July 1983 Print

Father Terence Finnegan Responds

Trinity Sunday
9 May 1983

My dear friends of the Society of St. Pius X:

This letter is being addressed primarily to the members of Our Lady of Sorrows Parish in Phoenix, Arizona. Naturally this is so because of the responsibility that I hold before Almighty God for your souls.

It would not have been necessary for me to take pen in hand and set these words in print had not Fr. Clarence Kelly, the former District Superior of the North-East District of the Society of St. Pius X, publicly challenged His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre. Father Kelly, I say, has made his attack against Archbishop Lefebvre a matter of public record, and his (Father Kelly's) erroneous opinions have been disseminated far and wide, throughout the United States and the world, by means of "The Bulletin" and The Roman Catholic, both of which are published by the Roman Catholic Association of Oyster Bay, New York.

Like my fellow priest members of the Society of St. Pius X, I was scandalized to learn that Fr. Kelly and the other eight priests of the Society of his persuasion have raised their voices in unlawful revolt against their Superior in religion. But, other than an appeal to pray for them and the clarification that they were definitely wrong and unjust in their attacks upon the Archbishop, I would never have felt it necessary to have anything more to say on this subject. However, a number of our parishioners receive their publications and have thereby been further scandalized by the attempts made in these publications to slander Archbishop Lefebvre's good name. Common logic will prevail and the majority of good men will not be impressed by the attempts of Father Kelly to obscure the situation. But, at the same time, it is necessary to refute the erroneous claims made by Father Kelly in The Roman Catholic and "The Bulletin"—these claims which have caused such confusion amongst the faithful.

First of all, let us remember that in a relationship between father and son, it is the father who begets, engenders, brings forth and perfects his son. So it is in a family, so it is spiritually in a religious society between a legitimate superior and those subjected to his authority. Archbishop Lefebvre is the Founder and Superior General of the International Fraternal Society of St. Pius X. He is the one therefore who will give the sense of direction and orientation that his society will take. This grace was given to him, not to his followers.

Father Kelly claims first that the Archbishop wants to introduce liturgical changes at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary. This, of course, is false! The real problem began with Father Donald Sanborn, who, from the beginning of his period as Rector of the Society's seminary in the United States, first at Armada and later at Ridgefield, saw fit and chose to follow his (Fr. Sanborn's) standard of what he thought would be orthodox for a Roman Catholic Seminary.

From the first, Father Sanborn varied in his position from that of Archbishop Lefebvre. At Ecône, where Father Sanborn was trained and ordained, things were done differently. After seven years of variance in policy (1976 to 1983), Archbishop Lefebvre decided to bring the American seminary at Ridgefield into uniformity of liturgical practice and breviary recitation with the rest of the Society. As the founder of a religious society of priests at a time when the Catholic Church had already known and universally accepted Pope John XXIII as Pope and Vicar of Christ, it is not unreasonable that the Society does also.

The Missal in use during the Pontificate of Pope John XXIII is almost exactly the same as those Missals in use prior to that time. All agree on this. Archbishop Lefebvre has decided that this Missal will be the norm for the Society. This is his prerogative. By demanding that the same be done at Ridgefield, the Society's American seminary, His Grace was not introducing any liturgical changes as Father Kelly claims, he was merely asserting his right as father and founder of the Society to enforce his liturgical program in world-wide uniformity for the Society of St. Pius X.

To Father Kelly's second charge, there is no question of the use of doubtfully ordained priests in any missions served by the Society of St. Pius X in the South-West District: this is the product of Father Kelly's own imagination.

Father Kelly's third objection is answered in my answer to his first above.

To his fourth objection, in which Father Kelly claims that priests were dismissed contrary to Canon Law, I must object that there was nothing of the kind! Those priests were dismissed entirely within the spirit of the law.

It is a well-known principle that "the author of the law is not subject to the law." This is obvious since, as author, he could change the law at will; for example, if the common good required such. For instance, the Fifth Commandment clearly states that thou shalt not kill. Yet Almighty God, the Author of this law, asked Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. God in no way transgressed His own law by this demand on Abraham, He merely authored a new law for Abraham, God being the law unto Himself. However, God was only testing Abraham and did not require the sacrifice of Isaac after all and sent His angel to stay the hand of obedient Abraham at the right moment and set Isaac free from the knife.

