Mel Gibson’s Chaplain Suspended

From our vantage point as outside observers, it appears that there were three events which may have led to Father Stephen F. Somerville’s suspension by the Cardinal Archbishop of Toronto on July 15, 2004. In 2002, Father Somerville wrote an “Open Letter to the Church” in which he renounced his own career with the prestigious (if infamous) International Commission on English Liturgy (I.C.E.L.). In that letter, Father Somerville wrote:

I am a priest who for over ten years collaborated in a work that became a notable harm to the Catholic Faith. I wish now to apologize before God and the Church and to renounce decisively my personal sharing in that damaging project. I am speaking of the official work of translating the new post-Vatican II Latin liturgy into the English language, when I was a member of the Advisory Board of the International Commission on English Liturgy (I.C.E.L.).

This renunciation of I.C.E.L. would have been abundantly sufficient to earn Father Somerville the Benedict Arnold Award in the post-Vatican II Church, but that wasn’t his only “crime”. He had also accepted a position as chaplain and spiritual director to Hollywood superstar turned traditional Catholic, Mel Gibson, where he made headlines by offering the daily Tridentine Mass for the director and crew of the blockbuster film, “The Passion of The Christ.” During one interview, Father Somerville said the following of Mel Gibson:

He began each day very personally and intensely by taking part in my mass. He is a man who has recently gone through a powerful Christian conversion and does not conceal his faith – it’s very important to him.

Of course, Mr. Gibson’s traditional Catholicism was front page news for the world press during the year-long buildup to the “controversial” film’s release on Ash Wednesday, 2004. Gibson’s chaplain and spiritual director, therefore, could hardly have escaped notice of the new Church bureaucrats who grew increasingly nervous as Gibson’s film project rocked the post-Vatican II world with its pre-Vatican II Catholicism.

But even offering Tridentine Masses for Mel Gibson wasn’t enough for Father Somerville who seems almost desperate to undo his important role in working with the new Church over the course of his priestly career. And so when invited by the Society of St. Pius X to contribute to their book project, “Priest, Where Is Thy Mass: The Seminary Interviews,” Father Somerville didn’t bat an eye, even going so far as to pen a cover letter which the SSPX included in their mass mailing of the book to every priest in the United States. That cover letter included, among other bombshells, the following urgent appeal to fellow priests:

But enough as you can see, my summer holiday in 2001 led me firmly and decisively back to the Traditional Catholic Church. Can there be another? Is it right for the Church to be moderately wrong? Are we foundering, we Catholics, in some great, grey apostasy? Has there ever been a more total Catholic breakdown? Is there now any more urgent question than the recall of Catholic Tradition?…Do not lightly dismiss the signs. Do not scoff at the fire alarm. Do not fear the uncomfortable consequences of returning Home. Life is short. Eternity is long. The salvation of souls has been at grave risk for over forty years now. The traditional Catholic challenge must be faced.

With that, Father Somerville had evidently awakened the sleeping giant. Combined with his efforts to assist the SSPX circuit priests in providing Mass and Sacraments to the faithful in the Catholic wasteland of Canada, his “crimes” became too much for his superiors. The “crimes” led to charges, and charges to suspension.

What follows is the letters exchange between Father Somerville and various Church authorities (including the Ecclesia Dei Commission) that went on in the weeks and months leading up to Father’s recent suspension.

What seems utterly inescapable to us as we read this exchange is the shamelessness of the new Church. Here we are in the midst of the worst priest/sex scandal in history, and who gets suspended? One of the few priests left who’s retained his priestly dignity, who is not chasing altar boys, and who has kept the Faith when thousands and thousands of priests have abandoned it altogether and helped drag the Bride of Christ through the gutters and sewers of the modern world. What more foreboding omen could there possibly be than the corrupt Church authorities’ shameful treatment of these traditional priests whose only “crime” is faithfulness to the traditions of the Catholic Church and the holy priesthood. “Only one offense is now vigorously punished,” St. Basil wrote, “an accurate observance of our fathers’ traditions.”

