The Great Excommunicator

(2002)

by Rev. Anthony Cekada

Bp. Kelly’s communion rules
divide families and violate canon law.

YOUNG TRADITIONAL Catholics often worry about finding the

right potential spouse — will I find a mate with whom I can
share and practice my faith?
This worry is often compounded because of the divisions
that exist among various traditional Catholic groups, a situation
produced by the defection of the hierarchy at Vatican II, who
otherwise would now be keeping order among faithful Catho-
lics.
In Cincinnati where I now work, this difficulty is particular-
ly acute due to the presence of a parish operated by Bishop Clar-
ence Kelly’s Society of St. Pius V (SSPV) and his Daughters of
Mary.
His organization’s policy is to refuse Holy Communion to
people who assist at my Mass, and otherwise treat them as non-
Catholics. Often there is a nasty public scene at their church
when an SSPV priest grills a suspect communicant at the rail,
and then passes him by if he gets the wrong answers.
(The most recent victim: a 90-year-old Cincinnati granny,
visiting an SSPV church in Cleveland.)
The local SSPV school principal even exacts a written oath
from parents that they and their children will not receive sacra-
ments at my church.
You can imagine the difficulties that ensue, then, when a
young man from the SSPV parish, say, takes an interest in a
young lady from mine, and marriage looms.
The SSPV clergy pressure the young man and his family to
get the young woman to “convert” — formally renounce any
connection with me and agree to raise any children in “their”
church.
The reason SSPV gives for this policy is that I and the vari-
ous clergy with whom I work are somehow non-Catholic, ex-
communicated, or tainted, due to associations (no matter how
remote) with persons or groups SSPV finds objectionable: Abp.
P.M. Ngô-dinh-Thuc, the Mount St. Michael’s priests (CMRI)
and others.
Lay people sometimes find this grim picture convincing —
traditional Catholics tend to be pessimists, after all — or at least
unsettling enough so that they go along with the SSPV policy.
But the “policy” of a particular organization should not be
the ultimate norm of action for anyone.
As traditional Catholics, the question must always be: “What
norms does the Church lay down?”
The answer to this question is found in her Code of Canon
Law (a body of 2414 individual laws, supplemented by some
other legislation), as explained by “canonists” (legal experts),
theologians and popes.

1
 Here we discover that a Catholic has a right to receive the
Eucharist, the priest has an obligation to give Communion to a
Catholic, and that the priest may refuse someone the Eucharist
only if that person is forbidden by law to receive it.
And the law defines precisely what makes someone “for-
bidden by law” to receive Holy Communion.
This I will outline in detail below.
I will also list the various reasons SSPV has given over the
years for refusing my parishioners Communion. I will show in
each instance that SSPV has either invented a crime or principle
not found in canon law, or misinterpreted some principle that is.
In order to reassure the skeptical reader from an SSPV chap-
el that I have not somehow misinterpreted church laws myself, I
will provide free of charge to anyone who writes me photocopies
of the documentation I quote below, with all quoted passages
underlined.
I encourage young people with friends in SSPV chapels to
circulate this article and the accompanying documentation. So
too, families that have been torn asunder by SSPV’s policies
The law of the Catholic Church, you will see, is a good deal
more merciful and forgiving than SSPV would have you believe.

The Right to Receive Communion

QUESTION: Is SSPV permitted by church law to refuse Communion
to my parishioners?

1. You have a right to Communion unless forbidden by law.

• Church Law: “Every baptized person not forbidden by law
may and must be admitted to Holy Communion.” (Canon 853)
• Explanation: “Every baptized person is by divine right entitled
to receive Holy Communion, because baptism bestowed this
right upon him… All are called by Christ to His banquet, and
therefore the priests are in duty bound to offer every opportunity to
the faithful for receiving Communion and to lay aside unreasona-
ble and Jansenistic scruples.” Canonist C. Augustine, Commen-
tary on the New Code of Canon Law, 1921, 4:225.
Application: My parishioners may and must be admitted to
Communion, unless they are forbidden by law. The law quoted
favors their right to receive, unless otherwise proven, and this
right is one of divine law.
An SSPV priest in turn, is in duty bound to give them Com-
munion. If he intends to refuse them Communion, he must
demonstrate that some church law forbids them to receive. The
burden of proving the unworthiness of my parishioners falls on
SSPV.

2. The law bars the “publicly unworthy” from Communion.

• Church Law: “The Holy Eucharist may not be given to such as
are publicly unworthy, e.g., the excommunicated, interdicted
and notoriously infamous, unless they have given signs of re-
pentance and amendment and have repaired the scandal pub-
licly given.” Canon 855.1.
Application: An SSPV priest must demonstrate that my pa-
rishioners are “publicly unworthy.” This he may do by demon-
strating that they are “excommunicated, interdicted, or notori-
ously infamous,” or that they fall into some other category that
the law says renders them “publicly unworthy.”

2
3. Are my parishioners “publicly unworthy” under church
law due to:
A. Excommunication? The 1917 Code of Canon Law lists 44 of-
fenses for which Catholics incur automatic excommunication.
See list, Canonist Ayrinhac, Penal Legislation in the New Code of
Canon Law, 1936, 326-329.
SSPV must identify specifically: (1) Which of the 44 offenses
my parishioners committed. (2) When and how they committed
it.

B. Interdict? The 1917 Code of Canon Law lists 4 offenses for

which Catholics incur automatic interdict. See Ayrinhac, 329-30.
SSPV must identify specifically: (1) Which of the 4 offenses
my parishioners committed. (2) When and how they committed
it.
C. “Notorious Infamy”? The 1917 Code of Canon Law lists 7 of-
fenses for which Catholics incur automatic “infamy of law.”
Canonist Ayrinhac, 121. N.B., “infamy of fact” can only be de-
clared by their diocesan bishop.
SSPV must identify specifically: (1) Which of the 7 offenses
my parishioners committed. (2) When and how they committed
it.

