English translation of Vigano's excommunication decree - Where Peter Is - Translation

Written by Mike Lewis

Moments ago, the newly-excommunicated Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano published a pdf of his excommunication decree. This 11-page document — interestingly the same length as his August 2018 ‘testimony’ that began this saga — is in Italian and the scan is of low quality. I think it is valuable to the public interest to make an English translation available.

I was able to extract the text (although there may still be errors) and converted it into English with a translation program. If you detect any glaring errors, you can let me know via Twitter DM or our Contact page. I plan to make improvements to this text as needed or until an official translation is available. (I noticed some bullet points missing, for example, and some URLs are broken up.)

Here is an unofficial English translation of the text:

[PAGE 1]:

DICASTERIUM PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI

Prot. No. 194/2024

H.E. Archbishop Carlo Maria VIGANO titular archbishop of Ulpiana

Extrajudicial criminal process ex can. 1720 CIC coram Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith

Can. 1364 CIC, art. 2 SST

CRIMINAL DECREE

PREMISE

1. H.E. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò was born in Varese on January 16, 1941, was ordained priest on March 24, 1968 for the Diocese of Pavia and consecrated bishop by Pope St. John Paul II on April 26, 1992. He has held the following positions: Apostolic Nuncio to Nigeria, Delegate for Papal Representations, Secretary General of the Governorate of Vatican City State, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America.
2. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, taking into account the public statements of H.E. Archbishop Viganò, traceable on the web (statements published in writing and video recordings), from which it appears that he rejects submission to the Supreme Pontiff, communion with the members of the Church subject to him, and the legitimacy and magisterial authority of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in a letter dated March 25, 2024, sent to the prelate via e-mail ([the mailing address of] Archbishop Viganò is unknown), invited him to the headquarters of the Dicastery “to deepen his positions.” The Prelate was also informed that “such an interview could also take place with the presence of a person he trusts, should he deem it more appropriate.” The Prelate was also asked to indicate his domicile, to which the original of the letter could be forwarded.
3. H.E. Archbishop Viganò did not give any reply to the Dicastery.
4. Subsequently, the Congress of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith of May 10, 2024, having regard to the mandate in art. 1 § 2 SST and considering the prior investigation superfluous (can. 1717 § 1 CIC),

decided to initiate an extrajudicial criminal trial against the prelate, celebrated coram the same Dicastery.

5. By the Decree of June 3, 2024, the trial instructor, assessors and notary public were appointed in accordance with the law.

[PAGE 2]:

6. By the Decree of June 11, H.E. Archbishop Viganò was summoned to present himself, with a valid identification document, on June 20, 2024 at 3:30 p.m., at the Palace of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, to take note of the charges and evidence about the crime of schism with which he has been charged. The Prelate was informed that it is his right to appoint a lawyer/prosecutor of his choice to be defended/represented in the present trial and that, failing that, one would be appointed to him ex officio. The accused was also advised that in the absence of an appearance or written defense, which was to be filed in the Dicastery by June 28, 2024, he would be tried in his absence.
7. The above Decree was sent to the Prelate in two ways:

a. by e-mail (in the PDF version);

b. by registered envelope to the registered office of the Exsurge Domine Foundation of which Archbishop Viganó appears to be Patron (the Decree was returned to the Dicastery with the Post Office statement: “unknown”).

8. The Decree of Citation is considered served on the Recipient for the following reasons:

a. the Decree (in the PDF version) was published by the Recipient himself on his social profiles on June 20, 2024;

b. along with the publication of the Decree on social media, the following statement was published: “The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has notified me, by a simple email, of the initiation of an extrajudicial criminal trial against me, with the accusation of having committed the crime of schism and accusing me of having denied the legitimacy of “Pope Francis,” of having broken communion “with Him,” and of having rejected the Second Vatican Council. I am summoned to the Palace of the Holy Office on June 20, in person or represented by a lawyer. I assume the condemnation is also already ready, given the extrajudicial process.”

9. Since the accused did not appoint his own lawyer/prosecutor, the Dicastery appointed an ex officio lawyer, a doctor of canon law (Art. 20 § 7 SST).

