Open Reply to Justice Comments, Brian McCall’s Criticism of Bishop Williamson’s Criticism of the Six Menzingen Propositions

From the perspective of a Conservative Catholic, Mr. McCall has written a good, perhaps the best, defense of the SSPX General Chapter’s Six Propositions that were submitted to Rome as the conditions that Rome must agree to if the SSPX is to be “truly reintegrated into the Church.” This critique by Mr. McCall was written in reply to the critical analysis from Bishop Richard Williamson who concluded that the Six Propositions constitute a betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX and all Traditional Catholics. Only three of the six propositions are considered by the SSPX as non-negotiable. Fr. Franz Schmidberger, the SSPX district superior for Germany and Archbishop Lefebvre’s first successor, summed up the three necessary conditions for “normalization” with Rome: “Firstly that we can continue to point out certain errors of the Second Vatican Council, which means that we can speak openly about it. Secondly, that we may only use the liturgical books from 1962, especially the Missal, and thirdly that there will always be a bishop in the ranks of the society that is chosen from the ranks of the society.”

McCall’s defense of the three necessary propositions may be the best around but that does not make it any good. To begin, the speculative intellect must firstly correspond not only with truth but with truth in the highest order and in proper relationship with other truths. Mr. McCall’s article does not. McCall is a Conservative Catholic with Traditional Catholic sympathies. His article, Justice Comments, was published in the conservative, formerly traditional, Catholic bi-weekly, The Remnant. Mr. Matt, the editor of the Remnant said four years ago when questioned about his practical support for the Reform-of-the -Reform, “If all this makes us suspect traditionalists then indeed I have no further use for a term that has so obviously lost any sense of its original meaning.” This publication of Mr. McCall's article only confirms that Mr. Matt has “no further use for (the) term.” McCall's article, presumptuously entitled, Justice Comments, is grounded upon the unstated presuppositions of Conservative Catholicism and written from the perspective of American legal jurisprudence.

American jurisprudence leaves the determination of facts to the jury, that is, what constitutes the ‘truths’ upon which the case is determined. It is a system that is primarily concerned with practical results. It is a system that seeks accommodation of opinions, that is, an accommodation of truth and error. Canon law, on the contrary seeks truth as an end. When truth is discovered, it then seeks by coercive measures, as an act of charity, to call those in error back to the truth. In short, it seeks to unite truth and charity. What Rome is pursuing with the SSPX is not even a legitimate canonical process.

McCall describes Bishop Williamson's criticism of the Six Propositions as an "error on these practical matters" when they are not, and have never been, primarily "practical matters". The problem with McCall is that his speculative intellect is not properly formed and his practical intellect seeks, in the best sense of American legal tradition, an accommodation of error, and not the unity of truth and charity.

Whoever frames an argument controls the discussion. And the title of the article explains its framing. McCall thinks the problem with the SSPX and Rome is primarily a problem of legal justice. To be fair to McCall, he did not frame the argument. Unfortunately for Traditional Catholics, that was done at Menzingen by Bishop Fellay and the General Chapter. Bishop Williamson's critical comments are brief and did not address the presuppositions of Conservative Catholicism, and thus, McCall’s critical remarks are made in kind. The article is worth a review to demonstrate the deficiencies of Conservative Catholicism and consider the great value in Bishop Williamson’s remarks.

McCall’s argument can be summarized: There is a distinction between the speculative and practical intellect. He says correctly, “For the speculative intellect truth is the correspondence of the intellect with reality. For the practical intellect it is the correspondence of a chosen action with a right appetite. A right appetite is directed to, or proportioned to, the true end or good of man. Practical judgments involve the election of proportionate means to a right appetite. Although Man is not free to choose his end, freedom exists in the election among means suited to that end. There may be more than one means suited to a true end and thus more than one action proportionate to the right end of Man.”

McCall goes on to say, “The second principle is one of justice. The Society and her members have suffered a grave injustice. Although under Natural and Divine law they possess de facto and de jure the power and authority to exist and to perform their sacred offices, the way in which ecclesiastical law has been executed, or carried out, has unjustly denied them de jure legal recognition through the normal means although they possess it by virtue of exceptions to the written law due to a state of necessity, [Necessity knows no law]. Certain authorities in the Church have unjustly denied this reality by treating the Society as if it lacked de jure and de facto legal recognition. This discontinuity of the actions of certain human authorities in the Church on one hand and the reality of Divine and Natural law as well as the operation of exceptions within ecclesiastical law on the other is a grave injustice, one which those in authority within the Church are obligated to correct by conforming present execution of the ecclesiastical law to reality. Since there is more than one action which can correct this legal injustice, the manner in which the Society should accept such a correction of the legal injustice is an action thus governed by the practical intellect.”

He concludes that the three necessary conditions of the SSPX are sufficient to guarantee the defense of the truths of the speculative intellect, that is, the right to teach the truth and to criticize the questionable teachings of Vatican II and the post-counciliar popes; the legal grant of privilege to use the 1962 Missal is a sufficient protection of worship; and the guarantee of a bishop will protect the propagation of the society. With these assurances protecting the non-negotiable truths of the speculative intellect, McCall argues that with respect to the “practical intellect,” that is, the “election of proportionate means to a right appetite,” can be pursued by a variety of means, and that being the case, the subject is duty bound to obey his superior, even though he may disagree that he is choosing the best means.

McCall begins well but ends up so very wrong because he is saddled with the false presuppositions of Conservative Catholicism. Traditional Catholics and Conservative Catholics belong to the genus that holds in the internal forum the revealed truths of our religion (note: this is an assumption of good will toward the Conservative Catholic). The distinctive difference between Traditional Catholics and Conservative Catholics is that Traditional Catholics hold that our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions, as well as the dogmatic formulations of our faith, those outward acts of the virtue of Religion that make the faith visible and communicable, are not merely matters of discipline open to the free and arbitrary will of the legislator, but constitute necessary properties of the Faith. Traditional Catholics hold that the virtue of obedience owed to a legitimate superior is always conditional. Obedience is proximately governed by the virtue of Religion and no Catholic, regardless of the dignity of his office, has the authority to injure the faith by corrupting the virtue of Religion.

