Schism by Suggestion

How the Catholic Herald turns a clear canonical answer into an instrument of intimidation

A Catholic Herald answer to an anxious layman concedes that attending an SSPX Mass does not itself constitute schism, yet surrounds that conclusion with historical falsehoods, canonical imprecision and pastoral insinuation. The result is not clarification, but fear manufactured from distinctions the Church’s own law carefully preserves.

A Catholic who has occasionally attended Mass at a chapel of the Society of Saint Pius X writes to the Catholic Herald with an anxious but straightforward question: “Am I in schism for having attended SSPX Masses?” He supplies the fact most relevant to the answer: “I have never regarded myself as anything other than a faithful Catholic in communion with the Holy Father.”¹

The article’s first sentence does not answer his question. It answers another one:

“The short answer is that Catholics should not attend Masses celebrated by priests of the Society of St Pius X.”

That may be the disciplinary advice which the author wishes to give. It is not the short answer to “Am I in schism?” The actual answer appears only afterwards:

“At the same time, merely attending an SSPX Mass from time to time does not, of itself, place someone in schism or incur the penalty of excommunication.”

That answer is correct. It should have governed the whole article. Instead, the Herald proceeds to surround it with enough historical error, canonical ambiguity and rhetorical suggestion to leave the reader less reassured than when he began. The method is not openly to accuse him of schism, but to concede that he is probably not a schismatic before teaching him why he ought nevertheless to fear that he may be becoming one.

The first inaccuracy is astonishingly elementary:

“With the illicit episcopal consecrations in 1988, all its priests and bishops were subsequently excommunicated. Pope Benedict XVI lifted these excommunications in 2009.”

This is false. All SSPX priests and bishops were not excommunicated in 1988. The declared penalties concerned Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer and the four priests consecrated as bishops. When the penalties were remitted in 2009, the decree named the four surviving bishops individually: Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta.²

Pope Benedict XVI subsequently explained the matter in words which leave no room for the Herald’s version:

“The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions.”

He then distinguished the remission of those individual penalties from the Society’s absence of canonical status and from the illegitimate exercise of ministry by its clergy. The Herald erases all three distinctions and invents a general excommunication of every SSPX priest. This is not a minor lapse of terminology. Excommunication, suspension, lack of canonical status, illicit ministry and schism are different canonical realities. An article advising distressed Catholics about the gravest ecclesiastical penalty should at least know who was actually excommunicated.

Having begun with a fictitious universal excommunication, the article turns to the position of the laity. Here it is compelled to acknowledge that the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith did not declare every Catholic who enters an SSPX chapel to be schismatic. The DDF’s explanatory note applies the penalty to lay faithful who “formally adhere” to the Society under the conditions established by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts in 1996.³

The Herald quotes the controlling passage:

“In the case of other faithful, however, it is obvious that occasional participation in liturgical acts or activities of the Lefebvrian [SSPX] movement is not sufficient for one to speak of formal adherence to the movement, done without adopting the attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunity of that movement.”

The authority upon which the DDF itself relies therefore says that occasional attendance without adoption of the schismatic disposition is “obviously” insufficient. The reader has described his attendance as occasional and has expressly professed communion with the Pope. On the facts given, the quoted standard answers his question.

The Herald, however, immediately weakens the text it has just quoted:

“This means that occasional attendance at Masses celebrated by SSPX priests does not, of itself, necessarily mean that a member of the lay faithful has formally adhered to the SSPX and is therefore schismatic and excommunicated.”

The official note says that occasional participation is “obviously” insufficient. The Herald translates this into “does not, of itself, necessarily mean”. The protection of the law is converted into a triple hedge. What the source excludes is presented as something which merely fails to prove the charge conclusively in every case.

This is not careful qualification. It alters the burden of the sentence. “Occasional attendance is insufficient” means that something further must be established. “Occasional attendance does not necessarily mean” encourages the reader to suspect that the attendance itself may already contain an uncertain degree of formal schism.

The distortion becomes clearer when the article defines the internal element of formal adherence:

“Internally, it means placing one’s own judgement above obedience to the Pope, usually regarding positions contrary to the Magisterium of the Church.”

Those words are extracted from the 1996 note, but the crucial preceding condition disappears. The note does not define formal adherence merely as judging a papal decision to be wrong. It first requires that the person freely and consciously share in the substance of the schism. Only then does it speak of choosing the Lefebvrist movement in such a manner that the choice is placed above obedience to the Pope.⁴

The omission is decisive. By removing the requirement that the person “freely and consciously” share “the substance of the schism”, the Herald turns a description of schismatic adherence into a general warning against private judgement. The reader is left with the impression that questioning a Roman decision, resisting a command or believing the Pope to have acted unjustly may itself constitute the interior essence of schism.

