Priest excommunicated for saying Pope Francis is not the Pope but a usurper

• December 31, 2023: Father Ramon Guidetti said: “Papa Francesco non è il Papa ma un usurpatore” (Pope Francis is not the Pope but a usurper).
• A few hours later, January 1, 2024: Bishop Simone Giusti declares the excommunication of Father Ramon.

Here’s the original and a translation of the decree of excommunication:

• “Cari confratelli, cari fedeli, si comunica che Don Ramon Guidetti, Presbitero della Diocesi di Livorno e Parroco della Parrocchia di San Ranieri in Guasticce, in data 31 dicembre 2023, durante la Celebrazione eucaristica, ha pubblicamente compiuto un atto di natura scismatica, rifiutando la sottomissione al Sommo Pontefice e la comunione con i membri della Chiesa a lui soggetti (can. 751 Cic) – si legge nell’atto della Diocesi – Mons. Simone Giusti, Vescovo della Diocesi di Livorno, in data odierna 1 gennai 2024, ha emesso un Decreto (Prot. N. 1/24/VD), con il quale, a norma del can. 1364 § 1 del Codex Iuris Canonici, dichiara che Don Ramon Guidetti è incorso ipso facto nella scomunica latae sententiae. Il suddetto sacerdote è, dalla data odierna, sospeso a divinis e rimosso dall’ufficio di Parroco della Parrocchia di San Ranieri in Guasticce, a norma dei cann. 1333 § 1 e 1336 § 1 del Codex Iuris Canonici. Si ammoniscono i sacerdoti e i fedeli a non partecipare a eventuali sue celebrazioni o ad altre pratiche di culto, perché essi incorrerebbero ipso facto nella gravissima pena della scomunica”.
• “Dear brothers, dear faithful, we inform you that Don Ramon Guidetti, Priest of the Diocese of Livorno and Parish Priest of the Parish of San Ranieri in Guasticce, on 31 December 2023, during the Eucharistic celebration, publicly committed an act of a schismatic nature, refusing submission to the Supreme Pontiff and communion with the members of the Church subject to him (CIC canon 751) – we read in the act of the Diocese – Monsignor Simone Giusti, Bishop of the Diocese of Livorno, today 1 January 2024, has issued a Decree (Prot. N. 1/24/VD), with which, in accordance with canon 1364 § 1 of the Codex Iuris Canonici, declares that Don Ramon Guidetti has ipso facto incurred latae sententiae excommunication. The aforementioned priest is , as of today, suspended a divinis and removed from the office of Parish Priest of the Parish of San Ranieri in Guasticce, in accordance with canons 1333 § 1 and 1336 § 1 of the Codex Iuris Canonici. Priests and faithful are warned not to participate in any of his celebrations or other provisions of the sacraments, because they would ipso facto incur the most grave penalty of excommunication.”

I’m not a canon lawyer and I’ve not studied processes and the application of penal law. The bishop claims that what Father Ramon said automatically brought him into a state of excommunication. The bishop declares this to be established fact, an act which causes Father Roman to be subject to said penalties.

By the way, as a matter of pastoral solicitude, the bishop would have done well to include the fact that if someone is in danger of death, Father Ramon would laudably, piously, validly, legitimately proffer the Last Rites to those who are in any way in danger of death, even if a priest in good standing is present. Did he do this, you know, in extended documentation? I don’t know. I’m not there.

We just don’t know the context of “usurper,” and, sorry, recordings of homilies by the malicious can easily be edited in minutes to take out exculpatory context before rushing to hand it to the bishop. I’m not there, but all this begs the question as to whether the bishop had time overnight to conduct interviews with this priest to see what he actually meant.

Did the priest misspeak? Does the reference to “usurper” really just mean that he disagrees, say, I don’t know, with Pachamama, with blessings of same-sex couples, with the Hegelian dialectic used for the Synod on Synodality such that Sacred Revelation is replaced with the democratic vote of a fallen humanity, etc.?

And when he said that Francis is not the Pope, where was the accent on that word, you know, in Italian? Was it papa (pope) or papà (daddy). Pretty subtle, that, but that’s quite the difference between the office of the Successor of Peter one the one hand, and, on the other hand, simply the type of fatherly governance that is to be expected from any father in the family of faith. I don’t know. I wasn’t there. Neither was the bishop. Was the recording clear? Was Father coughing? That little accent on one vowel is the difference between a priest in good standing and excommunication. Maybe we should slow down.

But, who knows, maybe the bishop sequestered the priest, dragged him into an interrogation dungeon, tortured a Confession out of him. Or not. But it seems from the surprise of the priest upon learning this information that there were no conversations, no warnings, no documentation of warnings in the archives. Or are there? So, I don’t know how legit this is in canon law.

Also, that might not make much difference for other bishops and priests around the world. It was done, whatever it is, and what it means is that any priest can be sacked for any or no reason at the whim of the bishop with no due process, n’est-ce pas?