San Antonio priest laicized, excommunicated after calling Popes Francis and Leo ‘usurpers’
Archbishop Gustavo García‑Siller announced the laicization and excommunication of former priest John Mary Foster for schism and refusal to submit to the Pope. Foster had founded the Mission of Divine Mercy and publicly called Popes Francis and Leo “usurpers,” actions deemed a crime against the faith. The tribunal, authorized by the Vatican Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, found Foster guilty of rejecting the Magisterium and refusing to submit to papal authority. The Archdiocese warned Catholics not to follow Foster or support his group, citing alleged prophetic messages and false teachings.
about 1 month ago
A former San Antonio priest, John Mary Foster, was declared guilty of schism for refusing obedience to Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV, leading the Archdiocese of San Antonio to remove him from the clerical state and impose a latae sententiae excommunication. The decision follows a year‑long canonical trial authorized by the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the archbishop has warned the faithful to avoid any participation in Foster’s activities or the Mission of Divine Mercy group he leads. 1 2
Investigate ecclesial authority versus schismatic dissent in contemporary Catholicism
Ecclesial authority and schismatic dissent are often confused because both involve disagreement within the Church. Catholic teaching, however, distinguishes legitimate theological discussion, conscientious difficulty, disciplinary disobedience, heresy, and schism. The decisive issue is not whether a Catholic criticizes a pope, council, liturgical reform, or pastoral policy, but whether the person remains within the Church’s profession of faith and visible communion.
Catholic authority is not merely administrative power or delegated authority created by the faithful. It is rooted in Christ’s institution of the Church and is ordered toward the preservation and transmission of divine revelation. The magisterium—especially the pope and the bishops in communion with him—has the responsibility to teach authentically in Christ’s name. The faithful therefore do not receive ecclesial teaching as though it were simply the opinion of religious experts; the assent owed depends upon the level and intention of the teaching.
The authority of pastors is simultaneously doctrinal and ministerial. It exists to serve truth and communion, not to establish a personal regime. Pope Paul VI described authority as “the obedient performance of a service, a ministry of truth and charity.” Obedience, in this sense, includes observance of canonical norms and respect for lawful superiors, given freely and serenely rather than through servile fear.
This prevents two opposite errors:
Catholic authority is therefore neither arbitrary nor democratic in the modern political sense. It is a divinely entrusted office exercised within the Church’s sacramental, apostolic, and doctrinal structure.
The current Latin Code of Canon Law gives a precise definition:
“Schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
This definition identifies two related but distinguishable elements:
Schism is therefore more than criticism, anger, or nonconformity. The older theological distinction remains useful: heresy directly concerns denial or doubt of a truth of faith, while schism directly concerns rupture of ecclesial unity and subordination. In practice, the two frequently overlap, because separation from the Church’s authority often generates doctrinal justifications for that separation.
Not every act of disobedience is formally schismatic. The historical theological explanation in the source states that disobedience becomes schism when it involves not merely violating a command but denying the authority’s divine right to command. This is an important distinction. A Catholic may commit a serious act of disobedience without thereby formally becoming a schismatic. Formal canonical judgment also requires attention to knowledge, deliberation, persistence, admonition, and other juridical circumstances.
The Eastern Catholic Code expresses the same basic principle in penal terms: one who refuses submission to the supreme authority of the Church, or refuses communion with the faithful subject to that authority, after legitimate admonition and persistence in disobedience, is punished as a schismatic. The Latin and Eastern formulations are substantially harmonious, although the user’s default ecclesial context is the Latin Church and the governing norm for Latin Catholics is the 1983 Code.
Catholic unity does not require that every Catholic share the same theological opinion, pastoral preference, political judgment, or liturgical sensibility. Catholic history contains substantial internal debates: Jansenists and Molinists, Gallicans and Ultramontanes, Liberals and Infallibilists, and Modernists and anti-Modernists. The historical source emphasizes that such controversy does not automatically constitute schism when the disputants continue to accept the formal principle of unity—the magisterium of the Holy See—and remain willing to submit to a definitive judgment of the Church.
