Christopher Conlon wrote an article entitled "Cardinal Lienart and the Intention to do What the Church Does" in which he attempts to prove that Lienart's ordination and consecration of Marcel Lefebve must be accepted as valid. I am writing this refutation, not because Mr. Conlon holds a different opinion than I do, that doesn't bother me, but because he presents his opinion in such a manner as to make it appear to be supported by Church authorities, which in fact is not the case. Sad to say, there is some fabrication going on here as well.

Mr. Conlon's first 4 chapters do nothing to address the actual facts at issue; in fact, they appear to be nothing more than straw men to beat up on. To my knowledge, no one is arguing that faith is required for the valid administration of the sacraments, or that heretics cannot validly confer Holy Orders, or that the minimal required intention for the sacraments is not other than "to do as the Church does." Everyone accepts this. So why Mr. Conlon devotes the majority of his efforts to prove uncontested issues is troubling.

Beyond that, it seems to me that Mr. Conlon is doing to Catholic teachings what the Protestants do to the Bible - he is privately interpreting certain selected quotes, oftentimes taken out of context, in order to make them appear favorable to his own position. The reality is that none of his citations support his ultimate conclusion, as will be seen. And even worse, on some occasions he is actually making things up.

The following are some of his principle errors:

Error #1: If the proper matter and form of a Sacrament are used, then a valid intention is necessarily present.

"It's clear that Lienart's intention would have been sufficient for validity as long as he simply intended to do what the Church does, which would only mean intending to perform the rites of ordination on Lefebvre. All of the other possible wicked intentions that we might possibly ascribe to Lienart would have been intentions that had no affect on validity." (Mr. Conlon, p. 27. Emphasis in all of Conlon's quote supplied)

"In brief, Catholic doctrine on sacramental intention requires only that the individual be performing the sacrament." (Mr. Conlon, p. 31)

"When one is not truly ordained, some outward sign is given by which this is known... He [God] would not allow His Church to become a farce on account of the ill-will of some few within Her. No, we can trust that Our Lord preserves Her sacraments and validly confers them so long as Her ministers follow the matter and form He prescribed." (Mr. Conlon, p. 31)

This is all wrong. What Mr. Conlon is actually arguing here is the long since rejected "external intention" principle which states that as long as the proper matter and form of a Sacrament are present, then we must conclude that the minister had the proper intention and therefore the Sacrament is certainly valid. This principle is pretty much denied by all today, who rather demand that an internal intention is also required, along with proper matter and form.

"It is the common opinion today as it was in the thirteenth century that for the validity of a sacrament a true internal intention is required. In fact, it can more correctly be called the unanimous opinion among theologians." (De Salve, The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister, 1948, p. 92)

"The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required." (Catholic Encyclopedia; Delany, J. (1910); Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D.; Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.)

The strongest piece of evidence that the Church does not accept the external intention principle can be found in an official ruling from Rome itself:

"A certain Anthony Gonzalez de Acuna, Bishop of Charcas in South America, declared with an oath before an ordination ceremony that he intended not to confer orders on any candidate of mixed blood. Several such presented themselves and received the rite at his hands. The case was referred to Rome, and on 13 February, 1682, the Sacred Congregation of the Council, which, while gravely rebuking the Bishop for his conduct, pronounced that the Orders were invalid in the case of those of mixed blood, and that all priestly acts performed by them were invalid." (Principles of Sacramental Theology, Fr. Leeming, 1957, p. 475)

Of interest here is the fact that all of the candidates received the same external rite (matter and form of the sacrament). The only distinguishing fact separating those who were validly ordained from those who were invalidly ordained was the intention of the minister. So clearly Mr. Conlon's claim that the Church "validly confers them [sacraments] so long as Her ministers follow the matter and form prescribed" is incorrect. The internal intention of the minister is also required.

Of further interest here is also the ruling by the Congregation regarding those of mixed blood that "all priestly acts performed by them were invalid." This official ruling destroys Mr. Conlon's contention that "we can trust that Our Lord preserves Her sacraments and validly confers them so long as Her ministers follow the matter and form He prescribed." The reader can determine for himself who is correct: the Sacred Congregation of the Council or Mr. Conlon.

Error #2. (If the proper matter and form of a Sacrament are used, then a valid intention is necessarily present.) The only time this isn't true is if the minister expressly states he had an adverse intention.

Yes, Mr. Conlon does indeed contradict himself here. But setting that aside, let's look at this argument.