IN LAW

10. Code of Canon Law:

a. can. 209 § 1: “The faithful are bound by the obligation always to preserve, even in their manner of acting, communion with the Church.”

b. can. 750 § 2: “One must also firmly accept and hold firmly also all and every one of those things which are proposed definitively by the Magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, those things which are required in order to keep holy and faithfully expound the same deposit of faith; one is therefore opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church who rejects the same propositions to be held definitively.”

c. can. 751: “There is called heresy, the obstinate denial, after having received baptism, of some truth which is to be believed by divine and catholic faith, or obstinate doubt about it; apostasy, the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism, the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

d. can. 1321 § 4: “Post external violation, imputability is presumed unless it appears otherwise.”;

e. can. 1322: “Those who do not habitually have the use of reason, even if they have violated the law or precept while appearing sane, are presumed incapable of crime.”

f. can. 1323: “He is not liable to any punishment who, when he violated the law or precept: 1º was not yet 16 years of age; 2º through no fault of his own was unaware that he was violating a law or precept; ignorance is equated with inadvertence and error; 3º acted by physical violence

[PAGE 3]:

or by an unfortunate event which he could not foresee or foresee it could not remedy; 4º he acted out of grave fear, even if only relatively so, or out of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act was intrinsically evil or tome to the harm of souls; 5º he acted out of legitimate defense against an unjust aggressor of his own or of a third party, with due restraint; 6º he was deprived of the use of reason, subject to the provisions of cann. 1324, § 1, n. 2 and 1326, § 1, n. 4; 7th without his fault believed there to be any of the circumstances of referred to in nos. 4 0 5″;

g. can. 1324: “§ 1. The offender is not exempt from the punishment established by law or by. g precept, but the punishment must be mitigated or replaced by a penance, if the crime was committed: 1st by a person who had the use of reason only imperfectly; 2nd by a person who lacked the use of reason because of drunkenness or other similar perturbation of the mind, of which he was guilty, subject to the provisions of can. 1326, § 1, no. 4; 3rd by grave impetus of passion, which, however, did not precede and prevent all deliberation of the mind and consent of the will and provided that the passion itself was not voluntarily aroused or fostered; 4th by a minor who had attained the age of 16 years 5º by a person compelled by grave fear, even if only comparatively so, or who acts out of necessity or grave inconvenience, if the crime committed is intrinsically evil or tomes to the harm of souls; 6º by one who acts in self-defense against an unjust aggressor of his own or of a third party, but without due restraint; 7″ against someone who has gravely and unjustly provoked him; 8º by one who by an error, of which he is guilty, believed there to be any of the circumstances mentioned in can. 1323, nos. 4 or 5; 9º by one who without fault was unaware that a penalty was attached to the law or precept; 10º by one who acts without full imputability, provided that this still remains serious, § 2. The court may act in the same manner when there is some other circumstance mitigating the seriousness of the crime. § 3. In the circumstances referred to in § 1, the offender does not incur the punishment latae sententiae, however, milder punishments may be imposed on him or penances may be applied to him for the purpose of repentance or reparation of the scandal”;

h. can. 1331: “§ 1. The excommunicated person is forbidden: 1º to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and the other sacraments; 2º to receive the sacraments; 3º to administer the sacramentals and to celebrate the other ceremonies of liturgical worship; 4º to have any active part in the celebrations enumerated above; 5º to exercise ecclesiastical offices or offices or ministries or functions; 6º to place acts of governance. § 2. If excommunication ferendae sententiae was inflicted or excommunication latae sententiac was declared, the offender: 1º if he wishes to act against the provisions of § 1, nn. 1-4, must be removed or liturgical action must be discontinued, unless a grave cause is opposed; 2º invalidly poses acts of government, which according to § 1, no. 6, are illicit; 3º incurs the prohibition of making use of privileges previously granted to him; 4º does not acquire salaries held in a purely ecclesiastical capacity; 5º is incapable of attaining offices, positions, ministries, functions, rights, privileges and honorific titles.”

i. can. 1336: “§ 1. The expiatory punishments, which may be applied to a delinquent in perpetuity or for a predetermined or indefinite time, in addition to others which the law may possibly have established, are those listed in §§ 2-5. § 2: Injunction: 1º to dwell in a certain place or territory; 2º to pay a fine or sum of money for the purposes of the Church, according to the regulations defined by the Bishops’ Conference. § 3: Prohibition: 1º to dwell in a certain place or territory; 2° to exercise, either everywhere or in a certain place or territory or outside of them, all or some offices, positions, ministries or functions or only some tasks inherent in the offices or positions; 3º to place all or some acts of power of order; 4º to place all or some acts of power of government; 5º to exercise some right or privilege or to use insignia or titles; 6º to enjoy active or passive voice in canonical elections and to participate with the right to vote in ecclesiastical councils and colleges; 7º to wear the ecclesiastical or religious habit. § 4 Deprivation: 1º of all or some of the offices, positions, ministries or functions or only of some duties inherent in the offices or positions; 2º of the faculty of receiving confessions or the faculty of preaching; 3º of the delegated power of government; 4º of some rights or privileges or insignia or titles; 5º of all the