Is there a state of emergency in the Church today? Just ask the recently suspended Father Stephen Somerville! Father’s status as a former member of the Advisory Board of the International Commission on English Liturgy, by the way, makes his gallant stand for Tradition and his eventual suspension one of the most important developments of 2004. Given the cynicism, skepticism and scandal which threaten to overcome whatever remains of the beleaguered Church militant and their increasingly disillusioned children, it would be impossible to overemphasize the importance of this noble priestly example which has provided us all with an injection of much needed hope. How encouraging to see a priest—a former member of the notorious I.C.E.L., no less—come out into the public square, admit the heinous error of the new Mass, and then do all in his power to undo what’s been done… to salvage whatever he can of the faith that the new churchmen have spent four decades destroying.

God is good. Such consolation does not come often these days, but, when it does, its impact will be felt, cherished and remembered for decades to come. Despite Vatican II and the whole demonic revolution in the Church, Father Somerville, Father Zigrang, Father Smith and so many other good and faithful priests are seeing the light, recognizing the error, and turning back long enough to gather up a handful of scattered sheep and make for the nearby cave of Tradition while this storm passes. In other words, God is still with us. The revolution has not prevailed and some shepherds have not only kept the old Faith but, following the example of their spiritual fathers—Campion, Pro, Arrowsmith, and others— are risking everything to restore it little by little and soul by soul by confirming the brethren, the disillusioned Catholics who four decades after Vatican II are just barely hanging on.

So the Archbishop of Toronto has dusted off a new Tyburn tree for Father Somerville. Well, His Eminence will have to climb over the dead bodies of two million traditional Catholics to get to him. And, Father Somerville: Anytime you need a “priest hole” you just give us a call. MJM

It is high time that I wrote to you in light of my recently acquired knowledge of your extra curricular activities. It has come to my attention that you are celebrating Mass for congregations affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X.

As you well know, this group is not in full communion with Rome and any further ministry exercised by you on their behalf would force me, as your Bishop, to take remedial action.

With this letter be informed that I order you to terminate your association with the Society of St. Pius X, or face the prospect of suspension and/or further canonical action.

If you have any question about this, please contact me at your earliest convenience.

I hereby acknowledge receipt of your letter of Christmas Eve, which expressed displeasure at my having said Masses for Catholics “affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X,” and which threatened me with canonical suspension for this.

I am puzzled that such a serious penalty should be invoked for assisting the three hardworking priests of that Society in Toronto, who must serve nine churches in Ontario and New Brunswick, seven of which are in dioceses other than yours. I am also puzzled by your phrase “not in full communion with Rome,” to describe the SSPX. Does this mean partial communion? Can there be such a thing? Although there is a divergence in thinking between the Vatican, as presently and confusedly manifested, and the clear position of the SSPX, I consider that the SSPX is simply in communion with Pope John Paul, and after considerable reading on the subject, I rejoice to understand that they are not excommunicated, not even their four bishops. The Vatican authority has affirmed that Catholics attending SSPX Masses truly fulfill their Sunday obligation, and are justified in making a suitable contribution in the collection.

I know that many persons seem to share the slanderous notion that the SSPX is in schism, but this is clearly contradicted by various authorities. If there is any division, it has been brought about by the Vatican itself in the last four papacies. And if Pius XII or the Fathers of Trent were to return, they would recognize the Catholic Church much more clearly in SSPX than in the post-Vatican II Church. Here I refer to doctrine and piety, as well as to liturgical rites.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, I think you should commend me for publicly sustaining the Catholic Faith and Liturgy, and I respectfully request that you drop your threat of suspension. If I have not yet been able to persuade you of the Catholic worth and validity of SSPX, I do earnestly ask you to indicate to me in writing the precise nature of my alleged crime or wrongdoing and where it is spelled out in Canon Law, and where the penalty of suspension is provided.

Your letter of 24 December 2003 seems clearly to be a consequence of my visit with your Chancellor John Murphy on 28 November 2003, whereat I candidly indicated the places where I was celebrating the traditional Mass. On that occasion , I offered a gift to Msgr. Murphy. Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre (Vol. I) by Michael Davies, the distinguished and prolific English commentator on the liturgical changes of the last forty years. Mr. Davies perceives better than I can say, and with searching detail, the powerful contribution of the late Archbishop Lefebvre to the survival of Catholic Faith and worship, and some of his canonical sufferings at the hands of high persons in the Vatican. I hope you will find time to read at least some of this work.