D. Another church law? I am not aware of such a law.

If an SSPV priest maintains that some other such law ap-
plies, he must identify specifically: (1) The date the law was
promulgated. (2) The paragraphs setting defining the offense
and imposing the prohibition of communion. (3) When and how
my parishioners committed the offense.

E. Being Public and Notorious Sinners? “Public and notorious sin-

ners must not be admitted to Holy Communion…” These are
defined as sinners who “(a) if they have been declared such by
an ecclesiastical judge, or (b) if they have publicly confessed
their crimes, or as we say, ‘pleaded guilty,’ or (c) if they have
committed in word or deed a crime that still lasts and is known
to the public as not atoned for and therefore is a source of scan-
dal.” Pope Benedict XIV, in Augustine.
SSPV must identify specifically: (1) The species of the sin my
parishioners committed. (2) When and how they committed it.
(3) How it lasts and is still known to the public.

4. Summary and Conclusion:

“Every baptized person not forbidden by law may and must
be admitted to Holy Communion.”
My parishioners must be admitted unless forbidden by law.
Church law favors their right to receive. If SSPV intends to re-
fuse them, it must prove that some church law forbids them to
receive.
Church law bars the “publicly unworthy” from Commun-
ion. One becomes “publicly unworthy” under the law through:
(1) excommunication, (2) interdict, (3) notorious infamy, (4) an
offense against some other law resulting in prohibition of Com-
munion, or (5) being a public and notorious sinner.

3
 Church law sets forth in detail how each of these is incurred.
An SSPV priest who intends to refuse communion to my parish-
ioners, must specify: (1) The offense committed. (2) The law it
violated. (3) When it was committed.
No SSPV priest has ever done so, despite my repeated public
requests. SSPV cannot do so.
The conclusion is clear: SSPV is not permitted by church law
to refuse communion to my parishioners. Accordingly, its mem-
bers are obliged by Canon 853 to give my parishioners Commun-
ion.
We now pass on to various charges and objections.

Non-Catholics or Schismatics?
OBJECTION: My parishioners are “forbidden by law” to receive
communion because Abp. Thuc or CMRI members or Bp. Dolan, etc.
were/are “non-Catholics,” or “schismatics.”

1. Definition of a “member of the Catholic Church.”

• Papal Teaching: “In the Church they alone are to be counted
as members who have received the baptism of regeneration
and profess the true faith, who, moreover, have not had the
misfortune to separate themselves from the assembly of the
Body, or been excommunicated by the legitimate authority by
reason of very grave faults.” Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis,
Pontifical Teachings 1022.
If SSPV maintains that Abp. Thuc, or CMRI members or Bp.
Dolan, or I, etc. were “non-Catholics,” it must demonstrate that
such a person was/is no longer a “member of the Catholic
Church” under Pius XII’s definition. SSPV must show that such
a person has either:
(1) Separated himself from the “assembly of the Body”
(schism), or
(2) Been excommunicated by legitimate authority.
We begin with the more serious charge that such persons
were/are “non-Catholics” because they were/are “schismatics.”

2. Definition of “Schismatic.”
• Church Law: “If one, after the reception of baptism, while re-
taining the name of Christian, pertinaciously… refuses sub-
mission to the Supreme Pontiff or rejects communion with the
members of the Church subject to the latter, he is a schismatic.”
Canon 1325.2.
Church law does not contain another definition. This is the
one SSPV must follow.

3. If an SSPV priest calls a baptized Catholic a “schismatic,”

he must therefore identify when and how that person:
(1) Refused to be subject to the Roman Pontiff; OR
(2) Rejected communion with the members of the Church sub-
ject to him, AND
(3) Did so “pertinaciously” (“which presupposes bad faith,
such that the schismatic knowingly and willing tears asunder

4
 the unity of the Church.” Canonist Coronata, Institutiones Juris
1

Canonici, 4:1858)

4. The SSPV priest must identify this occasion for each of

the following:
• Abp. Thuc: When did he “refuse subjection to the Roman
Pontiff” or “reject Communion with members of the Church
subject to the Roman Pontiff”? Was it “pertinacious,” presuppos-
ing bad faith, “knowingly, willingly” tearing asunder the unity
of the Church?
• Any CMRI member he claims is a “schismatic”: Ditto: When?
How?
• Bishop Dolan: Ditto again: When? How?
• Me? Any of my parishioners: Ditto again: When? How?
• Your girlfriend or boyfriend: Ditto again: When? How?

5. If an SSPV priest cannot do so, he certainly cannot claim

that any of the above were/are “schismatics.”

6. Summary and Conclusion.

Pius XII teaches that a baptized person who professes the
true faith is a member of the Catholic Church unless he is sepa-
rated from it by excommunication or schism.
Church law gives a precise definition for the term “schis-
matic.” Anyone SSPV calls a schismatic must meet the criteria in
this definition.
It cannot demonstrate that Abp. Thuc, CMRI members, Bp.
Dolan, my parishioners, or your girlfriend fall under these crite-
ria. SSPV cannot claim that such were/are “non-Catholics” or
“schismatics.”
Therefore, SSPV may not refuse them Communion on these
grounds.

Contagious Excommunication?
OBJECTION: My parishioners are “forbidden by law” to receive
communion because Abp. Thuc, Bps. Carmona, Pivarunas, Dolan, etc.
were/are “excommunicated.”

1. Identify the Excommunication Abp. Thuc Incurred:

A. The Code of Canon Law? It lists 44 offenses. See Canonist
Ayrinhac.
SSPV must identify specifically: (1) Which of the 44 offenses
Abp. Thuc committed. (2) When and how he committed it.

