POPE FRANCIS - A HERETIC? ON THE PUNISHMENT OF HERETICS AND ESPECIALLY OF THE POPE WHO HAS BECOME A HERETIC WILLIAM OF OCKHAM Dial. 6 CHP. XXIV

Queen & Pope

Chapter 24

Student: I understand the reasons why these theorists say that sometimes it is expedient to appeal from such a judgement, but I am in the dark as to what moves them to say that it is not absolutely necessary to appeal from such a judgement. Do give an account of the reason that influences them as to the latter view.

Master: Here is how they show that it is not absolutely necessary to appeal from such a judgement, namely by observing the form and the details, which are usually observed in appeals according to human regulations. There is no greater necessity to appeal from a judgement rendered against the law of God and the Christian faith than from a judgement rendered against human laws and canons. But it isn't necessary to appeal from a judgement rendered against human laws and canons, witness Gregory IX (we have this in Extra, De sententia et re iudicata, c. 1) who states: "a judgement rendered against the laws or canons cannot indeed be legally valid even if it is not suspended by an appeal". [col. 393] The gloss states in this context: "a judgement rendered against the laws, i.e. against constitutional order, so that this is expressed in the sentence, is invalid by law itself, and is cancelled without having recourse to an appeal". [col. 876] Therefore all the more is a judgement rendered against the catholic faith invalid by law itself, with no appeal being required. Therefore it is not absolutely necessary to appeal from a judgement rendered against the catholic faith. Here is the second argument. It is not absolutely necessary to appeal from a judgement, which cannot be legally conclusive nor is capable of achieving the firmness of a genuine adjudication. This is indeed the reason proffered in canon law (in 2 q. 6 # Diffinitiva) as to why it isn't necessary to appeal from many sentences, where we have it expounded as follows: "if the judgement was rendered against matters previously adjudicated from which no appeal was made, the judgement will not acquire authority, and therefore it isn't necessary to appeal from it". [col. 482] And further along: "if there were many judges and only one among them was seen to have made a pronouncement, it does not appear that a necessity to appeal would have existed, since the judgement would not be conclusive by law". [col. 482] One gathers from these texts that it is not necessary to appeal from a judgement that cannot be legally conclusive nor is capable of obtaining the firmness of a genuine adjudication. But a judgement rendered against the faith cannot be legally conclusive nor can it possess the authority or the firmness of a genuine adjudication. Therefore it is not necessary to appeal from such a judgement. Here is the third argument. In no case against which no prescription may run is it necessary to appeal from an unjust sentence. But no prescription may run against the faith, and a sentence rendered against the catholic faith would certainly be revoked whenever the truth became manifest, because everything which is opposed to orthodox belief is to be considered false and invalid. Therefore it is not necessary to appeal from a judgement rendered against the faith.

Here is the fourth argument. An unjust sentence rendered against the faith cannot be more privileged than a judgement rendered against matrimony. But a judgement rendered against matrimony is not privileged to the extent of making an appeal from it a matter of necessity, because even if a judgement rendered against matrimony is not appealed, it must nevertheless be revoked whenever evidence of its injustice comes to light, as we clearly gather from the sacred canons Extra, De sententia et re iudicata, c. Lator, [col. 394] and c. Consanguinei, [col. 395] and very many others. Hence the gloss to the cited chapter Lator makes this statement: "prescription does not run against matrimony (33 q. 5 Quod Deo) [col. 1251] even if there was no appeal from the judgement, because a judgement rendered against matrimony is not legally conclusive, and will be revoked whenever an error in it shall have been detected". [col. 879] Therefore all the more is it not necessary to appeal from a judgement rendered against the catholic faith. Here is the fifth argument. The cause of faith is more significant and consequently must enjoy greater privileges than the cause of matrimony or any other civil cause. But the cause of matrimony and some civil causes enjoy the privilege of it not being necessary to appeal from an unjust sentence respecting them. Therefore all the more must the cause of faith enjoy the privilege of it not being necessary to appeal from an unjust sentence against the faith.