In the wake of this announcement, many Catholic commentators have rushed to condemn Archbishop Viganò for his obstinate refusal to submit to the pope's novel teachings and practices, and to the "spirit of Vatican II." Good and faithful Catholics are left wondering if maybe, just maybe, Archbishop Viganò really did finally go too far.

How is a good and faithful Catholic to judge the situation?

In evaluating the current situation, it is important to be clear about certain things. Specifically, we must have a clear understanding of 1) what constitutes schism, 2) what excommunication is and how it is imposed, and 3) what the limits of papal authority are.

For simplicity's sake, and because he is almost universally recognized as pope, I will refer to Jorge Bergoglio as Pope Francis, even as we discuss the various possibilities that may lead someone to conclude that he is not a legitimate pope.

Schism

Schism is defined in Paragraph 2089 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as "the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." The same definition is given in Canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law.

To be guilty of any crime, ecclesiastical or otherwise, all elements of the offense must be present. For the crime of schism, basic logic would require there to be a pope. Schism against a pope would not be possible, for example, during a long interregnum, unless the person committing the schism refused communion with the other members of the Catholic Church.

It is clear that Archbishop Viganò has, over a period of several years, repeatedly, consistently, and clearly asserted that he does not recognize Pope Francis to be a legitimate pope. Even after being notified of his trial for schism, he has forcefully and clearly repeated this assertion. So it would appear, on the surface at least, that the elements of schism are present.

There is no doubt that a Catholic must remain in communion with a true pope. Of course, during an interregnum there is no pope to remain in communion with. Historically, there have been several periods of time when there was no pope, even for extended periods measured in years. But even during such a period, Catholics must still remain in communion with each other, and as soon as a new pope is elected, we must remain in communion with him.

However, to be in schism, there must be no reasonable doubt about the identity of the true pope, and that anyone claiming to be pope is, in fact, pope. During the times of the antipopes, who was the valid pope was not clear, and there are canonized saints who supported antipopes, convinced of the legitimacy of their claim to the throne. Therefore, if a person has reasonable doubt about the validity of a particular man's claim to be pope, then that person cannot be held to be in schism. But what is absolute is that there must be an attitude of wanting to be in communion with the true pope, whoever he is—we cannot be pickers and choosers, based on whether or not we like the man or his policies. Failure to be in communion with a pope we recognize to be legitimately pope is the key to schism. We have no obligation to be in communion with a doubtful pope.

Whatever his reasons, and however convincing or unconvincing you or I may find those reasons to be, Archbishop Viganò does not believe Pope Francis to be a true pope. So the validity of his conviction of schism is, in my mind, doubtful. It is not in the scope of this article to assess the validity of Archbishop Viganò's reasoning. I do, however, note that he is obviously well educated in the relevant theology and canon law. He is also particularly knowledgeable about Vatican II's nature as a pastoral council that itself explictly rejected the idea of being a dogmatic or doctrinal council. Further, he is keenly aware of how the council has been implemented and illegitimately transformed in the minds of its implementers (including Pope Francis) into a dogmatic council, despite itself having rejected that very idea. He is also quite knowledgeable about how Pope Francis and the Vatican have handled other cases where bishops, archbishops, and even cardinals obstinately refuse to submit to the pope.

Excommunication

Excommunication is a penalty imposed by the Church for certain offenses. Its intent is to awaken a person's conscience to the gravity of the offense he has committed so that he may repent. It can either be imposed by a competent authority, or it can be automatically imposed by canon law for certain offenses. The latter, automatic, method is called latae sententiae, and is incurred by an individual simply by committing the specified offense, such as procuring an abortion or desecrating the Holy Eucharist, whether or not it is ever publicly known, declared, or acknowledged by Church authorities. It is important to understand that most latae sententiae excommunications are not publicly known, but they have the same juridical effect as an excommunication that is publicly known, or one imposed by ecclesiastical authority.

Excommunication for schism occurs latae sententiae, i.e., by the law itself. It is not imposed by any competent authority. It occurs as soon as the offense is committed. However, as in Viganò's case, it can be publicly declared to have occurred. But it is important to understand that Viganò's excommunication was not imposed on him as a result of his trial. Rather, having been found guilty of the crime of schism by a canonical process, the Vatican simply made public that in their judgement, Viganò had already excommunicated himself.

