ARTICLES

An Irregular Situation

Former SSPX Priest Tells of His Return to Rome

By Stephen Frankini

Throughout the 1990s, Father Benedict Van der Putten served as a priest for the Society of St. Pius X in Connecticut, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, and California. In 1995 he became retreat master at the St. Aloysius Retreat House in Los Gatos. As a result of the Society's rejection of Rome's offer to regularize them in 2000, Father Van der Putten left the Society and reconciled with Rome. He currently serves as a "missionary priest" (as he called it), saying private Masses in northern California and elsewhere. I spoke to Father Van der Putten in October.

Why did you initially join the Society of St. Pius X?

Father Van der Putten: I should begin by discussing Vatican II because its story is all bound up with my own personal story and the story of the Society of Saint Pius X.

The Society, as you know, was canonically founded in 1971 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was head of the Holy Ghost Fathers, one of the largest missionary orders in the world. Pope John XXIII had invited Archbishop Lefebvre to be one of the scholars on the preparatory documents of Vatican II -- especially those dealing with missionary activity.

Vatican II was called in order to bring a new breath of fresh air into the Church. The Church was seen as a big structure that was slowing down and gathering a lot of crust along the way, and the Holy Father wanted what he called a "springtime" for the Church. A lot of the clergy were excited about it, and even Archbishop Lefebvre, who might have had misgivings, saw it as some way to help missionary activity by removing certain legalistic burdens that had hindered it.

But something went wrong with Vatican II. For a lot of people, Vatican II, instead of being a breath of fresh air, became a breath of bad air. And even Pope Paul VI, who concluded Vatican II, said publicly that the smoke of Satan had entered the Church. So, Vatican II introduced a lot of changes both in the teaching of the Faith, (the presentation of the Faith), and probably most visibly in the actual enactment of the liturgy. By 1969, Pope Paul VI had introduced a completely new liturgy. It's really something that had never been done in the history of the Church -- to have a liturgy imposed arbitrarily on a large segment of its people.

My family, in the 1960s, were concerned about the gradual demoralizing of America. At the same time, we saw changes in the teaching and presentation of the Roman Catholic faith. It no longer jived with what they had been taught as children. We were very aware of problems within the Church -- the neglect of catechetical instruction, heretical teachings, the abuses of the sacraments (namely confession and communion), and the trivializing of extreme unction, where everybody was receiving it who felt pain or was older. Everything was getting watered down. And so, my family moved to Dickinson, Texas, where the Society of St. Pius X had a church along with a school. We were impressed not only that they celebrated the Tridentine Latin Mass but that their church had the decorum of a church. It had the traditional statues, the traditional stained-glass windows. There was right away a dignity, a respect, and a beauty that we had always associated with our Catholic Faith.

I entered the seminary in 1986 and was ordained in 1992.

When did Pope John Paul II excommunicate Marcel Lefebvre and the four bishops he ordained? How did you view the excommunications at the time?

That was in 1988. Basically, we viewed the excommunications as being invalid. Now interpreting canon law is very difficult and should only be done by those who are capable. For instance, in the code it says that in order to incur excommunication you personally and subjectively have to realize that you are doing something wrong. Otherwise, it doesn't apply. And so, we know from the personal life, expressions, and statements of Archbishop Lefebvre that he considered his act of consecration as operation survival, as a means to continue the Tridentine Latin Mass with proper ordinations for the survival of the Church -- at least in the Latin rite. And so, that's how we justified it and went along with it. And in the meantime, we still received the Faith, the Mass, and we didn't hear any nonsense from the pulpit.

Do you have any regrets about going into the Society of St. Pius X?

I would say I have no regrets. At the time, when I was a young man, in my late teens and thinking about a seminary, there simply wasn't any seminary that you could trust. So, we were all between a rock and a hard place. The Society was the only institution giving the complete Catholic faith. It's important to understand that even though Rome accused them of having schismatic tendencies, the Society has never been formally declared schismatic. They're in an irregular situation. Once again, this is all canonical, so it's confusing, especially to lay people. But that's what canon lawyers have to deal with.

