Open Letter To Bishop Burbidge

This letter was authored by my blogging colleague at Les Femmes.  It is well-written and her points are well-taken.   I want to expound on the analysis put forth by Father Murray.  He refers to the decree and explanatory notes as a "canonical mess".  I will take it a step further.  Unless those who inhabit the Vatican are a bunch of bungling boobs, they know what they put forth isn't worth the paper on which it was written.  I believe they are bluffing.  Regrettably many good Catholics are swallowing the swill  - hook. line and sinker.

BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE OF ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA

July 13, 2026

Your Excellency,

How grateful I am for your vocation to the priesthood and the privilege of calling you my spiritual Father. We met only once several years ago after Fr. Clarence Trinkle’s funeral at St. John the Baptist. I left by the front door thinking to slip away quietly, but you were standing alone next to the hearse only a few feet away. I stopped, genuflected and kissed your ring, introduced myself, and thanked you. I considered our brief exchange providential and was delighted to receive a personal blessing. I recall that meeting today as I write in grief over the recent decree of excommunication of the SSPX bishops. Since my purpose is not to defend the Society consecrations, I will not address that topic.

What I want to address today is the decree and explanatory note with regard to the laity which imposed canonically invalid punishments on those of us who continue to attend SSPX services. Locally, a priest announced at Mass that those who stop going to the SSPX immediately need take no further action. Those of us who continue to attend are excommunicated and have two levels of action required to be readmitted to the Church depending on our status. His statements and instructions were erroneous and conflict with canon law which illustrates how a problem grows when it begins from error.

Fr. Gerald Murray, a highly respected canon lawyer, called the decree and explanatory note a “canonical mess.” The Dicastery failed to follow the requirements of canon law:

“In the decree, there’s a warning. We call that a canonical warning not to adhere to the schism. That’s (just) a warning.”...“Now, the next question is, what specifically are you supposed to do so that you don’t adhere to a schism? That level of specificity is not given. It has to be an act. It can’t be a mental attitude because you don’t judge the mind of people unless it’s been expressed in words.”...

In other words, the decree did not excommunicate anyone except the six bishops involved. You can’t declare an entire class of people excommunicated and schismatic in an explanatory note. You must without judge their personal actions, not try to read their minds. Fr. Murray continues:

“The confessions of the priests of St. Pius X during the reign of Francis, they got faculties to hear confessions given by Pope Francis, and it was formalized in a decree or a document from the Pope. An act of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in an explanatory note cannot undo what Pope Francis did.”...

So the confessions and marriages conducted by the SSPX continue to be valid. Pope Francis’ permissions must be expressly revoked and they have not been. Again, Fr. Murray continues:

“The document about the laity, it basically assumes that lay people who attend Mass at the St. Pius X society on a regular basis or belong to one of their organizations are out of full communion with the Church and need to be reconciled and brought back into full communion with the Church. But wait a minute. They haven’t been excommunicated. Therefore, they’re not under a canonical penalty that affects their full communion, and the idea that you lose full communion because you agree with some of the things that the society says, that’s not good enough.”

Fr. Murray is not the only canonist pointing out the errors and inconsistencies in the documents promulgated by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF). An anonymous canonist explained it clearly on the Rorate Caeli website which Fr. John Zuhlsdorf summarized on his popular blog read by many Catholic laity. Most of those attending SSPX chapels are well catechized and informed Catholics aware that the documents created a “canonical mess.” The actions also seem in bad faith intended to expel all those associated with the SSPX as too troublesome to care about. I hope that’s untrue.

In 1991, Bishop Joseph Anthony Ferrario of Honolulu excommunicated and declared schismatic six lay persons who arranged for the SSPX to celebrate the sacrament of confirmation for their children. They appealed to Rome and the bishop’s abuse of his authority was overturned by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith whose head was Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI. The letter to the bishop stated:

“From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1, 1991 lacks foundation and hence validity.”

How can the laity possibly be excommunicated today for essentially doing the same thing the Hawaii six did in 1991? Attending the Masses and receiving the sacraments from the SSPX is not a schismatic act justifying a class action excommunication of the lay faithful.

What is happening at present in the Diocese of Arlington (and other places in the country) with respect to faithful sons and daughters of the Church is unjust, and uncharitable. Announcing that we are excommunicated and in schism is also untrue according to canon law. The decree and explanatory note remind me of Roe v. Wade, one of the most unjust court decisions in history. The justices found the right to murder the unborn in the “penumbra” of the Constitution. Apparently, Pope Leo and Cardinal Fernandez have found the right to abort the lay faithful in the penumbra of canon law.

Your Excellency, I beg you to reconsider the sledgehammer approach to the faithful. I have seen no reduction of the laity attending the chapel in the weeks since the release of the decree. The only result of promulgating this error-filled abuse of canon law can be further mistrust of our shepherds. Most of those who attend the Traditional Latin Mass are already evicted from churches we’ve supported with our time, talent, and treasure. Now, not only are we evicted physically, but we are spiritual outcasts whose canon law rights are ignored. And to whom can we appeal since the DDF is the perpetrator of the injustice?

