THE ATHANASIAN I Founder: Fr. Francis E. Fenton, STL t Volume XVI, No. 2 t June 1995 t Editor: John K. Weiskittel

Special Report

There is a way which seemethjust to a man: but the ends thereoflead to death. (Prov. 14:12)

QUESTIONING THE THUC APOLOGISTS: A MATTER OF TRUST John Kenneth vVeiskittel

If you can't trust traditional Catholics, who Unfortunately, efforts to find a happy can you trust? Expressed in this rhetorical resolution are far from universally accepted. question is the thought that such individuals Various circmnstances surrom1ding those have the highest possible level of honesty, ''consecrations" have raised doubts and believability, and reliability. Expressed therein fueled disputes: they were performed in is a presumed self-evident truth about the clandestine fashion (sometimes with an character of those willing to stand up for the altered rite) before lay witnesses by a prelate Faith against the thoroughly disreputable of dubious orthodoxy, mental state, and Conciliar "Catholic" sect. standing in the Church. Certain traditional Catholic writers, convinced that the need for Since this has al ways been the view of The outweighs what they regard as minor Athanasian, it is disconcerting to find a few points or even non-issues, have published notable traditional Catholic writers using defenses of these "consecrations" -thus, questionable journalistic practices to defend they are often called (and will be referred to the pedigrees of the so-called "Thuc here) as Thuc apologists. bishops." All the more disturbing, these are men who have merited our praise for the The debate between the Thuc apologists and factual, illmninating pieces they've produced the unconvinced was largely an academic one on the Conciliar crisis. Now, for some m1til November 30, 1993, the date that Fr. unaccountable reason, they have cast aside all was "consecrated" by "Bp." candor, objectivity, and accuracy when dealing Mark Pivarunas, whose "episcopal" lineage with the subject of these supposed bishops. traces back to Mgr. Thuc. Before that date, most with whom Athanasian readers For any new readers unfamiliar with the were personally acquainted had little or no problem, here is a very brief stmunary. Over involvement with Thuc "bishops" and many the past several years, one issue causing were openly critical of them. After it, they severe, perhaps irreparable, division in have divided into fiercely antagonistic traditional Catholic circles is debate over the canips-"for" and "against." apparent consecration of bishops by a retired Vietnamese , Monsignor Pieffe ivtu1in Anticipating the certain flood of inquiries to Ngo-dinh-Thuc, between 1976 and 1982. The our office, we c,mi.ed an article of mine, importance of determining whether Catholics "Notes Concerning the 'Episcopal can avail themselves of any such "bishop" is Consecration' of Father Dolan," in the plain enough, given the times. One December 1, 1993 issue of this newsletter. I supporting them, Fr. , has based it on the view of Fr. Fenton, who, after gone so far as to write: "Catholics who do carefully sh1dying position papers sent him not wish to compromise with the modernists by both sides, concluded that a sufficient of the Vatican will be relying on these number of prudent doubts remain concerning episcopal consecrations for future priests." the validity of Thuc-line bishops and deemed them "questionable." Neither of us has message devised with considerable calculation changed our feeling about this issue one iota. behind those innocuous-sounding words. Consider the following questions: Putting Words In Our l\tlouths • Why is the ORCA! mentioned, but not the Since then, however, there has been an false TCA, a group he also started? It is no rumor circulating that Father has either accident. Fr. Fenton helped begin the modified his stand or changed it completely. ORCI\1 in 1973 and remained with it until Many people around the country, after 1979. The following year he formed the hearing about it, have urged me to make a Traditional Catholics of America (TCA) and response to this serious misrepresentation. I was associated with it until it dissolved last cannot and will not remain indifferent when year as a consequence of his illness. So he Father's good name is used to support a was actually with the TCA twice as long as point of view he actually opposes-especially with the earlier group. Fr. Dolan even had when he is unable to defend himself and assisted him on the TCA Mass circuit. (As when the good of souls is at stake. This for the ORCM, it has been defunct since article developed largely out of that concern. 1986; interestingly, it disbanded because its new leader, Fr. Robert McKenna, had Last fall I received a copy of the October himself made a Thuc-line "bishop.") Thus, 1994 Saint Gertrude the Great Newsletter many more SGGN readers (like the young (abbreviated hereafter as SGGN), the official couples whose children Fr. Do 1an publication of the Cincinnati church that Fr. "confirmed") would recognize the TCA. Dolan serves along with Fr. . So, why was the long-forgotten ORCM The six-page issue rep011s various trips taken mentioned and not the TCA? Simply by Fr. Dolan in his capacity as "bishop." because it was in The A thanasian, Lavishly adorned with 19 photographs, it newsletter of the TCA, that Fr. Fenton was takes readers with him for an "ordination" in quoted as calling Fr. Dolan's consecration Mexico, the "consecration" of a chapel in "questionable." By omitting reference to Italy, the "blessing" of a Benedictine abbot the group, SG GN avoids triggering a at an Alabama monastery (where Ivfasses are potentially embam1ssing word association said in union with John Paul II), and over 150 in its readers' minds: Fr. Fenton ~ TCA "confirmations" in these three countlies. ~ The Athanasian ~ Fr. Dolan 's questionable consecration. Out of sight, out Particular mention is made of his visit in April of mind. 1994 to the churches of a Denver-based p1iest, Fr. Eugene Beny. Significant in that • What is meant by the phrase "put aside account is the following passage: controversy"? Since it cannot report that Fr. Fenton gave his approval for Fr. While in Colorado Springs, Bp. Dolan's claims to the episcopacy, SGGN Dolan and Fr. BeITy were able to does the next best thing: It creates the pay a courtesy call on the Rev. ilnpression he