On the Status of Archbishop Lefebvre
In 1987, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre had publicly stated his intention to consecrate Bishops with the express purpose of continuing the celebration of the Tridentine Latin Mass. He had said he would do this with or without the permission of Pope John Paul II.
Lefebvre's urgency was bolstered by the awareness that his health was rapidly failing, and he was very aware of his duty to ensure the unadulterated Catholic Faith was being passed on to another generation of clergy. He was justly concerned with the state of the Church at that time, coming off the heels of the devastating novelties of the Second Vatican Council, and observing that the Popes continued to advocate for destructive practices that had been routinely condemned by the Popes in the generations preceding the Council.
In response to this announcement, Cardinal Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, warned Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 that, should he proceed with this decision, he would effectively be excommunicated due to Canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, which stated: "A bishop who consecrates some one 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."
Not skipping a beat, on June 30, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre, together with Bishop de Castro Mayer, consecrated four bishops, as he had stated he would do.
The obvious question, then, is did Archbishop Lefebvre incur the excommunication as threatened by Cardinal Gantin? Well, let us examine a few pertinent points from the Code of Canon Law to sort this out.
"A person who violates a law out of necessity is not subject to a penalty" (Canon 1323, 4). It suffices that Archbishop Lefebvre was indeed acting out of a grave case of necessity due to the rampant Modernism taking place in the Church before his very eyes, and even worse, being promoted (not just tolerated) by Rome herself.
Even if there is no state of necessity, Canon Law states, "if one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty" (Canon 1323, 70). So even if one makes the argument that Lefebvre's concerns were unfounded or exaggerated, it does not automatically mean he was excommunicated. If Lefebvre thought that a genuine crisis existed, and thus warranted a response out of necessity, then no penalty is applied.
Further, if one culpably thought there was a case of necessity, "he would still incur no automatic penalties" (Canon 1324, 3; 1, 80).
"The state of necessity, as it is explained by jurists, is a state in which the necessary goods for natural or supernatural life are so threatened that one is morally compelled to break the law in order to save them" (Is Tradition Excommunicated?, pg. 26).
"No penalty is ever incurred without committing a subjective mortal sin" (canons 1321 1, 1323 70). Archbishop Lefebvre was very clear that he was convicted by his conscience to do what he could to ensure the Catholic priesthood continued in its purity with Sacred Tradition, according to the dictates of Eternal Rome as contrasted to Modernist Rome. He further stated explicitly that he was obeying God in moving forward with the consecrations. Thus, even if, for the sake of argument, he had been wrong in his summation and conclusion, there would still be no subjective sin.
At the end of the day, there is no law that binds a bishop to cooperate in the destruction of the Church, or to compromise with enemies who have infiltrated within her bosom. Archbishop Lefebvre's duty was to respond faithfully as a Bishop to protect the Church from wolves and to call erring Popes to repentance.
It must also be noted that the Church of the post Vatican II world is the same Church that Our Lady of Quito said would be overrun by Freemasons. At Fatima, she said the Church would be stricken with apostasy from the top down. This also coincides with the repeated warnings of the Popes in the century and a half prior to Vatican II, warning of Modernists and Freemasons seeking to subvert the Church from within her ranks.
Lefebvre was bound by duty to act as he did, for he would have to stand before God and answer as to why he ignored Our Lady and also ignored the authoritative warnings of the Popes of Eternal Rome.
Keep in mind that the preconciliar Popes issued authoritative decrees condemning certain false ideas like Ecumenism and Religious Liberty, and we are bound to those decrees. The post conciliar Popes decided to adopt these condemned practices in their own pastoral directives. When faced between authoritative decrees meant to save your soul from error, and pastoral novelties which carry no binding force behind them and yet inject spiritual poison, it is imperative one clings to that which is binding and authoritative.
As well, Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications either way. It should be noted that the excommunications were not applied due to the episcopal ordinations (as explained above) but rather to the suspected charge of schism. So they do not even apply anymore. Further, Lefebvre never once rejected the Papacy of John Paul II, but continued to appeal to him as his Holy Father to alter the course he was navigating the Church in, out of concern for the truths of Tradition and the salvation of souls.
All in all, one ought to be more confused why Catholics continue to paint John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, and even Benedict XVI as champions of orthodoxy, while seeking to admonish men like Lefebvre who was tasked with "withstanding Peter to his face" and preserving Tradition against the attacks of an infiltrated Church, akin to the days of St. Athanasius and the crisis of the Arian heresy.
Disobedience is a severe vow to break. We can only pray that the Popes during, and since, Vatican II repented for their disobedience to the authoritative teachings of the Church, of the Popes who preceded them, the Holy Fathers of Eternal Rome. Thank God He sends men like Lefebvre to warn them before it's too late.
Archbishop Lefebvre, Patron Saint of the Resistance, pray for us, pray for the Church, pray for our Holy Father, Francis of Rome.