The distinctive difference between a Traditional and Conservative Catholic can be illustrated in examining McCall's criticisms of Bishop Williamson. The first proposition requests a guarantee of freedom to teach truth and condemn errors. McCall says:

Essentially Bishop Williamson is stating that the Society cannot accept a correction of the injustice perpetrated on them until the perpetrators fully convert to Tradition. Yet, notwithstanding the necessity of the conversion of the perpetrators for their own sake and, given their position of authority, the good of the Church, such a conversion is not strictly necessary to address the specific issue at hand, the correction of an injustice. This demand would be equivalent to St. Thomas More demanding that before King Henry VIII overturn his unjust conviction and release him from the Tower, Henry VIII must renounce his schism and heresy and convert. Although St. Thomas would clearly have affirmed the need for such a conversion in itself, it is not necessary to the fulfillment of a duty in justice.

McCall has admitted that "The Society... under Natural and Divine law…possess de facto and de jure the power and authority to exist and to perform their sacred offices" and they have been "unjustly denied them de jure legal recognition through the normal means although they possess it by virtue of exceptions to the written law due to a state of necessity, [Necessity knows no law]."

Only a Conservative Catholic could ever think that St. Thomas More in the Tower is an "equivalent" comparison to the situation of the SSPX. The SSPX is not locked-up in a "tower" held incommunicado from family and friends. Whenever requested by traditional faithful, " they possess de facto and de jure the power and authority " to go anywhere and at anytime in the world and establish chapels, schools and seminaries. They are free to do this not for their own sakes but for the sake of Traditional Catholics who are the aggrieved party in this 'injustice'. Every Catholic has a right to the true doctrines of the faith without modernist admixtures and the traditional sacraments according to the "received and approved" customary rites of the Church that are perfectly consonant with the faith held in the internal forum. This right is derived from the duty imposed by God to offer Him fitting worship and to profess our faith in the public forum. This demonstrates the real nature of the "injustice." It is first and foremost an injustice against God. The SSPX has supplied jurisdiction because it has a duty to provide for the rights of faithful Catholics what the Novus Ordo bishops and priests have refuse to do. Thus the "state of emergency" acknowledged by McCall. The "guarantee" by Rome would have to be made to Traditional Catholics, not to the SSPX, before the SSPX can be relieved from the duty they have assumed. There is no reason for the SSPX to exist outside of this function.

If they return to Rome at this time they are offering to 'lock themselves in the tower' with a "guarantee" that they are free to 'teach truth' and 'reprove error' which "truth" or "error" will be wholly determined by the offending party that has never admitted to any degree of guilt in this injustice. Since Rome, the offending party, has admitted to no crime, nothing is grounded in truth that is determined by the speculative intellect. Therefore, no determination of the practical intellect will necessarily correspond to "the true end or good." That being the case, why should anyone trust a liar? Furthermore, no "legal" agreement can bind Pope Benedict or any future pope. And, since jurisdiction is not a necessary condition proposed by Bishop Fellay and the General Chapter, they have essentially agreed to turn over Traditional Catholics to the jurisdiction of the local ordinaries as the trustees responsible for securing their doctrinal and liturgical rights. This cowardly act of betrayal displays a real deficiency in temperance, fortitude, and prudence without which the virtue of justice is impossible. The virtue of justice being absent on both sides of this discussion, only a fool could believe that a just resolution will follow.

The analogy to St. Thomas More does call to mind Robert Bolt's, A Man for All Seasons. The 1966 film adaption of the play, that most people are familiar, edited out the most important supporting character, that of the Common Man. As good as the 1966 film is, the 1988 film by Charlton Heston is better because it is true to the original script's central theme contrasting the character of Thomas More with that of the Common Man. The Conservative Catholic is the Common Man. And in this matter, he is playing the role perfectly. The very idea of asking license to "teach truth" and "oppose error," is absurd. Every Catholic is bound by his baptismal oath to do this on pain of sin. To instruct the ignorant, admonish sinners, and counsel the doubtful are spiritual works of mercy. God will condemn souls to hell for failing in the corporal works of mercy and yet, "It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6, 24). Only a Conservative Catholic would ever seek a license from authority to teach truth and reprove error.

The second indispensable condition is that the Society continues the “use of the 1962 Liturgy” and preserves “the sacramental practice that (they) presently have.” Bishop Williamson comments: “But do we not right now see Rome preparing to impose on Traditional Congregations that have submitted to its authority a ‘mutual enrichment’ Missal, mixing Tradition and the Novus Ordo? Once the SSPX were to have submitted to Rome, why should it be any more protected?”

McCall recognizes “that it appears some Roman authorities may be planning to play with the Missal, mixing in Novus Ordo elements and options.” It is a little late to be figuring this out. The Reform-of-the-Reform has been official policy of Pope Benedict since the publication of Summorum Pontificum and has been his unofficial position for many years before that. McCall naively believes that if Rome agrees to the 1962 Missal request it will really mean something. The 1962 Missal is not the immemorial Roman rite of Mass. The proof for this is demonstrated by the manner in which Rome has treated it. The 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal, the extra-ordinary form of the Novus Ordo, was never intended by Bugnini or anyone else to have anything more than a transitory existence. Bugnini when asked in 1962 if this Missal was the last of his renovations replied: “Not by any stretch of the imagination. Every good builder begins by removing the gross accretions, the evident distortions; then with more delicacy and attention he sets out to revise particulars. The latter remains to be achieved for the Liturgy so that the fullness, dignity and harmony may shine forth once again” (The Organic Development of the Liturgy by Fr. Alcuin Reid).

It is a fact that the 1962 Missal has never been afforded the standing of Immemorial Tradition by Rome. Every papal document touching upon this Missal treats it entirely as a subject of Church discipline governed entirely by human positive law first under the norms of Ecclesia Dei as an Indult and now under the restrictive legal stipulations of Summorum Pontificum as a grant of privilege by positive law. At no time in the history of the Church has an immemorial liturgical tradition been reduced to the status of an Indult, which is the permission to do something that is not permitted by the positive law of the Church. This constitutes presumptive proof that Rome does not regard the 1962 Missal as the Immemorial Roman Rite.

