|
|
      
|
|
|
| The Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Guerard des Lauriers |
| |
The Episcopal Consecration of Fr. Guerard des Lauriers
by
Eberhard heller
translated by Emilia Vaiciulis
When theological research on post-conciliar ordination rites revealed
that they were invalid because they were dogmatically defective or
extremely doubtful at the least, our greatest concern was to maintain
the apostolic succession. In fact, this can only be maintained if there
is an uninterrupted succession of valid ordinations and of episcopal
consecrations. Now, when several members of our group expressed this
anxiety to Mgr. Lefebvre, he sent them away, saying sarcastically that
at Lima he knew of a married bishop… maybe he could do something for
us. Subsequently we contacted Mgr. Ngô-dinh-Thuc. We referred to his
Declaration made at the time of the episcopal consecrations at Palmar
de Troya, Spain, in which he brought up the subject of the emergency
situation in the Church resulting from its general breakdown. Rev. Otto
Katzer, doctor of theology, very much appreciated in Europe as a
theologian and a spiritual guide by conservative Catholics and
sedevacantists, had engaged in a discussion with Mgr. Thuc, M. Hiller
and myself about the problem of the vacancy of the apostolic See and
the danger of the apostolic succession disappearing. We concluded by
asking Mgr if he eventually agreed to consecrate a bishop.
Unfortunately because Fr. Katzer, who was a candidate for episcopal
consecration died suddenly, we had to find another suitable candidate
who enjoyed a good reputation amongst the faithful. It was Fr. Guérard
des Lauriers, formerly a professor at the Gregorian in Rome, then a
professor in Econe for a certain time. He made a name for himself as
co-author of Critical examination of the Novus Ordo issued by the
cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci. We wrote and asked him if he accepted to
become a bishop. Fr. des Lauriers sent an extraordinarily
concerned and frank personal letter back: in which he too commented on
the present condition of the hierarchy. For example, he knew the
Italian bishops because he had pre-viously had them as students at the
papal University. There was a discussion about the general situation
and the necessity of an eventual episcopal consecration at
Etiolles, near Paris, at the house of Fr. des Lauriers. Also present
were prof. Lauth and M. Hiller. They agreed on most of the points
discussed. But there was one controversial point: the problem of the
vacant Holy See. Fr. des Lauriers had decided to overcome this problem
by his "Papa materialiter, non formaliter" thesis.
To discuss the theological value of an abstract thesis is one thing,
but its practical application in the present combat of the Church for
those who take a firm stance on sedevacantism like us, and later Mgr.
Thuc is another. So, if we were to work together these divergencies
would have to be resolved. We were convinced that Fr. des Lauriers’
thesis was erroneous.
As a ‘conditio sine qua non’ of an eventual consecration of Fr. des
Lauriers it was important for M. Hiller, M. Lauth and myself that he
understand that his thesis was wrong, and that he would only be
proposed as an epsicopal candidate on condition that he renounced the
thesis. So Prof. Lauth returned to Etiolles to thoroughly re-interview
the candidate to see whether this last obstacle could be lifted. When
Lauth returned to Munich he assured M. Hiller and me that Fr. Guérard
des Lauriers had abandoned his bizarre thesis and that he had adopted
our position: that the apostolic See was vacant. Thereupon we informed
Mgr Ngô-dinh-Thuc who trusted in us because we had collaborated
together in different matters in past years, and so a meeting with him
and the episcopal candidate G. des Lauriers was arranged. But
immediately after the consecration on the 7th of May 1981, it seems
that Prof. Lauth had falsely informed us: the new bishop made it clear
to us that he was not embarrassed to be found in schism from now on.
