Happy New Month of July.
Last week’s post examined heresy, emphasising that obstinacy and divine and catholic faith are essential to ascertain the delict. Today’s post considers another delict against the faith–schism. Don’t hesitate to get in touch with me if there are particular delicts that you would like to be discussed in my weekly posts.
Schism is “the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (Can. 751). Schism comes against the backdrop of canon 209, which states that “Christ’s faithful are bound to preserve their communion with the Church at all times, even in their external actions” and that the pope is “the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful” (Lumen Gentium, 23). The term ‘withdraw’ means it must be a real repudiation of the pope’s authority and ecclesial communion, not just a simple act of disobedience. Disobedience to things the pope said that do not concern his authority as the head of the Church does not fall under schism. Therefore, schism always involves heresy, rejecting papal supremacy and infallibility. The penalty for schism is latae sententiae excommunication, and other penalties could be added (Can. 1364). A schismatic is also irregular for receiving Holy Orders (Can. 1041, 2°).
A common instance of schism in Nigeria is when Catholics open ecclesial communities as independent from the Catholic Church and the pope’s authority. A Catholic may run a ministry but still submit to the pope’s authority and ecclesial communion. As several ministries of Catholics still claim to be Catholic, schism, as a withdrawal from papal authority and ecclesial communion, must be ascertained and not presumed.
Recently, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith summoned Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò for schism for “public statements which result in a denial of the elements necessary to maintain communion with the Catholic Church: denial of the legitimacy of Pope Francis, rupture of communion with Him, and rejection of the Second Vatican Council”.
Archbishop Carlo posted the letter on his X (Twitter) page, saying, “I regard the accusations against me as an honour.” In his statement on the accusation published on 28 June 2024, he further doubled down on his stands, saying:
“Before my Brothers in the Episcopate and the entire ecclesial body, I accuse Jorge Mario Bergoglio of heresy and schism, and I ask that he be judged as a heretic and schismatic and removed from the Throne which he has unworthily occupied for over eleven years. This in no way contradicts the adage Prima Sedes a nemine judicatur, because it is evident that, since a heretic is unable to assume the Papacy, he is not above the Prelates who judge him.
I consider it an honor to be “accused” of rejecting the errors and deviations implied by the so-called Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, which I consider to be completely devoid of magisterial authority due to its heterogeneity compared to all the true Councils of the Church, which I fully recognize and accept, just as I fully recognize and accept all the magisterial acts of the Roman Pontiffs.
I convictedly reject the heterodox doctrines contained in the documents of Vatican II and which have been condemned by the Popes up to Pius XII, or which contradict the Catholic Magisterium in any way. I equally condemn, reject, and refuse the heterodox doctrines expressed in the so-called “post-conciliar magisterium” that originated with Vatican II, as well as the recent heresies relating to the “synodal church,” the reformulation of the Papacy in an ecumenical key, the admission of concubinaries to the Sacraments, and the promotion of sodomy and “gender” ideology. I also condemn Bergoglio’s adherence to climate fraud, a mad neo-Malthusian superstition engendered by those who, hating the Creator, cannot help but also detest Creation, and man along with it, who is made in the image and likeness of God.”
Since Archbishop Carlo made a private letter of accusation from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith public, it is opportune to analyse the letter to reemphasise my points about self-defence and the right of the accused in the canonical penal process of the Church. This is an English translation of the dicastery’s decree dated 11 June 2024 and written in Italian.
“I Summon H.E. Mons. Carlo Maria Viganò to present himself, along with a valid identification document on 20 June 2024 at 3.30 pm at the Palace of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, 00120 Vatican City, so that the same may take notice of the accusations and evidence concerning the crime of schism of which he has been accused (public statements which result in a denial of the elements necessary to maintain communion with the Catholic Church: denial of the legitimacy of Pope Francis, rupture of communion with Him, and rejection of the Second Vatican Council).
The accused is advised that he has the faculty to appoint an Advocate/Procurator whom he trusts in order to be defended/represented in the present trial and that, if he does not, one will be appointed for him. The accused is also advised that in the absence of an appearance or a written defense, which must be forwarded to this Dicastery by 28 June 2024, he will be judged in his absence.”
The key element here is that even though there is clear evidence of Archbishop Carlo’s schismatic statements, he is to defend his actions before punishment. If he fails to appear or send a written defence, he will be judged in his absence. In this case, the judge did not infringe on his right to self-defence; instead, he freely chose not to exercise that right. Furthermore, Canon 1723 states: “§1. The judge who cites the accused must invite the accused to appoint an advocate according to the norm of can. 1481, §1 within the time limit set by the judge. §2. If the accused does not make provision, the judge is to appoint an advocate before the joinder of the issue; this advocate will remain in this function as long as the accused does not appoint an advocate personally.” Hence, the dicastery invites him to appoint an advocate within a time limit or be given one if he fails to do so.
Indeed, the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church (Canon 1754), and the purpose of canonical penal law is the “restoration of justice, the reform of the offender, and the repair of scandal” (Canon 1311 §2). Therefore, the rights to fair hearing and self-defence are fundamental rights of all Christ faithful (cf. Canon 221).
There may be confusion as to why there is a need for a trial since the penalty is latae sententiae excommunication. ‘Latae sententiae’ simply means ‘already given’. Excommunication is a medicinal penalty and, like medicine, meant to cure the sick. Therefore, when some grave delicts are committed, the excommunication is given automatically (imposed) without needing a trial. The reason is that certain offences that require punishment can be committed secretly even though no one knows about them. However, although a penalty has been imposed automatically, it is also necessary to declare it. Declaration of the penalty comes with the execution of the sentence. The declaration of the penalty is why a penal trial is necessary. In the case of Archbishop Vigano, if he is declared a schismatic, the excommunication already imposed automatically is declared. Execution means enforcing the various elements of the penalty of excommunication.
Canon 1331 states: “§1. An excommunicated person is prohibited: 1° from celebrating the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and the other sacraments; 2° from receiving the sacraments; 3° from administering sacramentals and from celebrating the other ceremonies of liturgical worship; 4° from taking an active part in the celebrations listed above; 5° from exercising any ecclesiastical offices, duties, ministries or functions; 6° from performing acts of governance.
§ 2. If a ferendae sententiae excommunication has been imposed or a latae sententiae excommunication declared, the offender: 1° proposing to act in defiance of the provision of § 1 nn. 1-4 is to be removed, or else the liturgical action is to be suspended, unless there is a grave reason to the contrary; 2° invalidly exercises any acts of governance which, in accordance with § 1 n. 6, are unlawful; 3° is prohibited from benefiting from privileges already granted; 4° does not acquire any remuneration held in virtue of a merely ecclesiastical title; 5° is legally incapable of acquiring offices, duties, ministries, functions, rights, privileges or honorific titles.”
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
