THE CASE OF FR. LEONARD FEENEY
Part I - The Excommunication
Introduction
In the recent past there has been a resurgence of interest in the late Fr. Leonard Feeney. The number of his supporters seems to be growing at a rapid pace. The popularity of his ideas is on the upswing. More and more we see his name presented in a favorable light in traditionally oriented publications. More and more, it seems, he is looked upon as a hero of the Faith and a defender of Catholic orthodoxy.
We are told that his excommunication in 1953 was unjust and invalid. It was invalid, they say, because of a defect of form. It was unjust, we are told, because he was excommunicated for his defense of Catholic orthodoxy in general and of the doctrine “outside the Church there is no salvation” in particular. Fr. Feeney stirred up the wrath of the liberals, his supporters say. And the liberals used all the forces at their disposal to persecute him. Thus was he excommunicated, they say, for his defense of the Church as the only means of salvation established by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
The secular press, in some cases, has echoed the cry that Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church. For example, the obituary that appeared in The New York Times on February 1, 1978, under the headline, “Leonard Feeney, Jesuit Priest, 80; Ousted in Dispute Over Salvation” said this: “AYER, Mass.. Jan. 31 (AP) - The Rev. Leonard Feeney, a Jesuit priest who was excommunicated for nearly 20 years for preaching that there was no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church, died yesterday. He was 80 years old.” [The New York Times, Feb. 1, 1978, p. B2.]
So we ask, was Fr. Feeney “excommunicated . . . for preaching that there was no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church?” Was he a great defender of Catholic orthodoxy and a hero of the Faith? Or was he a disobedient priest who deviated from sound Catholic doctrine? These are the questions that need to be answered.
It is therefore my intention to answer them. And I propose to do this in two conferences - one this evening and one tomorrow morning. This evening we will consider the question of Fr. Feeney’s excommunication and the reason for it. Tomorrow we will deal with the question: Was Fr. Feeney a great defender of Catholic orthodoxy and a hero of the Faith; or was he a priest who deviated from sound Catholic doctrine? We will begin with some background.
Background
Fr. Leonard Feeney was born in Lynn, Massachusetts on February 15, 1897. He was the oldest of four children. There were three boys and one girl in his family. All the boys became priests. Fr. Feeney entered the seminary at an early age and was ordained in 1927. After ordination, he studied at Oxford University for a time, and upon his return to America, he taught at Boston College.
Fr. Feeney was a very gifted writer and the author of many books. In 1934 he published a collection of essays entitled Fish on Fridays which became a best seller. In one of the essays that appears in this book he made it quite plain that at that time he believed a well-intentioned Protestant could be saved. In the mid-1930’s, Fr. Feeney was the literary editor of America magazine. He published a biography of Mother Seton and other works as well.
In 1952 Bread of Life appeared. This is a collection of lectures that were given by Fr. Feeney at St. Benedict Center from 1942 to 1952. In the Foreword to the first edition, Fr. Feeney wrote: “I have been persuaded by the members of my Order, The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to publish some of the talks I have been giving on Thursday evenings at Saint Benedict Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts, during the past ten years.” Bread of Life is a significant work because in it, Fr. Feeney sets forth his theological position with regard to Justification, Salvation and Baptism. We will return to this work and to these terms when we consider the doctrinal teaching of Fr. Feeney.
St. Benedict Center
The name of Fr. Leonard Feeney is, of course, bound up with that of St. Benedict Center. In fact it is so identified with St. Benedict Center that one can hardly think of one without the other. This is true even though Fr. Feeney was not the founder of St. Benedict Center. The Center was established by three lay persons in Cambridge, Massachusetts in March of 1940. The founders were: Mrs. Catherine Clarke, Christopher Huntington and Avery Dulles. This is the same Avery Dulles whose father was the late John Foster Dulles - Secretary of State under President Eisenhower. Avery Dulles was a convert to the Catholic Church and went on to become a Jesuit priest.
The mission of St. Benedict Center was to provide a safe haven for Catholic university students. It was to be a place where these young people could go to learn about the Faith and to be bolstered in its practice. It was also to be a place where interested non-Catholics could go to find out about the Catholic Church.
