After Écône: Leo XIV Must Govern, Not Merely Condemn
The episcopal consecrations of 1 July were a grave act of disobedience, but they have not left Pope Leo XIV with only the blunt instruments of condemnation and exclusion. He must uphold the rights of the Roman Primacy, distinguish the canonical offence from the separate question of schism, protect the faithful from sacramental uncertainty and place a concrete path to regularisation before the Society. Punishment must not become a substitute for government.
The deed is done. On 1 July 2026, at the seminary of Écône, Bishops Alfonso de Galarreta and Bernard Fellay consecrated Fathers Pascal Schreiber, Michael Goldade, Michel Poinsinet de Sivry and Marc Hanappier to the episcopate without a pontifical mandate. Approximately 15,000 faithful and more than 1,000 priests and religious attended. Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, declared that any censures imposed on account of the act would possess no value.¹
Pope Leo XIV had made a final and unusually personal appeal only two days earlier. He acknowledged the Society’s devotion to the liturgy, priestly formation, apostolic zeal and desire for fidelity to Tradition, but pleaded with Father Pagliarani to turn back. He described the intended consecrations as a schismatic act, warned that they would endanger the lawful and, in some circumstances, valid reception of the sacraments, and invoked the sin of tearing the seamless garment of Christ.²
The Society proceeded nevertheless. Rome must now respond. Yet it must respond as the government of the Church, not merely as an offended administration. The rights of the Apostolic See must be vindicated, but the salvation of souls, the correction of offenders, the restoration of justice and the repair of scandal remain the purposes of ecclesiastical discipline. Canon law itself requires penalties to be applied with canonical equity and within the supernatural purpose of the Church. Excommunication is medicinal or it is reduced to an instrument of estrangement.
The first task is to state precisely what has occurred. Canon 1387 provides that a bishop who consecrates another bishop without a pontifical mandate, and the person who receives that consecration, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. The provision applies directly to the act committed at Écône and appears, on its face, to concern both consecrators and all four recipients.
A latae sententiae penalty, however, is incurred through the commission of a canonically imputable offence; it does not dispense the competent authority from determining whether the requirements of penal law have been satisfied. Canon 1321 requires grave imputability by reason of malice or culpability. Canons 1323 and 1324 then identify circumstances—including necessity, grave inconvenience and an erroneous belief in necessity—which may exclude or mitigate penal liability. Where the circumstances described by canon 1324 apply, the offender is not bound by the automatic penalty, although another penalty or penance may still be imposed.³
This is not a technical escape route invented for the Society. It is the law of the Church. The SSPX has publicly and repeatedly invoked a state of necessity, arguing that the present crisis, the requirements of its seminaries and apostolate, and the age and number of its remaining bishops made episcopal succession indispensable. Rome regards that judgement as false and the act itself as harmful to souls. The Society cannot simply declare itself the final judge of the necessity that allegedly authorises its own disobedience. Yet Rome cannot simply pretend that a defence expressly recognised by its own law does not exist.
The proper response is therefore a reasoned canonical determination. Leo should appoint a commission of respected canonists to examine the warning given, the deliberation of the Society’s superiors, the alternatives available, the claim of necessity, the culpability of any mistaken judgement and the precise participation of each bishop. Its work need not become an interminable trial, but the eventual decree should demonstrate that the law has been applied rather than merely invoked.
The public and deliberate nature of the act places a formidable burden upon the Society. Its superiors knew the prohibition, received the personal appeal of the Roman Pontiff and proceeded in the conviction that their judgement of the Church’s needs superseded his decision. Father Pagliarani’s declaration that any resulting censures would be worthless does not assist a defence based upon filial obedience. It suggests not merely sorrowful disobedience under perceived compulsion, but a prior determination that the Apostolic See is incapable of judging the canonical consequences of an act committed against its authority.
