter." (letter of Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre, September 8th
1975).
"It is so
painful to take note of this: but how can we not see in such an attitude
whatever may be these people's intentions the placing of themselves outside
obedience and communion with the Successor of St. Peter and therefore outside
the Church."
(Consistory Elocution by Pope Paul VI, May 24th, 1976)
"We admonish
you with all Our strength: do not worsen the bad example given by your
attitude, do not make your break from the unity and charity of the Catholic
communion irreparable." (letter of Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre, June 20th 1977)
"If your words
are taken in their full meaning, is there not justification for saying that you
refuse, or are ready to refuse, communion with the members of the Church
subject to the Pope?" (annex to letter of Cardinal Seper to Archbishop Lefebvre,
January 28th, 1978)
"[T]he Sacred
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith considers that, by your declarations
about submission to the Council and to the post-conciliar reforms of Paul
VI--declarations with which your whole behavior and especially your illicit
ordination of priests are in accord--you have fallen into grave disobedience,
and that all these declarations and acts, by their own logic, lead to
schism."
(Ibid)
What, then, is the true
picture? It can be expressed as follows: a) The Apostolic See recognized in
Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX from the middle 1970s a schismatic spirit; b)
while manifesting this schismatic mentality and practice, Archbishop Lefebvre
did not at first get to the point of formally breaking unity with the Church.
In fact, in his book, Open letter to Confused Catholics, written in
1986, Lefebvre deliberately pointed to another road rather than that of
consecration without a papal mandate; c) in 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre carried
out the "final rupture," as Cardinal Ratzinger put it in a
letter to him a year before. What the consecrations of 1988 against the express
will of the pope did was to, as it were, concretize and make explicit what was
implicit before, namely that the SSPX, while paying lip service to the
authority of the pope, refused the submission to him which is required of the
Catholic faithful. Cardinal Lara expresses this in his letter to us. Schism,
then, is not just a legal construct, absent one day and present the next it is
a factual reality which develops until finally becoming formalized in a
particular attack on the unity of the Church.
The Society of
St. Pius X refuses to tell the truth
Correspondence with
Michael Davies, then, brought a statement by him of the true position
concerning Cardinal Lara no nearer. Other attempts on the
writers' part to put the record straight have met with no greater success. The
editor of The Angelus greeted our letter (and subsequent reminder)
with a stony silence; not even the courtesy of a reply. Bishop Richard
Williamson, from his power base in Winona, proved a little more forthcoming,
but not much. The bishop thanked us for our letter and said only that it
"has received some attention before being filed for future
reference." Well, at least he replied and we shall continue to scour
the pages of The Angelus for any evidence that our letter has "received
some attention" (as of December 1993 there is nothing to report).
Bishop Tissier de
Mallerais took a slightly different line. His response was as follows: "According
to Cardinal Castillo Lara, the episcopal consecrations without mandatum of Rome
are not a schismatic act in itself: this is what the cardinal said in La
Repubblica . . . This declaration is sufficient for
us." (letter to John Beaumont, dated December 30th, 1993)
That "this
declaration is sufficient" for him comes as no surprise, since it
completely distorts the import of what Cardinal Lara is trying to say. Bishop
Tissier de Mallerais is prepared to quote Cardinal Lara when it supports the
SSPX's case to do so. When, however, the cardinal sets out his authentic views,
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais refuses to be moved. The attitude of the SSPX seems
to be one of welcoming witnesses who appear to support them. Yet, these same
witnesses are treated as non-persons when their true position (which is against
the SSPX) emerges. The comments which we have made on Michael Davies apply just
as clearly here as well.
Finally on the question
of correcting errors and putting forward the truth, we come to Teodoro
Dominguez, who had gone to the trouble of obtaining a glowing tribute from
Michael Davies adjacent to his article in The Angelus, in which Davies
referred to "the fearless approach of Attorney Dominguez in defending
the faith." And the response to our inquiries of this fearless
defender of the faith? Silence. Not a word. Let us hope that at least he has
been supplied by Michael Davies with the Davies version of a retraction. That
would be better than nothing, though not much better.
Cardinal Lara
turns up in Ireland
The affair of Cardinal
Lara would seem even now not to be over. We believed that even if we had not
been favored with a reply from the SSPX and its various apologists, the message
must surely have been sent round these circles that there was no further
mileage in the Lara case.
