The SSPX, the Truth, and Charity

"What one thinks about the SSPX, in a sense, is in the eye of the beholder." Ergo, those who think the SSPX is in schism will continue to think so, but Catholics will know better.

From Crisis

By Kennedy Hall

What one thinks about the SSPX, in a sense, is in the eye of the beholder.

In 2023, I published a book defending the SSPX called SSPX: The Defence. Yes, Defence with a “C” because I naturally write in the King’s English. To write that book, which comes in just under 300 pages, I had to read a whole lot more than 300 pages of information on the subject.

I don’t mean to sound braggadocious or arrogant, but I believe I can confidently say, even with humility, that you would be hard-pressed to find other men alive today who have digested more information centred on the SSPX. I’m not saying they don’t exist, but they are rare and are usually professors and theologians in the SSPX. I say this only to give a bit of background in the hopes that the reader would trust me enough to listen to my opinion on the subject, even if he concludes that I am wrong in the end.

In any event, after poring over thousands and thousands of pages and documents on the subject, I can confidently say that, generally speaking, the conclusion one comes to regarding the Society has, ultimately, little or nothing to do with Canon Law or the historical facts. I say this because, given the varied and complex nature of the situation, lawyers of all stripes can argue different points, even pointing to the same canons in the Code of Canon Law; some decry the SSPX as schismatic, and others do not. In addition, you will find myriad statements from saints and popes of the past that will either support or detract from an argument in favour of or opposed to the Society. 

Even among the living hierarchy of the Church, and those recently deceased, opinions vary. And why do those opinions vary so much?

Well, I can only give you my opinion, which, while informed by much research, is likely worth no more than all the other opinions out there. So, what do I think regarding the decision of the Society to consecrate new bishops this summer?

Canon Law states clearly in Canon 1387,

Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

Canon 1323 states, 

No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:…acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls.

Canon 1324 can be used similarly to 1323. And Canon 1752 states, “canonical equity is to be observed, and the salvation of souls, which must always be the supreme law in the Church, is to be kept before one’s eyes.”

So, we have hard canonical facts to wrestle with.

First, the act of consecrating bishops without permission is not, according to Canon Law, automatically penalized with a charge of schism, although Canon Law does have provisions wherein a jurist could decide to apply a charge of schism to said penalty. Second, the Code does provide for a case of necessity, clearly so. And we cannot argue that consecrating without permission is intrinsically evil because the practice of consecrating vis-à-vis permission from Rome has undulated throughout the centuries (if it were intrinsically evil, it would never have been permissible). Third, the whole of the Code is to be viewed through the interpretive key of the last canon of the Code: salus animarum suprema lex (“the salvation of souls is the supreme law”).

Therefore, what one thinks about the SSPX, in a sense, is in the eye of the beholder. Because of this, arguing someone into a different opinion is almost impossible because it comes down to a personal decision to view the crisis in the Church as grave enough to warrant the application of necessity to the case of the SSPX. Necessity as such, as it applies to this situation, is not defined—because it really can’t be. And we cannot expect the authorities in the Church, especially in this New Springtime, to define how one could act without permission because the Church is overrun with heresy, sacrilege, and liturgical abuse; that would be a very inconvenient truth to admit on behalf of the authorities who have caused the necessity, wouldn’t it?

So, if one sees the necessity, then the SSPX is heroic. If one chooses not to, then the SSPX is the Whore of Babylon; and those who oppose the Society will call them schismatics. 

Well, what is schism?

According to Aquinas, “schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church”; and “schism consists in rebelliously disobeying the commandments…a schismatic both obstinately scorns the commandments of the Church, and refuses to submit to her judgment.”

Does this sound like the SSPX? To some, it does. To me, it sounds like about three-fourths of the modern priesthood, most Catholic school teachers, and not a few members of the hierarchy, including the DDF. But I digress.

If we are to accuse the Society of schism, we must understand that we are accusing them of a sin, a grave sin. And if you remember your catechism that you memorized for First Holy Communion, you will know that for a sin to be mortal, it must be done freely, with knowledge of its sinfulness, and the matter must be grave.

Let’s say that the SSPX does go through with the consecrations on July 1 and Rome has told them not to. Well, would these three criteria for a mortal sin—the sin of schism—be met?

The matter is grave, that is true; however, is the action being done freely and with the intention to do something evil? Don Pagliarani, the General Superior has the following to say:

We wrote to the Holy Father: Your Holiness, we have but one intention, which is to make all the souls who turn to us, true sons of the Roman Catholic Church. We will never have any other intention, and we will always keep this intention. Furthermore, the good of souls corresponds to the good of the Church. The Catholic Church does not exist in the clouds. The Catholic Church exists in souls. It is souls that constitute the Church and if we love the Church, we love souls. We want their salvation and we want to do everything possible to offer them the means to attain their salvation. Therefore, we have begged the Holy Father to understand the very unique situation in which the Society finds itself, and to allow it to take the means to continue this work in such an exceptional situation. We all know that the work of the Society, once again, has no other purpose than to preserve Catholic Tradition for the good of souls.

