MORE REASONS FOR WRITING THE RECTOR: Part the Seventh

…whenever a prudent doubt persists regarding the validity of a sacrament bestowed, that sacrament may be repeated ([canon] 732,2), and it is to be observed that when the good of others is at stake or the mental anxiety of the recipient is concerned, repetition may more readily be conceded.  The repetition of the sacrament ought to be done where its validity is doubted — or rather, so long as the validity is not morally certain — in cases where the sacrament is necessary, whether absolutely and of its nature, as Baptism, or relatively and in respect to the good of others, as Ordination, absolution, Extreme Unction. Consequently, in doubt as to validity, Baptism, Ordination, absolution of the dying, Extreme Unction of the unconscious, and consecration of doubtfully consecrated hosts must be repeated. Though repetition may not be obligatory in certain cases, necessary sacraments may be repeated where the recipient is greatly distressed at a supervening doubt. Henry Davis, S.J.

Next Saturday marks the thirty-seventh anniversary of the much-discussed 1976 priestly ordination(s) at Écône. With the passage of almost four long decades, old memories fade, and, as is the fallen human condition, new memories are made. Over those years, no one, to our knowledge, has yet produced a photographic record of the event to settle the question definitively. Some original participants are reluctant to come forward; others hope the recollection of this discomfiting episode will vanish; a few are convinced no problem exists. The Church, headless monster she is today, must perforce remain silent until the Restoration.

Why, then, (one might reasonably ask) would it not be better to let the dead bury the dead and move forward in the work of resistance against Modernism? It is not as though we are 100% confident that the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke won't receive valid priestly orders in West Chester this November. Should not the young Levite be left to carry his own cross of uncertainty, like the rest of the traditional community? As a Catholic clergyman in this troubled age, he will experience many far greater trials. It would seem to be the more charitable course to lay aside this vexatious, intractable dispute.

With equal charity, we reply that we must concern ourselves with the problem. For Roman Catholics, the validity of the sacraments is an all-consuming concern, perhaps the sole concern in these forlorn days. If our aim is to preserve the faith until the Restoration, then it is our holy obligation to identify and remove any threats to its integrity, notwithstanding circumstantial discomfort or wounded feelings. 

Over the past month and a half, Pistrina has shared with you (a) the rationale for the Readers' dismissal of Fr. Cekada's conclusions and (b) the grounds underlying its prudent doubt about the validity of priestly orders conferred with one hand. Today we will lay out four overarching reasons for believing that at least one 1976 one-handed priestly ordination is not the stuff of urban legend but is highly plausible. Be advised that the following are private reasons, and therefore we shall not disclose the identities of the reporters and witnesses. We know who they are, and we are personally satisfied as to their rectitude and veracity. Our object is not to persuade anyone else to adopt our position, but solely to let the unbiased observer know that our belief in at least one one-handed ordination is founded on clear-and-convincing evidence.

①  In 1990, nine Roman Catholic Priests affixed their signatures to a letter addressed to the Rev. Daniel Dolan. The letter declared, in part, "... your ordination was done with one hand." Admittedly, some of these clergymen may not have checked the texts of the references cited in the letter, but they could scarcely have missed the hard, categorical assertion that the addressee had been ordained with one hand. They surely were morally certain of the allegation or their consciences would not have permitted them to sign their names. This sanguine inference must be true, because a priest has reported that many American clergy at the time were aware of the report of the archbishop's conferring one-handed priestly orders in 1976. (Apparently little was made of the event at first, owing to the great esteem in which the archbishop was held: Almost everyone then thought he could do no wrong.)  

We have read where at least two signatories later issued retractions. However, we are not certain of precisely what they retracted. Did they retract their asseveration that Daniel Dolan's ordination was "dubious," or did they retract their assertion that his "ordination was done with one hand," or did they retract the imputation that McAuliffe advised that such a case "be referred to the Vatican for Judgment"?  There is a great difference between each of these motives for retraction. As a result, until the reasons are made plain by each individual in a sworn statement, we discount the significance of the retractions and continue to believe the nine priests were morally certain the Rev. Mr. Dolan had been ordained with one hand, otherwise they could not have signed the letter in good conscience.

② First-hand reports from former seminarians at Écône and Winona relate it was common knowledge that the '76 ordinations had been performed with one hand. At least one of these men, who later received his own priestly orders from one of the '76 ordinati, underwent conditional ordination as a safeguard against any future impeachment of his orders.

③ A witness present at the '76 ordination confirmed in writing that the one-handed ordination happened, and he confided his irritation with the senior clergy in the sanctuary who did not intervene at the moment the defect occurred. Another individual, who was not present at the 1976 ordination, heard from others who were present that the archbishop had been "in a panic" following the ceremony but later composed himself after another party "explained" the validity of one-handed priestly orders. 

