here - Our Lady of Good Success Mission

 THE ASSOCIATION OF THE O.L.M.C. FATHERS WITH WILLIAM, a.k.a. AMBROSE, MORAN This study is the continuation of a Theological and Canonical study I have written about the case of William a.k.a. Ambrose Moran‐Dolgorouky, 1 a Schismatic Orthodox, who claims to be a Catholic Bishop, after he has been in association in 2015 with Fathers Joseph Pfeiffer and David Hewko of Our Lady of Mount Carmel (OLMC) Seminary in Boston, KY. After exposing in a first study the falsity of Moran’s identity and claims, this second study will deal with the personal responsibility of the same Fathers in associating with Moran himself. Why write the first study on Moran? It is an understatement to affirm that this Moran case has done and is still doing much harm and producing scandal to the credibility of the Fathers’ organization, and to the Catholic Resistance, especially in North America. Ironically, the Fathers’ association with Moran is worse than any association with the persons the same Fathers claim to combat… Worse than to associate with Bp. Fellay and the neo‐SSPX, who at least condemn ecumenism, but Moran has practiced ecumenism most of his life by continually ‘switching churches’… Worse than to associate with the Sedevacantists, who err in declaring empty the See of Peter, but Moran, like all the Orthodox, denied the dogma of the Pope’s Primacy… Worse than to associate with Novus Ordo people, who claim to belong to the Catholic Church, but Moran, most of his life, has lived comfortably as a Schismatic Orthodox. From the beginning of their association with Moran and until today, I sent many friendly warnings to the Fathers, with the hope of convincing them to backtrack with this association. Also, many Resistance priests (even from the Fathers’ organization, the SSPX‐MC) and faithful have been is disarray about this situation. Some of them wrote to the OLMC Fathers many times to manifest their opposition and asked them to stop this unholy association, but without success. Therefore, in front of the refusal of Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko to stop this association and to denounce Moran, some Resistance priests and laymen asked me last year to do an investigation on Moran, in order to have an opinion from a Resistance priest. I was reluctant to do it, at the point that I delayed several months writing something about it. It was finally in December that I decided to publish the first study on Moran. I had no personal interest or a “hidden agenda” in being involved with this case. I only wished to help the Fathers and to guide the souls scandalized by their attitude. God is my Witness. I was also aware that by writing on these delicate matters perhaps I would have much to lose… that is, maybe to jeopardize a friendship with two confreres whom I appreciated in the past. My first study was not aimed at the Fathers, but mostly to unmask Moran’s identity and claims, not exposing yet the Fathers’ moral involvement with the impostor. But the study carried also a friendly warning to the Fathers, inviting them to clearly dissociate from Moran. 1
A PDF copy of the first study may be downloaded here: http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2015/12/19/a‐theological‐and‐canonical‐study‐on‐the‐case‐of‐william‐edward‐
moran‐dolgorouky‐fr‐juan‐carlos‐ortiz/ 1 If I succeeded in helping them to end their association with such a dangerous impostor, I would have rendered to the Fathers the best service one could do to a friend, as Our Lord says, “If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.” In the meantime, by doing the right thing, the Fathers would have saved their organization and recovered their credibility among Catholics. What was the overall response to my first study among the Resistance? It was positively welcomed by many Resistance priests, including those among the Fathers’ own organization. Also, Resistance lay people greeted the study. Some of them wrote to me to express their gratitude for exposing the deceptions and lies of Moran. Why write a second study on this Moran case? The purpose of the first study was mainly to unmask Moran by gathering all the evidence against his false claims in order TO HELP the Fathers disassociate from him. Intentionally, in my former study, I mentioned the Fathers only once at the beginning in order to simply expose their association with Moran, which was a public, though controversial, fact. 2 Therefore, I was hoping NOT to write a second study about the moral and canonical implications concerning the Fathers themselves in connection this grave case, if only they would have taken the right steps to clearly and completely disassociate from Moran. Hence, my purpose was to let the Fathers write, so to speak, “the last chapter” of Moran’s case by clearing disassociating from a Schismatic. All the Fathers would had to do, after being confronted with the full evidence of facts drawn from the study, was to publicly denounce Moran as not being a Catholic and reject all his other false claims. A clear statement from the Fathers would have definitively manifested that they regretted this association, as being misled by a con man, and would close any door for any future association with Moran. Did not the Fathers manifest a separation from Moran in their November 7th Statement? Actually, as I intend to prove in this document and by their actions, the Fathers never denounced Moran as a Schismatic and they never denounced their association with him as being something wrong. A clear proof that the Fathers did not really dissociate from Moran is that Fr. Pfeiffer publicly dismissed and attacked the proofs presented in my study, and took, once again, the defense of ALL Moran’s claims during a sermon at his Seminary on January 7, 2016, which he claimed to be an “answer” to my study. He emphasized that Moran was “Catholic” (he repeated it four times…), he made clear he regretted nothing of his association with Moran and, once again, he did not mention the REAL reason for their “separation” from Moran in the ambiguous November 7th “Statement”. 2
Additional proof appeared to me after the publication of my first study on Moran corroborating the false identity of Moran: (1) Moran publicly abandoned the Catholic Church in a 1980 Letter, (2) in 2015, while in contact with the Fathers, Moran was posing as the ‘Metropolitan’ of an Orthodox Sect, and that (3) Moran’s “Orders” were not even recognized as valid by the Orthodox themselves. These documents can be found here: http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2016/01/24/concerning‐fr‐joseph‐pfeiffers‐january‐7‐2016‐sermon‐on‐
ambrose‐moran/ http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2016/01/21/owner‐of‐schismatic‐orthodox‐website‐confirmed‐to‐be‐ambrose‐
moran/ http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2016/02/03/more‐concerning‐ambrose‐morans‐priestly‐ordination/ 2 He launched several ‘smokescreens’ to divert the attention from the gravity of his own accountability in this case. I will not dwell on his personal attacks by mocking a confrere, who only wanted to help him, but a confrere he cannot fool… 3 It is revealing that Fr. Pfeiffer, in this sermon, applied to himself all the canonical penalties incurred by MORAN, though I did not affirm them yet in my former study! We wonder if Father was so ‘defensive’ in this sermon because he fears he incurred these penalties by his association with Moran… Hence, there is a necessity of exposing and proving, with this new study, the Fathers’ PERSONAL responsibility, from a canonical and theological perspective, in their association with Moran. In particular, I intend to prove in this study that, in normal times of the Church, Fathers Joseph Pfeiffer and David Hewko would have been accountable and found guilty before Catholic Authorities of: 1) An active participation in a communicatio in sacris (Canon 1258), by allowing Moran, a Schismatic, to celebrate Mass multiple times and hear Confessions at their Seminary Church. 2) Cooperating and allowing Moran to celebrate ‘Mass’ multiple times and hear ‘Confessions’ at their Seminary Church, while he was canonically impeded. 4 Consequently, the Fathers have the grave obligation of dissociating from Moran by publicly denouncing him as a Schismatic and impostor and condemning their own cooperation in Moran’s celebration of invalid Masses and administering invalid absolutions. If these actions are not taken within six months following the first communicatio in sacris, the Fathers would have incurred canonically a formal communicatio in sacris and would be considered suspect of schism. I do not intend here to judge the consciences of Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko, and even of William Moran, because this is the domain of God. Here I am only exposing what has been known publicly and verified by reliable documents and testimonies and judging these actions under the light of Canon Law and Moral Theology. If by mistake I have brought here anything outside of these criteria and proven wrong, I will retract it immediately. 3
Once again, in this “Morangate”, Fr Pfeiffer asked Gregory Taylor, a layman and editor of the Recusant, to be his “theological and canonical expert” on this matter, by asking him to write a “refutation” of my study. What are Taylor’s theological and canonical qualifications? Frankly, I cannot take seriously this Taylor’s prolific nonsense, claiming being a “response” to my study, and I prefer not to give him an importance he does not deserve… 4
Moran was accountable, as I proved in the former study, of the following crimes and penalties which prevented him from exercising any priestly functions (if perchance they were valid): ‐ excommunicated ipso facto and infamous, for publicly adhering to a Schismatic sect (Can. 2314; 2294; 984 §5); ‐ excommunicated for simulating Mass and Confession without having valid Orders (Can. 2322 §1); ‐ if cleric, deposed, for publicly defecting from the Catholic Faith (Can. 188 5°); ‐ irregular, because being a Schismatic, and prohibited to exercise acts of Orders (C. 985); ‐ suspended a divinis for receiving Holy Orders from Schismatics (C. 2372); ‐ suspended and punishable with great penalties, for receiving Holy Orders without the Canonical requirements (C. 2364); ‐ liable of great penalties, for fabricating and falsifying letters and ecclesiastical documents (C. 2362); ‐ punishable with penalties, by illegitimately occupying ecclesiastical authority (‘Archbishop’) and claiming jurisdictional powers (C. 2394). 3 This second study will be divided into four sections: I.
II.
III.
IV.
To expose the EVIDENCE involving the Fathers’ association with Moran; To explain the THEOLOGICAL AND CANONICAL NOTIONS involved in this case; To analyze the MORAL AND CANONICAL CONSEQUENCES of the Fathers’ association; I will arrive at a general CONCLUSION. * * * I.
THE EVIDENCE OF THE O.L.M.C. FATHERS’ ASSOCIATION WITH MORAN In order to establish the personal moral responsibility of the OLMC Fathers in their illicit association with William, a.k.a. Ambrose, Moran, a Schismatic, we need first to gather the evidence of the facts by exposing the chronology of events, including the numerous warnings given to the Fathers by priests and faithful who opposed this association. Before establishing the possible moral and canonical consequences of this association, it is obvious that it will be necessary to reconstruct the chronology of events in order to prove that their association with Moran was known by public acts. The chronology of events shows a progression in the Fathers’ association with Moran. This first started by ignoring him, then establishing contact with him, and finally inviting him to the Seminary where he celebrated ‘Mass’ several times and heard ‘Confessions’. We will also mention the warnings made to the Fathers because true Charity commands us to warn our friends when they are taking a wrong path. 5 I had always in mind, during my personal warnings the Fathers, the recommendations Our Lord gave us on how to proceed in similar cases: “If thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” (Mt. 18:15‐17) 6 One can notice below that several priests and many faithful warned the Fathers multiple times about their association with Moran. All the other priests of the Fathers’ organization have been opposed to this 5
This is one of the spiritual works of Mercy (Charity): “To correct those who err”. (The Baltimore Catechism) They are not true friends who, for fear of losing a friendship or for purely human considerations, do NOT tell their friends the truth in order to bring them to the right path and save their souls. A sign of servile friendship, a carnal friendship, but not a supernatural one, is to accept everything from a friend who is in error, or when he is living in sin. This kind of false friendship, especially in religious Communities, opens the way to a “personality cult” when subjects accept everything from their leaders. It also opens the way to injustices, fanaticism and ultimately to damnation. 6
This is exactly what I tried to do all the time with the Fathers’ situation: 1. To “rebuke” them in private and giving them some warnings concerning their unholy association with Moran, a Schismatic; 2. In front of their refusal to depart from Moran, I referred their case to our bishops and other confreres (“take with thee one or two more”), especially from the Fathers’ own organization, who were also concerned about this situation; 3. After exhausting the first two appeals, I had to refer to the public at large (“tell the church”) because many souls, who were confused and scandalized with this situation, were in need of priestly guidance; 4. Finally, in the impossibility to bring them to reason because they do (“not hear the church”), I have to separate myself from them, because they do not separate themselves from a Schismatic by denouncing him (“let him be to thee as the heathen and publican”). 4 association from the beginning. The only priest who actually followed Fr Pfeiffer in this unholy association has been Fr Hewko, and even sometimes with some qualms... There have been, of course, some faithful who unconditionally are still supporting the Fathers because of this association… These people show rather a blind attachment to the person than to Catholic principles. We know how the same foolish imprudence has created so many disastrous consequences with the Conciliar authorities, and with Bp. Fellay…! It is almost unthinkable that Fr Pfeiffer, in front of the overwhelming evidence against Moran, never wavered in his defense of Moran, and he continues to listen to NO ONE, especially to his fellow priests. Is it Fr. Pfeiffer contra mundum? 1. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS AND WARNINGS. What will follow are the publicly known facts concerning the establishment and the development of the association between the Fathers and Moran because until today the Fathers always shrouded in secrecy and mystery their relations with Moran, sometimes discovering them only at the last moment by the fait accompli. I am convinced that some hidden facts in this case will come to the public in the near future… The most important facts (though with some minor gaps) in this association have been reconstructed either from my personal involvement with them, from reliable sources of priests, or from laypeople who worked closely with the Fathers (including former OLMC seminarians). A. THE FATHERS’ FIRST CONTACTS WITH MORAN. Several reliable accounts affirm that it was Moran who first contacted the Fathers back in April 2015 by leaving several voice messages on their Seminary phone after he discovered Fr. Pfeiffer on the Internet. At the beginning, Fr. Pfeiffer dismissed the messages as “ridiculous”, but it is not clear why much later the same Father changed his mind and finally contacted Moran directly. At that time, Fr. Pfeiffer was already at odds with our two Bishops who were reluctant to help him with the Seminary. So he probably saw in Moran a ‘providential’ arrival, a “Bishop” who will ordain his seminarians and maybe consecrate him a Bishop... The Fathers were free to have Moran as their friend if they wished so, but there is a big difference between a relationship and an association. We may have a friend who is not of our Faith, but you never associate with him in religious matters! The first thing every prudent person should do is to know well a new acquaintance, and especially IF the Fathers planned to request Moran’s “episcopal ministry” in the future, which was foreseeable, as it is manifested by the events that followed. The first time Fr. Pfeiffer told me about Moran was early June 2015. Given that the main claim of Moran was that he was consecrated a Bishop by Cardinal Joseph Slypyj, I searched on the Internet website catholic‐