Canon 751 says otherwise. Schism is “the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him”.⁵ It is not simply disagreement with a pope. It is not criticism of a dicastery. It is not resistance to a particular command. It is not even identical with disobedience.

A Catholic may disobey ecclesiastical authority without denying that authority as such. He may misunderstand a command, dispute its legality, appeal against it, plead necessity, resist what he believes to be an abuse or act culpably through pride. His conduct may be prudent or reckless, lawful or unlawful, virtuous or sinful. Yet the canonical offence of schism requires something more specific: a refusal of papal submission or ecclesial communion.

The distinction is indispensable. A man who says, “The Pope has no authority over me,” speaks differently from one who says, “The Pope possesses supreme authority, but I believe this particular judgement to be mistaken.” The second assertion may be wrong, presumptuous or disobedient. It is not, without more, a denial of papal authority. If every act of judgement contrary to a papal decision constituted schism, the canonical definition would be unnecessary: schism would mean no more than serious disobedience.

The 1996 note guards against precisely this collapse. It requires both an internal element—the free and conscious adoption of the substance of schism—and an external manifestation of that choice. Even “exclusive participation” in SSPX worship is described as a sign which is not unequivocal, because a person may attend its liturgical functions without sharing its alleged schismatic spirit. The note insists that particular attention must be paid to the person’s intention and that cases must be judged individually. It further requires a distinction between the moral question of the sin of schism and the juridical question of the canonical offence.⁶

The Herald acknowledges none of this precision when it introduces what it calls “a simple comparison”:

“Attending a talk in a parish hall does not make someone a member of the group hosting it. But if he attends all of the group’s events, supports it materially and actively promotes its aims, it may be reasonable to conclude that he has formally adhered to it.”

The comparison is simple because it removes the very element which must be proved. Attendance at meetings, financial support and active promotion may demonstrate membership of an ordinary organisation. They do not necessarily demonstrate the canonical offence of schism. The question is not merely whether a person has become socially attached to the Society, but whether he has freely and consciously adopted a refusal of papal submission or Catholic communion.

A Catholic may attend an SSPX chapel every Sunday because it offers the only accessible traditional Mass. He may contribute towards the maintenance of the building because he and his family use it. He may recommend its catechism classes because he believes they teach the Faith clearly. None of these acts necessarily means that he denies the authority of Pope Leo XIV or refuses communion with Catholics subject to him.

Such conduct may now be contrary to the DDF’s express direction that Catholics abstain from SSPX celebrations and activities. It may expose the person to spiritual dangers. It may, over time, accompany or encourage an increasingly separatist mentality. Those are legitimate pastoral cautions. But the possibility that attachment may develop into schism does not permit attachment itself to be relabelled as formal adherence.

Canon law does not impose excommunication by pattern recognition. Canon 1321 begins with the rule that every person is considered innocent until the contrary is proved. It then requires an external violation gravely imputable by reason of malice or culpability.⁷ The observable facts of attendance, donation or recommendation may be relevant evidence, but they cannot replace proof of the offence itself.

The reader has, moreover, supplied evidence directly contrary to schismatic intent: “I have never regarded myself as anything other than a faithful Catholic in communion with the Holy Father.” The Herald never identifies anything in his account which disproves that profession. It nevertheless directs him towards diocesan authorities if he fears that he may have formally adhered:

“Anyone who believes that he may have formally adhered to the SSPX should speak to his parish priest or contact the chancery or tribunal of his diocese.”

There is nothing objectionable in seeking competent advice. What is objectionable is the creation of the anxiety which makes such advice appear necessary. The reader said that he attended occasionally and remained consciously in communion with the Pope. The official text quoted by the Herald says that occasional participation without adoption of a schismatic attitude is insufficient. Yet the article has already reframed formal adherence so broadly that an ordinary Catholic may now wonder whether preferring an SSPX Mass, donating to a chapel or distrusting a Roman decree has secretly excommunicated him.

The article then returns to the practical question:

“You say that you occasionally attend SSPX Masses and ask whether you may continue to do so. It is clear that the Holy See is directing Catholics not to attend celebrations or activities organised by the SSPX.”

This is true. The DDF’s explanatory note exhorts the faithful to abstain from SSPX celebrations and activities. That direction should be stated plainly. But it is distinct from the question the reader asked. “Rome directs you not to attend” is not equivalent to “your attendance has made you a schismatic”.

The Herald repeatedly passes between these propositions without preserving the distinction. First, attendance does not of itself constitute schism. Then regular attendance may be evidence of formal adherence. Then formal adherence incurs excommunication. Then the faithful are told not to attend for their “spiritual good” because “communion with and obedience to the Holy Father are necessary and life-giving aspects of Catholic life”.

The last proposition is unquestionably Catholic. It also insinuates what has not been demonstrated: that the reader’s attendance is incompatible with communion and obedience. He has already affirmed communion with the Pope. Reasserting the necessity of communion does not prove that he has rejected it.