Now, you can hate the SSPX all you want, but if you would like to be a good Catholic, you must take an honest man at his word. According to the superior, the intention is to lead souls who turn to the Society’s priests into the arms of the Church; this is done out of love for the Church, and there is a manifest love of and willingness to submit to the pope, in principle.

You may argue that Don Pagliarani is mistaken, and you are free to disagree with his methods. However, you cannot call into question his intention because he has told you his intention, and you have no right to assume otherwise. 

So, the matter is grave, but the intention is to do something Catholic. Now, it is also the case that this action is, in a sense, coerced. Of course, it will be freely done by those who do it, if we mean they used their God-given free will to act. However, that is like saying someone who opposed vaccination was jabbed by their own free will when the Sword of Damocles hung over their head. For an action to be forced, or coerced, morally speaking, it is not necessary for it to be literally forced, like with a gun to the head, if there is an element of fear and necessity that precipitates action.

For a sin to be sinful, it has to be a sin. And for a sin to be grave, it has to be grave. And to be guilty of a grave sin, you have to be guilty. Our basic catechism, something we teach to seven-year-olds, can show us that.

Now, Aquinas also says that schism is a sin against charity, and “schism is the road to heresy” and “the loss of charity is the road to the loss of faith.” And what is charity? Well, it is the highest virtue, according to St. Paul and the Holy Ghost; and Aquinas says, “charity is the friendship of man for God.”

In essence, charity is the word that describes the greatest commandment, given by Christ: 

Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:36-40)

This charity is demonstrated most clearly in the Martyrs, who, because they love God, will die for Him and for others who need Him. “Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

Do the priests of the SSPX demonstrate this charity? 

Well, you could ask the priests in Asia who wear plain clothes to sneak into countries where Catholicism is suppressed and administer sacraments undercover. 

You could ask Don Pagliarani, who is no dummy and understands he will be the object of scorn from the international press and many Catholics; yet it is his express intention to do so for the love of souls and the Church. 

You could ask the priests of the Society in Ontario, Canada, who drive dozens of hours each weekend on icy roads and overnight to say Mass in remote locations and to do sick calls if they are doing so for the love of God and of souls. 

You could ask the priests of the Society in Africa, who literally get on planes to say Mass in different countries many times a month. 

Fr. Lidstrom, a Swedish priest of the SSPX, whom I know personally, gets on ferries, busses, and trains every month to travel from Poland (he did so from England for a decade and a half) to Scandinavia to say the Old Mass for the faithful in those countries in random locations that include homes, conference rooms, and chapels. Do you believe that he does so for any reason other than love of God and souls?

I could go on.

The point is, if schism is a sin against charity, and when we see this loss of charity, we also see heresy and a loss of faith, then what are we to think of the Church since the conciliar revolution?

Catholic “missionaries” with full canonical status brag on podiums in Rome that they have never baptized a single Amazonian soul. The current Holy Father and head of the DDF are making it clearer every day that we are not to call Mary by the loving names and titles that the greatest Marian saints in the history of the Church have called her. 

Where is the charity? Where is the love of Mary? Where is the love of souls in the conciliar experiment?

Since our pope is an Augustinian, it would be fitting to add a quote from Augustine. In De Vera Religione 6.11 he writes:

Sometimes, too, divine providence will allow even good men to be expelled from the Christian community through some outbreak of turbulence and discord on the part of fleshly-minded folk. When they show inexhaustible patience in putting up with such an insult or injury for the sake of the peace of the Church and do not undertake any novelties in the way of schism or heresy, they will teach us all with what heartfelt loyalty and genuine Charity we should serve God. The intention therefore of such men is certainly to find their way back once the tornado has subsided. But if this is not permitted them—because the same hurricane persists, or an even more savage one would start if they came back—they will continue willingly to consider the interests even of those to whose agitations and trouble-making they have given way, without ever setting up their own separate conventicles, and to defend and assist with their testimony the same Faith that they know is being proclaimed in the Catholic Church. The Father who sees in secret (Mt 6:4) will in secret award these men their crown. This kind is rarely to be seen, but, all the same, instances of them are not lacking; indeed there are more of them than you could imagine. Thus it is that divine providence makes use of all kinds of men and women and their examples for healing souls and establishing a spiritual people.

Ultimately, if a man is a schismatic, he is like a man who is treasonous, and a man is treasonous if he rebels against the civil authority without cause and justification. Therefore, while the Nouvelle Régime would call the Martyrs of the Vendée treasonous, we would call them heroes. But it may be the case that you are not convinced that there has been a true revolution in the Church during this Nouveau Printemps with its Nouvelle Messe, and it may be your opinion that the situation is not grave enough to justify a just rebellion against the revolutionary spirit that has overtaken the Church. 

Fair enough. However, if you are unsure and need guidance on the matter, I am sure you could consult the head of the DDF and see if he can get the Pachamama to heal you with her mouth.