Note: I began a post on this topic before Iosephus posted his. Since it was already begun, I thought I might as well post my thoughts also, with a few adaptations in response to what he wrote. Our readers can compare. Most importantly, though, I think we can all agree that we should join together in praying for Bishop Fellay, and for the reconciliation of the SSPX to Rome.

I’ve been thinking all this week about how delightful it would/will be if the SSPX were reconciled to Rome. I think my first celebratory act would be to go to the website of Angelus Press and buy something, to commemorate the happy occasion and to offer my support to the SSPX. Together with these happy daydreams, I’ve also felt a sense of foreboding… like Iosephus, I have a creeping suspicion that the likelihood of Fellay’s agreeing to these terms is not high. Unlike Iosephus, though, I don’t think this specifically has to do with religious freedom, or any other substantive “line in the sand” that cannot be negotiated. I’ll explain why in a moment, but for now let me just say: I think this has to do with courage and humility. The Vatican’s terms are eminently reasonable — so reasonable, in fact, that it almost seems an insult that they should need to be set out as “terms” in the first place. Therein lies the rub. Signing them may feel too much like an apology, or an admission that some of the words and actions of SSPX leaders have been inappropriate. It will take real humility to make that gesture, and genuine courage to stand up to that group of detractors who will inevitably hurl abuse at Fellay if he does agree. Now, truly, is the pivotal moment in the story of Bernard Fellay. Now we will see what kind of man he truly is.

Let me add quickly that I would not at all accuse the Vatican of being hasty or ungracious in this matter. With regards to hastiness: the Holy Father has given us plenty of evidence that he is serious about recovering Catholic tradition, and making a place for traditional Catholics within the Church. It was always clear that it would be necessary, at some point, to apply some pressure to the leadership of the SSPX, and, while I pray that he will remain healthy and vigorous for many more years, the fact remains that the Holy Father is not a young man. If this is one of the tasks allotted to him for his pontificate (and if Benedict XVI is not the man to bring the SSPX back home, it really does seem a lost cause) it is fitting that he should feel a certain urgency. Would it have made things easier to wait another six months? to give Bishop Fellay another few weeks to think it over? I can’t imagine. Indeed, a longer “thinking period” would more likely have been cruel. There are moments in life when a decision that has long been brewing comes rearing up before us with a terrible simplicity that demands resolution. Fuzzy lines become sharp in an unexpected way. I experienced this when I converted to the true faith. Some people have these moments before marriage, taking orders, changing careers, confessing to a serious mistake, or probably dying. Well, the Holy Father is giving one such moment to Bishop Fellay. It is a risky gambit, but he presumably judges that this kind of “moment of truth” is the only real chance he has of bringing the SSPX back into the Church.

As far as “ungraciousness” goes: I think Pope Benedict is one of the last people in the world who would want to subject another to needless shame or embarrassment. But let me just pose a question. Examining the words and actions of the SSPX over the last twenty years (or even the one or two), would a reasonable person have cause to doubt their allegiance to the pontiff and to the Magisterium? I think it is evident that they would. The SSPX has always insisted that they are not sedevacantists, but there are real tensions between that claim, and much of the rhetoric that we have heard from their top officials (not to mention their refusal to submit in practice to the Vatican’s directions.) It would be a source of real scandal if the Vatican did not require some good-faith token of allegiance before lifting the excommunications and the suspensions of the SSPX priests. That they are asking for nothing more than this shows just how truly the Holy Father wants this reconciliation to come about.

So. It will be difficult. Bishop Fellay will be the target of some hard words and bad feelings no matter what he chooses to do, and after years of being at the center of an organization like the SSPX, he may simply not have the courage to exercise that kind of leadership. It would be easier, no doubt, to fire off the usual sort of contemptuous rebuke towards evil modernist Rome, and to retreat to enjoy the rest of his years among such adoring followers as still remain to him. But that would be a dreadful mistake, and at bottom, a betrayal of many of the things he has claimed all his life to care about the most. Certain negative signals notwithstanding, I still harbor some hope that Fellay may accept, simply because this is the sort of decision that could, in the final hour, become horribly, inescapably clear. There is absolutely no further good that can be served by the SSPX remaining outside the Church. To emphasize the force of this point, let me review a few of the points that have been discussed.

