Example #1: You say that Bp. Kelly cobbled together poorly-sourced arguments--that is, that he took things out of context--yet your own decision to reject his position wasn't based on his actual argument. It was based on your reaction to one of his statements, which was ironically taken out of context by you so as to invent a conspiracy that justifies your change of heart.
Father Kelly statement to me in September 1988 — “We
can’t say the consecrations [of the Thuc bishops] are valid — or some of our priests will want to get involved with them" — did not cause me to have a "change of heart." His statement merely (merely!) demonstrated to me that he was intellectually dishonest.
Taken out of context, it would seem that way, yes. But how honest is it to take statements out of context?
Example #2: You attack the witness argument as though that is the argument. But the fact that you attack it as though it were the main point indicates that you don't know what the argument is. The significance of the witnesses is this: The only means by which the Church has substantiated sacramental validity in the absence of the proper documentation is the testimony of witnesses (in the case of the midwives mentioned earlier). It is the only alternative means used by the mind of the Church to establish some sort of basis for attesting to the validity of a sacrament. But even if one were to try to use this as a principle for discerning the mind of the Church as it concerns the validity of Orders, we are still faced with a problem: the only "witnesses" didn't meet the only criteria the Church has ever allowed. That rules their testimony out as being in any way useful in trying to establish moral certitude concerning the presumption of sacramental validity.
The Kelly "hawkeye-witnesses-required-for-presumption-of-sacramental-validity" rule again!
But we're thirty years on, and STILL no one can find the "rule" in a canon law or sacramental theology manual.
Ah, Father, I'm afraid you missed the point again. The point is that it comes down to
documentary evidence as specified by the Church, not witnesses. Witnesses are the only
alternative means that the Church has ever allowed to substantiate sacramental validity when the necessary documentation doesn't exist (such as in baptismal cases). But even if it
could be used to someone establish some sort of
moral certitude in accordance with the mind of the Church in the meantime (in absence of an authoritative decision from the Church), their testimony still didn't add up to the requirements of the Church as used in cases involving baptism. That is all.
Example #3: When speaking about the applicability of Ad Apostolorum Principis last time I debated you, you invented an argument for the SSPV (and for Bp. Kelly) to try to make them (and him) look ridiculous. You said that since, in your mind, the SSPV's argument is that the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication only applies to a bishop who has actually gone through with a valid consecration, but the SSPV casts doubt on the validity of those consecrations, therefore, there can be no charge for excommunication, because the only way the penalty applies is if it the consecration is performed. You then made some witty little insult of Bp. Kelly by stating that he needs to learn about "the chicken and the egg." But the fact that you want to argue such nonsense indicates that you don't know what the SSPV's argument is, or that you don't care to actually address it. They have been saying from the beginning that Thuc would have incurred excommunication from the multiple consecrations before the last three he performed, starting with the Palmar de Troya consecrations and continuing through his consecrations of schismatics, heretics, homosexuals, and even those dabbling in the occult. These were the consecrations which attacked the unity of the Church, performed "rashly" and against all "right and law," and for which the Church has reserved the most serious type of excommunication. But you think it's alright for priests to go to such a person to receive Holy Orders? There isn't a single instance in Church history where that has been permitted. With all due respect, if you want the SSPV to take you seriously, you have to address their actual arguments. But so far, you are only attacking arguments the SSPV doesn't even make.
The excommunication, as I demonstrated by citing the canonist Regatillo, is incurred is incurred for the specific offense of
consecrating a bishop to be the Ordinary of a diocese, "sine provisione canonica" (without canonical appointment to that office).
No canonist says it's for "suddenly consecrating bad guys" (as SSPV maintains). And no canonist says that incurring an excommunication elides the presumption of validity for sacraments an excommunicate confers after he incurs the penalty (again as SSPV maintains).
I'm afraid this argument forsakes common sense in trying to get Abp. Thuc off the hook.
First, the idea that it only applies to bishops appointed to be the head of a diocese is your interpretation of the encyclical, but is not in accordance with the encyclical itself. After explaining that the encyclical applies to the
whole Church, the pope cites an example of excuses given to justify non-compliance to his original bull, which was in effect before Regatillo's commentary. If Regatillo's commentary was necessary for understanding what Pius XII meant, then that means that Pius XII's bull had no effect until Regatillo's commentary actualized it, which doesn't quite make sense. The excuse that a vacant diocesan see called for immediate consecration of a bishop to occupy that see had been used to justify disobedience to his previous bull, which forbid the bishops from consecrating bishops “against all right and law:"
9. What then is to be the opinion concerning the excuse added by members of the association promoting false patriotism, that they had to act as they alleged because of the need to tend to the souls in those dioceses which were then without a bishop?
