* * *
The second point: The accusation that my orders are not valid comes from those
who never knew Abp. Thuc, but
take it upon themselves to judge his mental state nonetheless. They imagine
that, because he did some imprudent things, he could not have been in his right
mind. But this is not true.
The
proper response to this is to prove by eyewitness
testimony that Abp. Thuc was in his right mind at the time of the
consecrations of Bp. Guérard des Lauriers, and a little later of Bp. Zamora and
Bp. Carmona, from whom I derive my episcopal consecration.
There
is overwhelming evidence both from eyewitnesses who knew him at the time, and
from the actions that he himself performed, that Archbishop Thuc was perfectly
lucid when he did the consecrations of Bishop Guérard des Lauriers in May of
1981, and of Bishops Zamora and Carmona in October of 1981.
It
is true that Archbishop Thuc ordained and consecrated some unworthy persons. It
is true that he exercised poor judgment with regard to his selection of
priestly and episcopal candidates. This fact, however, does not prove or even
suggest lack of lucidity; it only shows poor judgement.
We
might also point out that Abp. Lefebvre made some very poor judgments about
whom to ordain.
Furthermore,
it does not follow that, because someone acts inconsistently or erratically, he
is therefore senile or incapable of valid sacraments.
Archbishop
Lefebvre acted very erratically in 1987 and 1988. In August of 1987, he
referred to John Paul II as an antichrist, but in May of 1988 signed the
protocol in which he submitted to him as Vicar of Christ. The very next day, he
went back on the protocol which he had just signed. One of the reasons he
offered to the Vatican for proceeding with the consecrations without their
permission was that "the tents had been rented." On June 15th, 1988 Archbishop
Lefebvre gave a press conference in which he said that John Paul II was not
Catholic, was excommunicated, was outside of the Church, but was the head of
the Church. On June 16th, he told a reporter that he would change his mind if
John Paul II - who the day before was not even a Catholic - would approve of
his four bishops. Yet he was completely in his right mind.
To
claim that inconsistency or erratic behavior invalidate a sacrament is to
manifest a profound ignorance of the fundamental principles of sacramental
theology.
The only type of mental state that is invalidating is one in
which the minister does not know what he is doing. For example, if, through senility, a priest does
not know where he is or what sacrament he is performing, it would be invalid.
Such
is not the case with Archbishop Thuc, as there are both eyewitnesses and facts
which attest unquestionably to his lucidity.
What is the evidence of the eyewitnesses who knew
Archbishop Thuc?
1. Dr. Hiller and Dr. Heller. These are the two German eyewitnesses of both
these consecrations. They knew Archbishop Thuc intimately, having seen him
regularly when the Archbishop resided in Munich for a number of months. They
have both testified under oath, one in
writing, the other orally, with God as their witness, that Archbishop Thuc
was in full command of his faculties when he performed the above mentioned
consecrations. These laymen are well-educated, intelligent, and alert; there is
absolutely no reason to doubt their veracity or their ability to judge the
Archbishop's state of mind.
2. Fr. Noël Barbara. Fr. Barbara went to see Archbishop Thuc in the
Spring of 1981 and then again in January 1982. He thus saw him both before and
after the consecrations. Fr. Barbara has sworn,
in writing, with God as his witness, that both times he found Archbishop
Thuc to be in full use of his mental faculties, and that he answered the
questions put to him about the consecrations clearly. Fr. Barbara also wrote,
immediately after the January visit, notes concerning his conversation with
Archbishop Thuc. These notes reflect the clear mind of the Archbishop, as he
answered questions with clarity and distinct memory.
3. Fr. Gustave Delmasure. This priest, who was a well-respected traditional
priest in France, former pastor of a parish in Cannes, went to see Archbishop
Thuc in March of 1982. He has given sworn testimony, with God as his witness, that he found Archbishop Thuc to be in his
right mind, and that he responded to his questions with swiftness and clarity.
4. Bishop Guérard des Lauriers. In a personal interview with Fr. Joseph Collins,
Bishop Guérard des Lauriers, who himself had been consecrated in May, 1981 by
Archbishop Thuc, attested to the fact that the Archbishop was in his right
mind. He said that the rite of consecration was followed integrally by
Archbishop Thuc, and that he (Thuc) was of sound mind throughout the ceremony.