hierarchy.org, which presents the most complete information about all the Catholic bishops in the world. The result was clear: Moran’s claim concerning Cardinal Slipyj did not appear to be true. His name did not appear on the list of all the Bishops consecrated by the late Cardinal. Also, his name did not appear among the list of Bishops that Card. Slypij consecrated in secret during the Soviet era. Other confreres did the same investigation and arrived at the same conclusion. So, on June 8, 2015, I sent to Fr. Pfeiffer this e‐mail giving him a first warning: This is the official page of Cardinal Slipiy's episcopal consecrations. I don't see any Abp. Ambrose...! Be careful http://www.catholic‐hierarchy.org/bishop/bslipiy.html 5 Then Fr. Pfeiffer, noticing I was bringing evidence against ‘Abp.’ Ambrose’s claims, stopped writing or calling me until this day. From that moment on, Fr. Pfeiffer ignored all my warnings. I had to use Fr. Hewko’s mediation to write to him. Father’s dismissal of any evidence against Moran reveals a lack of honesty, and is very telling in wanting to hear only ‘favorable’ voices about Moran. B. NO SERIOUS CANONICAL INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED. The sad situation which followed would have been averted if the Fathers, from the very beginning, would have conducted a serious canonical investigation regarding Moran’s background, which was NEVER the case. Moran’s life followed such an unusual path and he claimed so many high ‘ecclesiastical dignities’ that Prudence commanded to first verify ALL his claims. 7 At first sight it seems unbelievable that Abp. Lefebvre and all the Traditionalists missed getting acquainted with this “archbishop” for more than 40 years and then, all of a sudden, Moran appears in 2015 from nowhere… offering his “episcopal services” to the Resistance! 8 In any case, a serious investigation about Moran’s claims was needed. A Layman doing the Investigation… In what did the Fathers’ “investigation” on Moran consist? Basically the Fathers consulted several albums with pictures, documents, newspaper clippings ‐ obviously ALL of them provided by Moran himself! When much later some of these documents were released to the public, it was discovered that all the supposed “evidence” brought by Moran to prove his claims was a cunning assortment of false and true elements. Fr. Hewko told Fr. Chazal in November 2015 that they “have been investigating Moran for six months”. It is hard to believe that they never found ANY inconsistency about his claims. ANY… NONE. It was too good to be true! It rather makes suspicious their impartiality in conducting this “investigation”. When we look closer to their “investigation”, there were too many abnormalities. The first abnormality in their “investigation” on Moran was that the Fathers never invited either our two Bishops or other Resistance priests to take part in it. 9 Not only did the Fathers NEVER invite other confreres, but they ALWAYS rejected all the evidence other priests brought against Moran’s claims, calling them “calumnies” or “forged documents” (sic). The second abnormality was that the Fathers imprudently entrusted most of this investigation to Gregory Taylor, a layman and editor of The Recusant. How could a layman, not having any theological and canonical formation, be able to conduct such a delicate inquiry? Taylor produced, at the end of October 2015 (during Moran’s second visit), the “official” result of his investigation on Moran: a nine page document called “Timeline and Objections on Ambrose Moran”, which 7
For instance, Moran claimed he was ordained a priest in 1974 and consecrated a Bishop in 1976 by Cardinal Slipyj, who then appointed him “Archbishop” and chose him as his own successor as the head of all Ukrainian Catholics (sic). In addition, Card. Slipyj supposedly entrusted Moran with the “mission” of assisting the Traditional Latin movement. This is such an unusual path, which normally should create suspicion in any sound mind… 8
Fr. Pfeiffer really believes that Moran is the “new St. Josaphat”, as Moran claimed John Paul II (sic!) called him, and that he is the Bishop who will save his Seminary, the Resistance and the Church! 9
Do the Fathers expect to introduce a new “Bishop” into the Catholic Resistance/Fidelity without informing or asking the opinion of our two Bishops? The absence of this elementary procedure reveals in them a serious lack of trust in our Bishops and the determination of the Fathers to present us with the fait accompli. 6 was sent to the confreres at the beginning of November. I received a copy, which I used as a reference for my two studies on Moran. 10 Today the Fathers and Taylor try to minimize the OFFICIAL character of this investigation, because this work was from the beginning an embarrassing fiasco…! In the email I received from Fr Hewko on November 7, with Taylor’s work attached, we can read these comments from Taylor himself concerning his own “Timeline”: Dear Fathers, Please find attached. I would also add that you probably want to send it to priests first, send a print version not email, and send the relevant certificates and photos along with it too. BTW, I know the name of the document is "Timeline and Objections" and actually contains neither. I realised that that wasn't the best way to go about it... Ironically we can see that Taylor was not proud of his own work… As for the “Objections”? None! Truly, Taylor’s “investigation” reveals a totally biased acceptance of all Moran’s false claims and there is nothing critical in it. It especially reveals his total incompetence on this matter by avoiding searching for the eventual Canonical proofs of Moran’s identity in the real places: the Sacramental Records in the Catholic Dioceses and in Catholic Churches, where Moran’s supposed ordination and episcopal consecration took place. Actually, there are no official records of them in any CATHOLIC institution, either in the United States or in Rome! On the contrary, other people, including myself, verified, for example, with the Ukrainian Catholics in Rome and with the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Toronto that there are no Catholic records of Moran. [See my former study and the new evidence published recently] Concerning the Catholic Dioceses where Moran worked, the ONLY authentic document Moran provided is that he was for two years “on loan”, but he was not incardinated, in the Catholic Ukrainian Eparchy of Toronto from 1975 to 1977, as Fr. Bilinsky from the Toronto Eparchy confirmed to me. However, in the same Eparchy, there is an extremely important Letter from Moran revealing his apostasy from the Catholic Church, announcing candidly he was joining the Orthodox Church in America. The Fathers saw this Letter. 11 Another sign of Taylor’s (and the Fathers’) poor understanding on what constitutes a Canonical proof of the reception of Holy Orders is that they focus too much on pictures, (sic) all provided by Moran himself, though any seminarian studying Canon Law would know this is not a serious proof of valid or licit Orders… [Refer to my former study about the doctored pictures and forged documents presented by Moran] 10
Fr. Pfeiffer paid a trip from London for Taylor to come to the Seminary in order to finalize his investigation by interviewing Moran and analyzing all the documents provided by him. He was also a part of the trip to Chicago which we will mention later. 11
Moran wrote a Letter to the Bishop Borecky of this Eparchy, dated June 30, 1980, asking him for a letter of recommendation (sic!) for joining an Orthodox sect: “I am writing to inform Your Grace that I have submitted to the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Archbishop Theodosius of the Orthodox Church in America in order to regularize myself finally. […] I am in the process of being received into the Orthodox Church in America.” This proof of the official apostasy of Moran from the Catholic Church was KNOWN by Fr. Pfeiffer, but he claims it is a forged document (sic). I received a copy of this Letter from Fr. Bilinsky, of the same Toronto Eparchy and it is in their archives. 7 Taylor and the Fathers also wrongly concluded that because an ordination ceremony is held in a Catholic building, it necessarily means the ordination is “Catholic”. They missed the point regarding the “ecumenical hospitality” practiced by the conciliar clergy in lending their buildings since Vatican II. In addition, Taylor accepts as “normal” Moran’s claim that he has been twice ordained a priest and twice consecrated a bishop… by Orthodox Bishops and by Card. Slipyj! How the Fathers can ‘square’ that with the Catholic Theology on the character of the Sacrament of Orders? As usually happens with any bad investigation, Taylor’s work did not ask the true questions (see my first study), and instead left unanswered too many questions and opened new questions. What is very concerning with Taylor’s poor work is that the OLMC Fathers accepted it as the OFFICIAL conclusion of their investigation! This study is what Fr. Pfeiffer always has been using until today in his defense of Moran’s claims with his confreres, in his conferences to the seminarians and in his sermons. Father Pfeiffer used much later Taylor’s services to try to answer my first study on Moran, but it is so poorly done that reveals all the way his total ignorance on canonical and theological matters... Therefore, the “investigation” performed on Moran by Mr. Taylor on behalf of the Fathers was incomplete, incompetent, inconsistent, biased, and misleading. And despite all the grave deficiencies of this investigation, the Fathers continue until today to defend its content fiercely. Fr. Chazal, a SSPX‐MC member, commented unambiguously on November 16 to Fr. Hewko regarding Taylor’s “investigation” on Moran’s claims: “All this is the typical pathology of a liar”; and Taylor “goes on to tell us that it is because it looks so much like a lie that it is true…” […] “New lies for old, that is why moranists are not replying anything about the old recent lies:” Then, Fr. Chazal refutes point after point what he calls Moran’s “fairy tales”: his double ordination and double episcopal consecration, his association with various Schismatic Orthodox sects, his supposed ecclesiastical dignities, his degrees, etc. 12 The Trip to Chicago. The only investigation Fr. Pfeiffer conducted personally was NOT to verify Moran’s Catholic claims about going to Catholic places, but rather to verify the ‘’validity’ of Moran’s Schismatic (sic) episcopal consecration! He travelled to Chicago on October 27, 2015 with G. Taylor and Pablo Hernández, to meet with Fr. Pitirim, an official of the Holy Protection Cathedral, which is under the control of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church Kyivan Patriarchate in the USA and Canada. [ http://en.uockp.net/parishes.html ] Fr. Pitirim, after seeing Moran’s episcopal consecration certificate, called Moran on the phone. 13 We wonder why Fr. Pitirim did need to call Moran concerning this document… Has he not the record of it in his Orthodox Church? The truth is that Fr. Pfeiffer was very satisfied (sic) with what Fr. Pitirim told him. 14 Let us notice that this visit to Chicago was done during the second visit of Moran to the Seminary and only AFTER Father had allowed him during the two visits to celebrate ‘Mass’ several times and hear ‘Confessions’! 12
The full text of Fr. Chazal’s letter could be found here: http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2015/11/22/e‐mail‐of‐fr‐francois‐chazal‐to‐fr‐david‐hewko‐regarding‐bishop‐
ambrose‐moran/ 13
I have raised in my former study on Moran some grave inconsistencies and abnormalities of this episcopal consecration Certificate, on which we clearly see the alteration of two important dates. 14
It is a vain subterfuge for Fr. Pfeiffer to claim that Abp. Hryhorij (Gregory), who consecrated Moran a “bishop”, was ‘Catholic’ at that time. The same officials from the same Orthodox Church affirm that he was always an Orthodox. Father affirms the same falsity for ‘Bp.’ Nicholas Illnycky, who ordained Moran a ‘priest’. (see my first Study) 8 Fr. Pfeiffer’s attitude here is extremely concerning: 1) Fr. Pfeiffer made this trip to confirm the authenticity of Moran’s episcopal consecration with an Orthodox Schismatic Church (sic)! It is of no avail if Moran claims it was done by ‘Catholic” bishops. When have we heard that Catholic Orders are recorded in Schismatic Churches? 2) Father is only concerned about the “validity” (though never proved) of Moran’s Schismatic episcopal consecration, but he ignores the grave illicitness of this “consecration” performed by Schismatics. He should know that the Church never vouches a priori regarding the validity of Holy Orders conferred outside of Her bosom. 3) Equally concerning is that Fr. Pfeiffer finds “normal” that, in the résumé presented by Moran, he appears twice being ordained a priest and twice being consecrated a Bishop. 15 This not the normal way the Catholic Church operates! As Fr. Chazal pointed out, why would Moran accept to be consecrated Bishop by Schismatics in 1976 after supposedly Slipyj had it done earlier that same year? If Slipyj’s ‘consecration’ in 1976 ever existed, why would Moran accept to be consecrated again in 1976 by supposedly ‘Catholic’ Bishops, as Moran claims? The truth is that Moran either could not prove to the Orthodox he was consecrated Bishop by Slipyj or that the Orthodox deemed Slipyj’s consecration ‘invalid’ because it was done by a Catholic. 4) More concerning is that Fr. Pfeiffer is here more interested in finding the “authenticity” of Moran’s Schismatic consecration and not the supposed Catholic one performed by Slipyj! Indeed, the Fathers never tried to contact the Ukrainian Catholics in Rome, as Mr. Anthony La Rosa did, to verify that there was no ecclesiastical record of Moran’s supposed episcopal consecration by Card. Slipyj. This manner of acting of Fr. Pfeiffer here is extremely concerning, neglecting the Laws and discarding evidence of facts. C. MORAN’S VISITS TO THE SEMINARY (SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER 2015) For several months the Fathers kept secret their growing association with Moran, even to the confreres of their own organization. They finally decided to invite Moran to visit their Seminary in Boston, KY. The first visit was made around September 9‐15, 2015 and the second visit towards the end of October. These visits were not simple acts of courtesy, but rather the purpose was to introduce Moran as the Bishop who will collaborate in the Fathers’ apostolate, though they revealed this agenda to others only gradually. The first visit in September took many people by surprise. Moran was received with all the honor and courtesy due to a ‘real’ Catholic Bishop. As a part of Moran’s introduction to the people at large, during this visit, Fr. Hewko conducted an interview with Moran, which was posted on YouTube. 16 The questions Father asked there were openly sympathetic to Moran’s claims, showing him as a “real” Catholic Bishop. However, the interview left unanswered many questions about Moran’s real identity. Moran gave also a conference to the faithful on September 10, 17 after which some faithful started to suspect something ‘wrong’ with Moran. During the same visit, Moran gave a conference to the seminarians, which the Fathers attended as well. Fr Hewko reported recently to me that he was shocked to hear Moran telling the seminarians that “they 15
