A recent report from veteran Vatican journalist Nico Spuntoni (mentioned in English at Diane Montagna’s Substack) mentions that Rome:
“… is concerned about the pastoral care of the persons (i.e. clergy) connected to the Society who do not intend to remain in it after a further break with Rome.”
This should come as no surprise, as the Church has historically tried to limit the fallout of excommunications and schisms. Yet this presents an interesting question: what can Rome offer in terms of “pastoral” care to priests affiliated with the Society?
I know there are some of my brethren who think Rome’s response will be quite limited, but I think that is a risky proposition. In the eyes of Rome, the Society will now have had two generations of episcopal lineage consecrated in opposition to Rome. The 1988 consecrations did not necessarily (and did not in the end) create a parallel hierarchy. The act of illicitly consecrated bishops consecrating their successors illicitly effectively creates a parallel hierarchy. There seems to be no end game: Rome granting approval of a Bishop would not solve the SSPX’s desire to remain independent of any Roman jurisdiction. The risk of a permanent schism is real in a way that arguably was not in 1988.
In light of the severity of this, Rome would want to offer ways to reconcile priests who are not ready for such a move. Yet what can Rome offer? Concessions on the Traditional Latin Mass would be an obvious start, but why should they be believed? Francis demonstrated that it matters not if a move is injurious to souls and opposed by the majority of the world’s bishops. If the pope gets out of bed and thinks something is a good idea, he can make it Church law. He may be limited in enacting such law, but it is hard to build a culture of good faith once the bell has been rung. In a move of supreme irony, the pope who was most favorable to the SSPX might be the pope who made their schism impossible to avoid.
Even if such concessions were granted, the logical question would be raised: why did you not do this to begin with? Why are you only doing so now to prevent a catastrophe? In the end, the Church will have to encounter and swallow a bitter pill if she wants to avoid a permanent schism: a pope made a mistake, and we are now taking action to correct that mistake. Yet what certainty is there a future pope will not conclude this concession was a mistake? Furthermore, if the Church made a mistake with the Latin Mass, did she make any other mistakes surrounding the Second Vatican Council? What if the majority of chaos in the subsequent 60 years could have been avoided had the Church just adopted the attitude of “first, do no harm” when carrying out reform? Institutions will go to great lengths to avoid admitting a mistake, because of how much their authority is damaged.
Continue reading at Kevin Tierney’s Substack