This yields several practical distinctions.
Theologians may raise questions, explore implications, and identify ambiguities. The International Theological Commission stresses that bishops and theologians have distinct vocations: bishops authentically teach, while theologians investigate and assist the Church’s understanding. Neither role should absorb the other.
Theologians, however, cannot constitute a parallel magisterium. The Magisterium is not merely a body that ratifies conclusions already reached by scholars or public opinion. In interpreting Scripture and Tradition, it may “anticipate or demand” the assent of the faithful, especially when internal disagreement threatens the unity of faith.
A Catholic can object to a prudential judgment, question the wisdom of a pastoral initiative, or express concern about an act of governance without rejecting the pope’s office. Such criticism becomes ecclesially dangerous when it changes from argument into contempt, when it denies the legitimacy of the office, or when it encourages separation from communion.
Pope Paul VI warned that “independence, bitter criticism, defiance, and arrogance” are incompatible with the charity that preserves ecclesial fellowship. This does not abolish the duty of responsible speech. Rather, it indicates that criticism must remain within the Church’s communion and be governed by truth, justice, charity, and a willingness to be corrected.
Not every disciplinary norm has the same doctrinal weight. Some laws concern sacraments, liturgy, ecclesiastical governance, or pastoral practice and can be modified by competent authority. A Catholic may regard a particular disciplinary choice as unwise without denying the Church’s authority to legislate.
Nevertheless, the fact that a norm is disciplinary does not make it optional for individuals or groups. The competent authority determines whether the law applies, whether an exception exists, and whether a legitimate dispensation has been granted. Private conviction cannot simply replace public ecclesial jurisdiction.
One of the central contemporary disputes concerns competing appeals to “Tradition.” John Paul II identified the root of a schismatic act in an incomplete and contradictory understanding of Tradition. Tradition is not a museum of frozen practices. It comes from the apostles and develops in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit through theological study, the spiritual insight of believers, and the preaching of bishops who possess apostolic succession and the charism of truth.
The crucial principle is this:
“It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond” with the successor of Peter.
This principle addresses a recurring form of schismatic reasoning: a group identifies one historical form of liturgy, theology, discipline, or ecclesial organization as the only authentic expression of Catholicism and then judges the pope, bishops, or ecumenical council by that private standard. In this model, “Tradition” is no longer the living apostolic Tradition received and interpreted within the Church; it becomes a selective archive controlled by the dissident group.
Pope Paul VI confronted this logic in relation to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. He rejected the claim that disobedience could be justified as a means of preserving the Catholic faith, particularly when the group itself decided which traditions were binding while refusing obedience to the pope, the episcopal college, and an ecumenical council. He likewise stated that the reformed Roman Missal was not left to the arbitrary choice of individual priests or faithful but had been promulgated by legitimate supreme authority.
This does not imply that every implementation of a reform is beyond criticism, nor that every historical custom has equal status. It means that the discernment of what belongs normatively to the Church cannot be transferred from the Church’s lawful authority to an autonomous faction.
Contemporary Catholic division does not always take the form of a formally separated denomination. It often appears as functional schism: people continue to use Catholic names, attend Catholic events, or receive some sacraments, while treating their preferred ideological network as the real Church and the pope or bishops as illegitimate, corrupt, or nonbinding.
Several patterns are especially significant.
One faction may assume that fidelity requires unconditional approval of everything associated with the pope. Another may conclude that disagreement with a pope’s prudential decisions proves that the pope has forfeited authority or ceased to be Catholic. Both positions misunderstand the Church.
The pope’s authority is real, but it is exercised according to the nature and level of his acts. Conversely, a pope’s prudential limitations or controversial decisions do not erase the office entrusted to Peter. The Church’s unity is not based on the personal perfection of a pope but on communion with the office and with the bishops united to him.
Some Catholics reject Vatican II wholesale, treating it as incompatible with Catholic Tradition. Others implicitly reject the Council by reducing the Church to a sociological project, detached from revelation, metaphysics, and the supernatural. Hanby describes this deeper conflict as an internal division over whether there can still be a genuinely Catholic understanding of God and the world.