B. Holy Office Decree (1951)? When the Communists took over

China in the 1940s, they imprisoned Catholic bishops and clergy
faithful to the pope. Bishops and clergy willing to renounce pa-
pal authority were allowed to form the “Chinese Catholic Patri-
otic Association,” which then elected priests to head the dioceses
vacated by the imprisoned bishops. These priests then received
episcopal consecration from the bishops of the Patriotic Associa-
tion.
In 1951, therefore, the Vatican Holy Office issued a new law
imposing automatic excommunication for “The Consecration of
a Bishop without Canonical Appointment.”

1. “quae malam fidem supponit et qua schismaticus sciens volens unitatem Ec-
clesiae dilaniat.”

5
 The term “canonical appointment” (in Latin provisio or insti-
tutio canonica) is a technical term which refers not to the recep-
tion of the sacrament of episcopal consecration, but to the obtain-
ing of jurisdictional power as head of a diocese.
I have discussed this decree in “Pius XII, Excommunication,
and Traditional Catholic Bishops,” which is available at
www.traditionalmass.org.
In response to SSPV’s rather fantastic charge that Abp. Thuc
somehow incurred excommunication under this decree:
(1) The automatic excommunication applies only to the case
of a bishop illicitly consecrated as an ordinary over a diocese:
“From the purpose intended by the Holy Office, the decree
appears to cover only those who are consecrated as residential
bishops, for this is the actual case which the Holy See wishes to
condemn.” Canonist Regatillo, Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1956,
2:1031, trans. in Cekada, “Pius XII, Excommunication & Tradi-
tional Catholic Bishops”.
(2) Laws such as this that enact a penalty must be interpret-
ed in a narrow sense:
“In penalties the more benign interpretation should be fol-
lowed.” Canon 2219.1.
“The words of the law must be taken in their proper sense in-
deed, but not extended beyond this.” Canonist Ayrinhac, Penal
Legislation, 39.
(3) SSPV must demonstrate that Abp. Thuc consecrated
someone as the residential bishop for a diocese without the ap-
pointment by the Holy See.
Who? When? Bp. Guérard? Bp. Carmona?

C. Ad Apostolorum Principis (1958), para. 48? This lengthy Epistle

of Pius XII was likewise directed against the problem of the Pat-
riotic Association’s illicit installation of schismatic bishops to
head vacant dioceses in China.
SSPV’s argument here is that ¶48 of the document punished
consecrations in general that were done “rashly” or “irresponsi-
bly.” Abp. Thuc did consecrations “rashly” or “irresponsibly.”
Therefore, Abp. Thuc is excommunicated by it.
In response:
(1) The Latin term is ex arbitrio. This does not mean “rashly-
on-a-stupid-irresponsible-impulse” but “on his own authority”
(Cassells New Latin Dictionary, 55) — which was the crime of the
Chinese clergy appointing the stooge diocesan heads.
(2) The Epistle does not establish some new grounds for ex-
communication (for “impulsive” bishops?), but merely refers in
¶48 to the applicability of the 1951 Decree.
(3) Pius XII condemns as “contrary to law and right” conse-
crations of the kind described in preceding paragraph (¶47),
wherein those with “no authority whatsoever”
a. “Render void the canonical appointment [institutio canonica]”
made by a pope.
b. “Claim the right of nominating bishops” for some group of
priests or laymen. (“Bishop” in the Code, means an Ordinary,
unless otherwise specified.)
c. Confer consecration without “the mandate of the Apostolic
See.”

6
2. Even if Abp. Thuc had personally incurred excommunica-
tion, it would not be incurred by clergy who derive their or-
ders from him.
A. Penalties aren’t “contagious.” “It is not permitted to extend
penalties from person to person or from case to case, even
though the reason is the same or even stronger.” Canon 2219.3.

B. Receiving orders from an excommunicate incurs only suspension.

(Prohibition from licitly exercising orders.) Those who presume
to receive orders from one who is excommunicated, or suspend-
ed, or interdicted, after a declaratory sentence has been passed upon
him, or from a notorious apostate, heretic, or schismatic, ipso facto
incur a suspension a divinis reserved to the Holy See; one who in
good faith is ordained by any such person is forbidden to exer-
cise the orders so received until he shall be dispensed.” Canon
2372.

C. This suspension would not even apply anyway, because:

(1) No one in authority issued a declaratory sentence upon
Abp. Thuc, Bps. Carmona, Pivarunas, etc. declaring them ex-
communicated, suspended or interdicted.
(2) Thuc, etc. were/are not “notorious apostates, heretics,
schismatics.”
(If an SSPV priest claims otherwise he must prove his claim
with the definitions of those terms in canon 1325.
(3) “Presumes” is technical term stipulating that bad faith
must be present for a penalty to apply.

3. And in any case, a Catholic may receive sacraments from

an excommunicated priest anyway:
“Except as provided in §3, the faithful can for any just cause ask
2

for sacraments or sacramentals of one who is excommunicated, espe-

cially if there is no one else to give them; and in such cases the
excommunicated person so asked may administer them, and is
not obliged to ask the reason for the request.” Canon 2261.2.
4. Summary and Conclusion:
Abp. Thuc did not incur excommunication under the Code
of Canon Law, the 1951 Holy Office decree or Apostolorum Prin-
cipis.
An excommunication is not “contagious” anyway, and
wouldn’t pass along to clergy deriving their orders from him.
Even if it did, Canon 2261 permits Catholics to receive sacraments
from an excommunicated clergyman.
Therefore: SSPV may not refuse communion to my parish-
ioners on the grounds that Abp. Thuc, Bps. Carmona, Pivarunas,
Dolan, etc. were/are “excommunicated.”

The Sin of Scandal?

OBJECTION: My parishioners are “forbidden by law” to receive
communion because of the sin of “scandal.”

