Excommunication: an Inquiry

An Inquiry into Authority and the Exercise of Power in the Catholic Church

Against Excommunication.pdf

Fazer download de PDF • 315KB

Against Excommunication

Ana Paula Arendt*

To my readers: what do I think about the excommunication of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX)? Since I have not formed an opinion about that organization, it would be very easy simply to read the decision of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and follow what the authorities say. Yet the easiest path is not always the safest one when it comes to forming one's own opinion. Even within the Church, a theocratic state in which the Pope represents the Vicar of Christ, who, in turn, is the Incarnation of God, the faithful are called to reflect upon reality and arrive at their own points of view, from which they profess and defend the faith in which they believe.

2. Another fundamental question arises for those who are unfamiliar with the regulations of the Catholic Church: why are certain people excommunicated from the Church for celebrating the Mass in Latin and disregarding the judgment of the Holy Father, or for preaching an interpretation of the Catholic faith that differs from the Church's teaching (heresy), while other members of the faithful and priests, even after having injured, abused, or admitted to committing grave offenses against other faithful, are not excommunicated?

3. I believe that writing helps us understand. Although no Catholic may disagree with the Pope in matters of his highest authority, we nevertheless have the duty to seek a better understanding of why the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith chose the path of excluding around 600,000 faithful associated with that movement.

4. The issue is less juridical than ecclesiological. If the purpose of excommunication is medicinal, and the purpose of the Petrine primacy is to preserve the unity of the Church, is this measure truly the one most consistent with the Gospel when a person or a group claims to remain Catholic, albeit in a state of grave disobedience?

5. I do not intend to demonstrate that every excommunication has been unjust, nor do I deny that the Church has reasons for adopting it. My purpose is another: to examine whether, in the light of the Gospels and of the Church's own historical experience, excommunication proves to be truly necessary and compatible with the manner in which Christ exercised His authority. I seek to consider whether there are other possibilities that ought to be exhausted first. Such a grave measure, which deprives a person of sacramental communion, must be not only juridically established, but also morally convincing from the standpoint of the Church. I hope readers enjoy this essay, a reflection on authority and the use of power within the Catholic Church.

What Constitutes a Delict Punishable by Excommunication

6. The concept of a delict in the Church differs substantially from the idea of violating a regulation, a law, a custom, or a moral tradition. In the Catholic Church, delicts are acts that deprive one of the Christian faithful of some spiritual or temporal good, provided that such penalties remain consistent with "the supernatural end of the Church.”

Can. 1311 The Church has the innate and proper right to coerce offending members of the Christian faithful with penal sanctions.

Can. 1312 §1. The penal sanctions in the Church are:

1° medicinal penalties or censures, which are listed in cann. 1331–1333;

2° expiatory penalties mentioned in can. 1336.

§2. The law can establish other expiatory penalties which deprive a member of the Christian faithful of some spiritual or temporal good and which are consistent with the supernatural end of the Church.

§3. Penal remedies and penances are also available; the former especially to prevent delicts, the latter rather to substitute for or to augment a penalty.

(CATHOLIC CHURCH. Code of Canon Law. Promulgated by Pope John Paul II on January 25, 1983.)

7. With respect to the categories of delicts regulated by the Church that may result in censure, interdict, or excommunication of the faithful and of clerics, there are delicts that sometimes coincide with, and sometimes differ from, the offenses defined under the criminal law of secular governments.

8. Canon law also includes the delict of scandal committed by clerics and members of religious institutes:

Can. 1395 §1. A cleric living in concubinage, apart from the case mentioned in can. 1394, and a cleric who persists with scandal in another external sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, is to be punished with suspension. If, after having been warned, he persists in the delict, other penalties can gradually be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.

§2. A cleric who has otherwise committed an offense against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the delict was committed by force or threats or publicly or with a minor under sixteen years of age, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants. (Op. cit.)

9. Canon law also provides for various delicts against human life and against the faith of the Church. In cases of homicide, kidnapping, mutilation, or grievous bodily harm, is the offender excommunicated?

TITLE VI

DELICTS AGAINST HUMAN LIFE AND FREEDOM

Can. 1397. A person who commits homicide, or who by force or fraud abducts or detains another, or who mutilates or gravely wounds another, is to be punished, according to the gravity of the delict, with the deprivations and prohibitions mentioned in can. 1336. Homicide committed against the persons mentioned in can. 1370 is punished with the penalties established there. (Op. cit.)

10. It is evident that homicide does not necessarily entail automatic excommunication. Canon 1336 instead prescribes expiatory penalties, including prohibitions against residing in a particular place or exercising a particular ecclesiastical office.

CHAPTER II

EXPIATORY PENALTIES

Can. 1336 §1. Expiatory penalties, which can affect an offender perpetually or for a determined or indeterminate period of time, in addition to others which the law may establish, are the following:

1° a prohibition or an order concerning residence in a certain place or territory;

2° deprivation of a power, office, function, right, privilege, faculty, favor, title, or insignia, even merely honorary ones;

3° a prohibition against exercising those things mentioned in no. 2, or a prohibition against exercising them in a certain place or outside a certain place; such prohibitions are never imposed under pain of nullity;

4° a penal transfer to another office;

5° dismissal from the clerical state.

§2. Only those penalties mentioned in §1, no. 3, can be imposed as latae sententiae expiatory penalties.

Can. 1337 §1. A prohibition against residing in a certain place or territory may be imposed on clerics and members of religious institutes; an order to reside in a certain place may be imposed on secular clerics and, within the limits of their constitutions, on religious.

§2. In order to impose an order to reside in a certain place or territory, the consent of the Ordinary of that place is required, unless it concerns a house designated for the penance or correction of extra-diocesan clerics. (Op. cit.)

11. Physical violence results in excommunication only when committed against the Roman Pontiff. Physical violence committed against other clerics results instead in an interdict.

TITLE II

DELICTS AGAINST ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITIES AND THE FREEDOM OF THE CHURCH

Can. 1370 §1. A person who uses physical force against the Roman Pontiff incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. If the offender is a cleric, another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, may be added according to the gravity of the delict.

§2. A person who does the same against one who possesses episcopal character incurs a latae sententiae interdict and, if the offender is a cleric, also a latae sententiae suspension.

§3. A person who uses physical force against a cleric or a religious out of contempt for the faith, the Church, ecclesiastical authority, or the ministry is to be punished with a just penalty. (Op. cit.)

12. Under Canon Law, an interdict differs from excommunication in the following respect:

Can. 1332. A person under interdict is bound by the prohibitions mentioned in can. 1331, §1, nn. 1 and 2. If the interdict has been imposed or declared, the prescription of can. 1331, §2, n. 1 is also to be observed. (Op. cit.)

13. Only two of the penalties attached to excommunication apply to an interdict, namely:

Can. 1331 §1. An excommunicated person is prohibited:

1° from having any ministerial participation in celebrating the Sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;

2° from celebrating the sacraments or sacramentals and from receiving the sacraments;

[3° from exercising any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, functions, or acts of governance.] (Op. cit.)

14. The practical difference between an interdict and excommunication is that a person under interdict does not lose the right to govern or to hold administrative offices within the Church. Rather, such a person is prohibited only from participating in and receiving the sacraments (the prohibition contained in §1, no. 3, does not apply in the case of an interdict). Canon law also provides for the penalties of censure and suspension.

15. There are other delicts that also incur excommunication:

TITLE VI

DELICTS AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

Can. 1398. A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

Can. 695 §1. A religious must be dismissed if he or she has committed the delicts mentioned in cann. 1397, 1398, and 1395, unless, in the case of the delicts referred to in can. 1395 §2, the Superior judges that dismissal is not entirely necessary and that sufficient provision can be made by other means for the reform of the religious, the restoration of justice, and the reparation of scandal. (Op. cit.)

16. Persons who have procured or facilitated an abortion and nevertheless receive Holy Communion (by receiving the consecrated Host), for example, are acting in violation of what Canon Law expressly provides.

17. Naturally, in situations in which a person was unaware of violating the law or a precept, no penalty is incurred (error). Likewise, when the delict was committed under coercion, grave necessity, legitimate self-defense, fear, because of the circumstances, or due to the lack of the use of reason, Canon Law does not apply (Can. 1323). Conscious intent is required to support the imposition of a penalty under Canon Law—a principle that is consistent with the Catholic faith, since forgiveness cannot be denied to one who has violated the Code when there is repentance or an acknowledgment of the error.

18. There are also other delicts punishable by interdict and excommunication. The first category of delicts regulated by Canon Law comprises those committed against religion and the unity of the Church, including the delict of schism:

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the provision of can. 194 §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication. A cleric can, moreover, be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

(...)

Can. 1367. A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. A cleric can, moreover, be punished with another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.

(…) (Op. cit.)

19. Excommunication and interdict are not the only penalties provided by Canon Law. There are also censures and just penalties. Canon Law does not always specify the precise penalty to be imposed, leaving its application to the Church's canonical jurisprudence.

Can. 1371. The following are to be punished with a just penalty:

1° a person who, apart from the case mentioned in can. 1364 §1, teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff or by an Ecumenical Council, or obstinately rejects the doctrine mentioned in can. 750 §2 or can. 752 and, after being admonished by the Apostolic See or by the Ordinary, does not retract;

2° a person who, in another way, does not obey the Apostolic See, the Ordinary, or the Superior when they lawfully command or prohibit something and, after being warned, persists in disobedience.

Can. 1372. A person who appeals to an Ecumenical Council or to the College of Bishops against an act of the Roman Pontiff is to be punished with a censure.

Can. 1373. A person who publicly incites hatred or animosity among subjects against the Apostolic See or against the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical power or ministry, or who provokes subjects to disobey them, is to be punished by an interdict or by other just penalties.

Can. 1374. A person who joins an association that plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or directs such an association is to be punished with an interdict.

Can. 1375. A person who impedes the freedom of ministry, election, or ecclesiastical authority, or the lawful use of sacred or other ecclesiastical goods, or who intimidates an elector, the person elected, or one who exercises ecclesiastical power or ministry, can be punished with a just penalty.

Can. 1376. A person who profanes a sacred object, whether movable or immovable, is to be punished with a just penalty.

Can. 1377. A person who alienates ecclesiastical goods without the required permission is to be punished with a just penalty. (Op. cit.)

The Case of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX)

20. A just penalty may result in an interdict or excommunication, since the Code does not limit the sanction to a specific penalty. The case of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) was judged under the most serious category of delicts—apostasy, heresy, and schism—according to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith:

"The sacred ministers belonging to the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) are in a state of schism and therefore must be regarded as schismatics (...), being subject to the excommunication prescribed by law (can. 1364 §1 of the Code of Canon Law)."

(DICASTERY FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH. Episcopal Consecrations of the Lefebvrists: Excommunication Decreed. Vatican News, Vatican City, July 2, 2026. Available at: https://www.vaticannews.va/pt/vaticano/news/2026-07/consagracoes-episcopais-dos-lefebvrianos-decretada-a-excomunhao.html. Accessed: July 4, 2026.)

21. It is not entirely clear why those who were excommunicated would fall under the categories of apostasy, heresy, and schism, since the Second Vatican Council itself states that there was no change in Catholic doctrine:

"One thing is the deposit of faith, that is, the truths contained in our venerable doctrine; another is the manner in which those truths are expressed, while preserving the same meaning and the same judgment."

JOHN XXIII. Gaudet Mater Ecclesia: Opening Address of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. Vatican City, October 11, 1962. Available at: https://www.vatican.va. Accessed: July 5, 2026.

22. If there has been no substantive change in the truths contained in our venerable doctrine, then it makes no sense to identify pre-conciliar practices as heretical doctrine. That association teaches a doctrine that has never been changed. The difference it advocates is liturgical. The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) follows the liturgy of the Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V in 1570, in implementation of the decrees of the Council of Trent. The Roman Rite in Latin predates the Council of Trent itself and was merely standardized by it. The Society's disobedience, therefore, consists in refusing the liturgy adopted following the Second Vatican Council, despite having been admonished by the Apostolic See. However, plotting against the Catholic Church and obstructing the exercise of legitimate ecclesiastical authority are delicts provided for in the opening provision of can. 1371 and are of lesser gravity.

23. In this specific case, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith adopted its own interpretation, namely, that the "just penalty" for disobedience and refusal of papal authority should be classification under excommunication for schism. In response, the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) did not assert any apostasy or heresy concerning the nature of Christ, the Saints, nor did it make any schismatic profession of faith. Rather, it affirmed its disobedience on the grounds that it wished "to remain faithful to the Church." This gives rise to the impression that, at first sight, it seems rather strained to classify the preservation of the rites safeguarded by the Council of Trent as apostasy, heresy, or schism merely because their understanding was superseded by the Second Vatican Council; that is the fact of the matter. The members of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) were excommunicated for schism, even though they maintain that they are defending the very same Catholic doctrine. In the view of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, however, they are not defending that same doctrine because they reject the new liturgy—and, importantly, because they do not recognize the authority of the Holy Father.

24. Our purpose is not to question exhaustively the specific excommunication of that Society, but rather to discuss the instrument of excommunication itself and the possible alternatives to it. Before all else, does this procedure actually produce the result it seeks—reconciliation and obedience?

25. There are historical cases in which excommunication accomplished precisely the purpose for which it was conceived in Canon Law: the repentance of the faithful and their readmission to the communion of the Church. Several examples are well documented. One of the most successful cases was that of Henry IV of Germany (1076–1077), excommunicated by Pope Gregory VII during the Investiture Controversy. Henry crossed the Alps in winter and undertook the Walk to Canossa, where he remained for three days seeking absolution. The Pope lifted the excommunication. (ROBINSON, I. S. Henry IV of Germany, 1056–1106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.) Robert II of France was likewise excommunicated because of a marriage considered invalid. After separating from his wife and reconciling with the Church, the excommunication was lifted. (DUBY, Georges. The Knight, the Lady and the Priest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983.)