That must be confronted. Yet the canonical offence of episcopal consecration without mandate must still be distinguished from the separate offence of schism. Canon 751 defines schism as the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with those subject to him. Canon 1364 attaches excommunication to the person guilty of that offence. Illicit consecration may manifest such refusal, but the two offences are not identical merely because they can arise from the same act.⁴
John Paul II judged the 1988 consecrations to constitute a schismatic act because disobedience in so grave a matter implied in practice a rejection of Roman Primacy. Yet Benedict XVI later insisted upon a distinction that is essential now: excommunication affects individuals, not institutions. He explained that episcopal consecration without mandate creates the danger of schism because it jeopardises the unity of the episcopal college with the Pope, but he did not declare every priest, seminarian or lay adherent of the Society personally guilty of the canonical delict of schism.⁵
Leo must preserve that precision. He may declare that the consecrations were illicit and gravely contrary to the constitution of the Church. He may determine that the consecrators and recipients incurred the penalty prescribed by canon 1387. He may judge, upon sufficient evidence, that particular persons have also committed or formally adhered to schism. He should not pronounce a collective sentence upon hundreds of priests and many thousands of faithful whose personal intention, knowledge and degree of adherence will differ.
Attendance at an SSPX chapel cannot simply be treated as a canonical profession of schism. Some attend from settled conviction; others because of attachment to the traditional liturgy, distrust of diocesan conditions, geographical necessity, family ties or a desire for doctrinal clarity. Many expressly recognise the Pope and pray for him while remaining confused about the canonical principles now in dispute. The Church must teach them, warn them where necessary and provide for them pastorally. She must not manufacture formal schism by indiscriminately declaring it.
The same principle governs the faculties granted by Pope Francis. Since 2016, SSPX priests have possessed the faculty to hear confessions validly and licitly. Since 2017, local ordinaries have been authorised to provide for the valid celebration of marriages involving Society faithful, including delegation to an SSPX priest where other arrangements are impracticable. These measures did not regularise the Society. They acknowledged its objective canonical irregularity while protecting the consciences and sacramental lives of the faithful.⁶
Leo could withdraw those provisions. That is one of the options now open to him, but it would be a grave mistake. Withdrawal would affect ordinary Catholics before it restrained those responsible for the consecrations. It would create precisely the uncertainty concerning sacramental validity that the Pope invoked in his final appeal. Rome should not warn that disobedience may deprive souls of the sacraments and then make that deprivation its chosen instrument of punishment.
The faculties for confession should therefore remain in force during the canonical and diplomatic process. The arrangements for marriage should likewise continue, perhaps with clearer and more uniform directions to diocesan bishops. Their continuation would not endorse the consecrations. It would demonstrate that the Holy See can distinguish between discipline imposed upon responsible superiors and pastoral provision made for souls who should not become collateral casualties.
Nor should Rome encourage diocesan bishops to forbid the faithful from entering SSPX chapels or to treat all sacramental contact with the Society as formal adherence to schism. Where a sacrament is illicit, the faithful should be told so. Where validity depends upon jurisdiction or delegation, the position should be explained accurately. Where Rome itself has supplied the requisite faculty, no one should pretend that the sacrament is invalid merely to intensify the rhetoric of condemnation.
The next papal act should not be confined to a penal decree. Leo should summon Father Pagliarani, the two consecrators and the four new bishops to Rome. The Society’s Superior General had repeatedly sought a personal audience and, in his response to the Pope’s final appeal, asked that Leo take time to discern before deciding the Society’s fate. He insisted that the Society did not wish to separate from the Roman Church and appealed to the testimony of bishops who had examined its life.⁷ Those claims must now be tested by submission to something more concrete than a general conversation.
The Pope should place before the Society a written provisional settlement. It should require an explicit recognition of the Pope’s supreme jurisdiction, an undertaking that no further episcopal consecrations will occur without pontifical mandate, an acknowledgement that the new bishops possess no canonical mission merely by virtue of their consecration, and a promise that they will not claim territorial jurisdiction or establish a parallel hierarchy.