2. “But from an excommunicated vitandus or one against whom there is a declar-

atory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful may only in danger of death ask for
sacramental absolution according to canons 882 2252, and also for other sacra-
ments and sacramentals in case there is no one else to administer them.” (Canon
2261.3) This refers to those who have been condemned by name by the pope or
by an ecclesiastical judge.

7
1. What the sin of scandal is not.
In common speech, “scandal” means shock or bewilderment
people experience as a result of some violation of propriety or
common standards: “Oprah Flips Out after Twinkie Binge,” etc.

2. What the sin of scandal is:

• Definition: “Some word or deed (whether of omission or
commission) that (1) is itself evil, or (2) has the appearance of
evil, AND (3) provides an occasion of sin for another.” Theo-
logian Prümmer, Moral Theology, 230.
Comment: For someone to commit the sin of scandal, his
word or deed must in the first place either: (1) be evil, or (2) have
the appearance of evil.

3. What “evil deed,” real or apparent, did my parishioners

commit that renders them “forbidden by law” to receive
communion?
A. Crime against church law? If so, is it punishable by automatic
excommunication, interdict, or notorious infamy? Point it out,
then.

B. A public sin? Provide the commandment number, and spe-

cies of sin, please.

C. Reception of sacraments from a “schismatic”? False charge al-

ready refuted. Who is the “schismatic”? How does he fit the def-
inition in canon 1325?

D. Reception of sacraments from “excommunicated” cleric? False

charge of excommunication already refuted. Canon 2261 permits
reception from excommunicated minister anyway.

3. Without a specific evil deed, real or apparent, there is only

the “taking of passive scandal.”
• Definition: Passive scandal is taken when it results not from
an evil action but from a good action which is accepted by another
as an occasion of sin either through: (1) Ignorance (scandal of the
weak), OR (2) Malice (pharisaic scandal). See Theologian
Prümmer.

5. The “scandal” taken by others at my parishioners’ recep-

tion of the sacraments at St. Gertrude’s, accordingly, is
“passive scandal” only, arising from:
A. Ignorance. Lay people affiliated with SSPV have been indoc-
trinated with distortions of church law to view my parishioners’
act as evil. This is scandal of the weak.

B. Malice. The SSPV clergy cannot identify the laws or command-

ment against which my parishioners have committed their
crimes or sins. The SSPV clergy nevertheless persist in maintain-
ing that “scandal” is present. Their scandal, then, is pharisaic
scandal.

6. There is no obligation to avoid giving others an occasion

to take pharisaic scandal.

8
 • Explanation: “This follows from the fact that pharisaic scandal
is caused by the malice of the person taking scandal.” Theolo-
gian Prümmer.

7. Summary and Conclusion:

For a true sin of scandal to occur, my parishioners would
need to have committed some evil or apparently evil act in the
first place. SSPV cannot identify the law or commandment they
have violated. The “scandal” that SSPV clergy takes is therefore
only pharisaic.
Therefore: SSPV may not refuse communion to my parish-
ioners on the grounds that they have committed the sin of
“scandal.”

Ordination of Unworthy Men?

OBJECTION: My parishioners are “forbidden by law” to receive
communion because Abp. Thuc conferred orders on some unworthy
men.

1. General principle on ordaining unworthy men.

• Church Law “A minister who dares [ausus fuerit] to adminis-
ter sacraments to persons who are forbidden either by divine
or ecclesiastical law to receive them, shall be suspended from
the administration of the sacraments for a time to be determined
in the prudent discretion of the Ordinary, and shall be punished
by other penalties according to the gravity of the fault, without
prejudice to the special penalties provided by law against cer-
tain crimes of this class.” Canon 2364.
2. Points to note:
A. “Dares [ausus fuerit] to administer…”“If the law contains the
words: praesumpserit, ausus fuerit, scienter, studiose, temerarie, con-
sulto egerit, or other similar expressions which require full
knowledge and deliberation, any diminution of imputability on
the part of either the intellect or the will exempts from penalties
latae sententiae.” Canon 2229.2. “In this last case, even affected
ignorance of fact probably excuses.” Canonist Bouscaren, Canon
Law: Text & Commentary, 1957, 853.
To incur the penalty, Abp. Thuc would need to have had full
knowledge that the ordinand was unworthy and done it anyway.
This has not been proven.

B. The Penalty: Not excommunication, but only suspension (pro-

hibition from exercising orders). Is not even automatic. Must be
imposed by a superior with ordinary jurisdiction. Other ordi-
nands couldn’t “catch” it and pass it along anyway.

3. Summary and Conclusion:

This charge is merely an attempt at guilt by association.
Catholics do not become “forbidden by law” from receiving
Communion if they have received sacraments from other clergy
who somewhere, somehow, in their line of apostolic succession
descend from a bishop who “could have” been subject to sus-
pension for having ordained someone unworthy, if that bishop
had had full knowledge of the ordinand’s unworthiness, and if
that bishop’s own Ordinary had imposed a sentence on him.
If SSPV has a law saying otherwise, let them provide the
reference.

9
 Therefore: SSPV may not refuse communion to my parish-
ioners on the grounds that Abp. Thuc conferred orders on some
unworthy men.

Cooperation with Crimes?

OBJECTION: My parishioners are “forbidden by law” to receive
communion because by receiving sacraments from clergy who trace
apostolic succession to Abp. Thuc, they become “cooperators” with his
“evil deeds,” “crimes,” etc.

1. Accusations Refuted Above:

That Abp. Thuc was non-Catholic, schismatic, excommuni-
cated, guilty of crimes, etc.

