a guest-post by Steve Skojec
Yesterday,
news broke here on Rorate that the Most Rev. Michael Olson of the diocese of Fort Worth had
ordered Fisher More College to completely cease offering Mass in the
Extraordinary Form. Despite the implication of some schismatic attitude
(perhaps "crypto-Lefebvrian" in nature?), the college made an immediate announcement of its compliance.
As
one might expect, reports concerning this suppression of the Traditional Latin
Mass reverberated like a shot heard round the world. A shot, as it were, over
the bow of every Catholic attached to the ancient liturgy of the Roman Rite.
As
social networks and comment boxes lit up with passionate discussion, again and
again came the pleas to reserve judgment and wait for more information to come
to light. "There are problems at Fisher More," people reminded us,
and people not directly involved "don't really know what's going on."
Anyone
who has followed the saga of the college, which has lost major contributors and
has struggled to raise money to continue its operations, knows that there is
turmoil brewing at the school. Some of this turmoil has surrounded the
traditionalist theological orientation of the school itself -- a major draw for
many prospective students. Certainly, the official statement of the college on the matter
is difficult to find fault with. That the Bishop suppressed the Extraordinary Form at a college which offers this liturgy as a principal draw to its prospective students raises a red flag. It is difficult not to question whether this decision
was, in fact, aimed at the very destruction of the school. Take away their
Mass, and surely many of the students will no longer come.
But
these issues, while important on their own and relevant to the future of Fisher
More, are distractions from the larger -- and dare I say, more dangerous --
ecclesiastical action that took place, which sets a precedent for the larger
Church. In the wake of the situation with the FFI, it is, in fact, strikingly
inauspicious. Bishop Olson chose to target the Extraordinary Form -- and only
the Extraordinary Form -- as an apparent disciplinary action in violation of
the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.
While
I do not represent myself as an expert in such matters, the Canon Law Center
has issued a canonical opinion on the matter that cuts to the
quick:
With
the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum, the diocesan bishop no longer has the
discretion either to permit or restrict the celebration of Mass according to
the usus antiquor, a prerogative he previously enjoyed. Thus, no bishop has the
authority to arbitrarily restrict the celebration of Mass according to the
traditional Roman Rite. While the diocesan bishop has “all ordinary, proper,
and immediate power which is required for the exercise of his pastoral
function” (CIC/83, c. 381, §1), his authority is not absolute.
The
faithful have a right, enshrined in ecclesiastical law, to have access to the
Mass and sacraments celebrated according to the usus antiquior.
Celebration of the traditional Roman liturgy is no longer a privilege extended
to the faithful on an individual basis but rather a right that can be properly
vindicated if requests for such celebrations are not satisfied (cf. SP, art.
7).
[...]
For
several years following the promulgation of Summorum, the legal
mechanisms for the vindication of rights relative to the proper implementation
of the motu proprio left much to be desired. With the promulgation of
the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae of April 30, 2011, the universal law
of Summorum was effectively given teeth: the process of hierarchical
recourse may now be utilized by faithful who believe their rights have been
violated by a decision of an Ordinary which appears to be contrary to the motu
proprio. (cf. UE, 10 § 1)
The
recent letter of Bishop Olson to Fisher-More College certainly appears to
represent such a decision. Insofar as it has unlawfully restricted the rights
of the faithful, the bishop’s administrative act can and ought to be
challenged.
The
canonical opinion above validates my own understanding of the matter, namely:
the authority for a bishop to forbid this Mass which was "never
abrogated" (SP, art. 1) does not exist. As Pope Emeritus Benedict
XVI wrote in the accompanying letter to Summorum, "What earlier
generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot
be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful."
Contrast
these words with those of Bishop Olson, who wrote (after forbidding the
Extraordinary Form and making provision only for celebration of the Ordinary
Form), “I make these norms out of my pastoral solicitude and care for the
students of Fisher-More College as well as for your own soul.”
These
words imply that continuing to offer the Traditional Latin Mass at Fisher More
would be substantively harmful to the souls who attend it. Bishop Olson also
makes the draconian threat that any violation of his proscription would result
in “withdrawal of permission to celebrate the Eucharist in your chapel along
with withdrawal of permission to reserve the Blessed Sacrament in the Chapel.”
What
it seems Bishop Olson disregards is the critical phrase, "Never
abrogated." Had it been abrogated, no priest would licitly be able to
celebrate it. Since it has not been abrogated, every priest of the Roman Rite
has the *right* to say it. It is, in fact, a completely licit and authorized
Mass of the rite in which he received his ordination. There is no legal
suppression of one Mass in favor of the other. This is the very situation Summorum
sought to address. A bishop has authority over sacramental
jurisdiction, and can at his discretion order that no Masses be said in a
certain chapel. What he does not have the authority to say is, "You may
have only the Ordinary Form of Mass, but not the Extraordinary Form." This
creates a false dichotomy between the forms, and violates the rights and
freedom of the faithful.
It
is true that there are certain restrictions in Summorum Pontificum which
apply to the approved celebration of the Extraordinary Form. These are clearly
not meant as impediments, but as safeguards against the potential for
disruptive autonomy on the issue, which is why they appear in reference most
specifically to "Communities of Institutes of consecrated life and of
Societies of apostolic life" (SP, art. 3) and "not parish or
conventual churches" (Sp, art. 5 § 5). Put another way: approval is needed
in situations where lack of oversight concerning the discretion of which form
of Mass to celebrate could create considerable conflict.
If
Summorum is to be referenced at all in favor of Bishop Olson's decision,
it is the provision in article 5 § 5, that strikes me as the most likely to be
invoked. Still, a full reading of the text of this section should put the
question to rest (emphasis mine):
§
5 In churches that are not parish or conventual churches, it is the duty
of the Rector of the church to grant the above permission.
A
college chapel is neither a parish or conventual church. The Code of Canon law
makes clear (556-557) that "Rectors of churches are here
understood to be priests to whom is entrusted the care of some church which is
neither a parochial nor a capitular church ... which holds services in it"
and that rectors of churches are "freely appointed by the diocesan
Bishop". But a rector has a duty to grant the permission for celebration
of the Extraordinary Form, not the authority to forbid it. If permission is not
granted and the bishop will not accommodate the faithful who request it, they
have recourse to the Ecclesia Dei commission directly (SP, art. 7).
In
the post-Summorum Church, there is almost no instance where it is
possible to legally suppress an Extraordinary Form Mass that has been requested
by the faithful. In fact, I have yet to hear of such an example.
Pope
Benedict spoke often of the "hermeneutic of continuity." In this
instance, the connection seems clear: Summorum Pontificum reaffirmed
what Quo Primum guaranteed.
Steve Skojec is a Catholic writer. He blogs at www.steveskojec.com.