In the same way, Archbishop Lefebvre can dictate what the policies of the Society of St. Pius X will be since he is the author of our law. Those who do not agree with him should depart from him so that the Archbishop can go about his work in peace. The dissenters cannot rightfully turn against Archbishop Lefebvre, as they are doing. They say, "But, Your Excellency, for the last four years or so you have permitted a certain variance in the liturgical practices of the Society . . . varying from the reforms of Pope Pius X, to those of Pope Pius XII, to those of Pope John XXIII, and now you are demanding uniformity." No! They cannot rightfully say this and such a claim should fall on deaf ears. Their duty was to observe the Archbishop's wishes and to obey, or to go their way in peace.

In short, by their refusal to accept the wishes of His Grace they have dismissed themselves from the Society of St. Pius X by refusing to be a part of its work.

The fifth claim by Father Kelly (i.e., the dangerous and potentially schismatic usurpation of teaching authority by the Fraternity) is so ridiculous and unfounded that it doesn't even merit consideration!

The sixth (i.e., the need to subordinate loyalty to the Fraternity to loyalty to the Church) is absurd. Fr. Kelly means we must accept the Church up to and including Pius XII before the reform of Easter Week. Archbishop Lefebvre has exercised his prerogative as Superior of the Society to set this directive: We do accept Pius XII's reform of the liturgy as well as that of Pope John XXIII. Both Popes were unquestionably Vicars of Christ and in their reforms (whether we like them or not!) there is no denial of our Catholic Faith.

Father Kelly and the eight claim that to accept the Pius XII-John XXIII reforms is to be disloyal to the Church. This remains their opinion and is calumnious. We must, at all times, bear in mind that we are speaking of the Tridentine Mass. The New Mass is a denial of our Catholic Faith and must be resisted. This we do wholeheartedly.

To Father Kelly's seventh claim (i.e., the liberal attitude adopted by the Archbishop towards marriage annulments granted by the Conciliar Church), we must see clearly that the role of the Society of St. Pius X has never been to serve as a marriage tribunal for the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. Our primary struggle has always been to preserve the Mass of All Time. We wish to be identified with this and not, primarily, with any other struggle. It would be confusing the issue for the priests of the Society to divert their attention at this time from the all-important issue of the Mass to another question such as the marriages and annulments of the Conciliar Church.

On the other hand, Father Kelly, speaking for the nine dissenters, would have us believe that the Catholic Church has completely abdicated and no longer exists. This was clearly answered by Father Schmidberger's comment: "We are firmly convinced that the Church still continues and lives on today, even if the wheat can hardly be seen for the cockle."

Furthermore, I quote and answer Father Kelly, as he quotes and erroneously answers His Grace:

1. Archbishop Lefebvre: "What was latent for many years in the relations between most of the priests of the North-East District and the Society of St. Pius X ... was the object of continual difficulties."

Father Kelly answered His Grace: "If such continual difficulties existed which were go great as to justify such extraordinary actions, why was I recently reappointed to a six-year term as District Superior by Archbishop Lefebvre, after having served as District Superior for six years?"

I answer Father Kelly: This is indeed a mystery! The best answer I can offer is that, because of the Archbishop's kindness and his longsuffering and his belief that if a man is given enough patience, he will conform to justice. But Father Kelly's betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre's faith in him necessitated his immediate dismissal.

2. Archbishop Lefebvre: "Thus, their long-standing disagreement with myself and the Society has now become public rebellion."

Father Kelly answered His Grace: "There was nothing public or rebellious about priests bringing to the attention of their bishop in a confidential letter things so serious as to touch on the sanctity of Matrimony, the validity of sacraments, etc. Furthermore, the matter was made public, not by the priests, but by the Archbishop after he had assured us that it would be kept quiet."

I answer Father Kelly: In this answer, Father Kelly is begging the question and trying to divert our attention from the true issue which is: Does Archbishop Lefebvre, or does he not, have the right to dictate policy and rule his Society according to his good judgment? The answer, an obvious "yes," is denied by Father Kelly and so he wants to obscure the issue in the minds of the faithful by bringing up irrelevant issues.

3. Archbishop Lefebvre: "It is the result of an extremist way of thinking and a tendency to schism in the domain of the liturgy, the papacy and the sacraments of the Reform."

Father Kelly answered His Grace:" There is nothing extremist or schismatic about following the Missal of the patron saint of our Society, of adopting the Archbishop's own position regarding the question of the Pope and rejecting the new rites of the Conciliar Church."

I answer Father Kelly: Several of the nine priests whom Father Kelly represents are extremists and deny straightforwardly the fact that Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, or Pope John Paul II are rightful Vicars of Christ, ruling in the Chair of Peter.