2. Even if Abp. Thuc had been guilty of a criminal action,

receiving orders from him did not constitute cooperating in
a criminal action, even if one approved of his crimes.
• Principle: “Approving a criminal action, sharing in the spoils,
concealing the offender, and all such action performed after
the crime is already consummated, may constitute new delin-
quencies in themselves if there are penalties enacted against
them by law; but they do not constitute cooperation in the crime nor
render one responsible for it, unless the support or encourage-
ment had been promised beforehand and in that sense preceded
the evil deed.” Canonist Ayrinhac, Penal Legislation, 19.
III. Summary and Conclusion:
This charge is merely guilt by association again.
Catholics do not become “forbidden by law” from receiving
Communion through “cooperation in crime” if they have re-
ceived sacraments from other clergy who somewhere, somehow,
in their line of apostolic succession descend from a bishop who
committed or could have committed a crime.
If SSPV has a law saying otherwise, let them provide the
reference.
Therefore: SSPV may not refuse communion to my parish-
ioners on the grounds that by receiving sacraments from clergy
who trace apostolic succession to Abp. Thuc, they become “co-
operators” with his “evil deeds,” “crimes,” etc.

Just Following a Safer Course?

OBJECTION: My parishioners are “forbidden by law” to receive
communion on the grounds that SSPV is just following “the safer
course.”

I. Principle on “the safer course”:

• Moral theology: “It does not consist in a course that is safer
compared to another which is also safe, but rather a course that
is safer opposed to another which is not safe. For we are not
bound to follow the safer course when another course is
safe.” Theologians Aertnys-Damen, Theol. Moralis, 1958, 1:86.
3

II. Who is really following “the safer course”?

3. Etenim non accipit tutiorem partem comparative ad aliam, quae etiam tuta est,
sed adversative ad aliam quae not est tuta: quia non adstringimur partem tuti-
orem sequi, quando altera est tuta.”

10
 • The principles I have set forth above are “safe,” because
they are employed in the Church’s canon law and the works of
her moral theologians.
• I have amply demonstrated above that the accusations
about Abp. Thuc, etc. which form the basis for denying com-
munion to my parishioners, however, have no objective basis in
Catholic canon law and moral theology.
• Such principles cannot be a “safer” course, or even a “safe”
one, because they do not come from the authority of the Church,
but rather contradict it.
• The truly “unsafe course” is that of SSPV: Invent your own
rules, and refuse Catholics sacraments on the basis of them.

III. Conclusion:
Therefore: SSPV may not refuse communion to my parish-
ioners on the grounds that they are following “the safer course.”
They are not.

Father is Following His Conscience?

OBJECTION: My parishioners are “forbidden by law” to receive
communion on the grounds that SSPV‘s priests are “following their
consciences.”

I. What conscience is:

• Moral theology: “Judgement or dictate of the practical intellect
deciding from general principles the goodness or evil of some
act which is to be done here and now or has been done in the
past.” Theologian Prümmer, Moral Theology, 135.
II. Standard by which it judges:
• Moral theology: “Conscience derives its judgement from gen-
eral principles… Conscience does not pass judgement on the
truths of faith and reason but decides whether the act to be
done (or which has been done) is in conformity with existing just
law.” Ibid.
III. The priest must conform his practical decisions with
“existing just law” of the Church.

IV. The “existing just law” of the Church prescribes:

• Church Law: “Every baptized person not forbidden by law
may and must be admitted to Holy Communion.” Canon 853.
V. SSPV cannot point to any church law under which my
parishioners are “forbidden” to receive Communion.

VI. Conclusion.
• Therefore, SSPV members must conform their consciences
to the “existing just law” and admit my parishioners to Com-
munion.

Invalid Bishops?
OBJECTION: My parishioners are “forbidden by law” to receive
communion because the episcopal consecrations Abp. Thuc performed
in 1981 were “doubtful” or “invalid.”

11
 The central issue here is the validity of the two episcopal
consecrations Abp. P.M. Ngô-dinh-Thuc conferred in 1981:
• Bishop M.L. Guérard des Lauriers OP, 7 May 1981 (from
whom Bp. Sanborn derives his consecration).
• Bishop Moises Carmona Rivera, 17 October 1981 (from
whom Bp. Dolan derives his consecration).
In 1983, when I was a member of SSPX, I wrote a lengthy
article criticizing Abp. Thuc, his involvements, etc.
I did not, however, address the issue of validity of the conse-
crations he performed:
“Further research would be needed to ascertain what theologi-
ans and canonists consider sufficient evidence for validity in
such a case.” Roman Catholic 5, (Jan. 1983), 8.
We began to investigate this issue in SSPV as a result of Fr.
Donald Sanborn’s visit to Brazil, April 1985. The issue was the
validity of Bps. Guérard and Carmona’s consecrations.
Two priests were chosen to research the question: Fr.
Sanborn, who favored the validity of the consecrations and fa-
vored involvement, and I, who believed the consecrations were
doubtful and opposed involvement.
The key issues we set out to research in 1985 were:
(1) No certificates: None appeared to have been issued. What to
do? This was my and Fr. Kelly’s major objection.
(2) Were “qualified witnesses” then required? Fr. Kelly maintained
one would need “evidence of use of correct matter and form,”
otherwise an episcopal consecration would have to be regard-
ed as “doubtful.”
(3) Were there other special rules for attesting to the fact of an epis-
copal consecration? Anything apart from the usual norms for as-
certaining that a sacrament took place?
(4) Abp. Thuc’s “Sacramental Intention”? What assumptions did
theologians, canonists, etc. require us to make?
My conclusions in 1988, based on the research I had done,
were the following:
(1) Certificate: It is not required to assume a given rite took
place and was valid. All traditionalist certificates are canonical-
ly “unofficial” anyway, because we aren’t canonical pastors.
(2) Qualified Witnesses. Nothing in canon law requires “quali-
fied witnesses,” positive evidence of use of matter and form.
The term “qualified witness,” in fact, has a special technical
meaning in canon law referring to giving evidence in a ecclesi-
astical trial, and has nothing to do with ascertaining the validity
of a sacrament.
(3) Special Rules. There are none for ascertaining the fact of an
epsicopal consecration.
(4) Abp. Thuc’s “Sacramental Intention”? No justification for at-
tacking it exists under any accepted principle of canon law and
moral theology.
I concluded that we are obliged to regard the consecrations
as valid, and subsequently:
(1) Wrote an article (1991) presenting my research and conclu-
sions (available at www.traditionalmass.org)
(2) Discovered the certificate Abp. Thuc issued for Bp. Carmona’s
consecration.