Pope Francis has warned against reducing postconciliar Catholicism to opposing camps—“progressive” versus “conservative,” “guardians of truth” versus “pioneers of innovation.” He presents the Council as a call to pastoral charity, communion, and mission rather than as a weapon for factional identity.
Schismatic tendencies can also emerge from the opposite direction. A group may claim that ecclesial legitimacy depends on adopting contemporary cultural positions and may openly defy definitive moral teaching or universal disciplinary norms. The dispute over unauthorized blessings of same-sex unions illustrates this danger: after a Vatican statement rejected such blessings, some Catholic clergy and theologians organized public acts of resistance.
The issue is not whether pastoral care should be compassionate—it must be—but whether compassion can be detached from truth. A pastoral initiative that symbolically contradicts the Church’s teaching cannot be defended merely by appealing to local popularity, sociological change, or the slogan of inclusion.
In both conservative and progressive forms, the underlying structure is similar: a faction makes its own judgment the final criterion of Catholic identity.
Synodality does not mean that the Church becomes a parliament in which revealed doctrine is determined by majority vote. The Church must listen to the faithful, attend to lived experience, and engage in theological reflection. But listening is not identical with granting every opinion equal doctrinal authority.
The International Theological Commission states that the Magisterium is “the living teaching office” of the pope and bishops and that fidelity to it is necessary for theology to remain an ecclesial task. The Church’s pastors may draw upon the life and study of the faithful, yet their teaching office is not reduced to confirming conclusions already reached by popular consensus.
Pope Francis similarly distinguishes diversity from division. The Holy Spirit creates harmony, not uniformity; different charisms can flourish within communion. But “parallel journeys” outside the Church’s teaching and community are dangerous, because they detach Christian activity from the Church through which Christ is encountered.
Thus, authentic synodality requires:
A useful theological and canonical assessment can ask the following questions:
What is being rejected?
Is the disagreement about a prudential judgment, a changeable discipline, or a doctrine that must be believed or held?
What authority is acknowledged?
Does the person still recognize the pope and bishops in communion with him as possessing legitimate ecclesial authority?
Is there a refusal of communion?
Does the person separate from the Catholic community subject to the pope, establish parallel structures, or deny the legitimacy of ordinary Catholic worship and governance?
Is the dissent obstinate?
Canonical schism involves a persistent refusal, not merely confusion, distress, a poorly expressed objection, or temporary disobedience. Canonical responsibility requires attention to the person’s knowledge and persistence.
What is the spiritual posture?
Humble questioning and sorrowful disagreement differ from contempt, self-certainty, factionalism, and the claim that one’s group alone preserves the Church.
Does the position preserve the whole of Tradition?
A selective appeal to one council, liturgical form, theological school, or cultural program is not sufficient. Catholic Tradition is living, apostolic, sacramental, and ecclesially interpreted.
In contemporary Catholicism, schismatic dissent is best understood not simply as “having extreme opinions,” but as a rupture in the Church’s visible principle of unity: communion with the pope and with the bishops united to him. The 1983 Code provides the governing canonical definition, while Catholic teaching explains that ecclesial authority is a ministry of truth and charity rather than arbitrary power.
Legitimate theological debate remains possible and even necessary. But it must occur within the Church’s faith, sacramental communion, apostolic structure, and willingness to receive authoritative judgment. The contemporary danger on both the right and the left is the creation of parallel Catholicisms in which ideology, liturgical preference, historical nostalgia, sociological consensus, or personal conscience becomes the final judge of what counts as Catholic.
The Catholic alternative is neither uncritical conformity nor autonomous dissent. It is responsible freedom within communion: seeking truth seriously, speaking honestly, submitting humbly to legitimate authority, and refusing to turn disagreement into separation. As Pope Francis summarized in addressing a Catholic Eastern Church, “where obedience is present, there is the Church”; where disobedience becomes a refusal of ecclesial communion, schism begins.