Four of the nine priests were dismissed in May of 1980 by the Archbishop for their extremist position, but out of pity for their souls, Archbishop Lefebvre readmitted them to the Society in a gracious act wherein he hoped, that in time and with God's grace, they would correct themselves. Whereas, to the contrary, they have only succeeded in fixing their self-made noose the more tightly about their own necks.

4. Archbishop Lefebvre: "They reject the liturgy which has always been used in the Society and consider it evil, the liturgy of Pope Pius XII, signed by Pope John XXIII, and so, the liturgy preceding the Council."'

Father Kelly answered His Grace: "It is simply not true that the liturgy of John XXIII has always been used in the Society."

I answer Father Kelly: Essentially the liturgy of John XXIII was always the one used at Ecône and the Archbishop's position on this is sufficiently clear.

5. Archbishop Lefebvre: "They think and behave as if there is no Pope, suppressing all prayers for the Pope."

Father Kelly answered His Grace: "On the question of the Pope, we all agree with the Archbishop's signed statement of May 29, 1980, that the 'ultimate definitive determination of [this] question ... rests with the Magisterium of the Church at some future time when normalcy is restored'."

I answer Father Kelly: Whereas, not contradicting this, the Archbishop is perfectly within his rights to assert that the Society will acknowledge Pope John Paul II as the Vicar of Christ. This the laity knows to be true and has always expected of us. To assert anything else is, at least, a tendency towards schism.

6. Archbishop Lefebvre:  "In practice, they tend to hold almost all the sacraments of the new rites to be invalid."

Father Kelly answered His Grace: "This is an attempt to sidetrack the issue. The real issue which we raised to the Archbishop in our letter was that of doubtful sacraments, specifically the doubtful sacraments administered by doubtful priests that he permits to work with the Fraternity in other Districts, but which I would never allow in the North-East District."

I answer Father Kelly: This is a falsification and merits no response. But notice how Father Kelly passes judgment on his Superior and politely calls him a liar. This is shocking, coming from one who depended on Archbishop Lefebvre entirely for his education and ordination to the priesthood.

7. Archbishop Lefebvre: "This radicalism is not the attitude of the Society."

Father Kelly answered His Grace: "It is hardly radical to apply principles of Catholic morality concerning doubtful sacraments to our present situation. The principle here is that 'Matter and form must be certainly valid. Hence, one may not follow [even] a probable opinion and use either doubtful matter or form. Acting otherwise one commits a sacrilege'."

I answer Father Kelly: There is no case in existence in the Society of St. Pius X of the use of any priest who is not ordained properly. There is ample proof of this. And so there is no doubt about the valid administration of any sacraments.

8. Archbishop Lefebvre: " [quoting St. Thomas Aquinas] ... one may not oppose the authority of the Church except in imminent danger to the Faith. Now, there is no danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII whereas there is a great danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Paul VI, which is unacceptable."

Father Kelly answered His Grace: "The passage the Archbishop cites in the Summa of St. Thomas absolutely does not say what the Archbishop contends. Moreover, it says that subjects have an obligation to correct their prelates ... etc. Hence, one may oppose the liturgy of John XXIII in our circumstance because we know what it led to."

I answer Father Kelly: Archbishop Lefebvre's reading of the Summa is correct. Father Kelly is quibbling! Whereas it is true that the Novus Ordo reforms eventually followed (several years later) the reform of John XXIII, it in no way follows that the Society, by using John XXIII (which we always have) is heading towards the Novus Ordo; to the contrary, we are turning the Roman Rite back to Tradition."

9. Archbishop Lefebvre: "Many of you know the difficulties to which the attitude of these priests has given rise. Many of you have suffered from it and so will not be surprised by this clarification of the situation."

Father Kelly answered His Grace: "You, the faithful whom we have served through the years, must judge if you have 'suffered' at our hands."

I answer Father Kelly: This is a personal matter which Father Kelly brings up and which he would, or should be, embarrassed to know how many times the laity who were scandalized by the actions of priests under his jurisdiction whom he, Father Kelly, neglected to correct, have complained to me and to other priests of the Society, about the abuse from the pulpit alone, not to mention articles written and advice given that were offensive to genuinely Catholic ears!

10. Archbishop Lefebvre: "So, henceforth, Father Kelly is no longer District Superior ... These priests and priests who follow them, and any seminarians who might follow them are no longer members of the Society of St. Pius X as of April 27,1983 ..."