12
 In connection with the latter (also on the website) the follow-
ing should be noted: Fr. Kelly used the absence of a certificate as
the principal objection to impugn the validity of the Thuc conse-
crations. When I finally was able to find one in 1993, Fr. Kelly
ignored it, and then shifted his principal objection to the conse-
cration by attacking Abp. Thuc’s “mental state.”

1. Standard Procedure for Verifying Reception of a Sacra-

ment:
A. What a priest will ascertain:
(1) Fact that a ceremony occurred, via (a) certificate (the usu-
al way) or (b) other reliable proof (a photo would do).
(2) Minister who performed rite. Was he a validly ordained
Catholic priest? You ask the recipient or parents.
(3) Rite used. Was it the traditional or post-Vatican II rite?
You ask the recipient or parents.

B. What the priest concludes:

Once a traditional Catholic priest ascertains in a given case
(someone claiming a child was baptized, say) that a ceremony
occurred, that another validly ordained Catholic priest performed it,
and that the priest used a traditional rite, he treats it as valid with
no further questions.
This is standard sacramental practice.

2. Application to the 1981 Thuc Consecrations:

A. What You Can Ascertain:
(1) Fact that the ceremonies occurred. Established by:
a. Consecration certificate for Bp. Carmona, written by Thuc:
i. By hand.
ii. In Latin.
iii. Dated October 18, 1981.
iv. Signed by eyewitnesses.
b. Published photos of both Guérard’s and Carmona’s consecra-
tions.
c. Numerous articles, and a Vatican “excommunication.”
(2) Minister who performed rite: Abp. Thuc, a validly-
consecrated Catholic bishop.
(3) Rite Used: Rite of Episcopal Consecration, 1908 Roman Pontif-
ical. Established by:
a. Captions published with photos of ceremony stating that Abp.
Thuc performed the consecrations according to The Roman Pon-
tifical (1908 edition).4
b. An interview conducted under oath, with Dr. Kurt Hiller,
who was present at both consecrations and who held the ritual
book (The Roman Pontifical) for Abp. Thuc as he performed the
rite of consecration.5
c. A sworn affidavit of Dr. Eberhard Heller, who was also pre-
sent at both consecrations, attesting that Bps. Guérard, Car-
mona and Zamora were consecrated bishops by Abp. Thuc

4. Einsicht 11 (March 1982), 14. For original text, see fn. in article on Website.
5. Clarence Kelly, et al., Interview with Dr. Kurt Hiller, Munich, February 1988,
passim.

13
 and that “The consecrations followed The Roman Pontifical
(Rome: 1908).”6
d. Published interview with Bp. Guérard. Attests that Abp.
Thuc consecrated him on 7 May 1981, that “the consecration
was valid,” that “the traditional rite was followed integrally
(except for the reading of a Roman mandate),” and that “Abp.
Thuc and I had the intention to do what the Church does.”7
e. Interview with Bp. Guérard again affirming that he had
been consecrated on 7 May 1981, and that the rite was followed
integrally. 8

B. What you must conclude:

Because (1) The ceremony of episcopal consecration occurred
on two occasions, (2) a validly-consecrated bishop performed it
each time, and (3) he used the traditional Rite of Episcopal Conse-
cration each time.
Therefore, both consecrations must be regarded as valid.

3. Thereafter, validity must be presumed and invalidity

must be proven.
A. Generally in Canon Law: This is “the queen of presumptions,
which holds the act or contract as valid, until invalidity is
proved.” Canonist Wanenmaker, Canonical Evidence in Marriage
Cases, (1935),408.

B. For Ordinations: “…an act, especially one as solemn as an

ordination, must be regarded as valid, as long as invalidity
would not be clearly demonstrated.” Canonist Cardinal Gaspar-
ri, (also compiler of the Code of Canon Law), Tractatus de Sacra
Ordinatione (1893), 1:970. 9

C. Correct Intention Presumed: “This principle is affirmed as cer-

tain theological doctrine, taught by the Church, to deny which
would be theologically rash… The minster is presumed to in-
tend what the rite means.” Theologian Leeming, Principles of
Sacramental Theology, (1956) 482.

4. Defects which would invalidate an episcopal consecra-

tion:

