One Catholic priest has had enough of California Governor Gavin Newsom’s seemingly endless “State of Emergency” and the constitutional violations incurred with the resultant lockdown. Attorneys from the Thomas More Society have filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court against Newsom and 19 other state, county and municipal officials on behalf of Father Trevor Burfitt. Submitted on September 29, 2020, the case charges each of the named parties with eight distinct violations of Burfitt’s rights under the Constitution of California.
Burfitt oversees mission churches in Kern, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Los Angeles Counties, each of which has been severely restricted during Newsom’s seven-month lockdown of the state of California. These restrictions imposed and enforced by Newsom and the other named officials in the name of COVID-19 have severely obstructed the rights of Burfitt and others throughout California, despite the guarantees promised in the state Constitution.
The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for the constitutional violations committed by Newsom and those under his authority throughout California. The filing states that “Newsom’s lockdown was originally supposed to be only a temporary emergency measure. However, nearly seven months later it appears that, absent judicial intervention, there will never be a ‘reopening’ to normal, pre-COVID activity, despite incontestable facts – including California’s own data…showing that the lockdown is no longer warranted and is causing far more harm than good.”
The lawsuit details how Burfitt’s priestly ministry has been radically and severely restricted by Newsom’s lockdown in several specific ways, and argues three key constitutional points of order:
1. Under the California Constitution a public health “emergency” cannot be whatever the governor says is an emergency, nor end only when he says so – no matter how long it continues or how dubious the rationale for its prolongation.
2. The California Constitution does not permit the state’s governor to impose any “emergency” restriction of fundamental rights that he deems appropriate. Rather, any restrictions or measures that the governor imposes must be narrowly tailored, limited in time, and serve interests of the highest order, as opposed to any goal that the governor wishes to achieve.
3. There cannot be absolute judicial deference to the exercise of a governor’s purported “emergency” powers. Rather, there must be a judicial inquiry into the factual basis for their invocation, their limits, and their continuation, with the burden of proof being on the state at all times. To hold otherwise would allow tyranny to be exercised by the executive branch and incur a total abandonment of the separation of powers intrinsic to California’s constitutional scheme.
Story from Thomas More Society. Read the Complaint charging eight counts of violation of California Constitutional guarantees, filed on September 29, 2020, by the Thomas More Society on behalf of Father Trevor Burfitt, in Father Trevor Burfitt v. Gavin Newsom, et al. at the Superior Court of the State of California – County of Kern – Metro Division, here.
It should have been the California bishops that brought this suit, but due to lack of leadership at that level, this parish priest, of limited means, is left to do battle against dictator of the People’s Republic of Kalifornia.
…this is not a repeat it was not included.That was my first thought, too… I now include the entire RCC and Protestant and Jewish …communities.. I see that the Muslim community was not put upon ..hmmmm
I agree! When it was first announced that our Catholic churches would be closed with no Mass available to the faithful, I cried. I am still crying. Just received a letter from my pastor saying our church is to remain closed, while two Catholic churches near us are now having Masses, albeit with masks and social distancing. One must make a reservation to attend to keep the numbers in line with restrictions. While I would love to attend these Masses, I don’t think it is fair for me to take the place of one of these parishoners while my church remains closed. I have understood by an online priest that attending a ‘virtual’ Mass is not attending Mass. What is one to do? I thank this priest for stepping up to the plate and doing the only thing left to do to open our churches – filing a law suit. Yes, it should have been our bishops!
When there is a dispensation there is no obligation to attend Mass. Since your church is closed, the holiest thing you can do is stay home. You are doing nothing wrong. You are doing something charitable and fulfilling God’s Will. It is a meritorious practice, but not required, to watch Mass online or on TV. You will benefit from it as much as attending in the parish. Make a spiritual communion and trust that God will give you all the graces you need or want. Ask for them. There are also perpetual adorations on Youtube. I hope you pray a daily rosary and chaplet of Mercy. The Liturgy of the Hours is available online as well. Jesus is with you. If you have others in your household, gather them for prayer. If it is the human company from Mass that you miss, phone or text people. Don’t gossip and don’t complain. Make it a holy uplifting conversation. This is time of grace.
I would like to know What are Bishops are doing to allow Catholics to expand the random attendance limits set by Governor in CA so that our Catholic communities can enjoy the Mass continue to receive spiritual health and wellbeing. I helped usher at my church when we first were limited to 100 people for indoor Mass. With everyone wearing masks and sitting 6 feet apart separated by one empty pew we had half the church filled. Know we have the same 100 person limit to outside mass in LA County..