We turn to you, Your Excellency, hoping and praying that you will be a voice of truth loving your sons and daughters enough to defend us against this unjust and cruel treatment. I pray for you every day when I say the rosary and when I go to the chapel holy hour for priests on Fridays. Our chapel prays for you and Pope Leo at every Mass. To whom else shall we turn for justice and mercy if not to our spiritual fathers? Please correct the errors and instruct all the priests of the diocese not to mislead the flock about the current situation. The laity have the right to be told the truth. We are neither excommunicated nor in schism and we may still receive the sacraments of Confession and Matrimony from SSPX priests. The situation is tragic enough without spreading error. Please correct the situation for the good of the souls for whom you are responsible.

Sincerely in Christ Jesus,

Mary Ann Kreitzer

copy to:

Apostolic Nuncio Archbishop Gabriele Giordano Caccia
Selected priests in the Diocese of Arlington

LETTER TO THE APOSTOLIC NUNCIO OF THE UNITED STATES

Most Reverend Gabriele Giordano Caccia
Apostolic Nuncio of the United States
3339 Massachusetts Avenue N.W,
Washington, D.C, U.S.

Your Excellency:

Please find enclosed a letter I wrote to my ordinary, Most Rev. Michael Burbidge, Bishop of Arlington, VA and published as an Open Letter. At present some of the priests of the diocese, with the approbation of the bishop, are telling their congregations that those who attend SSPX chapels are excommunicated unless they immediately stop attending. We are also being described as schismatic. In addition, the diocese is saying we must meet certain conditions to return to the Church.

The accusation is false. My husband and I attend the SSPX chapel in Linden, VA, but we have not left the Church. We simply want to practice the faith as it was taught by the apostles, martyrs, saints, and doctors of the Church without novelties and errors. We accept all the teachings of Holy Mother Church taught through Scripture and Sacred Tradition. We honor the Holy Father and accept all those papal pronouncements that accord with the faith as taught through the millennia.

We request that we and thousands of other lay persons attending Society chapels be assured that we are neither excommunicated nor in schism. We also request that Bishop Burbidge be instructed to stop his priests from upsetting the faithful by spreading the canonically false statements that we are outside the Church as excommunicated schismatics. That accusation is neither true nor charitable.

Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

Sincerely in Christ,

Mary Ann Kreitzer

Copy to: Most Reverend Michael Burbidge

The Double Standard Of Rome

A decent synopsis of recent events.  The denizens who currently skulk around the Vatican these days are actively striving to deconstruct the Faith.  While they will ultimately fail, in the meantime they lead millions of souls into hell.  This is why we must not only pray and seek holiness ourselves, but we must speak truth to power.

Paraphrasing one wag: "If the current Vatican didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all."

Embryo Adoption

 

There is no small amount of debate in pro-life circles regarding the fate of children already conceived via in-vitro fertilization (IVF).  While we all condemn the process of IVF as grossly immoral, that doesn't erase our duty of care to those children already conceived via IVF.  They are innocent of the crime behind their conception, just as is the innocent child conceived via rape or incest.  The article below touches upon this matter.  The Defend Life publication to which the authors refer can be found at the Defend Life website and clicking on "newsletters" on the left side bar.

Wake Up, Pro-Lifers! Embryo Adoption is Morally Licit!

The Church Calls Abandoned Embryos "Orphans"; Defends Embryo Transfer as "Licit"; and Promotes "Prenatal Adoption" as "Praiseworthy"!

 

We are responding to Dr. Monica Miller's very troubling comments in the June 2026 issue of Defend Life. Unfortunately, Dr. Miller, like Fr. Tad Pacholczyk at The National Catholic Bioethics Center, is strongly opposed to Embryo Adoption (EA) and both argue that Dignitas personae 19 has already condemned Embryo Adoption (EA). This is a flawed conclusion. 

 

What Dignitas personae 19 actually condemns as "ethically unacceptable" is allowing "infertile couples" to use – and destroy - leftover frozen human embryos as a "fertility treatment" that is commonly referred to as "Three-Parent IVF" – also known as Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy (MRT) – that artificially creates an embryo using DNA from two mothers and one father. MRT is "heterologous procreation" and a new form of "surrogacy".

 

After condemning MRT as a destructive use of frozen embryos by "infertile couples" as an immoral "treatment for infertility", DP 19 then starts a new paragraph and mentions the proposal of prenatal adoption for the first time:

 

            "It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of 'prenatal adoption'. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however, various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above." 

 

Dr. Miller incorrectly claims that the article in the March-April newsletter "totally misquoted DP 19" and wrongly concludes that "DP teaches that EA is not a moral option." She focuses on "various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above." But a careful reading of the "various problems" in the previous paragraph identifies them as "problems of a medical, psychological, and legal nature". These are not moral problems, and, regrettably, it is Dr. Miller herself – and Fr. Tad - who are stubbornly misrepresenting DP 19. 

