Dear Mr. Padula,
Thank you for this letter, as [well as] for the booklet by Fr. Cekada on the Thuc Consecrations, which I had seen.
I think that Fr. Cekada's arguments are good, such that I agree with him and not with Fr. Kelly or Fr. Jenkins as to the validity of the up-coming consecration.
However, one must distinguish validity from licitly or lawfulness. A consecration can be valid, but unlawful, like eating a stolen apple. The eating is valid; it satisfies my hunger, but if the apple was stolen, then the eating is unlawful.
Is the up-coming consecration lawful? Answer: if (a) the Cincinnati operation of these priests is lawful, and if (b) they need a bishop imperatively, then the consecration would be lawful.
But as to (a), these Cincinnati priests are not ordinary traditional priests; they were Society of St. Pius X priests who broke with Society of St. Pius X positions to take up harsh and un-Catholic positions, out of line at any rate with Archbishop Lefebvre's thinking. Yet the future bishop on the flyer advertising his consecration leads one to think that there was no such split with the Archbishop. Conclusion: the Cincinnati priests' operation is doubtfully lawful.
As to (b), if their operation is doubtfully lawful, then a consecration is at best doubtfully necessary.
Conclusion: however much it would interest you to attend a consecration, you would best stay away from a doubtfully Catholic occasion.
I hope this answers you question.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
+ Richard Williamson