If you think the one or the other position is obviously, self-evidently, exceptionlessly correct — a “no brainer” — then I believe you might be a simpleton.
As everyone knows, on July 1st, two bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, in a pontifical ceremony, consecrated four more bishops, and on July 2nd, the Vatican announced in a Declaration that these six bishops had suffered excommunication latae sententiae by performing a schismatic act. In a further Note appended to the Declaration, Cardinal Fernández went on to state that all the clergy, as well as any laity who “formally adhere” to the SSPX, would also fall under latae sententiae excommunication. A process of “reconciliation” was put forward for priests and laity. Thus for a bare outline of the facts.
What interests me more is how to interpret the facts.
Since there’s a lot to cover, I shall try to be as brief as possible, without sacrificing clarity. Much of what follows is developed from commentary I have offered this past week on social media.
I have said all along that I am not taking a public stance against or in favor of the SSPX, and that remains true. As a result, fire-breathing opponents of the Society — some of whom (I am ashamed to say) even rejoice in the excommunications — will no doubt write me off as a duplicitous agent, while adamant defenders of it may call me a coward or a half-hearted defender of tradition.
But it’s not fundamentally about attitudes, it’s about theology. As a philosopher and theologian, I can make convincing arguments on both sides all day long.1
The one side takes as its first principle that communion in the Church requires, above all else and before all else, union with and submission to the pope of Rome; and therefore absolutely nothing could ever “compete,” as it were, with this good, or qualify in any way how one adheres to it. It is the summum bonum as far as the Church on earth is concerned; one may never, in any circumstance whatsoever, defy church authority.
The other side takes as its first principle “salus animarum suprema lex” (the health, welfare, salvation of souls is the highest law)—a law, they argue, which can, in peculiar circumstances, suspend or modify the usual rights of the Church hierarchy, which has as its raison d’être bringing souls the goods they need and deserve (the pope as “servus servorum Dei”; another way of putting it is that authority loses its binding force when it threatens or undermines the common good).
Obviously, this is a mere sketch of the two sides, and whole books have been written from and for the one or the other perspective. I have contributed to this literature with several books, among them True Obedience in the Church: A Guide to Discernment in Challenging Times and Bound by Truth: Authority, Obedience, Tradition, and the Common Good, plus a collection that I edited, Ultramontanism and Tradition: The Role of Papal Authority in the Catholic Faith.
If you think the one or the other position is obviously, self-evidently, exceptionlessly correct — a “no brainer” — then I believe you might be a simpleton. You might be deceiving yourself if you have no moment of hesitation or doubt, no sympathy that might tug you toward the opposite point of view. That is why I consider this moment to be especially tragic: it causes division not only within the Church at large, but also within the breast of every educated and attentive Catholic, in whom the tension between tradition and authority is like a perpetual tug of war. It should not be this way, and that itself is a sign of the depth of our crisis.
So much is being written about these things that one can feel overwhelmed, like a swimmer drowning in a stormy ocean. For this reason, I would recommend two essays that seem to me to convey effectively the two positions sketched above: one, against the SSPX, by Eric Sammons; the other, by Kennedy Hall, in favor of it.2
Continue reading at Tradition and Sanity