We have already alluded to the fact that support for Fr. Feeney and his theological views seems to be growing at a rapid pace in certain circles of traditionally-minded people. Among the supporters of Fr. Feeney is the journalist. Mr. Gary Potter. Mr. Potter was a founding editor of Triumph magazine. His articles have appeared in National Review, Human Events, The New York Times, The Wanderer, The Remnant and in many other publications. He recently published a book about Fr. Feeney and the controversy surrounding him. The title of the book is After the Boston Heresy Case. I personally believe that Mr. Potter made a sincere effort to present the facts about Fr. Feeney in an objective manner. Yet, at the same time, there is no doubt that he is a strong supporter of the man and his cause.
According to Mr. Potter, Fr. Feeney was introduced to St. Benedict Center in 1942 by a friend of Mrs. Catherine Clarke. He was later asked to become spiritual director at the Center. This he agreed to do with the permission of his Jesuit superior. At first, Fr. Feeney worked at the Center on a part-time basis. But by 1945 his work at the Center was so time consuming that he sought and received permission from his superior to work there full time.
It was about this same time, as well, that Fr. Feeney began his search for what may be called the doctrinal missing link that would explain the corruption of the Catholic Faith in America, as he perceived it. By 1945 Fr. Feeney apparently considered that the Faith, as it was practiced in this country, was essentially defective. He reasoned, it seems, that this condition was caused by the neglect of a particular truth of the Catholic Faith,
And so he sought to find this “displaced” doctrine. This missing link, he believed, would explain the transition from the teaching of sound Catholic doctrine to doctrinal corruption. His search lasted two years until he discovered the missing doctrine in 1947. In July of 1947, he announced “to the center that surely extra ecclesiam nulla salus [outside the Church there is no salvation] was [to quote Gary Potter] the ‘displaced’ linch-pin doctrine they sought and which the Church needed to reaffirm.” [Gary Potter, After the Boston Heresy Case (Monrovia, CA: Catholic Treasures Books, 1995), p. 48.]
The doctrine, extra ecelesiam nub salus (outside the Church there is no salvation), thus became the celebrated cause of Fr. Feeney. In time, his name was so closely associated with it that many came to believe that his eventual excommunication was due to his fidelity to this doctrine. As we have already pointed out, even The New York Times reported that Fr. Feeney was “excommunicated. . . for preaching that there was no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church.” [The New York Times, Feb. 1, 1978,p.B2.]
Trouble Preceded the Discovery
It was in July of 1947 that Fr. Feeney announced his discovery of “the ‘displaced’ linch-pin doctrine,” as Gary Potter put it. But contrary to a fairly common perception, Fr. Feeney’s troubles did not begin with the discovery of the doctrine. There were already problems between Fr. Feeney and his Jesuit superiors and between St. Benedict Center and the Archdiocese of Boston even before Fr. Feeney’s “great” discovery that the Catholic Church taught that she was the one institution established by Our Lord for the salvation of mankind.
One source of difficulty was the spirit of independence that prevailed at the Center. Gary Potter says: “When St. Benedict Center transformed its lecture program into St. Benedict Center School, neither the Society of Jesus nor the Archdiocese of Boston was consulted.” [Potter, op. cit., p. 85.] For the Center and Fr. Feeney to do such a thing without consulting the Archdiocese or his Jesuit superiors, would quite understandably cause difficulties.
We are talking about the l940s. In the l940s, bishops ruled their dioceses with authority according to the provisions of the Code of Canon Law. Since the Code of Canon Law gave them authority over schools, it is not hard to understand that establishing a school in the l940s without the permission of the local ordinary would cause problems. In their commentary on Canon 1381 of the Code of Canon Law, the canonists Abbo and Hannan say this:
~~The religious training of youth in all schools whatever is subject to the authority and the supervision of the Church... In a similar way they [i.e, local ordinaries] have the right to approve the instructors in religion and the textbooks of religion; and even, to protect religion and morals, to demand that both the instructors and the textbooks be removed. The rights and duties set forth in this canon are not restricted to schools established by the Church.” [John A. Abbo, S.T.L., J.C.D. and Jerome D. Hannan, AM., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D., The Sacred Canons (St. Louis. MO: B. Herder Book Co, 1960), vol. II, p. 611.]
