Unauthorized Episcopal Ordinations - Dr. Slatinek's Response to His Letter and His Statement

The Catholic Church’s Diocese of Saint Peter X has faced criticism after its religious brotherhood carried out unauthorized bishop ordinations on July 1, despite Pope Leo XIV’s clear request for them to cease such actions. The brotherhood’s general superior, Don David Pagliarani, responded with a letter dated July 3, attempting to justify and excuse the act. Ten days later, on July 13, the brotherhood issued another statement, announcing that it had submitted a formal objection to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, requesting the revocation or correction of the decision made regarding the ordination. In his commentary on both letters, theologian and canon lawyer Dr. Stanislav Slatinek expressed concern over the implications of these statements. He noted that the language used by Brother Pagliarani evokes powerful biblical imagery, suggesting that the brotherhood was treated unfairly by the Church. For instance, he compared their pleas for bread to receiving stones, for fish to receiving eels, and for eggs to receiving scorpions. These metaphors, while emotionally compelling, do little to address the core issue: the brotherhood knowingly and voluntarily performed an action that the Church considers gravely sinful. According to canon law, no one may confer episcopal consecration without the pope’s mandate (can. 1013 of the Code of Canon Law). This principle underscores the authority of the papacy in matters of ecclesiastical order. The brotherhood’s actions were not coerced or forced upon them, nor were they deprived of their freedom of choice. Instead, Pope Leo XIV publicly and fatherly called upon them to return and refrain from carrying out such ordinations. This raises questions about the sincerity of the brotherhood’s response. The first letter sent to the pope does not contain even a single word indicating acknowledgment of wrongdoing. Rather, it explicitly states that the brotherhood will continue with their actions “further ahead.” At the same time, they pledge loyalty to the Church and ask for the pope’s blessing, affirming their desire to serve its good. This creates an internal contradiction within their stance. It is impossible to simultaneously affirm complete fidelity to the successor of St. Peter and yet knowingly reject the pope’s authority in matters where he holds exclusive jurisdiction according to divine and canonical law. Episcopal consecration is not a private matter of individual groups, but an act that affects the entire universal Church and its hierarchical structure. Canon law is unequivocal on this point. Any attempt to bypass the pope’s authority in such matters is considered a serious offense. The consequences of such an act are clearly defined, and thus it is inappropriate to suggest that the pope’s leniency or the Dicastery’s decisions were unjust or invalid. The penalties have not been imposed by the pope, Cardinal Fernández, or the dicastery itself. They have emerged directly from the free and conscious decision of the individuals who acted. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why the brotherhood claims that the sanctions are “objectively unjust and invalid.” If the penalty is a direct consequence of a voluntary and aware criminal act, then it is not possible to speak of its injustice or illegality. The second letter introduces further complications. The brotherhood asserts that it has filed a request with the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith for the correction or reversal of the decision. However, this raises a critical question: what exactly does the brotherhood hope to achieve? They themselves initiated an act that has well-defined legal consequences under canon law. Now they seek to undo the official declaration that merely outlines these consequences. As a canonist, I find this legal reasoning challenging to comprehend. If the brotherhood is prepared to defend its conduct using canon law, it must accept the entirety of canon law, not just those provisions that currently benefit its position. Canon law clearly defines the boundaries of ecclesiastical authority and the responsibilities of all members of the Church. To selectively apply its principles is to risk undermining the very foundation of the Church’s legal order.