Neither Schismatic nor Excommunicated - Introduction

To better understand this article, here is a brief summary of the general argument.

The study begins by noting, since Vatican II, an ever-increasing confusion within the Church, deeply affecting dogma, morality, discipline, and the liturgy, has been tearing the faithful between their faith and obedience to the new ecclesiastical orientations imposed by the hierarchy.

Faced with this general failure, those who wish to keep their faith intact are obliged to make a choice: obey God rather than men. This comes not out of disobedience to legitimate authorities, but out of fidelity to Christ, Head of the Church, of whom the Pope is only the vicar.

For it can happen, alas, that the Pope makes decisions or orientations that diverge from those of Christ. This is a little-known possibility, but one that the history of the Church has repeatedly witnessed.

The function of the Vicar of Christ is indeed to ensure the unity of the Church, particularly in matters of faith, government, and communion. But when he exercises his office by following ideas or conceptions that are too personal, he may come to dissociate himself from his function.

It is then necessary to distinguish between the legitimate exercise of authority and personal initiatives. The unity of faith, so threatened by contemporary ecumenism, is the criterion. It can never be sacrificed.

This confusion and these contradictions create in the Church an "extraordinary" situation, where the unity of faith is no longer normally assured. This entails special duties for all the members of the Church. The faithful, for their part, by a holy "conscientious objection," must preserve their faith in its purity and oppose everything that could destroy it.

As for priests and especially bishops, by virtue of the authority they possess for the good of souls, they are especially bound to do what is possible to safeguard the faith and discipline, and to provide the faithful with the means of saving themselves in the present circumstances. 

Inevitably, these duties can give rise to acts which, although contrary to ordinary discipline, are nevertheless not opposed to divine right. One finds oneself in a state where the goods necessary for supernatural life are so threatened that one can be forced, in order to safeguard them, to break the law.

The study then applies itself to establishing the reality of this state of necessity and then explores in detail the conditions given by law so that this state can found and legitimize an action such as the consecrations of 1988.

The conclusion is that, far from compromising ecclesial unity by schism, these consecrations were legitimate for the good of the Church, and in no case deserved excommunication.