The same movement appears in the discussion of the Sunday obligation. The article concedes:

“There are several letters from the Holy See over the past four decades stating that attendance at Sunday Mass celebrated by an SSPX priest fulfils the Sunday obligation.”

It then qualifies the concession:

“provided that this is not done within the context of schism, as described above.”

Canon 1248 states that a person satisfies the obligation by assisting at Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite.⁸ The objective fulfilment of the obligation and the morality of the person’s motive are related but distinct questions. A person may attend a valid Mass while harbouring a sinful intention. The intention may itself require repentance; it does not cause the Mass to cease being a celebration of the Catholic rite.

The Herald again uses the phrase “in the context of schism” without defining what additional fact would create that context. If it means that a person attends with the intention of repudiating the Pope and separating himself from the Catholic Church, then the spiritual danger is obvious. But that is not the case described by the reader. His stated intention is precisely the opposite.

The article’s treatment of Confession displays the same rhetorical mechanism in its purest form. It acknowledges that Pope Francis personally extended to SSPX priests the faculty to absolve validly and licitly “until further provisions are made”.⁹ It then admits:

“The position regarding the faculty to absolve validly in the Sacrament of Confession is less clear.”

It continues:

“One hopes that this point will be clarified in the coming weeks and months.”

But the uncertainty is immediately displaced:

“For now, however, it is clear – to repeat the essential point – that the Holy See is directing Catholics not to receive the sacraments from SSPX priests.”

The juridical position is “less clear”; clarification is required; “for now, however, it is clear”. The author does not resolve the legal question. He changes the question from validity to obedience and describes the disciplinary direction as the “essential point”.

Prudence may indeed require Catholics to refrain while the scope and juridical operation of the new provision are clarified. But a direction to abstain does not explain how a faculty granted personally by Pope Francis ceased to operate, nor does it answer the question of validity. The substitution may support the author’s practical advice; it does not resolve the canonical ambiguity he has himself acknowledged.

More importantly, this sacramental dispute does not answer whether a layman has become schismatic by attending Mass. Its inclusion reinforces the cumulative impression that everything associated with the Society is now uncertain, forbidden or spiritually contaminated. The reader’s narrow canonical question is submerged beneath a general atmosphere of alarm.

The Herald concludes with the words of St John Chrysostom quoted by Pope St Pius X:

“The Church is thy hope, the Church is thy salvation, the Church is thy refuge.”

So she is. For precisely that reason, her law must be represented accurately. The Church does not need historical falsehoods to defend her unity. She does not need the distinction between disobedience and schism to be blurred. She does not need excommunication inferred from attendance, association or anxiety.

The answer which should have been given is exact. A Catholic does not become schismatic merely by attending an SSPX Mass. Occasional participation without adoption of a schismatic disposition is expressly insufficient to establish formal adherence. Even exclusive participation is not unequivocal proof of schismatic intent. Formal schism requires an actual refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with those subject to him, manifested externally and accompanied by the imputability required by penal law.

The Holy See has now directed Catholics not to attend SSPX celebrations and activities. That direction presents the reader with a serious decision of obedience and conscience. It does not retrospectively convert his occasional attendance into schism, nor does it permit his continued attendance to be treated as conclusive proof of excommunication without establishing the elements which the law itself requires.

The reader asked whether he was in schism. He said that he remained a faithful Catholic in communion with the Holy Father. Nothing in the facts presented contradicts that profession.

The Herald should have answered him plainly. Instead, it opened with the answer to a different question, invented the excommunication of every SSPX priest in 1988, weakened “obviously insufficient” into “does not necessarily mean”, detached obedience from the prior requirement of consciously sharing the substance of schism, and replaced canonical proof with an analogy about attendance and financial support.

It never directly declares the reader a schismatic. Its method is more effective than that. It tells him that he is not necessarily a schismatic, while progressively depriving him of every reason to feel secure in that answer.

That is not clarity. It is schism by suggestion.

Notes

¹ The Herald Chaplain, “Dear Father: Am I in Schism for Having Attended SSPX Masses?”, Catholic Herald, 11 July 2026.

² Congregation for Bishops, Decree Remitting the Excommunication Latae Sententiae of the Bishops of the Society of St Pius X, 21 January 2009; Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Remission of the Excommunication of the Four Bishops Consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, 10 March 2009.

³ Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Decree and Explanatory Note, 2 July 2026.

⁴ Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note on the Excommunication for Schism Incurred by Adherents of the Movement of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, 24 August 1996, nn. 5–7.

⁵ Code of Canon Law, canon 751.

⁶ Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note, nn. 7–9.

⁷ Code of Canon Law, canons 1321–1324.

⁸ Code of Canon Law, canons 1247–1248.

⁹ Francis, Apostolic Letter Misericordia et misera, 20 November 2016, n. 12.