This issue’s cover story on the issue of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the question of schism is likely to raise a few eyebrows and more than a few tempers. Since he illicitly consecrated four new bishops in1988, in defiance of Pope John Paul II, the archbishop’s movement, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), has made strenuous efforts to capture the attention and loyalties of Catholics who are disheartened and disaffected by the liturgical abuses and doctrinal fuzziness that exist in some parishes. SSPX priests establish autonomous “chapels” in various
communities where they celebrate Mass and the sacraments only according to the pre-Vatican II Latin rites.

The SSPX claims to be in communion with the pope and the Church, though they are extremely critical of both. Critics of the SSPX, who include the pope himself, point out that, according to canon law, Archbishop Lefebvre’s willful defiance of the Roman Pontiff constituted a “schismatic act.”

In this article, which begins on page 50, canon lawyer Pete Vere analyzes the canonical arguments for the legitimacy and lawfulness of the SSPX that typically accompany this groups’ harsh criticisms of Pope John Paul II and the so-called “conciliar Church” it despises so deeply. Does the SSPX have a case? According to canon law, no, as Vere explains.

The aim of this article is to try to shed more light on the vexing controversy over the canonical status of the SSPX. Is it in schism? Is it not in schism? We realize that this controversy won’t be resolved easily, nor are we so naïve as to imagine that a single article can settle the issue definitively. Our goal is to try to move the discussion forward a bit by introducing more evidence presented for a popular audience. Resolving the problem is important for many reasons, not the least of which is the Holy Father’s publicly expressed concern for the spiritual welfare of the adherents of the SSPX and the overall health of the Body of Christ. Sadly, lay Catholics are being lured out of their parishes and infected with the group’s virulent anti-Pope John Paul II, anti-“conciliar Church,” anti-Vatican II mindset.

The official website of the Society of St. Pius X contains this odd assertion: “The Society of Saint Pius X professes filial devotion and loyalty to Pope John Paul II, the Successor of Saint Peter and the Vicar of Christ. The priests of the Society pray for His Holiness and the local Ordinary at every Mass they celebrate.” It’s odd because it clashes so dramatically with their actions and rhetoric. While it’s good to know that the pope and the bishops in communion with him are being prayed for at SSPX Masses, it’s disturbing to see the strange disconnect that exists in the minds of the SSPX adherents. On one hand they profess “filial devotion and loyalty” to the pope. On the other, they flatly refuse to obey him.

The fact is, Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act when he illicitly consecrated the four new bishops against the will of Pope John Paul II, who had expressly forbidden him to do so. SSPX adherents argue that Archbishop Lefebvre did not go into schism through his disobedience of the pope because he had just and lawful reasons for defying the pope. This claim makes one wonder, then, what the SSPX means when it proclaims its “filial devotion and loyalty” to the pope.

Does the pope think the Society is showing him “filial devotion and loyalty”? Consider this excerpt from Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter, Ecclesia Dei: 1

In itself this act [of consecrating those four bishops] was one of disobedience to the Roman pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience—which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy—constitutes a schismatic act [Code of Canon Law, 751]. In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for Bishops last June 17, Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law [Cf. Code of Canon Law, 1382].

Later in the same apostolic letter, the pope speaks directly to those Catholics who are part of the SSPX or who are tempted to become part of it. Notice the grave urgency of his exhortation:

In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law [Cf. Code of Canon Law, 1364].

In the aftermath of Archbishop Lefebvre’s fateful decision, the SSPX has argued that, according to canon law, it is not technically in schism but remains a Catholic group in good standing. Indeed, canon law has been a prime weapon in the group’s attempts to portray itself as licit. Since most lay Catholics have at best a meager understanding of canon law, they typically don’t have the tools necessary adequately to analyze and evaluate the claims made by members of the SSPX. To help them sort it all out, Vere, a layman who is associated with the Traditionalist group the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, 2 draws from his training in canon law to outline the basic canonical arguments raised by the SSPX and to show why they don’t hold water.