Thank you for your letter of January 12, 2004, in response to Cardinal Ambrozic’s letter of December 24, 2003. Clearly the concerns outlined in Cardinal Ambrozic’s letter appear not to be concerns to you. Please read the enclosed letter signed by Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. You will note that the Society of St. Pius X is deemed by the competent ecclesial authority as not being in full communion with the Holy See. Therefore you are not within your canonical right to collaborate with the Society of St. Pius X by offering your priestly services.

Please make yourself available to see the Cardinal at your earliest convenience.

I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 27 January 2004. First for your general information, I am including the responses to the most frequently asked questions about the canonical status of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X. Following those I will make a more specific response regarding the situation which you have presented.

1. The bishops of the Society of St. Pius X are excommunicated according to the prescription of canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law which states that “A bishop who consecrates someone a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.” Archbishop Lefebvre was duly reminded of this before his conferral of episcopal ordination on 30 June 1988 and the Holy Father confirmed that this penalty had been incurred in his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, #3 [cf. AAS 80 (1988) 1495-1498; English translation in L’Osservatore Romano English edition of 11 July 1998, p. 1].

2. The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese or religious institute in full communion with the Holy See (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 265) and also because those ordained after the schismatic episcopal ordinations were ordained by an excommunicated bishop. They are also most probably excommunicated since it is quite likely that these priests, after more than fifteen years in a society whose head is now an excommunicated bishop, adhere to the schismatic act.

3. Concretely this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have the proper faculty to absolve, the Church supplies these faculties so that the sacrament is valid (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 144).

4. While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute “formal adherence to the schism” (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church. While we hope and pray for a reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X, the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” cannot recommend that members of the faithful frequent their chapels for the reasons which we have outlined above. We deeply regret this situation and pray that a reconciliation of the Society of St. Pius X with the Church may come about, but until such time the explanations which we have given remain in force.

Following upon the above stated principles, it is clear that the Society of St. Pius X is not in full communion with the Holy See. The priest to whom you refer [Father Stephen Somerville, MJM] then, is not “within his canonical right” to collaborate with the Society of St. Pius X by offering his priestly services. We would suggest that this information should be communicated directly to the priest. Quite evidently, he has accepted the interpretation given him by the priest members of the society and it will probably require some time and patience to dislodge these ideas. If he is given the required canonical admonitions and refuses to abide by them, it may be necessary to suspend him a divinis according to the provisions of the Code of Canon Law. We sincerely hope that that will not be the case.

Belatedly, with regret, I reply to your letter of 23 March 2004 regarding the threat of suspension against me for collaborating with the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). In addition to ongoing business and various travel commitments, I have striven to do considerable further reading on our problem. Thank you for your letter, and special thanks to you and to the Archbishop for having secured the two-page letter (6 Feb 2004) on our topic from Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary of Ecclesia Dei in the Vatican.

I do have some difficulty with the explanation of Msgr. Perl. In his paragraph 2, he speaks of the Episcopal ordinations of the four SSPX bishops as “schismatic ordinations,” and of these as a “schismatic act”. But nowhere does he explain or justify this negative view. On the contrary, I have read of several canonical authorities declaring—precisely in our context—(Cardinal Lara, Neri Capponi, Prof. Geringer, jcd (Munich), Fr. Gerald E. Murray, jcd (New York), and more…) that the ordination of a bishop without papal authorization does not constitute a schismatic act. Indeed, my readings relate that large numbers of bishops in the past have in fact been ordained without clearance by the Pope and received Vatican recognition at a later time. The desire of Archbishop Lefebvre and his community to remain firmly and fervently attached to “traditional Rome” and the Holy See is patent and manifest in his writings and utterances and actions. Courrier de Rome, of September 1988, concluded after a detailed study (Is Tradition Excommunicated? A collection of Independent Studies, chapter 1, p. 36 of pp. 1-39; Angelus Press, Kansas City, MO 1993) as follows:

“There does not exist a ‘schism’ of Archbishop Lefebvre,…it has been decreed with…superficiality…bad faith, and…a suspect eagerness…” (The whole article and book is well worth reading and a powerful vindication of the SSPX.)