The request itself by Bishop Fellay and the general Chapter represents a concession on their part that the rite of Mass is a matter of simple discipline subject to the free and arbitrary will of the legislator for which they must petition for an Indult. No agreement can bind this pope or any of his successors to this concession. And once anything is accepted as a grant of privilege, it can no longer be claimed by virtue of right. The immemorial Roman rite of Mass is not, and has never been, a matter of simple discipline. Many authorities could be cited to prove this point but Msgr. Klaus Gamber should be sufficient:

"However, the term disciplina in no way applies to the liturgical rite of the Mass, particularly in light of the fact that the popes have repeatedly observed that the rite is founded on apostolic tradition (several popes are then quoted in the footnote). For this reason alone, the rite cannot fall into the category of 'discipline and rule of the Church.' To this we can add that there is not a single document, including the Codex Iuris Canonici, in which there is a specific statement that the pope, in his function as the supreme pastor of the Church, has the authority to abolish the traditional rite. In fact, nowhere is it mentioned that the pope has the authority to change even a single local liturgical tradition. The fact that there is no mention of such authority strengthens our case considerably.
"There are clearly defined limits to the plena et suprema potestas (full and highest powers) of the pope. For example, there is no question that, even in matters of dogma, he still has to follow the tradition of the universal Church-that is, as St. Vincent of Lerins says, what has been believed (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab ominibus). In fact, there are several authors who state quite explicitly that it is clearly outside the pope's scope of authority to abolish the traditional rite."

Msgr. Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy

For the SSPX to be "regularized," they will make the 1989 Profession of Faith in which they will, by solemn oath, swear an unqualified submission of the "mind and will," or as Lumen Gentium says, "submission of the soul," to the "authentic magisterium." The "authentic magisterium," or as it is also called, the "authorized magisterium," is nothing more than a modern term that refers to the legitimate holder of the papal office, that is, the person of the pope. Vatican II and all the post-counciliar teachings are products of the "authentic magisterium." So is the Pope's visit to Germany last year where he declared that the Church "demands" that faithful Catholics accept the doctrine of Religious Liberty and acknowledge the right of Moslems to build mosques in Germany for the worship of false gods. When the SSPX accepts the 1962 Missal by virtue of a grant of Indult they have nothing to fall back upon when that privilege is modified in the Reform-of-the-Reform by the same "authentic magisterium" that gave it in the first place. The only sound liturgical position is to demand, as a right of every faithful Catholic, the use of the “received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments” (Council of Trent, Sess. VII, can XIII) that are prescribed in the Tridentine Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV, Iniunctum Nobis.

The third non-negotiable proposition that they have their own bishop is perhaps the most fatuous. In the diocese of Harrisburg, its former ordinary, Bishop Kevin Rhoades, when he arrived established the Mater Dei Latin Mass community. He wanted a reliable priest to properly control the organization with 'traditional' credentials. He picked a trustworthy friend whom he sent to the Fraternity of St. Peter to be trained to say the Latin mass. In a couple of months he was a Fraternity of St. Peter priest, formed in tradition, established as head of the community. Does McCall really believe Rome would have any problem doing the same thing in placing their own people within the SSPX and raising them to the episcopate?

McCall's introduction to the speculative and practical intellects is good but incomplete and inadequate. The first point to remember is that these are natural virtues as they perfect man's knowing powers. There are three primary virtues of the speculative intellect: Understanding, Science, and Wisdom. The virtue of Understanding relates to the habit of the First Principles, that is, the principle of identity, non-contradiction, the excluded middle, sufficient cause, etc. The virtue of Science applies to specific disciplines of study and presupposes the necessary intra and extra disciplinary relationships. And lastly, the virtue of Wisdom relates to the habit of philosophy, that is, the knowledge of the things in their essences, their most fundamental intelligible aspects.

A sure sign of the moral impoverishment of the Conservative Catholic is their supine acceptance of such terms as "extra-ordinary form" and "ordinary form" of the one Roman rite, as a single expression of a unified lex orandi/lex credendi. They blind themselves to the principle of identity on nothing more than human authority. The "hermeneutic of continuity/discontinuity," is another example of the same thing. Even from a natural perspective there is not anything to call real virtue.

But more importantly, with Baptism and the infused virtues and gifts of the Holy Ghost, the natural virtues of the intellect are raised to a supernatural level. That is why a sound Traditional Catholics can read McCall's article and recognize it, even if only connaturally, as entirely specious. The intellectual virtues guided by the theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity make a man of modest intelligence look a lot brighter than McCall. After all, the most important matter for Traditional Catholics is, and has always been, defense of the Faith, not the correction of any personal injustice, which may or may not have anything to do with the Faith. Defense of the Faith is not done by begging a chair at the same table with a multiplicity of errors. What has brought the SSPX to this brink of ruin is Bishop Fellay's acceptance of Pope Benedict's "hermeneutic of continuity" paradigm and his refusal to demand from Rome the definitive dogmatic declarations from the Chair of Peter on the novel counciliar and post-counciliar teachings. Dogma, the formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith, is the only weapon we possess to confront the abuse of authority, for every authority is subject to truth.

The last three propositions being mere requests, and for that reason, are inconsequential, but two points merit a few comments. McCall says, “The final three conditions are prudential means to ensure compliance with the ends of the sine qua non conditions. Means cannot be insisted on with the same absolute necessity as ends, a principle of Thomism of which I am certain His Excellency (Bishop Williamson) is well aware.” But “means” are not unrelated to the “ends.” If the “means” are necessary “to ensure compliance with the ends of the sine qua non conditions” then they must have the same sine qua non status as the ends.

McCall says addressing the fifth proposition, the request for jurisdiction, “The Society in no way denies the fact that in light of recent history and behavior, the first three sine qua non conditions may be rendered null de facto if diocesan bishops have authority over Society houses. This has been the experience of a variety of groups who muzzle themselves so as to avoid disfavor of and expulsion by diocesan bishops.” This is so painfully obvious that to simply point it out sounds like an insult. Here we have an admission that a hostile bishop can “render null” the “first three sine qua non conditions.” This makes Bishop Fellay and the General Chapter look ridiculous for calling the first three conditions sine qua non in the first place since the necessary means to achieve them are not themselves sine qua non. McCall says, "In light of current difficulties this condition is deemed prudentially desirable but it is not a matter of principle since His Excellency (Bishop Williamson) cannot deny the principle of the authority of bishops even if a derogation from the principle is desirable in the current crisis." Bishop Williamson calls this "Unbelievable"! McCall replies, “Bishop Williamson’s criticism here appears disproportionate to the actual condition.” This is related to the first principle of the speculative intellect, the virtue of understanding, which intuitively sees that lacking sufficient means the ends are not possible to obtain. But this is what we have come to expect from Conservative Catholics. For them our ecclesiastical traditions are simple matters of discipline subject to the free and independent will of any legislator.

