The canon law was not in contradiction.
[The consecrations] were performed expressly against the will of the Pope with a formally schismatic act according to the norm of Canon 751 , he [Archbishop Lefebvre] having openly refused submission to the Supreme Pontiff and communion with the members of the Church subject to him. [. . .] he cannot even apply Canon 1323, any relevant matter foreseen by him not being verified in this case, since even the alleged "necessity" was deliberately created by Archbishop Lefebvre in order to preserve a posture of separation from the Catholic Church, notwithstanding the offers of communion and the concessions made by the Holy Father John Paul II. (L 'Osservatore Romano, "Notice", 3 July 1988)
As the Canon Law says:
Can. 1325 Ignorance which is crass or supine or affected can never be taken into account when applying the provisions of cann. 1323 and 1324. Likewise, drunkenness or other mental disturbances cannot be taken into account if these have been deliberately sought so as to commit the offence or to excuse it; nor can passion which has been deliberately stimulated or nourished.
"even the alleged 'necessity' was deliberately created by Archbishop Lefebvre in order to preserve a posture of separation from the Catholic Church"
What hogwash. Aren't you embarrassed to post such nonsense? Canon 1323 says its up to the individual to decide whether a necessity exists or not. If he decides it does--then there can be no automatic excommunication. That's the law. No amount of second-guessing can erase it. If the Pope had a problem with that, he had every right to convene a tribunal and make formal accusations. He did not. So the canon stands.
In fact, the charge is a blatant smear. The Archbishop not only believed there was a necessity, he wrote about it, he complained loudly to Rome about it, he was interviewed by the press for years about it. There can be no doubt whatsoevr of his honesty in this matter.
What is shocking is the extent to which the Pope's defenders will lie to themselves to twist reality and pretend somehow that the Archbishop was insincere when clearly he was not. He had argued over and over he must preserve the ancient Mass since it was the primary vehicle for transmitting the ancient faith. That this should be so airily dismissed says a lot about Rome's lack of faith these days--and a lot about this Pope.
"Can. 1325 Ignorance which is crass or supine or affected can never be taken into account when applying the provisions of cann. 1323 and 1324. Likewise, drunkenness or other mental disturbances cannot be taken into account if these have been deliberately sought so as to commit the offence or to excuse it; nor can passion which has been deliberately stimulated or nourished."
No such canon could have applied. Is there no nonsense you will not dredge up to support a papal injustice? It is ridiculous to think the Archbishop believed there was a state of emergency because of ignorance, crass or otherwise. On the contrary, the evidence was everywhere. Even Paul VI admitted the Church was in a process of auto-demolition. Mass attendance had collapsed everywhere after the institution of the Novus Ordo. Major dogmas were being ignored and rejected by masses of Catholics. The folly of Assisi I had just occurred. Missions were collapsing. The ancient Mass was almost entirely eliminated and corruption was spreading everywhere. And all this was occuring within the span of a few years since the close of the Council. The crass ignorance was not on the Archbishop's part, believe me--it was on the part of those in full denial of the facts.