Fr. Feeney and the SSPX

Several weeks ago when the news broke about the potential for consecrations in the SSPX, a friend was expressing his confusion on what seemed like a lifting of an excommunication of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvere (SSPX) without any change to the positions or regret for the consecrations. As we talked, I shared some of the history I knew of Fr. Leonard Feeney, his excommunication and its eventual lifting without change to his "doctrinal" positions. I can only speculate that mercy is what played a significant roll in the lifting of the excommunications.

I was tickled to see Fr. Z make a similar comparison with the discussions of doctrinal stance of the SSPX, and the lack of requirement for Fr. Feeney to recant.

The parallels as I see them:

• Both (the SSPX and Fr. Feeney) recognized a "crisis" in the Hierarchy of the Church regarding traditional Dogmas of the faith.
• Both were excommunicated, according to church documents, for disobedience. At least this is what seems to be the primary cause despite doctrinal difference being a source of contention.
• Both believed that the excommunication was not actually incurred, citing canonical justifications(1).
• Both have had excommunications lifted without the need to recant a position or express regret for the disobedience.
• Both see the lifting of the excommunication in a way that supports their belief that the excommunication was invalid or at least lacking justice.
• Both had some irregularity(2) post lifting of the excommunication.

I think this is where the parallels currently end. Now for some differences(3):

• Who: Fr. Feeney alone was excommunicated, All six bishop involved in the consecrations were excommunicated with the SSPX.
• The disobedience: Feeney, did not go to Rome when summoned, the SSPX proceeded with the consecrations without approval.
• Scale: Feeney's actions primary impacted a regional organization that remains comparatively small to this day. The SSPX has had worldwide presence and influence.
• Succession: Feeney did not appoint a head to replace his effort or maintain an organization. The SSPX consecrated bishops, and is currently planning to do so again.

I believe Fr. Z's point in making a parallel was to show that there exists an opportunity for mercy or pastoral reconciliation, and I think that I also see how that can be the case here in these examples. The use of "excommunication" in this day of "Catholic in name only" public figures, and the twists and turns of thoughts, opinions, and speculations about groups like the SSPX is confusing at best. I am not associated with either of the groups mentioned here in this article, but I do think it is of utmost importance to not add to any barriers against them as it relates to true and complete reconciliation. I pray for Charity, a softening of hearts, the Peace of Christ, and recognition of Christ as King for all involved.

---
1. Canonical Justifications:
SSPX: Canons 1323 & 1324 - The "State of Necessity" for the survival of the Faith overrides the letter of the law.
Feeney: Canon 1723 (1917 Code) - The lack of a formal trial and specific charges made the summons and penalty legally "null."

2. Slaves of the Immaculate Heart, now has three different groups in the United States, two of which have canonical status, and one still with some canonical irregularity. Specific details are beyond the scope of this effort.

3. It should be noted that the SSPX does not agree with the position of Fr. Feeney, and has their own assessment of Feeney's doctrines and excommunication.