Schism has been in the news lately: Recent headlines include the former nuncio to the United States Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò having been summoned to Rome to answer formal charges of schism; and a community of Poor Clare nuns in Belorado, Spain, who have been declared excommunicated by their local bishop because they have “incurred schism.” 

But what is schism?

Most fundamentally, schism is a canonical crime. It is important to note that while the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law is based on faith and morals, it is still a legal system rather than a purely moral one. That is, canon law is practically ordered to the good governance of the institutional Church, setting the stage for the faithful to have the proper environment to grow closer to God, rather than directly setting out the principles for a good relationship with the Lord. So, while all canonical crimes are sins, not every sin is a crime in canon law. Generally, sins are put into law as canonical crimes when they more outwardly affect sacramental discipline or the good governance of the Church.

Canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law tells us that schism “is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” This is in contrast with heresy, which the same canon defines as “the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith.” It is also different from the crime of “total repudiation of the Christian faith,” which we call “apostasy.” 

 

Purity of Doctrinal Belief

So, while an apostate abandons Christianity altogether, and while a heretic remains Christian but denies some essential truth of the faith, a person who commits schism might very well believe everything the Church professes in a theologically sound way. Indeed, it is not unusual for those guilty of schism to pride themselves on their purity of doctrinal belief. But schismatics refuse to acknowledge the authority of the pope or they otherwise deliberately take themselves out of communion with the visible institutional structure of the Catholic Church.

Insofar as schism is a crime, it is not something a Catholic in good faith could fall into by accident or through normal human weakness. Respectfully disagreeing with a specific concrete decision of the Holy Father is not committing schism. Likewise, having honest feelings of frustration or confusion with an action of the Vatican is also not an act of schism. 

Depending on the context, something like sarcastically complaining about the pope might be sinful, but this also would not normally be considered schismatic. (Although urging others to disobey the Holy Father or the local bishop or “publicly inciting hatred or animosity” against them is a crime on its own, as per Canon 1373, the crime does not necessarily rise to the level of schism.)

Unlike simple sins, for which the punishment is up to God alone, another feature of canonical crimes is that they can incur punishments by and from the Church. 

Sometimes the relevant authority — often the local bishop, but in some cases only the pope himself — has some discretion about how or even whether to punish a crime after it has been proven. But other crimes have an automatic or mandatory penalty attached. 

 

‘Medicinal Penalty’

Schism is one such crime. As Canon 1364 §1 tells us: “A schismatic incurs a latae sententiae [automatic] excommunication.” 

Technically speaking, an excommunicated person cannot receive any sacraments, or celebrate any sacraments if the offender is a cleric, and cannot exercise any ecclesiastical office or position of responsibility within the Church. (See Canon 1331.)

But excommunication is a somewhat misunderstood penalty. In the popular imagination, being excommunicated can sound like a member of the faithful is being “kicked out” of the Church, when really an excommunication is meant to do the opposite. Excommunication is called a “medicinal penalty” because it is meant to serve as a kind of “wake-up call” to offenders, to bring them back into a right relationship with the Church. 

 

‘Expiatory Penalties’

This is opposed to “expiatory penalties,” which exist to restore a sense of justice to the community and are therefore intended to be more punitive. Expiatory penalties can include, among other things: an order to pay monetary fines; the loss of ecclesiastical office; dismissal from the clerical state; the loss of sacramental faculties for clerics; a prohibition against wearing a religious habit or clerical clothes; or for clerics and religious, the prohibition from residing in a particular diocese. 

An excommunicated person cannot receive any sacraments, celebrate any sacraments if the offender is a cleric, or exercise any ecclesiastical office or position of responsibility within the Church. 

Excommunication can be imposed as the result of a canonical trial or other similar process (what we call a ferendae sententiae excommunication). Or, for certain especially serious crimes, the law can designate that an excommunication can be latae sententiae or automatic. In latae sententiae excommunication, the offender is excommunicated by the very act of committing the crime in question. In other words, once the crime is committed, the offender has automatically excommunicated himself by his action. 

One tricky element with latae sententiae penalties in general is that it might not always be immediately obvious to third parties that a crime has been committed and thus that a penalty has been incurred. This is why the Church also has the categories of declared versus undeclared latae sententiae excommunications. 

An undeclared latae sententiae excommunication is in some ways a matter of conscience for the offender, in that it does not have all the same canonical consequences as an excommunication that was officially “public knowledge.” Still, the offender himself would still know that he was excommunicated, as a person who genuinely was not aware of having committed a canonical crime is not able to incur a canonical penalty. (See Canon 1323, 2°.)

A declared latae sententiae excommunication has been formally recognized and acknowledged by the appropriate authority. This is not quite the same as meting out a punishment in the normal sense, since in declaring a latae sententiae the authority is simply acknowledging that the offender has already excommunicated himself.

As noted above, the crime of schism necessarily involves a latae sententiae excommunication. Yet schism is a serious enough crime that the law also provides for the possibility of imposing an expiatory penalty in addition to the excommunication, especially if “the gravity of scandal calls for it.” (See Canon 1364, §2.) Even if, as is to be hoped, excommunicated offenders repent and are received back into the full sacramental life of the Church, an enduring expiatory penalty might remain in effect in order to address the scandal their schismatic actions may have caused. 

While at first glance the Catholic Church’s law on schism and its prescribed punishments might seem harsh, these laws exist to protect the Church, and to ensure justice for both the alleged offenders and for all the faithful more broadly. In his “high priestly prayer” recorded in John’s Gospel, Jesus prayed that “they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me” (17:21). And so, the Church’s governing authority has the duty to ensure that breaks in this communion are addressed in a measured and appropriate way.

 

Jenna Marie Cooper, JCL, is a consecrated virgin and a canon lawyer.