26. Perhaps the most successful example of the timely use of excommunication occurred in 1809, when Pope Pius VII issued the bull Quum memoranda in response to Napoleon Bonaparte's annexation of the Papal States. Although the document did not mention Napoleon by name, it excommunicated those who infringed the rights of the Apostolic See. Both contemporaries and later historians understood the censure to apply to the French Emperor. Shortly thereafter, Napoleon ordered the arrest of Pius VII, who remained in captivity from 1809 to 1814, making this episode one of the most significant conflicts between the papacy and political power in the modern era. Pope Pius VII was subjected to harsh treatment and was forced to cross the Alps barefoot during the winter (ROONEY, Francis. The Global Vatican. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2013). Yet the excommunication fully achieved its intended effect by depriving the Emperor's abusive acts of legitimacy. (PIUS VII. Quum memoranda. June 10, 1809. In: Bullarii Romani Continuatio. Rome: Typographia Reverendae Camerae Apostolicae, 1835. Vol. 15.) It should be noted that, in this case, excommunication was employed as a means of confronting a grave abuse and an immediate danger—the seizure of the property of the Holy Church. It was not used to address a dispute, a thoughtless personal offense, or an internal liturgical disagreement that might have been resolved through other pastoral and juridical means. Even so, one may still ask whether the excommunication hastened the French Emperor's decision to imprison and mistreat the Head of the Holy Church—an act that caused profound suffering not only to the Pope himself but also to all the faithful united with him.

27. Other instances of excommunication did not place the Holy See and justice on the same side. One may also recall the case of Louis VIII of France, the father of Saint Louis IX (a friend of Saint Thomas Aquinas). Louis VIII was excommunicated in 1216 by Pope Innocent III after leading the invasion of England and claiming the English throne against King John, who had placed his kingdom under the protection of the Holy See. The excommunication resulted from his disobedience to the Pope's directives and his attack upon a sovereign regarded as a vassal of the papacy. After John's death, the accession of Henry III of England, and his military defeat, Louis renounced his claim to the English throne in the Treaty of Lambeth, reconciled himself with the Church, and had the excommunication lifted. Yet his excommunication, for defending what he considered to be a just cause—the support of the English barons against King John—raises an important historical question. Although the sanction was motivated by the fact that John had placed England under the suzerainty of the Holy See, the barons sought to preserve the guarantees of the Magna Carta and to limit the abuses of the English king, who refused to honor the commitments he himself had made to his subjects.

28. Even though the excommunication was juridically grounded in the feudal relationship between the English king and the papacy, did it truly serve the good of the Church and the cause of justice? Or did it merely strengthen an excessive absolutism that the king's own subjects were attempting to restrain?

29. In other noteworthy cases, excommunication was employed improperly, as later acknowledged by the Church itself, and the decision was subsequently reversed. During the trial of Saint Joan of Arc in 1431, she was required to sign an abjuration after being accused, and her excommunication was temporarily lifted. Later, when she resumed wearing men's clothing, she was declared a relapsed heretic and condemned once again. Decades afterward, the Church annulled the proceedings. This is a typical example of an improper application of excommunication, since a person could not rightly be excommunicated merely for failing to dress according to prevailing custom. Despite the depth of her faith, her practice of going to confession more than once a day, and her leadership in military victories attributed to divine assistance, wearing armor was regarded as a "scandal." It is an example of a situation in which excommunication was employed on the basis of a trivial reason in order to impose its gravest consequence upon one of the faithful.

30. The case of Galileo Galilei is likewise emblematic. He was never excommunicated for his legitimate scientific discoveries. Instead, he was condemned by the Inquisition and compelled to abjure certain propositions, remaining under house arrest. This is a telling example of how unfortunate the initiation of excommunication proceedings can be.

31. One should also recall Marguerite Porete. Around the 1290s, she published The Mirror of Simple Souls after submitting the work for the review of several ecclesiastics, including a Franciscan, a Cistercian monk, and a Master of Theology at the University of Paris, all of whom gave favorable opinions regarding its contents. Those opinions, however, did not constitute official or definitive authorization from the competent ecclesiastical authority. Later, the Bishop of Cambrai condemned the work, ordered all copies to be burned, and prohibited its circulation. Because Marguerite continued to disseminate the book and refused to retract before the Inquisition, she was excommunicated and, persisting in her position, was ultimately condemned as a relapsed heretic and handed over to the secular authorities for execution in 1310. (PORETE, Marguerite. The Mirror of Simple Souls. Translated by Ellen L. Babinsky. New York: Paulist Press, 1993. Classics of Western Spirituality.)

32. The most disturbing aspect of the arbitrary and irresponsible use of excommunication in the case of Marguerite Porete emerges from a substantive analysis of her book. Saint Francis, Saint Clare, Saint Bonaventure, and Pope Benedict XVI, in works written after Marguerite Porete's book, express ideas equivalent to the verses found in The Mirror of Simple Souls. It seems unlikely that those saints and Pope Benedict XVI could have plagiarized her work, whose verses were not widely circulated in those theological circles; nevertheless, the remarkable number of common statements indicates that the content of the book was not the real reason why the Bishop initiated excommunication proceedings and brought about the cruel execution of that religious woman, who was burned alive at the stake. The burden of that excommunication and execution of a young religious woman still rests upon the Catholic Church, since she published nothing different from what Saints and a Pope, among other highly respected theologians, would later publish. It is also possible to find many passages in this poetic work that are directly supported by the Gospels and the Epistles of the Apostles concerning the truths of the faith, as well as the need to prefer humility and to preserve the nobility of a clear conscience. This was probably the reason why Marguerite refused to cease publishing the work, choosing heroism instead.

33. A third group of cases consists of those in which the excommunicated neither amended their conduct nor led the Church to amend hers, but whose attitude became even more entrenched after the penalty was imposed. Henry VIII broke with Rome before his definitive excommunication, which was formally declared by Pope Paul III in the bull Cum Redemptor Noster (1538). It is true that the execution of Saint Thomas More by Henry VIII took place in 1535, before the formal excommunication. Nevertheless, after the excommunication, Henry VIII maintained and deepened the separation from the Church, consolidating the Church of England and intensifying the persecution of his religious opponents. Queen Elizabeth I was likewise excommunicated by Pope Pius V in the bull Regnans in Excelsis. Thereafter, she significantly hardened her policy toward English Catholics, especially after the bull came to be interpreted as encouraging civil disobedience.

34. The case of Marcel Lefebvre (1988) resembles those cases in which excommunication did not prove to be an effective instrument. The founder of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) (SSPX), a traditionalist priestly society established in 1970 to preserve the liturgy that preceded the Second Vatican Council and a conservative interpretation of Catholic doctrine, Lefebvre was excommunicated after the illicit consecration of four bishops. He refused to recognize the legitimacy of the sanction and maintained his position until his death. No personal reconciliation took place, although, years later, the excommunication of the four bishops he had consecrated was lifted by Pope Benedict XVI as a gesture intended to foster reconciliation.

35. The cases cited show that the medicinal purpose of excommunication has not always achieved its practical objective. In some historical episodes—especially where strong political, national, or institutional elements were present—the rupture became even deeper after the penalty was imposed. A common pattern emerges: whenever political considerations are involved, the decision to excommunicate seems to compel people to take sides in matters of allegiance. All Catholics owe fidelity to the Pope, yet in some cases the decision to excommunicate intensifies the conflict by forcing such a choice. Even when correctly applied under Canon Law, the question remains whether the imposition of excommunication is truly consistent with the Gospel. Is it ethically compatible with the voluntary nature of adherence through faith to compel a change of allegiance by means of coercion? For any Catholic, deprivation of Holy Communion is an act of the utmost coercion.

36. Until July 1, 2026, the Holy See regarded the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) as a society lacking regular canonical status. Following the episcopal consecrations carried out without a pontifical mandate at Écône, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith declared that the Society had incurred schism, excommunicating its bishops and warning that its priests and the faithful who formally adhere to the movement likewise incur the penalty of excommunication.

37. This decision represents a significant departure from the period of Benedict XVI and Francis, during which several initiatives were undertaken to promote rapprochement and canonical regularization. By this week's act, the official position of the Holy See has become considerably more rigorous and compels the faithful to take a position against that organization. The medicinal purpose, namely to bring about correction and a return to communion, is expressly stated in the document:

"The Church, as a solicitous mother, will receive with sincere affection and loving care all those who desire to return to full communion. The Apostolic Nuncios will make available the procedures that Ordinaries may employ in the various cases."

DICASTERY FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH. Excommunication decreed for Lefebvrite episcopal ordinations.Vatican City, July 2, 2026. Available at: Vatican News. Accessed: July 4, 2026; and DICASTERY FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH. Lefebvrite priests and lay faithful: Procedure to return to Catholic communion. Vatican City, July 3, 2026. Available at: Vatican News. Accessed: July 4, 2026.

38. But is excommunication, accompanied by an accusation of schism, truly the most effective instrument for achieving that purpose? Let us examine the matter.

39. The disagreement between celebrating Mass according to the "new rite" or according to the Tridentine liturgy in Latin lies only on the surface of the conflict. The Second Vatican Council did not establish a "new rite" for the celebration of Mass; rather, it restored the rite that had been used by the Apostles and by Our Lady at the beginning of the Church, many centuries before the Tridentine rites were established. For fifteen centuries, the priest celebrated facing the faithful; only during the last five centuries did he celebrate facing away from them. The Second Vatican Council, in fact, represents a return to the tradition of the preceding fifteen centuries.

40. The Tridentine Mass is therefore not "the tradition"; as we have seen, it is a progressive innovation within a Church more than two thousand years old. The Mass in Latin, with the priest facing away from the faithful, was established by Pope Saint Pius V only in 1570 through the papal bull Quo Primum Tempore. The consensus of the Second Vatican Council chose the more traditional form of the Church's liturgy that was previously used before 1570.

41. There is also the consideration of consensus and common sense. In a reality in which Latin is an elite language known by very few and taught only in seminaries, it no longer made sense to preserve the Roman imperial practice of extending a foreign language to colonized peoples so that they might assimilate the Roman form of Catholicism. The spirit of the Second Vatican Council was to recover the evangelical vocation of the Apostles and disciples in the early Church, who always embraced the local language spoken by the peoples to whom they preached.

"How is it that each of us hears them in our own native language? [...] We hear them speaking in our own languages of the mighty works of God."(Acts 2:8, 11)

42. In any event, readers should ask themselves whether this is truly so grave, and whether this is in fact what the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) advocated: an obligation imposed upon everyone to worship according to the Tridentine liturgy, or merely the right for its own members to worship according to that rite, which had already been observed by the Church for many centuries. Would it really be a delict to follow a rite according to which the Mass had been celebrated for centuries? And does this matter so greatly, considering that the Church's own documents establish the Eucharist as the central event of the Mass, the true source of its sacredness, rather than the language, gestures, or rites, which remain secondary and dependent upon each historical period and culture?

43. At first sight, one could not regard praying in Latin as a delict, since many monasteries still celebrate substantial portions of the Mass in Latin. In the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, promulgated on July 16, 2021, Pope Francis did not prohibit the use of Latin. What he did was restrict the use of the 1962 Roman Missal (the so-called Tridentine Mass or the Mass according to the rite preceding the liturgical reform following the Second Vatican Council). Latin remains one of the Church's official liturgical languages and may also be used in the ordinary form of the Roman Rite.

44. Traditionis Custodes declares that the liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II are the sole expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite; it restores to the diocesan bishop the exclusive authority to authorize celebrations according to the 1962 Missal; it provides that such celebrations, when authorized, should ordinarily not take place in parish churches and that no new personal parishes are to be established for that purpose; finally, it requires priests ordained after the publication of the document to obtain specific authorization before celebrating according to the 1962 Missal. In the accompanying letter to the motu proprio, Pope Francis explains that his decision was motivated by the understanding that, in some places, the use of the 1962 Missal had become associated with the rejection of the Second Vatican Council and of the liturgical reform, thereby compromising the unity of the Church. (FRANCIS. Traditionis Custodes: Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio on the Use of the Roman Liturgy Prior to the Reform of 1970. Vatican City, July 16, 2021. Available at: Vatican.va – Traditionis Custodes. Accessed: July 5, 2026.)

45. For this reason, we know that the Society's claim was not simply the fundamental right to worship in the language preferred by the faithful. They claim something more serious, namely: the rejection of the Second Vatican Council, the rejection of the authority of the Holy Father chosen by the College of Cardinals under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the ordination of priests without the authorization of the Pope and the cardinals appointed by him. Who, then, is their Pope? They have no Pope; they are sedevacantists: they regard the Holy See as vacant. Having found themselves in the minority, they lost the position they defended during the Second Vatican Council and refused to follow the majority within the Church.

46. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith therefore concluded that, by rejecting the authority of the Pope and what had been decided by the Church in a spirit of communion during the Council, they had incurred the delict of schism. At first sight, however, this does not appear to be what that Society has actually professed, although it has persisted in disobedience, preached hostility toward the Apostolic See, and encouraged the faithful to disobey.

47. I have a few observations to make in this regard. None of them contradicts the Pope's decision to endorse the decision of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, because, as a Catholic member of the faithful, I could not disobey the Pope and remain Catholic, nor could I proclaim the Catholic faith while disobeying the Pope. I am not seeking a conclusion that would justify misconduct, for it is deeply distressing for any member of the faithful to witness a movement within the Church that does not show respect, love, affection, and due deference to the Holy Father. Yet we should not guide our actions or form our opinions solely according to what pleases or displeases us, especially when 600,000 faithful are at risk of excommunication should they continue to remain under the authority of the superiors of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), since the decree of excommunication also extends to those who continue to follow them.