The last comment concerns ecclesiastical tribunals and the Pontifical Commission, that is, the fourth and sixth requests. McCall in both cases, as he does in the question of jurisdiction, accuses Bishop Williamson of a false ecclesiology because his criticism implies, as in the question of jurisdiction, a failure to recognize the pope as the final authority. This is the complaint of Conservative Catholics again who regard dogma and immemorial ecclesiastical traditions as matters of discipline that the pope is at liberty to do with as he pleases. Bishop Williamson is only pointing out that our present Pope and the Roman curia are modernists. They have constructed an utterly false ecclesiology taken from Lumen Gentium and committed abuse upon abuse of their power to corrupt doctrine and worship. Authority, an attribute of the Church, exists only for the purpose of defending doctrinal truth and purity of worship. It has no validity whatsoever to corrupt doctrine and pervert worship. It is foolish to believe that at this time they could be relied upon to properly judge tribunals and govern commissions with truth and justice when the decisions of these tribunals and commissions are material to the defense of the faith.

Dom Gueranger relates the story of St. John Gualbert. He was a Florentine soldier of nobility, who forgave the murderer of his brother who had pleaded for mercy in the name of Jesus Christ. John then went to the church of San Miniato which was near at hand, and as he was adoring the image of Christ crucified, the head of Christ turned toward him. He immediately laid aside his military clothing and embraced the monastic life to become a soldier for Christ. St. John would eventually become the great reformer of monastic life when he laid the foundations of his Order under the Rule of St. Benedict at Vallombrosa as directed by St. Romuald of Camaldoli under divine inspiration.

St. John, having denounced the simoniac bishop of Florence, Peter of Pavia, led the people of Florence in refusing to have communion with him. Peter responded by killing all his opponents including every one of the monks at San Salvi during their Night Office. During the next four years the case was appealed to Rome and St. Peter Damien conducted the investigation with full authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, Alexander II. St. Peter Damien, invoking the principle that no inferior has the right to depose their superiors sided with the cause of Peter of Pavia.

Taking the defense of the monks was none other than Hildebrand, later to become Pope St. Gregory VII. Since the majority of bishops sided with Peter of Pavia, Pope Alexander would not depose him, but took the monks under his personal protection. Still the matter was unresolved because the Florentines refused to accept Peter of Pavia.

In Lent 1067 under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, St. John gave his consent to a "trial of fire," also called "trial by ordeal," as a means to provide testimony of the truth of the accusation brought by him against the Bishop of Florence. One of St. John’s monks, Peter by name, and since then known as Peter Igneus, walked slowly before the eyes of the multitude through an immense fire without receiving the smallest injury. Heaven having spoken, the bishop was deposed by Rome and ended his days a happy penitent in the very monastery of St. John at Settimo where the trial of fire took place.

Demanding that Pope Benedict sit in the Chair of Peter will be equivalent to a "trial by ordeal." God will protect His Church from this modernist babble even if a few cardinals, or even the pope, have to die. St. John, like St. Thomas of Canterbury after him, laid their lives on the line in defense of the Church for matters of pure discipline. Should Traditional Catholics be any less willing to take a militant stand in the defense of matters of Faith?

Another timely story: In 1599, about 40 years after the death of England’s Queen Mary, an odd deputation of Catholic secular clergy, wearied from their protracted defense of the faith, went to Rome, with the ‘blessing’ of Anglican authorities and the approval of the Elizabethan government, who sent along their own government spy, Dr. Cecil. The purpose of the mission was to seek from the Pope a mitigation of the Catholic policies in England that were then in conformity with the strict spirit and militancy of the Jesuit clergy who would not compromise with the secular clergy. The last religious edict of Queen Elizabeth published in 1602 made a radical distinction between Catholic secular clergy and Jesuit clergy. The latter were summarily executed while the former were given time to possibly negotiate more lenient treatment. Bishop Fellay and the General Chapter with their Six Propositions are asking for Traditional Catholics to make, in many respects, an analogous compromise, a softening of our position. Pope Benedict recognizes that some Traditional Catholics are failing in fortitude. He said:

"I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole."

Pope Benedict XVI, March 10, 2009, Letter to bishops regarding lifting of the excommunications of the SSPX bishops

My opinion is that Rome is effectively exploiting this failure in virtue to produce compromise and accommodation of error that will eventually lead to a betrayal of the faith just as it did with the secular clergy in England who began in all good will but ended very poorly.

A recent statement from Bishop Tissier is important:

The agreement considered in 2011-2012 lasted for six months, it has not been blessed by the Blessed Virgin. (We had prayed rosary after rosary, and we keep doing that, that is very good.) But the Blessed Virgin was clearly not behind this idea. She did not walk this path, because on June 30 (it's a secret that I reveal to you, but it will be made public), on June 30, 2012, the Pope wrote with his own hand a letter to our Superior General, Bp. [Bernard] Fellay, signed personally: "I confirm to you in fact [that], in order [for you] to be truly reintegrated into the Church [Tissier: let us move beyond this expression], it is necessary to truly accept the Second Vatican Council and the post-counciliar Magisterium."

Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, conference to French SSPX priests, 9-16-12

"The Blessed Virgin Mary is clearly not behind this idea." Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is referring to the messages from the Mother of God that have been communicated to Bishop Fellay. The Blessed Virgin Mary has warned Bishop Fellay not to do exactly what he is doing[i]. I cannot demonstrate that the messages for Bishop Fellay are in fact from the Mother of God but what can be demonstrated is that Bishop Fellay, Bishop Williamson, and many priests in the SSPX who have examined the evidence believe the messages to be authentic. This quote from Bishop Tissier leads me to think that he also believes the messages to be credible because the phrase, "has not been blessed by the Blessed Virgin" is nearly a quote from the visionary. The Mother of God has warned Bishop Fellay that he is not to move the SSPX any closer to Rome until the Pope in union with the bishops of the world consecrates Russia to her Immaculate Heart as she requested at Fatima. Bishop Fellay, unless he repents, will get a lesson in both the speculative and practical intellect that "no man can serve two masters " and a "house divided against itself shall not stand."