has dropped his opposition. Francis E. Fenton, founder of the Orthodox Roman Catholic This it does by saying he seeks to "put Movement [ORCM], and one of aside controversy." It takes but a the first priests in the U.S. to warn moment's reflection to see the subliminal Catholics of the Vatican II message. For the preceding year SGGN changes. ***The discussion was readers have had one controversy above all friendly, and Fr. Fenton noted that others with them nearly every waking since his illness, he has prefe1Ted to moment-one that divides paiishes, sti·ains put aside controversy. In your family ties, and tears a sizable rent in the charity, please keep Fr. Fenton in fabric of the traditional Catholic your prayers. (p. 2) movement-Fr. Dolan' s "consecration." (In a "bishop's appeal" fund-raising letter Before turning to Fr. Fenton's own reaction, sent the same month, Fr. Dolan bemoans some attention should be paid to the the "stale ai1d self-serving controversy quotation's language. To the unwary, nothing which absorbs all too many priests these seems amiss, in fact, ending as it does with a days.") How easy, then, when seeing call for prayers, it may even be viewed as "prefers to put aside controversy," to sympathetic toward Father. But there is a 2 mistakenly read into it that Fr. Fenton bas Editor's note: This special report exists, in "put aside bis opposition to the large part, due to reader concern over the 'consecration.'" And, as noted earlier, this false rumors about Fr. Fenton reversing is precisely the false conclusion that I have himself to now support Fr. Dolan 's 1993 heard from people around the country. "consecration." For those readers who feel the topic has been examined enough, I ask • If Fr. Fenton has been misrepresented, forbearance and assure you that this is meant what did he really say? To find out, I asked to be THE ATHANASIAN's last word on it. As three people who saw Father right after the for the length, my intention was to have Fr. Fenton's article, "Guidelines for Traditional "courtesy call," two of whom visit him Catholics" on the first two pages, the Tlu1c weekly in the nursing home. When Frs. article comprising the center eight, and the Berry and Dolan visited, he made it clear last two being devoted to "Capsule that he had no interest in talking about Comments" and other short features. It soon weighty issues, as such discussion could became clear, however, tha! more space would fw1her strain his already fragile condition. be needed; as a result, the others will appear In response to the confusion generated by in the next newsletter. Concerning the la!eness SGGN and to reiterate his view of tbe of this issue, the problem is money (or lack "consecration,'' Fr. Fenton has made a thereof). Only ten percent of subscribers brief statement, which I publish here responded to my appeal for donations. I am verbatim (including the parenthetical): very grateful to all you contributors who have made a serious pledge to Tradition: without your help this issue would not exist. To the It is incon-ect to say "he prefers to other ninety percent, may I again urge you to put aside controversy." Since my do your part, for unless you pitch in, it is illness. I am mentally and probable this will be the last ATHANASUN. physically unable to engage in This is not meant as a scare tactic, just as a controversy. Therefore, assuming statement of the economic facts of life. Please that they (Frs. Ben-y and Dolan) have the same position that they help. Thank you and God bless you. J9('J!V have had, my stand is the same as it has been, namely. one o f Rama bluntly asserts that I am opposition to that position. "unaware ... ' the belief that old age is invariably associated with profound If Fr. Fenton's views were so grossly intellectual .. .infimiity is a myth. Most aged dist011ed by Thuc apologists, it came as little persons retain their cognitive ability ... to a surprise for me to learn that they have remarkable degree."' similarly twisted my writings. Since my opposition is more active than Father's, it The trouble this is that I never wrote anything could not be seriously pretended that I, too, even remotely suggesting that "old age is had changed my stance. Therefore, a different invaiiably associated with [mental illness]." tack was employed, and I was portrayed as In fact, I stated exactly the opposite in my someone who makes wildly inaccurate and aforementioned ai1icle: insensitive statements about the elderly. To hear the Thuc apologists tell it, I believe Senility is fairly rare -one estimate senior citizens are all senile. (lviy many older puts the number of all people over friends, whose insights I greatly value, would 65 years of age suffering mild be the first to laugh at such an idiotic smear.) senility at ten percent, and five percent having a severe form of it. ... (p. 5) One of the purveyors of this rot is a writer well-known in traditional circles, Dr. Rama So, far from doubting or being "unawai·e" Coomaraswamy (to save space, he will be that "[m]ost aged persons retain their called "Dr. Rama"), whose attack appeared cognitive ability ... to a remai·kable degree," I last sp1ing in the pro-Thuc magazine, The actually bring up this fact. Reign of Almy. (Quotations here come from a pre-publication copy he sent me, so I have Shortly after Dr. Rama's piece, another omitted page numbers.) In defending :tvigr. defender of the Thuc consecrations, Fr. Thuc' s mental state against me and others Sai1bom, published a response to Thuc c1itics who have questioned his e1rntic behavior, Dr. entitled "God as Their ·witness." This eight- 3 page study was an exercise in damage control, verse to (se1iously?) justify why we should necessitated by opposing analyses published excuse a bishop for giving to after Fr. Dolan's "consecration." In a apostates mid other ne'er-do-wells as casually passage that indirectly refers to my m1icle, Fr. as though he were hm1ding out party favors. It Sanborn writes: "Theories about dementia or is instructive to note that in the verse 'shrinking brains' are preposterous when one immediately following the scriph1re Dr. Rama considers how many of the elderly m·e as cites (Matthew 18:3-4), Our Lord adds that shmp as a tack." (p. 5.) the way one becomes as a child is to "humble oneself," which is a far cry from what Fr. It is clear that my m1icle