PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS
EXPLANATORY NOTE
V. On the excommunication for schism incurred by the adherents of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre's movement
( Communications , 29[1997] 239–243)
Following the news recently spread by some media, this Pontifical Council has deemed it appropriate to make public an explanatory note it sent to the Congregation for Bishops.
Vatican City, August 24, 1996
Your Most Reverend Eminence,
With a letter dated July 26, Prot. No. XXX, Your Most Reverend Eminence sent to this Pontifical Council a letter from His Excellency Monsignor Norbert Brunner, Bishop of Sion in Switzerland, in which the Prelate – having taken note of some confusing press information – requested an authoritative interpretation of the Motu Proprio " Ecclesia Dei " and the subsequent Decree of this Congregation concerning the excommunication imposed on Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, the four Bishops ordained by him, and Bishop Emeritus Antonio de Castro. At the same time, Your Eminence requested the opinion of this Dicastery regarding the terms of the response to be given to the aforementioned Prelate.
In this regard, I am pleased to inform you that the problem raised by the Ordinary of Sion does not seem to require an authentic interpretation either of the Motu Proprio " Ecclesia Dei " of 2 July 1988, nor of the Decree of this Congregation for Bishops of 1 July 1988, nor of the relevant canons of the CIC: 1364, § 1 and 1382.
The Prelate bases his request on pastoral needs, to put an end to erroneous interpretations, but does not offer any element that suggests the existence or the well-founded probability of an authentic "dubium iuris" in the legislation of the aforementioned documents, an indispensable condition for an "authentic interpretation".
Nonetheless, in order to meet the request of this Dicastery, some considerations and suggestions are offered in the attached Note, in the hope that they may be useful for the clarifying response that this Congregation intends to give to the Bishop of Zion.
If, however, the confusion the Prelate speaks of in his letter were relevant from a pastoral point of view, also because it extended to other dioceses and nations where the Lefebvrian movement operates, one could hypothesize a general declaration from the Holy See, to be prepared in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (cf. Note, n. 5).
I take this opportunity to confirm my feelings of profound veneration.
of Your Eminence Most Reverend
most dev.
Julián Herranz,
Titular Archbishop of Vertara
President
Marino Maccarelli
Deputy Secretary
* * *
NOTE
1. From the Motu Proprio " Ecclesia Dei " of July 2, 1988, and from the Decree "Dominus Marcellus Lefebvre" of the Congregation for Bishops of July 1, 1988, it appears first of all that the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre was declared in immediate relation to the episcopal ordinations performed on June 30, 1988, without pontifical mandate (cf. CIC, can. 1382). However, it also clearly appears from the aforementioned documents that this very grave act of disobedience constituted the consummation of a progressive global situation of a schismatic nature.
2. In fact, no. 4 of the Motu Proprio explains what the "doctrinal root of this schismatic act" was and no. 5 c) warns that a "formal adherence to the schism" (meaning "the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre") would entail the excommunication established by the universal law of the Church (CIC, can. 1364, § 1). The decree of the Congregation for Bishops also makes explicit reference to the "schismatic nature" of the aforementioned episcopal ordinations and recalls the very serious penalty of excommunication that adherence "to the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre [the movement]" would entail.
3. Unfortunately, the schismatic act that gave rise to the Motu Proprio and the Decree did nothing other than bring to completion, in a particularly visible and unequivocal manner – with a very serious formal act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff – a process of distancing from hierarchical communion (communio hierarchica). Until changes lead to the re-establishment of this necessary communio, the entire Lefebvrian movement is to be considered schismatic, given that there is a formal declaration to this effect from the Supreme Authority.
4. No judgment can be made on the arguments behind Murray's controversial thesis because it is unknown, and the two articles that mention it appear confused. However, the validity of the excommunications of bishops declared in the Motu Proprio and the Decree cannot reasonably be questioned. In particular, it does not appear that any exempting or mitigating circumstance can be found regarding the imputability of the penalty (Cf. CIC, canons 1323–1324). As for the state of necessity in which Archbishop Lefebvre thought he found himself, it must be kept in mind that such a state must objectively occur, and that there is never a need to ordain bishops against the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This, in fact, would mean the possibility of "serving" the Church by attacking its unity in a matter connected to the very foundations of this unity.
5. As stated in Motu Proprio n. 5 c), latae sententiae excommunication for schism concerns those who "formally adhere" to the said schismatic movement. Although the question regarding the exact scope of the notion of "formal adherence to the schism" should be referred to the competent Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems to this Pontifical Council that such adherence must imply two complementary elements:
a ) one of an internal nature, consisting in freely and consciously sharing the substance of the schism, that is, in opting in such a way for the followers of Lefebvre that this option is placed above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the Magisterium of the Church);
b ) another of an external nature, consisting in the externalization of that option, the most evident sign of which will be the exclusive participation in the Lefebvrian "ecclesial" acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (this is, however, a non-univocal sign, since there is the possibility that some faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of Lefebvre's followers without sharing their schismatic spirit).
6. In the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests, it seems clear that their ministerial activity within the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign that the two requirements mentioned above (n. 5) are met and that there is therefore a formal adherence.
7. In the case of other faithful, however, it is obvious that occasional participation in liturgical acts or activities of the Lefebvrian movement, without adopting the movement's attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunity, is not sufficient to constitute formal membership in the movement. In pastoral practice, it may be more difficult to assess their situation. It is necessary to take into account, above all, the individual's intention and the translation of this interior disposition into action. The various situations must therefore be assessed on a case-by-case basis, in the competent bodies of the external and internal forums.
8. However, it will always be necessary to distinguish the moral question of whether or not the sin of schism exists from the juridical-penal question of whether the crime of schism exists and its consequent sanction. To the latter, the provisions of Book VI of the CIC (including canons 1323–1324) must be applied.
9. It does not seem advisable to further formalize (but the competent Dicastery should be consulted on the matter: cf. Apostolic Constitution "Pastor Bonus", art. 52 ) the requirements for the crime of schism. One would perhaps risk creating further problems through a rigidity of penal norms that does not adequately address all cases: by leaving out cases of substantial schism, or by contemplating external behaviors that are not always subjectively schismatic.
10. From a pastoral point of view, it would also seem appropriate to further recommend to the sacred Pastors all the norms of the Motu Proprio " Ecclesia Dei " with which the solicitude of the Vicar of Christ encouraged dialogue and the establishment of the supernatural and human means necessary to facilitate the return of the Lefebvrians to full ecclesial communion.
Vatican City, August 24, 1996