In return, Rome should define what it is prepared to grant. The Society should be offered a canonical structure capable of preserving its international character, its seminaries, houses, schools, religious associates, traditional liturgical books and internal discipline. The precise juridical form—a personal apostolic administration, personal prelature, society of apostolic life of pontifical right or a structure devised specifically for the case—is secondary to the substance. The reconciliation of the traditionalist clergy of Campos through the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney demonstrates that Rome possesses both precedent and juridical imagination.⁸
The four new bishops should not be granted offices immediately, as though unilateral consecration had successfully compelled papal recognition. They should first make the profession and promises required for reconciliation. Once censures have been resolved and submission established, the Pope could grant them canonical missions as auxiliaries, apostolic delegates or bishops assigned within the new structure. Episcopal orders have been conferred, but the lawful exercise of the episcopal munus requires a canonical mission from the Roman Pontiff.⁹
A settlement must also establish a lawful mechanism for future episcopal appointments. The Society may propose candidates, as religious institutes and local Churches commonly do, but the nomination and mandate must remain with the Pope. Rome could agree to choose ordinarily from a list submitted by the Society, consult its General Council and guarantee that sufficient bishops will be provided for its genuine pastoral needs. What cannot continue is the principle that the Society may decide for itself when papal refusal has become irrelevant.
The doctrinal question cannot be evaded, but neither should it be manipulated to prevent a canonical solution. In February, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith proposed theological discussions concerning the different degrees of adherence required by the texts of the Second Vatican Council and their interpretation, with the definition of a canonical status as the intended outcome. The suspension of the planned consecrations was made a prior condition. The Society rejected that framework, maintaining that it did not permit sufficiently fundamental reconsideration of the disputed conciliar and liturgical questions.¹⁰
The Society therefore acted despite a live Roman offer of dialogue. That fact weighs heavily against its claim that no recourse remained. Yet the published proposal did not contain concrete and immediate episcopal provision, even though that had become the practical point upon which the confrontation would turn. Rome offered a process; Écône demanded bishops. Each side continued to answer a different question until the Society acted unilaterally.
Leo should now separate what can be settled immediately from what requires prolonged theological work. The Society need not be required to declare every prudential expression, disciplinary judgement or non-definitive formulation of the Council beyond discussion. It must, however, recognise the authority of the Magisterium, the indefectibility of the Church, the validity of the reformed sacramental rites when celebrated according to the Church’s intention, and the Pope’s right to judge the limits of legitimate theological criticism.
Rome, for its part, should acknowledge that doctrines are proposed with different degrees of authority and therefore command different forms of assent. Theological difficulties concerning religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality and the post-conciliar liturgical reform cannot be resolved by demanding the repetition of formulas whose interpretation is itself disputed. The task is to identify precisely what belongs to divine and Catholic faith, what has been definitively proposed, what requires religious submission and what remains open to theological examination.
Such discussion should proceed within a canonical structure rather than being used indefinitely to postpone one. Benedict XVI’s remission of the 1988 excommunications provides the relevant precedent. In 2009 he lifted the censures from the four bishops while expressly distinguishing that disciplinary act from the unresolved doctrinal and institutional status of the Society. The remission did not declare the consecrations lawful, grant the bishops jurisdiction or settle every doctrinal dispute. It removed an impediment and reopened a road.¹¹
Leo possesses the same authority. If he declares that the six bishops have incurred excommunication, he can also state the conditions upon which it will be remitted. Those conditions should be medicinal and attainable: recognition of the Pope’s jurisdiction, cessation of further unlawful episcopal acts, acceptance of a canonical mission as necessary for governance, and serious participation in negotiations. A penalty without a visible path to reconciliation becomes an enclosure rather than a remedy.
The Pope must also provide for those within the Society who cannot accept what occurred at Écône. Priests, seminarians, religious communities and faithful who seek canonical reception should be treated generously. They should not be required to abandon the traditional Roman liturgy, their spiritual formation or legitimate criticisms of the post-conciliar crisis as the price of communion. A revived or reconstituted Roman body with responsibility for traditional communities could assist in their reception and protection.
