Sobre los Sacramentos administrados por la HSPX

Mi amigo y hermano en la Fe JSarto es un buen comentarista en otras bitácoras. De vez en cuando me topo con él fuera de A Casa de Sarto, tal y como ha sido en los comentarios de este post sobre la Misa Tridentina en Braga en el blog Tradição Católica, me encuentro con el tema recurrente del status de los Sacramentos administrados por la HSPX.
Los “puristas” canónicos, a menudo con una dosis de mala leche, otras veces con una inveterada costumbre de cogérsela con papel de fumar cuando van a mear, siempre vienen a machacar a la Hermandad de San Pío X (HSPX) con los temas de jurisdicción.
Tema aparte es la Comisión Canónica San Carlos Borromeo de la HSPX. Personalmente creo que es materia opinable, pero en cualquier caso –dadas las terribles circunstancias de la Iglesia oficial- puede decirse que esta Comisión no tiene jurisdicción alguna salvo la jurisdicción delegada por quien interpone la queja o problema, pero sí puede tener la jurisdicción anteriormente dicha: una jurisdicción canónica supletoria y por delegación expresa.
Aparte de la jurisdicción canónica per se está el tema de los Sacramentos. Los que se la agarran con papel de fumar, costumbre quizás con raíces en una cobardía grave y un no menos grave respeto humano (sí, pecado, que el respeto humano es también pecado), suelen venir a joder de manera miserable e inmisericorde, amén de errada, con los Sacramentos administrados por la HSPX.
Existe en el Derecho Canónico una sección no muy grande (no creo que supere cien líneas ni creo que vaya más allá de 4 puntos), pero muy enjundiosa, sobre el tema de la jurisdicción supletoria. Convendría a estos criticones rompebolas y atorrantes intelectuales leer dichos aspectos. Por ejemplo podrían ilustrarse, por no ir más allá, con un buen manual de Derecho Canónico Matrimonial y estudiar con cierto detenimiento el tema de la administración extraordinaria del Sacramento del Matrimonio. La Iglesia, que es sabia, ha contemplado muchas posibles vicisitudes.
A JSarto le vienen a tocar las gónadas con el tema de las Confesiones por parte de los Sacerdotes de la Hermandad de San Pío X. Al interlocutor de JSarto las últimas declaraciones de Su Eminencia el Cardenal Castrillón Hoyos no le parece suficiente. ¿Qué se va a hacer? Paciencia.
Hace poco pude leer un texto que explica mucho mejor de lo que yo pudiera hacerlo este tema. Y aquí lo reproduzco. Vaya por delante que las siguientes líneas están escritas por una persona no vinculada a la HSPX y hablan de las explicaciones dadas por un Sacerdote de la HSPX, el Padre Ramón Anglés:

«In justice I felt obligated to post this update in light of the previous thread regarding the PCED letter on SSPX Confession.
I recently printed out and read the entire Fr. Anglés article on the validity of SSPX confessions and marriages (http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/validity_of_confessions_1.htm). [Nota: existe una versión ampliada y mejorada del anterior aquí]
with pen and highlighter in hand I meticulously read through his arguments and citations. As one can see from reading the PCED I thread I was convinced that SSPX confessions were valid only in the case of genuine ignorance due to the PCED letter.
One reason I enjoy Fish Eaters is that the discussions are really learning opportunities for the posters. As each side's arguments are tested and re-tested you begin to see all sides of the story and even some you had never considered.
Most convincing to me were the multiple Pre-SSPX opinions of Canonists on "Common Error of Law". These opinions are not the SSPX opinions, but instead they demonstrate the common understanding of Common Error that has always existed in the Church.
"Error of law consists in a FACT whose nature is sufficient to induce the error in a community, even though nobody in the community is mistaken about the lack of jurisdiction in the agent."
Previously my opposition was to this understanding of common error. I thought it eviscerated the requirement for jurisdiction all together and was ridiculous because individuals who were not in error could benefit from the rule.
The key to diffusing this troublesome concept laid in my legal training. It turns out "common error of law" is "not an actual error, but a FICTION OF LAW: an interpretative error, a fact that of its nature WOULD lead many in actual error."
"Fiction of law" was the key. I've encountered this in my legal studies. Legal fictions don't always make practical sense, and that is why they call them fictions. In the eyes of the law the fiction applies though it may not make real world sense.
So if common error of law is a legal fiction, voila! Everything fell into place. That legal fiction is there to protect souls, whose salvation is the highest Canon Law. The 1983 re-write of the Code intentionally made supplied jurisdiction very broad.
So broad as to even apply to excommunicated priests when a Catholic asks him for confession for any just reason. If a Catholic can ask an excommunicated priest for confession and it is valid, how much more so a mere priest without jurisdiction?
Added to this are the Canons of positive and probable doubt, which were explained very well. Canon Law does not want us hung up on painful excruciating scruple. So if one has positive reasons for two contradictory conclusions regarding jurisdiction, it is supplied. This is designed to relieve the constant worrying and give comfort to people in my situation.
Also helpful was to understand that the validity issue is totally separate from whether or not the priest without jurisdiction acts morally (licitly) in offering confessions. That issue is separate and distinct.
Fr. Anglés answers by saying for grave reason a priest can set up a situation of common error to provide faithful with a sacrament they would not receive otherwise. With the widespread placement of Modernist priests, good Catholics could go some time without confession or be forced to go to confession with Novus Ordo (NO) priests that could put their faith in danger. Thus it is licit for the priest to provide a situation and thus valid sacrament that these Catholics could in good conscience receive.
Regardless as to whether one agrees with Fr. Anglés on this point is irrelevant to the validity question. The question of liciety goes to the discipline of the priest issue.
In addition, under Canon Law Catholics could receive valid absolution from an Orthodox priest if there is a "need or true spiritual advantage" to be obtained and there is moral impossibility to approach a Catholic minister.
So would Canon Law whose highest good is the salvation of souls, grant absolution to a Catholic confessing to an Orthodox priest, but deny it to a Catholic priest without jurisdiction? It is an absurd thought.
Furthermore if an automatic censure is not a declared one (it was not in the case of SSPX priests) the censure prohibiting the celebration of the Sacraments or the placing of an act of jurisdiction is suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a Sacrament. The request can be made for any just cause whatsoever.
After studying this article it resolved what fears I had and I attended a local Society Chapel for absolution Tuesday. I previously had been frequently confessing to NO priests and continually falling back into the same sins.
With the Society priest, I felt, "he gets it". He understands the spiritual life, that it is serious, and that it is warfare. That my soul is at stake. He also doesn't buy into the Modernist errors that tend towards a lax moral attitude and universal salvation. He also is not forced to give communion in the hand, or say the New Mass, guitar mass, Life-Teen Mass as the NO priests around me do.
When I go to confession with the NO priest, I get the absolution but nothing else, none of the support, I'm on my own. I stand in line with immodestly/ irreverently dressed parishioners as I stare at the bare church and banners. I'm trying to get spiritual advice from priests who have no problem with Life-Teen Masses, the new ecumenism etc. And I feel weird even making a complete and thorough confession to them. I've been told by one NO priest years ago to read a book on scruples as my Penance! Believe me there were no scruples there and the priest was a liberal par excellence.
With the SSPX priest I feel I can be hard on myself and honestly admit all my sins and know that he understands these from my perspective and how important confession is. The NO priests seem to treat confession as something helpful but not of dire consequence. The minute I walk out of an NO confessional I walk into a Protestant/ Modernist church building and parishioners and world. I feel my state of grace being attacked from the get go. With the SSPX priest I walked out into a solemn reverent church with devout faithful. I felt like I was in a church and not an office building/ meeting hall like the NO.
In any case, I thought I owed it to the SSPX goers and other questioning faithful to clarify my position and how I came to it, for what it is worth.
Thanks for listening.»

Post Scriptum.-
No sé por qué una señora anónima me envía diariamente dos o tres correos electrónicos contra la Hermandad de San Pío X. Comprenderá que no tengo tiempo de leerlos, que sus argumentos endebles y su ejercicio compulsivo de copiar & pegar no me interesan. Tampoco sé por qué razón (¿está de vacaciones, tiene más tiempo libre y no sabe qué hacer …?) últimamente me envía cuatro y hasta seis y siete correos sobre idéntica temática. Se lo he dicho privadamente y se lo repito públicamente: no le leo, Señora. Sus mensajes son inmediatamente borrados.
Es inexplicable como hay gente que tiene el coño para tanto ruido.

Rafael Castela Santos