[Question:]{.underline} Some people have stated that Cardinal Ratzinger’s decree overturning the “excommunication” of the Hawaii 6 is not a precedent, and does not apply equally to other Catholics who attend the Society’s Masses. Is this true?
[Answer:]{.underline} It is true that when Our Lady of Fatima chapel in Honolulu was founded in 1987 it was not a part of the Society of Saint Pius X, and that it did invite in some other traditional priests, who were not members of the Society. However, as of 1990 it has been regularly and almost entirely serviced by the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X. Consequently, the faithful whom Bishop Ferrario attempted to declare “excommunicated” on January 18, 1991 were so treated directly on account of their attachment to the Society of Saint Pius X.
This is in fact confirmed by the Formal Canonical Warning itself. Of the three grounds listed in it by Bishop Ferrario, two directly concern the Society. The first does not, being the incorporation of a traditional chapel. The second concerns the radio program “aligning yourselves with the Pius X schismatic movement”. The third directly concerned the visit of Bishop Williamson, one of the Society bishops invited to Hawaii to administer the sacrament of Confirmation. This visit was supposed to have communicated, as if it were an infectious disease, the censure of excommunication: “Whereas on May 1987 (actually 1989) you performed a schismatic act not only by procuring the services of an excommunicated Lefebvre bishop, Richard Williamson, who performed [contra iure]{.underline} illicit confirmation in your chapel, but also by the very association with the aforementioned bishop incurred [ipso facto]{.underline} the grave censure of excommunication”.
When Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith overturned this “excommunication” by a decree dated June 4, 1993, he indicated that he understood that the essential reason was the charge of schism, which was entirely related to procuring the services and association with Bishop Williamson, for this was the only part of the accusation that involved the charge of schism. These were his words: “on the grounds that she had committed the crime of schism and thus had incurred the [latae sententiae]{.underline} penalty”. The Cardinal went on to say that the charge was false, and since Mrs. Morley did not commit this crime of schism the so-called excommunication was null and void.
It is entirely ingenuous to pretend that because she was not a “member” of the Society of Saint Pius X, this decree does not apply to the Society’s faithful. It is only the priests who are members of the Society. The faithful parishioners are all in the exact same situation now as Mrs. Morley was then. They are not members and they do not belong to the Society, any more than she did then. They simply assist at the Masses of priests whose doctrine, integrity, Catholicity and Masses they can trust and depend upon. Cardinal Ratzinger’s decision that Mrs. Morley did not commit a crime of schism by inviting Bishop Williamson for Confirmations and by associating with him, consequently applies just as much to them now as it did to her then.
Answered by Father Peter Scott, SSPX.