is the object of Fr. Cekada, in discussing these "consecrations," Sanborn's displeasure because he refers of once called Mgr. Thuc's "tiuly colossal lack the plural of a tenn, "sluinking brain," that of common sense." ("Two Bishops in Every only I have used in the present context (Dr. Garage," reprint, The Roman Catholic, Rama also notes my use). Far from Oct./Nov. 1990, p. 18. See also l\fatt. 10: 16, "preposterous," however, it is an accepted mid 1 Tim. 5:22 for fmther pm1ctuting of this concept in psychiatiy. l\,fore amazing, though, smt of nonsense.) is his sweeping generalization about "how mm1y of the elderly m·e shmp as a tack." Like If the Thuc apologists wish to disagree with the refuted example above, he gives his me, fine, but let them take care to address readers the false impression that I believe in views I really hold mid not ones they falsely an epidemic of mental illness mnong the asc1ibe to me. In these instances there can be elderly. In doing this, he diverts the no excuse: Two intelligent, well-educated men discussion from the dubious activities of totally ignored what I wrote (mention of the one-and 011 ly one octogenarian prelate "sluinking brain" term appears in precisely (whose lucidity Fr. Sanborn himself once the same paragraph where I note the rarity of called into question) to m1 inelevm1t reflection senility), prefening, instead, to advance as on the intellectual acuteness of "many" mine a position I have never held, mid which, elderly. (It is the equivalent of a liberal in tluth, I find exti·emely offensive. I do not Catholic at the time of St. Pius X declaring: want to think these men would deliberately "Themies about modernism, m·e preposterous deceive their readers, but the most charitable when one considers how mm1y priests m·e as explanation still amounts to willful orthodox as the Pope.") negligence, because in their haste to bash the opposition, neither bothered to carefully Regarding Mgr. Thuc himself, both of these exmnine what I really wrote. writers take great pains to interpret descriptions of him like "simple," "naive," Necessity: The Father of Invention? mid having "the mind of a child" in ways that avoid considering an obvious perception: Similar distortions have also been made When acquaintances of a bishop use such against Fr. (now Bp.) Clm·ence Kelly, along terms as mind of a child to explain his with Fr. William Jenkins and other priests of otherwise unfathomable consecrations and the Society of St. Pius V, pm1icularly by Fr. ordinations of numerous non-Catholics, a Sanborn. He levels the very serious chm·ge perve1t, an ex-felon, false mystics, mid other that they manufachu-e arguments out of thin disgraceful sorts (along with a few qualified air when the need arises. Rehll"ning again to Catholics), it is pe1missible to consider the "God as Their Witness," we read: real possibility that the bishop's mental state had sharply fallen from the high level of Although the validity of these intellectual sophistication (three doctoral consecrations has worldwide degrees, teaching positions in leading acceptance,,,, there is a small group universities and seminaries, etc.) that of priests in this country who are chm·acte1ized his earlier cm·eer. Because I adamantly opposed to it First they attacked validity on the basis of brought up "mind of a child" in this sense, I lack of documentary evidence_ incurred the indignation of Dr. Rama, who When the consecration ce1tificate, actually writes: "Is it possible he has written in Archbishop Thuc's own forgotten Christ's admonition 'unless ye hand, was brought forth and become as little children ... '[?]" No, Doctor, I published, these priests promptly have not forgotten, but your inte1pretation is ignored it and invented a new the first time I can recall anyone using the accusation, that Archbishop Thuc 4 was not in his right mind. (p. 1. acknowledge V ezelis' "authority." It \Vas at Emphasis added.) this time he and fellow Thuc "bishop," Fr. George Musey, sent a letter to traditionalists Then, in a four-page letter dated April 1995, al·ound the U.S., almouncing that the pair had addressed to "[m]y dear Catholic people," divided the country into hvo mega-dioceses and circulated nationally (it accompanied an and that henceforth all Catholics would be attack on Fr. Kelly's consecrator, Bp. Alfred obliged to take orders from them. (Priests Mendez), Fr. Sanborn raised the issue again: also viciously attacked by name in "The "'When a document was produced, ... Fr. Sword of Trnth" include Frs. Fenton, Kelly, Kelly ... began to attack Archbishop Thuc as Jenkins, [Maitin] Skierka, Sanborn, [Thomas] being mentally incompetent." (p. 3.) Zapp, Dolai1, ai1d Cekada.)

In plain English, he is alleging that Fr. Kelly It is hinted in The Seraph that Abp. Lefebvre and the other priests, out of sheer desperation, was spreading the "gone out of his mind" concocted a fiction about Thuc being senile. rumor because Mgr. Thuc had turned down This is Fr. Sanborn's charge, and is very his offer to direct the Society's Econe serious indeed, for "invented," in the sense seminary. (p. 15) Whether allY offer was ever he uses the word, means devised a lie. Yet the made remains to be seen, but it is fantastic in facts say othenvise. the extreme to suggest that the archbishop would deliberately make such a slur as a To begin with, there is nothing at all new in result. The point is that we have proof, from a what he refers to as a "ne\v accusation.'' pro-Thuc publication over a decade ago, that Considering that the issue of Mgr. Thuc 's neither Fr. Kelly nor Fr. Jenkins nor anyone mental state goes back nearly twenty years, it else writing in the 1990s has invented defies explanation ho\v Fr. Sanborn can anything! Individuals across the Catholic pretend to see anything novel in this. (For the spectrum have expressed doubts for yeai·s. record, even his use of "accusation" is debatable, because its ordinaly sense meallS Even if Fr. Sanborn refers to the immediate th.e placing of blame/guilt for a past, his version of events is seriously flawed. transgression, whereas that is not suggested For \Vhen we examine the chronology, we in the doubting one's mental faculties. Such find the following discrepancies. In the questioning can be sinful if done maliciously Spring 1992 issue of Fr. Sanborn's journal, or without basis, but it is