You have to follow your conscience. I know that there are people at this time that have left the Society and gone to the local churches for the sake of being in a more regular situation, and then returned to the Society because they can't survive -- the pressure against their faith, etc. The interesting thing is that Rome doesn't forbid people from going to the Masses of the Society of St. Pius X. In Rome's eyes, they are valid Masses; the people do receive the sacraments. I know that those opposing the Society like to make things black and white, and call it schismatic -- that doesn't really help the situation. In other words, we all love the Church, and we have to look at this the best way possible.

Why did you leave the SSPX?

In the year 2000, Pope John Paul II wanted to clarify, or make regular, the situation between the Society and Rome itself. In the same year, many people attending the Masses of the Society went on a pilgrimage to Rome -- about 10,000 strong. The pope saw them, the cardinals saw them, many of them were impressed and said, "we need to address this situation. We need to make the Society of Saint Pius X regular." In other words, there is no ambiguity about it, and they wanted to clearly recognize them as an organization within the Catholic Church in good standing.

So, negotiations opened up, the Society's general superior, Bishop Fellay, went to Rome, had several consultations and, in 2000, Rome offered them an Apostolic Administration -- which is a personal prelature. Basically it means that the Society would be given an independent status and operating structure within the Catholic Church. It could still retain all its properties, celebrate Tridentine Latin Masses and all the sacraments without fearing pressure or intimidation by the local bishops.

After meeting with others, Bishop Fellay then rejected the proposed structure. I questioned the decision, and consequently am no longer associated with the organization. I went to Rome and was regularized, with the permission to celebrate exclusively the Tridentine Latin Mass.

It appears the pope was very eager for reconciliation with the Society. Cardinal Hoyos, head of the Ecclesia Dei Committee, said that he wanted the Society to be regularized so they can be more effective in helping fight masonry, modernism, and the abuses within the Church. So, if we give Rome good faith, there was definitely a bending-over backwards to accommodate the Society. The Society said that if you can't guarantee that all priests can publicly say the Tridentine Latin Mass, we have presently to cease our negotiations.

My opinion is that if the Society had accepted the deal, many people would have joined the movement, they would have made a bigger impact on Rome, they could still continue what they're doing already. And if Rome changed, or forced them to accept anything other than what was originally agreed, the Society would be vindicated in its refusal to submit to Rome. If Rome reneged on its word, you would have public documents to prove it. They could simply say to everybody, "see, this is what we signed with Rome, and this is where they tried to change it on us," and be vindicated. But right now they have to continue operating in a very ambiguous status within the Church, and it confuses everybody.

Now, the Society is in a difficult situation because, basically, they have to say, "we don't trust Rome," which is never good. You always have to assume the best of another person and give them the benefit of the doubt. Hopefully, there will be some obvious way of reconciliation between Rome and the Society in the near future. There are indications within the organization that that could be a real possibility within the next couple of years.

Did you experience a moral conflict when leaving the Society?

I was in consultation with three independent priests, priests who were not associated with the Society but all personally knew Archbishop Lefebvre. And I asked all three of them, would Archbishop Lefebvre have signed the deal, would he have accepted regularization within the Church? And all three of them concurred that he would have and that there seemed to be a schismatic attitude in the present leaders of the Society. Therefore it was made clear to me that I would be compromising myself if I stayed within the organization because at that time they were showing no intention of being regularized. Here they were granted carte blanche a beautiful situation to come to be regularized within the Church, retain all their properties, all their practices, preach the Faith like they've always been preaching it, and be free of the local bishop's jurisdiction. So, at the time these priests indicated that the present administration of the society was not acting as Archbishop Lefebvre would have. In other words, the spirit had gone. It came to a point that, in conscience, I had to make a few more steps and those steps eventually led me out of the Society to Rome, where they regularized me.

What tensions exist within the Society?