This provision, however, must not become a strategy for dismantling the Society while leaving the underlying dispute unresolved. Rome responded to 1988 by providing canonical homes for those who separated from Archbishop Lefebvre. Much good followed, but the Society itself remained irregular for another thirty-eight years. The Church cannot repeat the same policy and expect a different conclusion.
The restriction of the traditional Roman liturgy has likewise weakened Rome’s credibility. When Catholics see communities attached to the ancient Mass scrutinised, restricted or suppressed while doctrinal and moral dissent elsewhere is treated with patience, appeals to unity acquire an inevitably selective appearance. Leo should accompany any response to Écône with stable and generous protection for the traditional liturgy throughout the Church. This is not a reward for disobedience. It is the removal of one of the conditions that continually nourishes alienation.
The most severe course remains open. Rome could declare the penalties immediately, withdraw faculties, impose additional sanctions upon the Society’s superiors, forbid clerical participation in its apostolate and direct bishops to isolate its chapels and institutions. Such action would demonstrate resolve. It would also consolidate the Society’s narrative that ecclesiastical authority is willing to tolerate almost anything except effective adherence to pre-conciliar Catholic worship and doctrine.
The opposite course—silence or indefinite toleration—is equally impossible. The episcopate is not the private possession of an institute. No superior may reproduce it by his own authority while continuing to claim that submission to the Roman Pontiff remains substantially untouched. If Rome left such conduct unanswered, it would weaken the visible principle of unity entrusted to Peter and encourage every future faction to claim emergency powers on the strength of its own diagnosis of necessity.
Leo must therefore choose neither indiscriminate severity nor passive acquiescence. He should declare the objective gravity of the act, determine individual penal liability according to the whole law, distinguish illicit consecration from personal guilt for schism, preserve sacramental provision for the faithful, summon the Society’s leaders and place a complete written settlement before them.
That offer should be public in its essentials. The Catholic faithful deserve to know whether Rome is prepared to provide bishops, jurisdiction and secure liturgical protection, and whether the Society is prepared to accept papal authority in more than verbal principle. Decades of confidential negotiation have permitted both sides to blame the other while the exact points of agreement and refusal remain obscured.
Responsibility for the act of 1 July rests first with those who performed it. They knew the Pope’s will and acted against it in a matter inseparable from the constitution and unity of the Church. Their conviction that they served Tradition does not give them authority over the episcopate.
Rome nevertheless bears responsibility for what comes next. It possessed the power to prevent this crisis by providing lawful episcopal continuity, approving one or more suitable candidates, proposing candidates of its own or establishing a canonical structure in which the question could be resolved. The Holy See did offer renewed dialogue, but it did not publicly provide the immediate episcopal solution that the Society had made the centre of the dispute. That omission does not excuse Écône. It does mean that Rome must now do more than pronounce the consequences of an event it failed to avert.
Punishment is not government. A decree can identify the wound, but it cannot heal it. Excommunication can defend the principle of papal authority, but it cannot by itself bring hundreds of priests and the souls dependent upon them into an ordered relationship with that authority. The Pope does not vindicate the Primacy merely by demonstrating that he can bind. He vindicates it by using the keys for the purpose for which Christ entrusted them to Peter: the defence of truth, the preservation of unity and the salvation of souls.
Écône has acted. The next decisive move belongs to Leo XIV. He must insist that the episcopate cannot be transmitted lawfully against Peter, but he must also prove that Peter’s authority is capable of providing a home for Catholics who seek to preserve the received faith, worship and discipline of the Roman Church.
He should bind what justice requires, loose what charity permits and govern what neglect has allowed to remain irregular. If the Society refuses a concrete and honourable canonical settlement, the responsibility for continued separation will be unmistakably its own. If Rome refuses to offer one, the wound of Écône will remain not only a monument to disobedience, but also a judgement upon an authority that condemned disorder without doing everything in its power to repair it.
¹ Salvatore Cernuzio, “Lefebvrians Consecrate Four New Bishops without a Papal Mandate,” Vatican News, 1 July 2026; General House of the Society of Saint Pius X, “The General House Announces the Names of the Future Bishops,” 26 May 2026. The SSPX source confirms the spelling “Marc Hanappier,” notwithstanding the variant appearing in the initial Vatican News report.