1) The preservation of the liturgy

I am one of those who was never quite willing to say that the SSPX “saved” the traditional Latin Mass. But obviously they have always cared about it deeply, and what is beyond question is that they preserved the liturgy for many people who would otherwise have had no access to it in the recent past. Who knows how many Catholics have continued to fulfill their Mass obligation, who would not have done so if not for the Masses offered by the SSPX? Who knows how many have learned a love of Catholic tradition in their parishes? Whatever else might be said about the SSPX, these are no mean accomplishments. At this point in time, though, the recovery of Catholic tradition is obviously better served within the Church. Catholics requesting the traditional Latin Mass now have lots of support from the Vatican. Priests who wish to say it have their right to do so guaranteed in the motu proprio. Opportunities are arising as never before to introduce rank-and-file Catholics to these wonderful mysteries.

But until they are reconciled to Rome, the SSPX’s ability to contribute this effort is very limited. Priests and bishops feel little obligation to respond to the demands of schismatic groups, and ordinary Catholics are understandably suspicious of the same. On the other hand, the influx of a million enthusiastic lovers of tradition to Latin Mass parishes worldwide, would be a tremendous gain. Insofar as their break with Rome was precipitated by a love for the Mass, it is clearly time for the SSPX to come back.

2) The health and future of the SSPX

People who are born and raised in SSPX parishes may (some of them at least) stay in the SSPX for life. But given the state of the Church today, converts are sure to be few, and even such faithful as they have are likely to dwindle when it starts to look as though the schism is permanent. As Iosephus pointed out, history is not kind to schismatics. As a personal prelature, the SSPX could certainly thrive; we all know that the traditional movement has been picking up tremendous speed, and once they were reconciled to Rome, many of those hungry, young traditional Catholics would be happy to be part of an SSPX parish. But if Fellay spurns Rome this time, the position of the SSPX will begin to look ever more desperate. And in a world where traditional Latin Masses are springing up everywhere, what attractions will the SSPX have to offer that will compensate for the taint of schism? Given a choice, any good Catholic would much prefer to be firmly on board the Bark of Peter.

There is also the strong possibility that, if Fellay refuses the conditions, the Vatican will take a harsher stance towards the SSPX, using words like “schismatic” more freely and issuing more excommunications. That will persuade even more people that they would rather be safely under the authority of Rome.

3) The “right to speak out”

I bring this up because it’s often cited as an issue, but really it’s a non-issue. Reading the bitter comments of some SSPXers, one wonders whether they might be confusing Pope Benedict with a modernist incarnation of their own St. Pius X! (I mean no disrespect to that brilliant and holy man, but he does seem to have been much more enthusiastic about trying to squelch dissent.) In fact, Pope Benedict has always been a gentleman and a scholar, and he fully appreciates that the concerns of the SSPX, both theological and liturgical, are not trivial. There is no chance at all that the SSPX will be expected to feign approval of liturgical abuses, as some of them seem to expect. Their priests will not be required to say the Novus Ordo. Nobody is being asked to abandon their theological concerns. They will presumably be expected to stop making derisive comments about the Holy Father being a “perfect liberal”, or about Rome “needing to come back to us.” (That’s Williamson, of course, and not Fellay, but it is presumably implicit in the agreement that Fellay, if he becomes the head of a personal prelature within the Church, will demand appropriate restraint from his subordinates.) Could they really believe that this sort of “speaking out” is bringing some great benefit to the Church as a whole? Enough, even, to justify continuing in schism?

4) Religious freedom

In a sense this fits under the last heading, but I give it a special treatment because this really is the theological problem that most rankles. That is for good reason, because this is probably the most difficult and disturbing of the “reforms” of Vatican II. Dignitatis Humanae is a very troubling document. The influence of modern philosophy is felt very heavily, and the position outlined therein does seem fairly violently in tension with that of the Doctors and Church Fathers from the centuries before. The Catechism of the Catholic Church skirts the issue with some of its characteristic vagueness, but clarification on this issue is certainly needed.

