[Mershon]

when did he abrogate canons 1323-24

The Pope did not. His interpretation of them was such that the state of the Church was not in such an emergency that Archbishop Lefebvre was OBLIGATED to ordain 4 bishops against his express wishes. The code provides for that means in an objective situation requiring an Archbishop to do so, presumably with the implicit improval of the Pope, if for some reason, they were not able to communicate. This Pope communicated through his representatives specifically NOT to ordain bishops. In fact, he had agreed (which Lefebvre reneged on) to ordain one bishop. The Holy See merely wanted input in the process, not for Lefebvre to say "Ordain among these choices or else."

Despite all the cloudy accusations, this is why Lefebvre and Castro de Mayer and the ordained bishops all incurred "ipso facto" excommunication. There is NO JUSTIFICATION EVER for ordaining bishops specifically AGAINST the will of the Pope. This is what the Eastern Orthodox do. Do you not see that?

[Mershon]

"Nor is disobedience--to even a pope--an inherent evil. It is sometimes a good thing."

To ordain bishops AGAINST the express and explicit will of the Holy Father is NEVER a good thing. Archbishop Lefebvre reneged on an agreement allowing him to ordain ONE bishop that would be approved by the Holy Father (AS ARE ALL BISHOPS), not simply one of Archbishop Lefebvre's choosing.

[ultima ratio]

No, I don't see that at all. There are a number of facts you need to appreciate. First, that the "state of necessity" was an objective reality--not something even a pope might wish away. Who can deny the Church was then--as it is now--in a state of acute crisis? Millions upon millions of Catholics stopped attending Mass within five years of the institution of the Novus Ordo. By 1988--at the time of the Archbishop's act of disobedience and eighteen years after the institution of the Novus Ordo--two-thirds of all Catholics had stopped believing in the Real Presence. By this time, moreover, the landscape of disaster had already taken shape and was undeniable. The Church was lurching from crisis to crisis--liturgical, catechetical, moral--and this was undeniable. Even Paul VI called the state of the Church an "auto-demolition" and bewailed Satan's entry into the sanctuary.

In the face of all this--who would deny there was not a "state of necessity"? Who would believe this Pontiff, rather than the Archbishop--except for the fact that the Pope's prestige of office is such that he can declare the moon is made of blue cheese and be believed. He spoke incessantly of a "new advent", a "new Pentecost", a new springtime in the midst of the coldest winter. But none of this was true. It was the Archbishop who spoke more truly and saw more clearly.

Second, even if the Archbishop had WRONGLY evoked the state of necessity canon, the canon states specifically that if he did so in good conscience he would not incur a penalty. No one who is honest can doubt the Archbishop was sincere, since he had spoken of his fears concerning the crisis in the Church and dread of the spreading loss of the Catholic faith, publicly and often, and it could have been no secret that he thought this way and therefore was acting upon his fears that souls would be lost--rather than out of a desire to deny the authority of the Pontiff, which was nowhere on his radar screen.

Finally, you should realize that while there were many traditional priests at large throughout the revolution, the traditional priesthood could not perpetuate itself. It depended on a bishop's consecration of trained seminarians for the ancient Mass to survive demolition. There was only one such seminary in the entire world--at Econe, the one which the Archbishop himself had established. It was a seminary which the Pope's own representative reported was above reproach in every way--morally and theologically. But yet it ran against the revolution and was therefore marked for destruction--even while other seminaries had students cruising gay bars and were openly professing dissent. Only the devout seminarians at Econe were singled out for elimination. Do you think Lefebvre didn't know it was because Catholic Tradition itself was under the gun?

You need to understand who this man was. He was not a prince of the Church who had spent a lifetime in European palaces, but spent much of his mature life as a missionary in Africa. It was not his nature to buck the system or defy a pope. But he would not be complicit in the destruction of Catholic Tradition, though he was tempted to concede--which was why he at first gave his trust to the Pope, then withdrew it upon reflection. The issue was too enormous and the consequences too potentially dangerous to leave to those who opposed Tradition.