48. Nor do I write as an authority of the Church, for fortunately I possess neither ecclesiastical authority nor any title whatsoever. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church is an institution that must constantly seek reflection for the growth of its members, and to do so it is necessary to listen to those members, taking care that, in exercising the ministry entrusted to her by Christ, she does not depart from the path trodden by Christ in defending the faith and the unity of the Church. One cannot call everyone brothers and sisters while telling them that they have no voice and may not share their thoughts. I write because I am convinced that even the opinion of a person without authority or title is important to Christ, to Mary, and to the Saints—for they themselves possessed neither authority nor titles when they handed down to us the faith and the Gospels.

49. My first observation, offered in this spirit of seeking improvement in order to attain the intended ends—namely, the salvation of souls and the expiation of sins, the unity of the Church, and the reintegration of those who have been excommunicated—concerns the general logic governing every procedure of excommunication, and not necessarily the specific act by which the members of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) were excommunicated.

50. An act that seeks to preserve the unity of the Church by cutting off part of the Church's own members appears, at first sight, to be logically contradictory. If the purpose, in cases involving offenses against the faith, is to restore communion, why does the remedy consist precisely in depriving the person of communion?

51. One cannot cut off a finger from the hand and claim that doing so benefits the body. It may certainly be argued, however, that if the finger posed a danger to the body as a whole, a physician would amputate that member.

52. But one could not say that such an act would benefit the finger. Would it benefit the finger to be amputated, to lose its life, and to be thrown away? Certainly not. An amputated finger becomes necrotic and serves no purpose once it is no longer attached to the body.

53. Yet this is what the ecclesiastical authorities propose when they submit to the Pope a document decreeing excommunication: that separating troublesome members of the faithful from Holy Communion would somehow benefit them. This, however, would seem to be contrary to reason and contrary to the very meaning of the Eucharist. For the Church has repeatedly maintained that no one can become holy, or even remain spiritually healthy as a Catholic, while dispensing with direct communion with Christ in the Eucharist.

54. How, then, can excommunication be considered a remedy for the person who is excommunicated? If the approval of the majority of the Church assembled in Council was not sufficient to convince Catholics attached to the earlier rites, why would the disapproval of that same majority be sufficient to make them accept what the majority approved?

56. Let us consider perhaps the best-known case of excommunication, that of Martin Luther.

In the bull Decet Romanum Pontificem (1521), Pope Leo X explains, already in the preamble, that ecclesiastical penalties exist in order to prevent the faithful from being led into error:

"...lest these obstinate men... deceive the multitude of the simple by their lies and artifices, nor draw them into participation in their error and their ruin, infecting them as though with a contagious disease.”

57. He nevertheless justifies the measure on the premise that, once outside communion, their followers might come to their senses:

"...so that, by this public declaration, they themselves may come to their senses, in confusion and repentance, withdrawing entirely from the company, association, and, above all, the obedience owed to these excommunicated persons; by this means they may escape divine vengeance and any participation in their condemnation."

(APOSTOLIC VATICAN ARCHIVES. Bull "Decet Romanum Pontificem." Vatican City: Apostolic Vatican Archives. Available at: https://www.archivioapostolicovaticano.va. Accessed: July 4, 2026. Translation ours.)

58. Yet nowhere in the Gospels or in the Epistles of the Apostles do we find this line of reasoning—that excluding someone from communion in the Body and Blood of Christ could somehow bring that person any benefit, even through repentance. On the contrary, Christ declares:

"I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him bears much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing. Whoever does not remain in me will be cast out like a branch and wither. Such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned." (John 15:5–6).

59. How is it possible that, by removing the branches from the vine, one is doing good to the branches? Luther's excommunication expressly seeks harm and condemnation for those who are excommunicated, that they may not prosper; it pronounces a curse upon Luther and upon those who follow him, that they may wither after being cast out. Those accursed ones—this is what we read in that document of the (Holy) Church.

Do the Gospel and the Holy Church Confirm This Path of Excommunication?

60. Secondly, I would observe that, in another article, I analyzed the Augsburg Confession line by line, a confession of faith rejected by the Church at the time as a consequence of Pope Leo X's excommunication of Martin Luther. Luther essentially teaches that: (1) God saves on His own initiative; (2) the human being cannot present merits that oblige God to grant salvation; (3) faith consists in trusting that promise; and (4) good works arise from that relationship with God. Saint Thérèse of Lisieux likewise teaches, in essence: (1) God loves first; (2) I have no merits to present; (3) I place my complete trust in God's mercy; and (4) even the smallest act of love has value only because God, by His grace, makes it valuable.

61. If we set aside the technical terminology ("justification," "merit," "imputation," "infused grace," and so forth), both are describing the same spiritual dynamic:

God takes the initiative.The human being responds.

The human response does not purchase salvation.

A transformed life is the consequence of God's action.

62. There is no substantive incompatibility between what Luther and Saint Thérèse propose. Nevertheless, the history of theology has interpreted the differences between Luther and later Catholic spirituality in an exaggerated manner; there are therefore precedents for this kind of criticism. The ecumenical movement of the twentieth century demonstrated that part of the controversies of the sixteenth century also involved differences of language, context, and emphasis, in addition to genuine doctrinal disagreements.

63. We may recall the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, signed by the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation on October 31, 1999. In that document, the Catholic Church states:

"Together we confess: by grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God…"

It then concludes:

"The doctrinal condemnations of the sixteenth century, insofar as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: the teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations of the Council of Trent. The condemnations contained in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.”

64. The document does not claim that differences never existed; rather, it affirms that the condemnations of the sixteenth century do not necessarily apply to the other party's present formulation. (CATHOLIC CHURCH; LUTHERAN WORLD FEDERATION. Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. Augsburg, October 31, 1999. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_po.html. Accessed: July 4, 2026.)

65. Likewise, the decree Unitatis Redintegratio (Second Vatican Council), on ecumenism, affirms that authentic elements of Christian life exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church:

"Many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible structure."

(SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL. Unitatis Redintegratio. Decree on Ecumenism. Vatican City, 1964. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_po.html. Accessed: July 4, 2026.)

It also recommends that controversies be reexamined with justice and charity.

66. In Ut Unum Sint, John Paul II affirms that ecumenical dialogue requires a reexamination of past controversies:

"Dialogue is not simply an exchange of ideas. In some way it is always an exchange of gifts."

(JOHN PAUL II. Ut Unum Sint. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1995. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/pt/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html. Accessed: July 4, 2026.)

He also calls for a common reexamination of history.

67. Finally, in the document From Conflict to Communion (2013), prepared jointly by the Lutheran–Roman Catholic Commission on Unity on the occasion of the five hundredth anniversary of the Reformation, the introduction expressly states that Catholics and Lutherans must reread the history of the Reformation together, acknowledging both the conflicts and the elements of faith they hold in common. The document expressly recognizes that many historical differences also arose from differing contexts and distinct forms of theological expression. (LUTHERAN–ROMAN CATHOLIC COMMISSION ON UNITY. From Conflict to Communion: Lutheran-Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017. Vatican City; Geneva, 2013. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/lutheran-federation-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_2013_dal-conflitto-alla-comunione_po.html. Accessed: July 4, 2026.)

68. It is true that the historical condemnations no longer apply automatically to the doctrine presently professed by Catholics and Lutherans. It is therefore evident that certain traditional oppositions between Catholicism and the Protestant movement initiated by Luther may have been emphasized beyond what the texts themselves justify.

69. What concerns us, however, is a more pressing question. If the Catholic Church is moving toward a change of paradigm, abandoning the reciprocal condemnations of the sixteenth century and asking whether contemporary formulations are truly as incompatible as the excommunication once suggested... why should it move in the opposite direction by emphasizing incompatibilities that deepen schism and highlighting what divides and distinguishes movements that were themselves born under the mantle of the Catholic Church, such as the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX)?

70. We know whether a tree is good by the fruit it bears. If the Protestant movements were excommunicated and condemned by the Catholic Church as heretical for following false doctrine, how could they have produced the good fruits of holiness?

71. Luther's excommunication, by means of the bull Decet Romanum Pontificem, promulgated by Pope Leo X on January 3, 1521, declares: "We condemn him, together with all his followers, adherents, and accomplices, as obstinate and hardened heretics..."

72. Yet members of Protestant Churches have had the fruits of their holiness officially recognized by the Catholic Church; at the same time, a saint of the Church teaches, in essence, the same substance of Luther's doctrine. This is not a personal position on the part of the present author in favor of this or that doctrinal or theological proposition, but rather an observation concerning the (lack of) logic involved and a question regarding the actual value of the acts by which Luther and his followers were excommunicated.

73. It seems logical that the truth of the Gospel must prevail over any decision or document of the Church. If the decree Unitatis Redintegratio recognizes good works and signs of holiness outside the visible structure of the Church, then it admits that the Protestant branches were not entirely separated from the Church by means of the papal bull of 1521. For if we believe the Gospel, then, in order to bear good fruit, we must acknowledge that the Protestant movements remained united to the vine of Christ (Jn 15:5–6). What was said to be invisible became visible. For however great the authority of a papal bull may be, it cannot stand above what Jesus Christ Himself affirmed; otherwise, it would invalidate itself.

74. Thus, in answer to this second question—whether that decision of excommunication produced good fruits—we see that, in this case, it did not. First, because, fortunately, it was not effective in accomplishing its purpose of causing the branch of the vine to wither. The excommunication was not sufficient to separate the Lutherans from Christ (which is hardly surprising, since Christ does not abandon His own). The Catholic Church ultimately found itself acknowledging that the Protestant movements which followed remained in communion with the "invisible Church"—if, indeed, there exists any doctrine concerning the invisibility of Christ's Church. Such invisibility may perhaps exist from the perspective of human eyes, but not from the perspective of Christ. In any event, it seems difficult to maintain that faith should be measured by human standards of visibility and institutional affiliation when the Church is called to seek the things that are above. The fact remains that the excesses involved in Luther's excommunication, quite apart from the substance of what he preached and its compatibility with the Catholic faith, still leave the Church without a satisfactory result from that excommunication.

75. Furthermore, that measure of excommunication does not appear to have borne good fruit insofar as it deepened a division that it was intended to overcome. Lutheranism ultimately attracted greater support from princes who were in conflict with the Catholic Church and gained more followers as it resisted the excesses of the accusations directed against it. If a group of priests preaches differently from what is established by the Church's central authority—and Saint Francis and his companions themselves initially experienced a similar challenge—then excommunicating them and depriving them of communion only increases the distance and the gap in understanding between the ecclesiastical authorities and the excommunicated faithful.

76. Indeed, from the outset, the excommunication gave rise to the formation of a distinct religious movement and to the fragmentation of Christianity into several competing denominations, rather than producing the unity that was sought through submission to papal authority and abjuration. Pope Leo X's decision did not lead the Lutherans to repentance, nor did it bring them back into visible communion with the Catholic Church.

77. Let us consider passages from the two papal bulls that excommunicated Luther and his followers, in order to see whether we find language suited to overcoming differences and fostering unity with those who dissented:

"The wild boar of the forest seeks to destroy it, and every wild beast comes to lay it waste." (...)

"Their tongues are a fire, a restless evil, full of deadly poison." (...) "They have bitter zeal, discord in their hearts; they boast and lie against the truth." (...) "Now a new Porphyry has arisen..." (...) "...he is not ashamed to attack them (...), descending to insults." (...) "...his final defense is to vomit the poison of a serpent with his tongue." (...) "...let not these wolves grow or become strong." (Exsurge Domine, June 15, 1520).

"Martin, the slave of a depraved mind..." (...) "...he scorned to revoke his errors..." (...) "...he wrote and preached things even worse..." (...) "...the pernicious and heretical sect of Martin..." (...) "...other accursed heretics..." (...) "...a depraved and condemnable purpose." (...) "...obstinate and shameless rashness." (...) "...obstinate and hardened heretics." (Decet Romanum Pontificem, January 3, 1521).

78. After several centuries, perhaps it is possible to smile at such bilious language, thereby distancing ourselves from those excesses in a spirit of reparation.

79. There are reasons to doubt whether Pope Leo X himself was in fact the author of those documents. Although they were promulgated by the Pope of that time, historians generally consider it likely that their actual drafting was carried out by theologians and canonists of the Roman Curia who were directly involved in the controversy with Luther, namely Tommaso de Vio (Cajetan) and Johann Eck, both of whom regarded themselves as directly offended by the Lutheran movement. This hypothesis helps explain the strongly polemical tone and the use of offensive and disparaging expressions characteristic of sixteenth-century apologetic and controversial literature.

80. It is evident that such language, discrediting and insulting those who opposed the practices of the Catholic Church at that time, particularly the sale of indulgences, could hardly have led them to repentance; on the contrary, it strengthened their determination to dissent.

81. Pope Leo X was, moreover, a member of the House of Medici, which explains why the heraldic arms of that family were incorporated into the papal coat of arms. This context reminds us that those documents were produced by a Curia deeply embedded in the complex political and family relationships of the Italian Renaissance, at a time when the Church also exercised secular governmental functions and found itself in conflict with the princes who would later support the Lutheran movement.

82. Am I suggesting, then, that the decision to excommunicate members of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) is, in a similar way, a dispute permeated by political considerations within the Catholic Church? Should we also read that decision in light of secular factors, such as opposition to the contemporary rise of the far right and the association of that SSPX with political movements that describe themselves as conservative?

83. Indeed, religion has always provided remarkable support to political movements, whether of the right or of the left. Neoconservatives who seek to go beyond liberal conservatism by advocating the renunciation of the population's civil and political rights—and even of women's rights—naturally benefit from the legitimacy conferred by their association with a religious body committed to preserving customs from previous centuries, even though popular uprisings have always expressed the desire of the oppressed for justice, and even though women have always occupied roles previously reserved to men throughout the centuries.

84. A Society that argues against so-called "progressivism" and advocates a return to the rites established in the sixteenth century fits hand in glove with a political movement seeking legitimacy. We should not disregard the context in which a decision is produced if we wish to understand events more fully.

85. And if we examine other cases in which excommunication has been imposed, we likewise find the natural consequence that it produces no benefit for the person deprived of communion with the Body of Christ. The ultraconservative Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, for example, who referred to Pope Francis as a "servant of Satan”†††, was declared to have incurred latae sententiae excommunication under can. 1364 §1 of the Code of Canon Law for the delict of schism.