not all accusation Sacerdotium, was an aJ.ticle promoted as the unless it was claimed, say, that God had taken definitive sn1dy on the topic, Fr. Cekada's away his reason because of his sins. But this "The Validity of the Thuc Consecrations." has not been written about 1-'lgr. Thuc.) According to the article's preface, hundreds of hours of "[p] a.ins taking and Concern for Mgr. Thuc's state of mind Call assiduous ... research" by many priests had be traced back as far as 1976, after his gone into its production. Trnst us, it implied, regrettable doings in Palmar de Troya, we have looked into this topic from every Spain-in other words, from the very start of conceivable angle and have put our finger on the series of consecrations that concern us. all the ai1swers. One of the eal·liest (possibly the first) to express misgivings was the Society of St. The funny thing, though, is that despite the Pius X's head, Abp. Mal·cel Lefebvre, who, ballyhooed erndition a pretty basic piece of when told that the bishop had laid hands on evidence was missing, for not one document five unqualified, total strangers in obedience authenticating Mgr. Thuc's "consecrations" to an unsubstantiated Mal"ial1 apparition, had been found. Thus, Fr. Cekada was exclaimed in h01Tor: "apparently Mgr. Ngo pressed to assure readers: "There is no [as in Ng8-dinh-Thuc - JKW] has church law which says that failure to issue a completely gone out of his mind." Curiously, ce1tificate automatically renders an episcopal the source of this quotation is The Seraph, a consecration doubtful." (p. 28) publication of the Thuc-descended "bishop," Fr. Louis V ezelis. In a special 1983 issue, When we "fast-forward" a year-and-a-half, "The Sword of Truth," ivigr. Thuc's we see Fr. Sanborn reprinting the aiticle for a episcopal line is defended in a number of nationally-distributed packet used to sow the rambling alticles that spend equal time in way for Fr. Dolan's "consecration." Also criticizing traditional Catholics unwilling to included \Vas a Postscript to the earlier srudy, 5 where, for the first time, Fr. Sanborn reveals The Two Fr. Barbaras one of the elusive certificates (coincidentally, it was for the "consecration" of Fr. Moises One of the more amazing sub-plots to the Carmona, the man who laid hands on 11ark controversy is Fr. Barbara's flip-flop on Pivanmas-Fr. Dolan's "consecrator."). tv1gr. Thuc. Fr. Sanborn, in "God as Their 'Witness," introduced a sworn statement Now, the difficulty with Fr. Sanborn's made in Febmary 1993, where Fr. Barbara account is that in January 1993-eight declares: months before his Postscript revealed the existence of this certificate-Fr. Kelly In the course of these two visits. I discussed both the lack of documentation and affirm that I found Bishop Ngo­ the mental state of Mgr. Thuc in The Bulletin. Dinh Thuc completely in his right In an article entitled "The Resolution of mind. Perfectly in possession of Three Controversies," he first noted that: his fa cul ties. he was able to respond clearly and without "As far as we can tell Thuc kept no wiitten hesitation to all of the questions records. He did not issue certificates of which I asked him (p 6) ordination and consecration .... " (p. 3) Fr. Kelly then cites the French priest, Fr. Noel Does not this unequivocal deposition fly in Barbara, who twice interviewed Thuc in the the face of the doubts he expressed ten years early 1980s. Deeply disturbed when the before: "Perhaps he was in possession of his prelate repeatedly abused his episcopal faculties, and perhaps he was not"? It powers by "ordaining" and "consecrating" ce11ainly seems to. But Fr. Sanborn maintains non-Catholics, even after promising to cease that to question it is to call Fr. Barbara a bold and desist, Fr. Barbara wrote in 1983 of his faced liar (his term). This is remarkable, misgivings. He went so far as to suggest (as given that: (a) Fr. Barbara's 1993 position is one of three possibilities) that the 85-year-old not easily reconciled with that of '83; (b) by bishop was not in his right mind, an consequence of this marked self­ explanation that, while rendering the contradiction, we are at a loss to know which consecrations null and void, would at least Fr. Barbara to believe: and (c) we must ask excuse Thuc from the serious criminal why Fr. Sanborn insists on believing the penalties spelled out in the Code of Canon latter recollections over the Janner, why he Law. But Fr. Barbara was forced to conclude: imposes his belief on us, and why, by defending it, he should not equally be chided We do not know with certainty. for calling the earlier Fr. Barbara a "bold­ Perhaps he was in possession of his faculties, and perhaps he was not. faced liar." That would leave a doubt hove1ing over the censures incurred, bu/. There is, of course, no reason to prefer the also over lhe validi/.y of the '93 version to that of '83, save to advance a ordinations. (Cited, p. 4. Emphasis truly new argument-that the Thuc added, Fr. Kelly.) "consecrations" are now "acceptable." As Fr. Jenkins w1ites: Again, to drive the point home: Far from fabricating a new issue because he could no It is not idle to ask which of Father longer decry tl1e lack of a docmnent, Fr. Kelly Barbara's statements should be simply reiterated concerns voiced by others preferred the statement shortly for more than a decade and he did so a full after his visits. or the contrary eight months before the discovery of the statement ten years later. (The Thuc Consecrations: An Open missing paperwork. In actuality it is Fr. Appeal to FaJher Donald Sanborn. Sanborn-no/Fr. Kelly-who has authored a p. 14.) non-existent offense and leveled it against the very priest he accuses of having "invented a But Fr. Sanborn rejects this observation by new accusation." (This is another example of asserting: Fr. Sanborn allowing his emotions to override his intellect, something one rarely encom1ters The fact that even then. at that in his better articles. Reflection and better writing (1983), Fr. Barbara proofreading would have benefited him.) considered that Archbishop Thuc was guilty of the censures indicates 6 that he considered Archbishop raising the "pennissible" question instead of Thuc to have been in his right declming, as would have been his obligation mind, which is completely if he possessed ceititude, that: consistent with his later