6. Eberhard Heller, “Eidesstattliche Erklärung zu den Bischofsweihen von I.E.

Mgr. M.L. Guérard des Lauriers, Mgr. Moises Carmona und Mgr. Adolfo Zamo-
ra,” Einsicht 21 (July 1991), 47. “Um noch bestehende Zweifel an den von S.E.
Mgr. Pierre Martin Ngo-dinh-Thuc gespendeten Bischofsweihen. die z.B. von
bestimmten Personen und Gruppen in den U.S.A. geäußert werden, und weil
seine Excellenz inzwischen verstorben ist, er sich also dazu selbst nicht mehr
äußern kann, erkläre ich an Eides statt, da ich den betreffenden Konsekrationen
durch Mgr. Ngo-dinh-Thuc persönlich beiwohnte: Ich bezeuge, daß S.E. Mgr.
M.L. Guérard des Lauriers O.P. am 7.Mai 1981, I.E. Mgr. Moises Carmona und
Mgr. Adolfo Zamora am 17 Oktober 1981 in Toulon/ Frankreich von S.E. Mgr.
Pierre Martin Ngo-dinh-Thuc zu Bischöfen der hl. katholischen Kirche geweiht
wurden. Die Konsekrationen erfolgten nach dem ‘Pontificale Romanum’ (Rom
1908). Mgr. Ngo-dinh-Thuc spendete die Weihen im Vollbesitz seiner geistigen
Kräfte und in der Absicht, der Kirche aus ihrer Notsituation herauszuhelfen, die
er in seiner ‘Declaratio’ über die Sedisvakanz vom 25. Februar 1982 präzisierte.
München, den 10. Juli 1991. E. Heller.”
7. Sodalitium 4 (May 1987), 24. His emphasis. See article on web for text.
8. Joseph F. Collins, Notes of Interview with Guérard, La Charité (France), Au-
gust 1987.
9. “…tum quia actus, praesertim adeo solemnis qualis est ordinatio, habendus est
ut validus, donec invaliditas non evincatur.”

14
A. Matter: Consecrating bishop does not impose hands.

B. Form: Consecrating bishop does not pronounce essential 16-

word formula.

C. Intention Withheld: Consecrating bishop internally withholds

intention to make a bishop or “to do what the Church does” in
performing the rite.

D. Intention Absent: Consecrating bishop is not performing a hu-

man act because he lacks:
(1) Even merely external attention: He does not know that he is
performing a sacramental act (an episcopal consecration). (No
act of intellect.)
(2) Even virtual intention: His external action of performing a
sacramental act (an episcopal consecration) has not been pro-
duced by any direct act of his will. (No act of will.)
• Example of no external attention or virtual intention: Per-
forming a sacramental action while sleepwalking. No attention
from intellect, no intention from will. No sacrament because not
a human act.
• Virtual intention is the minimum “level” of intention re-
quired and sufficient for validity. It guarantees that a sacrament
is valid, even if the priest or bishop is internally distracted before
and during the entire sacramental rite.
• Explanation: “The common doctrine is this: Virtual intention
is necessary and sufficient in the minister to confect the sacra-
ments… Virtual intention, as we have already seen, is an actual
intention itself which is operating along with distraction. Such
an intention is certainly present in someone who regularly
performs sacramental actions— for example, a priest who
goes early to the church, puts on vestments, goes to the altar,
celebrates Mass, and consecrates a host or hosts presented to
him at it, even though he does not think about the intention
of consecrating.” Canonist Coronata, De Sacramentis: Tractatus
Canonicus 1943, 1:56.10
This minimum, obviously, is not very hard to meet.

5. For the Thuc consecrations, there is no evidence of a

defect in matter, form, or intention to “do what the Church
does.”

6. “Mental State” Slander:

A. Photos of Ceremonies: Look at the photos of the consecrations
published in Einsicht. Does Abp. Thuc look like a dazed robot or
a sleepwalker, who doesn’t know where he is or what he’s doing
— the “mental state” one would have to prove he was in at the
time of the consecrations if one claims they were doubtful or in-
valid?
Fr. Bruno Schaeffer’s Ordination: Is this also an automaton?

10. “Unde doctrina communis est ad sacramenta conficienda in ministro eam

requiri et sufficere intentione quam virtualem diximus; … Virtualis enim inten-
tio, ut iam vidimus, est intentio ipsa actualis quae cum distractione operatur.
Talis intentio certe habetur in eo qui de more ponit actiones sacramentales., e.g.
sacerdos qui mane adit Ecclesiam, paramenta sumit, ad altare progreditur, Mis-
sam celebrat et in ea consecrat hostiam aut hostias praesentatas, etsi nihil de
intentione consecrandi cogitat.”

15
 Abp. Thuc also gave a public conference in Mexico under the
auspices of Trento the following year. Was this also an automa-
ton, who didn’t know where he was, or what he was doing?

B. Certificate of Consecration for Bp. Carmona. Look at the hand-

writing on the certificate reproduced in Chapter 1 of this book. It
is firm and clear, and the document is in Latin.
We, Peter Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc, Titular Archbishop of Bulla
Regia, give notice of the following to all: on the 17th day of the
month of October, in the year 1981, we conferred the episcopal
rank of the Catholic Church on Father Moises Carmona Rivera,
with all rights pertaining to said rank. Given on the 18th day of
the month of October, in the year of Our Lord 1981. [signature]
+Peter Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc The eyewitnesses were: Doctor
Kurt Hiller and Doctor Eberhard Heller. [signature] Dr. Kurt
Hiller [signature] Dr. E. Heller.
Is this writing in Latin also the work of some confused
sleepwalker in a miter, who the day before couldn’t manage the
tiny bit of awareness and intention that theologians say is “neces-
sary and sufficient” to confer a valid sacrament?

C. Other Documents Handwritten in Latin: A few months after the

consecration, one thanking Bp. Carmona for his New Year’s
greetings, and the following year, a document proclaiming va-
cancy of the Holy See. See Einsicht.
Again, the documents are in Latin, and the Archbishop’s
handwriting is firm and clear. Is this the work of a sleepwalker
or an automaton? Cranking out documents in Latin?

D. Conclusion: Anyone capable of all this possessed the requi-

site “mental state” to confer a valid sacrament. A priest who says
otherwise is either ignorant of the principles of sacramental the-
ology or dishonest — because he knows better, but refuses to
abandon a foolish position.

6. Summary and Conclusion:

A. Standard procedure a priest uses to verify reception of sacrament:
(1) He ascertains: (a) Fact that ceremony occurred (by certifi-
cate, or other proof). (b) The minister who performed rite —
whether he was a validly ordained Catholic priest. (c) The rite
used — was it the traditional rite?
(2) The priest then treats it as valid. There are no further
questions.