(Bishop Guérard des Lauriers was a well-known Dominican theologian who taught
at the Lateran University in Rome, and who advised Pope Pius XII on the
definition of the dogma of the Assumption in 1950).
5. Fr. Philippe Guépin. Fr. Guépin is a traditional priest who says Mass
for a large group in Nantes. He was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1977,
and was asked to leave the Society of St. Pius X in 1980 because he refused to
recognize John Paul II as pope. He knew Archbishop Thuc at Ecône, and had
prolonged conversations with him. He has attested that Archbishop Thuc was in
his right mind.
6. Fr.
Bruno Schaeffer, who was ordained
by Abp. Thuc in 1982 (after the
episcopal consecrations) told Fr. Guépin that Abp. Thuc was completely in
his right mind, and that he observed the rite of ordination perfectly.
7. Eyewitnesses
who saw him and knew him in Rochester, New York, where Abp. Thuc stayed in 1983 and 1984, also
attested to the fact that even at that time, shortly before his death in 1984,
Abp. Thuc was in his right mind, and offered daily Mass.
Now
we must ask ourselves: are all these
people liars? All of these eyewitnesses say the same thing, even though
they knew Abp Thuc at different times and in different circumstances. Are they all lying? It would be
ridiculous to say such a thing.
Those
who would have us believe, for whatever reason, that Archbishop Thuc was not
lucid are telling us to conclude that all the eyewitnesses cited above are bold-faced liars.
That would mean that faithful Roman Catholic
priests, some of them ordained for fifty years or more, and who have labored
for the salvation of souls their whole lives, are liars, calling down the authority of God to witness to their
wicked lies. This they would do shortly before they go to God for judgement,
and in such important a matter as an episcopal consecration.
This
supposition is absurd and very uncharitable. There is no better testimony than
that of sworn eyewitnesses. No one can reasonably fault someone for taking the
word of reliable sworn eyewitnesses.
I remind you that the classic, time-tested, and
universal way in which to establish a fact is the sworn eyewitness testimony of reliable witnesses. It is the way in
which every court of law determines the fact of crime or innocence. Based on
such testimony, human beings are either exonerated or condemned, sometimes to
death.
The
law courts of the Catholic Church operate on the sworn testimony of reliable
witnesses.
Most
importantly, our Blessed Lord sanctioned the practice with divine approval: And if he will not hear thee, take with thee
one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may
stand. (Matthew 18:16) And in the Gospel of Saint Mark, Our Lord upbraids
the disciples for not having believed the witnesses of his resurrection. (Mark
16:14).
B. Evidence of Facts.
What is the evidence of the facts which attest to
Archbishop Thuc's lucidity?
1. The fact that Archbishop Thuc
functioned publicly in his right mind at the time of the consecrations. This is attested to by the German witnesses, Dr.
Hiller and Dr. Heller. The Archbishop spent a few months in Munich where he
said Sunday Masses, and was able to be observed by all. It was noted by them
that he said the traditional Mass very carefully with close attention to the
rubrics. He also gave public lectures in Mexico after the consecration of the
Mexican bishops.
2. The fact that
Archbishop Thuc wrote in his own hand, with strong, forceful handwriting, a consecration certificate
,
letters, and other declarations both in Latin and in French. One who is not in his right mind could not sit
down and write in a coherent manner, particularly in Latin.
3. The fact that Archbishop Thuc had a
clear and vivid memory of the consecrations in his conversations with Fr. Barbara. One of these conversations is
related in notes which Fr. Barbara took just after the interview. In it the
Archbishop remembered not only having consecrated the two Mexican priests, Frs.
Zamora and Carmona, but even commented that Fr. Carmona spoke much better Latin
than Fr. Zamora. He also testified to his having consecrated Fr. Guérard des
Lauriers, and included details about him. Such clear memory about specific
events and names is proof that the Archbishop was in his right mind at the time
of the consecrations, and at the time of his speaking to Fr. Barbara.