testimony. (p. 4. Emphasis added.) It is tempting to think this man of 85 may not have had his wits about It is true Fr. Barbara ended his study, him, thus excusing his role in the "~urning. Questions: Straight Answers," crimes. Having twice interviewed with the view that Mgr. Thuc had made valid him, however, I am son-y to report but unlawful consecrations and that both he that he was in complete possession and the recipients (including Fr. Carmona) of his faculties and, as a were "suspended and excommunicated." consequence, he incurs the (Fortes in Fide, February 1983, p. 21.) penalties provided by Canon Law. Nonetheless, it does not suppmt Fr. Sanborn clain! of th~ two versions being "completely Why on emth, if the bishop's mental consist~nt, only that they agree the bishop sharpness had been so evident, would Fr. was lucid enough to confect valid sacraments Bm·bara confuse his readers by offering them and be accountable for his misdeeds. three widely varying hypotheticals to explain Mgr. Thuc's behavior? And muddyino the What is the difference? A considerable one picture further, he offers no indication ofhow as it so happens. In his 1993 statement F/ he came to choose from the three speculations Barbara assures us that from his two to reach his final condemnation. i_nterviews he was certain that Mgr. Thuc was zn perfect possession of his faculties. Yet a Just for the record, I am not callino Fr. decade before, he himself declared it Barbm·a a liar for his 1993 declaration. What "permissible to ask an essential question" lam saying is that a person's-any (emphasis added): "Was this old man, over person's-recollection of an event is fm· 85 years of age, in possession of his faculties fresher a few months later than after the did he realize what he was doing in imposin~ passage of a decade, and I know for a fact that his hands so easily on no matter whom? wa: Thuc apologists have been working 011 Fr. he truly responsible for his acts?" (p. 20) Barbara for yem·s to come over to their side. Then Fr. Barbara poses three possible Sin~e l~s d~mbts were only negative ones to explanations: Yes, he was responsible; no, he begm with, it would be easy to set them aside was not; or possibly he was, but we cannot be especially with encouragement from thos~ sure. In other words, Fr. Barbara suooests already committed to the promotion of that that he was not certain. ~~ episcopal line. (As for other such "sworn statements" offered by Fr. Sanborn, it must This seems impossible, for if he had doubts, be rec~led tl!at t~1ese men knew Mgr. Thuc how could he conclude Mgr. Thuc was lucid only bnefly 111 lus last years, so they could and thus guilty of crimes against the Church? not compare his behavior with what it was Th~ solution can be found in moral theology, before, and that every day the wills of wluch teaches there are different kinds of ~eemingly nonnal people are voided, when it doubt: It is positive doubt if "there are orave is proven they were mentally incompetent at reasons for doubting ... good ground; for the time they wrote them.) assenting to either side," and negative doubt if "there are few or no reasons for There is an even more crucial difference doubting ... no _go~? ground for assenting to between the two Fr. Barbaras that will be any but one side. (Fr. Joseph P. Sullivan covered in a moment, however, at least one S.J, General Ethics, Holy Cross College ~1o~f (though not !he only) misrepresentation Press, 1951, 9th ed., p. 182.) Plainly, then, Fr. m God as Their Witness" ought to be Barbara's doubts were of a negative nature, considered briefly. Fr. Sanborn asserts that meaning that in his judgement they were not additional proof of the validity is the reaction strong enough to convince him of mental of the modernist Vaticm1 against Mgr. Thuc illness so debilitating as to invalidate the after the Palmar fiasco in 1976, since it consecrations. Fr. Sanborn may say what he "clearly concedes the validity of the will, but this is far from the "beyond a consecrations in the very document of shadow of a doubt" type of statement made exconununication." (p. 4) in 1993. This is also borne out by Fr. Barbara 7 Yet when Rome issued a commentary in invalid or doubtfully valid, but even if valid, L' Osservatore Romano to explain the because of the lawless nature of the acts. "excommunication," it noted that the decree had refused to recognize any of the holy The Thuc apologists, though, minimize the orders handed out at Palmar de Troya by importance of what Fr. Barbara has described Mgr. Thuc and that its rejection had been as the "profanation of the sacrament of made "without entering into the problem of order." (Op. cit., p. 21. Profanation signifies the validity of the ordinations .... " (Cited, Fr. the sacrilegious use of something holy.) Their , "An Open Letter on Mt. St. response is along the lines of: "Hey, lvlichael's & the Thuc Consecrations," 7-16- everybody makes mistakes!" So, ,ve find Dr. 94, p. 23. Emphasis added-Fr. Kelly.) Rama remarking: "For every scandalous act that Archbishop Ngo-Dinh-Thuc is accused How, we may ask, can Fr. Sanborn w1ite that of, I can match an equally serious scandal on the Vatican concedes validity, when this is the pait of Archbishop Lefebvre ... . " A few something it says it never investigated? And if weeks before Fr. Dolan 's "consecration," in it has no trouble with validity, then what, pray a letter on St. Gertmde the Great Church's tell, is it doing using an expression like "the stationery, Fr. Cekada would write: problem of the validity of the ordinations"? Neither Fr. Sanborn nor any other Thuc Still more hypocritical is Fr. K. & apologist has ever, to my knowledge, made J.'s [Kelly and Jenkins'] charge the slightest mention of L' Osservatore that Thuc bishops are forever Romano's commentary. tainted by the Abp. Thuc's personal missteps and mistakes. Fr. K. & J. 