Lastly, if it really were essentially a question of justice, the SSPX would be under no obligation to do anything. The Pope on his own has the authority to correct this injustice to God for which he is completely responsible by simply establishing Traditional Catholics in a manner analogous to Eastern Rite Catholic Churches that have overlapping geographical jurisdictions with Novus Ordo prelates. Until Rome brings their own speculative intellects in line with Truth, the state of necessity will persist.[ii] But the end that Rome has in mind has nothing to do with correcting an injustice that they have yet to admit exists. Unfortunately for all Traditional Catholics, when Rome accepts the three conditions, Bishop Fellay will get his thirty pieces of silver, Conservative Catholics will rejoice and congratulate themselves on their obedient and prudent moderation to a modernist authority that has made a mockery of the virtue of Religion, and Traditional Catholics will begin as they did in the late 1960s to rebuild again. Our ranks will be purged and our organization scattered but, alas, “The fewer men, the greater share of honour” when the victory promised by the Mother of God is realized.

In launching the New Evangelization and the new Year of Faith, Pope Benedict invited “ecclesial realities” to Rome for the celebration. These “ecclesial realities” included Opus Dei, Focolare, Neo-catechumenal Way, various heretical and schismatic sects, even the clown “Archbishop” Rowan Williams, the pretend cleric and head of the Anglican cult, was present and given the honor of addressing the Pope and the synod of 262 bishops assembled. The New Evangelization and the Year of Faith are built upon the same principles that have left the Church in ruins these past fifty years. It is certain that more devastation will follow. Conservative Catholics are anxious to contribute their own “ecclesial realities” to this expedition. And nothing condemns their supine cowardice more than one Traditional Catholic standing firm. The heaviest cross over the last fifty years for Traditional Catholics has been the dead weight of the Conservative Catholic. The corruption of today will someday be swept away but like every heresy in the past, this grace will be paid for with blood. And, as in Robert Bolt's play, A Man for All Seasons, the Common Man will be our jailer and executioner.

May our good God, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, keep us faithful until the end.

