Formal Adherence, defined

A term with a clear definition, a Vatican document translated

Dear readers:

“Formal adherence?! Yeah, whatever THAT means!”

I have heard this since July 2, even from people who should know better.

I tried to raise my hand; I interrupted and said that there was a clear meaning; I offered to provide ancient and modern examples of its definition and usage. Crickets. Rolling the eyes.

So, I resort to my Substack. I have translated the Italian (only) document from the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. I used common English/Catholic canonical terminology, which is easily and precisely calqued on the Italian usage. This was not hard, and it should have been done by pundits like Fr. Gerald Murray (and many others) who professed an invisible ignorance of what *formal adherence* might mean. For ease of reading, I included hyperlinks to all the referenced documents, including individual canons in the Code.

Feel free to pass this along to those who repeat such hand-flailing ignorance, but I do warn you, if my experience is indicative: most will simply ignore you and this. I have kept this free, for the sack of easier sharing - and even comments.

---

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_19960824_vescovo-lefebvre_it.html——————————————————-

---

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS

EXPLANATORY NOTE

V. On the Excommunication for Schism Incurred by the Followers of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre’s Movement

Communicationes, 29 [1997] 239–243

Following recent reports in certain media outlets, this Pontifical Council deemed it appropriate to make public an Explanatory Note that it sent to the Congregation for Bishops.

Vatican City, August 24, 1996

Your Most Reverend Eminence,

In a letter dated July 26 of this year, Prot. No. XXX, Your Most Reverend Eminence forwarded to this Pontifical Council a letter from His Excellency Bishop Norbert Brunner of Sion, Switzerland, in which the Bishop, in light of certain confusing press reports, sought an authoritative interpretation of the Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei” and the subsequent Decree of this Congregation concerning the excommunication imposed on Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, the four bishops ordained by him, and Bishop Emeritus Antônio de Castro Mayer. At the same time, Your Eminence requested the opinion of this Dicastery regarding the wording of the reply to be given to the aforementioned prelate.

In this regard, I have the honor to inform you that the issue raised by the Ordinary of Sion does not appear to require an authentic interpretation of either the Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei” of July 2, 1988, or the Decree of this Congregation for Bishops of July 1, 1988, or the relevant canons of the Code of Canon Law: 1364, § 1, and 1382.

In fact, the Bishop bases his request on pastoral considerations, aimed at putting an end to erroneous interpretations, but he offers no evidence suggesting the existence or well-founded likelihood of an authentic dubium iuris in the provisions of the aforementioned documents, which is an indispensable condition for an “authentic interpretation.”

Nevertheless, in order to accommodate the request of this Dicastery, the attached Note offers some considerations and suggestions in the hope that they may be of use for the clarifying response that this Congregation intends to give to the Bishop of Sion.

If, on the other hand, the confusion mentioned by the Prelate in his letter were significant from a pastoral standpoint - not least because it extends to other dioceses and countries where the Lefebvrist movement is active - one might envisage a general declaration by the Holy See, to be prepared in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (cf. Note, n. 5).

I take this opportunity to reaffirm, with profound veneration, my respect for Your Most Reverend Eminence,

Most devotedly,

Julián Herranz, Titular Archbishop of Vertara

President

Marino Maccarelli

Under–Secretary

NOTE

1. From the Motu proprio “Ecclesia Dei” of July 2, 1988, and from the Decree “Dominus Marcellus Lefebvre” of the Congregation for Bishops, dated July 1, 1988, it is shown first and foremost that Archbishop Lefebvre’s schism was declared to be directly related to the episcopal ordinations performed on June 30, 1988, without a papal mandate (cf. CIC, can. 1382). However, it also clearly appears from the aforementioned documents that this most grave act of disobedience constituted the culmination of a progressive, overall situation of a schismatic nature.

2. In fact, n. 4 of the Motu proprio explains what the “doctrinal root of this schismatic act” was, and n. 5c warns that “formal adherence to the schism ” (this being understood to mean “Archbishop Lefebvre’s movement”) would entail the excommunication established by the universal law of the Church (CIC, can. 1364, § 1). The decree of the Congregation for Bishops also makes explicit reference to the “schismatic nature” of the aforementioned episcopal ordinations and recalls the most grave penalty of excommunication that would result from adherence “to the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre.”

3. Unfortunately, the schismatic act that gave rise to the Motu proprio and the Decree has done nothing but bring to completion, in a particularly visible and unequivocal manner, through a most grave formal act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff, a process of separation from the communio hierarchica [translator’s note: hierarchical communion = communion with all the bishops of the world, in submission to the Collegial Head, the Pope]. Until there are changes leading to the restoration of this necessary communio, the entire Lefebvrist movement is to be considered schismatic, as there is a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matter.

4. No judgment can be made on the arguments of Murray’s controversial thesis because it is unknown, and the two articles that mention it appear confusing. In any case, the validity of the excommunications of the bishops declared in the Motu proprio and the Decree cannot reasonably be called into question. In particular, it does not appear that any exculpatory or mitigating circumstances can be found regarding the imputability of the penalty (cf. CIC, canons 1323–1324). As for the state of necessity in which Archbishop Lefebvre believed himself to be, it must be borne in mind that such a state must exist objectively, and that there is never a necessity to ordain bishops against the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of “serving” the Church by attacking its unity in a matter connected with the very foundations of that unity.

5. As stated in Motu proprio n. 5c, the latae sententiae excommunication for schism applies to those who “formally adhere” to said schismatic movement. Although the question of the exact scope of the notion of “formal adherence to schism” should be referred to the competent Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems to this Pontifical Council that such adherence must involve two complementary elements:

a) one of an internal nature, which consists in freely and consciously sharing the substance of the schism - that is, choosing/opting for the followers of Lefebvre in such a way that this choice is placed above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the Magisterium of the Church);

b) another of an external nature, consisting in the outward expression of that choice, the most evident sign of which will be exclusive participation in Lefebvrist “ecclesial” acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (this is, however, not an unambiguous sign, since it is possible for some faithful to take part in the liturgical services of Lefebvre’s followers and yet without sharing their schismatic spirit).

6. In the case of Lefebvrist deacons and priests, it seems beyond doubt that their ministerial activity within the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign that the two requirements mentioned above (in n. 5) are met and that there is therefore formal adherence.

7. In the case of other members of the faithful, however, it is obvious that occasional participation in liturgical acts or activities of the Lefebvrist movement - without adopting the movement’s attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunity - is not sufficient to constitute formal adherence to the movement. In pastoral practice, it may prove more difficult to assess their situation. Above all, one must take into account the person’s intention and the translation of that inner disposition into action. The various situations must therefore be judged on a case-by-case basis by the competent authorities of both the external and internal forums.

8. In any case, it is always necessary to distinguish the moral question regarding the existence or absence of the sin of schism from the legal-penal question regarding the existence of the crime of schism and its consequent sanction. To the latter, the provisions of Book VI of the CIC (including canons 1323–1324) must be applied.

9. It does not seem advisable to further formalize (though the competent Dicastery should be consulted on this matter: cf. Apostolic Constitution “Pastor Bonus", article 52) the requirements for the crime of schism. There is a risk that stricter penal regulations might create more problems by failing to adequately cover all cases: either by excluding cases of substantial schism or by including external behaviors that are not always subjectively schismatic.

10. Again from a pastoral perspective, it would also seem appropriate to further recommend to the sacred Pastors all the norms of the Motu proprio “Ecclesia Dei”, through which the Vicar of Christ urged dialogue and the implementation of the necessary supernatural and human means to facilitate the return of the Lefebvrists to full ecclesial communion.

Vatican City, August 24, 1996