's myste1y bishop turns out Slip-ups or intrinsically evil acts? to be Alfred F. l'v1endez CSC -and no wonder they hid his identity. But above and beyond this, there is another, Next to Bp. Mendez, Abp. Thuc far more substantial difference between the looks like Athanasius, Lefebvre two Fr. Barbaras, one that the Thuc apologists and St. Pius V rolled into one. do not discuss and one that finds his 1983 position (to paraphrase Fr. Sanborn) (It is disturbing to see the apologists completeZv inconsistent with that of 1993. "trashing" Abp. Lefebvre and Bp. Mendez in an effort to puff up 1·'1gr. Thuc's image. In The "ne,v" Fr. Barbara hosted a meeting of trnth, their sho1tcomings caimot fairly be pro-Thuc priests about a month-and-a-half compai·ed to his: They en-ed because of the before the "consecration" of Fr. Dolan. In post-Conciliar confusion, while he violated the foreword to his Open Appeal, Fr. Jenkins clearly established Church law by \VIites: "consecrating" Old Catholics ... so me thing neither of them ever did.) Once an implacable critic of the Thuc consecrations, Fr. Barbara Elsewhere in the same letter he refers has been transformed into a disdainfully to those who "lecture" others on leading proponent . The "some ancient ... Thuc misadventure." In announced purpose of the meeting was to organize and unify the "God as Their Witness," Fr. Sanborn sedevacantist clergy according to laments the monsignor's "poor judgement," his new-found allegiance to the but it is in a letter of his mvn that he gets to Thuc bishops. (p. ii) the cmx of the apologists' position, writing:

The characteiization of the "old" Fr. Barbara Despite all the impmdences and as an implacable opponent is 1ight on the scandals of Thuc, the necessity to mark. To this day, his "Bmning questions" have priests far outweighs any bad ramification of receiving orders remains one of the most powe1ful indictments from Abp. Thuc. As a matter of against Mgr. Thuc ever penned. When he fact, I would say nothing short of spells out the only three imaginable ways to an intrinsically evil act [an act evil view the prelate's state of mind and their by its ve1y nature, rather than by consequences, he leaves no doubt that Thuc­ circumstances-JKW] would be line "bishops" must be avoided in any and able to constitute sufficient reason every case. Not only if they are ce1tainly to avoid the reception of a 8 traditional episcopal consecration definiti,,e study on the independent Old in these times. [Emphasis in the Catholic schism, author Peter Anson devotes original.] a full chapter to churches emanating from the consecrations of Arnold Hanis Mathew, the When you examine the language you find sect leader who was excommunicated in 1911 that, save for the relatively strong "scandals," by Pope St. Pius X. Of one such church, the all the tenns descliptive of Thuc's beha,,ior­ "Old Holy ," he writes: "missteps," "poor judgement," "mistakes," "The hierarchy [in Britain] at the time of "impmdences," and "mi sad ventures" - wliting consists of the Plimate, Bishops [R. com'ey minor blunders. Surely, they ca1!11ot Dominic] Bruce and [William C.] Cato­ be perceived as intrinsically evil acts, smce Symonds, with Bishops Andre Enos and that is the boundary line Fr. Sanborn tells us Louis Canivet on the continent of Europe." cannot be safely crossed. (By the way, before (October House, 1964, p. 391.) Securing the becoming apologists Frs. Sanborn and episcopacy (or its appearance) from Canivet, Cekada used such strong tenus as "sordid" Labmie staited his own version of the sect, and "disreputable," respecth'ely, to desclibe the "Latin Catholic Church" in Toulouse. As the acts they now sugar-coat with is the custom with Old Catholics, Laborie euphemisms.) then felt compelled to be "re-consecrated," and Mgr. Thuc was all too happy to oblige And yet intrinsically evil acts, which followed him. hot on the heels of the Palmar fiasco, are precisely what caused Fr. Barbara to Another apostate, Claude Nanta de Torrini, condemn Mgr. Thuc so vociferously in the became a "bishop" that year through Mgr. first place. On January 11, 1976, the Thuc, who sometime later did the same for "consecrations" by Mgr. Thuc of Clemente two more Old Catholics (see note with next Dominguez Gomez and four other men took quotation about the year). Concerning these place in Palmar de Troya, the result of an latter, Fr. Barbara has this to say in his alleoed Malian appmition and the equally "Made in France" ai1icle: inc1~dible "miraculous intervention" (via bilocation, no less) by Paul VI. Dominguez As is common among sects, Roger claimed mystical election as "Pope Gregory Kozik and Michel Fernandez were XVII" after Paul's death in 1978 and with also ordained (7) priests many his companions started the "Holy Palmarian times over. After having been Church." (See J. Gordon Melton, The ordained by Jean Laborie, they Encyclopedia of American Religions. Vol. I, were also ordained by Enos. Then, p. 76.) on May 27. 1979, in Spain. a bishop of the "pope of Pahnar de Troya" ordained them priests and. Although they later went on to become a cult, on the ve1y same day. consecrated at the time of their "consecrations" them bishops. Finally in 1981. for Dominguez and the others were tradition~ the fourth time, Kozik and Catholics. The san1e, however, cannot be said Fernandez got themselves for P.E.M. Comte de Labat D'Amoux, who consecrated by Archbishop Time. became a "Thuc bishop" on July 10, 1976 in (p. 2. Emphasis in the original. Toulon, Frai1ce. Fr. Barbara desc1ibes him ~s According to a 1992 "family one of several "apostate[s from] the Catholic tree" of "Thuc line Bishops" put Church" upon whom :tvigr. Thuc laid hands out by apologists. both Kozik and between 1976-82. ("Warning: Concerning a Fernandez were "consecrated" by Sect which is 'l'viade in France,"' Fortes in Mgr. Thuc on October 19, 1978 not m 1981.) Fide, 1993 supplement, p. 4.) Kozik claims that since 1971 the Blessed Then, on February 8, 1977, also in Toulon, it was Jean Labmie 's turn to exploit Mgr. Tlmc Virgin Mary has given his "apostolate" her seal of approval, making him (after for a bishop's miter. Plior to this, Laborie had been "consecrated" by Louis Cani,,et, a Dominguez) the second such pretender to be man who "left [the Catholic Church] to beneficiary of the "simple" Vietnamese found his own church" and who "has prelate's generosity. (It was also at this time officiated at a satanist center in Lyons." that two Old Catholics-Gai·cia and Arbinet were "ordained priests" by :rvigr. Thuc.) (Ibid., p. 1.) In Bishops at Large, the 9 In 1981, after all this damage has been done, knowed [sic] exactly that the Old Mgr. Thuc got armmd to "consecrating" a Catholic Church isn't the Roman few Roman Catholics-Frs. Crumona, Adolfo Catholic Church .... Zamora, and M L. Guerru·d de