Archbishop of San Antonio announces laicization of priest for schism and disobedience to the pope
Archbishop Gustavo García‑Siller announced that priest John Mary Foster was laicized for schism after refusing to acknowledge Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV. Foster had led the Mission of Divine Mercy and continued celebrating Mass while omitting the pope’s name, violating canonical obedience. A tribunal of canon lawyers, authorized by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, found Foster guilty of schism and imposed latae sententiae excommunication and removal from clerical state. The archbishop banned Catholics from attending any event or Mass sponsored by Foster or the Mission of Divine Mercy and urged the faithful to stop financial support.
about 1 month ago
The Archdiocese of San Antonio announced that Father John Mary Foster has been removed from the clerical state and excommunicated after a canonical trial found him guilty of schism for rejecting the authority of Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV. 1 2
Father Foster, incardinated in the archdiocese in 2009, publicly labeled both Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV “usurpers” and circulated alleged private revelations claiming the current pope was not a true pope. 1
He continued to celebrate Mass while omitting the names of the popes from the Eucharistic Prayer, despite repeated requests from Archbishop Gustavo García‑Siller to cease these actions. 2
A tribunal of independent canon lawyers appointed by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith began its investigation on 10 April 2025, reviewing statements, homilies, and witness testimony. 1
On 20 April 2026 the tribunal declared Foster guilty of the crime of schism, imposed a latae sententiae excommunication, and ordered his laicization. He did not appeal the decision. 2
Archbishop García‑Siller announced that Foster no longer has any faculties to celebrate the sacraments except in the limited cases allowed by canon law, and he prohibited all Catholics from attending any Mass, liturgy, or event sponsored by Foster or the Mission of Divine Mercy in Canyon Lake. 1 2
The archbishop warned that Foster continues to celebrate Mass in defiance of the decree and urged the faithful to cease financial support to him and his mission. 2
In his statement, García‑Siller emphasized that Catholic identity requires communion with the pope and the college of bishops, noting that schismatic movements historically result in communities that are no longer in communion with the Church. 1
He called for prayers for Foster’s repentance and reconciliation, describing the disciplinary measures as painful but necessary. 2
Examine Catholic canon law’s response to schismatic clergy
Catholic canon law treats clerical schism as a grave rupture of ecclesial communion, not merely as disagreement with a bishop or criticism of Church policy. Its response combines a precise definition of schism, automatic excommunication, possible removal from office, additional penalties for scandal or persistence, and—when necessary—dismissal from the clerical state.
For the Latin Church, canon 751 defines schism as:
“The refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
This definition contains two related elements:
This is distinct from heresy. Heresy concerns obstinate denial or doubt regarding a truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith; schism concerns the rupture of ecclesial unity and submission. The two can coexist, but they are not identical offenses.
Consequently, not every act of disobedience, imprudent criticism, or conflict with a bishop automatically constitutes schism. The canonical definition requires a refusal touching the Church’s communion and governing authority. Historical Catholic commentary likewise observes that rebellion against a diocesan bishop can be a step toward schism, but is not necessarily schism if the person remains subject to the Roman Pontiff and within Catholic communion.
Canon 1364 §1 establishes the central legal consequence:
“An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”
A latae sententiae penalty is incurred by the law itself when all the conditions for the offense and the penalty are present; it does not necessarily require a prior formal decree announcing that the person is excommunicated. This should not be confused with a declared excommunication, which is formally established by competent ecclesiastical authority.
The penalty applies to laypeople and clergy alike. The fact that the offender is a priest or deacon does not exempt him; rather, clerical status may make the consequences more serious because the cleric’s conduct can undermine the Church’s public order and confuse the faithful.
Canon 1364 §1 also states that the schismatic may receive additional penalties listed in canon 1336 §§2–4, while canon 1364 §2 permits still further penalties where either of two aggravating circumstances exists:
In such cases, the canon expressly states that additional penalties may be imposed:
“not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.”
Thus, excommunication is the ordinary canonical consequence of schism, but it is not necessarily the final or most severe consequence for a cleric.
Schism can also affect a cleric’s office independently of the penalty of excommunication. Canon 194 §1 states that a person is removed from ecclesiastical office by the law itself if he has:
“publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church.”
However, canon 194 §2 adds an important procedural safeguard: removal under these provisions can be enforced only after the fact has been established by a declaration of competent authority.
This distinction is important:
The law therefore distinguishes between the existence of a penalty under the law and the formal administrative or judicial steps needed to make certain consequences publicly and legally operative.
A cleric who becomes schismatic does not thereby cease to have been validly ordained. Canon 290 teaches:
“Once validly received, sacred ordination never becomes invalid.”
This reflects the Catholic doctrine that ordination imprints a permanent sacramental character. Nevertheless, a cleric can lose the clerical state by:
The distinction between valid ordination and lawful ministry is therefore essential. A schismatic priest may remain validly ordained while being forbidden to exercise ministry. Dismissal from the clerical state changes his canonical status, but it does not retroactively make a valid ordination invalid.