B. For the Thuc consecrations:

(1) We can easily ascertain: (a) Fact the ceremonies occurred:
Certificate handwritten by Abp. Thuc, photos, articles. (b) A real
bishop. (c) Rite used: Traditional rite of episcopal consecration.
(Affidavits, etc.)
(2) Conclusion: The consecrations were valid.

C. Thereafter validity must be presumed, invalidity must be proven,

based on what canonists teach regarding: (1) General principles,
(The “queen of presumptions”). (2) Ordinations. (3) Correct in-
tention.

16
D. Defects that invalidate sacraments: (1) Matter. (2) Form. (3)
Withholding intention. (4) Intention absent — you have no idea
what you’re doing, and make no act of will.

E. For Thuc Consecrations: No evidence of defect of matter, form,

or intention to do what Church does.

F. “Mental State” slander — Abp. Thuc unable to form sacramen-

tal intention — is refuted by: (1) Photos. (2) Handwritten docu-
ments after consecration. (3) Especially the consecration certifi-
cate he wrote out in Latin the day after Bp. Carmona’s consecra-
tion.

G. Such attacks were dishonest all along. And here we pass briefly
from church law to a personal anecdote.
In my 1991 article, I recalled how at a September 1988 SSPV
priests’ meeting Fr. Sanborn had presented us with a report on
the theological principles to be applied to the Thuc consecra-
tions, and how I privately told Fr. Kelly later in the day that the
report (especially a pronouncement from Pope Leo XIII) seemed
to demolish all my objections and Fr. Kelly’s as well.
Fr. Kelly replied: “We can’t say the consecrations [of the
Thuc bishops] are valid — or some of our priests will want to get
involved with them.”
This moment was one of those little revelations.
It convinced me that no matter what principles we would
discover from church law, canonists, moralists, theologians and
popes, Fr. Kelly would ignore it all and stick to some other
agenda.
Fr. Kelly’s objections, in other words, would always be intel-
lectually dishonest — not even Leo XIII can move you from what
you’ve already decided? Keep this in mind when Fr. Kelly’s and
SSPV’s policies divide your family or break up your engage-
ment.

H. Only possible conclusion: Like it or not, the principles of canon

law and sacramental theology oblige you to regard Abp. Thuc’s
consecrations of Bps. Guérard and Carmona as valid, and to re-
gard those who trace their apostolic succession to them as true
bishops.

Final Objection: I Don’t Feel Right

OBJECTION: I “don’t feel right” about what you’ve said, this is all
very complicated, I can’t figure all this out, and I trust SSPV — so if
their priests think your parishioners are “forbidden by law” to receive
Communion, that’s fine with me.

REPLY FOR THE SSPV LAITY:

You don’t “feel right” because for over ten years SSPV has
been feeding you Thuc/CMRI horror stories and bogus princi-
ples masquerading as canon law and moral theology.
I have systematically exposed these principles as false, of-
fered you photocopies of the correct principles as they appear in
canon law books, and put it all together for you.
My argument is based on church law — not emotion, phony
guilt by association tactics and stubborn intellectual dishonesty.

17
 SSPV, by refusing Communion to my parishioners, violates
not only canon law, but also the law of God, which gives Catho-
lics — your friends and relatives — the right to receive the Eu-
charist.
And this — not twenty-year-old horror stories about people
you and I have never met — is the real evil you should worry
about.

Appendix: Consecration Certificate

Handwritten certificate issued by Abp. Thuc for Bp. Carmona’s consecration:
We, Peter Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc, Titular Archbishop of Bulla Regia,
give notice of the following to all: on the 17th day of the month of Octo-
ber, in the year 1981, we conferred the episcopal rank of the Catholic
Church on Father Moises Carmona Rivera, with all rights pertaining to
said rank. Given on the 18th day of the month of October, in the year of
Our Lord 1981.
[signature] +Peter Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc
The eyewitnesses were:
Doctor Kurt Hiller and Doctor Eberhard Heller.
[signature] Dr. Kurt Hiller
[signature] Dr. E. Heller.
Photocopy reproduced at: www.traditionalmass.org

Comment
As noted in the foregoing article, the principal objection Fr. Kelly
offered against recognizing the validity of Abp. Thuc’s consecrations
was a supposed lack of “documentary proof” by means of a certificate
of consecration.
Absent this, he assured us, one would be required to have “quali-
fied witnesses” to attest that “matter and form were correctly applied.”
The latter objection, we would later learn, was pure mumbo-jumbo.
The term “qualified witness” had a special technical meaning in canon
law referring to certain classes of church officials giving evidence in a
ecclesiastical trial, and had nothing to do with ascertaining the validity
of a sacrament.
The principal quote Fr. Kelly used to support his assertion (Jone,
Moral Theology. 472), moreover, turned out be a mere recommendation
that, in cases where emergency baptism was administered by a layman (a
schismatic, heretic, Jew, pagan, midwife, catechist), someone be present
to attest that the layman performed the baptism correctly. This was con-
firmed by consulting the passage in the longer Latin work by Jone
(Commentarium in C.J.C, 1954, 2:24) that was the source for the short
English résumé on which Fr. Kelly was content to rely.
In any event, once the accompanying consecration certificate came
to light — the “documentary proof” without which Fr. Kelly had earlier
maintained one could not recognize the consecrations — he ignored it.
Other SSPV members pooh-poohed its importance. (“A proof, perhaps,
but not the proof,” etc.)
But after Fr. Kelly’s 1988 comment to me — “We can’t say that the
consecrations are valid” — this intellectually dishonest response was
not a complete surprise.

[Pamphlet, October 2002]

www.traditionalmass.org
www.SGGResources.org

18