SSPX Deal: But Will the Fat Lady Sing? — article by Fr. Cekada
(04-19-2012, 03:00 PM)Freudentaumel Wrote: Father,
I agree with some of the things you wrote, but this
Quote:Looming over this discussion, moreover, would be the principle laid down in Canon 1256 (1983 Code). This would give Benedict and his successors the trump card to control SSPX’s institutions, because it provides that property ownership is “under the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff.”

So, if Bp. Fellay wanted to reignite his “We resist you to your face”/ Paul-reproving-Peter routine one day against Benedict XVI or his successors, he would wind up doing so from the sidewalk outside his former residence in Menzingen.

is pure nonsense, and you know it.

Canon 1256 does not have any effect in a worldly law anywhere on Earth other than the Vatican state. So if Bp Fellay one day wants to break with Rome again and keep his property, all that will happen is that he'll have to disobey Canon 1256, but that'll surely be one of the lesser Codes he'll be disobeying in this case. You didn't even mind getting excommunicated under the 1917 Code for suing Archbishop Lefebvre.
The pope can't send in the Swiss Guards to catch the property, and in the worldly law, the property belongs to the SSPX. So he couldn't do anything more than he could the first time the SSPX split off (according to your logic, the pope could have kept the property, because the SSPX was legitimately erected in 1970) or when the feminist nuns in the US split off.

Actually, as a result of the lawsuits with SSPX, I became very familiar with how the civil law treats church property ownership in the U.S.

For the Catholic Church, the legal principle courts apply is "deference to hierarchy." If someone who represents the hierarchy of the Catholic Church (a diocesan bishop appointed by the pope or the head of a Catholic religious order) says that, under Catholic canon law, Father Smith has the right to be Pastor of St. Mary's Church or Sister Caroline has the right to be Superior of St. Felicia's Convent, the court will automatically award control of St. Mary's to Fr. Smith and of St. Felicia's to Sr. Caroline.

The pope, of course, is the head of this hierarchy, and under canon law, he can remove diocesan bishops and superiors general and appoint replacements, so he has the last say-so over who controls properties. U.S. courts respect this.

Similar provisions operated in many foreign countries as well, in some places, even by an official agreement between the Vatican and the civil government.

So if Benedict XVI or one of his successors decided that the head of SSPX was insufficiently cooperative, he could remove him (as JP2 did with Fr. Bisig, the FSSP Superior General). All SSPX property would then automatically come under the control of whomever the Holy See appointed to be the new Superior General.

Bp. Fellay or lay people who disagreed with the decision and wanted to go their own way could not take the properties with them.

That's how it's supposed to work in the Catholic Church. The pope has ultimate authority over everything.

Control of SSPX properties in Switzerland, as I recall, was vested in a corporation controlled by three laymen who were friends of Mgr. Lefebvre, precisely because Lefebvre feared that the modernists could gain control if he installed priests.

I don't know about the case of the feminist nuns.

(04-19-2012, 03:00 PM)Freudentaumel Wrote: So be honest, all you're trying to do is scare some donations away from the SSPX and into your own projects.

If so, it still hasn't worked after nearly thirty years!

But you might want to be the first. How's about a big fat check for the SGG building fund? :)

Messages In This Thread
Re: SSPX Deal: But Will the Fat Lady Sing? — article by Fr. Cekada - by FatherCekada - 04-19-2012, 05:05 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)