[Rashputin]

So, ". . . any just cause" includes a personal opinion that a Bishop isn't "providing trustworthy, accessible confessors with facilities" or is there some definition that isn't subject to personal interpretation ?

I'm not sure where SSPX would be providing such confessors that there aren't other alternatives, maybe you could clear that up a bit.

[BlatherNaut]

Depends where you live. There are priests who OBJECTIVELY, through word and action, publicly corrupt the Church's teachings, and change the consecration prayers and penitential rubrics to suit themselves. Complaints to the bishop go nowhere. Perhaps you are fortunate enough to live in a diocese where such behavior is uncommon.

I suggest you read "Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church" by Michael Rose and "Amchurch Comes Out: The U.S. Bishops, Pedophile Scandals and the Homosexual Agenda" by Paul Likoudis for further insight.

If the choice is between confessing to your parish priest who is openly living with his boyfriend or a priest who belongs to SSPX, there would seem to be "just cause" to opt for the latter. Faculties or not, perverted priests are OBJECTIVELY not trustworthy to hear one's confession. The sad truth is that when obedient, orthodox priests are thin on the ground, Catholics may be forced to make such choices. This is where Can. 1335 and prudential judgment seem to apply.