Ut quis Fideles Inveniatur

THE PLOTTED CAREER OF Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc. (first part)

 

Note. When it concerns us to talk about a saint or an exemplary prelate like Mons. Rafael Merry del Val we do it with great delight and with a certain complacency because they served as a great example for our souls, but when we have the thankless task of talking about certain characters whose lives and works are completely diametrically opposed to those mentioned above, then a certain ascidian attacks us because we see that we are going to go against the current of those who, with bad intentions, blatantly distort the truth, becoming accomplices in the lies and cover-ups of these characters with reprehensible lives.

¿So what am I going to do today if I speak clearly? I will be unpleasant to you. But if I don't speak, I will be unpleasant to God. I would rather, in the eyes of the world, be the first than fall into the second. Here I will treat a very controversial case such as that of Bishop Thuc as impartially as possible since I did not know him personally, unlike the case of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre whom I knew well.

THE CASE OF MONSIGNOR THUC

¿Can the priestly and episcopal line originating from Mons. Thuc be considered valid? Were the consecrations made by Archbishop Thuc valid?

This article seeks to inform about the reality surrounding the person of Mons. Thuc, counteracting the countless biased information with the intention of whitewashing the figure of a bishop who is very controversial in his way of thinking and acting. One of these priests who praises the work of Bishop Thuc is Father Anthony Cekada, seriously failing to tell the truth (he wrote two articles on the subject, in the first he attacks Bishop Thuc and in the other he tries to banish him).

Much of what I present below is an attempt to counter the biased misinformation that seems to prevail everywhere regarding Bishop Thuc. By some, there has been a considerable amount of “whitewashing” of Bishop Thuc's not-so-edifying history, with the result that many people have formed opinions about him based on unforgivable errors and omissions.

Victims of all this, in addition to the truth itself, are all those well-intentioned Catholics who have placed their trust in the validity of the episcopal consecrations that have been made by him. It is a conscientious obligation to tell the truth about this subject, if we do not do so we become complicit with those whose purpose is to force arguments in favor of that which does not reflect the reality about this character, thereby seriously failing the only truth that It is Our Lord Jesus Christ.

1. BRIEF HISTORY OF BISHOP THUC

Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc was born on October 6, 1897 in what was the former capital of South Vietnam called Hue, he had three brothers and three sisters. At the age of 12 he entered the minor seminary where he persevered until his priestly ordination in Rome on November 20, 1925, when he was ordained a priest by Monsignor Willen Marinus van Rossum.

Under the influence of this bishop, he studied in Rome at the French seminary of the Missionary Fathers of the Holy Spirit, whose director was RP Henri Le Floch, who was spiritual director of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre. On January 8, 1938 he was sent as apostolic vicar of Vinh Long and was consecrated bishop by Bishop Antonin Fernand Drapier on May 4, 1938 in South Vietnam and promoted to the dignity of archbishop in 1960 by John XXIII.

There is no reason to doubt the personal validity of Bishop Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc's consecration. He was a valid bishop with the power to validly consecrate other bishops.

The events of Vietnam changed the course of the Thuc family since his brother Ngo Dinh Diem was president of South Vietnam back in the sixties and assassinated in 1963 then, later, his other brother was murdered where his relatives fled. of the communists who have already taken South Vietnam, unifying the two Vietnams. At this time, Bishop Thuc was in the middle of the Second Vatican Council.

Bishop Thuc was an active participant in the Second Vatican Council. At the Council he was actively part of the ultra-liberal wing and harshly criticized the conservative wing called Coetus Internationalis Patrum formed by Cardinal Ottaviani and Bacci where the general secretary was none other than Bishop Marcel Lefebvre and, reportedly, he signed all the documents of that cabal. After the closing of the Second Vatican Council, Paul VI did not allow him to return to Vietnam. At that time South Vietnam had fallen to communism in the battle of the city of Saigon now called “Ho Chi Minh” in memory of the North Vietnamese army general. This was the reason why he did not return to his native land or to occupy his episcopal see, in addition to losing all his patrimonial and monetary assets that were abundant, leaving him in misery. For this reason Bishop Thuc began his life as an exile in Rome. In 1968, Paul VI appointed Bishop Thuc as titular archbishop of Bulla Regia (a former see now vacant in Tunisia).