Throughout Msgr. Perl’s letter, I count possibly a dozen allusions, almost mechanically made, to the schism and excommunication and non-full comunion of SSPX persons. But these allusions are not substantiated, except for the mention of excommunication in canon 1382 of the 1983 Code. Yet here Msgr. Perl fails to mention what he surely knows, that canon 1324 exempts from all penalties one who breaks a law out of necessity, even if the person disobeying is mistaken. Now it is surely clear in the deplorable state of the Church today that a profound and widespread necessity for holy Catholic sacraments and faithful Catholic teaching is pressing upon us. I hope that the Chancery staff in particular can see this spiritual necessity. If you cannot see it, I do not point an accusing finger, because I myself, priest of 48 years and beneficiary of various serious appointments and studies, could not see this clearly until about three years ago (2001), when I went to serve a traditional, independent Catholic community of about 175 persons in the USA for five weeks (they were my summer holiday) and I read the many stimulating, eye-opening, thorough theological books and articles which my new Catholic friends made available to me. It was no mere nostalgia trip. It was a discovery and summons leading back to the Catholic Church of my youth of my early priestly years, and of ancient Tradition.

May Jesus lead the Bishops and Priests of the Toronto Archdiocese to make this rediscovery, as urgently as possible; the salvation of multitudes depends on it. May the thought of an awesome Judgment Day add compelling motivation to this most pressing task. I urge you to follow me and SSPX and all Traditional Catholics in this increasingly joy-filled and reverential and inspiring clarification of Catholic Truth. Will it lead to painful regret over many facts, going back to 1962 Rome and the Second Vatican Council? Will it suggest that Archbishop Lefebvre is the new Saint Athanasius of the Catholic twentieth century, with Modernism as the new and all-deceiving Arian heresy? Will it show that even popes can be deceived and deceiving without formally teaching error ex cathedra? Will it remind us that Jesus flatly predicted that many false Christs and false prophets will arise and deceive many, if possible even the elect (John 24)? Let us not be afraid of incidental consequences. But let us return ardently and generously to the Faith of our Fathers.

Is the SSPX “not in full communion” with the Holy See? This wording is inappropriate. Rather, the SSPX is not in full agreement with the present Vatican. A highest-level commission of Cardinals and Theologians must undertake a thorough and public study of these disagreements. They are vital to the Faith and critical for salvation. The Roman Chancery thus likewise has an urgent, disturbing and inescapable task. May the Cardinal Archbishop of Toronto, with his remaining time of service, contribute effectively to the Catholic Counter-Reformation in both justifications.

Have I persuaded you to lay down the unfounded threat of canonical action against me? Shall I still be forced into heresy by so-called obedience, or into so-called schism by fidelity? If I cannot move you to the right, with tears for my own past blindness, will you now shackle me in the wrong for clinging to Catholicism? Would I have to continue liturgical service to believers with presumed and alleged illegitimacy, as Archbishop Lefebvre had to continue his Catholic Seminary at Econe after its so-called suppression by Vatican edict? Will the visible Church authorities begin at long last to assert that the Post Vatican II Fabrication, the Neo-Church Emperor, has no clothes? Would you allow me to start a fully traditional, constituted Catholic community in Toronto (not in competition with the existing work of SSPX) so that I (and others with me) could make attractively real what I’m writing about?

I apologize for the lengthiness of this appeal. You will perceive, Monsignor, that the “you” is often plural. I hope you perceived that the concerns of the Archbishop (for communion, in the truth) are also mine. Yes, I will seek a meeting with him, and presume to copy this letter to him. Perhaps, you will copy it to Msgr. Perl. For all of us, I beg the Holy Spirit’s guiding and illuminating.

1. For the last several months, I have tried unsuccessfully to reason with you about your grave and persistent disobedience in continuing your association with and in celebrating the Eucharist for adherents to the schismatic Society of St. Pius X. Given your earlier and more recent communications with myself and with Monsignor John Murphy, Chancellor of Spiritual Affairs, it appears all our efforts to deal pastorally with your obstinacy in this matter have been in vain. In particular, your recent mailing to the priests of the Archdiocese of a form letter (over your signature) and a book entitled, “Priest, Where is They Mass, Mass, Where is Thy Priest?”, can easily be interpreted as an apologia for your position and a further indication of your entrenchment therein. Moreover, such action contravenes both the letter and the spirit of my admonition to you dated December 24, 2003.