He later condemns all of the excuses that were given to justify disobedience to him:
50. It is obvious that no thought is being taken of the spiritual good of the faithful if the Church's laws are being violated . . .
But simply because he used this situation as an example does not mean that his entire encyclical only applies to that one situation. If the encyclical were only meant to treat of bishops appointed as the heads of a diocese, then that would be specified. On the contrary, from the title to the fine print, it doesn't say that.
TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN AND BELOVED CHILDREN, THE ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS, OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES AND CLERGY AND PEOPLE OF CHINA IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE
Those “ands” are conjunctive, meaning that this applies to each one of those categories, not just one of them. This means that it does not just apply to China, for as Pope Pius XII taught:
44. We mean that discipline which has been established not only for China and the regions recently enlightened by the light of the Gospel, but for the whole Church, a discipline which takes its sanction from that universal and supreme power of caring for, ruling, and governing which our Lord granted to the successors in the office of St. Peter the Apostle.
If he were only applying this to a diocese, I think he would have explicitly stated so.
On the contrary, this encyclical applies to the entire Church:
44. We mean that discipline which has been established not only for China and the regions recently enlightened by the light of the Gospel, but for the whole Church, a discipline which takes its sanction from that universal and supreme power of caring for, ruling, and governing which our Lord granted to the successors in the office of St. Peter the Apostle.
He continues:
46. "We teach, . . . We declare that the Roman Church by the Providence of God holds the primacy of ordinary power over all others, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate. Toward it, the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both individually and collectively, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world, in such a way that once the unity of communion and the profession of the same Faith has been preserved with the Roman Pontiff, there is one flock of the Church of Christ under one supreme shepherd. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth from which no one can depart without loss of faith and salvation."[/b][17]
Here we see that he is talking about this and connecting it to divine law: it pertains to the entire Church (extending from the authority of the papacy), not just to one dimension of it. He also says that this decree comes from the very nature of the unity of the Church. And this unity applies to the whole flock, not just the flock that operates within dioceses.
He continues:
47. From what We have said, it follows that no authority whatsoever, save that which is proper to the Supreme Pastor, can render void the canonical appointment granted to any bishop
Here, you have interpreted “canonical appointment” to mean “bishops appointed to be the head of a diocese”. But I think this is a misinterpretation because: (1) Pope Pius XII had specifically referred to bishops being appointed to be the head of a diocese earlier in the encyclical; why wouldn’t he use the same language as he did earlier to specify? (2) Canonical appointment refers to an appointment of a bishop from the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, through whom all power of jurisdiction flows. Since all jurisdiction flows through the Roman Pontiff, this would apply to all the bishops with jurisdiction, not just those operating as the head of a diocese. (3) If Pope Pius XII were referring only to bishops appointed to be the head of a diocese, then why would he contradict himself in the same sentence by saying “it follows that no authority whatsoever . . . can render void the canonical appointment granted to
any bishop.” If he were really only talking about bishops appointed to be the heads of dioceses, he wouldn’t have then qualified his statement with the phrase “to any bishop”.
From a common sense standpoint, the argument doesn't really make sense. Is your argument truly that bishops who aren’t appointed to be the heads of dioceses are allowed to consecrate non-Catholics, schismatics, homosexuals, and occultists without fear of excommunication--that they can attack the unity of the Church without consequence? Pope Pius XII himself provides his own rationale (which is the Church’s rationale) for why consecrating a bishop “against all right and law” is such a grave crime. He doesn't say that they incur excommunication because they disobeyed his disciplinary law. He says that the reason they incur this penalty is because such a crime is against the unity of the Church:
48. Consequently, if consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred.
Do you truly argue that the unity of the Church is not attacked by consecrating non-Catholics, schismatics, homosexuals, and occultists to the episcopacy? Do you truly want to proclaim that the unity of the Church can only be attacked by bishops being consecrated to the head of a diocese?