Furthermore, Fr. Feeney also refused to allow other Jesuits to help out at the Center. This refusal did not go over well with his Jesuit superior who had allowed him to work at the Center in the first place. After making it clear that Fr. Feeney’s Jesuit superiors supported his work at the Center, Gary Potter says of his superiors:
“Their view would only begin to change when the man [i.e., Fr. Feeney] denied other Jesuits - those enrolled at Harvard the opportunity to ‘help’ at the center.” [Potter, op. cit., p. 84]
Then, of course, there came the great controversy which followed Fr. Feeney’s so-called discovery of the doctrine, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Speaking of Fr. Feeney’s Jesuit superiors, Gary Potter says: “Their changed view sharpened in the summer of 1947. It was that summer when Fr. Feeney, constantly discussing the matter with other center faculty and members, determined which was the ‘displaced’ doctrine.” [Ibid.]
Transfer to Holy Cross College
The following summer - on August 25, 1948, to be exact - Fr. Feeney was informed by his Jesuit superior that he was being transferred from St. Benedict Center in Cambridge to Holy Cross College in Worcester, MA. Though Fr. Feeney was not happy about the transfer, he nevertheless obeyed. He was a Jesuit. He had a vow of obedience. He had been assigned to the Center by his superior. Now his superior was assigning him some place else, which he had every right to do.
Fr. Feeney, for his part, packed his bags and left St. Benedict Center for his new assignment. But shortly after his departure from the Center he was visited at Holy Cross College by two young men from the Center. They pleaded with him to return. They wanted him to at least hear what the others at the Center had to say about the subject of why he should remain with them. Fr. Feeney agreed to go back to hear what they had to say. He met with the people at the Center. He listened to their plea that he stay. And he made his decision. His decision was to remain at St. Benedict Center in spite of the command of his Provincial Superior to leave. He would disobey.
Fr. Feeney’s decision to stay was communicated to his Provincial Superior by the members of the Center. “ ‘We are hereby informing you,’ they wrote, ‘that by our unanimous request Father Feeney will continue to lead our work until we get a fair hearing from higher authorities.’ [Ibid., p. 93.] The letter to Fr. Feeney’s Provincial was dated September 9, 1948. Gary Potter says that the Provincial “did not deign to answer the letter from St. Benedict Center, but he wrote Fr. Feeney the next day. His letter began: ‘For your sake and for the Society’s, I plead with you to end all connection with St. Benedict’s Center at once and to report to Holy Cross next Monday.’ “[Ibid.. p. 94.]
The following month on December 29, 1948, Fr. Feeney’s superior wrote to him again ordering him to leave St. Benedict Center and to report to his new assignment. He was told that another priest would be sent to the Center to replace him. He was also informed that his priestly faculties to hear confessions would cease on December 31 of that year. Again Fr. Feeney disobeyed.
Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary
Fr, Feeney’s refusal to obey was followed by the establishment of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary which he would later refer to as “my Order.” This took place on January 17, 1949. The founders of the “order” were Fr. Feeney and Mrs. Catherine Clarke. Mrs. Clarke became a member of the order and took the nanie “Sr. Catherine.” But she continued to live with her husband “Hank.” At first the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart made a vow of obedience. Later they added a vow of chastity. This presented a major difficulty because many of the members were married with children. Their marital status and their children presented two serious problems.
As for the marriage problem, Canon 542 of the Code of Canon Law makes it very plain that “Married persons for the duration of their marriage” “are invalidly admitted to the novitiate.” [Abbo and Hannan, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 559, 558.] This means that they cannot become religious as long as their spouse is alive even though they may be “separated” and even if “the other spouse consents that his spouse may enter religion.” [Ibid., vol. I, p. 560.]
Communal Raising of Children
The other problem was the children. What were they to do with the children? The solution they adopted was a strange one by any standard. It was to raise the children communally. Gary Potter, who, as we mentioned, is very sympathetic to the cause of Fr. Feeney, explains: “Besides their farming, another of the Slaves main activities after the move to Still River was the rearing of the community’s children.” [Potter, op. cit., p. 170.] The decision to raise them communally was made while everyone still lived in Cambridge. The Center’s married couples, it seems, wanted to live as religious. But how could they in light of the fact that they had children to raise?