Only Archbishop Viganò himself and God know for sure whether or not Viganò committed the offense of schism. In fact, it is fair to say that really, only God knows for sure. The canonical process that found him guilty has no effect on whether or not he actually is guilty, just as in a murder trial a verdict of guilty has no effect on whether or not the defendent actually murdered someone. Nevertheless, the effect of the guilty verdict is imposed in both cases. Just as with a verdict of guilty, an innocent man may be put in prison, so with a verdict of guilty, an innocent archbishop may have the penalties of excommunication imposed on him. But it does not change his standing with God. If Archbishop Viganò did not actually commit the offense of schism, then he is simply an innocent man being erroneously punished. Because human justice is flawed and God's justice is perfect, an innocent man, or a man who sincerely believes himself to be innocent, and who is erroneously convicted, may continue to assert his innocence, even as he suffers the punishment imposed. This applies to Archbishop Viganò in this situation. Just because the Vatican has judged him to have excommunicated himself does not mean that he has actually done so, even though he suffers the consequences of a guilty verdict.

An innocent man convicted of schism is under no obligation to repent, or to plead guilty, or to acknowledge the validity of the verdict, or to seek to be reconciled with the Church. He has no need of reconciliation. He has committed no offense. For an innocent man to repent, or to plead guilty, or to say the guilty verdict was correct, would, in fact, be an offense against God, Who is Truth.

Papal Authority

The pope has universal and immediate jursidiction over the governance of the whole church. Therefore, he may authorize the consecration of new bishops, or deny permission for it. He may move bishops from one diocese to another. He may change canon law. He may constitute ecclesiastical tribunals. He may erect new dioceses and suppress existing ones. He may call ecumenical councils. He may teach, within limits, with an authority the other bishops do not individually possess. All of these actions, and more, are within his power and authority.

But papal authority is not absolute. It has limits. The pope, for example, cannot change what is objectively evil into something objectively good. He cannot impose unjust laws in a way that binds the Catholic conscience. He does not have the authority to suppress a truth of the faith. He cannot require the faithful to believe something that is not true. And he cannot require the faithful to believe anything that is not a matter of faith or morals.

And he does not have the power to declare schism where there is no schism. And it is not schism to point out the limits of papal authority.

It is not schism to contemplate and discuss, even publicly, whether a certain action of the pope falls within those limits.

It is not schism to illustrate how a current pope might be exceeding those limits, or how in exceeding those limits the pope may himself be preaching heresy or committing apostasy.

It is not schism to refuse to submit to a man who claims to be pope whom you reasonably and sincerely—even if erroneously—believe is not legitimately pope.

It is not schism to form firm and prudent opinions and convictions about these things, binding on your own conscience, provided you maintain the desire to remain in communion with any true pope.

Drawing Conclusions

It is true that no one can judge a pope who is acting within his authority. But we can judge whether or not a pope is acting within his authority.

And under normal circumstances it would be unwise and imprudent to refuse to submit to a man almost universally recognized to be a valid pope. But these are not normal circumstances and we are not automatons. We must use our reason and intellect. If, after careful, informed, prolonged, thorough, sincere, and prayerful reflection, and consultation with experts in theology and ecclesiology, an archbishop—or any such Catholic—forms the firm conviction that a certain man is not legitimately pope, for whatever reasons seem convincing to him, then it is not schism to refuse to submit to that man.

What should a well-formed archbishop who possesses deep knowledge of history, theology, and philosophy do under those circumstances, after coming to the well-considered conviction that a man claiming to be pope is not, in fact, pope? If the rest of the world believes a thing to be true that is not, should a man who is convinced that it is not true behave as though it were?

So we should all withhold judgement of Archbishop Viganò. We should pray not for his conversion, but rather, that he have the wisdom and courage to know the truth of the situation, and to embrace the truth, whatever it is. And that should also be our prayer for ourselves. Whether or not we choose to give credence to the archbishop's reasoning is a matter of prudence that each of us must decide. The fact of his conviction of schism should certainly be taken into account in our own decisions regarding the status of Pope Francis and the legitimacy of his actions as pope. But it should not blind us to the possibility that Archbishop Viganò is right.