Legalism vs the Doctrine of Necessity

Renascent Pharisism

Pharisees: The First “Legalists”

A recent article by Chris Jackson took John Salza and Robert Siscoe to task for their condemnation of traditionalist priests who exercise an apostolate without express mission from the Church, noting that the restrictive logic of their argument (i.e., any apostolate exercised without mission is per se illicit) would force many traditional Catholics into a “home alone” position, as many of these latter -both R&R and sedevacantist- understanding that they cannot accept the ministration of doubtful sacraments, would have no choice but to abstain from the public virtue of religion altogether, to the great peril of their souls.

What’s up with these guys, and why are they so zealous to discredit every form of non-conciliarism which attempts to retain the true, preconciliar Catholic religion against a putative authority seemingly bent upon its destruction?

The remote problem, I think (aside from possible issues pertaining to disposition and motive), is one of training: Neither is a theologian, nor has either received a classical formation in Catholic philosophy and theology. On the other hand, both are attorneys, and consequently all their analyses tend to view the Church crisis through the narrow lens of canon law.

But the proximate cause of error (from which all other errors emanate) is the refusal to recognize the existence of a state of grave general spiritual necessity, and what follows therefrom.

But that a state of grave general spiritual necessity exists is rather obvious, and its criteria are objective and ascertainable (whatever Rome might wish to say to the contrary). In short, grave general spiritual necessity is present whenever:

• Many faithful

• Are threatened in spiritual goods

• of great importance (e.g., faith or morals);

• And are without hope of help from their lawful pastors.

Unfortunately, the 1983 CIC and its commentaries, which Siscoe/Salza recognize, are rather truncated in their treatments of necessity, referencing only physical necessity (i.e., danger of physical death). Perhaps this is why they seem not to allow for spiritual necessity? Nevertheless, that grave spiritual necessity exists, and is a cause excusing from obedience to superiors, received copious treatment by the classical theologians, and you can read about it (e.g., here and here, and especially in the works cited therein).

That they continue to view the enduring ecclesial situation primarily through its legal aspects, which in their minds greatly diminishes or constrains what they believe to be the acceptable range of options and/or recourse available to Catholics is the textbook definition of “legalism,” detrimental to souls in that it would have men continue to observe laws and commands written and applicable for normal times, but from which they are dispensed in these extraordinary circumstances (e.g., necessity, near universal apostasy, interregnum, etc.) because as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, “necessity carries within itself its own dispensation.”¹ This is so because jurisdiction is for souls, and not souls for jurisdiction (which would be the case if one continued to insist upon observance of the law despite necessity, which would be rank injustice and therefore contrary to the very purpose of law in the first place).

Ultimately, this unjust juxtaposition would place theology and the Faith at the service of canon law, rather than the other way around. Yet theology (ecclesiology and moral theology) is the source of canon law, and therefore obviously superior to it. In the Catholic Church the tail does not wag the dog!

But that the law is at the service of souls, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches² is exemplified in the biblical story of David, who was dispensed even from the observance of divine positive law when, constrained by starvation (i.e., physical necessity), he ate the loaves of proposition reserved to the priests in the temple, and did not sin. The lesson to be drawn is clear: In necessity, only divine negative law remains (i.e., “Thou shalt not…”), as these things are prohibited because of their intrinsic evil, rather than being evil because they are prohibited.³

So pay no mind to those who would terrorize you with illusory legal censures, in order to dissuade you from fidelity to the faith of all-time. Study your doctrine, because the truth will set you free!

1. SI; I-II, Q.96, A.6

2. “...no principle of law and no sense of equity stands when that which has been salutarily instituted for the advantage of men is turned to their harm [Digesto, cit. in ST; II-I, Q.96, A.6; II-II, Q.60, A.5, ad.2].

3. See here at footnote #5: https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm. Citation is to H. Noldin SJ., Summa Theologiae moralis, vol.I, De Principiis L.III, q.8, 203.