People within the organization tend to divinize it. In other words, when you've been mistreated and abused by your local diocese, bishop, or priest, you grab onto anything. If you're drowning in the middle of the ocean, and this life-saver comes by, you grab it, it saves your life, and you tend to divinize it, and overlook all the problems and abuses within that preserver. You get the impression that they think they are the Catholic Church, and everything outside the Society is no longer Catholic, which also presents an intrinsic problem to each one of us. If that is their attitude, then they really have a schismatic attitude. They've kind of transferred the infallibility of the Pope to the leaders of the Society. Many times the Society leaders give you that impression that they are infallible and that they only know what the Church represents.

For example, some superiors say that if someone goes to the new rite of Mass, they are not allowed to be godfathers or sponsors to children who are receiving the sacraments in the traditional rite. They are basically suggesting that those who go to the new rite of Mass are not Catholic anymore. That's a very dangerous attitude.

What is your present situation?

My present sitation is that I have a celebret, which means I'm able to celebrate exclusively the Tridentine Latin Mass and give the sacraments and also continue to function as a priest. Obviously, if you work in a diocese, you need to get the bishop's permission, and that presents a dilemma because, in most dioceses, you're not going to get it. So Rome cautions priests in my situation to be prudent, not to rock the boat, and to wait patiently for a situation for some kind of Apostolic Administration or umbrella organization that will take care of these priests who wish to exclusively celebrate the Tridentine Latin Mass regardless of what diocese they're in.

Presently there are many priests in the same situation. Many of them are hoping that the Society will accept the program from Rome, the Apostolic Administration, whereby they will be independent. And in that situation, hopefully, all these other priests with celebrets, and many independent priests, will be accommodated. They are looking for some organization, some platform, on which to be publicly regularized by the Church, so they can publicly celebrate Mass without the restrictions of local religious communities. There are many scenarios that could happen, such as the case of the Fraternity of St. John Vianney in Campos Brazil -- which is as strong in faith and liturgy as the Society of St. Pius X. And they are validly operating in their dioceses.

So, if you don't have permission to celebrate Mass within any diocese, how do you justify ever celebrating Mass?

Priests who have the celebret have the right to celebrate a private Mass, anytime, anywhere. For example, a retired priest who doesn't have jurisdiction in the diocese in which he is residing will celebrate Mass many times in his home. And often, as many people as can, will pile into that home. That Mass is still private -- in a private house, on private property. It's still private regardless of the number of people. It's not in a public edifice. The difference is, when you celebrate a public Mass, it is in a public church, acknowledged by the location or locale as a public place of worship. To celebrate Mass in a public place of worship would take public recognition on the part of the local bishop. So, a priest in that situation would have to approach the local bishop and ask for permission.

Do you administer the sacrament of confession? If yes, does the celebret give you faculties to hear confession in any diocese? If it does not, then, how do you justify administering confessions, since a valid administration of this sacrament requires faculties from the local bishop?

This is a very complicated canonical question, but it has been covered by various theologians and canon lawyers. It is covered under the term of "supplied jurisdiction." It would be more prudent to leave this one alone, with the simple answer that Church law provides.

So, who is your current religious superior?

Priests with the celebret would be under the umbrella of the Ecclesia Dei Committee.

How can people who are upset with liturgical abuse, and would like to see a revival of the Tridentine Mass help?

Basically, I would encourage people to get affiliated with an organization called Una Voce. This organization provides a serious structure whereby people of every diocese get together and learn how to write their bishops and Rome, expressing their needs for the Tridentine Latin Mass in their dioceses. The more people form organizations, especially under a powerful one like Una Voce, the more the pope and the cardinals in important positions realize that there is truly a spiritual need and desire for the Tridentine Mass. It's very important that in presenting your desire for the Latin Mass, you put it in language that is understandable by Rome. And basically what lay people need to do is express to their bishop, and after him to Rome, that the Tridentine Latin Mass fulfills them spiritually. The whole focus of Vatican II is to be more empathetic to the needs of the people. But if you present it any other way, Rome will look at you as an agitator or a rebel. So, these groups and organizations like Una Voce have a lot of experience; they have a powerful voice in Rome. The more signatures they get and the more people involved the more quickly and the greater the possibility there will be of getting a Latin Mass in your diocese.

TOP