JMJ

Dear SEDE List and others,

This is a retraction. It is especially intended for anyone who has read my past posts concerning heresy and schism; and for anyone who may have read articles I once published at the "Sanctuary" website.

After studying several articles by John Daly; "Pertinacity and Schism", "Have We Correctly Understood Schism?", "The ‘Brussels Syllabus’ Commented", and "What All Catholics Must Really Know About the Present State of the Church" -- I must recant my previous stand that:

------------------------------------------------

ALL (clergy and laymen) who mistakenly accept JP2 as pope are in schism; especially by their external submission.

------------------------------------------------

Based on my presumption of their pertinacity, I judged whole groups who accept JP2 (e.g. SSPX etc.) to be in schism! This is a scrupulous standard to apply to others, as I come to see better, the more I weigh it. Through my own email letters, and publishing of the "Sanctuary" site (http://www.ttc-cmc.net/~nlight/sanctuar.htm), some may have been influenced toward the opinion I now reject. To the extent that I am able, I am obliged to correct that.

If one’s external association proves pertinacity (and therefore schism); then external association would prove knowledge of other crimes:

Consider the case of Henry, who (in this hypothetical case) is known to be an adulterer. He’s late again. But, his wife Sally thinks he’s conscientious. A friend has told her that Henry is sleeping with a co-worker. Should we presume that Sally now KNOWS that he is an adulterer?

Crystal has been stealing money from the cash register. Bonnie is a daily visitor in her house, and her close friend. Should we presume that Bonnie KNOWS that Crystal is stealing? Maybe Bonnie knows; maybe she doesn’t. WE don’t know.

Similarly, it is wrong to presume that a traditionalist (who accepts JP2 conditionally) must *KNOW* he’s an anti-pope, and DESPITE that knowledge, chooses to accept him. Surely, it's harder to know one's interior disposition, than his outward acts. Evidence must be conclusive to judge a man guilty of serious crime. In the same way, pertinacity is proved, only if it can be shown that a man has a clear understanding that he is wrong, but chooses it anyway. Just as I would be pertinacious, if --now understanding-- I chose to retain my previous position that all who unwittingly think JP2 is a pope (of any kind) are non-Catholics!

One may be confused by any of numerous seemingly plausible explanations; and thus he wrongly believes in JP2, as John Daly has well illustrated.

Unlike the case of Protestants who accept another faith, those I wrongly thought were in schism (probably) INTEND to be within the Catholic Church and submit to her true vicar. Just like all traditionalists, my understanding of our present situation and acceptance of the vacant seat of Peter, grew clearer with time. It is impatient and unjust to judge others as "outside the Church" who mistakenly still think JP2 is pope. To do so, presumes they KNOW he isn't!

Similarly, I renounce the idea that: they are excommunicated, who, intending to follow the Church, consecrated bishops. Again, this presumes knowledge that their actions were forbidden, but they chose them anyway. In retrospect, I don't believe that; and think more probably, most episcopal consecrations were performed after a great deal of research and soul-searching. It would be even more absurd to conclude that their followers were in schism. (This does not mean that episcopal consecrations, claiming epikeia, are themselves to be necessarily accepted, but rather that those men so consecrated, are not to be counted as outside the Church.)

>>>>I do not say:

* All traditionalist bishops are licitly consecrated, nor even that ALL are validly consecrated. That is an individual matter.

>>>>I do not say:

* ALL walks of "traditionalists" are certainly within the Catholic fold.

>>>>I do not say:

* Attend any "traditional" Mass (indiscriminately).

Although I have tried to explain my new position briefly, ambiguities are often the result of insufficient detail. So if my meaning isn't clear, or you would like to discuss any point, please write me.

If it can be clearly shown, through a written refutation of Daly's paper, that my new position is incorrect, I am "without prejudice to better judgement".

In Christ,

Kathleen Plumb

nlight@ttc-cmc.net