When time becomes a problem. Preliminary investigations in the criminal system of the Vatican City State – When time becomes a problem. Preliminary investigations in the criminal justice system of the Vatican City State – When time becomes a problem. Preliminary investigations in the criminal system of the Vatican City State

/0 Comments/in /by

Italian, english, español

 

QUANDO IL TEMPO DIVENTA UN PROBLEMA. LE INDAGINI PRELIMINARI NELL’ORDINAMENTO PENALE DELLO STATO DELLA CITTÀ DEL VATICANO

Un ordinamento chiamato a essere punto di riferimento morale nel costante richiamo alla tutela della persona deve poter garantire che quei medesimi principi trovino piena e concreta applicazione anche al proprio interno.

– Theology and canon law –

Author Teodoro Beccia

Author
Teodoro Beccia

.

PDF print format article – article print format – article in printed format

 

.

From le numerose riforme che hanno interessato negli ultimi anni l’ordinamento giudiziario dello Stato della Città del Vaticano, un tema continua a ricevere scarsa attenzione: la durata delle indagini preliminari.

Negli ordinamenti processuali contemporanei il legislatore è chiamato a conciliare due esigenze fondamentali: consentire all’autorità giudiziaria il tempo necessario per accertare i fatti e impedire che una persona rimanga sottoposta a indagini per un tempo indefinito. Non si tratta di un mero problema organizzativo, ma di una questione che incide sull’equilibrio tra l’interesse pubblico alla repressione dei reati e la tutela dei diritti fondamentali della persona.

Nello Stato della Città del Vaticano il processo penale continua a essere disciplinato, nelle sue linee fondamentali, dal Codice di procedura penale italiano promulgato con Regio Decreto 27 February 1913, n. 127, recepito in quell’ordinamento con la costituzione dello Stato nel 1929 e successivamente modificato dalla Legge n. IX dell’11 luglio 2013, senza tuttavia essere sostituito da un nuovo codice di procedura penale. Si tratta di un sistema nel quale le indagini sono affidate prevalentemente all’autorità giudiziaria, mentre la difesa può intervenire solo in una fase successiva del procedimento, secondo un’impostazione diversa da quella dei moderni processi fondati sul contraddittorio tra accusa e difesa sin dall’avvio della fase processuale.

Un simile vuoto normativo risulta ancor più significativo se si considera che l’ordinamento dello Stato della Città del Vaticano non conosce un organo dotato di funzioni assimilabili a quelle di una Corte costituzionale, cui possa essere demandato il sindacato sulla conformità delle norme processuali ai principi fondamentali dell’ordinamento e alla tutela dei diritti della persona. It is not about, however, di una lacuna dell’assetto giuridico vaticano, bensì di una conseguenza coerente della sua peculiare struttura istituzionale, nella quale il Romano Pontefice, in quanto Sovrano dello Stato e Supremo Legislatore, pursuant to Article. 1 from the Legge fondamentale della Città del Vaticano del 13 May 2023 esercita la pienezza della potestà di governo, comprendente il potere legislativo, esecutivo e giudiziario. In un simile sistema non è configurabile un organo chiamato a sindacare la legittimità degli atti del Supremo Legislatore, come avviene negli ordinamenti costituzionali fondati sul principio della separazione dei poteri.

La mancanza di una norma sulla durata delle indagini preliminari è dunque destinata a produrre due ordini di conseguenze: la prima riguarda direttamente la posizione del soggetto sottoposto a indagini. In assenza di un termine entro il quale l’autorità giudiziaria sia chiamata a esercitare l’azione penale oppure a chiedere l’archiviazione, il procedimento potrebbe protrarsi per un tempo indeterminato, col permanere di eventuali provvedimenti restrittivi già adottati — quali sequestri, sospensione della corresponsione di stipendi, pensioni o altri benefici, ovvero ulteriori misure incidenti sulla sfera giuridica dell’interessato — senza che questo possa esercitare pienamente il proprio diritto di difesa nel contraddittorio processuale, che trova la sua naturale sede nel giudizio. La seconda conseguenza investe invece la credibilità stessa dell’ordinamento vaticano: la Santa Sede ha sempre autorevolmente richiamato nelle sedi internazionali la centralità della dignità della persona, del giusto processo e della tutela dei diritti fondamentali. For this reason, il progressivo adeguamento della disciplina processuale a tali principi non rappresenta soltanto un’esigenza di tecnica legislativa, ma anche un’esigenza di coerenza istituzionale.