How naive we were. We
should have realized that if a lie is repeated often enough it can come to have
more influence with people than the truth. Final realization of this came from
where we had no reason to expect it, from Ireland. A friend of ours was sent a
letter by a priest of the SSPX working in Ireland. Enclosed with the letter was
a booklet containing the usual SSPX propaganda in defense of its actions. This
would have been nothing out of the ordinary except for the remarkable fact
that, according to the priest, the booklet had been given "the
approbation of (guess who?) Cardinal Lara!"
Amazingly, the priest
added that the booklet had been written by "an Opus Dei man."
As far as the latter is concerned, we do not have any actual evidence, but it
would seem more likely that the late Ayatollah Khomeini would support the SSPX
than that a member of Opus Dei would do so. We can, however, comment
with some degree of confidence on the question of whether Cardinal Lara is
lending his name to an SSPX booklet, because we wrote and asked him. Back came
another letter. This time the cardinal, no doubt weary at having his name taken
in vain by a schismatic group, answered through his personal assistant, Fr.
Joseph Fox, OP. The message was just as clear: "As you know
from your previous correspondence with His Eminence, he is no proponent of the
divisive activities of the deceased excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre or his
followers.... He would like you to know that he has never given his approval
for the publications of those associated with the Lefebvre movement nor has he
any intention of doing so in the future." (letter to John Beaumont,
dated November 18th, 1993)
We have no doubt that
readers will not be surprised at the reaction of the SSPX to this latest
attempt by Cardinal Lara to put the record straight. Of course, we do not know
if the SSPX in Ireland has issued a correction to the information given about
the booklet. We do not have access to its literature in Ireland. All that we
can say is that when we wrote to the priest in question, enclosing the letter
from Cardinal Lara's office, we received the response which we have come to
expect from these doughty defenders of "tradition." Yes,
silence.
It is worth reflecting a
little further on this case. In a sense it can be seen as a development in the
process of disinformation employed by the SSPX. In the first case involving the
use of his name, Cardinal Lara says something about an issue and is quoted
wrongly. There is, then, a misunderstanding of what he says. In the second
case, however, the cardinal says nothing at all and the SSPX makes up something
for him to say. One can only ask, where will this end? Will it be said by
Clemente Dominguez, the so called Pope Gregory XVII at Palmar de Troya, that
Cardinal Lara recognizes him as Pope? Certainly, where "traditionalism"
is concerned, nothing surprises us any more. Traditionalism has at least
equaled, if not surpassed, Protestantism for producing the bizarre.
Another
misrepresented canonist
Readers who have
examined in detail the literature of the SSPX will have noted that when the
SSPX plays the Canon Law card it quite often plays it in the plural, in the
sense that the usual reference to Cardinal Lara is often supplemented by the
names of other canonists. While not naturally suspicious, we have learned that "once
bitten, twice shy," so we decided to write to one of them to
investigate his Lefebvrist credentials. This was the Professor of Canon Law at
the University of Munich, Professor Geringer. The latter's authority is
appealed to by Fr. Schmidberger in the pamphlet referred to earlier. The
professor was cited there as saying in a radio interview on June 30th, 1988, that "with the episcopal consecrations Archbishop
Lefebvre was by no means creating a schism unless he was in fact intending to
found his own church" (op cit, p.47). Professor Geringer also
receives the nod of approval from the trinity of Davies, Dominguez (Teodoro,
not Clemente of Palmar de Troya) and Denke, since although only the second and
third referred to him expressly, it will be recalled that Mr. Dominguez's
article received the imprimatur of Michael Davies. According to Frank
Denke, Professor Geringer has no doubts at all on the question of schism. He is
quoted as saying that "with the episcopal consecration, Archbishop
Lefebvre was by no means creating a schism" (op cit. p.9, emphasis
as in the original). Teodoro Dominguez's version simply lists the professor
along with Cardinal Lara as supporting the view that Archbishop Lefebvre is not
schismatic.
As with the case of
Cardinal Lara, however, the version given by Professor Geringer was very different.
In his letter to us he expressed his position as follows: "I would
like to say that at the time in an interview with the radio I explicitly
declared that through the consecration of the four bishops by Lefebvre the
schism had become definitive, and that Lefebvre and his adherents had lost all
their rights within the Church." (letter to John Beaumont dated
August 17th, 1993)
Professor Geringer went
on to make the point that in the interview in question he had also dealt with
the need for moral fault before the incurring of a penalty and the question of
a mitigation of a penalty where actions are done on the basis of personal
conviction. He concludes his letter, however, with the statement that "there
can be no doubt that Lefebvre and his adherents are de facto schismatic."