[PAGE 4]:

ecclesiastical remuneration or part thereof, according to the regulations established by the Episcopal Conference, except as provided in can. 1350, § 1. § 5. The dismissal from the clerical state.”

j. can. 1345: “Whenever the delinquent either had the use of reason only imperfectly or committed the crime out of necessity or grave fear or impetus of passion or, subject to the provision of can. 1326, § 1, no. 4, in a state of drunkenness or other similar perturbation of the mind, the judge may also refrain from inflicting any punishment, if he thinks it can be better provided for in some other way; however, the offender must be punished if justice cannot otherwise be restored and the scandal possibly procured repaired.”

k. can. 1364: “§ 1. The apostate, heretic, and schismatic incurs excommunication latae sententiae, without prejudice to the provisions of can. 194, § 1, no. 2; he may also be punished with the penalties set forth in can. 1336, § 2-4. § 2. If prolonged contumacy or the gravity of the scandal, other punishments may be added, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.”;

l. can. 1608: “§ 1. In order to pronounce any sentence, moral certainty is required in the mind of the judge as to what he must decide by it. § 2. The judge must draw this certainty 1. From the acts and from what has been proved. § 3. The judge must then evaluate the evidence according to his conscience, subject to the provisions of the law on the efficacy of certain evidence. § 4. The judge who has not been able to obtain that certainty, shall rule that he does not know of the plaintiff’s right and acquit the defendant, unless the case is one that enjoys the favor of law, in which case he must rule in favor of the same.”

m. can. 1717 § 1: “Whenever the Ordinary has news, at least probable, of a crime, he is to investigate with prudence, personally or through a suitable person, the facts, circumstances and imputability, unless this investigation seems absolutely superfluous.”

n. can. 1720: “If the Ordinary has deemed it necessary to proceed by decree extrajudicially: 1º make known to the accused the accusation and the evidence, giving him an opportunity to defend himself, unless the accused duly summoned has neglected to appear; 2º carefully evaluate with two assessors all the evidence and arguments; 3º if he ascertains with certainty the crime and the criminal action is not extinguished, issue the decree in accordance with cann. 1342-1350, setting forth at least briefly the reasons in law and fact.”

11. Norms on crimes reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

a. art. 1: “§ 1 The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in accordance with art. 52 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus, judges, pursuant to art. 2 § 2, crimes against the faith, as well as more serious crimes committed against morals or in the celebration of the sacraments and, if necessary, proceeds to declare or impose canonical sanctions in accordance with the law, whether common or proper, without prejudice to the competence of the Apostolic Penitentiary and without prejudice to the Agendi ratio in doctrinarum examine. § 2. In the crimes referred to in § 1, subject to the mandate of the Roman Pontiff, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has the right to judge the Cardinal Fathers, Patriarchs, Legates of the Apostolic See, Bishops, as well as other individuals referred to in can. 1405 § 3 of the Code of Canon Law (CIC) and can. 1061 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO).”

b. art. 2: “§ 1. The crimes against the faith, referred to in art. 1, are heresy, apostasy and schism, in accordance with canons 751 and 1364 CIC and canons 1436 and 1437 CCEO. § 2. In the cases mentioned in § 1 it is the duty of the Ordinary or Hierarch, according to law, to conduct the judicial process in the first instance or extrajudicial by decree, without prejudice to the right of appeal or recourse to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. § 3. In the cases referred to in § 1 it is the responsibility of the Ordinary or the Hierarch, in accordance with the law, to remit to the external forum, respectively, the excommunication latae sententiae or the major excommunication;

c. art. 7: “He who commits the crimes referred to in articles 2-6, let him be punished, if appropriate, in addition to what is provided for individual crimes in the C/C and CCEO, as well as in the present Norms, with a just punishment according to the gravity of the crime; if a cleric he may also be punished by resignation or deposition from the clerical state.”