Un ordinamento chiamato a essere punto di riferimento morale nel costante richiamo alla tutela della persona, non dovrebbe forse garantire che quei medesimi principi trovino piena e concreta applicazione anche al proprio interno?

Velletri of Rome, 15 July 2026

.

WHEN TIME BECOMES A PROBLEM. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM OF THE VATICAN CITY STATE

A legal system called to serve as a moral reference in constantly upholding the dignity of the human person must ensure that those same principles find full and effective application within its own legal order.

– Theology and canon law –

Author Teodoro Beccia

Author
Teodoro Beccia

.

Among the many reforms introduced in recent years within the judicial system of the Vatican City State, one issue continues to receive little attention: the duration of preliminary investigations. In contemporary systems of criminal procedure, the legislature must reconcile two fundamental requirements: allowing the judicial authority the time necessary to establish the facts, while preventing a person from remaining under investigation indefinitely. This is not merely an organisational issue, but one that directly affects the balance between the public interest in prosecuting offences and the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights.

The criminal proceedings of the Vatican City State continue, in their essential framework, to be governed by the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure enacted by Royal Decree No. 127 of 27 February 1913, incorporated into the Vatican legal order when the State was established in 1929 and subsequently amended by Law No. IX of 11 July 2013, though never replaced by a new Code of Criminal Procedure. It is a system in which preliminary investigations are entrusted primarily to the judicial authority, while the defence intervenes only at a later stage of the proceedings, according to an approach that differs from modern criminal justice systems, where prosecution and defence confront one another from the very beginning of the trial.

This legislative gap becomes even more significant when one considers that the legal order of the Vatican City State has no institution comparable to a Constitutional Court entrusted with reviewing the conformity of procedural rules with the fundamental principles of the legal order and the protection of individual rights. This, however, is not a deficiency of the Vatican legal system, but a coherent consequence of its distinctive institutional structure, in which the Roman Pontiff, as Sovereign of the State and Supreme Legislator, pursuant to Article 1 of the Fundamental Law of the Vatican City State of 13 May 2023, exercises the fullness of governmental authority, including the legislative, executive and judicial powers. Within such a system, there can be no body entrusted with reviewing the legitimacy of acts issued by the Supreme Legislator, as occurs in constitutional systems founded upon the separation of powers.

The absence of any provision governing the duration of preliminary investigations is therefore liable to produce two distinct consequences. The first directly concerns the position of the person under investigation. In the absence of a time limit within which the judicial authority must either bring criminal charges or request the dismissal of the case, the proceedings may continue indefinitely, while any restrictive measures already imposed — such as the seizure of assets, the suspension of salaries, pensions or other benefits, or any further measures affecting the legal position of the person concerned — remain in force, without that person being able fully to exercise the right of defence within the adversarial proceedings, whose proper place is the trial itself. The second consequence concerns the credibility of the Vatican legal order. The Holy See has consistently affirmed in international fora the central importance of human dignity, due process and the protection of fundamental rights. For this reason, the progressive adaptation of procedural legislation to these principles is not merely a matter of legislative technique, but also one of institutional consistency. A legal system called to serve as a moral reference in constantly upholding the dignity of the human person must ensure that those same principles find full and effective application within its own legal order.

Velletri (Rome), 13 July 2026

.

CUANDO EL TIEMPO SE CONVIERTE EN UN PROBLEMA. LAS INVESTIGACIONES PRELIMINARES EN EL ORDENAMIENTO PENAL DEL ESTADO DE LA CIUDAD DEL VATICANO

Un ordenamiento jurídico llamado a ser un referente moral en la constante defensa de la dignidad de la persona debe garantizar que esos mismos principios encuentren plena y efectiva aplicación también en su propio ordenamiento.

– Theologia y derecho canónico –

Author Teodoro Beccia

Author
Teodoro Beccia

.

Entre las numerosas reformas que han afectado en los últimos años al ordenamiento judicial del Estado de la Ciudad del Vaticano, hay una cuestión que sigue recibiendo escasa atención: la duración de las investigaciones preliminares. En los ordenamientos procesales contemporáneos, el legislador está llamado a conciliar dos exigencias fundamentales: permitir a la autoridad judicial el tiempo necesario para esclarecer los hechos e impedir que una persona permanezca sometida a investigación durante un tiempo indefinido. No se trata de un simple problema organizativo, sino de una cuestión que incide directamente en el equilibrio entre el interés público en la persecución de los delitos y la tutela de los derechos fundamentales de las personas.

