CWN can't get it quite right in regards to the "schismatic" SSPX. Perhaps they should pay more attention to the Cardinal quoted.
----
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1105698/posts?page=15
March 13, 2004 - Cardinal Hoyos:
The Cardinal repeated that they dropped any idea to give us a proper jurisdiction. He mentioned that such a proper jurisdiction had only been granted to the Fraternity of St John Vianney at Campos, as the founder of that Fraternity, Bishop de Castro Mayer, had gone much farther than Archbishop Lefebvre. The Cardinal underlined that Archbishop Lefebvre had never founded a proper structure of his fraternity that could be considered as a concrete act of schism.
Pinging a few people off the top of my head for the latest comments from Rome.
As for whether or not the SSPX and/or the Campos priests are/were in schism, it appears that from both interviews (although the previous report was written by Una Voce's International President and was never meant for public consumption, so perhaps was not held to the same level of journalistic standards that a published report like today's is)that Cardinal Hoyos, and thus the Vatican's position, is that both SSPX and Campos were in irregular canonical positions (Campos is now reconciled), but not NECESSARILY schismatic. The bishops, however, are excommunicated. But a formal schism may or may not exist depending upon the predisposition of each bishop and priest in SSPX. The same would apply for the laity.