2. Father Somerville, on the day of your ordination nearly a half century ago, you placed your hands in those of the ordaining Archbishop and promised obedience to him and his successors, as laid down in Canon 127 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law (“All clerics, especially priests, are bound by a special obligation to show reverence and obedience each to his own Ordinary”), and reiterated in Canon 273 of the 1983 Code (“Clerics have a special obligation to show reverence and obedience to the Supreme Pontiff and to their own Ordinary”). It is regrettable that, of late, you apparently have lost your earlier zeal for the virtue just described.

3. It is my understanding that you have not “formally” affiliated yourself with the Society of St. Pius X already mentioned. Such formal affiliation to that Society, whose founder’s ipso facto excommunication was declared by the Apostolic See on July 1, 1988, would, as you are probably aware, according to Canon 1364, likewise result in your own immediate de jure excommunication from the Church.

4. On the other hand, your ongoing association with and celebration of the Tridentine Mass for members of the Society of St. Pius X give external recognition to their illegitimate claims and their lack of submission to our Holy Father Pope John Paul II, to Bishops appointed by him, and to the teachings of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. Your actions are also a potential source of scandal to clergy and laity of the Archdiocese of Toronto.

5. In light of all the foregoing, with due observance of Canon 1342, 1, and Canons 1717-1720:

-Given your flagrant disregard for my previous warnings to cease and desist from your disobedient behaviour (fc. Canons 1330; 1347. 1);

-Given the existence of the condition for grave imputability of your actions (cf. Canon 1321);

-I hereby decree, in your regard, the imposition of the censure of suspension as laid down in Cannon 1333, 1, 1-3. That is, as of this 15th day of July 2004, you no longer enjoy the faculties of the Archdiocese. To wit, you are prohibited all public and private acts of the power of Order and of the power of governance. Namely, you are forbidden to celebrate, either publicly or privately, any of the Sacraments, including the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist and the Sacrament of Reconciliation (this latter, outside the danger of death of a penitent [cf. Canon 1335]) You are likewise forbidden the faculty to preach or to celebrate publicly the Divine Office or the Liturgy of the Word. Thus, this censure of suspension is global (cf. Canon 1334, 1).

6. This censure does not prevent you from receiving the sacraments in the churches of the Archdiocese provided you are otherwise well-disposed. It does prevent you from offering the sacraments to members of the faithful of our Archdiocese and elsewhere, even to those legitimately asking, the sole exception being the absolution of a penitent in danger of death (cf. Canons 976 &1335).

7. In keeping with Canon 1355, 1, 1, the remission of this censure is to be in the external forum and is reserved to myself or my delegate. No remission will be possible without a clear indication you have withdrawn from your obstinate disobedience already cited, wish to be fully reconciled with the Roman Catholic Church, and return to the path of reverence and full obedience to the Roman Pontiff and your Archbishop Ordinary.

8. This censure of suspension is personal, that is, in keeping with Canon 1351, binds you not only within the territory of the Archdiocese of Toronto, but everywhere in the world.

9. Notification of this suspension is being sent to the Bishops of Ontario and the Auxiliary Bishops and Priests of the Archdiocese of Toronto.

10. In keeping with Canon 1737, 1-2, recourse from this suspension can be taken to the Congregation for Clergy in Rome within a peremptory time-limit of 15 canonical days.

Father Somerville, I regret having had to take the drastic measure of removing your faculties by way of the penalty of suspension. It is the mind of the Church, as it is mine, that the imposition or declaration of penalties is a last resort when neither “by fraternal correction or reproof, nor by any methods of pastoral care, can the scandal be sufficiently repaired, justice restored, and the offender reformed” (Canon 1341).