El proceso penal del Estado de la Ciudad del Vaticano continúa rigiéndose, en sus líneas fundamentales, por el Código de Procedimiento Penal italiano promulgado mediante el Real Decreto n. 127, from 27 February 1913, incorporado a ese ordenamiento con la constitución del Estado en 1929 y posteriormente modificado por la Ley n.º IX, from 11 July of 2013, sin haber sido sustituido, however, por un nuevo Código de Procedimiento Penal. Se trata de un sistema en el que las investigaciones preliminares se confían principalmente a la autoridad judicial, mientras que la defensa interviene únicamente en una fase posterior del procedimiento, conforme a un modelo distinto del adoptado por los modernos procesos basados en el principio contradictorio entre acusación y defensa desde el inicio mismo del proceso.

Una laguna normativa de esta naturaleza resulta aún más significativa si se considera que el ordenamiento del Estado de la Ciudad del Vaticano no conoce un órgano dotado de funciones equiparables a las de una Corte Constitucional, al que pudiera encomendarse el control de conformidad de las normas procesales con los principios fundamentales del ordenamiento y con la tutela de los derechos de la persona. It is not about, however, de una deficiencia del sistema jurídico vaticano, sino de una consecuencia coherente de su peculiar estructura institucional, en la que el Romano Pontífice, en cuanto Soberano del Estado y Supremo Legislador, conforme al artículo 1 de la Ley Fundamental del Estado de la Ciudad del Vaticano de 13 May 2023, ejerce la plenitud de la potestad de gobierno, que comprende los poderes legislativo, ejecutivo y judicial. En un sistema de esta naturaleza no puede existir un órgano llamado a controlar la legitimidad de los actos del Supremo Legislador, como sucede en los ordenamientos constitucionales fundados sobre el principio de la separación de poderes.

La ausencia de una norma que establezca un plazo para la duración de las investigaciones preliminares está, therefore, destinada a producir dos órdenes de consecuencias. El primero afecta directamente a la posición de la persona sometida a investigación. A falta de un plazo dentro del cual la autoridad judicial deba ejercer la acción penal o solicitar el archivo de las actuaciones, el procedimiento puede prolongarse por tiempo indefinido, manteniéndose las eventuales medidas restrictivas ya adoptadas — como el embargo de bienes, la suspensión del pago de salarios, pensiones u otras prestaciones, o cualquier otra medida que afecte a la esfera jurídica del interesado — sin que este pueda ejercer plenamente su derecho de defensa en el marco del principio contradictorio, cuyo ámbito natural es el juicio. La segunda consecuencia afecta a la propia credibilidad del ordenamiento jurídico vaticano. La Santa Sede ha defendido siempre con autoridad, en las instancias internacionales, la centralidad de la dignidad de la persona, del debido proceso y de la tutela de los derechos fundamentales. For this reason, la progresiva adecuación de la legislación procesal a estos principios no representa únicamente una exigencia de técnica legislativa, sino también una exigencia de coherencia institucional. Un ordenamiento jurídico llamado a ser un referente moral en la constante defensa de la dignidad de la persona debe garantizar que esos mismos principios encuentren plena y efectiva aplicación también en su propio ordenamiento.

Velletri (Rome), 13 July of 2026

.

Visit the pages of our book shop WHO and support our editions by purchasing and distributing our books.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 of Rome --vatico
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

Twelve years of flying from the island of Patmos. An editorial community that continues to put its face to work, faith and reason

/0 Comments/in /by

TWELVE YEARS OF FLIGHT FROM THE ISLAND OF PATMOS. AN EDITORIAL COMMUNITY THAT CONTINUES TO PUT ITS FACE TO US, FAITH AND REASON

In a time when anonymity and fictitious identities increasingly dominate public debate, we continue to sign what we write, taking personal responsibility for our words and offering Readers not what they want to hear, but what we believe, in conscience, worthy of being said and written.

Author
Editors of The Island of Patmos

.

Twelve years have passed of when, the 19 October 2014, the webmaster Manuela Luzzardi put the website of the magazine L'Isola di Patmos online, designed by herself, built and still maintained today. It might seem like a short time, but in the world of digital information, where many projects are born and disappear even in a few months, represents a considerable amount of time. Our social manager, Capon flower, which has been operating in the sector for over thirty years, he reminded us several times that the average lifespan of a website is a few years and that those that exceed a decade of life are very few indeed.

