Trad Catholics vs. Pope Leo: Why Did The SSPX Roll The Dice?

The Cambridge Dictionary defines this phrase — “Is the pope Catholic?” — as an idiom used, in a humorous or provocative manner, to say that the “answer to a question you have just been asked is obviously ‘yes.’”

Consider this question: “Do elite newsrooms have trouble producing balanced and fair-minded news reports about doctrinal debates between liberal and conservative religious leaders?” And the answer is: “Is the pope Catholic?”

At the moment, this idiom is highly relevant in discussions of the high-stakes clash between leaders of the ultra-traditionalist Society of Saint Pius X and Pope Leo XIV and the Vatican establishment. Coverage of this standoff was at the heart of this week’s “Crossroads” podcast, especially this Associated Press report: “Vatican excommunicates schismatic bishops and priests, and warns their followers.” Here is some crucial material from that:

During a ritual-filled, five-hour Mass … at its seminary in Econe, Switzerland, the SSPX consecrated four new bishops in direct defiance of Leo, who had urged the group to hold off for the sake of church unity. An estimated 15,500 people and their children attended, a sign that the SSPX has plenty of supporters who came from around the world knowing full well they were defying Rome.

The harshness of the response suggested that after trying to negotiate with the SSPX, the Vatican under Pope Leo XIV had had enough. … It declared SSPX priests — who number about 750 — to be schismatic, and therefore excommunicated, and invalidated the sacraments of confession and marriage that they administer. The Vatican warned the faithful to stop going to SSPX Masses, decreeing that “those who adhere formally” to the society are schismatic and excommunicated.

In the podcast, I focused on a question that I think is crucial to public understanding of this story: Why did the SSPX leadership take such a dangerous move after decades of up-and-down negotiations with various popes?

News coverage of the consecrations focused on the society’s rejection of “reforms” by the Second Vatican Council. However, the word “reform” (see this GetReligion.org essay) was, in news stories, consistently defined by public-square Catholics who stress the evolving “Spirit of Vatican II” over many details in council documents. For example: What did Vatican II say about the preservation of Latin and Gregorian chant in the Mass? Truth is, that’s a complex question.

To understand the SSPX point of view — which is NOT the same thing as agreeing with it — it helps to read the following lines from the November 21, 1974, declaration in which Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers bluntly stated the issues that mattered the most to them.

Spot the “fighting words” in this material, when considering the current schism:

“We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth. We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which derived from it. …

“This Reformation, stemming from Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical.”

From this point of view, what is the poison that the SSPX sees in many “reforms” growing out of Vatican II?

Yes, “heresy” is a “fighting word.” Then there are high-voltage terms, such as “Modernist” and “Liberal.” But the most damning accusation is that the modern Vatican is “neo-Protestant” and conducting a new “Reformation” to “reform,” of course, the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.

“Is the pope Catholic?” The SSPX leaders would argue: “Some of the time he is and many times he is not.”

In a way, they are saying that Pope Francis, their arch enemy, functioned as a kind of via media Anglican and that Leo has declined to openly clash with the Francis legacy. There are times, in other words, when Leo is willing to be a Protestant who — when push comes to shove — acts as if it is acceptable that some bishops defend the current Catholic Catechism, while others do not. On many issues, Catholic theology is one thing in Chicago or Washington, D.C., and something different in Denver or San Francisco.

The bottom line: SSPX leaders dared Pope Leo XIV to use the powers of the papacy on some of the doctrinal issues that they care about, not just the issues that matter to “Spirit of Vatican II” Catholics and the New York Times editorial pages.

Yes, this means they have taken actions (think Martin Luther) that openly defy the authority and teachings of the pope. The pope has responded with the most public form of discipline possible.

At the same time, SSPX leaders (and many other Catholic conservatives) want to know why the pope has supported Catholic leaders such as Bishop Christian Würtz of Germany. The pope personally appointed Würtz as the new bishop of the small diocese of Eichstätt, replacing Bishop Gregor Maria Hanke.

A Catholic World News report noted that these two bishops have radically different approaches to some hot-button issues in Catholic life. For example:

Bishop Würtz supported, and Bishop Hanke opposed, the following [German] resolution on the blessings of same-sex couples and couples who have remarried outside the Church:

“Same-sex couples and remarried couples have frequently experienced exclusion and disparagement within our Church. The possibility of publicly placing their partnership under God’s blessing does not undo those experiences. However, it offers the Church an opportunity to show appreciation for the love present in these relationships and the values lived out within them, thereby making reconciliation possible.

Likewise, Bishop Würtz supported, and Bishop Hanke opposed, the Synodal Way’s call for a reevaluation of Catholic teaching on homosexuality:

“Since homosexual orientation is part of the human person as created by God, it is to be judged ethically no differently than heterosexual orientation ... Same-sex sexuality — even when expressed through sexual acts — is therefore not a sin that separates one from God, nor is it to be judged as intrinsically evil. Rather, it is to be evaluated based on the realization of the aforementioned values.”

Bishop Würtz, in other words, is one of the European bishops who want to “reform” Catholic teachings on sex outside of the Sacrament of Marriage as defined in centuries of ancient doctrines and the current Catholic Catechism. He is being promoted, instead of disciplined.