Lauriers, o. P. Unfortunately, the following year he again This explanation is also put f mth by Dr. assisted apostates by giving "episcopal Rama: "Again, [Mgr. Time] is accused of orders" to one Christian Datessen, who, in ordaining in Old Catholic (1977). But he did turn, six years later made the longtime Old so under the impression that the individual Catholic leader, Andre Enos, a Thuc-line desired to be reconciled to the true Church." "bishop." What makes this even stranger is ("Can One Accept the Resolutions Made by that Enos, who in 1950 abandoned the the Society of [St.] Pius V as Expressed in Church to join the schismatics, had already Their August-October Bulletin of 1990?", p. "consecrated" Datessen in 1981-a year 2. The doctor's count is short by o II e before ~fgr. Thuc did! (See Fr. Clarence "ordination'' and five "consecrations.") Kelly, "The Nlental State of Archbishop Time: Prut II," The Bu lie tin, February 1994, Disputing tltis account is Fr. Barbru·a in pp ....., -..:,.,, ) "Bunting Questions," where he states:

What is important to note here is that the We emphasize Thuc never same names keep cropping up in different concerned himself ·with withdrawing those upon whom he combinations: Crutivet a11d Enos; Crutivet a11d imposed hands from these sects. He Labmie; Kozik a11d Enos; Kozik a11d Labmie; ordained priests or consecrated Fema11dez and Enos; Fernandez a11d Labmie; bishops in their respective sects ... Datessen and Enos; Enos and Datessen. In (p. 20. Emphasis added.) shmt, Mgr. Time was not bumping into these men by accident; he had become (wittingly or The gravity of such acts is profound, even if not) a very convenient "Holy Orders" Mgr. Thuc did believe these men would dispenser for a network of Old Catholics. return to the Church (which, to my knowledge, not one has ever done). The It is unfathomable to tltink of a Catholic Sacraments are never lawfully given to a non­ bishop casting the pearls of episcopal Catholic on the assumption that he will consecration to apostates, but here we see it become a Catholic. If any priest worthy of the happening repeatedly. How can this be name discovers an Old Catholic at the explained? Efforts to excuse ltim have been communion rail, he will make it known that made, thougl1 not very convincingly. In 1988 one must become a Roman Catholic before Frs. Kelly, Jenkins, and Sanbomjomneyed to partaking of the Blessed Sacrament. How Munich, Germany to interview Drs. Kmt much more c1itical is it for a bishop to apply Hiller and Eberhru·d Heller, "lay witnesses" tltis p1inciple when it comes to Holy Orders, of three Thuc "consecrations." Fr. Kelly as so many people can fall prey to the pointedly questioned Dr. Hiller about Mgr. mischief of these schismatics and their Thuc's involvement with Jean Lab01ie. \Vb.en successors. he asked, "if [Mgr. Thuc] was so solid in the [F]aith, why would he consecrate an Old It is absurd for a bishop to presmne he may Catholic?" Dr. Hiller replied that he was exercise papal prerogatives to bring the worst "absolutely poor," hinting that money may apostates into the Church as her leaders. have been an incentive. Still pressing the Canon law (C. 985) stipulates that even a man issue, Fr. Kelly posed a11other question: "But who before ltis conversion had belonged to a if [Laborie] was an Old Catholic, how would non-Catholic sect in good faith is ineligible [NI gr. Time] think to continue the Catholic for the p1iesthood, unless he is granted a Church through a11 Old Catholic?" Dr. dispensation. Men like Laborie, however, in Hiller's answer suggests both that Mgr. Time no way fit this description: They were knew the sect was not Catholic and that he Catholics, as Fr. Barbara noted, rll ho believed Laborie would retm11 to the Church: perfidiously abandoned the Church to start their own Old Catholic churches. He thought that when he would be ordained as a pliest or consecrated When someone who apostatized returns to he would be a C'atholic, a Roman the C11urch, he is not greeted as a conqueiing Catholic not an Old Catholic. He 10 hero. Br. Thomas Merton, the famous Church. Cluist instituted the episcopacy American Trappist, gives the sad account of exclusively for the governance of His Church, what he witnessed at Gethsemani Abbey back not for the man-made churches of schismatics in 1941: and heretics. In his encyclical Sa tis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII teaches: The poor man, for some reason, had not lived as a good priest. In The episcopal order is considered the end. his mistake had caught up to be in proper union with Peter, as with him. He had come into Christ commanded. if it is contact with some schismatics, in a subordinate to Peter and obeys sect known as "the Old him. Otherwise it necessarilv Catholics", and these people degenerates illlo a disorganized persuaded him to leave the C'hurch and confused group. (Emphasis and come over to them. And when added.) he did so they made him an archbishop. I supposed he enjoyed The Old Catholics prove the tmth of His the dignity and the novelty of it Holiness' remark despite themselves. One of for a while; but the whole thing their sects, admittedly an extreme (but not was obviously silly. So he gave it up and came back. And now here uncharacteiistic) example, the French "Holy he was in the monastery, serving Celtic Church," in 1964 "consist[ed] of ten 11.1ass every morning for a young bishops and hvo or three layfolk." (Anson, Trappist priest who scarcely had p. 318 n. 4. Emphasis added.) Removed from the oils of his ordination dry on the hierarchical stmcture established by the his hands. (Cited, Anson, pp. 28- Son of God and outside of His Chmch, the 29. Emphasis added.) Old Catholics make a mockery of the very idea of episcopal orders. Since the Church's unchanging policy is to defrock such men, for J\.1gr. Thuc to "elevate 11Igr. Thuc's activities ,vith members of a sect them to the episcopacy" suggests shameful that trnces back to the Old Catholic "bishop" disregard, as there are no plausible grounds excommunicated by St. Pius X are akin (if for him presume permission to relax this not in every particular) to J\,fathew 's "c1ime," perennial policy. Even if these men had been which Pius declared "illegitimate and "good faith" Old Catholics, able to secure sacrilegious, and ... pe1formed in a manner dispensations to the piiesthood-which