[PAGE 5]:

d. art. 9: “§ 3. Crimes reserved to this Supreme Tribunal are to be prosecuted in judicial trial or by extrajudicial decree. § 4. 1 pronouncements of this Supreme Tribunal, issued within the limits of its competence, are not subject to the approval of the Supreme Pontiff.”

e. art. 19: “§ 1. When the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has decided that an extrajudicial process should be initiated, cann. 1720 CIC 0 1486 CCEO must be applied. § 2. Subject to the mandate of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, perpetual expiatory penalties may be imposed.”

f. art. 20 § 1. “The extrajudicial process may be carried out by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or by the Ordinary or the Hierarch or their Delegate. (…) § 7. The offender must always avail himself of an Advocate or Procurator who must be a member of the faithful who has a doctorate or at least a license in canon law, admitted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or by the Ordinary or the Hierarch or their Delegate. If the offender fails to do so, the competent Authority shall appoint one, who shall remain in the office until the offender has constituted one of his own.”

g. art. 24: “§ 1. Against the singular administrative acts of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the cases of reserved crimes, the Promoter of Justice of the Dicastery and the accused have the right to appeal within the peremptory term of sixty useful days, to the same Congregation, which shall judge the merits and legitimacy, eliminating any further recourse referred to in Article 123 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus. § 2. The accused, in order to present the appeal referred to in § 1 must, under penalty of inadmissibility of the appeal, always avail himself of a Lawyer who is a faithful person, equipped with the appropriate mandate and possessing a doctorate or at least a license in canon law. § 3. The appeal referred to in § 1, for the purpose of its admissibility, must clearly state the petitum and contain the reasons in iure and in facto on which it is based.”

h. art. 25: “The extrajudicial penal decree becomes final: 1st if the time limit provided for in can. 1734 § 2 CIC or that provided for in can. 1737 § 2 CIC has elapsed unnecessarily; 2nd if the time limit provided for in can. 1487 § 1 CCEO has elapsed unnecessarily; 3rd if the time limit provided for in art. 24 § 1 of the present Norms has elapsed unnecessarily; 4th if it has been issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ex art. 24 § 1 of the present Norms.”

IN FACT

Allegations

12. The charges brought against H.E. Archbishop Viganò concern the crime of schism: these are the prelate’s public statements from which it appears that he refuses submission to the Supreme Pontiff or communion with members of the Church subject to him.

Evidence

13. Some statements of the accused confirm his refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff and refusal of communion with the members of the Church subject to him:

a. “We must confront a painful and terrible reality: Bergoglio poses himself as hostile to Catholics faithful to the Magisterium that he mocks, condemns and marginalizes and complicit with chỉ openly contradicts what the Church has been teaching immutably for two thousand years. Not only: he wants to lead good Catholics, and with them the few bishops and priests who still profess the Faith in its integrity, to separate themselves from the sect that has infiltrated and invaded the Church, provoking them with shameless arrogance so that they feel scandalized and offended. The inclusiveness that Bergoglio is inspired by in his demolition work is the exact opposite of what Our Lord taught us” (Nov. 9, 2023, https://ift.tt/nCcSjtQ statement/);

[PAGE 6]:

b. “In these ten years of “pontificate” we have seen Bergoglio do everything that one would never expect from a Pope, and vice versa everything that a heresiarch or an apostate would do. (…) The silence of the Episcopate in the face of Bergoglian enormities confirms that the self-referential authoritarianism of the Jesuit Bergoglio has found servile obedience in almost all of the bishops, terrified by the idea of being made the object of retaliation by the vindictive and despotic satrap of Santa Marta. (…) Bergoglio is heretical and blatantly hostile to the Church of Christ. (…) Having therefore taken note that Bergoglio is heretical (…) we must ask ourselves whether the 2013 election was in any way tainted by a flaw of consensus. (…) I believe instead that the acceptance of the Papacy is vitiated because he considers the Papacy to be something other than what it is, like the spouse who marries in the church excluding the specific purposes of Marriage and thus making the nuptials null and void due to a vice of consent, precisely” (Oct. 1, 2023, https://ift.tt/HFbYCdK, the video was published under the title “Resist The Bergoglian Fury” with the date of Nov. 17, 2023);