So there we have it. And
the response of the SSPX? Well, having written twice to the editor of The
Angelus over the Lara ease without any response, we decided to give that
one a miss this time and save the postage. Bishop Williamson's somewhat brief
response to the Lara issue was evidently meant for that of Geringer as well,
since he had been sent both sets of correspondences. There was nothing from
Dominguez, nor this time from Michael Davies (except a thank you). However,
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais came up with a new tactic. We quote the relevant
section from his letter:
"For Professor
Geringer, in 1988, with the episcopal consecrations of Msgr. Lefebvre, 'there
is no church of Lefebvre.' And for this very reason, he said, the faithful
adhering to him are still Catholics." He adds: 'If, one day, Lefebvre
should found a Church independent of Rome and if those want to adhere to him,
then it would be another thing.'" (letter to John Beaumont, dated December 30th,
1993)
Bishop Tissier de
Mallerais puts his faith in the 1988 version of Geringer. Now, we do not have
access to a recording or transcript of the radio interview. We do not know what
Professor Geringer said on that occasion. We do know, however, what the
professor claims now to have said then. Maybe that is true, maybe it is not.
There is a conflict. But what is clear is that the professor's claim is a piece
of evidence which the inquirer should be entitled to take into account. Bishop
Tissier de Mallerais' tactic of publicizing only one version prevents this from
happening.
But, let us suppose for
sake of argument that Professor Geringer has changed his mind on these issues
between 1988 and today. Does that mean that his views today are to be given no
credence at all? Before it says that this is the case, the SSPX ought to tread
very carefully. Someone might remind them that on May 5th, 1988, Archbishop
Lefebvre accepted and signed a certain protocol with Cardinal Ratzinger. Very
shortly thereafter the Archbishop reneged on this agreement. Supporters of the
SSPX would no doubt claim that the Archbishop was right in his later action.
But, on the approach of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, do we not have to say that
Archbishop Lefebvre's original decision was the right one and that his later
action must be rejected? Let us hope that Bishop Tissier de Mallerais will come
to accept the logic of his own reasoning, because that may enable him to return
to the Catholic Church. The key point here surely is that the SSPX and its
apologists continue to state that Professor Geringer believes that there is no
schism when clearly this is untrue.
Conclusion
What do the facts which
we have brought out in this article say about the SSPX? First of all, they show
clearly that the SSPX and its defenders have misinterpreted and misquoted
Cardinal Lara (we concentrate on the most eminent of these canonists).
Secondly, when this has been pointed out to these people they have failed to
retract their errors or correct them. Thirdly, this whole affair illustrates to
what extent the SSPX is committed to the truth.
We are forced to
conclude that it is more interested in propaganda than the facts. The SSPX
would never in a million years appeal to a Roman Commission such as the Council
for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. But, when it believes that the
President of that Council has said something which supports its case, he is
quoted again and again by SSPX supporters. However, when the truth is known,
either the same false propaganda is disseminated regardless, or Cardinal Lara
is put to one side as if he never existed. There are shades of Stalinism here,
where figures once seen to be part of one's movement are later treated as
non-persons. It is evident that Cardinal Lara is only important insofar as he supports
the SSPX in this case. The Lefebvre group, and its survival, are the criteria
now. Truth comes a very poor second.
The whole approach of
the SSPX is summed up by Michael Davies in his article in The Angelus when
he wrote that "it would be hard to imagine a more authoritative
opinion" than Cardinal Lara's. The sad thing for Michael Davies and
other traditionalists is not just that they misinterpret the good cardinal, but
that they fail to know what every Catholic knows. This is that it is not in
fact hard to imagine a more authoritative voice than Cardinal Lara's. As
Catholics we know and have the voice of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, and on this
whole tragic episode he has spoken. It shows the condition to which
traditionalism has come that it sees its duty as being to disobey and oppose
papal teaching. The irony here is that the SSPX has ended up repudiating the
very tradition which it claims to want most zealously to uphold.
John Beaumont is Principal Lecturer in Law at Leeds Metropolitan University.
John Walsh
is a history graduate of the University of Leeds and has recently completed a
Masters Degree in Theology.
Index of SSPX articles
| Home | Books | Tapes | Orders/Subscriptions | Culture Wars | Events | Fidelity Reprints | Donate |
Culture Wars •
Copyright