As the above paragraph probably makes clear, I very much share the SSPX’s concerns here. Even so, it is clear to me that continuing their rebellion over an issue like that would be ridiculous. In the first place, they are not being asked to abandon their position on religious liberty, and it’s far from clear that they would ever need to. There are people — the Feeneyites, for example — who presently hold to a fairly strict interpretation of EENS without being considered schismatic. But furthermore, it makes no sense to cite a theological dispute as a justification for the sort of quasi-schism that the SSPX wants to maintain. Has the Church lost her divine mandate and descended into heresy, or not? If they think that she has, then they are schismatics and it’s pointless to claim otherwise. If she hasn’t, then the tension would presumably need to be resolved by some combination of 1) clarifying documents that, without actually teaching heresy, are nonetheless confusing and likely to lead to dangerous misunderstandings, and 2) repudiating documents that are heretical, but that never enjoyed the full approbation of the Magisterium. Which of these tasks will be more easily accomplished in schism?

Though I can’t exactly approve the decision to defy the Church over the issue of liturgy, I can at least understand it. There was an obvious, concrete gain from that action — namely, the continued availability of the Traditional Latin Mass for the followers of Marcel Lefebvre. But with the religious liberty question, rebellion will bring no equivalent benefit. What is needed now is theological discussion, and a working out of some very delicate and difficult issues that have been haunting the Church for many centuries now. But that kind of work will not be furthered by a rancorous stand-off with a group of bitter malcontents. The SSPX’s tactics may have made a certain kind of sense with respect to the liturgy, but applying them to this question is like attempting open-heart surgery with a battering ram.

I confess that my impatience in this matter is partly influenced by my personal assessment of the men in question and their philosophical skills. In the documents I have read from the SSPX, I have never been overwhelmed by their prowess as thinkers and theologians; by contrast the Holy Father is a thinker of great understanding and subtlety. No doubt he has made certain errors over the years, as all scholars do, but even so I think it very likely that Pope Benedict understands the problem of modernism as well as any person currently alive. It does offend me, therefore, when people like Richard Williamson talk as though the Holy Father were in need of instruction from them. It’s perfectly all right to express disagreement with the pontiff over certain points, but anyone who is genuinely concerned with the problems of modernism should quickly realize that Josef Ratzinger is a thinker eminently worthy of respect.

Even assuming, though, that the shoe were on the other foot — that the pontiff were a thinker on the order of Richard Williamson, while the SSPX leadership was composed of brilliant scholars and theologians — refusing reconciliation with Rome on the basis of a theological dispute would still be completely unreasonable. Insofar as they do have a superior understanding of the matter at hand, the SSPX leaders should want to put their gifts at the disposal of the Holy Father, to help and advise him. As a personal prelature of the pope, with Bernard Cardinal Fellay at its head, they would be in a good position to do that. What use do they think they will be as a group of schismatics, who have publicly refused even to discuss the Holy Father with respect?

The bottom line is this. There is no plausible way that a decision to remain in schism could be understood as a favor to the Church. If the SSPX refuses to come back now, they will be acting only to please themselves. In other words, they will be acting as schismatics.

The signs have been looking a bit worrisome, but fortunately there is still time. Bishop Fellay still has an opportunity to be a hero and a real leader of his people. Who can say, until the moment of truth arrives, how much courage lies within a man’s heart? He now controls what will probably be the defining moment for the SSPX in the history of the Church. If they come back now, men like Marcel Lefebvre (and Bernard Fellay) will be remembered by traditional Catholics as people who did, at the end of the day, love Holy Mother Church with a true and faithful love, and whose work did in some measure help to preserve her holy traditions. If they don’t, time will tell, but I suspect they will dwindle and be forgotten, like so many schismatic groups before them. One way or another, it will be a week of great joy, or great sadness, for all Catholics who love tradition.