 

In DP 18, Pope Benedict XVI himself refers to frozen embryos as "orphans":

 

            "The majority of embryos that are not used remain 'orphans'. Their parents do not ask for them and at times all trace of the parents is lost."

 

And importantly, why does Dr. Miller – and Fr. Tad – overlook Donum vitae I, 3 that is magisterially cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2275?

 

"Are Therapeutic Procedures Carried Out on the Human Embryo Licit? 

            As with all medical interventions on patients, one must uphold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it but are directed towards its healing, the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."

 

            The Blessed Mother has asked pro-lifers to "Wake Up" many times in her messages. "Women Against the Killing and Exploitation of Unprotected Persons" was founded because of her urgent messages to stop the "Killing and Exploitation of Unprotected Persons." 

 

Who could be more unprotected than a frozen and orphaned human embryo?

 

 

Dr. Elizabeth B. Rex, MBA, PhD, ThD (cand.)

Catholic Bioethicist

Associate Scholar, The Charlotte Lozier Institute

President, The Donum Vitae Institute

Mobile: 914-629-3710

 

Missy Reilly Smith

Foundress and President

WAKEUP 

Women Against the Killing and Exploitation of

Unprotected Persons

wakeup.mom

202 288-4984

Are You Excommunicated?

It is held that a heretic cannot excommunicate anyone.  Does heresy reside in the Vatican to such a degree that very few prelates there are incapable o pronouncing excommunication?  The previous post stated that Tucho's attempt at excommunication would at least required a papal mandate in order for it to be effective.  So the question is whether or not the pope pronounced heresy so as to render any excommunication attempt null and void.

One thing that came immediately to mind is the pope's reckless declarations that the death penalty is intrinsically evil.  Actually, Pope Francis is the first to utter that nonsense, but Leo stands by it.  A good treatment of this subject, along with a list of the heresies being espoused by this pope, is here.

There is much confusion about who is excommunicated and who isn't, it seems.  Therefore I was glad to see this handy little chart during my travels through the internet.  Yes, it's tongue in cheek, as it were.  However, it is really quite accurate.

I hope this helps!

SSPX Excommunicated - Or Are They?

The text of the Decree of Excommunication and the Explanatory Note issued on July 2, 2026 by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith is published on Rorate Caeli's site (and doubtless elsewhere as well). 

Today Rorate published a canonical analysis of this decree by the Canon of Shaftsbury, who concluded that this decree, at canon law, accomplished no excommunications.  He points out that a dicastery, by itself, has no authority to pronounce excommunication.  A papal grant to do so must be issued, and no such grant was cited in the decree.  He also states that the excommunication pronounced upon the SSPX clergy in general did not follow proper due process.  Excommunication is not a saber that prelates may rattle in their sabers at will.  Proper procedures exist to ensure that excommunications cannot be tossed hither and yon in some willy-nilly manner.

Relevant canons are canon 1387, canon 1364, canon 751, canon 1720, canon 1341. 

On the July 3rd episode of the Prayerful Posse, Father Gerald Muray, a canon lawyer, offered his thoughts on the two documents.  It is clear that the six bishops are excommunicated.  Causing confusion is the phrase "adhering to the schism".  What does that portend for the 700+ priests of the SSPX and the laity who attend the SSPX?  

The decree itself stated that the bishops were excommunicated, but said nothing of the priests or laity.  It is the explanatory note that broached that topic.  However, explanatory notes cannot add to decrees.  Moreover, only acts can be actionable, not attitudes or mindsets. It would seem, therefore, that the phrase "adhering to schism" is quite irrelevant and meaningless when it comes to the incurring of excommunication. 

As for the declaration that confessions and marriages officiated by SSPX priests now being illicit, recall that it was Pope Francis who declared that SSPX priests could hear confessions and witness marriages.  Since that permission was granted by a pope, a dicastery hasn't the authority to revoke that permission.  Such revocation would have to come from Pope Leo.

The Prayerful Posse video is below.  After the discussion about the SSPX situation, they broached a true scandal that occurred last month in England, where a "Mass of thanksgiving" was celebrated for two sodomites and their sinful relationship. Some bishops were in attendance and the main celebrant was Father Timothy Radcliffe,.  Now where did that name before?  I won't elaborate on that too much.  Suffice it to say that I don't expect to hear any scuttlebutt about them, or the priest, suffering any kind of canonical penalties for that sacrilege.

Father Murray called this "a very deficient canonical proceeding".  He is not the only one to make that observation.  But wait a minute!  Isn't Pope Leo XIV himself a canonical lawyer?  Yes, he is!  So how could he let these gaffes slip by?  Or..did the Vatican deliberately let a flawed proceeding be issued?  Could it be that they knew they had no real grounds to excommunicate the entire SSPX, and were simply trying to pull a bluff?