When he was asked, why he considered himself in schism, we learnt that
he not abandoned his ‘Papa materialiter non formaliter’ thesis, and
that he therefore still rejected the sedevancantist position. It must
be clearly stated: Had we known of this beforehand, M. Hiller and I
would never have recommended Fr. des Lauriers as an episcopal
candidate. And when we remarked that in the beginning Mgr. Guérard des
Lauriers did not want to exercise his episcopal powers, we contacted
Fr. Carmona and Mlle Gloria Riestra de Wolff who published the
periodical TRENTO, through the mediation of M. Moser to verify whether
Fr. Carmona would eventually agree to become a bishop in order to
assure the apostolic succession. He accepted, and it is known that he
and Fr. Zamora were consecrated on the 17th October 1981. The
consecration of Fr. des Lauriers did not work out from several points
of view, like some other consecrations he did too. Firstly Mgr. des
Lauriers boldly challenged Mgr. Thuc (who had fled Toulon and had come
to live with us because he feared persecution) and tried to impose his
“Papa materialiter non formaltier-the-sis on him. Furious, the
archbishop tore up the thesis and threw the scraps of paper out the
window. Secondly, Mgr. Guérard participated in a public forum
some time after with the bishops Carmona and Zamora on the subject of
what was considered ‘right and just’ in this crisis of the Church, and
he was rude enough to make offensive personal insults to them. In the
bulletin Sous la Bannière he referred to us - Gloria, M. Hiller and me
- as schismatics. It is not that I reproach Guérard des Lau-riers for
having written the thesis “Papa materialiter non formaliter”, for
anyone can be mistaken, but I think it is really appalling to
attack the very ones who had helped him become a bishop, in such an
offensive way. It is absolutely incomprehensible how he attacked the
Declaratio of Mgr. Ngô-dinh-Thuc, which he disowned by overtly making
propaganda for his own thesis.
The campaign against his consecrator reached such a point that, as I
recall, he spread the rumour that it was not Mgr. Thuc who was the
author of this Declaratio, but MM. Hiller and Heller! Even now I feel
that this provocation justifies my threatening certain people with
lawsuits if they continue to maintain that Mgr. Thuc allowed himself to
be thus “corrupted” in drawing up the Declaratio…
After that, Mgr. des Lauriers conducted a shameless campaign to promote
his thesis of which I had sarcastically said at the time that it upheld
the existence of a “Half-Holy Father”. He then denigrated his
consecrator in front of those of his confraters who, instead of
following his thesis, followed the Declaratio about the vacancy of the
apostolic See… This had the effect of considerably weakening our combat
for the Church. And even today, his former students follow him with the
same insensitivity of feeling.
Apart from such unscrupulous behaviour and such lack of
consideration, Mgr. G. des Lauriers dealt a grave blow to our
combat by consecrating episcopal candidates of his own choice without
consulting his fellow-bishops and deciding together- nay, without even
having previously examined the suitability and identity of the priests
concerned, and without even taking into account any reservations
expressed about candidates for the episcopate…Because of this, he bears
the blame for what I term the “Internal Schism” (cf. Einsicht XXXI/2,
p. 32 ff.). In this spirit of independence he consecrated Fr. Storck,
very gifted, a graduate in philosophy and a doctor in theology, who as
a priest had been involved with Ecône and with some itinerant (
vagantes ) clergy despite objections raised by Mgr. Vezelis. And what
comment can be made about his consecration of Fr. McKenna o.p., simply
on the recommendation of an elderly lady in Switzerland? This explains
why several weeks before his impending consecration, this priest
switched his theological stand, adopting the Mgr. Guérard’s thesis,
which he continued to adhere to. He consecrated Fr. McKenna despite the
protestations of certain faithful, and again, without acting in concert
with the bishops Musey and Vezelis who were active in the U.S.A. In the
same way, he also decided to consecrate Munari, formerly of Ecône,
independently and without duly consulting the other bishops.
(Note: Munari has since defrocked and has returned to the lay state.)
Perhaps what could be said in favour of Mgr. Guérard des Lauriers, who
was almost 90 when he died on 27th February 1988, was that he, contrary
to other bishops tried to find a clear-cut solution to the problem of
jurisdiction in which we find ourselves. Also, that at the end of his
life, he chal-lenged the justice of his thesis after it had been the
cause of so much disenchantment and was close to assuming the
sedevacantist position expressed in the Declaratio of Mgr.
Ngô-dinh-Thuc. (SAKA-Informationen, May 1988).
|
|
|
|
|