Mr. Potter says: “The decision to raise the children communally was the solution to that problem, it is what lay behind the decision. It also launched the Slaves into uncharted waters. In modem times, no Catholic religious association has attempted anything like it. If someone in the historical past has tried it, the example does not come to mind - apart from heretical movements like the Cathars [emphasis added]. In any event, once the zeal and earnestness of the married couples and other younger center members prevailed over the caution of Fr. Feeney and Sr. Catherine, some procedure had to be adopted.” [Ibid.]
For those who are not familiar with the group referred to by Mr. Potter, we would point out what the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia says in this regard: “The Catharist system [the word Cathari comes from a Greek word which means pure] was a simultaneous attack upon the Catholic Church and the then-existing State. The Church was directly assailed in its doctrine and hierarchy. . . . But the worst danger was that the triumph of the heretical principles meant the extinction of the human race... For the Cathari, no salvation was possible without previous renunciation of marriage.” [N.A. Weber, “Cathari,” The Catholic Encyclopedia (NY: The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913), vol. III. p. 437.]
Mr. Potter goes on to say of Fr. Feeney’s group and the communal raising of children: “The children’s parents effectively ceased to exist as parents to the children, and more so as a child grew from three to five to ten and older. Care was taken that the children had no direct or special contact with their parents [emphasis added], save on a half-dozen major feast days during each year when the entire community would gather for socializing. On these occasions the children might chat with their parents, but after a certain time, the parents were seen by the children as scarcely more than another Big Brother or Big Sister.” [Potter, op. cit., p. 171.] That a Catholic priest would sanction such a thing is nothing less than astonishing and raises very serious questions about his prudence, common sense and the soundness of his judgment.
Suspension and Excommunication
On April 18, 1949, Fr. Feeney was suspended from his priestly duties and Catholics were forbidden to take part in the activities of St. Benedict Center. Fr. Feeney responded the next day by saying that his removal from St. Benedict Center was invalid, One of his superiors, Fr. Louis Gallagher, called Fr. Feeney to tell him that the sanctions would be lifted if he left St. Benedict Center and went to Holy Cross College. But Fr. Feeney refused to leave. He invoked his conscience as a justification for remaining at St. Benedict Center. He said in a statement prepared for the press:” ‘IT WAS AND IS A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE to me in the sanctity of my priesthood, as I openly declared to every superior I could contact.’ “[Ibid., p. 125.] A few days later, on April 21, 1949, Fr. Feeney received another command from his Provincial Superior to go to Holy Cross College. This command was given to him in virtue of Fr. Feeney’s vow of obedience. It was therefore binding under pain of mortal sin. Fr. Feeney again refused to go.
Three and a half months later, on August 8, 1949, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office wrote to Archbishop Cushing on the subject of the necessity of the Church for salvation. [NB: The full text of the letter was published in October of 1952 in The American Ecclesiastical Review CXXVII, 4 (Oct., 1952), pp. 307-315.] This decree of the Holy Office was voted on in plenary session on Wednesday, July 27, 1949. The Prefect of the Holy Office, Pope Pius XII, approved the decree on Thursday, July 28, 1949. This decree was a response to the controversy that arose in the wake of Fr. Feeney’s interpretation of the doctrine “outside the Church there is no salvation.” Even though this decree was approved by Pope Pius XII who, as we mentioned, was the Prefect of the Holy Office, Fr. Feeney would later refer to it as” ‘This heretical letter...’ “[Thid.]
Considering that the acts of disobedience on the part of Fr. Feeney were both grave and numerous and that he intended to persevere in the dispositions that produced these acts and thus had no intention of amending his ways, Fr. Feeney was expelled from the Jesuit Order on October 10, 1949. On September 4, 1952, Archbishop Cushing summoned Fr. Feeney to appear before him no later than October 4, 1952. He called upon Fr. Feeney to make his submission to the local ordinary and to the Holy See. Fr. Feeney was informed that the Congregation of the Holy Office, with the approval of Pope Pius XII, had put him, Fr. Feeney. and St. Benedict Center under interdict.
On September 24, 1952, a letter was sent from St. Benedict Center to Pope Pius XII in which the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office was charged with heresy. The heresy, the letter said, was contained in the August 8, 1949, letter entitled “Letter of the Holy Office to tile Archbishop of Boston.”
On October 25, 1952, Cardinal Pizzardo, who was then the Secretary of the Holy Office, wrote to Fr. Feeney from Rome, and in the name of the Holy Office. He said:
“The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has been obliged repeatedly to make your teaching and conduct in the Church the object of its special care and attention, and recently, after having again carefully examined and calmly weighed all the evidence collected in your cause, it has found it necessary to bring this question to a conclusion.
