Full Text of Pope Benedict XVI's Letter to the Bishops Concerning the Remission of
the Excommunication of the four Bishops Consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre
LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH concerning
the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop
Lefebvre
Dear Brothers in the Episcopal Ministry! The remission of the excommunication
of the four Bishops consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre without a mandate of
the Holy See has for many reasons caused, both within and beyond the Catholic Church,
a discussion more heated than any we have seen for a long time. Many Bishops felt
perplexed by an event which came about unexpectedly and was difficult to view positively
in the light of the issues and tasks facing the Church today. Even though many Bishops
and members of the faithful were disposed in principle to take a positive view of
the Pope’s concern for reconciliation, the question remained whether such a gesture
was fitting in view of the genuinely urgent demands of the life of faith in our time.
Some groups, on the other hand, openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the
clock to before the Council: as a result, an avalanche of protests was unleashed,
whose bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment. I therefore
feel obliged to offer you, dear Brothers, a word of clarification, which ought to
help you understand the concerns which led me and the competent offices of the Holy
See to take this step. In this way I hope to contribute to peace in the Church.
An
unforeseen mishap for me was the fact that the Williamson case came on top of the
remission of the excommunication. The discreet gesture of mercy towards four Bishops
ordained validly but not legitimately suddenly appeared as something completely different:
as the repudiation of reconciliation between Christians and Jews, and thus as the
reversal of what the Council had laid down in this regard to guide the Church’s path.
A gesture of reconciliation with an ecclesial group engaged in a process of separation
thus turned into its very antithesis: an apparent step backwards with regard to all
the steps of reconciliation between Christians and Jews taken since the Council –
steps which my own work as a theologian had sought from the beginning to take part
in and support. That this overlapping of two opposed processes took place and momentarily
upset peace between Christians and Jews, as well as peace within the Church, is something
which I can only deeply deplore. I have been told that consulting the information
available on the internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early
on. I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to
pay greater attention to that source of news. I was saddened by the fact that even
Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought
they had to attack me with open hostility. Precisely for this reason I thank all
the more our Jewish friends, who quickly helped to clear up the misunderstanding and
to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust which – as in the days of Pope John
Paul II – has also existed throughout my pontificate and, thank God, continues to
exist.
Another mistake, which I deeply regret, is the fact that the extent
and limits of the provision of 21 January 2009 were not clearly and adequately explained
at the moment of its publication. The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions.
An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism,
since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently
the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication –
with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty
years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission
of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite
the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested
parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority
as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal
authority and to the authority of the Council. Here I return to the distinction between
individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunication was a measure
taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the
burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties.
This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact
that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church
is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the
Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise
legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between
the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level,
at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once
again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status
in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical
penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.
In light
of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission
“Ecclesia Dei” – the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities
and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish
to return to full communion with the Pope – to the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith. This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially
doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council
and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes. The collegial bodies with which
the Congregation studies questions which arise (especially the ordinary Wednesday
meeting of Cardinals and the annual or biennial Plenary Session) ensure the involvement
of the Prefects of the different Roman Congregations and representatives from the
world’s Bishops in the process of decision-making. The Church’s teaching authority
cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But
some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need
to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church.
Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed
over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.
I
hope, dear Brothers, that this serves to clarify the positive significance and also
the limits of the provision of 21 January 2009. But the question still remains: Was
this measure needed? Was it really a priority? Aren’t other things perhaps more
important? Of course there are more important and urgent matters. I believe that
I set forth clearly the priorities of my pontificate in the addresses which I gave
at its beginning. Everything that I said then continues unchanged as my plan of action.
The first priority for the Successor of Peter was laid down by the Lord in the Upper
Room in the clearest of terms: “You… strengthen your brothers” (Lk 22:32). Peter
himself formulated this priority anew in his first Letter: “Always be prepared to
make a defence to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you” (1
Pet 3:15). In our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of
dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel, the overriding priority is to make
God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God. Not just any
god, but the God who spoke on Sinai; to that God whose face we recognize in a love
which presses “to the end” (cf. Jn 13:1) – in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen.
The real problem at this moment of our history is that God is disappearing from the
human horizon, and, with the dimming of the light which comes from God, humanity is
losing its bearings, with increasingly evident destructive effects.
Leading
men and women to God, to the God who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and
fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time.
A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers.
Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility
of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians
to their faith – ecumenism – is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the
need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw
closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of
God, towards the source of Light – this is interreligious dialogue. Whoever proclaims
that God is Love “to the end” has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the
suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity – this is the social dimension of
the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical Deus Caritas Est.
So
if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently
(and, in various ways, always) the Church’s real priority, then part of this is also
made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture
of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite
of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was
it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who “has something
against you” (cf. Mt 5:23ff.) and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society
also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents
– to the extent possible – in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid
their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken
to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive
and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return
of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes;
I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided
positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole.
Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians,
6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164
religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift
farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know
how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have
chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they
did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living
God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our
pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?
Certainly,
for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some
representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness,
an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that
I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly
showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to
be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise
made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various
faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit
that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets
the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance
may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach
them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be
treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.
Dear Brothers, during
the days when I first had the idea of writing this letter, by chance, during a visit
to the Roman Seminary, I had to interpret and comment on Galatians 5:13-15. I was
surprised at the directness with which that passage speaks to us about the present
moment: “Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love
be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall
love your neighbour as yourself’. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed
that you are not consumed by one another.” I am always tempted to see these words
as another of the rhetorical excesses which we occasionally find in Saint Paul. To
some extent that may also be the case. But sad to say, this “biting and devouring”
also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood freedom. Should
we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians? That at the very least
we are threatened by the same temptations? That we must always learn anew the proper
use of freedom? And that we must always learn anew the supreme priority, which is
love? The day I spoke about this at the Major Seminary, the feast of Our Lady of
Trust was being celebrated in Rome. And so it is: Mary teaches us trust. She leads
us to her Son, in whom all of us can put our trust. He will be our guide – even in
turbulent times. And so I would like to offer heartfelt thanks to all the many Bishops
who have lately offered me touching tokens of trust and affection, and above all assured
me of their prayers. My thanks also go to all the faithful who in these days have
given me testimony of their constant fidelity to the Successor of Saint Peter. May
the Lord protect all of us and guide our steps along the way of peace. This is the
prayer that rises up instinctively from my heart at the beginning of this Lent, a
liturgical season particularly suited to interior purification, one which invites
all of us to look with renewed hope to the light which awaits us at Easter.
With
a special Apostolic Blessing, I remain Yours in the Lord, [Benedictus PP. XVI]
From the Vatican, 10 March 2009.