A Clarification Concerning the Position and Methods of Unam Sanctam

Dear reader,

On the feast of St Catherine of Sienna, April 30th, 2026, there are some things we would like to clarify about the Unam Sanctam project, following messages we have received since the website has been published. Whilst we are trying to provide our best efforts, misunderstandings necessarily happen. Yet, we will endeavour to address those quickly and consistently.

We would therefore like to clarify four questions about the project:

a) Is Unam Sanctam convoking an Imperfect General Council?

b) Does Unam Sanctam accuse its opponents of being heretics or schismatics?

c) Why do we keep the names of clergy confidential?

d) What are our criteria for accepting the names of clergy members?

---

Is Unam Sanctam convoking an Imperfect General Council?

Our website frequently mentions an Imperfect General Council (IGC), mixed-up with the idea of meetings to be held prior to the IGC. Right now, the meetings or “pre-meetings” are our focus, whereas the IGC is our proposed solution to the crisis that we publicly declare and support.

The idea of the meetings is to call together any clergy – especially bishops – to discuss the crisis the Church faces nowadays and see if a solution could be found: namely, the lack of a legitimate head and how to provide for one, whether or not they agree with the idea of an Imperfect General Council as a potential solution.

Each side agrees that there is a very serious problem that needs a solution. But each side posits a different path, none of which truly represents, in our opinion, a solution compatible with the nature of the Church: some say that we should wait for the conversion of the post-conciliar hierarchy; others that we should remain in communion with them even though they preach serious doctrinal errors; others that we should wait for divine power alone without the cooperation of human action. The IGC is a solution that is proposed by Unam Sanctam and which has the merit of being compatible with the nature of the Church, both requesting divine help and human work: that is the path forward we present, which is why we call for support of it.

However, we also know two things:

• Firstly, that it is important for us to hear the arguments of the other sides. If anyone is able to show us that there are some flaws in the argument we present, it will be important to correct ourselves.

• Secondly, that if we are to proceed with an IGC, this should be done with the cooperation of as many clergy as possible. This is what we say when we invoke moral unanimity. Moral unanimity is a well-accepted term in theology, which means that while a perfect unanimity is not achieved, the great majority of a determined body does agree with something. Thus, Unam Sanctam is determined to wait until such a moral unanimity is achieved before any convocation of an IGC happens.

Both of these lead to the conclusion that the remaining clergy should at least meet to discuss the possibility; to discuss the crisis in general, and to discuss the best path forward. This includes any clergy who vehemently disagree with our proposed solution, who think that the IGC is impossible either in practice or in principle. We invite such clergy to join the meetings and present their reasons for this conclusion so that we can discuss these issues in the spirit of truth and fraternal charity for the good of the Church. One thing we hope that we can all agree on is that these matters are worth discussing.

Does Unam Sanctam accuse its opponents of being heretics or schismatics?

The Unam Sanctam association has not claimed and does not have the intention to claim those who oppose the Unam Sanctam project towards the convocation of an Imperfect General Council to be heretical or schismatic in principle.

The purpose of the association is mostly at this point to convince the clergy to come together and study the legitimacy of a formal gathering of all clergy having kept the true Faith to bring a remedy to the present situation of the Church.

We ask people to refrain both from attributing to us things we have not said and to look for ways to attribute this course of action to Unam Sanctam. Given the difficulty of the subject, voices will be heard claiming this, but they do not represent Unam Sanctam. Nor can Unam Sanctam control or take responsibility for all that is said by our supporters.

We understand that there are clergy and laity opposed to the project on one side and clergy and laity in favor of it. Let the will of God be done. Unam Sanctam made it very clear that it would look at the coming together of the clergy around the project as a sign that it must go forward. There is no intention to go forward with the project without this condition. Let the discussions happen around theology and not around the purported intentions of those who support Unam Sanctam.

But one might say: if you end up electing a Sovereign Pontiff, will not others who do not adhere to him be regarded as schismatics? Our answer to this is that if the Church elects a true Sovereign Pontiff, yes, indeed, those who refuse Him would become schismatics. But, as you can understand, the whole question is: Who adequately represents the Church today? This question will have to be among the priority of the pre-meetings. If the Church, being adequately represented, brings about a solution to the present situation of the papacy and elects a pope, he will be a true pope. The Church will have elected him. If that happens, we have good news for all: it is always possible to leave schism by adhering to the Sovereign Pontiff.

Why do we keep the names of clergy confidential?

Many would like to see the names of the clergy who have signed up in support of an IGC revealed (as of today, 10 Bishops, 45 Priests, and 66 Religious).

However, it is a simple fact of human nature that many would be discouraged from supporting the IGC if they knew that their names would become public upon signing. Some who sign up in support of an IGC might be doing so at odds with their associates or organisations, feeling that their signatures might cause turmoil, whether or not their superior has given his support, for example.

Another reason for keeping names secret is that we want to avoid ad hominem attacks on the project. We want everyone to consider things in conscience, independently of the fact that this or that man they dislike or distrust has given his support to the project. In today’s crisis, few remain focused on the heart of problems and many make it a matter of personal defects or mistake of this or that clergy member.

As for the Faithful who would like to see the authority of this or that Bishop before signing the Open Letter, we think that there is no need for you to know the names of everyone involved, but rather, if this is necessary for your decision making, we encourage you to approach trusted clergy members on the matter.

If the convocation of an IGC ever happens, any attendees would become public but this would only occur at a point when the number of supporters is large enough, and general support appears universal enough, that the members stand as a body. As for the pre-meetings, if they happen, nothing has been determined on the matter of anonymity and, in any case, the permission of those clergy members would have to be requested before divulging their names.

Therefore, we keep the names of clergy private in the meantime to assure them that they can give support if they feel inclined to do so. Some clergy members have chosen to speak openly in support of the IGC, or at least in support of the pre-meetings. We thank them for doing so. Their public support removes some of the anonymity surrounding the project.

[One disclaimer: some have pointed out that bots or spammers can create fake accounts as clergy and inflate the numbers, showing a weakness in our signing-up process. This is not the case. Whereas the number of lay people signing the Open Letter increases automatically, the number of clergy members does not. Signatures of lay people are verified and signatures of clergy members undergo a more thorough scrutiny before being added manually.]

What are our criteria for accepting the names of clergy members?

Unam Sanctam has no authority to decide the status of clergy members in the Church today. Some members might end up being excluded by the gathering of Bishops for their lack of this or that prerequisite condition. Unam Sanctam receives the names of all those clergy members who want to support the project and show the intention to submit to the Catholic Faith and its consequences. Those signatories only are rejected who clearly belong to a non-Catholic organization, that is to a group openly professing errors against the Faith, especially errors that were condemned prior to Vatican II. Any judgment beyond these we must leave to the pre-meetings and ultimately the future Council to decide.

The question of the Novus Ordo is a bit delicate as there are some within it who clearly profess the errors of Vatican II, and others who reject them, while having not yet clearly separated from the Novus Ordo. But since the Imperfect General Council’s intention is precisely to deal with the problems having arisen since Vatican II, those affected by it who demonstrate their understanding that there are major problems within the Novus Ordo system, are to be tolerated until the consequences of the Catholic Faith are clearly exposed by an Imperfect General Council. This is the position we adopted in receiving names of clergy members.

---

Thank you all for your time, patience, and support. Do not hesitate to share this clarification so that our position can be known more clearly and be represented fairly.

May God be with you all and please pray that His Will be done.