they wholly contrary to the mandates of this Holy were not-the Chmch still would need to See and the sanction of the Sacred Canons." detennine if their orders were valid, a far from What cons ti tut es crime in the Church's routine task given the myriad liturgical and mind? Fr. George Croft w1ites: doctiinal pennutations separating one Old Catholic church from the next or even By a crime, in ecclesiastical law, is dividing generations within the same church. understood an external and morally imputable violation of the And mind you, this represents the best case law. to which is added a canonical scenario-Mgr. Thuc being conned into sanction .... Such an act, says canon believing these men had (or might) become 2200, in order to be a crime, must be committed either by malice ... , Catholics. But even this neither excuses him which is the deliberate will to nor removes canonical censures, for a bishop violate the law, or out of culpable has an absolute moral obligation to heed ignorance. ("Imputability and Saint Paul's admonition: "Impose not hands Mental Abnormality in ('anon and lightly upon any man .... '' The consecration Civil Law, Clergy Review, No. 40 of an Old Catholic by a Roman Catholic (1955), p. 263.) bishop is, of course, never tolerated by the Church, regardless the pretext (the post­ For Mgr. Thuc to have acted with malicious Vatican II clisis, for example), for it is an intent, he would have had to know he was intrinsically evil act-the episcopal equivalent consecrating Old Catholics who had no of adultery. interest in becoming Catholics. While not impossible, the fact that he a 1so And the reason it is intrinsically evil is "consecrated" traditional Catholics suggests because it is a direct attack on unity of the that more likely he was deceived into laying 11 hands on the schismatics. But what about Pope in order to be restored to the Church. culpable ignorance? The word culpable (p. 19) Excommunications specialissimo means blameworthy (it comes from the Latin modo all deal with the gravest offenses, such culpa, as in "mea culpa"), and culpable as violent attacks on the Holy Father and ignorance pertains to those instances where profaning the Blessed Sacrament. Given Mgr. one is at fault for not exercising ordinary Thuc's pertinacity in ultI-aciiminal acts, even diligence to discover the truth. Given the deposition is conceivable, meaning he was awesome responsibility of the office, a bishop "forever deprived of his office and of the who does not even bother to determine right of exercising the functions of his whether it is truly a Roman Catholic to be orders." (Albert J. Nevins, M.M., ed., consecrated is surely guilty by definition. If, Afaryknoll Catholic Dictiona,y, Dimension then, Mgr. Thuc was lucid during those Books, p. 1965, p. 177.) consecrations, then he most definitely committed c1imes according to Canon Law. In Aforal Theology, Fr. He1ibert Jone, O.F.M. Not missteps, but crimes; not imprudences, CAP. writes: "An excommunicated person but intrinsically evil acts. may not exercise an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, etc. (C. 2264)." (Fr. Urban Catholic bishop, ''Catholic'' bishop, Adelman, O.F.M. CAP.. trans., Newman Catholic "'bishop," or "'Catholic bishop"? Bookshop, 1945, p. 304.) Episcopal consecration is such an act of ecclesiastical "There is a single thing that matters here, jurisdiction, requiting an apostolic mandate and that is that Archbishop Thuc performed (official papal approval). Today, notes Fr. episcopal consecrations which are valid." So Barbara, we need "at least the presumption of writes Fr. Sanborn in ''God as Their authorization by the pope." (p. 19. That is, Witness. "(p. 5. Emphasis in 01iginal.) No., the belief that if we had a Pope, he would give Father, with all due respect, something else his blessing. -JKVl). Any consecration does matter-whether they are licit without this approval is not Catholic-period. ("lawful"). A schismatic Eastern Even in the present c1isis, it is ludicrous to "Orthodox" bishop can validly consecrate imagine Rome honoring these consecrations. (through which God marks the recipient's soul with the episcopal seal), but the lite is Before laying hands on Frs. Carmona, done illicitly_, since it is done outside the Zamora, and Guerard, Mgr. Thuc was (if Church and, hence, without her blessing. lucid) already excommunicated. It is impossible, then, to call these men Catholic Neglecting this aspect is a serious omission bishops, because their consecrator, forbidden by the Thuc apologists, because it conveys an to exercise his jurisdiction, could not act in "anything goes" message. Fr. Sanborn adds the name of the Chw·ch. And if they are not to the confusion with his equation: Catholic Catholic bishops, they cannot act as such, bishop + Catholic rite valid episcopal either. No amow1t of good intentions or consecration. This is hue as far as it goes, wishful thinking can offset this fatal defect. but, as shown above, the word "011hodox" Ultimately, then, the consecrations are either can be substituted for "Catholic" and the invalid or gravely illicit-pick your poison. fonnula will still hold true. Then, too, as with The Thuc apologists should be regarded like Mgr. Thuc, a Catholic bishop can pe1f onn a the driver of an obviously unsafe car, who Catholic rite producing a valid sacrament offers a ride down a treacherous mountain (assuming he was lucid), yet it will still be off road. ''Trnst me," he promises, "the brakes limits for Catholics if done sacrilegiously and will hold." "Thanks," comes the prudent wllawfully. reply, "but it's a lovely day for a walk. Would you care to join me?" t For consecrating Old Catholics, l\,1gr. Thuc suffered suspension and excommunication, w1ites Fr. Barbara, and the suspicion of THE ATHANASIAN heresy and schism. (p. 21) Further, this Copyright © 1995. All rights reserved. Founded in excommunication is ipso facto (that is, 1980 by Father Francis E. Fenton, STL. THE ATHANASIANis a journal of traditional Roman automahc by the act) and the case reserved Catholic thought. Subscriptions: $20 for the USA, specialissimo modo ("most specially") to Canada, and Mexico; $24 for other countries. Mailing Rome, the severest such sanction, meaning a address: 252 West Ardice Avenue, Suite 420, Eustis, repentant bishop must deal directly with the Florida 32726. 12