“However, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, in His tender regard and paternal solicitude for the eternal welfare of souls committed to His supreme charge, has decreed that, before any other measure be carried into effect, you be summoned to Rome for a hearing. Therefore, in accordance with the express bidding and by the special authority of the Supreme Pontiff, you are hereby ordered to proceed to Rome forthwith and there to appear before the Authorities of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office as soon as possible” [Ibid., p.150.]
Fr. Feeney did not obey this summons. He responded instead with a letter dated October 30, 1952. The following month, in November of 1952, Fr. Feeney received a second letter summoning him to Rome. He was ordered to present himself before the Holy Office no later than December 31, 1952. He was told that if he failed to obey, his disobedience would be made public along with the canonical penalties. Fr. Feeney was also informed that his expenses for the trip to Rome would be paid by the Apostolic Delegate.
But Fr. Feeney refused to comply with this second command to appear before the Holy Office. Instead he responded with a long letter dated December 2, 1952. In early January 1953, Fr. Feeney received yet a third letter from Rome. By this letter he was ordered to appear before the Holy Office no later than January 31, 1953, under pain of excommunication for failure to appear.
Fr. Feeney refused to go. Once again he disobeyed the command of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, and this for the third time. He responded with another letter, dated January 13, 1953, in which he accused the Holy Office of outrageous, barbarous behavior and with heresy. On February 4, 1953, the Holy Office met in Plenary Session and declared Fr. Leonard Feeney to be excommunicated. The decree of excommunication was dated February 13, 1953. The text is as follows:
“Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict Center), who for a long time has been suspended from his priestly duties on account of grave disobedience of Church Authority, being unmoved by repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, has not submitted, the Most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of faith and morals, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday, 4 February 1953, declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.
“On Thursday, 12 February 1953, Our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.
“Given at Rome, at the Headquarters of the Holy Office, 13 February 1953.” [Ibid., p. 158.]
The Authority of the Holy Office
Fr. Feeney was ordered in virtue of his vow of obedience -and thus under pain of mortal sin - to move from St. Benedict Center to Holy Cross College. He disobeyed. Subsequently he was ordered by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office to appear before it. Three times he was summoned. Three times he disobeyed. And in response to the third summons he accused the Holy Office of outrageous, barbarous and heretical behavior. Fr. Feeney accused the Holy Office of heresy despite the fact that the Prefect of the Holy Office was Pope Pius XII.
The Holy Office, of course, had every right to summon Fr. Feeney. And he, for his part, was obliged under pain of mortal sin to obey the summons. But he chose not to do so. First he chose to disobey his Jesuit superiors. Then he chose to disobey the Holy Office. And in response to the third summons he received from the Holy Office, he charged the Holy Office with heresy, and thereby implicitly charged its Prefect, Pope Pius XII, with the same crime.
Why the Excommunication?
In light of the facts it is not hard to understand why Fr. Feeney was excommunicated. Indeed in this case Rome was quite indulgent. Clearly, Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for a disobedience that was both grave and scandalous. He was not excommunicated for upholding Catholic doctrine or “for preaching that there was no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church.” He remained “unmoved” in the face of “repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto.” He refused to submit to the legitimate authority of the Church as exercised by the Holy Office, whose Prefect was Pope Pius XII, and was thus excommunicated.
And what is so strange about the whole thing is that when Fr. Feeney was given the opportunity to appear before the Holy Office, where he could defend his charge of heresy and his interpretation of the doctrine “outside the Church there is no salvation,” he refused to take it. Is that the behavior of a great defender of Catholic orthodoxy? Would not a great defender of Catholic truth welcome such an opportunity to defend the truth? But Fr. Feeney did not defend the truth as he saw it. He did not rise to the occasion. Instead he stayed home. He stayed home and was excommunicated for it. Finally, I would like to point out that to conclude that Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for grave disobedience is not to say that disobedience was the only problem. For it was not.
There was another problem which was far more serious. It was the problem of unsound doctrine. For Fr. Feeney - as we will see tomorrow - was guilty of grave doctrinal errors related to Baptism, Justification and Sanctifying Grace.