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

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?  

The Vatican Celebrates Gay-Enablers While Threatening SSPX With Excommunication

On July 1, the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) will ordain four bishops, to take their place among the current bishops who are aging.  Pope Leo, a few days ago, warned them against the ordination, stating that they risk being in schism.  Last month I wrote about excommunication and declarations of schism, and still wonder to whom those penalties would actually apply.

One who was unjustly and most likely improperly declared excommunicated is Archbishop Vigano.  He recently made public a letter that he wore to the pope.  One impetus behind this release is that he had made an appointment to discuss serious matters with the pope.  The pope canceled the meeting.  Thus he wrote the letter denouncing his excommunication as improperly done and thus null and voice, and declared that he was not in schism.  Read for yourselves.  

In my neck of the woods, word has it that Cardinal McElroy has banned the construction of new communion rails and the restoration of those communion rails that had been removed.  He also is reportedly discouraging the use of temporary kneelers.  Does that mean the prie-dieu as well?

More troubling, however, is that McElroy is supporting the perversion-promoting cleric Father James Martin's Outreach Conference that is happening now at Georgetown University.  Not only did he write a glowing letter (see for yourselves), he also spoke at the pervert gab-fest.  I would be pleasantly shocked if he took the opportunity to call the attendees to repentance for promoting and/or committing homosexual perversions, but I realistically harbor no such hope.  Dare I say that after that slop that he sent them, that he should require such penance himself?

By the way - the faithful and intrepid young men of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property were on hand at Georgetown to perform various Works of Mercy in the face of the blasphemy and sacrilege that this Outreach conference foisted on Georgetown.  A video will appear below the jump break.

Now let's get back to the situation at hand with the SSPX.  I am also posting a video from Anthony Stine of Return to Tradition who is dealing with this topic.  Note from the video a few things:

• There seems to be some scuttlebutt that not only will the pope excommunicate the bishops of the SSPX, but also the priests, deacons, sub-deacons and seminarians, as well as other religious (such as sisters) who are affiliated in any way with the SSPX.  Will he next put the laity who attend SSPX Masses into his cross-hairs?
• Stine cites canon law that stipulates that excommunication cannot occur for the ordination of the SSPX bishops.  They have no desire to separate from Rome and sincerely believe that the Church is in a state of emergency.  With prelates seeking to obliterate piety from Holy Mass and actively aiding and abetting the mortal sin of homosexual conduct, who can honestly doubt the emergency that truly does exist?
• Some traditional Catholics state that the SSPX is wrong to decline Cardinal Fernandez's offer for "dialog".  Perhaps they aren't aware of the strings that Fernandez attached: no consecration, and the doctrinal issues are off the table.  Oh, by the say, this Fernandez is Kissy-Face.

Now below this jump break are the videos

The Weaponization Of Excommunication - Who Should Be Excommunicated?

In the Diocese of Chur (?) in Switzerland, the local bishop will not discipline three parishioners gave Consecrated Hosts, that is, Our Lord Himself, to their dogs.  The bishop's name is Joseph Vonamane, and has instructed his priests not to condemn LGBTQ behavior.  The 1983 code of canon law attaches automatic excommunication to certain offenses, among them being desecration of the Holy Eucharist.

In the LifeSite News clip, Westin quotes the bishop as excusing those parishioners for they "did not act with sacrilegious intent".  So everything is just hunky-dorry over in Switzerland, right?  Well, hold that thought as we consider another situation where the excommunication sword is most definitely being rattled in iss scabbard.

As most of us know by now, the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) will consecrate new bishops to relieve their aging bishops.  They do not have an official papal mandate to do so, despite their attempts to obtain one.  The Vatican has thus far remained obdurate.  Many are puzzled by this strong-arming from the Vatican.  I am not.  Ladies and gentlemen, the SSPX, owing to their fidelity to traditional liturgy and Sacred Tradition, remind the current pope and his aficionados of the sinfulness of their own disregard for the Deposit of Faith.  The SSPX, by their very existence, rightly rebukes the progressives who are attempting to destroy the Church from within.  They want the destruction of the SSPX.  That is why they won't approves of the ordination of SSPX bishops.  