It is worth dwelling a little on the intervention of Bishop Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc at the Second Vatican Council. In addition to being ultra liberal, as we already said above, he signed all the documents of said Council, and promoted union with the others. religions” and the participation of women in the life of the church, affirming that the Church, until then, had discriminated against women in the life of the Church. Here is an excerpt of what he said: “mulieres obtinueron aequalitatem cum viris, insola Ecclesia Chisti illas iniuriosas discriminations adhuc pasiuntur” (women obtained equality with men, only in the Church of Christ they still suffer those unjust discriminations). Next, it says that the woman collaborated in the nativity or birth of the Church on the cross together with Saint John... (Acta synodalis Sacosanti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II: Periodus secunda, pars. III page, 513).

THE MASSIVE CONSECRATIONS BEGIN: PALMAR DE TROYA

Following the ban on returning to Vietnam, his access to his timber concessions and rubber plantations was cut off and he became an exile about to be removed. He spent some time at the Cistercian abbey of Casamari near Rome, and eventually went to work as an assistant pastor in the small town of Annecy in the French Alps, where he said mass, heard confessions, and did catechism in the diocese of that place".

Shortly before Christmas 1975, a priest appeared in Annecy, unannounced. Monsignor Thuc quotes the words of this priest, apparently it was Father Ravaz mentioned by other scholars of the Thucist subject. His words seem to be:

  «Your Excellency [said the priest], the Holy Virgin sent me to take you immediately to Spain, to do Her a service. My car is waiting for you at the door of the rectory, and we will leave immediately to be there for Christmas. Stunned by this invitation, I told him: "If it is a service requested by the Blessed Virgin, I am willing to follow you to the end of the world...". Since he had to justify his departure to the superiors of the house, he found it necessary to lie.

   The 3-day car trip took Bishop Thuc to Palmar de Troya, a Spanish town 25 miles south of Seville. In 1968, stories of apparitions began to circulate there. Among the early enthusiasts was a young man named Clemente Domínguez Gómez, who organized prayer groups and established a chapel in the small town. He soon declared that he had received the stigmata, not from God, but from Padre Pio. He began to spread the "messages" that he received from the apparitions, which were at a rate of two or three per week. Believers received heavenly bulletins on everything from the plight of Paul VI (a "Vatican prisoner who had been replaced by a double") to the color of stockings adherents should wear. Clemente Domínguez even received messages such as when he should shave his beard.

The sequence of events is incredible if we assume that Archbishop Thuc was in full possession of his faculties: A Catholic archbishop and former seminary professor with three doctorates leaves France for a current news story and takes a three-day trip to Spain when he arrives. an unprepared layman and asks him to ordain him and others. And to dispel any doubts that the archbishop might have, that layman assured him that "Paul VI had appeared to him through a" bilocation "to give his approval to the project." Archbishop Thuc, on the basis of such guarantees, proceeds to confer priestly ordination and episcopal consecration. Archbishop Thuc was obviously not acting normally.

"Let's pause for a moment to consider what Mr. Domínguez was saying: The Blessed Virgin and Paul VI (by "bilocation") were both telling a Catholic bishop that he should ordain some lay people to the priesthood (whom he had just met and who had not done ecclesiastical studies) and then consecrate them bishops, all in a period of three weeks. Where anyone else would have laughed out loud rejecting that proposal as absurd, Bishop Thuc truly showed a colossal lack of common sense and accepted. [Ibid., p. 6]

Such disproportionate action makes no logical sense in a man of Thuc's background, education, and pastoral experience; This indicates either that he lost his faith, or his judgment, or both. His subsequent behavior indicates the same. Because "the Palmar fiasco" was not a momentary aberration in the life of Archbishop Thuc. Rather, it was the beginning of a pattern of behavior that characterized his life for years before his death.

And so, although the defenders of Thucist consecrations insist that Thuc was in full possession of his mental faculties, the facts indicate otherwise to the objective observer. There are, in fact, serious, positive and objective doubts about Thuc's mental capacity. Consequently, there are serious, positive and objective doubts about the validity of Thucist consecrations. Because, as Bishop Pohle expressed, those who “do not have the complete use of reason are incapable of administering a sacrament.” 

Let's talk about the validity of the consecrations of the Palmar de Troya and we refer very little to the responses that the Vatican gave about those consecrations. Now we have to talk about:

The attitude of the Vatican

  Thuc's apologists have made many unsubstantiated claims to support their assertion that we are obliged to accept the validity of Thucist consecrations. They tell us that everyone accepts the validity of these consecrations. They even invoke the support of the Vatican to support their claim. But the truth of the matter is that the Vatican did not endorse the validity of Thucist consecrations in its official decrees and this is significant for several reasons.

It is significant because it shows that the defenders of Thucist consecrations make reckless statements in defense of their cause. Thus, his outright statements and condemnations must be taken with caution.

