Hundreds of Thousands of Catholics Purportedly Excommunicated: How Should We See This?

Excommunication Threat

Although rumors had been circulating that Rome was preparing to excommunicate not only the consecrating bishops and the four new bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), but also the priests and laity attached to the Society, most observers were skeptical that the authorities would go so far. The issuance of a decree of excommunication by Cardinal Fernandez of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith and the accompanying Explanatory Note came as a shock to many on Thursday, July 2, 2026, and the Procedures for the Reconciliation of priests and laity issued later that day proved even more astonishing. These measures were seen widely as incredibly harsh and sweeping and decried by authors both within and outside SSPX circles.

Reasonable objections

[i] Canonists immediately began to point out problems with the juridical validity of the condemnations.[ii] Don Davide Pagliarani, the SSPX Superior General, wrote a beautiful, filial, but obviously pained letter to the Holy Father, assuring him that we do not receive these measures in a spirit of bitterness or rebellion but offer up their injustice for the Church and for the Pope himself. The condemnations were indeed harsh and indiscriminate. Even while pretending to distinguish between lay faithful who adhere formally to the Society’s “doctrinal position” or not, no criteria were given[iii] to determine who would or would not fall under the alleged excommunication for schism (curiously, not for heresy when adherence to a doctrinal position is the determining factor). Indeed, the “doctrinal position” is nowhere defined.

Reports of three visits of Cardinal Fernandez to Pope Leo in the week preceding the consecrations made it clear that something was being prepared, but there were no noted visits from Bishop Randazzo, the prefect of the Dicastery for Legislative Texts, giving rise to the suspicion that any forthcoming decrees were being prepared “in-house” at the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith, without expert canonical help. Such a scenario makes sense, given the frankly messy nature of the documents that were finally issued. Indeed, they seem to lack any juridical effectiveness for anyone except the six bishops involved, and, even there, they still leave the door open for hierarchical recourse to the Pope and to appeal on the grounds of the excusing causes written into canon law. What follows is meant to be a non-technical look at what the condemnations actually accomplish, with the goal of reassuring the priests and laity who may be anxious about their current status.

Canon Law and the Penal Law of the Church

First, however, let us be clear: the canonical aspect of this situation is very far from the main question. The Church Militant needs canon law because it is made up of fallen men who need an extrinsic guide for their behavior and to help form their consciences rightly in view of the common good, but canon law — like all positive law[iv] — is unable to reach the specificity of every possible scenario that may call for concrete decisions about what is to be done or avoided here and now. If one walks into the house and finds someone physically attacking his elderly mother, the legal aspects of the situation are not the primary consideration. Perhaps my mother actually attacked this man first, and he has the legal right to defend himself! Obviously not. Any man would immediately use force to stop the attack and worry about the legalities later. He would take the physical risk and the legal risk in order to protect his mother because he owes her a higher duty in charity and under the fourth commandment. Likewise, imagine a kingdom, an absolute monarchy, where the king has decreed that nobody may ever drive on the left side of the road for any reason, but the king himself is having a stroke, and the ambulance is blocked from reaching him by a big truck that has broken down in the road. The only way to reach the king to try to save his life is to drive on the left side of the road to get around the truck. Obviously, the ambulance driver will obey the higher law of saving lives (even in this case the king’s own life) despite the law that normally forbids driving on the left side of the road for any reason. An important principle of moral theology comes into play here: lex positiva non obligat cum gravi incommodo — A positive law does not oblige morally under grave inconvenience. The point is that no positive law, made by man, can ever cover every possible scenario. Canon law explicitly recognizes this by incorporating the concept of epikeia[v], or canonical equity, and stating explicitly that the salvation of souls is the supreme law to which all others must give place. In fact, it even gives explicit excusing and mitigating factors that must be taken into consideration when it comes to the penal law of the Church. The penal law of the Church, which is contained principally in Book VI of the 1983 Code, as heavily revised by Pope Francis, lays out the system of canonical offense.