c. “Hearing Jorge Mario Bergoglio speak today and comparing his words with those of Pastor angelicus makes us understand the abyss that separates a Pope from his grotesque parody, the chasm that divides the Vicar of Christ from the simia Pontificis. (…) His heterogeneity to the Papacy is now obvious. (…) The intention to harm the Church by acting on behalf of an enemy power is not compatible with the ACCEPTATION assumption of the Papacy, and there is therefore a flaw of consent given by the will confirmed by the words and deeds of these last ten years of wanting to act in fraudem legis, circumventing canon law and dissimulating one’s intentions. (…) The Lord is outraged, the Church is humiliated and souls are lost because of the stay on the Throne of a usurper, whose actions of government and magisterium can be judged in the light of the words of Our Lord: Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inside are ravening wolves. By their fruits you will know them. Does one gather grapes from thorns, u figs from brambles? So every good tree produces good fruit and every bad tree produces bad fruit; a good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire, By their fruit therefore you will be able to recognize them (Mt 7:15-20). You heard correctly. a good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit, which means that Bergoglio’s uninterrupted behavior before, during and after his election stands alone as evidence of his inherent iniquity. Can we therefore be morally certain that the tenant of Santa Marta is a false prophet? My answer is: Yes. Are we therefore authorized in conscience to revoke our obedience to one who, presenting himself as Pope, actually acts like the biblical boar in the Lord’s Vineyard, or like the hireling, qui non est pastor, cujus non sunt oves propriæ (Jn. 10:12), et non pertinet ad eum de ovibus (ibid., 13)? Si.” (Dec. 9, 2023, https://ift.tt/Hito0d2 ita/): d.

d. “The delirious Declaration Fiducia supplicans, recently published by the parody of the former Holy Office renamed Dicaster opposed to the Petrine Mandate or, definitively rips open the blanket of hypocrisy and deception of the Bergoglian Hierarchy, showing these false pastors for what they are: servants of Satan and his zealous allies, beginning with the usurper who sits abomination of desolation on the Throne of Peter (…). What does Bergoglio want to achieve? Nothing good, nothing true, nothing holy. He does not want souls to be saved; he does not proclaim the opportune, importunate Gospel to call souls back to Christ; he does not show them the scourged and bloodied Savior to spur them to change their lives. No. Bergoglio wants their damnation, as an infernal tribute to Satan and shameless defiance to God. (…) The mark of the conciliar and synodal church, of this sect of rebels and perverts, is falsehood and hypocrisy. (…) Those in the Bergoglian church who continue to follow the doctrine and precepts of the Catholic Church are out of place and sooner or later will end up separating from it or giving in (Dec. 20, 2023, https://ift.tt/1XtLgDW);

e. “Jorge Mario Bergoglio was put on the Throne to demolish the Church of Christ. (…) While waiting for this unworthy parody of the Catholic Hierarchy to be replaced by holy bishops and holy priests” (Dec. 30, 2023, https://ift.tt/SM6IJqp);

[PAGE 7]:

f. [The thesis] “formulated by me on the vice of consent that would render null and void Bergoglio’s assumption of the Papacy because of a deliberate willful desire to appropriate it in order to use it in a manner opposed to the ends given it by the divine Founder of the Church. (…) The paradox-c the Luciferian cunning-of this ecclesial coup has consisted in maintaining the appearances of the Papacy for the sole purpose of being able to demand obedience from those who still believe that he who sits on the Throne of Peter is the Vicar of Christ chosen by the Holy Spirit, while in reality he is a mercenary who abuses the trust and respect of the faithful in order to disperse them. (… ) We are not in a Church whose Hierarchy is Catholic and you find a Pope who professes heresy but at the same time is sincerely intent on shepherding the Lord’s flock, but rather before a Church eclipsed by a coup d’état, in which every Dicastery, every Athenaeum, every seminary, every diocese, every parish, every convent are directed and managed by the deep church, in ostracism and open persecution of anyone who dissents even limiting themselves to the recent Magisterium without questioning the Council” (Feb. 5, 2024, https: //exsurgedomine. it/240205-habemus-papam/).

g. “I repudiate, reject and condemn the scandals, errors and heresies of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who manifests an absolutely tyrannical management of power, exercised against the purpose that legitimizes Authority in the Church: an authority that is vicarious to that of Christ, and as such must obey Him alone. This separation of the Papacy from its legitimizing principle which is Christ the Pontiff transforms the ministerium into a self-referential tyranny. With this “Bergoglian church,” no Catholic worthy of the name can be in communion, because it acts in blatant discontinuity and rupture with all the Popes in history and with the Church of Christ (June 20, 2024, https://ift.tt/qSYetr9 by the-dicastery-for-the-doctrine-of-the-faith-to-respond-to-delict-of-schism-the-response-of-arcivescovo/);