Editors of The Island of Patmos, founded on 19 October 2014 (image created with an AI graphics program)

The photograph that accompanies these lines it portrays us in aviators' uniforms like a crew in front of a plane. No crew flies thanks to a single pilot; every journey is possible if everyone carries out their task responsibly. This is how the magazine L'Isola di Patmos was born and still lives today: not like someone's personal blog, but as an editorial community made up of priests, religious and lay collaborators who have chosen to put their face next to their name and take personal responsibility for what they write (cf.. who).

We live in a time in which public debate, especially on social networks, is increasingly entrusted to anonymous profiles, fictitious identities, pseudonyms behind which it becomes easy to insult, insinuate or distort reality without taking any responsibility. We have chosen the opposite path: each article bears the name of its author, this means that the Readers know who is speaking, what training he has and what ministry he carries out. The managing director is a member of the Journalists' Association and the magazine is registered with the territorial court, every published content is attributable to precise personal and legal responsibilities.

This way of acting has contributed to building a legacy of credibility that does not derive from proclaimed authority, but from the continuity of the work carried out. In twelve years The Island of Patmos has published hundreds of articles, theological studies, historical insights, ecclesial reflections, translations, reviews and various volumes published by us Editions. We have never chased the sensational news, nor did the traffic of visits increase with clerical gossip, because this is the sad panorama of certain blogs that continue to define themselves “Catholics” both in the so-called traditionalist area, both in the so-called progressive area.

We tried to offer a space where it was still possible to argue, documentation, to distinguish, deepen. In a time in which instinctive reactions and high subjective emotions often prevail “dogma”, we preferred reasoning; where the slogan dominates, the argument; where many chase immediate consensus, we considered it more important to preserve the freedom to say what we believed to be true and right, even when it might be inconvenient.

For twelve years all the authors of the Island of Patmos they provide their work free of charge, no one receives compensation for editorial work, almost always very demanding. Our work is free, but unfortunately the tools that allow the Journal to exist are not. At the end of the summer we will have to face the renewal of the annual management costs of the site: the only dedicated server, hosted in a secure infrastructure capable of holding approx 40 million visits per year (statistical data for the year 2025), together with editorial services, graphics and essential subscriptions involves a cost of approximately 5.800 Euro. Added to this is the reimbursement of expenses incurred by the technician who takes care of the updates, routine maintenance and IT security, equal to approximately 3.600 euros per year, all for a total cost of approximately 10.000 Euro.

Repeatedly, During the years, we feared having to interrupt this editorial experience. We managed to avoid it because, as well as offering our work for free, we have often personally supported part of the expenses necessary to keep the magazine active, not always entirely covered by readers' free donations, to whom we do not continuously ask for support: we only do it once a year, when the month in which we have to face the renewal of management expenses approaches.

The Internet can give the impression that everything is free, but it is not so: Behind every professional site there is infrastructure, services, maintenance, security and skills that have a real cost. Therefore, every contribution, whether small or big, it will help us cover the living expenses of management and will allow this magazine to continue its flight in the years to come.

In these twelve years we didn't try to build a community of followers, but a community of Readers. The difference is substantial: the follower adheres to a person, the Reader evaluates ideas. This is why we have always preferred to be challenged with arguments rather than applauded for belonging.

A theological-pastoral magazine it shouldn't create fans, but contribute to forming free consciences, capable of thinking, distinguish e, when necessary, also disagree. If in recent years we have managed at least partially to achieve this objective, the credit also belongs to our Readers, who often corrected us, interrogated, criticized and forced to further delve into what we had written. This is why we want to continue to offer not what the public wants to hear, but what we believe, in conscience, worthy of being said and written, as true.

Protector and patron of our magazine is Saint John the Evangelist, who reports these words of Jesus in his Gospel: "You will know the truth and the truth will make you free" (GV 8,32).

We trust in your help.

.

Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 Rome – Vatican
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to the apostolic service of the Fathers of the Island of Patmos.

.

.

What schism really is? When the communion of the Church is broken

/in /by

Italian, english

 

WHAT SCHISM REALLY IS? WHEN THE COMMUNION OF THE CHURCH IS BROKEN

Canonical tradition teaches a fundamental distinction: it is completely legitimate to discuss, express your thoughts respectfully, appeal against administrative acts deemed harmful to one's rights or express reservations about certain pastoral choices. What the law considers incompatible with ecclesial communion is the stable and deliberate refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the faithful subject to him.