David M. Drew

Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission

October 13, 2012

BACK

HOME

Justice Comments A Reply to Eleison Comments Number CCLXVIII: *The Adequacy of the Six Conditions* Brian McCall	POSTED: 10/3/12
REMNANT COLUMNIST, Oklahoma
______________________
*What Would* *Archbishop Lefebvre Do?* (www.Remnantnewspaper.com) Recently, His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson opined in his weekly email commentary on the six conditions formulated by the General Chapter of the Society of St. Pius X applicable to any future official recognition of the Society by the Roman authorities. His Excellency concludes that these six conditions “demonstrate an alarming weakness on the part of the Society’s leaders.” Although I have respect for His Excellency and have benefited greatly from listening to his doctrinal conferences (which are a model of learning, clarity and wit), I believe his judgment on these practical matters is unjust and inaccurate. Before turning to consider his particular conclusions on each matter, it is necessary to establish several foundational principles. First, the conditions established relate to action, the acknowledgment by the Society that the Vatican has corrected a grave injustice by recognizing the Society’s existence and work de jure and providing positive legal provisions for its continuation. The judgment of the General Chapter relates to the practical intellect rather than the speculative intellect. The speculative intellect judges the reality of things whereas the practical intellect judges the appropriateness of actions. The public Declaration of the Chapter treats mostly of speculative matters, judgments as to the reality of Truth, the Church and the current crisis. As St. Thomas teaches [1] the nature of true judgments differs for the speculative and practical intellect. Since the speculative intellect judges the reality of things, due to the principle of non-contradiction there can only be one true judgment of something proposed to the speculative intellect. To use a favorite example of His Excellency, two plus two either equal four (a true speculative judgment) or they do not (a false speculative judgment). Although correct practical judgments depend upon true speculative knowledge, since practical judgments relate to the election of means among a variety of contingent matter the nature of truth differs. For the speculative intellect truth is the correspondence of the intellect with reality. For the practical intellect it is the correspondence of a chosen action with a right appetite. A right appetite is directed to, or proportioned to, the true end or good of man. Practical judgments involve the election of proportionate means to a right appetite. Although Man is not free to choose his end, freedom exists in the election among means suited to that end. There may be more than one means suited to a true end and thus more than one action proportionate to the right end of Man. The rightness of a chosen action (its correspondence to a right appetite for a true end) does not preclude the truth of other proposed actions which also can be suited to the end. For example, when grading a child’s spelling test, the proffered answer is either correct or incorrect as this is a matter of conformity to reality. A part of Man’s proper end is to attend Holy Mass devoutly and efficaciously. Yet, there are a multiplicity of means suited to that end the election of which by the practical intellect will depend on many factors such as the temperament and age of the person involved. They may include saying the rosary, following a Missal, visually following the action at the altar or reading a devotional book. Certain actions are per se excluded as false judgments such as texting on one’s phone during Mass since this does not conform to a right appetite. Yet, after such exclusions there often remains more than one action which is suited to a right end. Within this permissible set, the election of means is governed not by truth (which is already satisfied as all permitted means are suited to the end) but by prudence (assisted by counsel) which attempts to select among the means in light of existing and possible future contingencies. For a society, a unity of people working towards a common end, decisions among a variety of actions all conformed to a right appetite are entrusted to the lawful superiors of that society. Legitimate disobedience to decisions of lawful superiors is not only permissible but even virtuous if and only if the lawful superior selects false means or actions which require members of the society to violate the law of God. Any other election of lawful superiors may not correspond to the choice of all members, yet so long as it does not compel violation of the law of God it must be accepted. The second principle is one of justice. The Society and her members have suffered a grave injustice. Although under Natural and Divine law they possess de facto and de jure the power and authority to exist and to perform their sacred offices, the way in which Ecclesiastical law has been executed, or carried out, has unjustly denied them de jure legal recognition through the normal means although they possess it by virtue of exceptions to the written law due to a state of necessity.[2] Certain authorities in the Church have unjustly denied this reality by treating the Society as if it lacked de jure and de facto legal recognition. This discontinuity of the actions of certain human authorities in the Church on one hand and the reality of Divine and Natural law as well as the operation of exceptions within Ecclesiastical law on the other is a grave injustice, one which those in authority within the Church are obligated to correct by conforming present execution of the Ecclesiastical law to reality. Since there is more than one action which can correct this legal injustice, the manner in which the Society should accept such a correction of the legal injustice is an action thus governed by the practical intellect. Having established these two principles we can turn to His Excellency’s specific commentary. The General Chapter acknowledges that there exist more than one method of correcting the legal injustice and establishing recognition of the true legal reality. Yet, for the elected action to remain proportionate to a right appetite, the good of the Church, six elements are identified as either necessary, sine qua non, or desirable. The first condition contains two elements. The Society must be guaranteed freedom to proclaim and transmit the fullness of Catholic Truth. Secondly the Society must be unrestrained “to prohibit, correct and reprove, even publicly, those who foment the errors or innovations of modernism, liberalism, the Second Vatican Council and their consequences.” Translating this condition into our discussion, the General Chapter has judged that for any action of Rome to truly be proportionate to a right appetite, it must provide such a guarantee. Since the Society has been unjustly persecuted precisely for prohibiting, correcting and reproving those who promote the “errors or innovations of modernism, liberalism, the Second Vatican Council and their consequences,” it is necessary to legally provide a method for preventing unjust persecution on such account in the future. Bishop Williamsons’ assessment of this condition is: “[N]otice how the Chapter’s vision has changed from that of Archbishop Lefebvre. No longer ‘Rome must convert because Truth is absolute’, but now merely ‘The SSPX demands freedom for itself to tell the Truth.’ Instead of attacking the Conciliar treachery, the SSPX now wants the traitors to give it permission to tell the Truth? ‘O, what a fall was there!’” His Excellency has misrepresented the first condition by only referring to its first half. Yet, the quoted language clearly addresses the need not only to preach the truth but to attack error, specifically the Conciliar errors. His Excellency’s assessment of the first condition is not a true speculative judgment about the content of the condition because he ignores the second part. His Excellency’s criticism of this condition also claims that the condition lacks the necessary element of demanding the conversion of the authorities to Tradition. The condition does not deny the need for conversion to the Truth for the good of the Church or even for the salvation of the personal souls of the Roman authorities. In fact, the official Declaration of the General Chapter issued in conjunction with these six principles, and which must be read in conjunction with them, makes the statement of Archbishop Lefebvre quoted by Bishop Williamson the Chapter’s own. The Chapter reaffirmed that it is “waiting for the day when an open and serious debate will be possible which may allow the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities.” (emphasis added). Essentially Bishop Williamson is stating that the Society cannot accept a correction of the injustice perpetrated on them until the perpetrators fully convert to Tradition. Yet, notwithstanding the necessity of the conversion of the perpetrators for their own sake and, given their position of authority, the good of the Church, such a conversion is not strictly necessary to address the specific issue at hand, the correction of an injustice. This demand would be equivalent to St. Thomas More demanding that before King Henry VIII overturn his unjust conviction and release him from the Tower, Henry VIII must renounce his schism and heresy and convert. Although St. Thomas would clearly have affirmed the need for such a conversion in itself, it is not necessary to the fulfillment of a duty in justice. What is indispensable to the issue at hand, repairing past injustices, is assurance that the injustice will not be repeated. This first condition is not related to the speculative truth of the necessity of adherence to Tradition for the personal salvation of the Roman authorities or even for the restoration of the Church but rather to the correction of the legal injustice perpetrated against the Society, their persecution for attacking error. The Chapter judges that it is absolutely indispensable for a true correction of this legal wrong to be truly righted that those who perpetrated and continue to perpetrate the injustice make assurances that they will not correct the legal situation one day and commence persecution again the next. Thus, the Society must be guaranteed freedom from persecution for both (1) preaching the truth