As I exposed in my former study, the Schismatic Nicholas Illnycky “ordained” Moran a priest in 1974. Moran also claims to have been ordained a priest in the same year by Card. Slipyj. Then, Moran claims to have been consecrated a Bishop by Slipyj in 1976 and by the Schismatic Orthodox (8 Bishops participated in it…) later in the same year (actually in 1983). 16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk2NnV‐Qtuw 17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg6af9eoQh4 9 should join the Eastern Rite, so that they could be married” (sic). It is surprising that this alarm did not alert the Fathers about Moran… The two visits of Moran to the Seminary would have remained only an imprudent act, without any grave moral and canonical consequences, if only the Fathers would not have invited Moran to celebrate ‘Mass’ several times and hear ‘Confessions’. I will analyze further the canonical and moral consequences of these ‘celebrations’ and ‘Confessions’. Let us reconstruct the facts of these “celebrations”. Every day during Moran’s two visits he was allowed to say “Mass”, and most of the time at the main altar. The most significant of all his “Masses” was on Sunday during the first visit. Moran was totally left in charge of the Seminary on Sunday September 12, the two Fathers being away on their Mass circuits. That day, Moran heard “Confessions,” from seminarians and faithful alike, with the approval of the Fathers. Moran took the advantage to do that day everything he wanted. He asked for the singing of the “Ecce Sacerdos”, which is only said during the visit of the Bishop of the Diocese. He entered with his Crosier, though it was not liturgically allowed. The attendants were perturbed when noticed that he did not say the Nicene Creed, which is always prescribed on Sundays. And more surprisingly, he did not know the Prayers at the foot of the altar and skipped several times the “Dominus vobiscum” (sic), thereby manifesting a serious ignorance of the Latin Liturgy of which he is supposed to be a model…! His Sermon, in which he tries to present himself as a “Catholic” Bishop, was recorded and posted on Youtube. The content of his speech is in line with all the false claims he made in his conferences and in Taylor’s ‘investigation’. 18 When I heard incidentally through CathInfo about Moran’s first visit to the Seminary, I wrote to Fr. Pfeiffer (with CC to Frs. Hewko and Chazal) on September 28 (this was after Moran’s Sermon and interview, which were posted on YouTube on September 25): I read in CathInfo about "Bp" Ambrose Moran coming to your Seminary : "he said the public mass on Sunday the 13th of September. What was strange was that he omitted the Nicene creed which is completely against the rubrics." I hope this is not true. If it's true, you would have lost my confidence in your PRUDENCE. On September 28, I wrote to Fr. Hewko sharing my growing concerns about Moran’s case. Among other things I told him this: […] There are too many things that must lead you to dissociate from him: ‐ Moran never studied in a Traditional Seminary; ‐ We don't know who ordained him a priest; ‐ Even if he was validly ordained a Catholic priest; did you check with any SSPX knowing him? ‐ We have not a proof he was consecrated a Bishop by Card. Slipyj (the picture he provides as a 'proof' discards this possibility) ‐ We don't know the Cyrillic language in which probably most of the documents are written; ‐ Last but not the least, he participated in a COMMUNICATIO IN SACRIS consecrating a Schismatic Bishop with "Abp. Gregory" of Colorado. […] On the same day (this after doing more research on Moran), I wrote a message to all the Fathers’ organization (SSPX‐MC): Dear Fathers, 1) In the very reliable web site Catholic‐Hierarchy we don't find any "Ambrose Moran" among the bishops consecrated by Card. Slipyj, as I have already warned Fr Pfeiffer long time ago. 18
Moran added to his ‘Catholic’ résumé that Card. Slipyj ordained him a priest in 1974 and that Card. Slipyj personally asked him to perform confirmations in the Latin Rite at St. Jude Shrine in Houston, TX. As for the first point, he never provided any Canonical proof of it; as for the second claim, this Shrine is actually a sedevacantist chapel… 10 See this link: http://www.catholic‐hierarchy.org/bishop/bslipiy.html 2) Articles and pictures of the SCHISMATIC episcopal consecration performed in 2008 by Moran and 'Abp' Gregory: http://minds.by/news/88 [Type this : Моран to find his name] 3) The official list of underground bishops consecrated in Ukraine during the Soviet era: http://www.apostolische‐nachfolge.de/Ukraine%20%28English%29.htm Moran is not there... This guy is a con man, an impostor and certainly a good manipulator. All these relations with this 'Bp" Moran are useless, dangerous, imprudent and discrediting your organization and indirectly all the Resistance. Please STOP it now! I suggest you to write a statement saying you are not having any more relation with this guy. And remove the interview Fr. Hewko and Pablo posted on the Net. In the meantime Fr. François Chazal warned the Fathers by asking them to stop their association with Moran. He wrote on October 5 to Fr. Hewko (Fr. Pfeiffer never answered any email from his confreres, even those from his own organization): Fr Ortiz confirms on his side that the pictures forwarded as proofs by "bishop" Ambrose are fakes. Fr Kramer does not trust the man. For my part I think his record clearly indicates he is murky to say the least, and his present speech does not add up to what he pretends to be. Now, perhaps you realise you have made a mistake by joining this man, yet you do not know how to extricate publicly of this situation. That I would understand. it is human. You are not the only clerics who have misstepped these days... That is the best option. Do tell me if it is the case. Then I could temporize. But if it is the other option, namely, that you are sticking to your guns and refuse to cut your relations with this man, then you will be on your own I am afraid. I will be obliged to say that I do not associate with such a bishop in any way, JUST AS I dissociated myself from Bishop Fellay for reasons of Faith and I denounce the silence of mercenary confreres. The deafening public silence of Fr Joe on this could mean either of these two options. I think he is making a mistake by not being straightforward. Being straightforward used to be Fr Joe’s great quality. If he is still pondering, I would understand, but if he has made his decision, even a bad one, he must show his colours, stick to his guns. Anyways, my position is clear. I denounce this Ambrose publicly. He is a liar, and bad at it for that matter, and a danger for the souls. Certa sapienter, Then Fr. Chazal felt forced to go public against the association with Moran by giving a conference on Moran on October 11 in Brisbane, Australia, in which he clearly stated to the faithful that he considers Moran a liar and a fraud and asked his OLMC confreres to stop their association with Moran. His conference, posted on the Net, was very much welcomed with relief by the Resistance. On October 31, Moran gave a short Sermon that was recorded and posted on Internet, but then quickly removed. In it Moran clearly affirms he has come “to erect canonically the Seminary”. This bold affirmation created an embarrassing situation the Fathers did not expect (yet?) to be exposed publicly. But in Moran’s ‘logic,’ it was what really he came to do: to establish canonically the Seminary because he feels he was their ‘canonical bishop’. Did not Moran claim of having a valid ecclesiastical authority granted to him by Card. Slipyj in 1975 and even a “Papal Privilege”? Even if this affirmation of Moran was invoked later, in private, by the Fathers as one of the causes of a ‘separation’ from him, they continue to believe, until today, that he is a valid Catholic ‘bishop’. 11 The same day, October 31, a summary history of Moran’s life and claims, called “Timeline and Objections on Ambrose Moran”, was finished by Gregory Taylor, an English layman and editor of The Recusant. His “investigation”, at the request of Fr. Pfeiffer, was presented as being “factual” concerning Moran. I extensively refuted most of its content in my former study and above in this study.19 This Summary served as the BASIS of Fr. Pfeiffer’s conference to the seminarians on November 3 and later in defending Moran’s claims. On November 6, Fr. Hewko sent Fr. Chazal (and other priests, including me) a copy of this Summary. On November 3, after discovering new evidence against Moran, I wrote the following message, now to the Resistance bishops and many confreres, attaching several documents: Excellences, Dear Fathers, My comments about William aka Ambrose Moran: These documents prove conclusively that Ambrose: 1) is not a Catholic, but a schismatic, because he was made a doubtful bishop by the so‐called Orthodox; 2) is a pathetic liar, when he affirms Card. Slipyj consecrated him a bishop. Therefore, Fr Pfeiffer and every good Catholic must dissociate from him NOW. Anyone attending Moran's ceremonies becomes an accomplice in a communicatio in sacris. I hope Fr Pfeiffer will not cross the red line asking him to give Tonsure and Holy Orders to his seminarians or to consecrate him a Bishop... Let's pray that this will never happen; if so, we must immediately dissociate from Frs Pfeiffer (and Hewko if he follows Fr P). God bless PS: The documents: http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2015/11/01/concerning‐archbishop‐ambrose‐morans‐episcopal‐
consecration/ On the same day, I sent another message to our Bishops, the OLMC Fathers and many Resistance priests concerning the teaching and penalties of the Church for those taking active part in a communicatio in sacris. Instead of listening to the recent warnings from his confreres and faithful, on the same day (November 3), 20 Fr. Pfeiffer gave a conference of one hour and forty‐five minutes (sic) to his seminarians in which, using Taylor’s ‘investigation’, he repeated many times that Ambrose Moran was “a Catholic bishop”. He gave a series of events explaining why he arrived at this conclusion. Apart from the general impression that Father appears in the conference mentally very confused, by not finishing his thoughts, he specifically affirms that Moran is a valid priest, a valid bishop and a Catholic (20’) and that he was never part of the Orthodox Church (26’), though he previously mentioned the different schismatic denominations with which Moran worked (sic!). Also, Father said that if you leave the Catholic Church, you remain a Catholic (sic) (28’), thus denying that heresy and schism separate oneself from the Catholic Church. When a seminarian asked Father if he will ask Moran to do the Ordinations if no other bishop 19
For the record, Fr. Pfeiffer invited this layman to come expressly from England to the United States in order to speak directly to Moran. Needless to say that this kind of delicate work should be done by a priest knowledgeable in Theology and Canon Law and not by a layman, it seems that Fr Pfeiffer appointed Taylor as his personal “theological and canonical adviser”. In addition, Taylor did not have enough time to verify all the information he gathered in this Summary, which he later tries to downplay the importance of… 20
Fr. Pfeiffer was not happy to learn that one his friends posted the audio of this conference on the Net on November 9. 12 is available, he did not answer yes or no, diverting instead to a statement about the differences between Latin and Eastern Rites… It is ironic that after defending Moran so fiercely that day, the Fathers claimed they were separating from Moran only four days later in the ambiguous November 7th Statement… D. THE “STATEMENT OF SEPARATION” FROM MORAN. Feeling the pressure from every side, Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko were about to split with each other on this Morangate. 21 On November 7, the Fathers finally decided to publish a sort of “Statement” of separation from Moran. This is the text of the Statement: November 7th, 2015 Dear faithful, After further investigation, the Seminary of Our Lady of Mount Carmel in Boston, Kentucky, has decided not to associate with Archbishop Ambrose Moran. Please keep our nine seminarians and brothers in your prayers and we thank all who are praying for our apostolate. In Christ the King and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Father Joseph Pfeiffer Father David Hewko Since the publication of this Statement, the Fathers have tried to convince everybody that they have ‘really’ dissociated from Moran. Nothing could be further from the truth… I will show that both the document and the facts contradict the reality of this “dissociation.” Concerning the DOCUMENT: 1) The Fathers are not the original authors of this Statement. It is true they signed it, but the Fathers have prepared ANOTHER longer text in which they tried to justify all that they have done with Moran, and without denouncing him… I know for a fact that two Canadian laymen suggested to them to write a shorter statement; they gave the Fathers the text. After making some changes, the Fathers approved it and had it published. If the Fathers want to show their fairness about their REAL intentions with Moran at that time, I suggest they should publish the original Statement, composed by them. 2) A short analysis of the text reveals some serious inconsistencies. The expression “After further investigation” is not clear… What kind of “further investigation” are they referring to? No one knows… On the contrary, Taylor’s official ‘investigation’, released just a few days before, was ALL favorable to Moran’s claims. If “further investigation” means that they had discovered something ‘wrong’ about Moran, it could only have become known after Fr. Pfeiffer’s November 3 conference (in which he affirmed that nothing was wrong with Moran). The public has the right to know in what consists the findings of this “further investigation”, which moved the Fathers to “disassociate” themselves from Moran! Therefore, this Statement, instead of answering the legitimate concerns of people, opens new unsolved questions… and creates suspicion among the public concerning the Fathers. I know also that the Canadian laymen proposed in their original text not to give any title to Ambrose Moran, but when the text was reviewed by the Fathers, Fr. Hewko insisted on adding the title “Archbishop” to Moran! This is totally misleading, which shows that the Fathers continued to think 21
