[Question:]{.underline} What are we to think of priests who have left the Society of Saint Pius X?
[Answer:]{.underline} There are very many former priests of the Society of Saint Pius X who have set themselves up as “independent” priests, namely as acephalous, wandering or unattached, priests. They will frequently maintain that this is not their own doing, but always the fault of their superiors. In point of fact, their independent state is always a consequence of their personal psychological, mental, spiritual, and doctrinal problems that has forced them to break the obedience that they owe to their superiors. The fact that they are celebrating the Mass and administering the sacraments as “independents” is the proof of that. If they had a Catholic attitude, and were genuinely unable to find understanding Catholic superiors, they would simply retire to celebrate Mass in private.
The most frequent objection made by such priests is that in the Society we make “Engagements” and not “Vows” as in a religious community, giving the understanding that one is not bound to keep an engagement in the same way as one is bound to keep a vow. However, the difference is really just a question of terminology or of the solemnity of the promise. For both vows and engagement are promises made to God, nor are they in any way essentially different. They are sacred bonds, binding us in virtue of fidelity and religion to our superiors in obedience, under pain of mortal sin. A vow of obedience made in a religious community extends to every aspect of the life of the religious, whereas an engagement in a community of common life, such as the Society of Saint Pius X, extends only to those questions that concern the common life, or the priestly ministry properly speaking. Consequently a seminarian or priest of the Society of Saint Pius X is bound by his engagement under pain of mortal sin, just as a religious is bound by his vow of obedience.
Another frequent objection made is that the priests of the Society often make temporary engagements for one or three years at a time, and that it is only after quite a few years of priesthood that they will eventually make their perpetual engagement for life. It is very similar in a religious community, where the religious must pronounce temporary vows first, before they can pronounce perpetual vows. The main difference is that our holy founder wanted to prolong the period of trial in such a way that nine years of oblations or engagements are ordinarily necessary before a priest can make his perpetual engagement in the Society of Saint Pius X. The wisdom here lies in the gravity of this act, the perfect oblation of ourselves, by which we bind our whole life to our community. The time of probation is to establish that a priest has all the qualities and virtues necessary to take on such an obligation, under pain of mortal sin.
Some priests have left the Society after having made their perpetual engagement. They are to be considered as public sinners, in the same way as a married person who has broken his marriage vows and fallen into adultery. His Masses must not be attended, nor the sacraments received from him, except in danger of death. If a priest has a legitimate reason to leave the Society after having made his perpetual engagement, he must ask for a dispensation from the superior general (to be submitted to the Apostolic See), which will only be granted if he is accepted into a religious community or (theoretically, at least) a diocese. Otherwise, he remains bound for life.
Other priests have left the Society of Saint Pius X after their temporary engagements have expired, maintaining that they are consequently free to leave. This is a gross simplification. Although it is true that a priest is bound to his community by his vows or engagements, it does not mean that he is freed from all responsibility when the time expires. A priest who leaves one community by the expiration of his vows or engagements must seek either a diocese or another religious community. If he finds neither, he immediately becomes an unattached, “independent” priest, and is consequently forbidden to administer the sacraments or publicly celebrate Mass. Consequently, a priest who is active cannot morally allow his engagements to expire without joining a diocese or another religious community.
Furthermore, priests of the Society of Saint Pius X have made other solemn vows that they are bound under pain of mortal sin to observe. There is the public vow of obedience to his bishop or superior that is a part of the ceremony of priestly ordination. If he is to leave his diocese or community, the object of his obedience must be legitimately transferred to another bishop or superior. If he simply leaves without doing so, and uses his priestly powers, he has broken this public vow of obedience.
There is also the solemn oath of fidelity, prescribed by the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments on December 27, 1930, and which must be made before the superior and written and signed with his own hand before the reception of the major orders of the subdiaconate, diaconate, and priesthood. All the Society’s priests have written out and made this oath, which states, amongst other things: “I acknowledge that I am fully informed of all the obligations that flow from the aforesaid Sacred Order, and I freely embrace them, and resolve with the help of God to keep them faithfully during my entire life… Finally, I sincerely promise that I will always, according to the sacred canons, most respectfully obey in all things which are commanded to me by my Superiors according to the discipline of the Church…” Clearly a traditional priest cannot possibly invoke personal difficulties with his superiors or the crisis in the Church as a justification for breaking such an explicit and direct vow to keep the requirements of Canon Law concerning his submission to his superior. If he does, he is a hypocrite and a public sinner.
Finally, all priests of the Society of Saint Pius X must make a declaration of fidelity to the positions of the Society of Saint Pius X as a condition for their ordination. Clearly this is also binding. Some priests have left the Society, invoking certain aspects of this declaration as their justification for being independent. Even if it were possible for a priest to be “independent,” the deception and hypocrisy involved in going back on such a declaration is manifestly evident. We must declare, for example, that we accept John Paul II as the pope and that we will pray for him in public. We also declare that we will never celebrate the New Mass, nor positively encourage anyone to take an active part in it, whilst asserting that it is not necessarily invalid or explicitly heretical. We furthermore accept the rubrical changes of 1960. It concludes with this formula: “In doing this, I desire to show the obedience binding me to my superiors, as also the obedience binding me to the Roman Pontiff in all his legitimate acts.” Clearly, then, no honest, upright Society priest can use sedevacantism, the rubrics of John XXIII, or the positive recommendation of the New Mass as a justification for leaving the Society of Saint Pius X. It would be to break his own word.
The priests who have left the Society of Saint Pius X to become “independent” are to be avoided at all costs. Those who have left to join a diocese or Novus Ordo or Indult community have committed a serious offense if they have not followed the canonical procedures, and have denied their declaration of fidelity. However, they can be considered as having regularized their canonical status in the Church. The same principles are consequently to be applied to them as to other members of such communities.
Answered by Father Peter Scott, SSPX.