|
Nevertheless, the
French bishops, balking at Econe’s pre-Vatican II ways, and
notably at its non-acceptance of the Novus Ordo Missae (question
5), calumniate it as
sauvage (outlaw, wildcat). One of them, Pope Paul VI’s
Secretary of State, Cardinal Villot, deceives the Holy Father into
believing Archbishop Lefebvre had his priests sign a declaration
against the pope (Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter, no. 59,
pp. 68-70).
November 11 -
13, 1974
An apostolic
visitation of the seminary at Econe takes place. This is in itself
normal procedure; its conclusions, though never published, were
“very favorable,” according to Cardinal Garonne, “except
that you don’t use the new liturgy, and there’s a somewhat anti-conciliar
spirit there.” (Ibid., p. 67.) The visitors, however,
scandalized everyone by their unorthodox views, prompting
Archbishop Lefebvre’s so-called
Declaration.
February 13 and
March 3, 1975
Archbishop Lefebvre
meets with an improvised commission of three cardinals, nominally
to discuss the Apostolic Visitation but in fact as a lone
defendant before a tribunal attacking his Declaration.
Having been given no warning as to the nature of these “trials,”
he has no lawyer and is never allowed a copy of the recorded
meetings, though that at least is promised him.
May 6, 1975
The irregular
commission of cardinals condemns Archbishop Lefebvre, finding his Declaration
“unacceptable on all points.” They
write to Bishop Mamie (successor of Bishop Charriere at Fribourg)
telling him to withdraw his predecessor’s approval of the SSPX,
something quite beyond his power (once a bishop has approved a
religious congregation, only the pope can suppress it; cf., 1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 493 and the 1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 616).
June 5, 1975
Archbishop Lefebvre
submits an appeal to the Apostolic Signature in Rome, in
substance:
...it would be
for the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to
determine whether my Declaration were at fault. Please
provide evidence that this commission of cardinals had been
expressly mandated by the pope (who by his own authority can
bypass the Congregations) to decide as has been done.*
And if I be at fault, of course I can be censured, but not the
Society which was founded in due canonical form.
|
|
Cardinal Villot
arranges that the appeal is not accepted. Cardinal Staffa is
threatened with dismissal if he dare to accept an appeal from
Archbishop Lefebvre. (Vatican
Encounter, pp. 85 and 191 [appendix
2])
June 29, 1975
Pope Paul VI is
convinced to write to Archbishop Lefebvre that he approved of all
the actions of the commission of cardinals, however, it is
impossible that mere papal approbation in June could empower this
commission which had met the previous February [principle
10b].
On this whole
process, Archbishop Lefebvre observes:
...we have been
condemned, without trial, without opportunity to defend
ourselves, without due warning or written process and without
appeal. (Open Letter to Confused Catholics,
p. 150)
Over and above the
canonical question, there remains that of natural law. Must one
observe a censure when no crime can be pointed out or when the
very authority not to mention the identity of the judge is unsure? |