A priest friend of the Fathers confirmed to me that, at that time, Fr. Hewko asked his advice whether he must leave OLMC following this ‘Morangate’. Unfortunately, this priest did not give the right advice… and Fr. Hewko decided to stay. 13 that Moran was “for real”, a true ‘Catholic Archbishop’. This ecclesiastical title was never granted by the Catholic Church to Moran. 3) The motive for writing the Statement was only incidental. I know from several sources that the real motives behind the Fathers’ Statement were: 1) the public statement of Moran made during his sermon on October 31 regarding coming to “erect canonically the Seminary,” and 2) a certain doubt in the mind of Fr Hewko concerning Moran’s claim of being consecrated a bishop by Card. Slipyj in 1976. 22 Concerning the FACTS: 1) The Fathers did not cut all relations with Moran. The first piece of evidence is that Fr. Pfeiffer continued to alternate celebrating Mass with Moran on different dates at the Mission in Bennet, Colorado after the November 7th Statement. Father was aware of Moran’s visits and had the power of stopping them. Apparently, he stopped them only in the beginning of January 2016 when the case was publicly exposed. These alternations were actually common in the same place before their Statement. Therefore, it seemed “normal” for the faithful to keep inviting Moran, but especially because the Fathers never denounced Moran as being non‐Catholic! Similar invitations happened for Christmas 2015 at the Fathers’ Mission in Minnesota and Arizona. 2) The Fathers never did denounce Moran since their Statement. After their Statement, the Fathers never changed their view concerning that “nothing is wrong” with Moran, despite most of the evidence against this impostor was published in December in my study. Fr. Pfeiffer defended Moran in a sermon he gave on January 7, 2016 when he said forcefully that Moran was “Catholic.” The Fathers feel only embarrassed by some public declarations of Moran, but fundamentally he remains their friend. Therefore, nothing prevents the Fathers from asking Moran for his “services”, especially for Ordinations, if our two Bishops refuse to help them. On November 15, Fr. Hewko gave an ambiguous sermon in which he confirmed their separation from Moran, but the denunciation of the non‐Catholicity of Moran and the regret of the Fathers for their association with him were totally missing… Father, rather, regrets the confusion and the bad reactions among people regarding this association, but he carefully avoids saying that they had done something wrong. This follows the line of the ambiguity of their November 7th Statement. On November 22, Fr. Chazal sent an e‐mail to several faithful (along with a copy of an e‐mail that he had sent to Fr. Hewko) commenting on the November 7th Statement and Fr. Hewko’s sermon. Dear Faithful, Despite my attempts to get clarifications, I cannot guarantee that Kentucky has done a clean break with William Moran. The apologies of Fr Hewko are a step in the right direction, but the last time he corresponded it was to ask reparation from me. This fiasco will only end when both Fathers will recognize William Moran as a liar, a forger, and a schismatic intruder. I hope my imperfect assessment will help, and it will be soon be supplemented by Fr Ortiz study on this case. He is working directly with the officialities and people who have come across William Moran, same as some of you, dear Faithful. […] 22
Fr Hewko’s ‘doubts’ concerning the supposed Moran’s consecration by Card. Slipyj leads him nevertheless, until today, to think that it was never wrong to associate with Moran, that Moran is Catholic with valid Orders, and on the practical level, he approves EVERYTHING Fr. Pfeiffer is doing since. I explained to him recently that in in Moral matters, when in doubt we should NOT act. 14 As for my two confreres, if they perceive what we do in this regard as a vicious attack against themselves and their work, well, that simply confirms a refusal go to the bottom and the truth of this matter and a willingness to make it a personal quarrel which it is not, because these two priest are still much needed to occupy the terrain and serve the souls that are looking for a direction, not added confusion, as the xspx is in its liberal death pangs. Fr Hewko is sorry for the confusion to some extent, so our hope is that he concludes his interminable inquiry and accepts the mountain of truth that has accumulated. As for Fr Pfeiffer, i hope he does not throw me out of the Marian Corps! E. LAST DEVELOPMENTS. At the end of November, during Bp. Faure’s visit to the United States, I personally informed him about the association of the OLMC Fathers with Moran and he was very concerned. In the meantime Fr. Voigt wrote a public statement after leaving OLMC and separating himself from their organization. More recently he exposed the inner causes leading to the Moran case. Also, by the end of the year, several seminarians left the OLMC Seminary, mostly because of the Moran case. Some of them are now studying in Bp. Faure’s Seminary in France. Among the Resistance faithful there has been an overwhelming rejection of Moran. For example, on the most popular Resistance website, CathInfo, the association of the Fathers with Moran became the most commented topic of all times… The majority of posts manifested their opposition to any association with Moran, and helped to gather, from priests and faithful alike, precious information about the real identity of Moran, helped to debunk his claims and exposed the grave misconduct of the Fathers in this case. On December 17 I sent my first study on Moran to Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko. In my message I told them that the study was “not against them”, but rather “to help them” to see the real identity of Moran. Nevertheless, I told them, their “actions have created confusion, scandal and distrust among all of us,” hence the necessity that they dissociate totally and clearly from Moran, by denouncing him as a Schismatic with invalid Orders. Finally, I asked them to tell me “if there is something in my study which is not according to facts and to the Catholic principles, and I will be ready to rectify anything”. Then, I sent the study to our Bishops and all the Resistance priests. It was published later on Ecclesia Militans. 23 Two weeks later, and after hearing nothing from the Fathers, I gave them until January 8 to give me a private response about the study; otherwise I will proceed to publish the second part, exposing their personal involvement in this case. Fr Pfeiffer “answered” it publicly using scorn and irony in his January 7, 2016 sermon, about which I have already commented above. Since the publication of the first study, more and more faithful are realizing that the imposture of Moran was more serious than they expected, and at the same time they wonder why the Fathers continue to defend this con man. As a consequence, some Mass centers have stopped asking the Fathers to visit them, and other groups are divided because of the Fathers’ ambiguous rhetoric used by minimizing their involvement with Moran, or by presenting themselves as ‘victims.’ Now the Fathers launched a smokescreen campaign attacking our Bishops and some Resistance priests, in order to divert the attention from their own responsibility in this Moran case. In the meantime they have tried unsuccessfully to attract on their side some Resistance priests, who are not totally aware of this case. I personally informed some of them about the gravity of this case. Hence, our conviction that this second study is necessary in order to expose, once and for all, their deceits and spirit of division. 23
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2015/12/19/a‐theological‐and‐canonical‐study‐on‐the‐case‐of‐william‐
edward‐moran‐dolgorouky‐fr‐juan‐carlos‐ortiz/ 15 II. THEOLOGICAL AND CANONICAL NOTIONS The association of the OLMC Fathers with Moran is not a matter about some minor or purely ecclesiastical laws; it is about grave matters related with the profession of FAITH. A Catholic professes his Faith first in his heart, then by his mouth and by his own actions. A true Catholic must be aware that his actions must reflect his Faith and vice‐versa. Therefore, it would be tantamount to a denial of the Faith if a Catholic participates actively and formally in a communicatio in sacris with a Schismatic because Schism is both an attack against the Unity of the Church and an implicit denial of Faith. Faith forbids all Catholics to collaborate or to participate in the celebration of a Mass by a non‐Catholic minister, even if the minister is valid, or if it is celebrated in a Catholic Church, or even if the rite used is the Tridentine Latin Mass…! Also, as we will see below, formal communicatio in sacris involves a prohibition grounded, not only in ecclesiastical laws, but in Divine Law, which means that there is a grave matter and that there are no exceptions in any circumstances whatsoever. Finally, the OLMC Fathers, though knowing the Church Laws concerning the prohibition to participate in a communicatio in sacris, by their own initiative, organized Moran’s celebration of multiple ‘Masses’ and hearing of ‘Confessions’ in their Seminary. By that they voluntarily ignored the evidence proving that Moran was not a Catholic and that he was canonically impeded to conduct any ceremony whatever. This is the typical case, in Moral Theology, of affected ignorance. Following the presentation of the facts exposed above (Section I), therefore, we will explain in this Section II several theological and canonical notions in relation with them, which we will present the Fathers’ moral responsibility in Section III: 1) Schism and Suspicion of Schism. 2) Communicatio in Sacris – Participation in [unlawful] sacred things. 3) Affected Ignorance. 1) SCHISM AND SUSPICION OF SCHISM. A. NOTION OF SCHISM. Because we are dealing with William a.k.a. Ambrose Moran, a Schismatic, we need to explain the notion and the gravity of the sin of Schism. St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica (2a 2ae q.39), explains the nature and gravity of Schism: “…the sin of schism is, properly speaking, a special sin, for the reason that the schismatic intends to sever himself from that unity which is the effect of charity: because charity unites not only one person to another with the bond of spiritual love, but also the whole Church in unity of spirit. […] The essence of schism consists in rebelliously disobeying the commandments: and I say "rebelliously," since a schismatic both obstinately scorns the commandments of the Church, and refuses to submit to her judgment. […] St. Jerome says … ‘just as the loss of charity is the road to the loss of faith, according to 1 Timothy 1:6: "From which things," i.e. charity and the like, "some going astray, are turned aside into vain babbling," so too, schism is the road to heresy.’ Wherefore Jerome adds (In Ep. ad Tit. iii, 10) that ‘at the outset it is possible, in a certain respect, to find a difference between schism and heresy: yet there is no 16 schism that does not devise some heresy for itself, that it may appear to have had a [false] reason for separating from the Church.’ (a.1) “…the sin of schism was sometimes more severely punished in that [Jewish] people, because they were inclined to seditions and schisms. […] of all sins committed by man against his neighbor, the sin of schism would seem to be the greatest, because it is opposed to the spiritual good of the multitude. (a. 2) “…the power of jurisdiction … does not remain in heretics and schismatics; and consequently they neither absolve nor excommunicate, nor grant indulgence, nor do anything of the kind, and if they do, it is invalid. (a.3) “…the fitting punishment for schismatics is that they be excommunicated.” (a.4) The Catholic Encyclopedia explains the malice of Schism and the fact that it is often is connected with Heresy: “Schism, therefore, is usually mixed, in which case, considered from a moral standpoint, its perversity is chiefly due to the heresy which forms part of it. In its other aspect and as being purely schism it is contrary to charity and obedience; to the former, because it severs the ties of fraternal charity, to the latter, because the schismatic rebels against the Divinely constituted hierarchy. However, not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command. On the other hand, schism does not necessarily imply adhesion, either public or private, to a dissenting group or a distinct sect, much less the creation of such a group. Anyone becomes a schismatic who, though desiring to remain a Christian, rebels against legitimate authority, without going as far as the rejection of Christianity as a whole, which constitutes the crime of apostasy. […] Some theologians distinguish "active" from "passive" schism. By the former they understand detaching oneself deliberately from the body of the Church, freely renouncing the right to form a part of it. They call passive schism the condition of those whom the Church herself rejects from her bosom by excommunication, inasmuch as they undergo this separation whether they will or no, having deserved it. […] St. Jerome remarks, practically and historically, heresy and schism nearly always go hand in hand; schism leads almost invariably to denial of the papal primacy. Schism, therefore, is usually mixed, in which case, considered from a moral standpoint, its perversity is chiefly due to the heresy which forms part of it. (Vol. 13) Specifically, the so‐called ‘Orthodox’ are not only guilty of the sin of Schism, in attacking the unity of the Church by separating from Her bosom, but also, as Theologians point out, they deny several Dogmas of Faith like the double Procession of the Holy Ghost (the ‘Filioque’), the Primacy of the Sovereign Pontiff and his Infallible Teaching ex Cathedra (1870), the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950) of the Blessed Virgin Mary. B. CANON LAW ON SCHISM. The following are the prescriptions of the Code of Canon Law [1917] concerning the definition and the punishments for the crime of Schism. ● "Any baptized person who, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately […] refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff, or to have communication with the members of the Church subject to the Pope, he is a SCHISMATIC." (Canon 1325, § 2) ● "All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic incur the following penalties: 1. Automatic [ipso facto] excommunication; 17 2. If they have been admonished and do not repent, they shall be deprived of any benefice, dignity, pension, office or other position which they may hold in the Church; they shall be declared infamous, and, if they are members of the clergy, they shall after renewed admonition be deposed." (Canon 2314, § 1) ● "It is forbidden to administer the Sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, even though they err in good faith and ask for them, unless they have first renounced their errors and been reconciled with the Church." (Canon 731, § 2) ● "Notorious adherents of an heretical or schismatic sect, ... or excommunicated persons, ... are deprived of ecclesiastical burial, unless they have before death given some signs of repentance." (Canon 1240) C. SUSPICION OF SCHISM Because our demonstration will involve the denunciation of the Fathers’ suspicion of Schism, we need to explain this notion. The notion of “suspicion of schism” is not expressly mentioned in Canon Law, unlike suspicion of heresy. Should we then conclude that suspicion of schism does not exist and it is not a crime? If suspicion of schism was not to exist, the Church would not be able to condemn those who favor schism, which is the step below those who are declared openly schismatic. The general notion of “suspicion”, in theological and canonical terms, implies that someone, by his actions or words favors an error, whether it be a heresy or schism. Now, the notion of suspicion of schism is commonly used in the Magisterium of the Church and in Theology. 24 In Canon Law we can infer the notion of “suspicion of schism” using what Canonists call the “analogy of law.” The analogy of law or analogia legis is a notion used in Canon Law in the interpretation of the law, by using a similar notion when a situation is not expressly mentioned in it. The following demonstration shows how the notion of suspicion of schism in actually deduced in Canon Law. Heresy, apostasy and schism are mentioned together in Canon Law, as being three particular grievous sins excluding one from the membership of the Church: “§2 After the reception of Baptism, if anyone, retaining the name of Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic Faith, is a heretic; if he completely turns away from the Christian Faith, is an apostate; if finally he refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic.” (Canon 1325) Now, Canon Law declares suspect of heresy those who actively and formally participate in communicatio in sacris with a heretic: 24