"It is possible, however, for a sacrament to be invalid because one deliberately excludes the intention of doing what the Church does. This could only be known if the minister were to state in some way that he deliberately excluded the intention to perform that sacrament. Unless a minister expressly states that for a particular sacrament, or number of sacraments, he intended to not do what the Church does, then the Church presumes that the minister intended what he did." (Mr. Conlon, p. 29)

"There is no evidence of Lienart stating that he did not intend to do what the Church does when he conferred orders on Lefebvre." (Mr. Conlon, p. 32)

"The only way to prove this [Lienart's defective intention], as was previously shown, is to prove that the minister expressly stated his intention to not do what the Church does in performing any particular sacrament..." (Mr. Conlon, p. 32)

You will notice that Mr. Conlon does not cite a single authoritative source to back this up. The reason for that is because there are none. He is just making this up. There are no Church authorities teaching that the only time an adverse intention would invalidate a sacrament is when the minister states that said adverse intention was present.

Error #3 - Regarding presumption and the required degree of proof.

"§ 1. Sacred ordination is presumed to have been validly received, unless the contrary is proven." (Mr. Conlon, p. 32, citing the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, 1931.)

In most Western Countries anyone accused of a crime is "presumed to be innocent until proven guilty." Yet we know that at the conclusion of judicial proceedings many of those presumed innocent are in fact proven guilty. Presumption is not a final judgment, it is a starting point in a judicial proceeding. This is true not just for the State, but also for the Church.

Furthermore, in Church tribunals, while those suspected of invalid orders enjoy the presumption of validity, nevertheless, the Church forbids them to exercise those Orders until a declaration of validity is actually issued.

"Of Cases Against Sacred Ordinations - Though an action [in a Church tribunal] was instituted merely for the purpose of being freed from the obligations arising from sacred orders, not against the validity of the ordination, the cleric is nevertheless to be forbidden ad cautelam [as a precaution] to exercise the sacred orders." (Canon 1997. A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Woywod, 1948, Vol. II, p. 389).

This presumption argument gets the pro-validity group nowhere.

"§ 2. In order to truly declare the nullity of sacred orders in the case in question, it is required to prove the lack of intention to have been present." (no. 62, p.470) — Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Annus XXIII - Vol. XXIII, 5 Decembris 1931, Sacra Congregatio De Sacramentis, Caput XIII, De indiciis et praesumptionibus. 1931. 2" (Mr. Conlon, p. 32, citing the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, 1931.)

A declaration of nullity of a sacrament can only be given by legitimate Church authorities. The very position of traditional Catholics is that no such Church authority exists today, so who is going to make such a declaration? Are we to presume that the Novus Ordo "mass" is valid because no Church authority declared it to be invalid? Are we to presume that Francis I is a valid pope because no Church authority declared him to be an invalid pope? In fact, the whole traditional Catholic movement (including the SSPX), based upon Mr. Conlon's criterion, would have to be abandoned, since the very basis for it has never been "declared" by Church authority. We need to deal with reality here, and the reality in the Church today is that traditional Catholics have to make personal judgments on important issues based upon past Church teachings and long established Catholic principles, because there is no authority that can do it for them. Furthermore, no one is "declaring" Lefebvre's Holy Orders as invalid, but some (I among them) claim that there is enough doubt present to destroy the Church's required standard of moral certitude in his regard.

"Nothing has been proven in any way that Lienart withheld his intention to "do what the Church does" when receiving orders or conferring orders on Lefebvre; and this would have to be proven before a Catholic could do anything other than presume validity." (Mr. Conlon, p. 36)

There is enough proof to destroy moral certitude regarding Lienart/Lefebvre. The evidence strongly suggests that Lienart was a Mason. Even Lefebvre himself publicly stated this as a fact, and as someone who personally knew Lienart and had the massive stake riding on the consequences of this disclosure, Lefebvre's position that Lienart was a Mason is certainly stronger than those who claim otherwise, who didn't know Lienart personally.

Now considering what the Church teaches regarding Masons: that they "are wholly dedicated to bringing about the fall of the Church" (Pius VIII); that they "despise the Sacraments of the Church" and "wish to destroy the religion and the Church which God Himself has established" (Leo XIII) ... it is not hard to exercise our God-given common sense and conclude that Lierart would have done that which the popes have been warning us about. Let's face it, if the popes did not intend for us to heed their warnings, then why would they have bothered to give them in the first place?

And coming to such a conclusion, in Lienart's case, is not a matter of mere speculation. All we have to do is to look at his role in Vatican Council II and all that he and his liberal counterparts accomplished. The end result of Vatican II was the destruction of the Mass and many of the Church's sacraments, and not only did Lienart partake in this, but according to Lefebvre himself, Lienart, on the opening day of the Council "was the chief of all of the liberals in the Council." So Lienart had an active role in destroying the Mass and many of the Sacraments of the Church, yet we are to supposed to believe that when it came to ordaining and consecrating Lefebvre that somehow he had a change of heart? That wars against common sense and is hardly credible. At a minimum, it destroys the Church's requirement of moral certitude regarding sacred orders.

Bishop Joseph Marie @ bishopjosephmarie.org