It’s too bad this action “had to” come from a priest of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X.
Any other bishops or priests want to join him in the lawsuit?
The SSPX is not in schism. Pope Francis in March of 2017 announced marriages celebrated by SSPX priests would be recognized. This came after declaring in 2016 the faithful could receive absolution from SSPX priests.
SSPX sacraments have always been valid. And, the individuals are not in schism. But, yes, the movement is in schism.
(Like Orthodox Churches, the sacraments are valid, but they’re still in schism.)
From Dec. 2013: The leaders of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) are in schism, and remain suspended from the sacraments, says the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
In an interview with the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, Archbishop Gerhard Müller said that although Pope Benedict XVI lifted the canonical excommunication of SSPX prelates, they remain suspended from the sacraments because “by their schism they have broken away from communion with the Church.” (And, Pope Francis, elected in March of 2013, while continuing to seek reconciliation, did not change that.)
Archbishop Müller said that while talks with the SSPX have reach an impasse, the Vatican will not close the door to reconciliation. However, he said, a restoration of full communion would require the SSPX to accept the authority of the Church and of the Pope.
If SSPX parishioners are not in schism, is this also true of parishioners of Eastern Orthodoxy?
anonymous clergyman: You should know that in order for confessions and marriages to be valid, they require faculties, which SSPX did not have until Francis granted them a few years back.
In order for a sacrament to be licit, faculties are required, but, not for their validity. As long as the priest was validly ordained…
Otherwise, all Eastern Orthodox sacraments would not be sacraments at all (they would lack validity), since they don’t have faculties from Catholic bishops.
Validity and liceity are sometimes confused.
I hope that helps explain the situation. More importantly, let’s pray for the SSPX’s full reunification with the Church.
“Can. 966 §1. The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.”
See also: https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-faculties-do-sspx-priests-have
“Pope Francis’ Apostolic Letter Misericordia et Misera specifically granted the faculty to validly and licitly absolve sins to priests of the SSPX. However, it extended no other faculties to these priests.
That means that any other sacrament that requires faculties for validity would be invalid. Thus, for example, any marriage vows exchanged before a SSPX priest by a Catholic would be invalid.
Any sacrament they administer that does not rely upon having a faculty would be valid but illicit.”
https://www.ncregister.com/news/pope-francis-creates-path-for-sspx-priests-to-validly-celebrate-marriages
You have been drastically misinformed. The SSPX is not in schism. God bless you.
“In itself, this act [by Archbishop Lefebvre ordaining bishops without the Pope’s approval] was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience – which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy – constitutes a schismatic act.” (from the Apostolic Letter “Ecclesia Dei” by Pope John Paul II, July 2, 1988, #3)
jon is wrong. He fails to distinguish between an individual’s schismatic act and the state of union of a religious society with the Holy See.
Pope Francis has given faculties to SSPX priests to absolve Catholics from sin and to witness weddings of Catholics. Those faculties could not and would not be granted to a society in formal schism. Furthermore, SSPX excommunications were lifted by Pope Benedict XVI in 2009.
The SSPX is not in schism, but nor is it fully regular as regards union with the Holy See. It’s in an in-between state. You have to know what you’re talking about to understand the subtleties.
Carl is wrong. As recently as December 2013, then-Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Müller, said at an interview that even though Pope Benedict has lifted the excommunication of the bishops of the Society, that they remain suspended from the sacraments because “by their schism they have broken away from communion with the Church.” They are very much still in schism.
He must do a lot of driving covering that large an area. Does he celebrate Mass each weekend in each county?
“However, he said, a restoration of full communion would require the SSPX to accept the authority of the Church and of the Pope.”
Hmmm… I wonder if Muller has any evidence that SSPX does NOT accepted the authority of the Church and of the Pope”?
The SSPX is the Catholicism I grew up with. Was I living in error all those years?
Anon, your baptisms and eucharists were valid but your confessions were not. I don’t think weddings were valid either. Pope Francis, I believe, has given SPPX the ability to hear valid confessions.
Anon, I am sorry but yes. I am sure that much of what you were taught of the Faith was true but there is error mixed in, especially when they speak of the Holy Catholic Church post Vatican II. There could be error in what your parents taught you or what other members of the Church said as well as in sermons or classes.
Remember that the fault is not yours. Seek the Truth. I am so sorry. Praying for you.
No you are not. And you must know it. We obey Jesus Christ, there anonymous people don’t know what they are taking about that is why they are anonymous,
SSPX do not obey Jesus Christ. Jesus asked that we all be one John 17:20-23 He made Peter the head of the Church and said that whatever he declared bound on earth was bound in Heaven Matthew 16:18-19
The SSPX priests are all in mortal sin.