– Theology and canon law –

Author Teodoro Beccia

Author
Teodoro Beccia

.

PDF print format article – article print format

 

.

In the contemporary ecclesial debate, after the episcopal consecrations without pontifical mandate celebrated in recent days within the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius, the term schism is back in the news, casually used and often misunderstood.

Ecclesial communion constitutes one of the cornerstones of the canonical order because it reflects the very nature of the Church, Mystical Body of Christ, visible and hierarchically structured. For this reason the crime of schism is included among the offenses against faith and is defined by the canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law. Understanding what schism really is means distinguishing legitimate dissent, recognized by the ecclesial order itself, from the breakdown of communion with the Church, distinction today made even more delicate by the dynamics of digital communication.

The legal concept of schism it is therefore the result of a long process in which theology and law developed in parallel. In the first Christian communities the distinction between heresy and schism was not yet clearly delineated, it was Saint Jerome who formulated the definition destined to become classic: «Heresy perverts dogma, the schism separates from the Church due to a disagreement with the Bishop". In turn Saint Augustine, in the controversy against the Donatists, further explored this distinction, identifying in the schism a wound inflicted on ecclesial charity. The schismatics could preserve the faith intact and even validly administer the sacraments, but they were deprived of that communion which holds the Body of Christ together.

San Tommaso Aquino systematized the matter in QUESTION, explaining that the sin of schism is directly opposed to the unity of the Church and consists in the refusal to submit to its Head or to maintain communion with those who are subject to him. This line was also followed by the Jesuit Francisco Suárez, who identified the essence of the schism in deliberately evading the authority of the Roman Pontiff, behaving as if it were no longer the visible principle of ecclesial unity.

The decisive turning point arrived with the First Vatican Council and through the constitution The eternal shepherd defined the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and the dogma of papal infallibility. Since then it has become increasingly difficult to conceive of a "pure schism", that is, a separation from the Pope destined not to involve, sooner or later, also the plane of faith, since the rejection of his authority almost inevitably ends up affecting the very dogma of the Petrine Primacy.

Canon law precisely distinguishes the schism from other behaviors that may appear similar, but which protect different legal assets. In fact, it consists in the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the faithful subject to him and affects the unity of ecclesial communion. Otherwise instead, heresy, concerns the integrity of faith and consists in obstinate denial, or in stubborn doubt, of a truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.

Apostasy marks the total repudiation of the Christian faith after Baptism, element other than the obstinate disobedience foreseen by the canon 1371 § 1, which consists in the refusal to obey an order or precept legitimately imparted by the Apostolic See or by the Ordinary. The canon 1373 discipline, at last, the conduct of those who publicly arouse hostility, hatred or rebellion against the Apostolic See or against one's own Ordinary in the exercise of his office.

These distinctions they do not represent simple terminological niceties. They serve to avoid any criticism, conflict or disagreement with ecclesiastical authority is improperly qualified as schism, preserving the strictly technical meaning that canon law attributes to this crime.

The canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law defines schism as the «refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him». To understand the meaning of this definition it is necessary to recall the canon 205, which incorporates the traditional doctrine of three chains, the three constraints developed in the Counter-Reformation era by San Roberto Bellarmino. Those who are baptized and united with Christ in his visible structure through the profession of faith fully belong to the communion of the Church (bond symbol), sacramental communion (bond of the sacraments) and communion with the hierarchical government of the Church (a bond of communion). It is precisely this last bond that the schism breaks, while apostasy involves the total repudiation of the Christian faith and severs all three bonds, heresy breaks that of faith. the schism, instead, interrupts hierarchical communion, refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff and to the visible structure of the Church.

Historically this fracture has manifested itself in two forms: the first consists in the rejection of the universal authority of the Pope, as happens in the election of an antipope or in the consecration of bishops without apostolic mandate. The second consists in the refusal of communion with the other faithful of the Church. In this case it is not denied, at least theoretically, the authority of the Roman Pontiff, but the ecclesial community is judged unworthy or illegitimate to the point of deliberately interrupting liturgical and sacramental communion.