St Irenaeus: “Those who leave the successors of the Apostles and assemble in any separated place must be regarded with suspicion or as heretics, as men of evil doctrines, or as schismatics.” (Against the Heresies, 4:26). The Council of Florence, in De Fide Catholica makes an obligation to mention the name of the Pope at Mass for those who convert from Schism, in order: "to remove all suspicion of schism, and to show a sincere union of the members with their head.” (Cf. Encyclical Ex Quo primum of Pope Benedict XIV) 18 “Whoever in any manner willingly and knowingly helps in the promulgation of heresy, or who communicates in things divine [communicatio in sacris] with heretics against the prescription of Canon 1258, is suspected of heresy.” (Can. 2316) 25 Therefore, by using the analogy of the law from the case of heresy, those who actively and formally cooperate in a communicatio in sacris with a Schismatic are liable of suspicion of schism. As we can see, those who participate actively in communicatio in sacris with a schismatic, even if they do not adhere to a schismatic sect, are considered suspect of schism by their formal participation in a schismatic act. In other words, their act implicitly is considered to favor schism. 26 We will show later how these notions apply to the case of the OLMC Fathers. 2) COMMUNICATIO IN SACRIS – PARTICIPATION IN [UNLAWFUL] SACRED THINGS 27 A. Definition. Since we are dealing with a communicatio in sacris of the Fathers with Moran, we need first to explain the notion and the characteristics of the communicatio in sacris according to the Code of Canon Law. Then, we will see what the Canonists and the Holy Office say about the gravity of this sin. Can. 1258 § 1. Haud licitum est fidelibus quovis modo active assistere seu partem habere in sacris acatholicorum. § 2. Tolerari potest praesentia passiva seu materialis, civilis officii vel honoris causa, ob gravem rationem ab Episcopo in casu dubii probandam, in acatholicorum funeribus, nuptiis similibusque sollemniis, dummodo perversionis et scandali periculum absit. § 1. It is unlawful for Catholics to assist actively in any way at, or to take part in, the religious services of non‐Catholics. § 2. A passive or merely material presence may be tolerated, for reasons of civil duty or honor, at funerals, weddings, and similar celebrations, provided no danger of perversion or scandal arises from this assistance. In doubtful cases the reason for assisting must be grave, and recognized as such by the bishop. ● “Communicatio” or Communion does not refer here to the reception of Holy Communion (though it could include it), but it means the act of “participating”, “taking part”, a “union with”. Canonists are unanimous in stating that the communion condemned here concerns only a public ceremony, not a private one. 25
Also, concerning those who do not remove within six months the cause of suspicion of heresy, the Code declares them openly heretics: “One suspected of heresy who having been warned, does not remove the cause of suspicion is prohibited from legitimate acts; if he is a cleric, moreover, the warning having been repeated without effect, he is suspended from things divine; but if within six months from contracting the penalty, the one suspected of heresy does not completely amend himself, let him be considered as a heretic and liable to the penalties for heretics.” (Can. 2315) 26
We could prove that Moran is also a heretic, because most Orthodox deny several Dogmas of the Faith, but we prefer to use the analogy of law, in order to avoid entering now in a longer demonstration. 27
Most of the legislation in the Code of Canon Law (1917) concerning the communicatio in sacris is based on the Bull of Pope Martin V Ad evitanda scandal (1418), the Instructio of Benedict XIV (1719) and of Pius VI’s Encyclical Charitas (1791). 19 “Communication” here is a species of “co‐operation” in evil, which is defined by Moral Theology as “the concurrence of a person in a sinful deed of another.” ● “Unlawful” means a crime (delictum), morally forbidden, sinful. Penalties are attached to those who actively, publicly and formally participate in them (Canon 2316). ● “To assist actively” [active assistere] and “to take part on it” [partem habere] are two expressions which means either an active involvement or a presence in it. They are synonyms with a distinction that the first one implies a closer participation. ● “In sacris”, literally means “in sacred things”, but needs more explanation. Strictly speaking only the Catholic ceremonies are “sacred”. Therefore, all religious ceremonies outside of the Catholic Church are simulations of “sacred things” and rather should be called “religious services”. They also include Catholic rites performed by non‐Catholic ministers (see below). ● “Non‐Catholics” means either non‐Catholics ministers or non‐ministers. These are not Catholics either because either they never belonged to the Catholic Church or because they have been separated by apostasy, heresy, schism or excommunication (Canons 87; 1325 and 2257) (see below). Concerning the toleration in §2 of “a passive or merely material presence”: ‐ Toleration is neither an absolute approbation nor a prohibition; it is a permission to attend a ceremony, which remains evil in itself; ‐ It requires some specific conditions or reasons to justify one’s attendance; hence, not every situation is tolerated. ‐ The reason for attending must be grave. B. Division. The Code of Canon Law divides this participation into either active or passive. Active participation involves some external action in the religious service, which typically includes praying, singing, receiving or venerating ‘sacred’ objects or persons, etc. To play professionally a musical instrument is permitted under certain circumstances. Passive presence of Catholics in non‐Catholic religious services like “civil duty or honor, at funerals, weddings, and similar celebrations” is permitted, “PROVIDED no danger of perversion or scandal arises from this assistance.” And “In doubtful cases the reason for assisting must be grave, and recognized as such by the bishop.” (§ 2). C. Commentaries from Canonists. Many Canonists commented extensively about the notion and the circumstances involving “communicatio in sacris”. 1. Fr. Charles Augustine explains the reasons for this prohibition: “This is the so‐called communicatio in sacris activa cum acatholicis [the participation in sacred things with non‐Catholics]. The reason why the Church has always forbidden such participation in the religious services of non‐Catholics is the intimate conviction that she herself is the only true Church of Christ. Secondary reasons for this prohibition are: the quasi‐approbation of non‐Catholic worship which lies in a Catholic's participation therein and which at the same time is an external profession of faith. The other reason is scandal, which may be given to Catholics who see the mixture of worship and the deference paid to non‐Catholic ministers and functions. Finally there is the danger of perversion, or of gradually 20 increasing religious indifference when the faithful freely and indiscriminately participate in heretical religious services. […] (c) The Holy 'Eucharist may not be received at the hands or in the temples of non‐Catholics, nor are Catholics allowed to assist at the Mass of schismatics; […] […] § 2 permits a passive or merely material assistance at funerals, weddings and similar festivals. […] The present canon only forbids active assistance at, or participation in, the religious services of non‐
Catholics.” (A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, (1921) vol. VI, pp. 192ff) 2. Fr. John R. Bancroft explains the meaning of “non‐Catholics” mentioned in Canon 1258. They are those who: “(1) Have not received valid Baptism of water; (2) those who do not exteriorly manifest a profession of the true Faith; (3) those who are not bound by the bond of Catholic communion… The so‐called Christian of the various sects… are either infidels, that is not validly baptized, or heretics, at least material, depending on whether they have formally or only materially rejected Catholicism (it is common teaching that even material heretics or schismatics are not members of the Church). Not being a member of the Catholic Church is not the same as not being a subject of the Catholic Church. For every validly baptized catholic is de jure a subject of the Church… Communication and participation are used interchangeably.” (Communication in Religious Worship with Non‐Catholics; 1943) Then Fr. Bancroft explains the conditions by which a person incurs moral responsibility for any evil external effect, including communicatio in sacris: 1) The person must, even confusedly, foresee the effect; 2) He must be able not to place the cause or be unable to remove it once it is placed; 3) He must have an obligation NOT to place the cause, and the effect of the cause must be bad both in itself, and by reasons of the obligation to avoid it. He concludes stating that a Catholic sins gravely if he: “asks for or receives a sacrament from a minister who will administer it invalidly, or with doubtful validity, because he directly induces, or co‐operates in an act which is intrinsically wrong.” (p. 19) And he is more specific in saying that this principle applies also to: “worship Catholic in form…under the auspices of a non‐Catholic body…(i.e. Mass by a schismatic priest). It expresses either faith in a false religious body or rebellion against the true Church… Ordinarily communication in the Sacraments with such validly ordained, but schismatic or heretical ministers, even when a Catholic rite is used, involves a betrayal of the Catholic Religion; it implies a recognition of the authority of the minister and the sect.” […] And concerning the Schismatic Orthodox, Fr. Bancroft reminds that: “The Sacred Congregation for the Propaganda of the Faith, in dealing with this matter of communication with heretics or schismatics of the Orient, mentions that it is scarcely any rite among them which is not tainted with some error in the matter of Faith…” (Instructio pro Missionariis Orientalis, 1729) Then, concerning Holy Orders, he states: “Receiving Holy Orders from a non‐Catholic minister has been expressly forbidden. The Holy Office has declared that it is never allowed to receive Sacred Orders from a schismatic or heretical bishop, and that those who did so were irregular, and suspended from the exercise of the orders received. To receive Holy Orders from a non‐Catholic minister is forbidden by the principle of the divine law underlying canon 1258 § 1; it is implicitly forbidden in the prescriptions for a lawful ordination. (Cf. cc. 953‐967) By virtue of 21 canon 2375 those who presume to receive Sacred Orders from notorious heretical or schismatic ministers incur a suspension a divinis reserved to the Apostolic See; those who received orders in good faith from such ministers are deprived of the exercise of the orders until they are dispensed. When an order is exercised, after its exercise has been forbidden by a canonical penalty, according to canon 985, 7°, the guilty person becomes irregular.” (p. 120) Later, Fr. Bancroft affirms that Catholics are expressly forbidden to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass: “…even in places when there are no Catholic priests; the precept of hearing Mass does not oblige when a Catholic priests cannot be had. Iorio says that it is true even when the non‐Catholic priest celebrates Mass in a Catholic rite, for the general law of canon 1258 § 1, prevails, which, according to canon 21, always urges, even if in a particular case danger is not present. But we hold that this prohibition is the re‐statement of the divine law, because formal assistance at a Mass of a non‐Catholic priest is an active participation in unauthorized worship, and an acknowledgment of his ministry and sect.” (p. 117) Finally, Fr Bancroft concludes: “Formal communication in public non‐Catholic worship is intrinsically wrong, and has a multiple morality, being against Faith, Religion and Charity. Hence, canon 1258 § 1, is not merely an ecclesiastical prohibition, but is an expression of the divine law. Active participation in such worship is a formal communication.” (p.140) 3. Fr. Francis Connell, in his book “Co‐operation of Catholics in non‐Catholic religious activities”, remarks that there is communicatio in sacris even when Catholic doctrine is not denied or when a good rite is used in a non‐Catholic function: “It should be emphasized that in designating public non‐Catholic religious rites as sinful, we do not base our argument ultimately on the claim that they necessarily include or imply false doctrine. Usually this is the case, but it can happen that all the doctrines expressed or implied in a non‐Catholic function ‐are perfectly true (for example, in a Mass celebrated by a schismatic priest). Yet, even in that event, the religious function is unlawful, because it is contrary to the order of things established by the Son of God. In the words of Father Bancroft: ‘Even though a form of cult exercised by a non‐Catholic religious body contains nothing false, it is not a legitimate act of religion, because that body has no authority to prescribe and to practice religious acts, as a body existing against the order of things established by Christ.’ [op. cit. p. 14) In other words, Christ deputed only His Church to prescribe and to practice acts of public religious worship, so that public cult unauthorized by the Church is contrary to the will of God.” (p.