"His public statements manifesting his refusal to recognize and submit to the Supreme Pontiff, his rejection of communion with the members of the Church subject to him, and of the legitimacy and magisterial authority of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council are well known. (...) At the conclusion of the penal process, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò was found guilty of the reserved delict of schism."

(DICASTERY FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH. Press Release of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.Vatican City, July 5, 2024. Available at: https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2024/07/05/0554/01148.html. Accessed: July 4, 2026.)

86. Distressing and shocking as it is for any member of the faithful to see the Holy Father insulted, it was not the first time that the occupant of Peter's Chair was called “Satan.” †††

"But Jesus turned and said to Peter, 'Get behind me, Satan! ††† You are a stumbling block to me, because you are thinking not as God thinks but as men think.’" (Mt 16:23)

87. The reader may object that there is a notable difference in this case. The one who calls Peter "Satan" ††† is Jesus Christ Himself, not someone who is bound to submit to Peter. Yet, in substance, the insult is the same.

88. The insult directed at the Holy Father by his former Apostolic Nuncio arose from the Pope's ecclesiastical ministry in welcoming homosexual persons into the Church. Such an insult would certainly fall within the scope of can. 1373 ("A person who publicly incites hatred or animosity among subjects against the Apostolic See..."). Here again, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith adopted an interpretation by classifying a grave insult against the Holy Father, together with insubordination, as the delict of schism.

89. Even if insults and the refusal to recognize the authority of the Pope were to constitute the delict of schism, Christ did not establish the Church to judge sins, but rather to forgive them. "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." (Mt 6:12). "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven." (Lk 6:37.)

90. Am I defending those who disobey and insult the Holy Father? By no means. All of this is deeply tragic: that a son should refuse to sit at table with his father, that one brother should refuse the joy and privilege of sharing a meal with another brother because of the way the table has been arranged. All of this reveals a profound superficiality in their relationship, an attachment to trivialities, and a failure to recognize the value of the person with whom the table is shared. Yet a member of the faithful who sincerely wishes to remain faithful to the Truth would be troubled if the Church were being used to exclude a son from the table established by Christ Himself, or to condemn the sins of an individual.

91. A believer devoted to the Truth would likewise be troubled by the scandal of seeing anyone accused of an offense he did not commit. A thief could not properly be charged with murder, however grave the crime of theft may be. A student should not be expelled from school on the accusation of having set the school on fire merely because he insulted the principal or persisted in doing so, especially when he claims to act out of personal conviction or fidelity to his faith. In the same way, insulting the Pope and refusing to recognize his authority constitute misconduct and disobedience; but they are not the same as founding a new sect or preaching a different doctrine.

92. Archbishop Viganò appears to have inherited a conception of the faith that still prevents him from ceasing to regard homosexuality as a moral offense; conversely, he has not come to regard homophobia as an offense. But does it truly resolve the problem, in response to an insult and a disagreement over the rights of minorities, to declare that he has caused a schism within the Catholic Church and to excommunicate him? What, after all, would Archbishop Viganò's sect be? It would seem appropriate to explain that accusation more clearly, since punishment is not the Church's purpose—still less excessive punishment—and it hardly appears just or acceptable to impose a penalty that does not correspond to the offense actually committed.

93. Saint Paul also disagreed with and challenged the authority of Saint Peter. As far as we know, however, he never insulted Peter, nor was Paul ever accused of being a schismatic disciple because of his criticisms or his refusal to follow Peter's course whenever he perceived inconsistencies or whenever his conscience compelled him otherwise. For he preached the same Gospel, founded new communities, converted new believers, and entrusted them to the Holy Church.

Sanctions That Wound, Distance, and Deepen Disobedience

94. Canon 1312 classifies excommunication among the medicinal penalties (censures), and the canonical system makes it clear that the purpose of these penalties is to lead the faithful to repentance and to the restoration of ecclesial communion.

95. From the perspective of the person who is excluded, however, this must sincerely appear paradoxical. If a son insults his father, should his mother expel him from the family home? I sincerely find it difficult to believe that a mother could bring herself to expel her son from home because he insulted his father's authority or refused to apologize for such an insult. If the son were to declare that the man was not his father, or that he wished he were not his father, would that be sufficient reason for a mother to cast him out or to forbid him from sharing the family meal at the same table? The common sense that governs family relationships seeks other paths toward reconciliation. The same common sense should govern life within the Church.

96. There is no doubt that insults, challenges to authority, and persistent disagreement generate discomfort and conflict, and every conflict brings suffering. Yet under no circumstances would a good mother seek to resolve the problem by increasing that suffering still further—by expelling her son from the home or forbidding him to sit at the family table—especially when the son did not insult his father while sharing the meal. That is precisely the situation here: none of those who were excommunicated insulted the Holy Father during the celebration of Holy Communion, nor did they incite the faithful against ecclesiastical authorities during the common celebration of the liturgy.

97. We are not speaking of heresies that proclaim Our Lord Jesus Christ to be an extraterrestrial, nor of blasphemies against the honor and purity of Our Lady, nor of the profanation of the tombs of the Saints or of the sacred Species of the Body and Blood of Christ. We are speaking of debates in the social and political sphere concerning how minorities should be welcomed, and of differences regarding liturgical form. Within the Church there are differing opinions as to whether those who identify as homosexual are in fact oppressed by the Church or by sin; whether the way of life found within homosexual communities causes greater scandal to families than the double lives of heterosexuals when such situations occur; whether judgments should be made on the basis of appearances, when the majority also adheres to practices that may be equally—or even more—reprehensible.

98. It should be emphasized that the Archbishop and former Apostolic Nuncio in question is a priest who devoted his entire life to the ministry and who did not alter his position after being summoned to answer the charge of schism. Indeed, he appears to have embraced the accusation brought against him by the Dicastery. Viganò declared that he regarded the charges of schism brought against him by the Vatican as "an honor," only a few days before he was formally excommunicated. (PULLELLA, Philip. Archbishop who opposed Pope Francis says he faces schism accusation. Reuters, Vatican City, June 20, 2024. Available at: Reuters. Accessed: July 4, 2026.)

99. A student who insults the principal and is expelled from school will not abandon his misconduct unless he first undergoes a process of education that enables him to understand why he is mistaken. Likewise, it would be preferable to engage reality itself in order to understand why it is wrong to despise and exclude homosexual persons, and why it is hypocritical to tolerate unrestricted access for adulterers. One would not persuade Romans to respect indigenous traditions after some of them threw into the Tiber a statue of Pachamama that had been presented as a gift, unless they were first invited to reflect upon the similarly tolerant and indulgent manner in which they celebrate beautiful images of Venus and the pagan festivals of immemorial times. It is one thing to defend the faith and tradition; it is quite another to promote homophobia. It is one thing to avoid idolatry; it is something altogether different to embrace xenophobia. But in what way does excommunication contribute to educating a person and helping him or her embrace the Truth?

100. Readers may tell me that it is excessively idealistic to expect an archbishop over seventy years of age—or a head of state who challenges papal authority—to be reeducated so as to keep pace with changing times, whether by accepting a decree or by embracing the inclusion of oppressed minorities within the Church. They may say it is naïve to expect the devout ladies of Rome to respect indigenous peoples whose lands were invaded and whose wealth was taken to build Europe's palaces. Yet I am not appealing to idealism, but to what seems self-evident. It seems obvious that a remedy applied to something other than the actual illness cannot produce the desired effect.

101. It is of no use to amputate a limb and expect the body to recover if the problem that hinders faith and respect for inclusion is present throughout the body, here and there. Nor is it of any use to extract a tooth, however damaged it may be, if the infection threatening the body's vital functions lies in the stomach, the intestines, or the circulatory system.

102. It is harmful to the body, which continues to suffer from the illness manifested in one member while infecting many others; and it is even worse for the member that is separated from the body. Were Christ not truly present, and were there not those who act in Christ to bring about communion in spirit, the severed member would simply perish and wither, incapable of being restored apart from communion with Christ. No, excommunication does not necessarily benefit the one who is excluded, and it is a profound contradiction to claim that one is acting for that person's good by denying access to the greatest of all spiritual goods, communion with the Body of Christ. Wisdom and the Gospel teach precisely the opposite: the more a member stands in need of healing and conversion, the more closely that member should remain united to Christ, to communion itself, sharing directly in communion with the very minorities he rejects or with the Pope whom he condemns.

103. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith would probably never consider assigning an archbishop holding homophobic views to minister within an LGBTQIA+ community, or appointing a Lefebvrist as secretary to a progressive priest or Pope. Yet reason and the history of the Church show precisely this to be effective. It is Christian, counterintuitive, and of little practical utility. Thus Saul became Paul through close contact with the steadfastness and fidelity of a martyr of the Church, even while acting as his persecutor; and throughout the Roman Empire, conversions to Christianity occurred because pagans recognized the goodness of those Christian communities.

If Excommunication Is Not the Way, What Would Be?

104. There have certainly been well-known cases—and undoubtedly many others that never became public—in which an excommunicated person repented, abjured his convictions, and returned to communion with the Catholic Church. Yet it would be an act of willful blindness to ignore that, in many cases where a political element is evident, excommunication merely supplies additional fuel for controversy, reinforcing the determination and conviction with which individuals persist in the very conduct condemned by the Catholic Church through her authorities. Isolating the excommunicated member in no way facilitates the path of return. By excommunicating, the Church merely transfers to some indefinite third party the responsibility of preserving the faith of the person who has been excommunicated.

105. Am I therefore advocating the repeal of the provisions of the Code of Canon Law that establish sanctions for offenses committed by members of the faithful and by priests? Should we cease to recount how Arians, Nestorians, and Waldensians were excommunicated? By no means do I present heresy as something desirable, nor do I advocate disorder or anarchy, although the soldiers and rulers who crucified Christ were themselves deeply committed to ensuring that penalties were observed and enforced to the fullest extent, confusing the application of punishment with the preservation of a public order that happened to be comfortable for them.

106. The problem arises when the substance of the matter is never examined and the process of excommunication is reduced merely to a question of submission to authority. In such circumstances, recantation becomes, in the course of the proceedings, an act of humiliation for the excommunicated person. If the Church desires a member of the Body to renounce a particular course of conduct, she must also make it possible for this to occur without degrading the person's previous state, recognizing that every step in the life of a Catholic is ultimately directed toward the One whom he seeks—Christ.

107. Can any human authority truly claim to understand Christ's will so perfectly as to exclude someone from communion? Is there among us anyone so virtuous as to condemn a brother guilty of an offense and deny him Holy Communion? If Jesus Christ, the Son of God Himself, did not exclude even Judas—who betrayed Him—from the table of the Last Supper, despite knowing beforehand that he would betray Him, how could we advocate excluding someone who has done far less, someone who merely advances a different interpretation or claims the right to follow an earlier liturgy? Whatever conclusion the reader may reach, this undeniable fact—that Christ invited Judas Iscariot to the Last Supper—compels us to confront directly the model of authority exercised by Christ. That moment indicates that our approach must move beyond a merely juridical discussion and become a spiritual reflection on the limits of the Church's authority: we have no right to place ourselves between a member of the faithful and Christ.

108. The opposite approach—asserting authority before the communion that Christ offered to all—places the Church on the path of exclusivism, of appropriating the faith through institutional structures. Yet Christian communities have never found the meaning of life in such an approach. On the contrary, the Apostles were formed by Christ Himself to avoid these fruitless disputes born of the claim to exclusivity.

109. The Apostles and the disciples were always called to adopt an attitude of humility and openness.

"John said to Jesus, 'Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him because he was not following us.'

But Jesus said, 'Do not stop him, for no one who performs a mighty work in my name will soon afterward be able to speak evil of me. Whoever is not against us is for us.'"(Mk 9:38–40)

It does not seem humble to issue decrees and excommunicate people, determining who may or may not receive Holy Communion, especially when Christ declares that He came to save everyone—not only those who obey decrees of the Holy See and follow the liturgy established by the most recent Council. "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost." (Lk 19:10.) This verse summarizes Christ's mission as one directed toward the salvation of all who are separated from God. Therefore, once a person is identified as having committed an offense, it makes little sense to place oneself between that person—who is already distant from God—and Christ in the Eucharist. "God desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim 2:4)

110. There is also a deeper issue concerning the value of Truth itself, which prevented these unsuccessful excommunications from achieving their intended effect of reintegrating those whom the ecclesiastical authorities regarded as having denied the Catholic faith.

111. Turning to the substance of what led to Luther's excommunication, if the Church wished today to maintain the same position she adopted in 1521, we would also have to excommunicate Saint Thérèse of Lisieux. For both maintained that faith alone is sufficient. That, however, we cannot do, since Saint Thérèse has been canonized by the entire Catholic Church. We would also have to revoke several passages of Dei Verbum, which affirm that salvation comes through the grace of God's mercy rather than through our merits. Yet we do not do so.

112. This demonstrates that the substance of Luther's teaching was not, in reality, the true problem, nor was it of decisive importance. The issue lay rather in the political conflict generated by struggles for power within the Church: witness the number of insults directed against Luther in a papal bull, and, by contrast, the many words of praise addressed to Saint Thérèse by another Pope. The central issue that gave rise to the excommunication was therefore not theological in nature; it centered instead upon Luther himself and upon his followers, upon the hostility and fear provoked by his public criticism of the ecclesiastical authorities. We should take care not to repeat the same mistakes, for excommunication itself may become the very means by which a schism is brought about.

113. Likewise, if we enter into the question of the liturgy used for the celebration of Mass, we would have to declare ex tunc excommunicated all the faithful who celebrated Mass according to the Tridentine rite, if that rite were truly an inseparable mark of schism and contrary to the Catholic faith. That, quite obviously, we could not do either. For such a conclusion would not alter the graces bestowed through the consecration and Holy Communion received by all those faithful who participated in those celebrations in the past.