Faithful Catholics have been pointing out the utter folly of denying permission to the SSPX for the ordination of those bishops.  I will not rehash what they say here, but recommend them to your reading.  My blogging colleague at Les Femmes makes the point that supplied jurisdiction can and often does override strict adherence to official jurisdiction.  She cited examples such as English priests ministering to the faithful under the reign of Elizabeth I.  Maike Hickson points out that it is the Vatican's tinkering with Tradition that is the true cause of disunity, not the SSPX's attempts to preserve Tradition.

Rorate Caeli published a piece authored by the Canon of Shaftesbury that explained why the proposed excommunication of the SSPX simply doesn't pass canonical muster.  I will quote one key passage: "Furthermore, for a canonical act to constitute schism, there must be a positive will to separate from the Roman Pontiff or to refuse submission to his authority (cf. Canon 751). This is an essential element of the offense, not merely an aggravating circumstance. Bishop Athanasius Schneider and other reputable canonists have argued persuasively that the SSPX lacks this intent entirely. The Society professes full submission to the Roman Pontiff, accepts his doctrinal primacy, and explicitly does not seek to establish a parallel hierarchical jurisdiction."

Pope Leo!  Listen up!

The SSPX has repeatedly stated that they have no positive will to separate from Rome.  Even Rome itself does not dispute that.  Now let's go back to the situation broached in my first two paragraphs, where parishioners literally tossed Our Lord to their dogs.  The Code of 1983 (linked in my first paragraph) lists as one of the acts that can incur automatic excommunication the desecration of the Eucharist.  That did happen, yet the local bishop refuses to act because they "lacked sacrilegious intent".  So if the errant parishioners are being cut some slack because of their lack of malicious intent, why is such courtesy being denied to the SSPX?  Boys and girls, can we say "hypocrisy" and "double standards"?

Let's look at Pope Leo himself and his visit to the Mosque of Algiers last month.  Upon entering, he removed his shoes and expressed "gratitude for being in a place that represents the space proper to God".  It should be noted that others inside that room kept their shoes on.  Recall also that last October, the pope gave a "prayer room" to Muslins inside the Vatican.  He facilitated prayer to an idol at best, and perhaps a demon itself.

Now go back to that list of excommunicable offenses.  I see "apostates, heretics and schismatics" listed therein.  Is the pope himself excommunicated?

Anticipating Attempts To Excommunicate Faithful Catholics - And Combating Them

As said in the previous post, Cardinal Burke gave an address at a conference in Rome last week.  The conference was called, "Catholic Church: Where Are You Going?"  He broached the consequences of any needed disobedience to Pope Francis.  He is speaking primarily of the direction that Amoralis Lamentia explicitly states in its infamous chapter 8 footnote regarding the administration of Holy Communion to adulterers.

The question of excommunication was raised.  The Cardinal said we must be ready to suffer such consequences with Christian patience.

My question is, if such an attempt at excommunication was made, would that excommunication be valid?  Perhaps that "consequence" would not even exist in fact.  Excommunication just can't be done willy-nilly, at the drop of a hat.  Specific conditions must be met for a valid excommunication, along with specific protocol to be followed.

The Catholic New Advent Encyclopedia has a treatise on excommunication.  One sections says, and I quote, "Catholics on the contrary, cannot be excommunicated unless for some personal, grievously offensive act. Here, therefore, it is necessary to state with precision the conditions under which this penalty is incurred."  Right there we see that excommunication can only occur as a consequence of a "grievously offensive act".  What would be these acts that would cause excommunication?  They'd have to be objectively sinful, correct?  Ruffling the feathers of a church leader and/or pricking his conscience would not constitute an "offensive act"!

Moving on down that article, we read, "An excommunication is said to be null when it is invalid because of some intrinsic or essential defect, e.g. when the  inflicting it has no jurisdiction, when the motive of the excommunication is manifestly incorrect and inconsistent, or when the excommunication is essentially defective in form."  Therefore, I ask that if an attempt at excommunication is made in the absence of a mortal sin, does that "excommunication" have any consequence?

I for one think not.  In the face of these considerations, I cannot see how one so "excommunicated" could, in good conscience, submit to that.  In so doing, he/she would be cooperating with the sin of an abuse of ecclesial authority.  He/she would actually be validating an act of abuse and dishonesty.

The cardinal is right to broach these matters.  Given the trajectory of this papacy, especially the manners in which traditional orders and faithful prelates have been thrown under the bus (including Cardinal Burke himself), draconian attempts at excommunication are clearly within the realm of real possibilities.  I can see where some might think the proper response to that kind of abuse might be to acquiesce to it and comply with the "excommunication".  I do not believe it is inherently virtuous to roll over and play dead like that.  Evil must be resisted.  If no excommunication really exists in fact, we cannot pretend that it does.  Such lies must be disobeyed, just like the lie of admissibility of adulterers to Holy Communion.