² Leo XIV, Letter to Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, 29 June 2026.
³ Code of Canon Law, cann. 1311, 1321, 1323, 1324 and 1387.
⁴ Code of Canon Law, cann. 751 and 1364.
⁵ John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei, 2 July 1988, nn. 1–3; 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.
⁶ Francis, Misericordia et misera, 20 November 2016, n. 12; Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Letter to the Ordinaries concerning Faculties for Marriages of the Faithful of the Society of Saint Pius X, 27 March 2017.
⁷ Davide Pagliarani, Letter to Pope Leo XIV, 30 June 2026.
⁸ John Paul II, Address to the Bishops of Eastern Brazil on their ad limina visit, 5 September 2002.
⁹ Code of Canon Law, cann. 331–336; Congregation for Bishops, Apostolorum Successores, 22 February 2004, n. 12.
¹⁰ “Holy See Proposes Theological Dialogue with Society of Saint Pius X,” Vatican News, 12 February 2026; Society of Saint Pius X, “Communiqué from the General House: Meeting in Rome,” 12 February 2026; “The Society’s Response to Rome,” 19 February 2026.
¹¹ Congregation for Bishops, Decree Remitting the Latae Sententiae Excommunication of the Bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X, 21 January 2009; Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church, 10 March 2009.
RELATED ARTiCLES
LATEST ARTICLES
- Rome Declares the SSPX in Schism: When Canonical Authority Becomes Collective CondemnationThe Holy See has declared the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) in schism, following the illicit consecration of bishops without papal mandate. This sweeping decree extends automatic excommunication to all SSPX ministers and adherents, rendering their sacraments invalid. The response has stirred significant debate regarding individual culpability and the broader implications for the Church.
- Ecône Episcopal Consecrations: Their Impact for the Church and for TraditionThe episcopal consecrations at Écône by the Society of St Pius X hold significant implications for the Catholic Church and traditionalism. This event will address questions on authority, jurisdiction, and the relationship with the Holy See, exploring the theological and canonical challenges posed by these actions and their potential consequences for the Church’s unity and tradition.
- Today’s Mass: July 02 The Visitation of the Blessed Virgin MaryThe Feast of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary commemorates Our Lady’s journey to her cousin Elizabeth, in whose womb the unborn John the Baptist leapt for joy. It is a celebration of divine charity and the sanctifying presence of Christ in the womb. Mary’s Magnificat, sung in response to Elizabeth’s greeting, reveals the humility of the Handmaid of the Lord and the exalting of the lowly. It is a feast of joyful service and hidden glory.
- Sermon for Visitation of Blessed Virgin MaryToday marks the feast of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, celebrating her visit to her cousin Elizabeth. This event highlights Mary’s significance as the mother of Jesus, the Word made flesh, and her role in reversing Eve’s disobedience. The occasion reminds Christians of Mary’s humble acceptance of God’s will and her pivotal role in salvation.
- “We Have Moved On”: Cardinal Radcliffe and the Mass That Betrayed Fiducia SupplicansCardinal Radcliffe’s participation in a Mass celebrating a same-sex partnership raises significant doctrinal and canonical concerns. The event, framed as a celebration of love, featured theological justifications linking the partnership to holy friendship and divine love. This has prompted demands for a high-level investigation within the Church regarding its implications for Church teachings on marriage and morality.
CURRENT EDITION
Today’s Mass Propers
- Today’s Mass: July 02 The Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary
The Feast of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary commemorates Our Lady’s journey to her cousin Elizabeth, in whose womb the unborn John the Baptist leapt for joy. It is a celebration of divine charity and the sanctifying presence of Christ in the womb. Mary’s Magnificat, sung in response to Elizabeth’s greeting, reveals the humility of the Handmaid of the Lord and the exalting of the lowly. It is a feast of joyful service and hidden glory.
Leave a Reply