h. “Bergoglio’s “church is not the Catholic Church, but that “conciliar church born of the Second Vatican Council and recently rebranded under the no less heretical name of ‘synodal church.’” If it is from this ‘church’ that I am declared separated by schism, I make it my reason for honor and boasting” (June 21, 2024, https://ift.tt/1UOaVg4 sanctuary-and-submit-me-to-a-process-farce/);

i. “These words would be enough to make one understand the gulf that separates the Catholic Church from the one that replaced it with the Second Vatican Council, when the Protestant winds finally invaded the Catholic body. (…) I wonder, then: what continuity can be given between two realities that oppose and contradict each other? Between Bergoglio’s conciliar and synodal church and the one blocked by Counter-Reformation fear” from which he ostentatiously distances himself? And from which “church” would I be in a state of schism, if the one that claims to be Catholic differs from the true Church precisely in its preaching of what that one condemned and in its condemnation of what it preached? (…) Two churches, certainly: each with its doctrines and liturgies and saints; but for the Catholic the Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, for Bergoglio the church is conciliar, ecumenical, synodal, inclusive, immigrant, eco-friendly, gay-friendly. (…) the Conciliar Hierarchy, which proclaims itself Catholic but embraces a different faith from that consistently taught for two thousand years by the Catholic Church, belongs to another entity and therefore does not represent the true Church of Christ. (…) From what do we understand that the Synod Church” and its leader Bergoglio do not profess the Catholic Faith? By the total and unconditional adherence of all its members to a multiplicity of errors and heresies already condemned by the infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church and by the ostentatious rejection of any doctrine, moral precept, act of worship and religious practice that is not sanctioned by the “golden” council. (…) The heterodox teachings conveyed by the so-called “conciliares church and the “popes of the Council” since Paul VI constitute an anomaly that seriously questions the legitimacy of their magisterial and governing authority. (…) I believe that the errors and heresies to which Bergoglio adhered before, during and after his election and the intention placed in the alleged acceptance of the Papacy render his elevation to the Throne null and void. (…) On the day when I should appear to defend myself before the

[PAGE 8]:

Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, I have decided to make public this statement of mine, to which I join a denunciation of my accusers, their “council” and their “pope.” I pray to the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, who consecrated the land of the Alma Urbe with their own blood, to intercede with the throne of the divine Majesty, so that they may obtain for the Holy Church to be finally liberated from the siege that eclipses her and from the usurpers who humiliate her, making the Domina gentium the handmaiden of the anti-heretical plan of the New World Order. (…) In order to separate myself from ecclesial communion with Jorge Mario Bergoglio, I would have to have first been in communion with him, which is not possible since Bergoglio himself cannot be considered a member of the Church, because of his multiple heresies and his manifest alienation and incompatibility with the role that he invalidly and illicitly holds. (…) Before my Confreres in the Episcopate and the entire ecclesial body, I accuse Jorge Mario Bergoglio of herest and schism, and as a heretic and schismatic I demand that he be judged and removed from the Throne he has unworthily occupied for over eleven years. This in no way contradicts the adage Prima Sedes a nemine judicatur, because it is clear that a heretic, insofar as he is unable to assume the Papacy, is not above the Prelates who judge him” (June 28, 2024, https://ift.tt/C5RBEmD).

14. Some statements by the accused confirm his rejection of the Second Vatican Council and its magisterial authority:

a. “The Council has been used to legitimize, in the silence of Authority, the most aberrant doctrinal deviations, the most daring liturgical innovations and the most unscrupulous abuses. This Council was so exalted that it was referred to as the only legitimate reference for Catholics. clerics and bishops, obscuring and connoting with a sense of contempt the doctrine that the Church had always authoritatively taught, and forbidding the perennial liturgy that for millennia had nourished the faith of an unbroken generation of faithful, martyrs and saints. Incidentally, this Council has proven to be the only one that poses so many interpretive problems and so many contradictions to the previous Magisterium, while there is not one from the Council of Jerusalem to Vatican I that does not harmonize perfectly with the entire Magisterium or that needs any interpretation” (June 9, 2020, https://ift.tt/mISkKBv);