See also

[i] See https://new-app.spectator.co.uk/article/673505/content.html and https://infovaticana.com/en/2026/07/03/have-mercy-and-leave-the-faithful-aside/ [ii] See https://infovaticana.com/en/2026/07/02/the-formula-used-by-tucho-to-excommunicate-priests-and-laypeople-lacks-penal-effectiveness/ [iii] Although criteria were indeed given in the Procedures for Reconciliation, none were given in the Decree or the Explanatory Note. Whatever canonical weight the Explanatory Note may have, the Procedures, whose very purpose is to put the criteria given in the Decree and Explanatory Note into practice, certainly have less. Compare this to finding new tax regulations not given in the IRS code or regulations in a tax form. [iv] Positive law is a law that is “posita” or put in place by a lawmaker, as distinct from natural law, which is written into the very natural order as created by God. Natural law can never change, but positive law can. [v] ST. IIa-IIae, Q. 120, art. 1, corpus: “Legislators in framing laws attend to what commonly happens: although if the law be applied to certain cases it will frustrate the equality of justice and be injurious to the common good, which the law has in view. Thus the law requires deposits to be restored, because in the majority of cases this is just. Yet it happens sometimes to be injurious—for instance, if a madman were to put his sword in deposit, and demand its delivery while in a state of madness, or if a man were to seek the return of his deposit in order to fight against his country. On these and like cases it is bad to follow the law, and it is good to set aside the letter of the law and to follow the dictates of justice and the common good. This is the object of "epikeia" which we call equity.” See also canon 1752. [vi] “The decree of May 1, 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity,” as then-Cardinal Ratzinger famously said in the successful appeal of the excommunications of the “Hawaii Six” in 1993. See https://sspx.org/en/hawaii-six-case-30450 [vii] See Canon 18. [viii] For instance, untold thousands of people may or may not be excommunicated because of procured abortion, taking and disposing of the Blessed Sacrament, heresy, apostasy, true schism, or the direct violation of the seal of confession, but nobody knows because these things are hardly ever declared. [ix] See Canons 1323 and 1324. [x] Many thanks to Infovaticana, a non-SSPX site, for the analysis on which this section is based: https://infovaticana.com/en/2026/07/02/the-formula-used-by-tucho-to-excommunicate-priests-and-laypeople-lacks-penal-effectiveness/ [xi] The assertion of schism (an offense against the unity of the Church in the Code) as following inevitably from the consecration of a bishop without papal mandate (an offense against the Sacraments in the Code) comes from Pope John Paul II and seems to contradict the very definition of schism as the rejection (detractatio) of submission to the Roman Pontiff. Moreover, the internal logic is inconsistent here: The four newly-consecrated bishops are charged solely with having been consecrated without papal mandate (Canon 1387). Bishop Fellay, the co-consecrator, is NOT charged under Canon 1387 but only under Canon 1364 section 1 (schism). Bishop de Galarreta alone is charged under both canons. Yet the Decree’s (and the Explanatory Note’s) rationale for invoking schism — the unauthorized consecration’s being allegedly inherently schismatic — should apply equally to the four new Bishops, and the excommunication for the unauthorized consecration should surely apply to the co-consecrator, at least as an accomplice under Canon 1329 section 2. A Decree that will not apply its own theory of schism coherently to six Bishops it names individually offers little foundation for extending that same theory, by way of a mere Explanatory Note, to hundreds of unnamed priests and thousands of laity. Thanks to a canonist who prefers to remain nameless for this last insight. [xii] This is normally a liturgical term, not a canonical one, but they presumably mean all of the priests and deacons of the Society. The Decree says “chierici,” clergy. [xiii] “The sacred ministers are in schism and therefore must be considered schismatics.” The laity who adhere formally to the the Society are to be considered schismatic and excommunicated. This relies on a previous Explanatory Note from 1996 which is purportedly “still in force,” implying that this excommunicated status has been in place at least since that time. This contradicts in myriad ways the concrete manner in which the Roman Curia and even the Popes have dealt with the Society in serious canonical matters. [xiv] This would most likely be futile. On June 5, 1975, Archbishop Lefebvre appealed the suppression of the Society to the Signatura, and, on June 10, 1975, he was informed that the decree of the three cardinals had been ratified by Pope Paul VI specifically, cutting off all avenues of appeal.

Šaltinis: SSPX Districts — https://sspx.org