It has been publicized in mainstream media that the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) will appeal their excommunication latae sententiae, by the law itself, which was declared by the Holy See after SSPX ordained four bishops contrary to the law. Without going into depth regarding the substance of the matter I have a few points I would like to make which speak more to the nature of the law and to the doctrine enunciated by the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II).
1. Being Under the Law
The very fact that SSPX have appealed against the declared excommunication indicates that they regard themselves as coming under the law and that they were subject to the law prior to the actions they took. This appeal, furthermore, is made under the canons of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. To understand the purpose and intent of the 1983 Code I encourage those interested to read the Apostolic Constitution Sacrae Disciplinae Leges, which was promulgated by Pope St John Paul II in 1983 as he promulgated the law itself. He wrote: "Indeed, in a certain sense this new Code could be understood as a great effort to translate this same conciliar doctrine and ecclesiology into canonical language the conciliar image of the Church." (the emphasis is that of the Holy Father).
In this way it can be said that to place oneself under the law is necessarily to accept the doctrine and discipline of Vatican II which is something that SSPX have always refused! This is despite the fact that the founder of their movement signed the documents of Vatican II in the affirmative. This includes their latest Profession of Faith, in which they name the popes up to Pope Pius XII which pointedly omitting his successors. It can be said that the 1917 Code changed the form of the law but not its content whereas the 1983 Code maintained the form but changed the content. Yet, SSPX have not mentioned the 1917 Code in their appeal which maintaining the ecclesiology and liturgy which was maintained under that Code.
2. Excommunication Latae Sententiae
Excommunication by the law itself means that a trial is not required. With the action, such as cooperating in the procurement of an induced abortion, means the individual is automatically excommunicated upon the completion of the prohibited act. On this occasion the legislator informed SSPX that their proposed action would constitute behaviour subject to the latae sententiae excommunication. All the Holy See has achieved is to declare what the law has done. In the English common law tradition this is called a summary offence. The onus lies on the offending individual not on the Crown. The onus, therefore, in this situation lies on SSPX to show that their actions did not in fact trigger the excommunication. This would involve an interpretation of the law which would directly oppose the explicit communication of the legislator himself. They are not in a position to challenge the legislator himself without confirming the truth of their schismatic behaviour.
3. Appeal Against Sentence
Since the Holy Father indicated, prior to the ordinations, that they would violate the law and trigger automatic excommunication I wonder if, in fact, an appeal is possible or at least advisable? This is not a standard appeal against a decision of an ecclesial authority. The declaration has been made by the Holy See itself. SSPX refer to canon 1353 regarding the suspensive effect that occurs when an appeal is made. However, canon 333 paragraph 3 states: "No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff." The declaration of the penalty was issued by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith acting on behalf of the Supreme Pontiff and with his permission. This situation would be clearer if the pope had signed the document in forma specifica which would have eliminated any ambiguity. He could also have handed down the sentence in forma Motu Proprio (on his own initiative). In any event, I struggle to see what an appeal would achieve. It can hardly argue the facts of the case and the penalty is automatic. Any appeal is therefore looking to challenge the Law itself as well as the authority of the Legislator to interpret the law as to what constitutes the delict of schism.
4. The Office of Pope
If the appeal is against the Code and therefore Vatican II it is not only tilting against the authority of the Successor of Peter but the College of Bishops as a whole. SSPX seem to think that the Pope can act as an autocrat. If they had read the law under which they are appealing they would see canon 330 "Just as by the Lord's decision Saint Peter and the other Apostles constitute one college, so in a like manner the Roman Pontiff, the Successor of Peter, and the other bishops, the successors of the Apostles, are united among themselves." SSPX would be mistaken to think that the Pope would act in an arbitrary or unilateral way to undermine the penal law of the Church and the integrity of not only the 1983 Code but the recent legislation of Pope Benedict XVI regarding graviora delicta (more serious crimes) In short, I fear that SSPX will simply be digging themselves deeper into the hole that they have created by continuing to appeal this excommunication.
5. Conclusion
SSPX finds itself in an awkward position. It is challenging the Code while trying to use the Code. It is acknowledging the reality of excommunication while saying that no excommunication is justified even when it was told, in no uncertain terms, that their behaviour amounted to schism. Their fundamental choice is to become fully sede vacantist or to repent of their schismatic behaviour and reconcile with the Holy See.
No comments:
Post a Comment