Truth Does Not Need to Be Established by the Force of Restriction

114. At this point, the reader will rightly recall that slavery existed for many centuries, and that this historical fact does not make slavery acceptable or lawful today simply because it was once legally tolerated. But should we really place the practice of a crime against humanity on the same level as celebrating Mass in Latin with the priest facing away from the faithful? In other words, are we not falling into the very intolerance of the Pharisees by preventing members of the faithful from approaching Holy Communion because of details concerning the manner in which the liturgy is celebrated?

115. Jesus preached outside the Temple, and what could demonstrate greater detachment from liturgical formalities than that? Yet such freedom caused scandal. Why, then, are we so disturbed when members of that Society proclaim that they follow the more correct liturgy, that by celebrating in Latin, with richly vested priests facing away from the faithful, they are more faithful than we are to the Church? Are these details concerning the manner in which Mass is celebrated—provided that all the proper words of consecration in the Eucharist are preserved—truly as illicit as slavery, so as to justify being proscribed and punished in our own century by excommunication?

116. Interestingly, although slavery has come to be condemned as a grave offense against human dignity, I find no record of slave owners having been excommunicated for committing that crime against humanity. Murderers were not excommunicated. Rapists were not excommunicated. Those who abused children have still not been excommunicated. A bishop who burned a woman alive for publishing the Gospel in verse was never excommunicated. Corrupt officials and those who praise war and genocide are not excommunicated. Hitler was not excommunicated. Mussolini seized all the lands of the Church and was not excommunicated. A priest who reminds the Pope of a difficult passage of the Gospel: excommunicated. A bishop who wishes to follow the older liturgy: excommunicated. The faithful—and even those outside the Church—are left genuinely astonished as they try to understand what, in our present reality within the Church, is considered truly intolerable.

117. The issue of ordaining priests without ecclesiastical authorization likewise does not withstand closer examination on its merits. For if the factor giving rise to the schism is the absence of authorization, why does the Supreme Pontiff not grant that authorization?

118. Let us recall that Saint Ambrose was elected by popular acclamation and by the clergy even before he had received priestly ordination. Saint Augustine likewise was urged by the people to assume the episcopal office before being formally appointed by his superior. The Catholic Church is not, and has never been, fundamentally a bureaucratic institution that makes service dependent upon procedures, authorizations, and paperwork. Were it so, it could not acknowledge the action of the Holy Spirit as the primary force that guides the Church.

119. In the Church's practice, a pontifical mandate presupposes effective ecclesial communion. When actions indicate a rupture of that communion—such as episcopal ordinations without a pontifical mandate or the formal rejection of the Church's magisterial authority or of the Petrine ministry—the Holy See may choose not to grant a new mandate until that situation has been regularized. Indeed, can. 1013 (and can. 1382, in the case of an illicit episcopal consecration) provides that a bishop must possess an express pontifical mandate before consecrating another bishop; should he do so without it, he incurs a grave penalty. The Code, however, does not establish the "psychological or political conditions" governing the decision to grant or withhold such a mandate.

120. Within the Church there are no automatic legal criteria. Although there are indicators that sufficient ecclesial communion is lacking for the exercise of the episcopal office in unity with the Pope, and although the Holy See has historically declined to grant mandates under such circumstances, there is no absolute impediment or predetermined prohibition against accepting and granting a mandate to bishops requested by the communities in question. Canonical discipline must be considered in the light of Christ's own conduct—His commands to forgive, to avoid hasty condemnation, to seek the lost sheep, and to exercise authority as service. A pontifical mandate is an act of communion; yet Christ commands us to take the initiative in fostering communion and, if necessary, to offer ourselves in service even unilaterally in order to establish that communion.

121. It would therefore be necessary to present a concrete, grave, and substantive reason for refusing to appoint these new priests, especially in view of the central role that the Church assigns to communities in the approval and appointment of those who minister to them in the service of God. In other words, it would be necessary to address the substance of the matter if the desired effect of dialogue, which characterizes communion, is to be achieved. It is not enough merely to state that they lack papal authorization or are not in communion with the Pope, for the Pope himself is capable of taking the initiative. Why did the Pope not authorize their ordination, since they profess themselves to be Catholics, thereby setting aside their refusal to recognize his authority in order to affirm that authority and guide them? The Holy Father needs no one's permission to take the initiative, nor to place himself at the service of and provide direction to a Society that professes itself to be Catholic and apostolic.

122. It must indeed be affirmed that no priest may be confirmed except through an apostolic mandate. This is reflected in the rite of ordination of every priest and in the appointment of every pastor. The laying on of hands is indispensable: "Thus, in the very Ordination of each Bishop, the collegial nature of the episcopal Order is made manifest.”

"Among the rites of Ordination, primary importance must be given to those by which, through the Sacrament of Holy Orders conferred in its various degrees, the Sacred Hierarchy is constituted: 'Thus the ecclesiastical ministry, instituted by God, is exercised in different orders by those who from ancient times have been called Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.’” (CATHOLIC CHURCH. The Roman Pontifical: Ordination of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. English translation according to the Second Typical Edition. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, General Introduction, no. 2.)

123. This discipline exists for sound reasons, rooted in the functions of the pontifical mandate within Catholic ecclesiology: to express the communion of the new bishop with the Roman Pontiff and with the College of Bishops; to confer liceity upon episcopal ordination (its sacramental validity being a distinct matter); and to safeguard the unity of the Church's governance by preventing the establishment of episcopal successions independent of the Apostolic See.

124. The leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), being priests themselves, are of course fully aware of all these matters.

125. Let us remember that, before the members of that Society were excommunicated by the decree of July 2, 2026, the previous excommunication had been lifted, and the laying on of hands remained linked through a valid line of succession. For all practical purposes, the ecclesiastical authorities were incorporated into the Church when they decided to proceed with the ordinations and appointments of bishops. The text speaks of an "apostolic mandate," not of a mandate formally signed by the Holy Father, notwithstanding the Code of Canon Law's reference to a pontifical mandate. The term apostolic, expressly used in the provision, is broader than authorization by the Pope's seal alone, because it attributes significance to the continuity of the transmission of the Apostles' faith—not merely that of one Apostle. Priests and presbyters were appointed by Apostles other than Peter. Saint Ignatius of Antioch and Saint Polycarp of Smyrna were ordained bishops by Saint John the Evangelist. Timothy and Titus were ordained by Saint Paul. The Apostles undoubtedly communicated these appointments to Saint Peter so that he might administer and centralize such information within the Church of Rome, as well as among other dioceses; otherwise, it is difficult to understand how those records could have been preserved and transmitted by the historians. (EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA. Ecclesiastical History. Translated by the Benedictine Nuns of the Monastery of Mary Mother of Christ. São Paulo: Paulus, 2000. IRENAEUS OF LYONS. Against Heresies. São Paulo: Paulus, 1995. Book III, especially III, 3.)

126. It was from this mutual trust among the Apostles, born of their close experience with Christ, that the Holy Church arose and developed. It is not the end of the world; there is no law engraved in stone declaring that ordinations performed by other members of the Church possessing apostolic authority could never have occurred. They did occur, and they were a source of great joy in the early Church. Why, then, can we not rejoice today at the appointment of bishops, when there is such a great shortage of shepherds in our materialistic, anthropocentric, and institutionalized age?

127. Let us follow that same Spirit of holiness before becoming preoccupied with the law, as the Pharisees were. If the cardinal, archbishop, or bishop of that Society received the laying on of hands and the apostolic faith through the apostolic mandate of Peter's successor, then the charge of schism should not rest upon him merely because he proceeds to ordain others. If he preaches the same apostolic faith, descends from that apostolic line of transmission, and if the restrictions that once existed had been suspended by the previous two Popes... why refuse the ordination?

The Humility of Authority

128. If Holy Mother Church asks the Most Reverend Father that priests be appointed, and if the Church asks that bishops be appointed, if the testimony of the Christian people and the judgment of those responsible for presenting candidates for ordination consider them worthy, why should the Holy Father refuse to grant the mandate for their ordination? In this case, he not only refused but also excommunicated priests who had devoted their lives to preaching the Word and the life of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This appears more like the work of the devil—a snare of the devil, intent on dividing and separating the members of the Church—than the work of God.

129. Pope Leo XIV certainly did not grant the mandate because the members of that Society never requested an apostolic mandate. After all, being sedevacantists, they do not recognize the Pope. Yet let us not abandon these faithful so easily. If that is so, how did the Pope become officially aware of the situation, enabling him to send the SSPX a letter requesting that those bishops not be ordained?

130. And if he had indeed been informed, why did the Holy Father not freely offer an apostolic mandate to those bishops who did not recognize him, even though they had not requested it? Is it not the Holy Father's duty to manifest the love of Christ which he is called to safeguard? One would naturally expect him to do so, because the pastoral mission of the Petrine ministry stands above any concern for the coherence of a legal formula, canonical jurisprudence, or theological debate regarding the prior conditions of ecclesial communion required for the ministry of the Word.

131. At one time, that ecclesial communion undeniably existed, and one of its fruits was the ordination of priests and bishops within the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). We should not sin against that truth, nor continually demand renewed acts of submission in order to prove a communion that has already existed and taken root within the bosom of the Church.

132. In this same spirit of seeking reasons to forgive and paths that might lead the faithful of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) back into communion with Holy Church, I would remind readers of the rites for the ordination of priests, presbyters, and bishops, in order to recall the importance of the judgment of the Christian community in this process. The Holy Father receives the request, but it is understood that he ought not refuse it without first remedying whatever concrete impediment to the candidate's worthiness may exist; otherwise, he would fail in his pastoral mission—especially when, by granting his mandate, the Holy Father himself is capable of conferring the very canonical dignity that the bishops are said to lack.

INTRODUCTORY RITES AND LITURGY OF THE WORD

ORDINATION

ELECTION OF THE CANDIDATE

149. The deacon calls the ordinand, saying:

Let the one who is to be ordained to the priesthood come forward.

He then calls him by name, and the candidate, upon hearing his name, replies:

Present.

He then approaches the Bishop and makes the prescribed reverence.

150. Once the ordinand is standing before the Bishop, the priest designated by the Bishop says:

Most Reverend Father, Holy Mother Church asks that you ordain this our brother to the ministry of the priesthood. (emphasis added)

The Bishop asks him:

Do you know him to be worthy?

He replies:

According to the testimony of the Christian people (emphasis added) and the judgment of those responsible for presenting him, I testify that he has been found worthy.

The Bishop says:

With the help of God and of Jesus Christ our Savior, we choose this our brother for the Order of Priests.

All respond:

Thanks be to God.

The assembly's assent to the election may also be expressed in another manner, as indicated in the General Introduction, no. 11.

(CONTINUED...)

RITE OF THE ORDINATION OF PRIESTS

INTRODUCTORY RITES AND LITURGY OF THE WORD

ORDINATION

ELECTION OF THE CANDIDATES

121. The deacon calls the ordinands, saying:

Let those who are to be ordained to the priesthood come forward.

He then calls each candidate by name, and each one, when called, replies:

Present.

Each then approaches the Bishop and makes the prescribed reverence.

122. When all are standing before the Bishop, the priest designated by him says:

Most Reverend Father, Holy Mother Church asks that you ordain these our brothers to the ministry of the priesthood. (emphasis added)

The Bishop asks him:

Do you know them to be worthy?

He replies:

According to the testimony of the Christian people (emphasis added) and the judgment of those responsible for presenting them, I testify that they have been found worthy.

The Bishop says:

With the help of God and of Jesus Christ our Savior, we choose these our brothers for the Order of Priests.

All respond:

Thanks be to God.

The assembly's assent to the election may also be expressed in another manner, as indicated in the General Introduction, no. 11.

HOMILY

(CONTINUED...)

RITE OF THE ORDINATION OF A BISHOP

INTRODUCTORY RITES AND LITURGY OF THE WORD

ORDINATION

PRESENTATION OF THE BISHOP-ELECT

37. The bishop-elect is led by the assisting priests before the principal consecrating Bishop and makes the prescribed reverence.

38. One of the assisting priests addresses the principal consecrating Bishop with these words:

Most Reverend Father, the Church of N. asks that you ordain the priest N. as Bishop. (emphasis added)

If the Bishop to be ordained is not appointed to a residential see:

Most Reverend Father, Holy Mother Catholic Church asks that you ordain the priest N. as Bishop. (emphasis added)

The principal consecrating Bishop asks him:

Do you have the Apostolic Mandate?

He replies:

We do.

The principal consecrating Bishop says:

Let it be read.

The mandate is then read while all remain seated. At its conclusion, all express their assent to the election of the Bishop by saying:

Thanks be to God. (emphasis added)

The assembly's assent may also be expressed in another manner, as indicated in the General Introduction, no. 11.

(Note: General Introduction no. 11 does not concern the Apostolic Mandate or the election of the Bishop. It deals exclusively with the manner in which the assembly expresses its assent. In substance, it provides that the acclamations of the assembly may be adapted to the traditions and character of different peoples, provided that they clearly express the consent or participation of the faithful in the rite.)

HOMILY

(Continued…)

(CATHOLIC CHURCH. Roman Pontifical: Ordination of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Official translation of the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil. Brasília, DF: CNBB, n.d.)

133. Every priest must be ordained through the laying on of hands according to a rite established since the time of the first Apostles. Without this succession, there is no transmission of the apostolic faith. For this reason, can. 1013 provides: "No Bishop is permitted to confer episcopal ordination unless it is first established that a pontifical mandate has been issued." Yet it is the community that receives a new priest, after having been consulted and represented by the assisting presbyter. This rite should not be understood as a mere formality confirming what has already been decided by the ecclesiastical authorities. Rather, it establishes a procedure in which the people and those responsible for priestly formation are entrusted with declaring whether the priest, presbyter, or bishop is worthy, or, where appropriate, raising any reservations concerning the candidate. They are the proper holders of this responsibility. In the appointment of a bishop, it is likewise the local Church that petitions the Most Reverend Father to appoint him and proceed with his ordination.

