An Open Letter to Kennedy Hall

Mr. Hall,

I am writing this letter in response to your recent publication in Crisis Magazine, The SSPX, the Truth, and Charity. Now, to be quite honest, I'm not a fan of the all-too-prevalent format of discourse that dominates Catholic internet today, which takes the form of one person responding in an incendiary manner to an article, video, etc from another content creator, leading to a spiral of response videos that ultimately do nothing more than drum up agitation and frustration from either "side". I don't intend for this to be a point-by-point rebuttal to your article, but a response that maybe, hopefully, will take the conversation further.

It hasn't even been a week since the announcement of upcoming episcopal consecrations for the SSPX, and already the traditionalist online space is saturated with opinions and speculations. I don't deny I've contributed to that. But I think this may actually provide an opportunity for some honest discourse. With an event of such magnitude on the horizon, everyone wants to answer as many questions and provide as much clarification as they are able, so as to dispel any qualms about this event within the next few months. I think it would be accurate for me to say that you and I both want to accomplish this, although obviously we have differing opinions on the matter.

To the matter at hand. I'd like to focus on one passage in particular from your article. You wrote:

Therefore, what one thinks about the SSPX, in a sense, is in the eye of the beholder. Because of this, arguing someone into a different opinion is almost impossible because it comes down to a personal decision to view the crisis in the Church as grave enough to warrant the application of necessity to the case of the SSPX. Necessity as such, as it applies to this situation, is not defined—because it really can’t be.

I agree that arguing someone into a different position on the SSPX is impossible (I wouldn't even use the "almost" qualifier). And I commend you for your honesty, because you very plainly answer a question that I have posed to people many times and have never received a straight answer. But, if I may be frank, I think your answer shows a fundamental flaw in the SSPX's position, a flaw that nobody has ever addressed clearly.

What you have essentially said here is that, if one personally and subjectively judges that the crisis is dire enough to warrant a response in the form of an unauthorized ministry, then that is all that's needed. It's ultimately a matter of individuals deciding, rather than the competent authority (as your very next sentence says, "And we cannot expect the authorities in the Church, especially in this New Springtime, to define how one could act without permission because the Church is overrun with heresy, sacrilege, and liturgical abuse"). You admit that the bounds of the "state of necessity" are not defined and really can't be defined. If one feels there is a state of necessity, then there simply is. Essentially, as long as one judges we are in a crisis, that judgment is enough to justify a ministry such as one the SSPX provides.

Mr. Hall, I fully agree with you there is a crisis in the Church. I think anyone would be a fool to deny that. The question then becomes, as you state in this article; does this crisis justify a worldwide, public ministry, conducted without the permission and against the wishes of the competent ecclesiastical authorities?

For the sake of honest and productive engagement, let's say you're right. Let's say that it does. I now pose a follow-up question to you.

When is the crisis over?

And, to follow up on that: how do we know? Who decides this? How? This crisis did not exist at one point in the not-too-distant past. It will not (indeed, it cannot) continue indefinitely. The Church can't remain suspended in a nebulous, undefined state of crisis. It will end at some point. When does it? How do we know it has ended? If an answer is presented, where and how did the person presenting it get the authority to do so? I believe we would agree that the crisis would not suddenly disappear if Vatican II were redacted and the 1962 missal was re-established as the norm. How long would it take to accurately measure whether the crisis has been sufficiently mitigated such that the SSPX's ministry is no longer justified?

If one SSPX priest decides the crisis is over, but another disagrees, who is right? If Bishop Fellay decides the crisis is over, but Bishop de Gallaretta disagrees, who is right? If the SSPX decides the crisis is over, but the SSPV or the SHF or any other independent group disagrees, who is right? Why does one person or group have any more authority than the other to make a definitive judgment on this question?

This crisis is the justification for the SSPX's entire ministry. Without the crisis, they have no supplied jurisdiction. They have no defenses for their actions. They have no reason to exist. This is not me being incendiary; this is a fact. But if the crisis is so dire and so widespread, as they say, is there anything they can't do? Is there any place they can't minister? Is there any person they can't provide sacraments to? Do they have any restrictions or limits at all?

I had the opportunity to ask an SSPX priest this question. I asked when the crisis is over, who decides this, and how. Do you know what he said?

"I can't give you an answer to that."

I dedicated an entire chapter of my first book, Altar Against Altar, to this question. It is the entire premise of my second book, Ignorance of Things Divine. (I do find it amusing that our literary aspirations mirror each other; our first book about the SSPX, the next about the crisis in the Church). To date, nobody has been able to answer these questions. But they are questions that must be answered, if the SSPX wants to establish their ministry on an objective foundation. Otherwise it rests on nothing but private judgment, where one person is just as authoritative as the next.

You ask whether the crisis can justify the SSPX's ministry. I submit that it cannot.

Mr. Hall, I understand you participated in a debate at the Pilgrim's Keep in St. Mary's, KS, not long ago. I will be visiting friends in that area in a few months, and I would like to formally invite you to an in-person debate at the same venue to debate this question. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this crucial topic in the short time we have before a historic decision is made. I am happy to read your books in preparation for this, and I invite you to read mine. Please contact me at contact@andrewmioni.com if you are interested.

Andrew Mioni