Note: I've received a number of emails and messages over the past few weeks regarding the SSPX episcopal consecrations on July 1st. Here is my response to an email from a friend pointing out Fr. Gerald Murray's belief that the Vatican response has been a "canonical mess." My friend therefore argues the status of SSPX priests is the same as it was before the consecrations.

Thanks for the email. I respect Fr. Murray and of course you as well, but I’ve also talked to canonists who believe the Vatican documents are properly worded and clear. More importantly, however, I think this line of argumentation betrays an orientation contrary to a Catholic spirit.

You argue that, because of what Fr. Murray calls a “canonical mess” produced by the Vatican documents, “The faithful are as free to approach [the SSPX] for Mass and Communion as they were prior to July 1st, without the slightest qualm of conscience.” I strongly disagree.

Here’s what we know about the situation:

• The SSPX decided to consecrate bishops not just without a papal mandate, but in direct opposition to a clear and direct command of the pope.
• As a result, the prefect of the Vatican office in charge of such matters issued a decree announcing the excommunication of the six bishops involved. 
• The six SSPX bishops are not only excommunicated, but they have been given no jurisdiction in the Church (even the Society acknowledges this).
• The priests of the Society are not under any local ordinary, but under the six excommunicated, jurisdiction-less, bishops.
  • I realize that SSPX priests include the local ordinary in their Masses, but considering that all local ordinaries have supported the pope in his actions against the Society—either implicitly or, in some cases, explicitly—and some have even called the SSPX priests to leave the Society, the reality is that the SSPX priests are under the six Society bishops, not their local ordinaries.
• As the Explanatory Note details, by being under the excommunicated SSPX bishops instead of their local ordinaries, these priests are also subject to automatic excommunication, although such excommunications depend on certain conditions, and a general decree could not cover every single priest.
• The lay faithful formally adhering to the actions of the six excommunicated bishops and the Society also are subject to automatic excommunication, similar to the SSPX priests. But as with the priests, a general decree cannot cover every single lay faithful, as it would be impossible to know the level of adherence to the schism of every individual involved.
• The faithful are urged by the Vatican “to refrain from taking part in celebrations and activities promoted by the aforementioned Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X.”

I realize that some people, like you and Fr. Murray, dispute the canonical force of at least the Explanatory Note, but my point in detailing the above is to make clear the pope’s perspective. There’s no reason whatsoever to believe that Pope Leo did not support Cardinal Fernandez’s decree and explanatory note, and in fact they clearly reveal his mind on this matter.

So, to summarize, Pope Leo considers the six SSPX bishops excommunicated and in schism, and also considers all SSPX priests and lay faithful who formally adhere to the schism to be subject to excommunication as well. Further, he does not want any of the Catholic faithful to attend SSPX Masses or other SSPX events. To deny this as his view would be, in my mind, to deny the clear facts on the ground.

So, knowing the pope’s clear view and desire, it seems to me that SSPX-affiliated Catholics have two legitimate possibilities:

1. Obey the pope and refrain from association with the SSPX.
2. Believe that, after careful and prayerful consideration, a higher law contravenes the pope’s clear desire, and continue to associate with the SSPX.

These, of course, are always the two options whenever a Catholic faces a command from a superior, whether it be a pope, religious superior, parent, or other authority. As we know, obedience to a human authority is never absolute, so sometimes one must disobey to follow a higher law.

For example, when many of the bishops of the world rejected Fiducia Supplicans, they were following option 2 above: they recognized that blessing same-sex couples, even when endorsed by the DDF prefect (and therefore by Pope Francis), was contrary to a higher law and so they disobeyed. And they were right to do so.

What is not an option for the Catholic, however, is to approach a clear command of the pope with a spirit of trying to find a way to disobey. I believe this spirit is behind the attempt to call the Vatican documents a “mess” and wave their clear meaning away.

Consider this analogy: A mom and dad are going out of town and tell their teenage children, “Don’t have a party at the house.” After the parents leave, the kids have a party, but outside in the yard. When the parents come back and find out, the kids say, “You said not to have a party at the house. We had a party in the yard.” Obviously, this is disobedience against the parents’ clear desire, even if their actions technically didn’t break the letter of what was said. Such an attitude is not a Catholic one when it comes to obeying legitimate authority.

In other words, we should always default to obeying the pope, and only after serious consideration should we disobey him. We should not look for loopholes. I think during the Francis pontificate many Catholics forgot this standard, for understandable reasons. We obviously shouldn’t be hyperpapalists, but we also shouldn’t go to the other extreme and become hypopapalists, completely neutering his authority in practice.

Now, I recognize that the SSPX also argues that their disobedience to the pope in consecrating bishops falls under option 2 above—i.e., a “state of necessity” required them to disobey because the salvation of souls was at stake. While I disagree with this argument, it is at least a Catholic-based argument. However, it needs to be recognized that it is still an act of disobedience, nonetheless, even if the SSPX justifies it as necessary.

But to say that a Catholic can attend SSPX Masses, and Society priests can continue to celebrate them, “without the slightest qualm of conscience,” because of some possible deficiencies in how the Explanatory Note is worded, is like the children having a party in the yard to circumvent their parents’ clear desire.

I’m sympathetic to the Catholic father trying to raise his children faithfully whose only options are an SSPX chapel or a local diocesan parish with an anemic spiritual life. I don’t claim to know what he should do, nor will I judge him if he brings his family to the SSPX chapel. However, he should do this only after wrestling with his conscience and with full understanding that he’s disobeying the pope. He may believe it justified (and he may be right), but he should only do it with a sense of sorrow and recognizing that it’s a “last resort,” so to speak. He shouldn’t be told not to worry about it simply because a Vatican official supposedly failed to follow the correct form.