b. “[T]he Innovators maliciously managed to put the label “Sacrosanct Ecumenical Council on b their ideological manifesto, just as, at a local level, the Jansenists who maneuvered the Synod of Pistoia had managed to cloak with authority their heretical theses, which were later condemned by Pius VI. (…) If the evidence shows that some propositions contained in the Council documents (and similarly, in the acts of Bergoglio’s magisterium) are heterodox, and if doctrine teaches us that the acts of the Magisterium do not contain error, the conclusion is not that these propositions are erroneous, but that they cannot be part of the Magisterium. Period” (September 21, 2020, https://ift.tt/yfnem45);

c. “The cancer of Vatican II confirms that it is at the origin of the Bergoglian metastasis” (26) October 2020, https://ift.tt/faGUYPz vigano-addresses-the-catholic-identity-conference-2020-francis-the-new-world-order);

d. “All of this stems from a postulate that almost everyone takes for granted: that Vatican II can claim the authority of an Ecumenical Council, before which the faithful should suspend all judgment and humbly bow their heads to the will of Christ, expressed infallibly by the Sacred Pastors, albeit in a pastoral and not dogmatic form. But this is not the case, because the Sacred Pastors can be misled by a colossal conspiracy aimed at the subversive use of a Council. (…) If, therefore, Vatican II was, as is evident, an instrument whose authority and authority was fraudulently used to impose heterodox doctrines and Protestantized rites, we can hope that sooner or later the return to the Throne of a holy and orthodox Pontiff will heal this situation by declaring it illegitimate, invalid,

[PAGE 9]:

null and void, on a par with the Council of Pistoia” (Jan. 21, 2023, https://ift.tt/YaCcBgt pro-Council/);

e. “The Council represents the ideological, theological, moral or liturgical cancer of which the Bergoglian “synodal church” is necessary metastasis. (…) I repudiate the neo-modernist errors inherent in the Second Vatican Council and in the so-called “postconciliar magisterium, particularly in matters of collegiality, ecumenism, religious freedom, the secularity of the state and liturgy” (June 20, 2024, https://ift.tt/qSYetr9 by-dicastery-for-the-doctrine-of-the-faith-to-respond-to-the-delict-of-schism-the-response-of-arcivescovo/);

f. “I make it a point of honor to be “accused” of rejecting the errors and deviations implied by the so-called Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, which I consider to be completely devoid of magisterial authority because of its heterogeneity with respect to all the true Councils of the Church, which I fully recognize and accept, as well as all the magisterial acts of the Roman Pontiffs. I firmly reject the heterodox doctrines contained in the documents of Vatican II and which have been condemned by the Popes up to Pius XII, or which contradict in any way the Catholic Magisterium” (June 28, 2024, https://ift.tt/SOkGhtf).

Defense of the public defender

15. The public defender highlighted the following issues:

a. although the objective evidence of schism is clear, subjectively the accused is not chargeable with the reserved crime. Moreover, the imposition of any censure or sanction would not serve the purposes outlined by the Supreme Lawgiver in the provisions of the CIC, nor would it benefit the salvation of Archbishop Viganò’s soul;

b. for several decades, H.E. Archbishop Viganò has enjoyed an established reputation for dedication to his work and devotion to the Successors of St. Peter. As a result of his diligence, in 2009 the defendant was appointed Secretary General of the Governorate of Vatican City and later Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America,

c. the lawyer argues that Archbishop Viganò does not habitually lack the use of reason (his intelligence is not in question). However, based on the statements of the accused, how can the Dicastery obtain the necessary moral certainty that His Excellency is fully imputable? If the imputability issues could be established despite Archbishop Viganò’s refusal to participate in his own defense, how can a canonical criminal trial overcome them to declare a decision of guilt?

d. the lawyer also points out that the latae sententiae censure of excommunication for the reserved crime of schism, if it were declared, would have no medicinal effect toward the person of His Excellency, who according to the mens rea of the Supreme Lawgiver is the basis of such canonical censure. By its very nature, a censure exists to urge a person to reconciliation with the Church. When a request for remission of censure is made and the requirements have been met, Mother Church revokes it so as to effect the healing that this measure was supposed to bring. However, Archbishop Viganò has already stated that the declaration of the censure of excommunication would be a badge of honor for him;

e. the reality is that imposing such a censure on H.E. Archbishop Viganó would be a fruitless act and would only serve to inflame an already divided public opinion,

Evaluation of the evidence and the defense

16. The assessors, after reviewing all the evidence, together with the defense of the public defender, came to the conclusion that the statements of H.E. Archbishop Viganò are more than sufficient to integrate the extremes of the crime of schism under CIC can. 751. In particular, the words and actions of the prelate highlight his rejection of submission to the Successor of Peter and his rejection of communion with the members of the Church subject to the Supreme Pontiff. At the basis