It is significant as it shows that just because there was an episcopal consecration ceremony its validity is not automatically presumed, regardless of the circumstances or the people involved.

And finally it is significant because the Vatican did not accept the validity of the Thucist consecrations, while it did accept the validity of the ordinations and consecrations made by Monsignor Lefebvre. Monsignor Lefebvre was a serious, sane and credible individual. Monsignor Thuc was not. Thuc was a man whose behavior strongly suggests that he was not in full possession of his faculties. It is no wonder that even the Vatican did not presume the validity, but rather left the issue aside as obvious.

In response to the Palmar consecrations, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a decree dated September 17, 1976. The decree stated that Archbishop Thuc had “ipso facto incurred excommunication reserved in a very special way to the Apostolic See.”.

This is also the document that left aside the question of validity. And leaving that question aside, he declared about the consecrated and ordained that: "the Church does not and will not recognize their ordination, and considers them, for all legal purposes, in the status that each one previously had..." [Ibid.] . This refusal to recognize the validity of Thucist consecrations was also referred to in the “Commentary on the Decree “Concerning illicit ordinations”” that was published later, and which said:

“In No. 3 of the document of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of September 17, 1976, without entering into the problem of the validity of the ordinations conferred in Palmar de Troya at the beginning of January and, consequently, all successive ordinations, it is formally stated that the Church does not recognize and will not recognize in the future that these ordinations have any value. Therefore, those who are thus ordained are considered by the Church, for all legal purposes, in the same canonical condition in which they were before those irregular ordinations, and all the canonical sanctions mentioned above remain in force until they repent. (L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO October 7, 1976, p. 12.)

The sanctions they mention are in ancient Canon Law, more specifically in canon 953, 954 and 2370 where it says:

  953 In such a way, episcopal consecration is reserved to the Roman Pontiff, that no Bishop can licitly consecrate another if he is not previously informed of the pontifical mandate *.

953. Those who break canon 953 incur the penalty established in 2370.

954 The consecrating Bishop must have two other Bishops assist him in the consecration, unless the Apostolic See has waived this requirement *.

954. Until recently, the intervention of the two who assist with the consecrating Bishop in the consecration of Bishops was not uniform in the Church. There was no exact judgment about whether said two Bishops were mere assistants or witnesses of the consecration or if they were really true ministers and consecrators. In some places they pronounced only the words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, while, on the contrary, in Rome they also pronounced the Propitiare prayer and the preface that follows it, but not everything else that the consecrator recites from the beginning to the end of the entire prayer. sacred rite

To standardize discipline and practice throughout the church, on November 30, 1944, Pope Pius Of episcopal consecration it is enough for only one to do it; from now on all three will have to do it really and effectively; b) that the two Bishops, until now called assistants, would henceforth be called consecrators; c) that they must previously form an intention to confer episcopal consecration; d) that they must recite with the consecrator, in addition to the words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, the Propitiare prayer and the entire preface that follows; and in a low voice read everything that the consecrator sings or reads during the entire rite, except the prayers for the blessing of the episcopal vestments, and e) that in accordance with this, the rubric of the Roman Pontifical must be opportunely reformed; reform that has already been carried out, as we have indicated in the commentary on canon 949.

2370 The bishop who without an apostolic mandate consecrates another Bishop, contrary to what is provided in canon 953, the Bishops or, in their place, the assistant priests, and the one who receives the consecration are by right suspended until May the Apostolic See dispense them *.

2370. The suspension imposed by this canon has the character of censorship, is total, latae sententiae, and simply reserved.

«Furthermore, the Holy See once again declared so that there is no doubt, leaving aside all discussion about the validity of the ordinations, that the Church does not recognize and will not in the future recognize these ordinations as if they had any validity. Consequently, all such persons ordained as priests or bishops remain, for practical purposes, in the same canonical status as they had before. For the vast majority, this means that they are treated as laymen, as if the ordinations had never taken place. The Long Island Catholic, October 14, 1976, PO Box 9000, Rockville Centre, NY.

That the Vatican considered those ordained and consecrated in the same state in which they were before the ordinations and consecrations recalls a case that occurred in 1959. That year the Holy Office decided the case of the priest Giovanni Taddei, from the diocese of Biella. Father Taddei had managed to be consecrated by a schismatic bishop. Then, in turn, he ordained some Catholics. The Church, without deciding the question of validity, declared that those whom he had ordained were to be considered laymen with the right to marry. The decree said "that these ordinations are not recognized by the Church and, consequently, the subjects must be considered lay for canonical purposes, including the right to marry." (Actas Apostolicis Sedis 51 – 484; Holy Office, 5-8-1959).