4) 28 4. Fr. Ignatius J. Szal treats specifically the case of communicatio in sacris with the Orthodox in his book “The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics”: “Active religious participation with Schismatics is always intrinsically illicit. The reasons for this absolute prohibition of canon 1258, §1, have their origin in the natural and positive divine law. These reasons are: 1) The Church is the only de jure existing true religious society in which it is licit to render to God the worship that is due Him; 2) the giving of scandal through one’s quasi‐approval of a false sect must be avoided; and 3) the danger of perversion from the true Faith must remain effectively neutralized. 28
The prescription of Canon 2261 is not in contradiction with Canon 1258 as Fr Connell points out: “Sometimes, it is true, a Catholic is permitted to receive the ministrations of a non‐Catholic priest. For example, a Catholic in danger of death is allowed to receive the sacrament of Penance from a schismatic priest. However, this is not an exception to the principle just enunciated. For in such a case the schismatic priest is approved by the Church to administer the sacrament, and receives the same jurisdiction that the Church confers in such circumstances on Catholic priests.” (p. 14) 22 “… All types of active religious communication with non‐Catholics are gravely illicit. Such assistance is intrinsically and gravely evil for a) if the worship is non‐Catholic in form …, and b) if the worship is Catholic in form but is undertaken under the auspices of a non‐Catholic body (as in the celebration of Mass by a schismatic priest), it expresses either faith in a false religious body or rebellion against the true Church. “The obligation to avoid exposing oneself to the danger of perversion and to prevent giving scandal to others proceeds from the natural divine law. The positive divine law on the other hand forbids one to perform such an action which would be tantamount to at least an external denial of faith and a quasi‐
profession of a false sect. This prohibition is expressed in the words of our Lord: ‘He that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.’ [Mat. 10:33, Lk 12:9]” (The Catholic University of America Press, pp. 42‐48, 1948) D. Holy Office Legislation on participation in Schismatic worship. The highest tribunal on Doctrinal matters in the Church, the Holy Office, decreed the following concerning specific cases of communicatio in sacris with Schismatics: 1. Even if one cannot find a Catholic priest, one cannot participate in schismatic worship [Col., vol. I, p. 91, n. 267 (1704)]. 2. Even if it is a Catholic rite [Col., vol. I, p. 91, n. 267 (1704)]. Here the question is not whether the worship is Catholic, but whether one can join with schismatics or not. 3. Greek Rite Catholics, when they do not have their own church, cannot go to the Greek rites said by heretics and schismatics, but they should go to the Latin rite [Col., vol. I, p. 231, n. 389, ad 2 (1753)]. (Cf. Craig Allan; The Holy Office on Worship with Non‐Catholics from 1622 to 1939) 3) AFFECTED IGNORANCE. According to Moral Theology when there is involuntary ignorance there is no moral liability and there is no sin. But not every kind of ignorance is involuntary, nor excuses from sin. Theologians teach that affected ignorance does not excuse from morally liability, makes a person culpable, because is voluntary. Hence, we need to know what affected ignorance is, in order to see if the Fathers, despite knowing the facts proving that Moran was a schismatic with no valid Orders, voluntarily discarded the evidence against him and associated with him, especially in a communicatio in sacris. 1. St. Thomas Aquinas. This is how the Angelic Doctor explains the notions of affected ignorance and ignorance of evil choice: “Ignorance is consequent to the act of the will, in so far as ignorance itself is voluntary: and this happens in two ways, in accordance with the two aforesaid modes of voluntary (1a2ae.6.3). First, because the act of the will is brought to bear on the ignorance: as when a man wishes not to know, that he may have an excuse for sin, or that he may not be withheld from sin; according to Job 21:14: “We desire not the knowledge of Thy ways.” And this is called affected ignorance.” Secondly, ignorance is said to be voluntary, when it regards that which one can and ought to know: for in this sense “not to act” and “not to will” are said to be voluntary, as stated above (1a2ae.6.3). And ignorance of this kind happens, either when one does not actually consider what one can and ought to consider; this is called "ignorance of evil choice," and arises from some passion or habit: or when one does not take the trouble to acquire the knowledge which one ought to have; in which sense, ignorance of the general principles of law, which one to know, is voluntary, as being due to negligence. Accordingly, if in either of these ways, ignorance is voluntary, it cannot cause involuntariness simply. 23 (Summa Theologica, Ia 2ae q.6, art. 8, Whether ignorance causes involuntariness?) We will prove later that the Fathers are liable of both cases of voluntary ignorance: affected ignorance when they “wished not to know” the truth about Moran’s real identity by discarding the evidence of the facts; and the ignorance of evil choice, by which they, as priests, “ought to know” that the ‘ministrations’ of Moran in their Seminary were gravely illicit, actually a communicatio in sacris. Following St Thomas’ conclusion, we can affirm that in both cases there is moral liability in the Fathers’ actions. 2. The Catholic Encyclopedia. This excellent Catholic reference explains also in what consists affected ignorance: “When ignorance is deliberately aimed at and fostered, it is said to be affected, not because it is pretended, but rather because it is sought for by the agent so that he may not have to relinquish his purpose.[…] It must not be forgotten that, although vincible ignorance leaves the culpability of a person intact, still it does make the act less voluntary than if it were done with full knowledge. This holds good except perhaps with regard to the sort of ignorance termed affected. Here theologians are not agreed as to whether it increases or diminishes a man's moral liability. The solution is possibly to be had from a consideration of the motive which influences one in choosing purposely to be ignorant. For instance, a man who would refuse to learn the doctrines of the Church from a fear that he would thus find himself compelled to embrace them would certainly be in a bad plight. Still he would be less guilty than the man whose neglect to know the teachings of the Church was inspired by sheer scorn of her authority.” (Article "Ignorance", Vol. 7) In other words, affected ignorance is not invincible ignorance, but rather vincible ignorance. It means a person is morally liable of his acts by deliberately neglecting to know, either the LAW or the FACTS. Now, a Catholic priest cannot ignore the truth of the LAW, namely of the Code of Canon Law, which gravely forbids all Catholics to participate in a communicatio in sacris with non‐Catholics (Can. 1258). The OLMC Fathers studied Canon Law during their Seminary studies; therefore, they are not ignorant of the Law. Concerning the FACTS, the Fathers were presented with all the evidence proving the imposture of Moran’s claims, but they intentionally dismissed it. This attitude, objectively, does not excuse from moral responsibility either. III.
MORAL AND CANONICAL CONSEQUENCES After exposing the evidence of the facts (I) concerning the association of the OLMC Father with Ambrose Moran and the Theological and Canonical notions related to it (II), it remains to explain in section III the Fathers’ Moral and Canonical consequences of this association. We have shown in the first section, concerning the FACTS, that Fathers Joseph Pfeiffer and David Hewko freely asked William “Ambrose” Moran, an Orthodox Schismatic, to celebrate ‘Mass’ multiple times and hear ‘Confessions’ in their Seminary’s Church, which constitute an active communicatio in sacris. Then, in the second section, we have exposed and explained three THEOLOGICAL AND CANONICAL NOTIONS related to these facts: Schism, Communicatio in sacris and Affected Ignorance. It remains to be proven that, given the evidence of the facts and the notions related to them, we can establish a MORAL AND CANONICAL responsibility of the Fathers in this case, for which in normal times the 24 Church authorities would have made the Fathers accountable and found guilty of an active participation in a communicatio in sacris. In order to establish the Fathers' moral and canonical responsibility in this case, we will summarize them in the following seven points: 1. The Fathers were fully aware of the moral and canonical principles concerning the illicitness for Catholics to participate in a communicatio in sacris with non‐Catholics. 2. The Fathers gravely neglected to conduct a formal investigation in order to verify if Moran was a valid and lawful Catholic Bishop. 3. The Fathers willfully discarded all the evidence proving that Ambrose Moran was a Schismatic, that he had no valid Orders, and that he was canonically irregular. 4. The Fathers voluntarily ignored the repeated warnings of reliable priests and laymen, concerning the imposture and pretenses of Moran. 5. The Fathers, on their own initiative, freely invited Moran to celebrate ‘Mass’ several times and hear ‘Confessions’ in their Seminary. 6. The Fathers have the grave obligation to make reparation for their association with Moran. 7. The Fathers, by their active participation in communicatio in sacris with Moran, a Schismatic, in normal times would have been declared suspect of schism by the Catholic authorities. 1. The Fathers were FULLY AWARE of the moral and canonical principles concerning the illicitness for Catholics to participate in a communicatio in sacris with non‐Catholics. The Fathers, as every priest should know by his ecclesiastical formation, were aware that the Code of Canon Law gravely forbids Catholics to participate in an active communicatio in sacris with non‐Catholics (Can. 1258) Were they ‘ignorant’ of this prohibition? Canon Law explicitly affirms that no one, and especially a priest, is excused of penalties because of ignorance of the Church Laws: “§ 2 Ignorance or error concerning a law or a penalty or concerning a personal fact or a notorious fact about another is generally not presumed...” (Canon 16) Also, “Laws that establish a penalty… are subject to strict interpretation.” (Canon 19) A posteriori, the Fathers never affirmed that they ‘ignored’ this prohibition of the Law; they rather voluntarily dismissed the evidence of the facts concerning the false identity of Moran. I personally warned them specifically about the penalties for communicatio in sacris on September 28 after the first visit of Moran to the Seminary. Fr. Pfeiffer’s answer to this warning was a conference he gave to the seminarians affirming a priori, and without proving his affirmation, that the Masses celebrated by Moran during the visit did not enter into this category. He repeated, against the overwhelming proofs to the contrary, that Moran was a Catholic valid bishop. 2. The Fathers GRAVELY NEGLECTED to conduct a formal investigation in order to verify if Moran was a valid and lawful Catholic Bishop. As it was proved above, the Fathers never conducted an impartial and serious canonical investigation concerning the claims of Moran. They neglected to contact the Catholic religious authorities to confirm Moran’s claims, as it is a grave duty for any priest, before allowing anyone to celebrate Mass and administer the Sacraments. The Fathers, instead, entrusted most of this delicate investigation to a layman, unqualified in Theology and Canon Law matters. 25 On the contrary, the Fathers attacked mercilessly the priests and the laymen who tried to help them in this investigation. Personally, the Fathers totally dismissed the result of my investigation which I exposed in my first study regarding Moran’s claims. 3. The Fathers WILLFULLY DISCARDED all the evidence proving that Ambrose Moran was a Schismatic, that he had no valid Orders, and that he was canonically irregular. The Fathers repeatedly rejected all the evidence against Moran’s claims, proving the invalidity of his Orders and his schismatic affiliation with the Orthodox. They have always claimed (and still do until this day) that there is NOTHING in Moran’s Orders or dignities that is unauthentic. The main point here is not that the Fathers ‘believed’ Moran was a Catholic; rather, that the Fathers had all the necessary elements to know that Moran was not a Catholic, and not even a valid bishop, but they rejected the evidence. This is a typical example of affected ignorance, which consists in voluntarily ignoring the principles and discarding the facts in order to act according to one’s own interests. Affected ignorance, as explained earlier, is not invincible ignorance excusing one from moral responsibility; on the contrary, it makes the person morally responsible for his actions. 4. The Fathers VOLUNTARILY IGNORED the repeated warnings of reliable priests and laymen concerning the imposture and pretenses of Moran. We have seen in the exposition of facts that the Fathers ignored repeated warnings from confreres, who unanimously were opposed to their relationship with Moran. This important ‘alarm’ should have been enough to convince the Fathers they were on the wrong path and to listen to qualified people, like priests, on this matter. Worse than that, the Fathers accused these priests of “lying” or of “calumniating” Moran, as we have recorded above. 5. The Fathers, on their own initiative, FREELY INVITED Moran to celebrate ‘Mass’ several times and hear ‘Confessions’ in their Seminary. It was always at the Fathers’ initiative that Moran celebrated ‘Mass’ several times and heard the ‘Confessions’ of seminarians and faithful in their Seminary during the two visits in September and October. They ‘honored’ Moran by allowing him to celebrate Mass at the main altar, even on Sunday, when none of the Fathers was present. This is what constitutes the gravest action for which the Fathers are morally and canonically accountable: their cooperation in an active communicatio in sacris. Before allowing Moran to celebrate Mass and maybe thinking that some people would be shocked in knowing that Moran had been associated with Schismatics, Fr. Pfeiffer affirmed that he asked Moran to say the Creed and make a kind of Profession of Faith. There is a confusing attitude here. Fr Pfeiffer, by acting in this way, is in total contradiction. In no way should he have allowed Moran to celebrate Mass or to hear Confessions in his Seminary. First possibility: If Father had a suspicion that Moran was a Schismatic, as evidenced, for example, by the fact that Father travelled to a Schismatic Church in Chicago to obtain confirmation of Moran’s Orthodox episcopal consecration certificate, he should have LOGICALLY concluded that he could not simply ask Moran to say these two formulas and everything would then be fine… If Moran truly defected from the Catholic Church by his actions (as it was proved), Father has not the power to reconcile him with the Church (except in case of danger of death) because Moran’s crimes are reserved to the Holy See. And even supposing that 26 Father thinks he could reconcile him, Moran is permanently banned from exercising Holy Orders, as Canon Law prescribes, because he received them invalidly from Schismatics (see my former study). Second possibility: If Moran was truly “Catholic”, as the Fathers tried to “sell” to the public, why ask Moran to say these two formulae? This manner of acting actually reveals that the Fathers were, at the least, uncertain about Moran’s Canonical condition. In this case, Moral Theology commands us NOT to act when in DOUBT. Therefore, they should not have allowed Moran to say Mass! 6. The Fathers have the grave obligation TO MAKE REPARATION for their association with Moran. As a consequence, the Fathers are gravely bound, in conscience, to make reparation in two ways: Firstly, given that the communicatio in sacris implies a grave profanation of their Seminary Church, they have the obligation of making public reparation or reconciliation of the Church, for allowing Moran, a Schismatic, to celebrate invalid Masses and hearing invalid Confessions there. (Cf. Canons 1172‐1177) In addition, Canon Law pronounces an excommunication latae sententiae (automatic) in a special manner (speciali modo) for those who simulate the celebration of the Mass or hear Confession (Canon 2322), which was the case with Moran during his two visits to the Seminary. The Fathers were morally accomplice of these invalid actions. The Fathers were also accomplice of acts of idolatry, by inducing those who attended these “masses” to adore and receive bread and wine instead of the Blessed Sacrament. Did Moran consecrate a ciborium, and did the Fathers give away these invalid hosts later? Also, they are accomplices to invalid absolutions. Those penitents who went to “confession” with Moran must confess their sins again in order to obtain a valid absolution. The faithful who participated in these invalid acts did not commit a sin if they were in good faith, not having the means of knowing the imposture of Moran. A public ceremony of reparation must be done by the Fathers, because these invalid acts represent a public profanation of the Sacraments and of the Church, and this by the Fathers’ direct initiative. Moral Theology and Canon Law instruct that a ceremony of reconciliation of the church should be done by following specific prayers prescribed by the Church, BEFORE celebrating any religious ceremony in a desecrated building. In normal times, the local Bishop would have declared an interdict to the Seminary Church, commanding that no priest should be allowed to celebrate Mass inside the Seminary Church until this reconciliation is accomplished. Secondly, since the Fathers’ November 7th Statement was an ambiguous text that did not affirm a real separation from Moran, as I have already proved, the Fathers have the GRAVE OBLIGATION of denouncing Moran as a Schismatic Orthodox and retracting their association with him. As long as the Fathers refuse to make these reparations, it exposes their obstinacy, which constitutes a formal cooperation in the communicatio in sacris and any Catholic should dissociate from the Fathers. 7. The Fathers, by their active participation in communicatio in sacris with Moran, a Schismatic, in normal times would have been declared SUSPECT OF SCHISM by the Catholic authorities. By their active participation in a communicatio in sacris with Moran, the OLMC Fathers are liable of suspicion of schism. (Refer to this notion explained above) Maybe the Fathers will invoke the fact that today there is not among us any ecclesiastical authority having the power of accusing them of suspicion of schism… I do not claim to have canonical authority of passing such a canonical judgment; nevertheless two principles should remain clear for every Catholic in today’s extraordinary situation of the Church: 27 ‐
The state of necessity today does not give anyone the right of departing from the Church Laws, and consequently to get away with impunity after participating actively in a communicatio in sacris; hence, the souls should be warned about this danger; ‐ I proved above that the Canonical notion of suspicion of schism could be legitimately deduced using the analogy of law. Nevertheless, from the principles of Moral Theology itself, we can also form a practical moral judgment concerning the public actions of those who pervert the unity of the Church, by favoring Schism in a communicatio in sacris. In our attitude towards the Conciliar authorities and with Bp. Fellay, we are precisely using the same principles when we denounce these authorities and when we separate from them, though we have no authority to judge them canonically. Consequently, we can make here a practical moral judgment because the defense of our Faith gives us the right to do so. Therefore, as long as the Fathers do not publicly disassociate from Moran by denouncing him as a Schismatic and retracting their association with him, we should consider them suspect of schism because they have not retracted their responsibility in the schismatic and invalid acts Moran performed at the Seminary. They have a grave duty to do so. IV.