and (2) attacking Conciliar errors. Put another way, any action of Rome which does not so guarantee this freedom from persecution does not truly restore the full official legal status of the Society unjustly denied to them. Rather than abstaining from “denouncing the Conciliar treachery” the Declaration and this first condition make clear that any correction of the legal injustice must not be conditioned on the Society refraining from denouncing error and those who promote error. His Excellency’s objection to the first condition does not accord with the facts. The second indispensable condition is that the Society continue “use of the 1962 Liturgy” and must preserve “the sacramental practice that we presently have.” Bishop Williamson comments: “But do we not right now see Rome preparing to impose on Traditional Congregations that have submitted to its authority a ‘mutual enrichment’ Missal, mixing Tradition and the Novus Ordo? Once the SSPX were to have submitted to Rome, why should it be any more protected?” Yes, His Excellency is correct that it appears some Roman authorities may be planning to play with the Missal, mixing in Novus Ordo elements and options. Put another way, there appears to be a movement to replay the events of 1965-1969 all over again and gradually move the 1962 Mass to the Novus Ordo. This real possibility explains the careful choice of wording by the Chapter. They state that the exclusive use of the 1962 Liturgy is to be guaranteed. They do not use the more ambiguous terms Latin Mass, Extraordinary Form, Ancient Rite, etc. which do not preclude a reissued 2013 Missal containing Novus Ordo intrusions. The Chapter makes clear that it must have exclusive use of the 1962 Liturgy. They go on to clarify that this term includes all sacramental practices currently used by the Society. Since the Society does not currently use these yet-to-be-promulgated changes and options apparently under consideration in Rome the condition makes clear the Society cannot be made to accept them. Again, His Excellency ignores the precise terms of the real condition and seems to be criticizing a differently worded condition, one that employs a less precise and more ambiguous terminology. The Society’s sine qua non is that the 1962 version must remain in exclusive use by the Society. Again, since this very fact, refusal to compromise and in any way make use of any innovation dating after 1962 has been a source of persecution of the Society, the Chapter makes clear that the Roman authorities must foreswear future persecution on the basis of an exclusive use of the 1962 form of the entire Liturgy, including sacraments. The third condition is the sine qua non that the Society maintain “at least one bishop.” His Excellency’s criticism of this condition is merely a reminder of history. In 1988, Rome in practice did not act according to this commitment and gave the Archbishop reasonable grounds for concluding that the promise of a bishop had not been and would not in any reasonable time frame be met. All the Chapter does here is repeat the same requirement of Archbishop Lefebvre. They do not in any way suggest that their action would differ from his if, in fact, the Roman authorities of today repeated the behavior of those in 1988 (recognizing that one of them is the same person, the present Holy Father). The difference now is that the Society already has four bishops. There is no need at present to consecrate a bishop. That day will come and the Chapter adheres to the true judgment that to preserve the Catholic priesthood at least one bishop is absolutely necessary. There is no rejection of the course of action of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, but rather a repetition of his own condition which he held fast to when Rome in practice rejected it. The Chapter says nothing to indicate that it would not follow his example if Rome de facto broke her promise and refused to facilitate the fulfillment of this requirement at a future date. Again Bishop Williamson’s complaint is not rightly against this condition but merely a fear that in the future the Society will not act prudently in face of a possible breach of promise. The fourth condition described as desirable is that the Society should possess its own “ecclesiastical tribunals in the first instance.” Bishop Williamson criticizes this condition as not demanding enough. “But if any higher tribunal is of the official Church and can undo the lower tribunals’ decisions, what Catholic decision of any Society tribunal will still have any force at all?” He is effectively claiming that the Society must not only have primary tribunals but its own appellate courts not subject to any legal review even by the Holy Father himself. Such a demand is not consistent with Catholic ecclesiology. It essentially demands that the Society possess the supreme jurisdiction in the Church not subject to any higher earthly authority. But such a demand is to demand the Society be the Pope, the Vicar of Christ on earth. All legal jurisdiction in the Church flows from Christ through the Vicar of Christ. All courts are courts of the Church. The Society rightly recognizes that in light of the crisis there is a real danger of her clerics (and laity attached to her) being treated unjustly by diocesan courts. This is fair enough in light of the unjust treatment in the past and the current crisis. To demand absolutely no appellate review even to the Holy See is not consistent with the constitution of the Church. Not even non-Roman Catholic particular churches with their own canon law can exist in such a vacuum. Bishop Williamson’s demand is essentially that the Society become a Church unto itself, a distinct legal entity completely severed from the legal entity of the Church. Such a demand is beyond the realm of possibility. The Society is not the Church but only a part of the Church. If for prudence an unusual legal situation is warranted, independent tribunals, that system must at some level respect the constitution of the Church. Finally, we must note that the possibility His Excellency fears, incorrect legal decisions being made by courts of the “official Church,” exists at present. The Society does not possess strictly speaking independent legal tribunals of first instance at present. Due to the unjust legal situation of the Society, anyone subjected to a disciplinary decision of a superior has the de jure legal ability to walk away from the Society and enter a Church court system notwithstanding the imprudence or moral fault in doing so. The request of the Society is a request that her legal decisions be given force of positive law in the Church by being rendered by legally recognized tribunals. No person under her jurisdiction could simply walk away and avoid official Church legal sanction. The Church authorities would be required under law to respect and enforce the just decisions of her courts. At present Church officials feel legally free to utterly ignore decisions of the Society’s superiors and to give asylum to violators of the Society’s statutes. The fifth condition is a desire for “exemption of the houses of the Society of Saint Pius X in relation to the diocesan bishops.” Here is Bishop Williamson’s comment: “Unbelievable! For nigh on 40 years the SSPX has been fighting to save the Faith by protecting its true practice from interference by the local Conciliar bishops, and now comes the General Chapter merely desiring independence from them ?” Bishop Williamson’s criticism here appears disproportionate to the actual condition. This criticism occasions a need to consider why the Chapter labeled the first three conditions sine qua non and the final three desirable. The first three conditions relate to specific pretexts for past and present persecution of the Society: (1) attacking errors of Vatican II, (2) adhering exclusively to the 1962 form and (3) consecrating bishops. Thus, to correct the injustice it is indispensable that the three pretexts for persecution be removed. The three final conditions relate to circumstances that will make the healing of the wounds of persecution more efficacious. Strictly speaking, they do not relate to correction of injustices but to the establishment of better future relationships. Since they do not touch upon the specific issues involved in the unjust persecution but rather to future conducive conditions for preserving the peace, they cannot be considered indispensable. This distinction between addressing specific past occasions of injustice and addressing prudent circumstances for the future explains the difference of terminology. The final three conditions are prudential means to ensure compliance with the ends of the sine qua non conditions. Means cannot be insisted on with the same absolute necessity as ends, a principle of Thomism of which I am certain His Excellency is well aware. The Society in no way denies the fact that in light of recent history and behavior, the first three sine qua non conditions may be rendered null de facto if diocesan bishops have authority over Society houses. This has been the experience of a variety of groups who muzzle themselves so as to avoid disfavor of and expulsion by diocesan bishops. The Chapter recognized the seriousness of this problem. As with Summorum Pontificum, the first two conditions could become dead letters if diocesan bishops hostile to Tradition are able to circumvent them by illegitimate exercise of their authority. A means of avoiding such a tyranny is to exempt the Society houses. This condition, unlike the first three, is a matter of prudence. There is something objectively wrong with not speaking the Truth and not condoning error. There is something wrong with using the flawed post 1962 Liturgy. There is not something in principle wrong with authority being exercised by a bishop; there has only been something wrong in the way that authority has been abused. Thus, the condition is worded in a more qualified manner so as not to deny in principle the authority of bishops. In light of current difficulties this condition is deemed prudentially desirable but it is not a matter of principle since His Excellency cannot deny the principle of the authority of bishops even if a derogation from the principle is desirable in the current crisis. The sixth condition is that there be established “A Pontifical Commission in Rome for Tradition answering directly to the Pope, with the majority of its members and governing board in favor of Tradition.” Again this is nothing but the