But it seems your argument is on a very slippery slope here, because what are you really saying then?—that for 2000 years the Holy Ghost overlooked the crime of attacking the unity of the Church from all those bishops who are not appointed to be the head of a diocese? You haven't been able to find one instance in Church history where consecrations performed like those done by Abp. Thuc were recognized, accepted, or sanctioned by the Church. Christ called prelates who climbed into the sheepfold “by another way” but the door “robbers”. On the contrary, this has been punished with the harshest of penalties in times past. For example:
The emperor was Michael III (842-67), son of the Theodora who had finally restored the holy images. When he succeeded his father Theophilus (829-842) he was only three years old; he grew to be the wretched boy known in Byzantine history as Michael the Drunkard (ho methystes). Theodora, at first regent, retired in 856, and her brother Bardas succeeded, with the title of Cæsar. Bardas lived in incest with his daughter-in-law Eudocia, wherefore the Patriarch Ignatius (846-57) refused him Holy Communion on the Epiphany of 857. Ignatius was deposed and banished (Nov. 23, 857), and the more pliant Photius was intruded into his place. He was hurried through Holy Orders in six days; on Christmas Day, 857, Gregory Asbestas of Syracuse, himself excommunicate for insubordination by Ignatius, ordained Photius patriarch. By this act Photius committed three offences against canon law: he was ordained bishop without having kept the interstices, by an excommunicate consecrator, and to an already occupied see. To receive ordination from an excommunicate person made him too excommunicate ipso facto.
Fortescue, Adrian. "Photius of Constantinople." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 28 Jul. 2011.
I am not competent to make a judgment of Abp. Thuc's intentions, but I certainly can't endorse what the Church has never endorsed, and neither may individual priests who operate with only supplied jurisdiction. Clergy of the Roman Catholic Church may not have communion with excommunicated clerics.
It is important to note that the reason Abp. Thuc falls under the
latae sententiae excommunication of Pope Pius XII's encyclical,
Ad Apostolorum Principis, is not because Abp. Thuc consecrated bishops without the approval of the Holy See. The reason that Abp. Thuc falls under the excommunication is that his consecration of non-Catholics, leaders of schismatic sects, and occultists to the episcopacy were "against all right and law" and attacked (purposely or not purposely) the unity of the Church.
Pope Pius XII, when providing the reason for the application of the penalty of
latae sententiae excommunication, stated:
48. Consequently, if consecration of this kind is being done (1) contrary to all right and law, and (2) by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred.
(I have added the emphasis and inserted the numbering to make the two conditions more clear.)
The reasons given by Pope Pius XII for the application of the penalty of automatic excommunication are: (1) The consecration is done "contrary to all right and law," and (2) the unity of the Church is seriously attacked. If these conditions apply, the penalty of excommunication automatically applies.
I would like it to be noted that I do not know what Abp. Thuc's intentions were in doing what he did. I would prefer to think that he was not malicious, but since we can never read hearts, crimes must be judged according to their external violation:
Imputability of a delict depends on the dolus of the offender or on his fault in ignorance of the violation of law or failure with regard to due diligence; therefore all causes that can increase, decrease, or remove dolus or culpability likewise increase, decrease, or remove imputability of the delict.
The evil will spoken of in Canon 2199, means a deliberate will to violate a law, and presumes on the part of the mind a knowledge of the law and and on the part of the will freedom of action. Given the external violation of a law, the evil will is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved.
Thus, as the magisterium of the Catholic Church teaches, the
latae sententiae excommunication must be presumed as part of the external forum unless it can be proved otherwise:
(1) crass or supine ignorance of the law or of the penalty only does not exempt from any penalty latae sententiae; ignorance which is not crass or supine, excuses from the medicinal, but not from the vindictive penalties latae sententiae;
(2) drunkeness, omission of due care, mental weakness, and the heat of passion do not excuse from the penalties latae sententiae, if not withstanding the diminution of liability the the action was gravely sinful;
(3) grave fear does not exempt from penalties latae sententiae, if the offense entails contempt of the faith or of ecclesiastical authority, or public injury of souls.
We should hope that Abp. Thuc was disturbed or mentally unwell when he did what he did rather than think he was maliciously attacking the Church, but, unfortunately, the law still applies to him until the contrary can be proved. And proving the contrary is a matter reserved for an ecclesiastical tribunal operating only under ordinary jurisdiction.