You have to be kidding. It was the head of the Church that took the advice of Protestant ministers in the early 60’s and changed the Mass and basic religious beliefs. So you randomly picked a verse out of the Bible and somehow connected dots that don’t even exist. You are in no position to state the SSPX priests are in mortal sin. They are practicing the faith I grew up with. It wasn’t a “mortal sin” then and it isn’t now. You show me in Canon Law or in the Baltimore Catechism where priests saying the traditional Mass is a mortal sin.
Carol, It is not a mortal sin for a priest to say the traditional Mass. The SSPX has no canonical status in the Church — it is not a part of the Catholic Church (and it does not want to be). Its ministers do not exercise any legitimate ministry in the Church (the priests are not priests in the Catholic Church). The Vatican wants to bring the SSPX back into the One True Church. Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis have made extraordinary gifts to the SSPX in the hopes of them returning to the Church. Pope Francis’ great act of mercy to those Catholic faithful who attend their chapels of granting faculties to absolve sins in sacramental confession and in finding a way to make their marriages valid are an example of these gifts. They are undeserved and from pure love of the faithful.
However, the SSPX priests do not say licit masses. They are not a part of the Universal Church. They call themselves separated from the Church and when a priest does that he is in mortal sin.
I thought the subject at hand was a priest who is suing the state of California and not about the SSPX. Please stick to the subjectat hand. i am glad that this priest is doing what I believe is correct. The faithful have been deprived the Sacraments for far too long. I hope this will happen in our diocese as well.
CCD commenters are open to talk about whatever people want to talk about. There are articles where not a single comment is about the article. God bless you, Father.
Your comment is irrelevant. It is totally appropriate for someone to expect you to stick to a logical train of thought.
In the meantime, the men who wear the pointy hats remain as quiet as a church mouse. Even the more “traditional” ones qualify as gutless wonders when it comes to opening up our churches. It takes a great deal of Faith to remain a loyal Catholic these days.
The canonical status of the SSPX is a red herring.
I applaud Fr. Burfitt and the Thomas More Society for taking action and defending our right to worship. May God reward you!
God Bless Father Burfitt for defending the faith.
“By their fruits you shall know them.” I mean to weigh in here, “from the horse’s mouth.” I decided to move forward for the good of souls and the freedom of the Church. Thank you for the support and prayers. Someone needed to lead the charge. Yet, with the numbers and strength of the Church, where are my fellow priests and the bishops? Hirelings or shepherds? Who are the true shepherds, and where is the the true sheepfold? Think, pray, ask for fortitude. Pax tecum
Thank you Father. I am in the Archdiocese of San Bernardino and am contemplating leaving my church>. It disturbs me a great deal that the Archbishop and priests at my church will not defend the Faith.
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him we humbly pray; and do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly host, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.
I am with you, Carol.
I am now attending Latin Mass in Colton CA. This is the real Mass and not the Protestant look-alike Mass, novus ordo, that is getting worse day by day.
Look for Father Michael Rodriguez from Texas on youtube or if you know Spanish, Father Lorenzo saavedra from Madrid Spain.
Also Father Isaac Mary Relyea.
God bless you and your family.
Jorge the Ordinary Form of the Holy Mass is very much also the real Mass. You may not like some of the practices in individual parishes, but that does not negate the fact that the Ordinary Form is valid, licit, and the Sacrifice of Our Lord on the Cross.
Courage, Father! May God bless you!
Who are the true shepherds? Pope Francis and the bishops in union with him. Where is the true sheepfold? The flock in union with the legitimate anointed ministers of the Church, that’s the present Pope and the bishops. To this question, it is irrelevant that a lawsuit was filed in civil court, and also irrelevant that the lawsuit won. The court that matters is that which is of the Church. If the Church declares that a group is illegitimate, then it is.
No you were not. The SSPX was formed because Rome was moving away from traditional and fundamental teachings. They were preserving the faith not destroying it. God bless all the shepherds especially Fr Trevor Allen Burfitt
Sorry but Elizabeth is wrong. The true shepherds of the Church remain the Holy Father and all of the bishops united with him, not the beloved SSPX. To say that the Church has moved away from traditional and fundamental Catholic teachings is essentially heretical, because it presumes that the Holy Spirit no longer guides the Church in matters of faith and morals. It is a dogma of the Church that God through His Holy Spirit preserves the Church from error in matters of faith and morals.