CONCLUSION After demonstrating in the above three Sections the moral responsibility of Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko in this Moran case, we arrive now at a general conclusion. All the elements characterizing the Fathers’ moral responsibility with their actions are present here: ‐ Grave Matter: communicatio in sacris; ‐ Full knowledge: the Fathers were aware of the gravity of communicatio in sacris and the moral and canonical penalties attached to this act, but dismissed the evidence that proved Moran as being a Schismatic and an impostor; ‐ Full consent: the Fathers freely invited and provided their full cooperation in such acts, and still today they approve their association with Moran. We conclude by stressing three last points concerning the Fathers’ actions: firstly, on the reasons for making reparation for heir actions, then on the Fathers’ deep causes leading to this Moran case, and finally about what should be our practical attitude towards them. 1. THE REASONS FOR MAKING REPARATION. This is a very serious case, which, for several motives, requires from the Fathers a grave obligation of REPARATION. Firstly, this case demands from the Fathers a grave duty of reparation before God for their actions. It is a grave offense against God to cooperate formally with a Schismatic in a communicatio in sacris (not once, but on multiple times) because it represents a promotion of schism. In addition, the Fathers cooperated in multiple sacrileges by allowing an impostor like Moran to desecrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacrament of Penance, by celebrating and imparting them invalidly. These profanations need reparation. The Fathers have also a grave duty of making reparation before the Church because their actions caused a tremendous scandal among Catholics by introducing Moran, a Schismatic, in our ranks! It is unthinkable to witness two Catholic priests asking for the “religious ministrations” of a man who lived most of his life as a Schismatic, who officially abandoned the Catholic Church in 1980, who was still the ‘head’ of a Schismatic 28 Church in 2015, and who has been “switching churches” for the last 40 years. The Fathers were aware of MOST of these facts, but they voluntarily denied their existence. Our Lord warned us about people like Moran: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (Mt. 7:15) However, the Fathers allowed Moran, a schismatic, to freely operate as a Catholic ‘bishop’ in their Seminary and even in their Missions. Hence, the Fathers truly introduced a “ravenous wolf” like Moran, in the clothing of a ‘bishop’, into the sheepfold! In this, the Fathers gravely failed to protect the faithful from this ravenous wolf, and even worse, became his accomplices. This is characterized as false ecumenism from the Fathers! In addition, the Fathers are giving the honor and respect due only to Catholic Bishops to Moran by calling this impostor ‘archbishop’, as evidenced in the November 7th Statement. The Fathers cannot make Moran “Catholic” by breaking the Laws of the Church without first requesting from him a formal abjuration from his Schism. And even in the event that Moran becomes reconciled with the Church (a thing the Fathers NEVER did), he cannot act as a ‘bishop’ because Moran does not have valid Orders. These grave scandals need reparation. Also, the Fathers have the duty of making reparation within the Resistance and within their own organization, the SSPX‐MC. This Moran case, after undermining the personal credibility of the Fathers, is creating a serious division among its member. It is true that the two Fathers and their unconditional followers do not represent the whole Resistance, but by their reckless actions, they are undermining the principles and the reputation of the Resistance. Most of us reject their actions and are already separated from the Fathers, and will continue to be so until they retract their association with Moran. Hence, one can see the necessity of addressing and denouncing these actions with the two studies on the Moran case. If we are not doing that, there is a grave danger of jeopardizing the principles and unity of the whole Catholic Resistance. We, as Catholics, cannot tolerate that those who claim to be combatting for the Catholic Faith should associate themselves with a proven Schismatic and impostor. This unholy association that affects them directly, risks affecting us indirectly if we do not reject it firmly. Needless to say that this sad situation is solely the result of the Fathers’ OWN grave imprudence and a lack of application of Catholic principles. No one else is to be blamed for it… The Fathers refused to close, as I proposed them to do with the first study, the last chapter of this Moran case by denouncing Moran as a Schismatic and an impostor ‘bishop’, but they are still refusing to clearly retract their association with him; instead, they continue to affirm that Moran is “Catholic” and has valid Orders. We fear that their refusal to denounce Moran NOW, there will be an open door to a renewed public association with Moran in the near future, because this impostor may be being kept on “stand by” in the Fathers’ plans… A further collaboration between them and Moran is easily foreseeable, especially concerning the ‘ordinations’ of their seminarians. Fr. Pfeiffer is obsessed with ordaining them at ANY cost, and Moran may be the one doing the ‘job’. And what will prevent even the episcopal ‘consecration’ of Fr. Pfeiffer by Moran, especially when he continues to affirm that Moran is Catholic with “valid Orders”? If this happens, we risk seeing a ‘breed’ of invalid priests, as Fr. Chazal warned, worse than the Thuc line, roaming around deceiving poor souls, and thus the schism will be openly consummated… This is why, in addition of making reparation for their past wrongdoings, the ONLY way of stopping the escalation of this unholy association is that the Fathers clearly denounce Moran, once and for all. 2. THE DEEP CAUSES BEHIND THE ‘MORANGATE’ We cannot conclude this study, without mentioning the DEEP CAUSES leading the Fathers to their association with Moran, because this is not an isolated case; it is only the “tip of the iceberg”. The Fathers’ 29 unholy association with Moran is only the consequence of specific causes, leading them to such a grave lack of prudential judgment, especially with Fr. Pfeiffer. The following are the main causes we can trace affecting the Fathers’ poor prudential judgment in the Moran case and the whole of their apostolate: 1) Activism in their Apostolate. 2) Self‐complacency in their ‘success’ and abilities. 3) Ambiguity in their speech and actions. 4) A serious disregard for Church Laws. 5) A leaning towards a personality cult. 1) ACTIVISM IN THEIR APOSTOLATE. Activism in the spiritual life is a defect leading the apostle to base his apostolic fruits more on external activity than in cultivating the interior life. No one has better condemned activism and exposed its dangers than Fr. Jean‐Baptiste Chautard in his book “The Soul of the Apostolate”. He quotes the late Cardinal Mermillod, who called activism “the ‘heresy’ of good works”. 29 Fr. Chautard adds this commentary: “He uses this expression to stigmatize the apostle who so far forgets himself as to overlook his secondary and subordinate role, and look only to his own personal activity and talents as a basis for apostolic success.” And later: “these activistic ‘heretics’, for their part, imagine that they are giving greater glory to God in aiming above all at external results.” Then, he concludes: “To reject the truth, or to ignore it in one’s actions, always constitutes an intellectual disorder in doctrine or in practice.” This defect could be found among those priests who are ‘successful’ in their external works of the apostolate. They forget that apostolic success should be judged firstly by the internal transformation of souls, starting with their own souls. The OLMC Fathers, though in different ways, have undeniable qualities, but their activism was ‘fueled’ by the opening of too many Mass centers around the world and by the rapid growth in numbers among their faithful. All of these results, however, are not what characterizes, in the sight of God, real apostolic success. It is more ‘quantity’ than quality which was sought by the Fathers behind the whole of their ‘activistic’ apostolate. As a consequence, they have no lasting fruits in their apostolate. 30 It is true that many men have applied to their Seminary, but great numbers have left as well... After an initial success in 2012 in convincing priests to leave the neo‐SSPX, few confreres have left the Society by the Fathers’ persuasion in the last three years. Also, a deep spiritual work in the faithful is lacking because the Fathers cannot give an appropriate time for the needs of the faithful in each Mission. We witness the same activism among some of them. In other words, the Fathers tried unsuccessfully to reconcile the running of too many Mass centers with the operation of a Seminary. The fact is that neither of them developed in harmony... The obvious result of activism is that, physically and mentally, the apostle gets tired, both his spiritual life and his apostolate suffer, and he finishes by losing the ability of judging and acting in a prudential manner. The proof, in the Moran case, is that the Fathers ignored Catholic principles, dismissed the warnings from others, and finished by crossing many ‘red lines’. Because the OLMC Seminary has been at the center of the ‘Morangate’, I will take the opportunity of addressing here the Fathers’ problems and dysfunctions running it. We all agree that to open a true Catholic 29
‘Heresy’ is used here metaphorically and should not to be understood as a sin against Faith, but rather as a grave defect in conducting the apostolate. 30
Abp. Lefebvre condemned activism many times in the Spiritual Conferences given at Ecône, in which he recommended the strengthening of existing priories and Mass centers, instead of opening too many of them, which would have the consequence of affecting the priests’ spiritual life and weakening the apostolate. 30 Seminary today is of absolute necessity, but it is also a great challenge. And there are fundamental elements that cannot be overlooked, both on the practical level and on the level of principles. The first practical element the Fathers overlooked in running their Seminary was that it is time consuming. How did the Fathers intend to reconcile this serious task with a very busy apostolate outside of the Seminary? One of the Fathers’ ‘solution’ to this problem was to entrust the seminarians to an unqualified layman, Pablo (sic), during their absence… To this problem, we add another practical one, more important, concerning the program of studies. We wonder if a serious curriculum of studies has been used at OLMC, when, for example, geocentrism 31 (sic) seems to be as important as the ecclesiastical subjects... Personally, I never heard of any formal curriculum of studies used at OLMC Seminary… Fr. Voigt, when leaving the Seminary after living there for a few years, exposed publicly the serious problems with the organization of the Seminary, to which Fr. Hewko agreed. However, no real solution was ever taken to solve these problems. Another important element the Fathers disregarded with their Seminary was on the level of principles. When the Fathers opened the Seminary, they should have been aware of the necessity of obtaining first the support of a Bishop, and to expect that he will present some requests, according to Canon Law, before accepting to ordain the seminarians. I know that there were several specific requests presented by Bp. Williamson to OLMC because Fr. Pfeiffer mentioned them to me. They did not seem to me to be ‘unreasonable’. But instead of complying with the Bishop’s requests, Fr. Pfeiffer considered he had the ‘right’ to have his seminarians ordained… It is important to keep in mind that in the Church there is NO ‘RIGHT’ of being ordained, whether the request comes from the Priests presenting the candidates or from the candidates themselves. It is the Church, through the Bishop, who has the last say about it. It is clear that the Fathers wanted to force the Bishop to ordain their seminarians, but without complying with the Bishop’s demands. This was the main cause that began the opposition between Fr. Pfeiffer and Bp. Williamson. Hence, the Fathers’ desperation of finding a ‘bishop’ to ordain their seminarians at any cost. Then came Moran... This is another bad fruit of their activism. The supposed ‘doctrinal’ reasons behind this opposition invoked recently by Fr. Pfeiffer against our Bishops are only new pretexts for escalating this conflict against them. Therefore, it is not true, as Fr. Pfeiffer claims, that our Bishops are ‘opposed’ to the opening of Resistance Seminaries; we can see that Bp. Faure is successfully running one in France. We understand why our Bishops have been reluctant to help him with his Seminary. They fear that Father’s dangerous spirit will be instilled in his seminarians. As for those who left the Seminary, when they were aware of this damaging mentality, several of them shared extensively with me their bad experience at OLMC. Honestly, after seeing how their Seminary has been supporting Moran and that their activistic mentality has been imparted on the seminarians, we think that the best solution would be to close its doors… From now on, we should recommend all young men, thinking of priestly vocations, to apply instead to Bp. Faure’s Seminary in France. 2) SELF‐COMPLACENCY IN THEIR ‘SUCCESS’ AND ABILITIES. Self‐complacency is defined as “self‐satisfaction especially when accompanied by unawareness of dangers or deficiencies”. Self‐complacency is a kind of pride and creates too much self‐reliance on one’s own forces and enterprises. 31
Geocentrism is a theory in Astronomy claiming that the Earth is the center of our planet system, instead of the Sun, and as a consequence, the Sun turns around the Earth and not vice‐versa (Heliocentrism). Actually, both theories are perfectly compatible with our Catholic Faith. 31 Fr. Pfeiffer in particular, encouraged by the apparent ‘success’ in his apostolate, was led to trust excessively on his own personal judgment and decisions to the point of neglecting to consider some prudential principles and by voluntarily avoiding listening to other priests’ warnings. This situation is more aggravated by the fact that Fr. Pfeiffer has no superior; he answers to NO ONE. He started by rejecting the moral authority of our Bishops and he finished by attacking them mercilessly. Fr. Pfeiffer even dared to affirm publicly that Bp. Williamson was inspired by a “demonic spirit’ (sic). By contrast, within his own organization he has lost credibility and the trust of its members to the point that one of them has left the Seminary; the others, working in Asia and Australia, prefer to now conduct their apostolate independently of the OLMC Fathers. Self‐complacency logically leads its victim to ignore his own defects and to criticize others using detraction, calumny and other sins forbidden by the 8th Commandment. Our Lord condemns it when He says: “Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye.” A self‐