In the social media era, schism takes on new forms, profoundly influenced by contemporary digital communication. Alongside the formally constituted schisms, such as the one historically linked to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius, which we already talked about in these columns some time ago (see who), canonical reflection also draws attention to phenomena defined as "virtual schisms" or "larvated schisms": blog, YouTube channels and social networks encourage the creation of virtual communities of believers who, while continuing to attend their parishes, they daily adhere to narratives that deny the legitimacy of the reigning Pope, they systematically ridicule the ordinary Magisterium or invite us to disregard its teachings and liturgical provisions. Canon law already has tools to address this conduct: the canon 1368 sanctions the use of the media to vilify religion or the Church, while the fee 1373 punishes anyone who publicly provokes hostility or rebellion against the Apostolic See. However, an objective difficulty remains. The nature of the relationships that develop on the web often makes it complex to ascertain that formal membership, internal and external, request for the crime of schism to take place. We are thus witnessing a progressive deterioration of ecclesial communion which does not always result in a legally verifiable separation, but which still ends up eroding the bond of communion with the Roman Pontiff.

Precisely because schism is one of the most serious crimes provided for by canonical law, the term cannot be used to qualify any form of criticism or dissent in the Church. After the Second Vatican Council, the Church has recognized the faithful with a precise statute of rights, among these the canon takes on particular importance 212, which recognizes the faithful's right to e, sometimes, duty too, to an extent commensurate with one's science, competence and prestige, to express to the sacred Pastors one's thoughts on what concerns the good of the Church and, respecting the integrity of faith and customs, to make it known also to the other faithful. For this reason they do not constitute schism:

  1. criticism of pastoral decisions, to episcopal appointments, to liturgical reforms or government acts of the Holy See;
  2. dissent towards a specific provision of the Roman Pontiff when deemed necessary, for serious and well-founded reasons, that was adopted on the basis of inaccurate or incomplete information. In this case the Petrine Primacy is not denied, but contested a specific administrative or disciplinary act;
  3. the appeal against the administrative acts of the Hierarchy. The canon 1737 in fact, it recognizes every believer's right to challenge a decree deemed harmful to their rights "for any just reason" (for any just motive);
  4. the discussion on the validity of the election of a Roman Pontiff, as long as it is based on serious canonical arguments and not used as a pretext to reject its authority.

The rigor of canon law consists precisely in distinguishing dissent from the breakdown of ecclesial communion. Not every criticism is schism, just as not every act of disobedience automatically constitutes this crime.

When the crime of schism is realized in its fullness, the canon 1364 provides for excommunication automatic. A very widespread misunderstanding persists on this point: it is believed that it is excommunication that expel the believer from the Church, while in reality the opposite happens. The rupture of ecclesial communion occurs at the very moment in which the believer carries out the schismatic act, voluntarily severing the bond that unites him to the Mystical Body of Christ. Excommunication occurs subsequently as an acknowledgment and reaction of the canonical order. For this reason it does not constitute a vengeful punishment, but a medicinal punishment (censorship), whose purpose is to encourage the guilty person's repentance and his return to full ecclesial communion.

The deprivation of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical offices therefore does not represent the purpose of the punishment, but the instrument through which the Church tries to obtain the conversion of the criminal. If the schismatic holds an ecclesiastical office, the canon 194 § 1, n. 2, provides automatic removal. If instead he is a cleric, the sanctioning system can progressively worsen up to dismissal from the clerical state in cases of obstinate contumacy or serious scandal caused to the faithful.

In a season of the life of the Church marked by strong polarizations, the crime of schism continues to represent one of the most delicate legal figures in the entire canonical system. Church law reminds us that ecclesial unity does not coincide with uniformity of opinions, of pastoral sensitivities or prudential evaluations. Communion does not require emotional attachment to the person of the Pontiff, but it is based on objective constraints that make belonging to the ecclesial body visible. For this reason the term "schism" must be used rigorously. Its trivialization produces a double effect: it empties one of the most serious crimes envisaged by canon law of meaning and transforms any criticism or dissent into an undue accusation of breaking communion.

The canonical tradition teaches a fundamental distinction: it is completely legitimate to discuss, express your thoughts respectfully, appeal against administrative acts deemed harmful to one's rights or express reservations about certain pastoral choices. What the law considers incompatible with ecclesial communion is the stable and deliberate refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the faithful subject to him. Safeguarding the unity of the Church means precisely distinguishing legitimate dissent from the breakdown of ecclesial communion, avoiding both trivializing the schism and transforming every criticism into an accusation of schism.

Velletri of Rome, 4 July 2026

.

WHAT SCHISM REALLY IS: WHEN COMMUNION IN THE CHURCH IS BROKEN

The canonical tradition draws a fundamental distinction. It is entirely legitimate to engage in discussion, respectfully express one’s views, challenge administrative acts deemed detrimental to one’s rights, or raise reservations concerning particular pastoral decisions. What canon law regards as incompatible with ecclesial communion is the deliberate and persistent refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with those members of the Church who are subject to him.