When covering the actions of the Society of Saint Pius X, journalists should, in interviews, ask these openly rebellious “trad” Catholics why they are are doing what they are doing, in terms of their rejection of some Catholic teachings.

Again, there is no need to agree with them. The questions is whether the public will have a chance to understand some important points of disagreement in this dramatic war. Thus, it would not hurt for journalists to ask “Spirit of Vatican II” leaders why they, slowly and quietly, want to “reform” parts of the Catechism.

In its main report, the New York Times offered this material on the history and goals of the SSPX:

The society was founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in protest against the church’s efforts to modernize after the Second Vatican Council, held between 1962 and 1965, including by allowing priests to hold services in vernacular languages instead of only in Latin. The society also objects to the council’s efforts to soothe tensions between Catholicism and other Christian faiths, and to take part in interreligious dialogue. And it insists on the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church even as it accuses the modern leaders of heresy.

All of that is accurate. The question is whether readers need to know additional information, on other subjects, directly linked to this schism.

Certainly, the SSPX is opening defying this pope and, yes, some teachings and traditions of their church. They are paying a high price for doing so, viewed through the lens of Catholic faith.

Meanwhile, progressive leaders such as Bishop Würtz are quietly, often receiving little or no elite media coverage, daring the pope to take some kind of public action that prevents them from undercutting, in words and deeds, some doctrines and traditions of the same Catholic Church.

In the podcast, I quoted a statement that I have heard (or seen) many conservative Catholics make in recent decades. It sounds something like this: Forget the documents printed by Catholic leaders and public statements by the pope and the Vatican establishment. What really matters is who is promoted and who is not, as well as who is openly of disciplined and who is not.

Does the SSPX matter? It is small, compared to the world’s largest Christian body, but the Times noted these numbers:

While representing a fraction of the 1.4-billion strong Catholic faithful, the SSPX now has six bishops, 751 priests, 264 seminarians, 145 religious brothers, 88 oblates and 250 religious sisters representing 50 nationalities, according to SSPX statistics.

According to their own statistics, the SSPX has about 800 churches and other locations (chapels, missions, priories), in 77 nations, that host Latin Mass rites.

In the United States, there are 120 locations for services, served by about about 100 priests. There are 20 main priories as well as 27 primary and secondary schools, a junior college and three retreat centers.

What happens next? The Times report noted that this is not the first time SSPX leaders have been excommunicated:

Historians said it was the biggest schism in the Catholic church since at least 1870, when a much smaller group of Catholics in Germany broke with the Vatican. The Society of St. Pius X does not keep full records of its followers, but officials estimated that they number between 300,000 and 600,000 people. …

The Rev. Paul Robinson, the society’s prior in Denver, said “I think there will still be contact with Rome,” as there was after the 1988 excommunications.

The Rev. Roberto Regoli, a church historian, said that the society was well-placed to survive because it had so many outposts across the world, including universities and schools.

Meanwhile, there have been “splinter groups” on the doctrinal left, primarily based on women claiming to serve as Catholic priests, and even bishops, after ordination rites the Vatican does not recognize as valid.

Thus, there are approximately 150 clergy linked to networks such as Roman Catholic Womenpriests-USA and the Association of Roman Catholic Women Priests. Mainstream newsrooms consistently offer sympathetic coverage of these groups, which can be seen in online searches for terms such as “Women Priests,” “WomenPriests” and “Womenpriests.” Similar patterns are seen in news coverage of clergy that embrace “blessings” for same-sex couples.

All of this is relevant to coverage of the SSPX actions that defy Rome.

In a commentary about the current standoff, my friend Rod “The Benedict Option” Dreher noted that leaders of the SSPX have put the current pope “in an impossible position” — with an open attack on papal authority. Here is some key material from his piece, “Authority, Modernity & Church Disintegration.”

Their claim that they are loyal to the Pope, except when they don’t think they are obliged to be, is hard to make sense of. So he excommunicated them. That said, the reason a lot of people are bothered by that is because the Vatican tolerates all manner of open dissent against Catholic teaching, and does nothing. The strategic genius of a James Martin, the Jesuit LGBT advocate, is that he has been careful never to openly defy Church authority. …

But this is an inside game. Ordinary people — orthodox Catholics as well as non-Catholics — can see that the James Martins of the world are getting away with it. You can explain to them why, from the point of view of canon law, the SSPX challenge had to be dealt with in this way, while the James Martin “reforms” aren’t as serious. And you might be correct, strictly speaking! But what it looks like from the outside is that Rome will crack down hard on Latin mass traditionalists, while giving a pass to factions within the Church who de facto defy Church authority, but who are strategic enough not to press the point. It looks like the leaders of the Church don’t really believe their own teaching.

Will these dramas continue? Of course they will. History shows that “reform” is a never-ending process.

Readers, if this topic is important to you, please listen to this week’s episode of “Crossroads” — which contains all kinds of information and commentary that I could not fit into this post.

Thus, as I always say: Enjoy the podcast and, please, pass it along to others.