Here is a full translation of the long overdue note from the Secretariat of State on the FSSPX case.
NOTE FROM
THE SECRETARIAT OF STATE
Translated from
Following the reactions to the recent Decree of the Congregation for Bishops which revoked the excommunication of four Prelates of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, and related to the negationist or reductionist statements about the Shoah by Bishop Williamson of the same Fraternity, it is thought opportune to clarify some aspects of the affair:
1. Remission of excommunication
As previously published, the Decree of the Congregation for Bishops, dated January 21, 2009, was an act through which the Holy Father kindly met repeated requests from the Superior General of the Fraternity of St. Pius X.
His Holiness wished to take away an impediment which was prejudicial to the opening of a door to dialog. Now he hopes that the four Bishops may express a similar readiness for total adherence to the doctrine and the discipline of the Church.
The very grace penalty of excommunication late sententiae, which the said Bishops incurred on June 30, 1988, declared formally on July 1 of the same year, was a consequence of their illegitimate ordination by Mons. Marcel Lefebvre.
Tire recall of teh excommunication has released the four Bishops from a grave canonical penalty but has not changed the juridical situation of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, which, at present, does not enjoy any canonical recognition in the Catholic Church.
Even the four Bishops, although they have been absolved of excommunication, do not have a canonical function in the Church and do not licitly exercise a ministry within the Church.
2. Tradition, doctrine and the Second Vatican Council
Towards a future recognition of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, an indispensable condition is full recognition of the Second Vatican Council and the Magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul Vi, John paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI himself.
As stated in the Decree of January 21, 2009, the Holy See will not fail, in ways that are considered opportune, to examine more deeply with the interested parties the questions that remain open, in order to arrive at a full and satisfactory solution of the problems which gave rise to this painful break.
3. Declarations about the Shoah
The positions of Mons. Williamson on the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable and firmly rejected by the Holy Father, as he himself remarked last January 28, when, referring to that brutal genocide, he reiterated his full and indisputable solidarity with our brothers who are the beneficiaries of the First Alliance, and he said that the memory of that terrible genocide should lead "mankind to reflect on the unforeseeable power of evil when it conquers the heart of man", adding the hope that the Shoah may remain "for all a warning against forgetting, against negation or reductionism, because violence done against a single human being is a violence against everyone".
Bishop Williamson, in order to be admitted into the Church with episcopal functions, should distance himself in an absolutely unequivocal and public manner from his positions on the Shoah, which were not known by the Holy Father at the time he remitted the excommunications.
The Holy Father requests the prayers of all the faithful so that the Lord may illumine the road for the Church. May the commitment of Pastors and the faithful grow, in support of the delicate and weighty mission of the Successor of the Apostle Peter as 'the guardian of unity' in the Church.
From the Vatican
February 4, 2009
**********************************************************************
I do not intend to quibble, but there are some points aboout the Note which do not seem to be trivial:
1. One must remark that the document is not signed by any Vatican official. What? No one wants to take direct or indirect responsibility on anything that has to with this snafu????
2. It makes four references to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X (or Society of St. Pius X, in the more common English usage), and not once does it use the full name of the society (in Italian, Fraternita Sacerdotale San Pio X). That may seem trivial, but an unseemly laxity in a formal document. It is a form of discourtesy when you do not call the other party by the right name.
3. The qualification that the Holy Father did not know about Williamson's statements when he revoked the excommunication opens the door to new equivocation.
a. It seems to suggest that the Pope might have acted differently if he had known about it beforehand.
b. But that would contradict the basic fact, expressed earlier by Fr. Lombardi, that the Pope's action on the excommunication have nothing do with Williamson's opinions, because the cause of the excommunication had nothing to do with the personal views of the bishops concerned; and
c. What would the Pope had done differently then if he had known?
i) Exclude Williamson from the remission? That would be unjust for the reason mentioned in (b).
ii) Delay the announcement until the matter was first threshed out behind the scenes? - But Mons. Fellay had already been handed the signed decree before the controversy erupted.
4. The tone of the Note is rather peremptory with respect to the FSSPX, and likely to put them on the defensive, since it makes them bear the brunt for an administrative snafu on the part of the Vatican.
Oh, what a tangled web they weave - these anonymous bureaucrats - in trying to extricate the Pope from the thicket of thorns they landed him in!
In any case, let us continue to pray for all those caught up in this
mess, but most of all, for His Holiness:
The Holy Father requests the prayers of all the faithful so that the Lord may illumine the road for the Church. May the commitment of Pastors and the faithful grow, in support of the delicate and weighty mission of the Successor of the Apostle Peter as 'the guardian of unity' in the Church.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 05/02/2009 03:06]