– Theology and canon law –

Author Teodoro Beccia

Author
Teodoro Beccia

.

Following the episcopal consecrations celebrated a few days ago by the Society of Saint Pius X without pontifical mandate, the term schism has once again returned to the forefront of ecclesial debate. It is frequently used with great ease and often misunderstood. Ecclesial communion is one of the cornerstones of the Church’s canonical order because it reflects the very nature of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ, visible and hierarchically constituted. For this reason, the offence of schism belongs among the offenses against faith and is defined by Canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law. To understand what schism truly is requires distinguishing legitimate dissent, recognised by the Church’s own legal order, from the rupture of communion with the Church, a distinction made even more delicate today by the dynamics of digital communication.

The juridical concept of schism is the result of a long historical development in which theology and canon law evolved side by side. In the earliest Christian communities, the distinction between heresy and schism had not yet been clearly defined. Saint Jerome formulated the definition that became classical: «Heresy corrupts doctrine; schism separates from the Church because of disagreement with the Bishop». Saint Augustine, in his controversy with the Donatists, developed this distinction further by identifying schism as a wound inflicted upon ecclesial charity. Schismatics might preserve the integrity of the faith and even validly administer the sacraments, yet they lacked the communion that binds together the Body of Christ.

During the High Middle Ages, Saint Thomas Aquinas systematised the subject in the QUESTION, explaining that the sin of schism stands in direct opposition to the unity of the Church and consists in refusing submission to her Head or communion with those subject to Him. The Jesuit Francisco Suárez followed the same line, identifying the essence of schism in the deliberate withdrawal from the authority of the Roman Pontiff, acting as though he were no longer the visible principle of the Church’s unity.

The decisive turning point came with the First Vatican Council, which, through the Constitution The eternal shepherd, defined the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and the dogma of papal infallibility. From that time onwards, it became increasingly difficult to conceive of a “pure schism”, namely a separation from the Pope that would not eventually affect the sphere of faith itself, since rejecting his authority almost inevitably undermines the dogma of the Petrine Primacy.

Canon law distinguishes schism with precision from other forms of conduct that may appear similar but protect different juridical interests. Schism consists in refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff or communion with those members of the Church who are subject to him, striking at the unity of ecclesial communion. Heresy, by contrast, concerns the integrity of the faith and consists in the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt of a truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.

Apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith after Baptism. It differs from the obstinate disobedience envisaged by Canon 1371 § 1, which consists in refusing obedience to a lawful order or precept issued by the Apostolic See or by the Ordinary. Canon 1373, finally, governs the conduct of those who publicly incite hostility, hatred, or rebellion against the Apostolic See or against their own Ordinary in the exercise of his office.

These distinctions are not merely terminological refinements. They prevent every criticism, disagreement, or conflict with ecclesiastical authority from being improperly labelled as schism, thus preserving the strictly technical meaning that canon law attributes to this offence.

Canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law defines schism as «the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him». To understand this definition, one must also consider Canon 205, which incorporates the traditional doctrine of the three chains, the three bonds formulated during the Counter-Reformation by Saint Robert Bellarmine. Full communion with the Church belongs to those baptised faithful who are united to Christ within her visible structure through the profession of faith (bond symbol), sacramental communion (bond of the sacraments), and communion with the Church’s hierarchical governance (a bond of communion). It is this third bond that schism severs. Whereas apostasy repudiates the Christian faith and breaks all three bonds, heresy breaks the bond of faith alone. Schism, by contrast, breaks hierarchical communion by rejecting submission to the Roman Pontiff and to the Church’s visible structure.

Historically, this rupture has taken two forms. The first is the rejection of the Pope’s universal authority, as in the election of an antipope or the episcopal consecration of bishops without an apostolic mandate. The second is the refusal of communion with the other faithful of the Church. In such cases, the authority of the Roman Pontiff is not denied, at least in theory, yet the ecclesial community is regarded as unworthy or illegitimate, leading to the deliberate interruption of liturgical and sacramental communion.