④  If Daniel Dolan affirmatively knew he had been ordained with two hands, then by natural right and in natural justice he had a moral duty to deny immediately, vigorously, and unequivocally the nine priests' allegation that his "ordination was done with one hand." (A lofty refusal to "dignify a charge with an answer," as every wise man now knows, is an ethical failing as well as a public-relations miscalculation.)  However, no one seems to have a written record showing that Daniel Dolan, not a surrogate, emphatically controverted the priests' declaration in 1990. On the contrary, with Fr. Cekada's aid, Daniel Dolan in fact complied with the nine priests who urged him "diligently to research the problem and, to let us know any findings which shed light on this issue."

The nine priests had also cautioned the Rev. Mr. Dolan that they were bound to hold his "ordination to be dubious, unless evidence can be brought forth that one-handed ordination is certainly valid." If we may judge from the contents of Fr. Cekada's 2000 monograph, much of the elaborate (though intellectually flawed) effort was aimed at trying, albeit without success,  (1) to prove the certain validity of one-handed conferral of priestly orders and (2) to dispel dubiety. (A priest has informed us that some time after the 1990 letter went out and before the publication of Fr. Cekada's monograph, clergy received word that "Tony has researched the problem and there is no doubt that one hand is sufficient.")

Therefore, a reasonable man may legitimately conclude that such obedient, even zealous, compliance with the nine Catholic priests' requests is tantamount to agreeing with their allegation that Daniel Dolan's "ordination was done with one hand." Although Fr. Cekada did not succeed in demonstrating with an appropriate measure of probability the certain validity of one-handed orders, there is no question that he diligently undertook the time-consuming research the nine priests requested in an attempt to overcome the basis for their doubts. If he and the Rev. Mr. Dolan had been convinced of the falsity of the allegation, they would never have gone to such lengths to make the case for one-handed validity -- an effort, please recall, that included the manufacture of an erroneous translation that altered the content of formal papal teaching.

Why didn't Daniel Dolan issue in 1990 an outright denial of the nine priests' statement? Fr. Cekada would have saved himself many hours of tedious research, reading, and writing (as well as the chagrin of suffering withering rebuttal and exposure of his disturbing mistranslation along with other embarrassing errors).  More significantly, a robust, categorical denial would have shifted the burden of proof from the Rev. Mr. Dolan to the nine priests who raised the allegation in the first place, which they, as the contributing party, should have been prepared to prove. Likewise, the nine priests, not Fr. Cekada, would subsequently have assumed the risk of nonpersuasion. Yet it seems that Daniel Dolan elected not to challenge directly the nine priest's claim, and by meeting their conditions, he appears to have agreed with it.

Could it have been, we wonder, that he knew the priests' allegation was not false? Could he have realized that an outright denial would have been impossible in 1990 insofar as but 14 years had passed, and memories of the event were much fresher than they are today? Could it have been that he opted for the next-best alternative by dispatching the under-prepared Fr. Cekada to make the requested case for the validity of one-handed conferral of priestly orders?

For us, there is one answer to the three questions. Given Father's failure to produce the quantum of evidence needed to overcome, to the degree required, a prudent man's doubts, the validity of one-handed orders is by no means morally certain. The only rational course, consequently, is for Daniel Dolan to receive sub conditione both priestly ordination and then episcopal consecration. True, he should have sought conditional orders years ago to put an end to all the wrangling and grief, yet time remains to remedy the neglect. Bp. Sanborn himself should welcome this approach, if only to banish the anxiety of his seminarians and priests.

Should neither man heed reason's sweet voice, then doubt will continue to pursue both them and the men who have received or will receive orders from Daniel Dolan. Americans and Europeans may always be able to find a valid bishop from whom they may seek conditional ordination, but the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke may not be so fortunate if he returns to his mother country soon after his ordination.

Please, out of loyalty to the faith, contact the most reverend rector soon. Do it for charity and justice. Beg (and pray) on behalf of the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke.

Editor's Note: This post concludes the series devoted to persuading the rector to save the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke's priestly orders. However, Pistrina will continue exposing additional errors of the Blunderer's monograph in addition to covering other issues related to the 1990 letter sent to "One-Hand Dan." To kick off the new series of posts, next week we'll get all interactive by inviting ally and adversary alike to lend a hand in understanding one of the weirdest passages of the Bonehead's monograph (second only to his erroneous translation of a pope's official teaching). We've puzzled and puzzled over the words, and we're at our wits' end trying to make some sense of them. We're sure someone out there, perhaps a rabid CLOD ("close loyalist of Dannie"), can shed some light where our poor intellects find impenetrable darkness.