"If There Is Not A First Person, There Will Not Be Others"

*Edit: A reader sent me the following from Canon Law Made Easy which has given me pause and is worth pondering for those on the topic and background of the canonical status of the SSPX. Deo Gratias. It is worth reading, here. I also wrote a related post a few years ago here.

I remember starting a firestorm on Facebook once by commenting something to extent of "I thought the SSPX were schismatic?" It was an innocent comment, but fiery trads came out en force to correct me. Truth be told, I needed correcting. I knew nothing about the Society, their founder, or their history; all I had was a wariness and skepticism based on second-hand information. 

Since then I have learned a little more about the canoncial status of the Society of St. Pius X, it's founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and have interacted (and am friends with) some folks who attend SSPX chapels. The more I learn, the more sympathetic I am and, if it's not too much of a stretch--I have a degree of gratitude as well.

For those not familiar with the background, I'll let Wikipedia do the heavy lifting for me in the interest of time:

Tensions between the society and the Holy See reached their height in 1988, when Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops without the Apostolic Mandate and against a personal warning by Pope John Paul II, known as the Écône consecrations, resulting in Rome declaring that the bishops who consecrated or were consecrated had incurred latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication. Though the priestly fraternity denied that the bishops incurred any penalty, claiming canon law in their defense, the declared excommunication of the surviving bishops was at their request removed in 2009 in the hope of speedily reaching "full reconciliation and complete communion".

The society has seen a growing recognition of its sacramental and pastoral activities by the Holy See, extending permanent canonical recognition to confessions heard by its priests and allowing local ordinaries to grant delegation to priests of the society for officially witnessing marriages. The significance of these recognitions is that, unique among the sacraments of the Catholic Church, both confession and marriage require canonical jurisdiction for their validity. Critics of the society contended that such confessions could not be heard or marriages witnessed by a Society priest, due to a defect of form as a consequence of lacking jurisdiction.In addition, the Holy See named Bishop Fellay judge in a canonical trial against one of the society's priests. Nevertheless the Society, citing canon law in its defense, contends on its part that it possessed supplied jurisdiction for confessions due to a state of necessity.

It can be argued that Lefebvre went too far in consecrating these bishops without the Apostolic Mandate, and acted in a spirit of disobedience. It can also be argued that, for better or worse, the traditional movement as we know it today may not have survived in the post-conciliar Church were it not for this act of fidelity to Tradition. After all, the FSSP were birthed as a counter-punch to the SSPX, and may not be in existence were it not for this period in history. 

I just watched a video of Jordan Peterson speaking on the subject of homeschooling. He admits he is less skeptical of it today than he was fifteen years ago, but isn't wholeheartedly supportive of it. I like some of the things Peterson talks about (though I think he's becoming a kind of Vigano-type pundit on every topic under the sun now), but I found myself shaking my head on this one. He admits public schools exist for the sake of indoctrinating children rather than educating them. But he speaks as one still skeptical of the claims that homeschoolers can excel and are somehow disadvantaged by having their parents (primarily, mothers) as the sole educator of their children. It's a tired argument ("What about socialization?" "What about Chemistry?" etc) purported in the way I made the comment about the SSPX. Homeschooling our own children, being surrounded by other homeschooler families--sure our experiences are anecdotal (though the data also supports the claims that homeschoolers can not only learn well at home, but excel in academics and critical thinking, among many other things), but I can honestly say I have not met one maladjusted child yet. Mr. Peterson strikes me as someone stuck in a pre-notion twenty years behind.

I don't blame him. Twenty five years ago, I knew one homeschooled kid, and he was in fact pretty weird and socially awkward. He was on our wrestling and track team (I went to public school) and really did well in those sports, but it was obvious his parents were conservative Christians who kept their kids pretty sheltered. This was my sole exposure to a homeschooled kid, which explains why I was so opposed to it for years when my wife gently brought up her desire to follow this way of schooling. 

We know families now (in their sixties) who homeschooled all their kids through high school when no one really did it, and when there was no internet. They were, essentially, pioneers. They attended conferences, had local meetings, and fought for rights and laws to be changed, which we now enjoy the luxury of as a mainstreamed-homeschooling family. Were it not for these families, homeschooling may never have become as relatively mainstream as it is today. For this, also, I owe some gratitude. 

I'm not a pioneer-type of person by nature. I'm usually behind the curve on quite a few things, but catch up quickly when the critical mass begins to build--not as a way to jump on a bandwagon, but because my preconceptions have often been proven wrong and misappropriated. In these two areas--Tradition and home education--we have built our lives on the shoulders of others.

With the talk of "what would you do if the Latin Mass was 'revoked' by the Pope?" circulating (as a friend had asked me this evening by way of text), my answer at this point is, "I don't know." But it has caused me to reflect on the limits of obedience, the fighting spirit, the willingness to go the distance when there is not an army behind you, and the experience of those who have gone before us and what we owe them, whether or not it was done in the way we imagine it 'should' have been done as Monday Morning Quarterbacks. Ignorance is based in fear concerning what we don't know or understand. I'll admit I have been ignorant on many fronts. But I'm always willing to at least pivot and reconsider my presuppositions as I acquire evidence to the contrary. I think this applies to these two related topics at hand.

Lin Zhao, a Christian and political prisoner in Mao's Communist China, wrote in 1957, “Mr. Lu Xun once said, a road is what people make by treading. If there is not a first person, there will not be others, and there will still be no road. The first one who sets his eyes on the light of the distant fire and walks on where there is no road until he falls–he who marks the road with his own blood for those coming after him–will always, always earn our respect.”