When Father Somerville first sent this exchange to The Remnant on July 15, 2004, he had not yet been suspended. As soon as he received his notice of suspension, Father sent us the following note:

Further to my fax of 15 July 2004, correspondence regarding threat of my suspension. I write to you in haste and urgency since I have just this hour opened the attached letter from my Ordinary, Cardinal Ambrozic. As you will read, he has taken decisive action against me, and if you are planning to publish the prior correspondence, this item also should be made known to the readers, and I am herby informing you of it immediately, as I had promised to do. The letter invites some response (including a possible canonical “recourse” within 15 days) and/or appropriate meeting of minds, and I have begun work on this. Of this course of action I will also inform you promptly. With thanks for your attention help and patience.

Our prayers and support for Father Somerville are a given. May God be with him, and may God help us all in this ghastly time of great apostasy when good priests are “drawn and quartered” and faithless ones are rewarded, coddled and given sanctuary by a corrupt ecclesiastical authority which has forgotten what it means to be Catholic.

“Let's get something straight: SSPX has attacked the Church through its counterfeiting of Ordinations (Bishops and priests.) This attack is a frontal assault on the headship and authority of the Pope.”

No, it isn’t. It’s an assertion that this particular pope issued a wrongful order, but not an attack on the office and institution of the papacy.

“It is irrelevant that SSPX claims some sort of exemption from obedience to the Pope based on "necessity," for their claim would be valid ONLY if the NO was, in fact, invalid.”

That’s simply not so. Their claim is valid even if the NO is licit and valid, so long as it is to any discernable degree inferior to the Tridentine, or even likely to produce undesirable consequences that the Tridentine wouldn’t.

“But it's not.”

Okay, the NO is not invalid. It is, however, grossly inferior to the Tridentine, and has produced undesirable consequences that the Tridentine would not have.

“The Pope, as the ONLY legislator with authority over the liturgy, has the right to change the Rite.”

Having the right to do something doesn’t necessarily mean that it is right to do it.

“I am one who agrees with most of the points made by SSPX about the NO, while never doubting its validity, nor the authority of the Pope to institute the change. I think the NO has seriously damaged the "sacred time, sacred space, sacred language" protections which were built-in to the Old Rite.”

Making it significantly inferior to the Tridentine, and producing undesirable consequences.

“But NONE of that is germane to the crime of disobedience and continual, active, resistance to the authority of Rome.”

It absolutely is the very crux of the issue.

The bus has been hijacked, the hijackers are driving us over a cliff, and you can’t get past the authority that inheres in the office of driver.

“The only thing that is germane is the disobedience and the subsequent fraud and theft of Orders.”

No, the goals and motives of the men occupying Church offices at this moment in history are also germane.

“I did not start the war; SSPX did.”

You didn’t, and the SSPX didn’t. Modernist enemies of the Church in the clergy started it by attacking Tradition, the Mass, and the Church.

“I will continue to defend the Church's integrity, and SSPX apparently will continue to attack it. Their choice.”

The SSPX is not attacking the Church’s integrity; they are saying that those Modernist enemies of the Church have no moral right to drive the bus over the cliff, even if they do occupy the driver’s seat.

"The schismatic Lefebvrists merely want to tear down the Catholic Church and the Successor of Peter and build up their own schismatic organization based on their own subjective private judgment and denial of any practical obedience to legitimate authority in the Church."

How can you even think such a thing?

They want to undo the depredations of the modernist heretics and return the Church to what it once was and should be again. That is, to return to obedience to legitimate authority.

There are modernist heretics wreaking havoc in the Church, but the Pope is not one of them, and anyone who thinks he is is a complete fool who has absolutely no reasonable sense of proportion. The Pope is the head of the one holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, fully orthodox, conserving the Deposit of Faith handed down from the Apostles in Scripture and Tradition. Heresy by members of the Church does not justify disobedience to proper authority when that authority is fully orthodox.

"There are modernist heretics wreaking havoc in the Church"

Like this Canadian bishop, maybe?

"The Pope is...fully orthodox"

Sorry, but that proposition is just not supported by the information to hand.

The only way I can resolve that proposition with his conduct is to think him the weakest, most incompetent pope in the history of the Church.

If he is not the weakest, most incompetent pope in the history of the Church, then he has caused and allowed things to happen that are violently heterodox.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.