The Dispatch: More from CWR...

Let’s not make a deal…at least this deal

To restore SSPX clergy to full communion with Rome while letting them cross their fingers behind their backs on religious freedom (and ecumenism) when they make the profession of faith and take the oath of fidelity would, by a bizarre ultra-traditionalist route, enshrine a “right to dissent” within the Church.

Left: Pope Paul VI presides over a meeting of the Second Vatican Council in St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican in 1963. (CNS photo/Catholic Press Photo); right: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1981 (Wikipedia)

Helping those who have broken away from the Catholic Church come back into full communion is a noble endeavor. But such reconciliations cannot be conducted as if they were the ecclesiastical equivalent of labor negotiations: you give a bit here, we’ll give a bit there. For the only Church unity worthy of the name is unity within the full symphony of Catholic truth.

Which brings us to the rumored reconciliation between the Church and the followers of the late French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. While the Lefebvrists’ complaints about the post-Vatican II liturgy are often thought to be at the heart of their schism, the more fundamental break-points involve the Council’s teaching on the fundamental human right of religious freedom and the Council’s  embrace of ecumenism and interreligious dialogue – including the conciliar affirmation that there are elements of truth and holiness in other Christian communities, and indeed in non-Christian faiths.

Now, according to Archbishop Guido Pozzo, a senior Vatican official involved in discussions with the Lefebvrists, it may be possible to heal the breach Archbishop Lefebvre created by conceding that the teachings of Vatican II do not have the same doctrinal weight. On this scenario, the Lefebvrists would be given a pass on the Council’s affirmation of religious freedom, ecumenism, and interreligious dialogue, and would return to full communion through the mechanism of a “personal prelature,” the same structure that governs Opus Dei.
This is a very, very bad idea.

Vatican II did indeed speak of a “hierarchy of truths” within the one Catholic and apostolic faith. But that does not mean that some of what the Council taught is more-or-less true (which would mean that some of Vatican II is more-or-less false, or at least more-or-less dubious). To speak of a “hierarchy of truths” simply means that some of the truths the Catholic Church teaches are closer to the Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ crucified and risen than other truths the Church teaches.

The Church teaches the truth of the Virgin Birth and the truth of Mary’s Immaculate Conception; both doctrines are true, but the Virgin Birth is closer to the Paschal Mystery than the Immaculate Conception. Similarly, Vatican II taught that divine revelation is real and that religious freedom is a fundamental human right. The reality of divine revelation is a truth closer to the center of the faith than the truth that religious freedom is a right of persons that should be recognized in law; but both are true.

Following the lead of Archbishop Lefebvre, the clergy of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) – the ordained members of the Lefebvrist movement – have long claimed that what the Council taught on religious freedom is false because it contradicted settled Catholic teaching – a claim that has more to do with the agitations of post-1789 French politics than with a serious account of the history of Catholic church-state doctrine. The ground of the SSPX’s rejection of religious freedom is of less importance than the fact of it, however. To restore SSPX clergy to full communion with Rome while letting them cross their fingers behind their backs on religious freedom (and ecumenism) when they make the profession of faith and take the oath of fidelity would, by a bizarre ultra-traditionalist route, enshrine a “right to dissent” within the Church.

And that would make for shipwreck. Such a “right” of “faithful dissent” has long been claimed by Catholic progressives, not least with respect to Humanae Vitae, Paul VI’s encyclical on the appropriate means of regulating fertility, and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, John Paul II’s apostolic letter reaffirming that the Church’s authority to ordain extends only to men. Claims to “faithful dissent” have always been rejected by the Church’s highest teaching authority.

To make a deal with the SSPX and the Lefebvrist movement on Archbishop Pozzo’s premise – that this new personal prelature would be conceded a right to reject certain teachings of the Second Vatican Council – would be to make the symphony of Catholic truth discordant rather than melodic. It would validate even more dissent on the Catholic Left. It would reinforce the notion that doctrine is not about truth, but about power.

And in doing all of that, it would immeasurably damage the New Evangelization.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

About George Weigel 478 Articles
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of Washington's Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies. He is the author of over twenty books, including Witness to Hope: The Biography of Pope John Paul II (1999), The End and the Beginning: Pope John Paul II—The Victory of Freedom, the Last Years, the Legacy (2010), and The Irony of Modern Catholic History: How the Church Rediscovered Itself and Challenged the Modern World to Reform. His most recent books are The Next Pope: The Office of Peter and a Church in Mission (2020), Not Forgotten: Elegies for, and Reminiscences of, a Diverse Cast of Characters, Most of Them Admirable (Ignatius, 2021), and To Sanctify the World: The Vital Legacy of Vatican II (Basic Books, 2022).


  1. Thank you Mr Weigel. A thoughtful article and the ‘Goose and Gander’ common is most apposite. But behind it all is a question that I. as a (hopefully) faithful Catholic who truly believes what the Catholic Church (magisterium) believes and teaches, regarding the nature and status of The Second Vatican Council.
    We are told that it was not a dogmatic council so I presume that means that whatever we believed before remained true and there was no new belief introduced.
    As a Pastoral Council, it’s many documents (some of which appear to be liable to ambiguous interpretations) contained much that was thoughtful and good. We, as I understand, it are to give them (the documents) respect and careful consideration; so is it necessary to assent to everything in them? Although the Novus Ordo was not a ‘Council’ document it would seem to have the same status and after respectful consideration I find it wanting – does that make me a dissident?
    With regard to the SSPX (I hold no desire to follow them nor to wish them ill) are they bound by all the documents of Vatican 2 if they are not dogmatic, or can they legitimately say that they find the documents wanting and therefore are unable to accept parts of them.
    So I suppose what I’m really asking is “Are the documents of Vatican 2 binding on all the faithful and to be held in their entirety?
    This posting probably shows my confusion and ignorance but I don’t think I’m alone. Any clarification you can give will be much appreciated, thank you.
    God bless all who read this.

  2. “Claims to “faithful dissent” have always been rejected by the Church’s highest teaching authority.”

    And yet somehow there are German bishops wanting to bless the vile mock-marriages of persons of the same sex and couples who are shacking up and nobody is telling them to knock it off or face consequences.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.