[PAGE 10]:

of the accused’s teaching, the assessors reached certainty about the rejection of the legitimacy and magisterial authority of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council as clear evidence of the Prelate’s schismatic disposition. Regarding imputability, the assessors believe that the accused cannot be presumed to be under the influence of a psychological factor that would mitigate his imputability. From the acts, one perceives a person who is mostly serene, rational, free and intentional in making his statements, and there are no well-founded indications to be able to consider him not imputable (cf. can. 1321 § 4 CIC). The assessors therefore find it necessary to declare excommunication latae sententiae.

17. Conclusions:

a. given that:

• • the evidence of the crime consists of the public statements of the prelate;
  • there is no doubt that H.E. Archbishop Viganò is the author of these statements:

➤ regarding the statements published in writing: they bear his name, surname and the bishop’s coat of arms; they are enriched by his photos; for the most part they are published on the website exsurgedomine.it, which is connected with the prelate and his activities; the prelate has never denied being the author of them;

➤ there are video recordings of his statements in which the Prelate is recognized;

• • the Prelate:

➤ presents his theses consistently, with use of reason, motivating them amply (though in the wrong way) theologically and legally,

➤ acts voluntarily: there is no evidence or clues that could confirm that the Prelate acts out of physical violence or compelled by grave fear,

➤ acts knowingly: he is not unaware that he is violating canon law, since he knows that he has been accused of the crime of schism;

➤ turns out to be Patron of the Exsurge Domine Foundation and undertakes various activities in society;

• • the prelate directly rejects attempts to seredict him regarding his mental status, and there is no medical documentation of his possible mental illness;

it does not appear that H.E. Archbishop Viganò is a person who:

• • does not habitually have the use of reason (can. 1322 CIC);
  • is without the use of reason (can. 1323, п. 6 CIC);
  • has the use of reason only imperfectly (can. 1324 § 1. n. 1 СІС);
  • acts without full imputability (can. 1324 § 1, no. 10 CIC);

b. taking into account the above, the arguments presented by the assessors and the provisions of can. 1321 § 4 CIC, i.e., “Given the external violation, imputability is presumed unless it appears otherwise.”

it clearly appears that in the present case the circumstances of schismatic conduct referred to in can. 751 C/C (refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff and refusal of communion with members of the Church subject to him) have occurred;

• • the Prelate directly, explicitly and consistently denies the legitimacy of Pope Francis, claiming that his election is invalid;
  • he does not consider himself in communion with Pope Francis and those in communion with him;
  • he believes that the Church at the head of which Pope Francis stands is not the Catholic Church; he rejects the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, believing it lacks magisterial authority;

[PAGE 11]:

c. the circumstances indicated in can. 1324 § 1, nos. 1-10 CIC have not occurred and, as a result, moral certainty is reached that the offender has incurred the penalty latae sententiae (cf. can. 1324 § 3 CIC).

DECISION

18. Having carefully considered the laws applicable to the case at hand, taking into account all the evidence and arguments in the case (can. 1720, no. 2 CIC) and referring to the arguments presented above, this Dicastery, for the public good of the People of God, declares that:

a. H.E. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò is guilty of the reserved crime of schism;

b. the offender has incurred excommunication latae sententiae ex can. 1364 § 1 CIC.

19. The removal of the censure in this case is reserved to the Apostolic See.
20. The offender is warned that, in accordance with can. 1364 § 2 CIC, if prolonged contumacy or the gravity of the scandal so requires, he may be punished with other penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.
21. Pursuant to Article 24 SS7, the cleric may interpose an Appeal against this decision to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith within the peremptory term of sixty (60) useful days from the notification of this Decree. The Appeal, for the purposes of its admissibility, must be presented with the assistance of a Patron, provided with the appropriate mandate, and clearly determine the petitum and contain the reasons in iure and in facto on which it is based.

From the Palace of the Dicastery, July 4, 2024

+ Victor Fernández

Victor M. Card. FERNÁNDEZ

Prefect

John J. Kennedy

Msgr. John J. KENNEDY

Secretary for the Disciplinary Section

Liked this post? Take a second to support Where Peter Is on Patreon!

Mike Lewis is the founding managing editor of Where Peter Is. He and Jeannie Gaffigan co-host Field Hospital, a U.S. Catholic podcast.

Adblock test (Why?)