In the age of social media, schism has assumed new forms, profoundly shaped by digital communication. Alongside formally constituted schisms, such as that historically associated with the Society of Saint Pius X founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, discussed previously in these pages (see here), canonists have also drawn attention to phenomena described as “latent schisms” or “virtual schisms”. Blogs, YouTube channels, and social media platforms foster virtual communities of the faithful who, while continuing to attend their own parishes, daily embrace narratives that deny the legitimacy of the reigning Pope, systematically ridicule his Ordinary Magisterium, or encourage disregard for his teaching and liturgical directives. Canon law already provides instruments for addressing such conduct. Canon 1368 sanctions the use of the media to vilify religion or the Church, while Canon 1373 punishes those who publicly incite hostility or rebellion against the Apostolic See. Yet one objective difficulty remains. The nature of relationships formed on the internet often makes it difficult to establish the formal interior and exterior adherence required for the canonical offence of schism. The result is a gradual erosion of ecclesial communion that does not always culminate in a juridically ascertainable separation, yet steadily weakens communion with the Roman Pontiff.

Precisely because schism is one of the gravest offences under canon law, the term cannot be used to describe every form of criticism or dissent within the Church. Following the Second Vatican Council, the Church recognised specific rights of the faithful. Of particular importance is Canon 212, which recognises the right — and at times even the duty — of the faithful, according to their knowledge, competence, and standing, to make known to the sacred Pastors their views on matters concerning the good of the Church and, while preserving the integrity of faith and morals, to communicate those views to the other faithful. For this reason, the following do not constitute schism:

  1. criticism of pastoral decisions, episcopal appointments, liturgical reforms, or acts of governance by the Holy See;
  2. dissent from a specific decision of the Roman Pontiff when there are serious and well-founded reasons to believe that it was taken on the basis of inaccurate or incomplete information. In such a case, what is challenged is not the Petrine Primacy but a specific administrative or disciplinary act;
  3. recourse against administrative acts of the Hierarchy. Canon 1737 recognises the right of every member of the faithful to challenge a decree considered injurious to his or her rights «for any just reason» (for any just motive);
  4. discussion concerning the validity of the election of a Roman Pontiff, provided it is based on serious canonical arguments and is not used as a pretext for rejecting his authority.

The rigour of canon law lies in distinguishing dissent from the rupture of ecclesial communion. Not every criticism amounts to schism, just as not every act of disobedience automatically constitutes this canonical offence.

When the offence of schism reaches its full juridical expression, Canon 1364 provides for the penalty of automatic excommunication. A widespread misunderstanding nevertheless persists: many believe that excommunication expels a person from the Church, whereas the opposite is true. The rupture of ecclesial communion occurs at the very moment the faithful commits the schismatic act, voluntarily severing the bond that unites him or her to the Mystical Body of Christ. Excommunication follows as the canonical recognition of that rupture and the Church’s juridical response. It is therefore not a vindictive punishment but a medicinal penalty (censorship), intended to foster the offender’s repentance and full restoration of ecclesial communion.

The deprivation of the sacraments and of the exercise of certain ecclesiastical offices is therefore not the purpose of the penalty but the means by which the Church seeks the offender’s conversion. If the schismatic holds an ecclesiastical office, Canon 194 § 1, n. 2, provides for automatic removal from office. If the offender is a cleric, the penal consequences may progressively intensify, ultimately leading to dismissal from the clerical state in cases of obstinate contumacy or grave scandal caused to the faithful.

In an age marked by deep polarisation within the Church, the offence of schism remains one of the most delicate juridical realities of the entire canonical order. The law of the Church reminds us that ecclesial unity does not coincide with uniformity of opinion, pastoral sensitivities, or prudential judgements. Communion does not require emotional attachment to the Roman Pontiff but rests upon objective bonds that make visible one’s belonging to the ecclesial Body. For this reason, the term schism must be be used with precision. Its trivialisation has a twofold effect: it empties one of the gravest offences in canon law of its proper meaning and turns every criticism or disagreement into an unwarranted accusation of breaking ecclesial communion.

The canonical tradition makes a fundamental distinction. It is entirely legitimate to engage in discussion, respectfully express one’s views, challenge administrative acts deemed detrimental to one’s rights, or raise reservations concerning particular pastoral decisions. What canon law considers as incompatible with ecclesial communion is the deliberate and persistent refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with those members of the Church who are subject to him. Safeguarding the Church’s unity therefore means distinguishing legitimate dissent from the rupture of ecclesial communion, avoiding both the trivialisation of schism and the temptation to label every criticism as an accusation of schism.

Velletri (Rome), 4 July 2026

.

.

Visit the pages of our book shop WHO and support our editions by purchasing and distributing our books.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 of Rome --vatico
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.