demand of Archbishop Lefebvre. In fact it is even more rigorous than that of the Archbishop as it requests a majority of its members and not merely a representation come from Tradition. Having witnessed the operation of the Ecclesia Dei Commission over the past twenty years, it is true that the disposition of the members of the Commission towards Tradition is very important to the results produced. In the past traditionally minded groups have accepted being ruled by a Commission on which they have no seat. The point of such a Commission is to have an orderly forum for communication between the Society and the Holy See. One purpose of this Commission would be from the Society’s perspective to have a forum in which to continually echo the call for a conversion to Tradition at the highest levels of the Church. This is exactly what the doctrinal commission was designed to permit, the Society to present the case for Tradition in Rome. Yes, the doctrinal commission failed to convert the Roman authorities (at least to the best of our knowledge although it is possible some have been converted). This was not a fault of the forum or the Society but those listening to Truth. To believe otherwise would be equivalent to faulting Our Lord for the hardness of hearts of the Jews to whom he preached. The presently reigning Ecclesia Dei Commission is nothing of the sort requested by this condition. It is a police force set over Tradition to regulate it often composed of a majority of clerics and hierarchs blatantly hostile to Tradition. The reason the Ecclesia Dei Commission was transformed from that requested by the Archbishop to its present one is that rarely do we hear the groups under its authority demand a fair representation on the Commission of members favorable to Traditions. After twenty years, not a single priest of any community favoring Tradition has ever sat on the Commission. Communication is thus a one way direction. Recognizing this failure of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, the Chapter renews and enhances the condition of the Archbishop by requesting majority representation. To be fair to His Excellency, if his criticism of this condition had been merely that the formulation “a majority . . . in favor of Tradition” was not precise enough in its terminology. The phrase is open to some interpretation as to what it means to be favorable. Perhaps it might have been clearer to require membership coming from either the Society or a related group whose constitutions involve an adherence to Tradition. But, His Excellency’s criticism is not at this level of prudential detail but rather he focuses upon the fact that this commission is to be dependent upon the Pope. Bishop Williamson objects: “Dependent on the Pope? But have the Conciliar Popes not been ringleaders of Conciliarism? Is Conciliarism no longer a problem?” Yet, all Catholic institutions must be dependent upon the Pope as the visible head of the Church. Bishop Williamson’s demand goes beyond Catholic ecclesiology. Any legal institution, and a Commission would be such, must be “dependent upon the Pope” to be Catholic. Otherwise it would not be under his authority. Even today the Society notwithstanding its unjust legal persecution is “dependent upon the Pope.” Again, if this condition had accepted the current structure of the Ecclesia Dei Commission which has no requirement whatsoever to be drawn from people favorable to Tradition, Bishop Williamson could rightly object that this would ignore the experiences and betrayals of the past twenty years. If His Excellency had merely commented on a possible improvement in clarity by suggesting a more precise formulation of “in favor of Tradition,” his criticism would appear reasonable and even constructive. Yet, to criticize the chapter for acknowledging that an institution would be “dependent upon the Pope” misses the mark. His Excellency’s criticism of this condition seems to indicate the root cause of his entire criticism of the Chapter’s decision. He appears to judge it to have been a mistake of groups which have accepted formal legal recognition from the authorities to be the mere fact of accepting formal legal recognition from them. He seems to make this assessment of the past a principle: To accept formal legal recognition under any circumstance is a betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre, utterly imprudent, and a prelude to compromise on matters of principle such as the Faith and the Mass. Yet, again this is an assessment of the past forty years that lacks an important distinction. In retrospect it would be reasonable of His Excellency to point out that accepting legal recognition before establishing clearly the status of the key sine qua non conditions to avoid explicit or implicit persecution for criticizing errors, including those of Vatican II, and exclusively holding to the 1962 Liturgy poses a real danger. Likewise, it is reasonable to point out that unless provisions for the succession of a bishop are clearly agreed in advance, the Vatican will never appoint one. In other words, it is one thing to argue that the approach of assuming the Vatican will in fact treat formally recognized groups justly after formal recognition has been proven to be naïve. It is quite another to argue that accepting formal recognition on any terms is per se a compromise of the Faith, an argument suggested by His Excellency’s criticism. The problems faced by traditionally minded groups formally recognized today is not the mere fact of their formal recognition but the fact that they may have underestimated and thus failed to legislate for the challenges, including the duplicity of Vatican officials in dealing with them, before accepting formal recognition. It is one thing to allege that in the past some people may have rushed too rashly into their canonical status, it is another to be opposed under all circumstances as a matter of principle. What led to Bishop Rifan’s embrace of concelebration of the Novus Ordo is not simply the fact that his priests are formally recognized by Rome but the fact that he did not make clear prior to the recognition that he and his priests would exclusively use the 1962 Liturgy. What muzzles many good priests with official recognition is that their status was accepted without stating they had every intention to denounce the errors of Vatican II and its progeny after recognition. They relied on an ambiguous agreement to be free to preach the Truth without clarifying the concomitant freedom to denounce error. The General Chapter appears clearly aware that such haste and lack of clarity leads to compromise. That is why they insist it can only be accepted if the sine qua non conditions are accepted and if the desirable circumstances are considered. In light of the first two conditions, to say nothing of the two year detailed presentation of the contradictions contained within Vatican II, any official recognition would come in the context of clarity. The Society will continue denouncing error and will continue exclusively using the 1962 Liturgy and will continue to have at least one bishop. If the Roman authorities will not accept these facts, then the unjust persecution will continue. No priest or group officially recognized thus far has ever been recognized on the basis of the combination of all of these clearly worded conditions and following two years of clarifying the details of the Society’s critique of Vatican II but only on an agreement containing either only limited aspects of them or ambiguously worded permission to prefer saying the Latin Mass and teaching the old way and living the old discipline if they choose. His Excellency places the level of principle at the wrong point. It is not the fact of official recognition that is a road to compromise but the acceptance of such official recognition on any terms. The General Chapter has been clear, if the unjust wrongs of the past are to be corrected, they must really be corrected and clear conditions fixed for preventing immediate relapse. His Excellency concludes his commentary by stating that these conditions are “excessively grave.” By which he must mean gravely wrong. Yet, they are nothing other than the conditions of the Archbishop: to proclaim truth and denounce error; to use exclusively the 1962 Liturgy and Sacraments; to have the full sacramental channel of grace through a bishop; to have legal protection through independence from diocesan bishops; to have their own initial courts; and to have membership in any legal structure meant to foster communication. To call these conditions which in several respects demand more than Archbishop Lefebvre gravely wrong is equivalent to saying the same thing of the Archbishop. Finally, we have seen that His Excellency does not even give some of the conditions a fair hearing by ignoring the actual wording of at least two of them. Now could these six demands have taken different form? Are there other possible conditions to be considered? Obviously, yes. Yet, the conditions have been shown to conform to a right appetite, the desire to facilitate the correction of an injustice and provide a workable solution for the future good of the Church. They maintain the balance between what is essential and what is prudentially warranted in times of crisis. They maintain the balance between caution and avoiding denial of the truth about the monarchial constitution of the Church. Finally, the General Chapter has shown itself to be keenly aware of the mistakes of others in this context in the past. It makes clear that a Neville Chamberlain approach of “Peace at any price” is doomed to failure. Peace is not rejected out of hand but peace at any price is so rejected. Given that the Chapter’s judgment is a true practical judgment, conforms to a right appetite, it should be accepted as the decision of a governing authority. His Excellency possesses a keen mind capable of drawing such appropriate distinctions. It is unfortunate that this particular assessment failed to do so. It seems that even the Roman authorities themselves see the Society’s position for what it is. Since the General Chapter, every indication coming from Rome suggests there will in fact be no rapprochement any time soon. If the conditions were as big a blunder and betrayal of principle as His Excellency observes, would not the Roman authorities have easily accepted them? [1] See Summa Theologica I-II, Q.57 Art. 5, Reply to Obj. 3. [2] See the ancient Roman law maxim, Necessity knows no law. BACK HOME