In a recent op-ed, a licensed moral theologian outlined key problems with the Priestly Society of St. Pius X’s (SSPX) attempt to justify its upcoming episcopal ordinations, which it intends to carry out July 1 without Pope Leo’s XIV permission, despite the risk of automatic excommunication for all involved clergy.
The op-ed explains that SSPX has argued that the ordinations are necessary because the Church is in a particularly severe crisis rooted in ambiguities and alleged errors in Vatican II documents and the subsequent liturgical reforms, so the ordinations are for the good of souls and protecting the Church’s Tradition.
“The ‘long’ problem with this is that the Church has almost always been in a crisis,” wrote Eamonn Clark, who is also a doctoral student at the Rome-based Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, in the June 12 Catholic Culture op-ed.
“It is even appropriate to say that, in a certain sense, the Church Militant is a crisis,” Clark continued. “We have been left in between the Lord’s first and second coming, with our fallen nature, surrounded by all manner of evil and trouble. And we are always tempted to see our own time as the most serious, the most important, the most dramatic — just as every U.S. presidential election is touted as ‘the most important election ever.’”
“The reality is closer to what Qoheleth says — not only is there nothing new under the sun, but those who ask why the old days were better do not do so from wisdom,” he wrote, referencing Ecclesiastes.
Clark also questioned why the solution of consecrating new SSPX bishops is the right one rather than, for example, joining one of the traditional-leaning groups that appear “to have no problem getting along with the Holy See[.]”
It is likely, he wrote, that there are many priests outside of the SSPX who hold similar opinions to the Society on contentious sections of certain Vatican documents, and that they may even wish deeply to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass.
“And yet, they put their heads down, they cooperate with their local bishop, and they quietly get the work done — from the ambo, in the confessional, and in their daily witness to holiness and truth,” he wrote. “Why the need for a belligerent sui iuris group like the SSPX?”
Episcopal jurisdiction, the SSPX, and a Vatican II declaration
Clark also addressed the SSPX’s criticism of the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium’s teaching on consecration, jurisdiction, and schism. The SSPX has argued that ordaining a bishop without the Pope’s permission is not a schismatic act, though the Vatican has warned the opposite.
“The SSPX’s claim that they are not trying to set up illegitimate episcopal jurisdiction, and that this is based on ‘traditional theology,’ is more than a little problematic,” Clark wrote.
The “traditional” teaching, Clark explained, does not see giving jurisdiction to a new bishop as the same thing as ordaining a new bishop itself. Thus, in this traditional view, consecrating a new bishop who has not received jurisdiction from the Pope would not “entail breaking from the Pope’s governance.”
Clark then explained three key points related to the SSPX’s criticism of Lumen Gentium’s view of this topic.
“First, there used to be a very popular and well-grounded theological opinion that the episcopacy was not only intrinsically connected with jurisdiction, but was so fully summarized by it that it was definable as ‘priesthood with jurisdiction,’” he wrote. “This led to some instances of priests attempting to ordain to Holy Orders, with several cases of apparent papal approval for this practice.”
While now it is unthinkable for a priest to attempt to ordain another man to the priesthood, it “was not always evident” that bishops alone had the right and power to confer Holy Orders, Clark explained. The history of the SSPX’s point on the traditional view is thus not as clear-cut as it may seem, Clark continued, noting that even St. Thomas Aquinas said that the episcopacy — being a bishop — was not a distinct order, as at the time, the word’s meaning was still undergoing theological clarification.
Lumen Gentium clearly outlines that the episcopacy “is a distinct order,” Clark continued, with which “comes the unique prerogative and power to ordain validly to the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopacy.”
Further, one also cannot plausibly argue that conferring Holy Orders — whether that be of a bishop or priest — does not belong to papal regulation, Clark wrote. He cited Pastor Aeternus, the First Vatican Council’s decree on papal primacy, declaring that the Pope exercises full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church in matters of faith and morals, as well as over “the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world”.
Clark argued that it is clear it is the pope’s responsibility “to moderate the dispensation of the sacraments,” especially the choosing of fellow clergy and in particular, the choosing of bishops.
“To put it more bluntly,” Clark wrote, “if the selection of bishops does not belong to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, then nothing does. Else, as in the lawless days of the Judges, everyone would be left to do what was right in his own mind. So, in the end, the consecrations are an act of schism, even if it is not the express intention, somewhat like a man who claims he did not intend to kill his victim but only to administer a lethal poison.”
The virtue of obedience and the necessity of structure
Lastly, Clark argued that even if everything he has said was incorrect, the responsibility of any priestly society or cleric could be upheld through “a childlike trust in God’s providence over His Church working through simple obedience.”
The hierarchy of clergy offices is not to create “polite symbolic requests for unnecessary permission,” but rather for order, Clark wrote.
“God wants those who have the office and accompanying grace of state to be stewards over the Church,” Clark wrote, “with God working out the salvation of the multitudes in His own way, in His own time, even sometimes through unworthy hierarchs.”
He also argued that God may raise up a saint the SSPX cannot anticipate who will bring the Church out of its present challenges, perhaps even without the SSPX’s involvement. Clark wrote that the SSPX has been working to “solve the crisis” for more than 50 years, but as the SSPX itself has said, the alleged situation is even worse today than when the society began its efforts — so what may be different this time?
“The SSPX simply thinks it is the only safe guardian of the Catholic Faith, and that the Pope must therefore listen to them about what to do — or else they will do what they want,” Clark contended. “They asked for a mandate for their consecrations as a gesture of politeness, not out of true obedience as sons.”
Can love justify schism?
Finally, Clark pushed back on the argument that the SSPX’s decision is motivated by love and concern for souls.
“No doubt they do care for souls, but the first soul one must attend to is one’s own,” he wrote. “Every schismatic and every disobedient person claims they are acting for the greater good. Yet the greatest good lies in doing the will of God, even when one is the subject of a superior with less talent than oneself, and even when the superior is evil. Even should bad motives enter into a command which is materially legitimate, God’s motives are never bad.”