complacent person is also unaware of the dangers and deficiencies, inside and outside himself. This defect, we can imagine, has dreadful consequences in the apostolate of a Priest. The apostle, contaminated by self‐complacency, is persuaded of his own ‘infallibility’; he exposes himself more and more to dangerous situations, convinced that he ‘cannot fail’. Even, when he is shown the evidence of his wrong decisions, he refuses to retract his actions and escalates a situation which, humanly speaking, cannot be rectified. We sadly find the same symptoms in the Fathers’ actions surrounding the Moran case. 3) AMBIGUITY IN THEIR SPEECH AND ACTIONS. Ambiguity or double‐tongue is unclear speech capable of being understood in more than one way said with the intent to deceive others. The book of Proverbs condemns it: “I hate … a mouth with a double tongue.” (8:13) and Our Lord as well: “let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.” (Mt. 5:37). A true Catholic, and especially a priest, must always abhor using ambiguity, but this is another defect in which both Fathers finished in excelling… We find it especially after the November 7th Statement when they claimed that they will have “nothing to do” with Moran, that “he is gone”… but at the same time, in the same Statement, they refused to give the reasons why they were separating from Moran. They still called this impostor “Archbishop”. Even after the Statement, Fr. Pfeiffer was alternating with Moran saying Mass in the same Colorado Mission! The irony is that the Fathers, though rightly condemned Bp. Fellay for using ambiguity in his Doctrinal Declaration, constantly use ambiguity in their own speeches and writings! Just as Bp. Fellay apologized for the disturbance caused “on others” by his document while maintaining that there was “nothing wrong” with the DD itself, Father Hewko apologized in his November 15 Sermon for the “trouble” caused among faithful while never acknowledging that their association with Moran was wrong. The Fathers may fool some faithful with little formation and information with their ambiguous rhetoric, but most of the Resistance does not bite. And more and more faithful are withdrawing their support. 32 4) A SERIOUS DISREGARD FOR CHURCH LAWS. The Fathers manifested during this ‘Morangate’ a deliberate and constant disregard for Church Laws. They willfully crossed many ‘red lines’ and ignored all the ‘alarms’ in canonical matters. The Fathers are delusional in imagining that the Church’s state of necessity today would allow them to do ‘whatever’ they want. 32
Since the beginning of the ‘Morangate’, the financial support to OLMC is sharply declining, which apparently is making Fr. Pfeiffer particularly concerned about the ability to continue to support all his numerous trips and expenses around the world. But we fear this sign does not convince him at all that there is something wrong with him… 32 As I have already proved above, the Fathers CANNOT be ignorant of these laws; they willfully disregarded and scorned them, in order to achieve their selfish purpose, by hiring the services of any ‘bishop’ with at least doubtful Orders received outside of the Catholic Church. Basically, for them, the end justifies the means… I have also proved that, according to the Canonists, communicatio in sacris is grounded in Divine Law and not only in ecclesiastical law. Divine Law HAS NO EXCEPTION, unlike purely ecclesiastical law. Therefore, their cooperation in Moran’s desecration of Sacraments is inexcusable whatsoever. The Fathers’ disregard for Church Laws is especially manifested by two grave errors concerning Holy Orders. Firstly, they imagine that all Orders received by the Schismatic Orthodox are a priori valid. Secondly, they think that validity is enough, and do not care for liceity in receiving Orders; a Sacrament illicitly conferred is sinful. We may wonder whether their grave disregard concerning Holy Orders reveals in them a serious deficiency in their knowledge of Theology and Canon Law. Also, the Fathers willfully disregarded the fact that Moran, who joined the Catholic Church in his youth, is still subject to the Church’s Laws. They also willfully disregarded the fact that because Moran received ‘Orders’ outside the Church, even assuming validity, he cannot exercise them because he is forbidden by Canon Law and by the practice of the Church. The Fathers’ ‘amateurism’ in canonical matters led them to accept whatever ‘document’ or ‘proof’ Moran presented to them without seriously verifying his claims, as I did, with the appropriate Catholic officials. I cannot help to recall another serious disregard of Fr. Pfeiffer for Church Laws and Prudence. In 2014, when I was doing some apostolate for the Resistance in Australia, I had to oppose him when he wanted to hire the services of a former novus ordo priest, who had doubtful Orders and nonexistent Traditional Catholic training. It was the opposition of some of the faithful that finally stopped him from imprudently entrusting our faithful to a doubtful and untrained priest. 5) A LEANING TOWARDS A PERSONALITY CULT. All the above mentioned elements converge and lean towards a danger of a personality cult with Fr. Pfeiffer. Some additional elements will confirm this leaning. The first one is Fr. Pfeiffer’s excessive desire for protagonism because he considers himself the ‘Leader’ of the Resistance. This attitude is in clear contrast to that of Abp. Lefebvre, who refused to be labelled as the “leader of Tradition”. Fr. Pfeiffer truly believes he is the Leader of the Resistance, refusing any other person who challenges his leadership, even Bishops. As a result, almost every sermon or conference is immediately posted on the Internet. He has certainly oratorical qualities, but his very recent sermons and conferences betray in him an affinity with Bp. Fellay… His lengthy speeches are confusing, disturbing and especially focused on personal attacks. It seems that he cannot help treating uncharitably other people at the point of destroying their reputation. He can easily be rude, despotic, overbearing with everybody, which betrays an autocratic spirit. He should remember that Charity is the first quality of the Pastor, of which Abp. Lefebvre was always a model, truly attacking errors, but respecting persons, especially those invested with authority. By contrast, Father writes very little, leaving it to the laymen, especially to Gregory Taylor, which makes it difficult to assess and analyze what is in his mind. As a consequence, Fr. Pfeiffer cannot tolerate anyone dissenting from his own personal opinions. He cannot bear opposition from others, even legitimate ones, especially when his ‘apostolic’ qualities are questioned. If you are in his way, he will destroy you, no matter by what means he deems necessary... What a contrast to Abp. Lefebvre, who always allowed his friends to disagree with him in matters of opinion and was eager to listen to others’ suggestions. In line with Fr. Pfeiffer’s serious drifting to control people’s actions is his desire to bind the faithful’s consciences, not in matters of Faith and morals but in matters of opinion or in purely prudential matters, 33 even though he has no authority to impose them on the people’s consciences. The irony is that he is very lax and permissive about his own actions, but with others, including bishops and confreres, he is extremely severe in condemning them… The result of Father’s excessive criticism on other Resistance members is a bitter zeal. It is publicly known that his favorite attacks in recent times have been on some Resistance priests and especially our Bishops, including personal attacks. I remember that almost every time we talked about Resistance matters, there was from Fr. Pfeiffer some severe critique about some confrere… Those who dare to dissent from him, or not think like him, are discredited, accused of ‘betrayal’ and even calumniated. This attitude alienated him not only from most of the Resistance priests and our Bishops, but even the majority of his organization’s priests. By contrast, we do not see Fr. Pfeiffer denouncing recently Pope Francis’ extremely disturbing statements on dogmatic and moral matters. We also do not see Father’s attacks centered, as in the past, on Bp. Fellay’s final preparations for an agreement with Modernist Rome. On the contrary, Father’s main targets are now mostly Resistance bishops and priests and not our real foes… which reveals in him a substantial change in the Resistance combat. And we wonder for whom he is working. Another disturbing attitude is Father’s self‐proclaimed “universal jurisdiction” over the whole Resistance. His activism and self‐centeredness convinced him that nothing should be done in certain countries (even continents) without his approval… I am not speaking about a legitimate right to keep running a Mission started by his organization, but about a desire to dominate all the space, even when he cannot attend all this Missions, and not sharing it with confreres. Personally, he thinks that he has the right to force me to visit regularly his Mass centers in the U.S. and consequently criticized me for not helping him. Fr. Pfeiffer’s manipulation of minds is more evident among lay people. Less prepared in theological matters and having suffered in the past from many disappointments from the Clergy, these faithful, almost instinctively, tend to lend their “absolute trust” towards a leader who looks ‘charismatic’ and has a strong personality, like Fr Pfeiffer. Some of them, however, shared with me their bad experiences and how they escaped from this danger of personality cult. But the ‘unconditional’ ones towards Fr Pfeiffer, especially some angry bloggers, are contaminated with this personality cult towards him and will follow Fr. Pfeiffer WHEREVER he will lead them, no matter the direction... A concerning sign revealing this mentality is that they are creating division among the Resistance groups, attacking other Resistance priests, and even refusing our Bishops to visit the Mass centers… Another sign, revealing a dangerous drifting towards this personality cult mentality, is how Fr. Pfeiffer is using cunningly some laymen to enforce his personal power. For instance, Clergy and faithful, have been disturbed and concerned by how Fr. Pfeiffer has been using Pablo Hernández’ services for years in his Seminary, though it is publicly known that this man does not approach the Sacraments, claims to be an ‘exorcist,’ and has worked most of his life as a worker union official. Those who have lived close enough to Father and Pablo affirm that there is a very close bond among them. Pablo is very much in control of finances and is the person on which Father can always count for the ‘tough’ jobs, using always ruthless methods and his websites to attack Father’s and his own opponents. Equally concerning is the fact the Fathers, during their frequent absence from the Seminary, entrust the seminarians to Pablo’s hands to the point of giving them ‘spiritual conferences’ (sic) and fully running the house when the Fathers are away. All the attempts of Father’s friends begging him to dismiss Pablo have been mysteriously not listened to… In any case, Father gives him FULL support and continually excuses his behavior. Another layman Fr. Pfeiffer uses to consolidate his power is Gregory Taylor, of whom I have already spoken as being the author of the very unprofessional ‘canonical’ investigation on Moran. This Englishman, through his publication, The Recusant, is the Fathers’ penman, using a more ‘styled’ method than Pablo, but 34 he is no less ruthless and committed to the task of defending Fr. Pfeiffer at any cost. He is behind most of the recent grave accusations and disrespectful attacks against Bp. Williamson and several Resistance priests. 33
3. PRACTICAL ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE OLMC FATHERS. What should be the practical attitude of Resistance priests and faithful towards the Fathers as long as they refuse to recant such serious actions on their part? As long as the Fathers have not: (1) denounced Moran as a non‐Catholic, (2) fully and clearly retracted their association with Moran, and (3) made a ceremony of reparation in their desecrated Seminary Church: ‐ No Priest should celebrate Mass in their Church or participate in any religious ceremony therein; ‐ The Faithful should not attend any religious ceremony in that Church; ‐ The Priests and the Faithful have the OBLIGATION of separating from the Fathers’ apostolate by refusing their ministrations, refusing to send vocations to their Seminary, and refusing to support them financially. In normal times the Church authorities would have forced the Fathers to do these things. In our situation this attitude towards the Fathers is a duty of conscience. Otherwise, anyone associating with them, knowingly and willingly, would also be an accomplice to their actions because it would imply collaboration in the Fathers’ association with Moran. The day the Fathers fulfill the three conditions, it would be a FIRST STEP towards a normalization of relations with the rest of the Catholic Resistance. The Fathers would try to divide the Resistance groups by presenting themselves as ‘victims’, but all the facts and the proofs are there for those who honestly want analyze them, no matter how much rhetoric the Fathers use… “Facts are stubborn.” The Fathers are trying to find support among a few Resistance priests who were unaware of the facts, but once these Priests have been informed, no Resistance Priest supports them in this case. Pointedly, Fr. Chazal, in his last edition of Miles Christi (XI ‐ Feb. 2016), is very concerned about the gravity of the situation: “I did all I could to warn Kentucky privately, but I am shivering at the prospect of a misfit bishop [Moran] (and his progeny) going around in such dubious ministrations. Hopefully the Resistance at large rejects the idea, except two (?) priests and a few angry bloggers. Yet after recoiling in late November [2015], and despite the very factual and canonical study of Fr Ortiz, the bird is out the cage, again, in January [2016]. At first I believed that the sole enumeration of W. Moran's claims would suffice, but even the facts and evidences brought by Fr Ortiz are met with rejection and the accusation of evil intent against Fr Pfeiffer, who views our attempts to expose W. Moran as public attacks.” * * * A famous Proverb says: “errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum. It is human to err, but to persevere [in evil] is diabolical.” In other words, everybody in his life makes bad choices and wrongdoings, but it would be worse to refuse to retract them and to choose to persevere on the wrong path. In the first case, there is 33
For those who would invoke the Fathers “good fruits” in their apostolate, we may say that it is not so much important for an apostle to start well, but rather to finish well. The example of Fr. Feeney is to the point. He started an anti‐Liberal work, but finished his life badly, when he gravely misunderstood the meaning of the Dogma “Outside of the Church there is no salvation”. He was condemned by the Holy Office in 1949 and died excommunicated. 35 weakness; in the second, there is stubbornness in evil. God is Merciful with the first, but He is more severe with the second. Consequently, ONLY the Fathers can stop this situation because they are the only ones who created it. Optimistically, I dare to think that NOTHING of the past wrongdoings of the Fathers I mentioned in this study could not have a solution, if they only do the right thing. If the Fathers choose to retract their actions, it will be the first step on the right direction. On the contrary, they could opt for persevering in their denial of having done something wrong with Moran and refuse to apologize and make reparation. In this case, they will have to answer to God for their act because upon this important decision will depend both their own salvation and the salvation of many souls. But, let us be realistic, this decision risks to be a great challenge for the Fathers, for two reasons. The first reason is that to retract what the Fathers have done in this Moran case would demand much humility from them. It is the Catholic spirit to humbly acknowledge one’s own wrongdoings and to do reparation for them. Do the Fathers have the courage to do it? The other reason is that the more time that passes, the Fathers seem more and more reluctant to recant their actions. Fr. Pfeiffer, especially, day after day, is showing no regret and hardening about his personal responsibility in the Moran case. Will the Fathers continue to delay taking this decision? Before publishing this second study, I consulted our confreres about the necessity doing so, and they agreed to it for the common good of the Catholic Resistance/Fidelity. I hope of not having to write a third study on this sad case… Therefore, the eventual solution to this situation is ONLY in the Fathers’ hands… and hearts. We sincerely pray for that. Fr. J.C. Ortiz March 16, 2016 36