We try to be as fair as possible here, even though we know we tread in passion-filled themes. It is not anything new to any Catholic who follows the news with attentiveness that the Holy See has often been precise in its considerations of the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX/SSPX) and the faithful Catholics who go to their chapels.
The first significant event was the case which became known as "the Hawaii Six" (1991-1994): six lay men and women who had a radio show deeply critical of the Diocese of Honolulu and its leadership and who helped fund and build a SSPX chapel in Hawaii. The bishop of Honolulu excommunicated these Catholics for the crime of schism. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had to intervene twice: once to nullify the excommunications (image here), in a letter of the pro-nuncio of Washington in which the latter convened his own ideas, with specific canons, as if they had also been part of the decree declaring the nullity of the excommunications; the second time (read here), after the CDF was notified of the Content of the first letter, the pro-nuncio in Washington had to make clear that the Canons he had mentioned had been his own idea, and that the decree of the CDF had not mentioned those canons. The decree declared that Petitioner had been "blameworthy on various accounts", but that these had not been "sufficient to constitute the crime of schism".
The second significant event happened with the famous "Australian letters". An Australian Catholic asked the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei precise canonical questions regarding the attendance at SSPX Masses -- specifically if it constituted a "sin". The answer of the Commission was that "We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin". After being questioned by many Catholics, the secretary of the Commission, Monsignor Camille Perl, made several clarifications, but, in the end, confirmed the basic outline of what had been said (read here).
__________________________________
The first significant event was the case which became known as "the Hawaii Six" (1991-1994): six lay men and women who had a radio show deeply critical of the Diocese of Honolulu and its leadership and who helped fund and build a SSPX chapel in Hawaii. The bishop of Honolulu excommunicated these Catholics for the crime of schism. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had to intervene twice: once to nullify the excommunications (image here), in a letter of the pro-nuncio of Washington in which the latter convened his own ideas, with specific canons, as if they had also been part of the decree declaring the nullity of the excommunications; the second time (read here), after the CDF was notified of the Content of the first letter, the pro-nuncio in Washington had to make clear that the Canons he had mentioned had been his own idea, and that the decree of the CDF had not mentioned those canons. The decree declared that Petitioner had been "blameworthy on various accounts", but that these had not been "sufficient to constitute the crime of schism".
__________________________________
The second significant event happened with the famous "Australian letters". An Australian Catholic asked the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei precise canonical questions regarding the attendance at SSPX Masses -- specifically if it constituted a "sin". The answer of the Commission was that "We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin". After being questioned by many Catholics, the secretary of the Commission, Monsignor Camille Perl, made several clarifications, but, in the end, confirmed the basic outline of what had been said (read here).
__________________________________
In July 2005, a French Catholic sent a letter to the Holy See regarding a personal incident. He had been denied application, by the Abbot of Fontgombault , to the board of administration of a Schola because he attended masses at SSPX venues (Fontgombault, of course, is a foundation of Dom Prosper Guéranger's Abbey of Solesmes and is one of the most prestigious Benedictine abbeys in the world; it is one of the centers of the "Reform of the Reform" movement and mother house of the Traditional Clear Creek Benedictine community in Oklahoma). He petitioned the Holy See and the answer came from two dicasteries, the one related to the Schola itself; and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, regarding the matter of its competence. This is a copy of the letter, from which we have deleted the more personal information of the case.
PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO
'ECCLESIA DEI'
n. 55/2005Rome, September 5, 2005
Sir,
Your letter of July 11 arrived at this Pontifical Commission (...), but it has not been answered up to now due to the annual vacations during the month of August.
...
Because your letter actually involves the competence of our Commission 'Ecclesia Dei', we have precised in our letter what follows:
'On the argument presented (that you regularly attend Sunday Mass at a chapel of the Fraternity Saint Pius X) one cannot say but this: the faithful who attend the Masses of the aforesaid Fraternity are not excommunicates, and the priests who celebrate them are not, either -- the latter are, in fact, suspended. Which is why it would be difficult to explain this exclusion by this sole motive, at a time in which the reintegration of this Fraternity to the full communion of the Church is sought.'
The Council for Culture, whose president is Cardinal Poupard, will certainly let you know of his decision.
Receive, sir, my religious regards, [Veuillez croire, Monsieur, à mon dévouement religieux,]
CAMILLE PERL
Secretary
__________________________________
No qualifications. No "buts"; no "if they adhere"; no "whether they share a certain mentality" or not. Neither the priests of the Fraternity nor the faithful Catholics who attend their Masses are excommunicates. Moreover, the Ecclesia Dei Commission had no objection that Petitioner, on the grounds that he is a regular attendee of a SSPX chapel, be accepted as an administrator of a Schola. Together with the precise (though not as official as this letter) words of Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos that there "was not a formal schism", one hopes there will be more respect from certain quarters at this delicate time. 