134. Having been informed of the ordinations and having opposed the consecration of those bishops, the Pope would have to explain the reason for his refusal. Were they not worthy? Is it now the Pope, rather than the People of God—as has traditionally been the case and as prescribed by the Church's own rite—who is to determine whether a priest is worthy of ordination? If the intention is to concentrate greater authority in the Holy See, it would first be necessary to reform the rite for the ordination of priests, presbyters, and bishops, removing this responsibility from the People of God and from Holy Mother Church. That has not been done.

135. Since the Holy Father did not state the reasons why the community should refrain from ordaining bishops in a rite celebrated by superiors—who, until that moment, had not been excommunicated but had instead been invited to unity—how can one avoid also viewing the matter in the context of a political dispute? Once again, the issue of excommunication in this case, for ordaining bishops without papal authorization, does not appear to concern the substance of the matter itself: whether the candidates were worthy, whether the community they were called to serve had been consulted, or whether those responsible for their formation had approved them.

136. Before the excommunication, this problem could readily have been resolved through the granting of an apostolic mandate, since those responsible had attested to the qualifications of the elected priests, and the consultation of the faithful had presumably taken place during the ordination itself. There therefore appear to be situations in which excommunication functions less as an instrument genuinely intended to foster the unity of the Church than as a means of exercising ecclesiastical authority over what may or may not be done or said.

137. Am I suggesting, then, that there has been an abuse of authority, or that the Pope is seeking to assume a role which the papal authority itself has entrusted to the People of God and to those responsible for priestly formation?

138. Let us observe that Christ speaks directly to the Apostles—and especially to Peter—about the humility expected of those who exercise authority within the Church, warning them not to claim any merit for themselves. On the contrary, we are called to the humility of recognizing how little we accomplish on our own.

"So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty to do.'"(Lk 17:10)

139. In this case, upon learning of the ordination of those bishops, the Holy Father who now occupies the Chair of Peter did not do what, according to this argument, he ought to have done: authorize the ordinations, whether or not such authorization had been requested, so that that rebellious community might not incur sin before God by acting against his authority. Thus, Pope Leo XIV could not yet say that he had been an unworthy servant who had merely done what he ought to have done, as Christ teaches. By making use of the authority entrusted to him, the Holy Father could have prevented the offense; he did not do so.

140. Let us also recall that Jesus redirects the joy of the disciples. They return rejoicing because the demons obey them, but Christ teaches that the true cause for joy is not the exercise of power but communion with God.

"The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, 'Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name!' He said to them, 'I watched Satan ††† fall like lightning from heaven. Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall harm you. Nevertheless, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.’" (Lk 10:17–20)

141. Jesus explicitly teaches His disciples that what matters most is not that spirits and demons obey them. What matters most is salvation. Here as well, according to this line of reasoning, the Gospel's purpose was not fulfilled. The spirits did not obey, and instead a spirit of discord prevailed. Why did this happen?

142. Ever mindful of humility, Christ teaches that the one who holds the highest authority must neither demand service nor seek to be served, but must instead become a servant.

"If anyone wishes to be first, he shall be the last of all and the servant of all." (Mk 9:35)

"For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." (Lk 14:11)

142bis. To claim for oneself the authority to determine who may or may not be ordained, and when such ordination may or may not take place, is certainly not in itself an abuse of power, since the prerogative of granting or withholding an apostolic mandate belongs to the Roman Pontiff as the Church's supreme ecclesiastical authority. Yet using that authority to obstruct the choice of a local community without stating the reasons for doing so does appear to conflict with the principle of humility that ought to guide the exercise of ecclesiastical authority within the Catholic Church, especially at its highest levels.

The Path of Reconciliation

143. Those who exercise authority must subordinate themselves to the interests of the communities they serve. By reversing Christ's model—placing themselves first in deciding a matter and demanding obedience from the community, rather than making themselves available to serve, to evaluate, and to grant a mandate to the bishops who had been elected, supplying whatever might have been lacking—the result was the humiliation of seeing their authority disregarded despite possessing greater jurisdiction.

144. To experience contempt is not, in itself, a sin; yet being disobeyed remains an unpleasant consequence, both for the person concerned and for the Church as a whole. In my view, the Holy Father could have been better advised. We should have the common sense that he was advised either by someone incapable of foreseeing the obvious outcome—that his request to suspend the episcopal ordinations would be ignored—or by someone who foresaw that outcome and nevertheless chose to proceed along that course, intending that it culminate in excommunication – as if no other path was available.

145. Accepting there are other possibilites of bringing up better results does not mean, in any way, that communities should usurp the authority of the Church's pastors. Publicly presenting the grave reasons for suspending an ordination which, according to the Church's own official rites and regulations, would otherwise have been licit might have been the more appropriate course, avoiding the uncomfortable position of being openly disobeyed. Those priests and bishops (or archbishops) needed to be persuaded of the reasons why they should not proceed with the ordinations, while at the same time being offered a better solution.

146. The response to the humiliation suffered by the Holy Father, who was publicly disobeyed by those who ought to have been subject to his authority, should not, however, have been retaliation. Nor does it appear to be in harmony with Christ's teaching to answer humiliation by excommunicating those who humiliated the person of the Holy Father, especially by doing so through the legal characterization of their conduct as schism or as an offense more properly understood as disobedience. It is true that Christ never excommunicated anyone, nor did He promulgate a Code of Canon Law; He did not establish the juridical structures by which the Church would later be governed. Yet whenever Christ encountered error, sin, betrayal, or rejection, what method did He choose? Moreover, if the deposit of faith of the Catholic Church remains the same, while only the understanding of that same message develops, it seems difficult to justify refusing ordination to those who continue to hold an earlier understanding that the Church herself once regarded as valid, given the continuity of the Gospel and Christ's definitive revelation.

147. It may be argued that can. 1382 (formerly can. 1382; now reflected in the revised penal legislation) is sufficiently clear in stating: "Both the Bishop who consecrates someone a Bishop without a pontifical mandate and the one who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See." Yet that juridical provision does not prevent the Holy Father from granting a pontifical mandate in order to prevent such an excommunication. Canon lawyers and commentators might certainly object to employing the apostolic mandate—understood here as the pontifical mandate—for the purpose of preventing a penalty, arguing that it would be improper to issue the mandate simply to avert excommunication, since the pontifical mandate ought naturally to flow from ecclesial communion. They might further contend that such a mandate cannot be granted where communion has been refused by the very bishops who require it.

148. That would be a perfectly coherent juridical argument—but only if the Pope did not already bear, within the Church, the pastoral obligation of being the first to place himself at the service of the needs of that community in the ordination of its bishops. For if the Church teaches that the purpose of the mandate is to preserve communion, why does its refusal, under certain circumstances, produce precisely the opposite effect by deepening the rupture? The Pope alone possesses the capacity to establish that communion, since the mandate is his to grant. The existence or absence of communion should not be charged solely to those who stand under papal authority; rather, when initiative is lacking on the part of a community or of its bishops, communion should be fostered and secured through the initiative of the Pope himself, because that is the pastoral office entrusted to the Petrine ministry.

149. I believe it is unwise to make the granting of an apostolic mandate to bishops conditional upon requiring that communities express views fully aligned with the Councils and with the Church's more recent acquis. Such an approach risks entering dangerous territory, transforming the Word of God into an object of demand, of exchange, even of commerce, and reducing it to something with rapid obsolescence, like today's mobile phones and computers. After ten years of use, while the devices continue to provide the same basic services, companies develop software and files that require greater memory, forcing customers to replace perfectly functional equipment. In a similar way, new regulations and new encyclicals demand considerable time, attention, and adaptation in order to be read and understood.

150. Should a Catholic not be diligent in devoting time and attention to these developments in order to be recognized as Catholic? Certainly, Catholics ought to follow the development of the Church's teaching. Yet the Church's faith remains the same—a point repeatedly affirmed by the very documents produced within the Second Vatican Council. One might therefore ask whether Catholics are, in practice, expected to remain continually up to date with each new liturgical understanding that is published, so as to be regarded as "fully functioning Catholics," faithfully carrying out their role within the Church.

151. That seems problematic. Requiring constant familiarity with what is produced by the ecclesiastical elite as a condition for receiving apostolic mandates carries a cost. The expectation of being readily recognized as belonging to the Church should not exact such a price. Perhaps the distance separating traditionalist Catholics from the developments of recent decades is not merely the result of stubborn attachment to the past or resistance to change, but also has an objective explanation. There is genuine psychological fatigue arising from the uninterrupted demand to absorb new concepts and continually evolving language, even though such new forms of expression may well have legitimate reasons rooted in the Church's mission of proclaiming the Gospel to new peoples and cultures. That fatigue should be understood as one of the factors that led Lefebvre to establish that Society as a place of stability for the faithful who found themselves unable to adapt or who sought liturgical forms that were more familiar to them.

152. In its response to Pope Leo XIV, the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) stated that it identifies itself as a Catholic association, cited two visitors appointed by the Holy See who had reaffirmed its "profoundly Catholic" character, and expressed respect for the Supreme Pontiff ("Letter of the Superior General in Response to His Holiness Pope Leo XIV," published June 30, 2026, available at https://fsspx.com.br/pt/news/carta-do-superior-geral-em-resposta-sua-santidade-o-papa-leao-xiv-59924). It even expressed a desire to meet personally with the Holy Father.

153. That letter stands in marked contrast with an interview published two months earlier, in which the Superior General demanded that the Holy See answer questions raised concerning the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, arguing that recent developments, together with the ceremony involving the Pachamama figure, demonstrated that Christ's seamless garment had already been torn by the Church through its tolerance of religious relativism ("'Who Is Tearing Christ's Garment?' — Interview with the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX)," published April 19, 2026, available at https://fsspx.com.br/pt/publications/quem-e-que-rasga-tunica-cristo-entrevista-com-o-superior-geral-da-fraternidade-sao-pio). From this it may be inferred that the substance of the Holy Father's later appeal urging the SSPX not to tear Christ's garment had, in effect, already been anticipated by the Superior General's own public statements.

154. In that interview, the Superior General appears plainly to misrepresent the event in which Pope Francis received, as a gift, an indigenous work of craftsmanship depicting a maternal figure, and advances the false accusation that the Pope had celebrated a pagan ritual merely by receiving representatives of indigenous peoples in his capacity as Head of State of the Vatican while carrying out his ecumenical mission of proclaiming the Gospel to all people. It is profoundly offensive to attribute such a false accusation to Pope Francis, although such claims have become increasingly common among those who describe themselves as "deeply Catholic." Yet, despite our dissatisfaction and indignation, we must recognize that criticism, insubordination, and even false accusations are altogether different from the canonical delict of schism.

155. It is therefore understandable, though perhaps unexpected, that the Holy See did not grant the request for an audience submitted by the Superior General of that Society in order to meet with the Holy Father and discuss these differences with a view to finding a solution. It would appear that the Holy See did not possess sufficient confidence in the good faith of that movement's leadership, and that the advisers of the new Pope likely shared the view that the purpose of such a meeting would have been to obtain validation rather than to restore full communion. To restore communion, it would first be necessary to dismantle that mutual distrust and to discover a shared vision for the future.

Conclusion

156. After reading the Gospels, the Code of Canon Law, and several episodes from the history of the Church, I remain with the same question that gave rise to these pages: can an instrument that separates one of God's children from Holy Communion truly fulfill the mission of that Christ who never tired of calling everyone back to the table? The more one reads the Gospels, the more difficult it seems to reconcile the exclusion of a member of the faithful—or of a group of the faithful—from Holy Communion with the way Christ treated those who opposed Him most.

157. Finally, I offer my own opinion—an opinion no one asked for, but which I nevertheless offer in the spirit of loving first and taking the initiative, as Christ teaches. Now that I have presented the facts and the arguments, allow me, dear reader, to speak from the heart.

158. It is unfortunate that the Church's texts concerning the liturgy—whether those of the Second Vatican Council or those of the Council of Trent—have come to occupy so much of Catholics' attention, as they compete to demonstrate greater fidelity to the Church. As I contemplate the conflicts that consume our attention within the Catholic Church, and the best way to resolve them, it seems hazardous that texts on the liturgy, as well as the provisions of Canon Law, have come to occupy a greater place than the Gospel itself in the lives of many Catholics and in the deliberations of Church authorities. Whether one agrees with my conclusions or not, this concern invites us to restore Christ to the center of the discussion.

159. The Gospel, in the simplicity of its parables and its profoundly human stories, together with the witness of the Saints' lives, ought to be more than sufficient to preserve the centrality of faith, for the human condition does not fundamentally change with technological or material progress, nor across different cultures. Wealth still needs to be shared; those who seek ever greater concentrations of power still need to be restrained; in the spiritual life, our relationship with the divine still needs to be freed from the burden of excessive regulations and human demands; loneliness still arises from inertia and continues to require remarkable physical and emotional effort to overcome geographical, cultural, and psychological distances—burdens that the Church ought to help alleviate. The development of new theological concepts, rites, and ecclesial forms established through significant moments in the Church's life should be embraced and defended whenever they illuminate the truths of the faith, not used as trivial grounds for creating divisions and fractures.

160. It is true that the Superior General of that Society expressed concerns about the Catholic Church that go beyond liturgical questions, even while insisting that the Society remains part of the Church; yet he did not propose founding a separate sect based on different articles of faith. Now, if the situation truly is as the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith describes—and I do not presume otherwise, since I am not yet familiar enough with the organization—if the members of that Society have already, by their own choice, excluded themselves from communion with the whole Church, from the unity that comes from sharing the same spiritual father, the Holy Father, and from the rites restored by the Second Vatican Council, then what urgent necessity remains to declare them excommunicated? If it was their own decision not to remain in communion with the rest of the Catholic Church, and if they are not in communion because they refuse to recognize the authority of the Holy Father, why must we transform their choice into our own—into the choice of the entire Church? Could we not simply respect their decision without stripping them of their dignity, and pray for them? Why can we not do that—respond in the simplest possible way? Why is it necessary to punish them and excommunicate them? In my opinion, the impulse to punish and excommunicate does not appear to come from God, from Christ, from Mary, or from the Saints, who never ceased forgiving or striving to bring the human person back.