Welcomed House-Cleaning

Pope Francis excommunicated the heretic president of "We Are Church", Martha Heizer and her equally heretic husband Gert.  Among other things, both of them have simulated the celebration of Mass - itself a grave offence.  For that we are grateful and we pray for the repentance of the Heizers.

We also learned that Bishop Paprocki of Springfield Illinois excommunicated another "priestess-wannabee".  Her name is Mary F. Keldermans.  She went through a mock "ordinaton" for Roman Catholic Womynpriests Inc.  In doing so, she incurred an automatic excommunication, ratified by His Excellency.

Let us pray for these wayward women for they both have placed their souls in danger of hell.   Let us pray that more medicine of truth and discipline be administered to such souls before their eternal fates are sealed.

CHA Supports Final HHS Mandate - Surprise! Not!

Contradicting the nation's bishops prior opposition, the Catholic Health Association (led by Sr Carol Keehan of the Pen of Perfidy) has announced its support of the Obamacare rule forcing all to purchase abortion coverage.  Let's hope and pray that Sister is not invited to Cardinal McCarrick's next birthday party.

I won't reinvent the wheel in unpacking what just transpired.  Read Matt Bowman's analysis on the Catholic Vote page.  Now notice that I emphasized the word "prior" in my first sentence.  That's because the USCCB has yet to issue its statement.  They're still "studying" it, you see?  What is there to "study"?  The answer is that the damned thing is unacceptable in light of Christ's teachings on human life.  If they're looking for "wiggle room", they should man up and admit that they can't "yok it up" with Obama on this one and be the bishops they were called to be.  After doing that, they can excommunicate Sister Carol and the rest of the "pantsuit brigade".

ALL: "Excommunicate Planned Parenthood Supporters"

I can only add "AMEN!" to what Michael Hichborn says below.  Click here if you can't see embedded video.

Stand in Defense of Bishop Olmsted

Ever since Sister Margaret McBride excommunicated herself by authorizing the murder of a baby in the hospital where she was a chief administrator, Bishop Olmsted has been under constant attack by left-wing media for confirming the fact of her excommunication.  Watch this video from American Life League's Michael Hichborn for details and how you can support the good bishop.  (Click here if you can't see embedded videos)

Knights of Columbus Play the Wimps

Catholic Culture reports that the national leadership of the Knights of Columbus has forbidden local councils from disciplining members who publicly take stands in opposition to Church teachings on abortion and "gay marriage".

At a Massachusetts state convention, a member proposed membership suspension for any member-politician who supports abortion and same-sex marriage.  The Supreme Advocate of the KofC, John Martella, brought the hammer down on that, declaring "a subordinate council may not impose fraternal discipline with respect to a public figure's official actions on matters pertaining to faith and morals. Rather, any such discipline must be made by or at the direction of the Supreme Board of Directors."

Now here's a key statement.  He said that "if the public figure's bishop has not excommunicated him for his public positions on issues relating to matters of faith and morals, it would be highly inappropriate for the Knights of Columbus to do so,"

Marrella's logic is flawed in several respects.  To wit:

Listen to Bishop Vasa!

Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, Oregon has recently offered an excellent synopsys of the medicinal remedy of excommunication.  He did so in a column in his diocese's official newspaper, the Catholic Sentinel.  He states two reasons for excommunication: "It is intended primarily as a means of getting the person who is in grave error to recognize the depth of his error and repent. A second reason, while somewhat secondary but no less important, is to assure the faithful who truly are faithful that what they believe to be the teaching of the Church is true and correct." Furthermore, he states, "Allowing their faith to be shaken or allowing them to be confused when Catholics publicly affirm something contrary to faith or morals, seemingly without consequences, scandalizes and confuses the faithful." 

Take a close look at that last sentence.  He isn't so much saying that dissident Catholics are causing scandal as much as he's saying that the refusal to discipline dissident Catholics is itself a cause for scandal.

I urge all to study it closely.  Moreover, I urge all bishops to heed Bishop Vasa's wise words.  I urge them strongly to put aside all considerations of politics, money and power that are only temporal and to do their duties as Shepherds.