4. The fact that the Vatican
excommunicated Archbishop Thuc. Everyone
knows that if someone is not in his right mind, he is incapable of committing a
crime, and therefore incapable of being censured. The fact that the Vatican,
after a thorough investigation, excommunicated Archbishop Thuc for having done
these consecrations is a sign that they considered him to be in his right mind.
If they had found him in an impaired mental state, they would have made this
fact public, and repudiated the consecrations as invalid. Indeed, the very fact
that that they excommunicated him is an admission, legally, that the
consecrations were valid. For it is a principle of law that censures are not
incurred if the act is invalid. "Besides," says the canonist Augustine, "it is
generally held that the order must have been received validly, and therefore the penalty would not follow if, for
instance, a Protestant bishop would confer an order." [A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Volume VIII, p. 449].
The Vatican clearly concedes the validity of the
consecrations in the very document of excommunication. In stating that it will
not give the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Thuc the legal status of
bishops, adds "quidquid est de ordinum validitate," which properly translated
means, "however valid the orders may be." The phrase concedes the validity,
since the indicative mood is used in Latin, which always indicates a statement
of fact, and not of doubt.
This
recognition of validity is further attested to by the fact that two Apostolic
Delegates, one in Mexico in 1983 and one in the United States in 1988, called
the consecrations of Archbishop Thuc "valid but illicit." They would never have
said such a thing if the Vatican did not have that position.
Even Bishop Richard Williamson, the Rector of the seminary of the Society of St. Pius X in the United States, has told members of the laity that he regards my episcopal consecration as valid. (Letter 10/21/93.)
1. Scandal. But some have objected that even if these
consecrations are valid, we should avoid them because of the scandals of
Archbishop Thuc. But this is not true.
In
the first place, Archbishop Thuc is dead, and his sins have died with him. His
sins, whatever they may have been, are not transferred to those whom he
consecrated. Each bishop must be judged on his own merits, and not on the
virtues or vices of him who consecrated him. The saintly Cardinal Merry del
Val, the Secretary of State of St. Pius X, was consecrated by Cardinal
Rampolla, who was a freemason. Does that mean that Cardinal Merry del Val was
scandalous? Of course not.
In
any case Canon Law permits the faithful to approach even the excommunicated clergy, in case of
necessity, for sacraments. (Canon 2261 § 2). What interests us about Archbishop
Thuc, then, is not his sins or poor judgement, but (1) the fact that he
performed these consecrations, (2) the fact that he used the traditional rite,
(3) the fact that he was in his right mind. But all these things are attested
to by document and reliable and even sworn eyewitness testimony.
2. Bad
Bishops. But they further object
that the fruits of Archbishop Thuc are bad, alleging that he gave birth to a
whole set of bad bishops.
I respond that the mere fact of tracing your
orders to Archbishop Thuc does not mean that you participate in his sins or
shortcomings. It is not like you belong to some organization of "Thuc Bishops."
Anyone who traces his orders to Archbishop Thuc is not automatically associated
with all those whom Archbishop Thuc ordained or consecrated - any more than a
bishop consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre would participate in the sins of
Cardinal Liénart, who consecrated Archbishop Lefebvre, but who was one of the
worst modernists at Vatican II.
There is a single thing that matters here,
and that is that Archbishop Thuc performed episcopal consecrations which are
valid. From these valid consecrations, valid and responsible Catholic
bishops are available to us in order to give us priests.
I
would like to add that Abp. Thuc had many virtues which should not be
neglected. He was the only bishop who had the courage to denounce publicly John
Paul II as a false pope. He also said Mass very devoutly, and was known to hear
confessions for many hours at a time, even in very old age.
But
the only reason why we have had to turn to Thuc in any case was that he was
willing to consecrate bishops who would preserve the true Catholic position
with regard to Vatican II and the modernist "popes." If the Society of St. Pius
X had stayed on the right path, my consecration would not have been necessary,
and we would be working side by side with them.
But
it has been unfortunately necessary to break from the Society of St. Pius X,
because their positions are inconsistent and therefore erroneous. Furthermore,
they espouse doctrines and attitudes towards the authority of the Church and
the magisterium which are not compatible with the Catholic Faith.