161. I must also confess that I am deeply troubled by the idea that the Truth must be defended through the institution of excommunication. If the Church truly possesses the Truth, why sanction those who ignore it or oppose it? Is the Truth itself not sufficient? Will it not, sooner or later, vindicate itself? To me—and this is a personal impression—it seems strange to attempt to place the Truth under human guardianship. Truth exists and establishes itself through the work of God. To act otherwise seems to suggest that human beings possess authority over what God Himself has established. No: Truth is never lost, nor does it require sanctions in order to remain Truth. Our mission is simply to bear living witness to it, not to impose upon others our own interpretation of what is true. The responsibility of governance does not require punishing or coercing those who distance themselves from the Truth in order to protect those who bear witness to it and draw near to it.

162. Moreover, the question does not seem to be so much "What could the Pope do?", given the punitive instruments that his office places at his disposal, but rather, "What does the Petrine ministry require?" We must remember that, according to the Gospel itself, authority is given in order to serve:

"Feed my sheep." (Jn 21:15–17).

"Strengthen your brothers." (Lk 22:32).

"For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve." (Mk 10:45).

163. If the Pope is bound to the mission of preserving the unity of the Church and seeking the salvation of souls, it is necessary to reflect on why, when faced with a conflict such as that involving the SSPX, or in other previous cases, he did not use the legal instruments available to preserve that unity. The Pope's authority is understood as a service (servus servorum Dei), exercised within the limits of the faith received by the Church. As Benedict XVI taught in his homily at the beginning of his pontificate, "The Pope is not an absolute sovereign whose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary, the Pope's ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to His word.”

164. Why the Pope did not approve the ordination of the priests and bishops considered worthy by those local communities and by the seminary formators, instead of allowing the situation to culminate in excommunication, is a question for which I still find no answer. Perhaps the Church's leadership believes that communion cannot be established unilaterally, but only through the assent of two parties. Those who think this way, unfortunately, fail to see within the pneumatological horizon, within the plan of salvation, in which events unfold through sincere acts of self-giving, through the sacrifice of love in offering oneself to provide what another needs.

165. Another contradiction also arises: were the seminaries that formed those priests, who eventually became sedevacantist bishops, operating in full without authorization from the Holy See? Were there any missions or initiatives by the Holy See to adapt the curriculum of those seminaries, or efforts to encourage them to admit faculty members appointed by the Vatican, so that the newer documents would cease to be a source of controversy and instead provide fresh perspectives for those communities? These are among the many questions that the decision of excommunication leaves unanswered for the faithful, before suggesting that they distance themselves from the members of the Society of Saint Pius X.

166. Thus, we arrive at this result. The efforts of Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis to preserve unity, in the spirit of serving the members of the SSPX, are set aside; and in their place emerges the astonishing idea of excommunication in the twenty-first century. This recalls the painful practice once employed by schoolteachers in the last century, who punished students through physical discipline, striking their hands with a ruler when, despite making concessions, they failed to secure the compliance of some of them—something that is unthinkable today. It is neither through coercion nor through expulsion that one obtains the voluntary and conscious adherence that is essential to the exercise of faith in Christ.

167. There also remains the imperfect image created by this course of action. If the Second Vatican Council represented an aggiornamento, and if the Church seeks to advance its understanding so as to become more open and tolerant of differences as an attribute of modernity, is it not contradictory to insist on employing the most severe and authoritarian provisions of Canon Law in order to deal with disagreement within the Catholic Church?

168. In Brazil, my country, this way of thinking—which objectifies the other as a threat whenever that person professes attachment to tradition—was evident in the modernist movement that led to the demolition of the Monroe Palace in Rio de Janeiro, a building of undeniable historical value. It would be as if the French authorities, convinced of the superiority and appropriateness of the modernist movement, decided to demolish the Arc de Triomphe in Paris because of its outdated architecture commemorating military triumphs of previous centuries. Yet the Arc de Triomphe attracts countless tourists and admirers, beautifies the city, and is valued by many for its historical significance, even though it does not belong to modern architecture.

169. If that organization has attracted around 600,000 faithful to the ministry of the sacraments and to participation in the Eucharist, and if it professes itself Catholic, how can one completely disregard the unifying effect that its rituals, catechism, and earlier documents have for those people? Are there not good fruits in welcoming and celebrating Masses for 600,000 people? And even if that Society has declared that adopting a different liturgy would imply adopting a different doctrine, or has expressed "reservations" concerning the encyclical Amoris Laetitia, questioning the importance of the joy of love, with the Catholic Church itself being responsible for those developments and fully aware of its own legitimacy, why should the Church be troubled by this? One cannot condemn either the celebration of the Eucharist or the faith of those who profess themselves Catholic merely because they interpret these matters differently from the way the Church has developed them, for unity is not founded upon absolute uniformity. The Pope's authority exists to preserve unity through the exercise of his paternal office, not to impose a single, unanimous discourse upon all the members of the Holy Church, as the priests of the Temple sought to do.

170. Indeed, the Society of Saint Pius X elevated "Tradition" into the criterion by which it separates itself from the Holy Church, distinguishing itself from the rest of the Church by attributing error to others while claiming greater correctness for itself. In doing so, it transformed Tradition into an idol, diminishing the Eucharist, the virtues, and the gifts of the Holy Catholic Church, adopting an attitude very similar to the idolatry denounced by the prophet Hosea:

"Thus says the Lord: 'They made kings, but not through me; they set up princes, but without my knowledge. With their silver and gold they made idols for their own destruction. I reject your calf, O Samaria; my anger burns against them. How long will they remain incapable of purity? For this calf is from Israel; a craftsman made it—it is not God. The calf of Samaria shall be broken to pieces. For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind. The standing grain has no heads; it shall yield no flour; and if it should yield, strangers would devour it. Ephraim has built many altars for sin offerings, but they have become altars for sinning. Though I wrote for them my many precepts, they regarded them as something foreign. They delight in sacrifice, they offer flesh and eat it, but the Lord does not accept them.'" (Hosea 8:4–7, 11–13).

171. But should the Holy Catholic Church, in the twenty-first century, be implementing such measures drawn from the Old Testament? Did not the Old Testament give way to the New Testament, as we sing every Holy Thursday?

172. Even if the members of the Society of Saint Pius X have placed "Tradition" above recognition of the dignity of another's faith; even if they reject the "new" liturgy (that is, the liturgy restored after 1570), or reject the solution that the Holy Father offered to theological contradictions by incorporating consent and joy into conjugal love... do not secular governments preserve museums containing ancient objects that no longer possess the same functionality or practicality as modern ones, yet still express beauty, evoke memory, and preserve tradition? Even secular governments do not so readily discard what belonged to the past, because it is fundamental for building identity and memory. This is not to claim that everything preserved in a museum is superior or more functional; rather, caring for what is preserved is essential if we are to evaluate genuine progress. If we eliminate the presence of the past, we risk creating a kind of collective amnesia, making it impossible to judge whether new developments truly represent progress or regression in the life of faith. We do not know everything; only God does. There remains an open path that the Church itself must acknowledge is not yet fully known.

173. If we are to remain vigilant and open to discerning where we may draw closer to the path of Our Lord Jesus Christ, why must everything be standardized according to the latest developments? Why should these movements not have the right to protest, to express reservations, and to offer criticism? It would seem prudent to preserve fallback mechanisms for situations in which new developments fail to achieve their intended purpose, thereby helping to prevent any disaster, although not probable. We have nuclear, solar, and hydroelectric power, yet this does not require us to abolish old windmills. That older, simpler technology continues to serve human well-being on farms and in regions beyond the reach of the advanced technologies of large cities.

173bis. True, burning firewood harms the environment and pollutes urban areas—indeed, several cities in the Balkans experience severe air pollution because they continue to rely on outdated energy sources rather than adopting newer technologies. Yet in the event of a global catastrophe, those older technologies would still remain valuable as an emergency reserve because they can be reproduced with relative ease. Healthy unity is not built by setting aside whatever troubles each group simply because it fails to conform to a particular standard. Diversity and even friction, on the contrary, provide opportunities to deepen understanding and dialogue concerning different realities, making new developments accessible to all the faithful without demanding adherence through coercion, as has always been the case in the councils convened by the Church. The truth of the faith is a conviction that does not anxiously seek to compel assent.

174. At this point, the reader offers me a stronger counterargument than my own. It would be inappropriate to grant an apostolic mandate to priests, presbyters, or bishops who condemn the Catholic faith—windmills preaching the dismantling of nuclear, solar, and hydroelectric power. For such men would not merely be promoting social values that are now incompatible with the Holy Church's openness to society; they would also be condemning genuine developments. The reader asks me: why should one not receive a gift from an Indigenous leader if the Church preaches respect for and friendship toward Indigenous peoples? Why should a couple not live together before marriage if the Church teaches the prudence of first discerning whether married life is conducive to the spouses' happiness? Indeed, a priestly organization that preached against the values and attitudes upheld by the Holy Church would be exerting a harmful influence on the thought and conduct of the faithful entrusted to its care. If the SSPX maintains that all who do not embrace the "Tradition" it claims as its own are destined for condemnation, then it should not receive an apostolic mandate or authorization to preach in the name of the Holy Catholic Church.

175. Here, however, I find another possible solution. It is indeed possible to grant the apostolic mandate, because one cannot presume that a priest or bishop will preach against the Holy Catholic Church after receiving that mandate, even if he has previously expressed opinions to that effect. Before any sanction is imposed, he must first commit the offense of betraying the trust placed in him by the Church after the mandate has been granted, through the exercise of that office. Moreover, the appropriate sanction for preaching against the Holy Catholic Church should not be excommunication, deprivation of something that is essential for correcting oneself; but rather suspension from the office for which the mandate was conferred. In that respect, I would agree that priests and bishops should have their mandates suspended if they were in fact to preach against what the Holy Church teaches—but only after each had fully exercised the right to a proper defense, and without requiring the retraction of opinions that do not concern doctrine—doctrine as understood by the Holy Catholic Church, doctrine which, according to the Second Vatican Council itself, has not changed.

176. In this way, the Church's authorities would avoid falling into an error they themselves ought not to commit: presuming the existence of doctrinal differences where the Second Vatican Council expressly affirms that none exist. Conduct could then be evaluated case by case, reconciling what had been taught previously with what has been developed in recent decades, so that the spiritual welfare of the faithful might be preserved. Yet in order eventually to suspend those who truly fell into the error of condemning the Holy Father or the Holy Church, it would first be necessary to grant them the mandate. It would therefore be simpler to reach an understanding that would allow the transmission of what existed before the Second Vatican Council without depriving the faithful of the developments that followed, while preserving respect for these newer understandings even where one prefers to retain the earlier ones. To excommunicate—to place oneself between a priest and Christ, between one of the faithful and Christ, between the sick person and the true remedy—is an act of presumption that Christ never entrusted to us. Christ established the Holy Eucharist for everyone, including the greatest sinners. To place oneself between a person who urgently needs communion and Holy Communion with Christ is to fall into the gravest misfortune.

177. It is painful to witness a brother excluded from Holy Communion, or forbidden to receive Communion in any parish should he wish to do so, simply because he prefers the rites, customs, modes of thought, and language of the past—or even because he has directed severe criticism toward the Holy Father. Should we not sincerely regard the priests of that Society as our brothers if we are to remain faithful to the Gospel? The exclusion of a friend belonging to the Society of Saint Pius X may cause little immediate harm to most Catholics, since its members already live relatively apart from the rest of the faithful and, by their own choice, attend only their own Masses. The absence of close ties, personal familiarity, and deep friendship probably made it easier for the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith to make a decision that would bring suffering to the Church, had there been a sincere willingness to love them with diligence and generosity. Yet the fact remains that excommunication closes the door to them should they someday wish to change their minds, and every exclusion wounds the Church. The Church cannot remain indifferent to the exclusion of its minority members. Such a measure only distances the faithful of that movement further from the ongoing development of the faith.

178. To excommunicate someone extinguishes our hope—that one day, in the future, such differences might cease to matter and no longer constitute a cause of division. The Holy Church ought to have room and a place at the table for everyone, including those who do not come; and already so many no longer gather at our table, having sought other proposals that more closely correspond to their personal convictions and different forms of worship. If we do not continue waiting for them, how shall they ever return?

179. Why devote ourselves to controversies over what was said or left unsaid, when it is so much more fruitful to devote ourselves to the ministry of unity, preserving the bond through selfless dedication? Christ's love was always unilateral whenever necessary.

"Avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, arguments, and quarrels about the Law, because these are unprofitable and worthless." (Titus 3:9)

"Remind everyone of these things, charging them before God not to quarrel about words, which is of no value and only ruins those who listen." (2 Timothy 2:14)

"Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care, avoiding godless chatter and the contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge." (1 Timothy 6:20)

180. And so the question remains, upon reading the decision, concerning its immediate consequences. If those who have been excommunicated wish to participate, will the doors no longer remain open to them? An excommunication that closes the doors of the Church is entirely fruitless in that respect. Who will continue the dialogue with the members of that Society now that they have been excommunicated? May Catholics no longer visit members of the SSPX, or will they be excommunicated, if they attend Masses celebrated by them, now that the Holy See has declared them to be in schism?

181. There are numerous chapels and parishes that once belonged to the Catholic Church and formed part of its common patrimony, places where any member of the faithful could attend Mass celebrated by that Society, even though it never held a significant presence within most archdioceses. What now becomes of all those properties—not merely their buildings, but the fruit of decades of shared labor that constitute a common patrimony of the Church? And for those who eventually leave the Society, will they be required to seek formal permission and petition for readmission simply to enter their own home as sons and daughters of the Church? Must they abandon the parishes and places they themselves helped to build over the course of decades? None of these consequences appears to have been a concern for the ecclesiastical authorities who framed excommunication as the only possible course of action. Yet these are questions that bear directly upon the welfare of the faithful living under the pastoral care of that now excommunicated Society.