Nor does ordination by itself grant the right to exercise ministry in the Catholic Church. The canonical legitimacy of ministry also depends upon ecclesiastical authorization and communion with the Church.
The historical sources illustrate the conduct that canon law regards as especially destructive: a cleric separates from his bishop, gathers followers, and establishes a separate assembly or altar.
The Synod of Antioch described a presbyter or deacon who despises his bishop, separates from the Church, gathers a private assembly, and establishes an altar. If, after being summoned and admonished, he refuses obedience, the synod prescribes deposition.
Similarly, the Council of Carthage addressed a presbyter who separates from his bishop, celebrates the Eucharist apart from him, and creates a schismatic faction. It calls for loss of office, while also requiring that the complaint against the bishop be investigated.
These historical canons show two enduring principles:
The second principle is especially significant. The Council of Carthage did not simply assume that every complaint against a bishop was false; it required an inquiry. Catholic law therefore protects ecclesial authority while also recognizing that accusations may need to be heard through proper channels.
The same basic logic appears in the Apostolic Constitutions, which speak of a priest who despises his bishop, assembles separately, and establishes another altar. They prescribe penalties after repeated admonitions and include those who join the cleric’s faction.
Canon 1364 §2 does not make dismissal automatic in every case of clerical schism. Rather, dismissal is possible when the persistence of contempt or the seriousness of scandal warrants it.
The competent authority must therefore evaluate factors such as:
The law’s graduated structure is significant. It does not treat every disputed statement as equivalent to the establishment of a rival church. The most severe measures are directed toward persistent, public, and divisive conduct.
If dismissal is lawfully imposed, the cleric loses the clerical state under canon 290. This is a canonical loss of status, not a declaration that the sacramental ordination never occurred.
The Eastern Catholic Code provides a particularly explicit parallel formulation. Canon 1437 states that a person who refuses submission to the supreme authority of the Church or refuses communion with the Christian faithful, after legitimate admonition and continued disobedience, is to be punished as a schismatic with major excommunication.
That canon belongs to the Eastern Catholic Code and should not simply be substituted for the Latin Code in a Latin-law case. Nevertheless, it illustrates a principle also visible in the historical canonical tradition: obstinacy and admonition matter.
The canonical response is not meant to punish a person merely for confusion, an honestly formed but mistaken opinion, or a temporary failure of obedience. Schism presupposes a culpable and obstinate rupture as defined by canon 751, while the imposition of additional penalties requires responsible ecclesiastical judgment.
A competent authority may therefore need to:
The purpose of canonical penalties is not revenge. Canonical penalties protect the Church, repair scandal, restore justice, and seek the offender’s correction. The possibility of reconciliation is therefore implicit in the Church’s disciplinary response.
A canonical study concerning schismatically ordained married clergy explains that the automatic excommunication for schism is not reserved to the Holy See and may, under the applicable canonical provisions, be remitted by competent local authority in specified circumstances. It also notes that the relevant authority can address the associated canonical irregularity.
This does not mean that reconciliation automatically restores every office or permission to minister. Several matters may have to be addressed separately:
The Church can forgive and reconcile a schismatic cleric, but restoration to ministry is not necessarily identical with reconciliation to the Church.
Catholic canon law protects more than institutional order. It protects the visible unity of the Church, which is expressed through communion with the Pope, the bishops, and the faithful united with them.
Pope Pius IX described schism as rebellion against the bishop and the Apostolic See, emphasizing that the Church’s unity cannot be preserved while clerics deny the authority of legitimate pastors. He further stated that the Church traditionally regards as schismatic those who obstinately oppose lawful prelates, especially the Pope, even when they attempt to characterize the conflict as merely disciplinary rather than doctrinal.
This does not imply that every disciplinary decision is irreformable or that Catholics may never question a decision. It means that legitimate criticism must remain within ecclesial communion and use lawful means of appeal, petition, correction, and adjudication. A cleric crosses into schism when opposition becomes an obstinate refusal of the Church’s governing communion itself.
Pope Pius VI likewise urged clergy to remain united with their lawful pastors and warned against permitting persons in “false bishop’s garments” to take possession of churches. The underlying principle is that ecclesial authority is not created by popular support, civil recognition, or the cleric’s personal claim to legitimacy.
For a Latin Catholic cleric, the primary norm is canon 751 together with canon 1364 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. These establish the definition of schism and the automatic excommunication, with possible additional penalties including dismissal from the clerical state.
For Eastern Catholic Churches, the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches expresses a comparable rule in canon 1437: refusal of submission or communion, persisting after legitimate admonition, is punished as schism with major excommunication. The terminology and procedural framework differ in places, so the applicable code depends on the cleric’s Church sui iuris and the facts of the case.
Catholic canon law responds to schismatic clergy through a graduated but serious system:
The central canonical principle is that a priest remains a priest by valid ordination, but he cannot legitimately exercise Catholic ministry while deliberately rejecting the communion and authority that constitute the Church’s visible unity.