Regarding the Marriage Debacle in Canada

Regarding the Marriage Debacle in Canada

(Canadian SSPX’ers getting married by the local conciliar priest at a Novus Ordo church, while the SSPX priest looks on.)

 

The Sodalitium Pianum blog has published many articles recounting the tactic by which Menzingen has been inculcating scruples into its own clergy and faithful as a means of driving support for the acceptance of a practical accord with unconverted Rome (e.g., see herehereherehere, and especially here): Convince your people they stand in a “canonically abnormal” situation (while omitting to explain to them why said situation is necessary and justified), and naturally they will want to “normalize” it.  Leave off sermons mentioning the errors of Vatican II and the post-conciliar reform, or the daily scandals of Francis the Destroyer, and your people begin to doubt the existence of a crisis in the Church.

The recent Canadian marriage debacle is a wonderful example of the fruits, effectiveness, and success of this treacherous “weakening campaign” emanating from Menzingen, which has infected nearly all the troops. 

And it is not an isolated case, but rather the new normal:

In France, SSPX faithful who have refused to have their marriages witnessed by SSPX priests receiving a conciliar delegation of faculties were refused marriage; in that same country, Fr. Andre obtains conciliar delegations for all SSPX marriages as a means of avoiding conflict with the local pastors who refuse these scandalous new “pastoral guidelines”; likely, similar procedures for obtaining the conciliar delegation of faculties exists in other SSPX districts as well.

What makes this latest Canadian scandal noteworthy, is that the groom wrote a defense of his decision to be married by a conciliar priest which more or less questions the validity of SSPX marriages: 

“In spite of the cancerous crisis going on in the Church, she stays the One True Church of God, and thus the errors of her representatives do not negate the obligation to follow legitimate requests.  Neither of us were willing to weaken our marriage bonds by operating outside proper regulations.”

Even more surprising was the fact that the SSPX published this letter on its own website, as a rebuttal to scandalized Resistance faithful.  Doing that more or less concedes the correctness of the groom’s comments: “Were we to receive the marriage vows of the bride and groom, their marriage bonds would be ‘weak’ (read “invalid”) for having been performed outside the proper regulations.”

What an embarrassing legalism!  What a denial of the state of necessity!  What a flagrant and blatant contradiction compared to what the SSPX used to teach its couples in marriage class!

I was married in an SSPX chapel in 2007, and before the priest would consent to marry us, we had to sign this 2-page form:

 

 

Let the last sentence from p. 1 sink in:

“Moreover, I insist on my right to receive all the sacraments in an entirely traditional way, and consequently refuse to have my wedding celebrated by a priest who celebrates the new Mass, or in a church in which the new Mass is celebrated.”

Whether or not a variant of this same form is used in the Canadian District is beside the point.  What is relevant is that neither the bride and groom, nor the SSPX, hold to these same objections today: Legalism has robbed them of confidence in their own apologetics. 

The message being sent to those tens of thousands like me who were married on the basis of the sound and solid doctrine of necessity is unmistakable: “You may not be married at all.”

The SSPX surely doubts it.

But it is “sacrificing” us (or so it thinks) for the greater good of having “real” marriages in the future.  And after all, perhaps some of us will come to doubt our marriages too, and come running after the conciliarized SSPX. 

Perhaps the SSPX has not considered the exact opposite reaction is at least as likely:

If you inculcate scruples into those who received “questionable” marriages in your chapels, what is to stop them from running to the conciliar annulment tribunals, despite the SSPX’s pretext of accepting conciliar jurisdiction for marriages to prevent that very thing.

Ironic.

The SSPX has the audacity to blatantly contradict everything it told you and I to convince us our marriages were valid, but hasn’t the candor to admit it publicly. 

Saving face is more important than saving souls.

 

print