Father Kelly answered His Grace: "I was appointed for six years, rather than at the will of the Superior General. The priests who were 'expelled' were expelled in violation of the Code of Canon Law. Canon 681, which would apply to our case, specifies that 'the prescription of canons 646-672 are to be followed.' These prescriptions were not followed by Archbishop Lefebvre and the General Council; hence the 'dismissals' are null and void."

I answer Father Kelly: Archbishop Lefebvre is the law of the Society as its Founder and his work as Founder is not yet completed. He is still founding by the action of severing nine dissident priests from the Society. Archbishop Lefebvre is thus showing the members of the Society, and the world, that the Society will not tolerate the erroneous and schismatic opinion that the current Pope is not the Vicar of Christ. In short, the Archbishop by his actions is founding the Society and its policies: Father Kelly be appraised and beware! You will have to answer to God one day for this betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre.

11. Archbishop Lefebvre: "Most of the seminarians are remaining with us and we shall, God willing, proceed with ordinations in the first days of November."

Father Kelly answered His Grace: "The sad and tragic truth is that in the wake of what the Archbishop has done almost half of the seminarians have already left Ridgefield. The work of years, so painstakingly undertaken and supported by countless sacrifices of the faithful, has been virtually destroyed in a matter of months. This destruction is the first fruit of the recent actions of the Archbishop and Fr. Williamson. It is a bad fruit and we hope and pray that the Archbishop will come to his senses before it is too late."

I answer Father Kelly: This claim is likewise false. Truly, some seminarians have left. But, so what? In a seminary this is normal that some should leave. Of those who did leave, some have already returned. And, as Father Kelly certainly knows, at Ecône there were some partings of the way but each of these only served to purify and strengthen the Society.

Moreover, these poor boy-seminarians were so indoctrinated against Archbishop Lefebvre by Fr. Sanborn and the other dissenters, that they were naturally in a state of confusion and their actions are hardly surprising.

As for Father Kelly's conclusions, I must add:

1. It is the Archbishop's duty and right to insist now and always, until his victory is won, that he be heard at Rome. After all, it is our Church! It is not a foreign entity!  

2. We in the Society would prefer that Father Kelly and the eight return to their posts in the spirit of humble submissiveness to their rightful Superior or that, as they were ordered, desist completely and leave our properties and chapels to the Society and not try to interfere with them.

These chapels were donated to the Society under the direction of Archbishop Lefebvre and not as a personal gift to this or that individual priest of the Society. For example, in St. Paul, Minnesota, the laity, who raised the funds and purchased the chapel and who support the Archbishop, are now denied the use of their chapel. By a subtle business maneuver, Father Kelly and those associated with him, find themselves the "owners" of the property, which they refuse to return to the right owners. This, in other terms, is known as theft!

In conclusion, I, as an observer of this sad situation for five years, can say certainly: two of the priests involved, the newly-ordained, are the innocent and unfortunate victims of bad leadership in the North-East District. Two more of the remaining five are clearly misled and tragically confused.

The other five are certainly willfully in error and now are moving from simple disobedience to grand calumny, theft of property and, worst of all, the giving of scandal to the faithful in the master-minded attempt to discredit the work of Archbishop Lefebvre. It can be reduced to two errors:

1. (They and) Father Kelly, as I have known him, and he, as spokesman for the others, lack the habitual spirit of obedience that was necessary to the accomplishment of his duties of state as former District Superior and as priest of the Society;

2. They, having once disobeyed, now are trying to justify all by committing the graver sin of attempting to pass judgment on their lawful superior and father in religion. This is repugnant to all sense of order.

I want all of my parishioners to remember that between God and Lucifer there are never two sides ("a dialectic") to be considered: No, there is only one side: God's side! Lucifer, the rebellious fallen angel, is wrong entirely. This is the way it is with error. If you are wrong about something, then you are all wrong; if you are in possession of the truth of a matter, then you are entirely in the truth on that matter.

If there is a question of contest between equals then we are expected to look at "both sides." In the present case, we are looking at the refusal of the spirit of submission and obedience to a right superior in religion. As in a family there is only one side: the side of order. The side of God's plan, that children be submissive to their parents. It is the Fourth Commandment.

This is therefore, dearly beloved in Christ, see clearly, an obvious issue: Let us give our wholehearted support to Archbishop Lefebvre and let us also pray for the nine dissident priests that they will make reparation for their errors and scandal.

Yours sincerely in Jesus and Mary,
Signature

Rev. Fr. Terence E. Finnegan