182. It is also a strange requirement that Holy Mother Church should keep her doors open, but at the same time establish as necessary a formal act of retraction or a procedure for readmission by the Nunzios, when the members of that Society are also her children. “The Apostolic Nuncios will make available the procedures that Ordinaries may employ in the various cases”, says the decision of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith. The father of the prodigal son demands nothing from the son who returns home: he places a ring on his finger, slaughters the fattened calf, and gives a feast. It is therefore unsettling to read a decision issued at the highest level of the Church employing a discourse so different from that of the Gospel. If the Gospel remains the same, and if the rites and the Eucharist are essentially the same, why devote so much effort to what divides, and resort to punishment?

183. At times, one has the impression that disciplinary measures simply must be employed. Yet such measures were conceived to be used only when no other option remained, or when there existed an imminent and extremely grave danger to the life, integrity, or safety of the other faithful and clergy. As far as is known, the Society of Saint Pius X has made no threats against the Pope or against the faithful who observe the doctrine and unity established by the Second Vatican Council. For this reason, the decision to impose excommunication, following a respectful letter from that Society's Superior General expressing his desire to engage in dialogue with the Pope, appears hasty, disproportionate, and excessive.

184. I am not a member of the Society of Saint Pius X, for I identify more closely with the freedom of the Jesuits, and I enjoy warm friendships with Franciscans—kind theologians who preserve the richness of a profound intellectual tradition. It would undoubtedly be far more comfortable for me to try to persuade those excommunicated to abandon whatever distances them from Holy Church than to call upon the Holy See to make further sacrifices.

185. Yet even if the excommunication of isolated members of the Church's body causes little consternation among those who belong to other ecclesial communities, and even if the excommunication of these self-professed Catholics could guarantee good fruits—which, as we have seen, it cannot, for only Christ's love is capable of doing so—it nevertheless remains a morally undesirable practice for the Holy See. To belong to the Church is to strive constantly for unity and to love without imposing conditions. By contrast, seeking to condemn is something Christ forbade us to do; by His own example, Christ forbade us from placing conditions upon His love.

186. I obey and respect the decision of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith because, as a Catholic, I cannot disregard a document signed by the Holy Father or diminish the authority of the decisions of the Holy See, even while explaining why this course of action concerns me. Yet I cannot help wondering whether accepting a reality in which members are excommunicated is truly what Christ and the Apostles would expect from the Church that claims to be the authentic transmitter of their message of unity. We shall all have to render an account to Christ. How is it possible that anyone should not feel profound fear and hesitation before using the institutions of the Church to condemn rather than to forgive and continue patiently teaching and praying, as we ourselves have been instructed to do? We ought to hesitate much more, for the responsibility borne by the Holy See is immense. Moreover, many Catholics, as a consequence of this excommunication, have taken to social media to crucify, curse, insult, and condemn the members of that Society, committing the visible sin of judging, whereas Christ commanded us not to judge but to forgive sins.

187. Christ commanded us to love those who despise us, and above all to love through service. Christ did not command us to excommunicate. He commanded us to love, and He loved us first by His own example. What difficulty, then, does the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith encounter in understanding that it must love sedevacantists, as well as all those who disparage the Pope or preach disobedience to the Second Vatican Council? Is there any message more unequivocal than that of Christ? If we fail to understand this central core of what must be done in the face of controversy or dispute, and if we cannot apply what we ourselves preach whenever controversies arise within the Church, do we not encounter a contradiction? Do we not lose sight of our very purpose? Then what, ultimately, is the Church—or the Second Vatican Council—for?

188. This is how every institution works," the reader may object. Statutes are filled with noble words, yet in practice people and groups inevitably compete, especially as institutions grow larger, using formulas, concepts, and procedures to consolidate circles of authority and prestige. That is how structures of power have always organized themselves. Punitive measures gradually come to be regarded as instruments to protect those aligned with the prevailing groups and to discipline those who dissent or fail to conform promptly, regardless of what the sanctioned individuals have actually done. It is by no means uncommon for the substantive merits of the dissenting opinion—or even of the dissenting conduct—to be equal to, or greater than, those aligned with the prevailing position, yet no sanctions are imposed because of personal sympathies, private understandings, or systems of patronage, now concealed beneath the apparent objectivity of legal reasoning and administrative appointments.

188bis. But if the Catholic Church truly claims to exist for supernatural ends, for the salvation of souls, to proclaim the Gospel, and to live as one Body, then she ought not to resemble secular institutions. It seems deeply troubling that no one should feel compelled to raise a warning against the danger of moving in that direction of secularization, making habitual use of the most severe disciplinary measures—measures that ought to be reserved for truly exceptional circumstances, to protect the Church from abusers, murderers, adulterers, and the corrupt, whose deliberate wrongdoing places at risk the physical safety, the faith, and the hope of the faithful.

189. We thus arrive at a more universal question: how can a brother or sister in the faith be corrected without depriving that very person of the means of grace that might foster conversion? This question is far deeper than any discussion concerning the conduct of a particular group. As we have seen, the Church still appears content not to examine seriously the substance of what led to the excommunication of the Lutherans, nor does it seem interested in discussing the lifting of that excommunication, despite the visible good fruits they have borne and the undeniable signs of convergence in faith. Likewise, to this day no Pope has lifted the excommunication of Marguerite Porete, even after numerous passages in her work were found to correspond closely with the Gospel and with the writings of the Saints. From errors that remain neither corrected nor re-examined in the light of the Gospel, further errors may arise.

190. One must not lose sight of the Gospel when evaluating the restraint required in the use of punitive measures. The closest parallel to excommunication in the New Testament is found in 1 Corinthians 5, where Saint Paul instructs that the man living in an incestuous union be removed from the community: "Deliver this man to Satan [...] ††† so that his spirit may be saved" (1 Cor. 5:5), concluding: "Expel the wicked man from among you" (1 Cor. 5:13). Even in this case, however, the purpose of the measure is not condemnation but correction, aiming at the sinner's repentance and salvation. Indeed, in 2 Corinthians 2:6–8, Paul exhorts the community to forgive him and welcome him back after his conversion. It should be emphasized that, in this particular case, the offense was incest—not a theological, liturgical, or doctrinal disagreement.

191. In the Gospels, Christ establishes a process of fraternal correction, instructing that a brother first be admonished privately, then before witnesses, and finally before the community. If he still refuses to listen, he is to be treated "as a Gentile and a tax collector" (Mt. 18:15–17). If he remains unresponsive, Christ simply instructs that he be left in that condition. One should no longer treat the person with whom one disagrees as a brother, a member of the same family and community, but rather as a tax collector, incapable of understanding what motivates the Church. Christ does not, however, instruct His followers to organize the offender's exclusion through a formal punishment; He instructs them simply to withdraw. Likewise, with regard to offenses against the doctrine of the faith, the Apostles recommend avoiding a factious person after repeated warnings (Tit. 3:10). To avoid someone is not the same as excommunicating him or denying him access to Holy Communion with the Body of Christ. None of these sacred texts, therefore, expressly establishes excommunication as a juridical penalty or the deprivation of Eucharistic communion. From this evangelical perspective, one cannot ignore that the Gospel model gives priority to correction, conversion, and withdrawal from ordinary fellowship, without providing for formal exclusion from sacramental communion. Since I too shall have to render an account before Christ, it seems to me wiser and preferable to follow the security of that evangelical guidance.

192. The Church's authority must be exercised according to the model of Christ, and Christ's model was to persevere in correction, forgiveness, and communion even in the face of rejection. For this reason, a penalty that deprives a member of the faithful of sacramental communion stands in tension with that evangelical model. The Church should be recognized not merely by her authority to exclude, but above all by her capacity to preserve communion even amid disagreement, because that is how Christ exercised His authority.

193. Saint Paul taught the first Christian communities:

"Bear with one another and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds everything together in perfect unity." (Col. 3:13–14)

"With all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to preserve the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." (Eph. 4:2–3)

194. Is it truly so difficult to put this Pauline recommendation into practice in order to sustain the unity of the Church? We prefer to create legislation, rules, explanations, and concepts. Yet before God it is not so easy to conceal that the purpose of creating and applying such rules is sometimes a way of escaping the difficulty of following this recommendation—to avoid having to tolerate those who disagree with us or offend us. Even if one admits that the offense of schism is an exceedingly grave evil, did Christ authorize excluding the offender from sacramental communion as the proper response?

195. It is noteworthy that, in many cases, the individuals and groups who have been excommunicated continue in the same offense after excommunication; yet this no longer seems to trouble the Church authorities who were previously troubled by it. This appears to be a psychological mechanism for protecting authority. The excommunicated remain in error, but they are no longer considered part of the Church, so the authorities no longer feel the burden of their offenses because they embrace the illusion that punishing them somehow compensated for the wrong. But does this resolve the problem of unity? The excommunicated continue in their offense, only now without bearing the weight of contradicting the Body, without the assistance of communion, and without having to confront further correction from the Church's authorities. Is that truly better for those who have been excommunicated? Is it better that they no longer encounter the signs of contradiction?

"This child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be opposed [...] so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed." (Lk. 2:34–35)

196. It is striking that, although Christ Himself became a sign of contradiction, He did not respond to opposition by excluding people from communion. On the contrary, He continued calling tax collectors, sinners, and even His persecutors to conversion and forgiveness. Choosing to remain in tension with those scandalized by His invitation to sinners and offenders to remain at the table enriches the Church's mission and represents the evangelical way of exercising authority. It therefore remains difficult to reconcile the Gospel's broad call to fraternal correction, forgiveness, and the preservation of communion with a discipline that, precisely in matters concerning the faith, deprives the faithful of sacramental communion. That tension, at least for me, has not yet found a fully satisfactory answer.

197. The fruit of enduring questions, contempt, and insults would nevertheless appear to be the only approach truly compatible with the examples given by Christ and the Saints in the Gospel and throughout the Church's history. Those examples did not even take into account their own physical or psychological well-being, for they willingly sacrificed themselves while remaining signs of contradiction to those who opposed the same Spirit. They proved far more effective in preserving the unity of the Church than a rule that itself fractures that unity through the proposal of excommunication.

198. I obey the Holy Father, because there is no other way for me to remain Catholic. But if we were to reflect carefully on the use of this measure, we would be entirely opposed to any excommunication imposed for offenses against the faith. I oppose excommunication because I cannot reconcile it with the way Christ exercised authority and taught the Apostles to correct their brothers. Nor can I persuade myself that the Apostles ever recommended engaging in disputes and controversies over doctrine and theological concepts. On the contrary, they advise us to keep our distance from such matters and regard them as unprofitable. Excommunication for offenses against the faith therefore appears to me as an act consistently at odds with fidelity to Christ and to the Saints, who were always ready to bear the sacrifice themselves. It also stands in contradiction to the Gospel's call to forgive one another and to bear patiently with whatever troubles us, precisely in issues that give rise to differences and estrangement. Christ allowed Himself to be arrested and condemned because of disagreements over the way religion regulated the life of faith in His own time, in order to demonstrate how undesirable such mechanisms of punishment are, and how blind and inferior they remain when compared with His greater example of perfect love.

199. "Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things" (1 Corinthians 13). We should always interpret what another person says in the most charitable way possible, rather than cultivate a permanent presumption of suspicion toward everything the other says. To excommunicate someone for disagreements concerning the faith is a solution that ignores this radical departure from the logic of making accusations in order to justify oneself. It merely makes life easier for the one who excommunicates while severing the precious bond of service owed to the one who has been excommunicated; it is to accept defeat, to acknowledge that the Church's teaching and communion have failed. And, as we have seen, there are numerous historical cases in which the Church did not even preserve the appearance of a medicinal purpose, nor has it yet re-examined the substantive merits of those cases or asked whether the excommunication actually healed the error it claimed to remedy.

200. Moreover, the impact of excommunication upon the secular world—which expects from the Church an approach consistent with the Gospel she proclaims—is a profound scandal, greatly diminishing the Church's power of evangelization. For the faithful as well, it becomes a scandal when it formally institutionalizes disunity, a scandal as great as, or even greater than, the offense itself. Excommunication rehearses the apparent triumph of evil: a repetition, albeit on a smaller scale, of what the teachers of the Law and the priests of the Temple did to Jesus Christ and the Apostles when the nascent Church challenged the manner in which law and religion were being implemented in its own time.

201. What, then, is the solution? Protest, questioning, dialogue? Perhaps all of these may at times be pursued by those who have been excommunicated and by the faithful, provided they do not incite disobedience, lest the situation become even more serious. Yet I believe that the path of the faithful should be to work upon the context, the substance, and the formation of younger priests, so that in the future the use of excommunication, legal codes, and sanctions to punish offenses against the faith may cease to be regarded as a mark of virtue, authority, or superior judgment, and instead come to be viewed as an undesirable outcome—something that diminishes us. Coercion is not the ideal toward which we should strive.

202. It is like keeping a firearm at home for protection against a sudden intrusion. One does not use a firearm to settle family disagreements, nor does one point a weapon at someone one loves. A firearm is used only against someone who points a weapon at us, or at an innocent person whom we love, in legitimate self-defense. The Code of Canon Law would still remain, defining offenses, establishing limits, and providing remedies for truly extreme situations. But anyone who used it to restrict access to Christ, or to exclude and punish at the slightest sign of controversy, would be misusing it. A weapon is not an instrument of teaching. To understand the full meaning and purpose of the Gospel is to recognize that reason itself should lead us to resist becoming the authors and enforcers of punitive measures that produce division, and instead to love—and to teach.

* Ana Paula Arendt, literary pseudonym of R. P. Alencar, is a Brazilian political scientist, poet, and diplomat.

References:

THE HOLY BIBLE. Official Translation of the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil. 2nd ed. Brasília, DF: CNBB, 2019