On “selective obedience” to authentic Magisterium: a necessary canonical and theological clarification. Open letter in response to recent statements by Bishop Athanasius Schneider

Dear Valli,

I read with attention on your blog the commentary by the director of LifeSiteNews, John‑Henry Westen, regarding the interview granted by His Excellency Bishop Athanasius Schneider to the journalist Robert Moynihan. The words of the auxiliary bishop of Astana raise questions of capital importance for the life of the Church and risk, if not properly framed, generating a grave scandal and deep confusion among the people of God. With filial respect for the episcopal office, but with equal firmness out of love for the truth, I consider it my duty to offer a canonical and theological clarification of what Bishop Schneider has stated.

He reveals that several bishops, in private—and he himself publicly—refuse the religious assent of intellect and will to certain teachings of the authentic Magisterium of Pope Francis, while formally recognizing him as the legitimate Pontiff. This is a position which, although presenting itself as a defense of orthodoxy, undermines the very foundations of the divine constitution of the Church and the very essence of the Petrine Primacy.

The Code of Canon Law, in canon 752, establishes: “Not an assent of faith, but a religious submission of intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops declares concerning faith or morals, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by a definitive act; the faithful must therefore take care to avoid whatever does not accord with this doctrine.” This canon is the heart of the problem. It does not concern dogmas (for which the assent of faith is required according to can. 750), but the authentic non‑infallible Magisterium. Canon 752 requires an interior act, a filial submission that recognizes in the pope a guide assisted by the Holy Spirit. To affirm, as Bishop Schneider does, “I cannot submit my intellect and my will” to acts such as Amoris laetitia or Fiducia supplicans means publicly declaring the violation of canon 752. The result is a “schizophrenic” obedience: authority is recognized in words, but denied in practice. The Roman Pontiff is thus reduced to a primus inter pares whose teachings are subjected to the “free examination” of each bishop. This is not a Catholic position.

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.” The bishops who, “in private,” refuse submission live in a state of interior schism. Bishop Schneider, by declaring it publicly, renders his act materially schismatic and manifest. We are faced with an unacceptable paradox: the one who, on the basis of a dubium iuris regarding the validity of Benedict XVI’s renunciation, arrives at the logical conclusion that he cannot recognize the authority of the successor, is accused of schism. The one who, on the contrary, claims to recognize that authority but publicly refuses the submission owed to it, is acclaimed as a “defender of the Faith.” Why is the one who doubts the legitimacy of the authority considered schismatic, and not the one who recognizes its legitimacy but feels authorized to disobey it systematically?

Bishop Schneider also contests the conciliar text of Lumen gentium 16, where it is affirmed that Muslims “together with us adore the one God.” His Excellency maintains that he cannot accept this idea, on the grounds that the worship of Muslims is only “natural” and substantially different from that of Christians. It is true that the manner of worship of Muslims and that of Christians are substantially different; Bishop Schneider’s misunderstanding lies in the interpretation he gives to LG16. A rigorous theological analysis demonstrates that the conciliar passage is in full continuity with the doctrine of the Church since its origins.

Sacred Scripture: Saint Paul, speaking at the Areopagus (Acts 17:22–23), acknowledges that the pagans worship the “unknown God.” Paul does not say they worship a demon, but that they worship without knowing the One he proclaims.

The tradition of the Fathers: the doctrine of the Logos Spermatikòs (from Saint Justin and then constantly taken up thereafter) teaches that every truth found in other religions is a “seed” of the Word.

The Magisterium of the popes: Pope Gregory VII (1076), writing to the Muslim prince Anzir, affirmed nearly a thousand years before Vatican II: “We and you… believe and confess one God, although in a different manner.”

Saint Thomas Aquinas: he distinguishes between the object of faith (God) and the articles of faith. He admits an “implicit” faith in the one God and in His Providence (Summa Th., II‑II, q. 2, a. 7).

Lumen gentium 16 does not affirm that Islam is a parallel revelation, nor that Muslims are “saved by their religion.” It says that they are “ordered” to the people of God and that their monotheism is an “evangelical preparation.” The text concludes by recalling that many, deceived by the Evil One, exchange the truth for falsehood; for this reason the Church urgently supports the missions according to the evangelical warning: “Preach the Gospel to every creature” (Mk 16:15). Bishop Schneider sees a false opposition where, on the contrary, the Council recognizes an objective point of convergence (monotheism) without canceling the essential difference (Trinitarian faith, Revelation, and Catholic doctrine). To reject this point is an act of grave theological rashness.

Ultimately, the various statements of Bishop Schneider in the interview of February 26 propagate a dangerous principle of dissolution: obedience to Peter conditioned by one’s own private judgment. This creates a “church within the Church,” a parallel Magisterium where each faithful person becomes the arbiter of truth.

What, then, would be the right attitude?

If a Catholic perceives that the ordinary Magisterium of recent years is in contradiction with Tradition, he cannot resolve the problem through systematic disobedience while recognizing papal authority. Since the Magisterium of the Church cannot contradict itself, it is necessary to examine with courage and rigor the root of the problem: the legitimacy of the election of Francis. It is necessary to seriously question the validity of the act of renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI. Only by confronting the doubt about the legitimacy of the authority (which Westen himself has now re‑evaluated in his open letter of February 23 to Cardinal Sarah and with the petition subtitled: “Are Francis and Leo antipopes?”, addressed to Cardinals Burke and Sarah so that they may correct the errors of Francis and Leo XIV) can one emerge from the current theological impasse without falling into the anti‑Catholic error of recognizing a pope and then treating him as if he were not.

In Domino,
Fr. Giorgio Maria Faré