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. XXX

Pope Francis & President Of The Republic Of Angola, Jose Eduardo dos Santos 

2 May 2014

Chapter 30

Student: These replies appear quite weak to me, but I do not want to have them discussed further at this time. Therefore state how one responds to the reasons for the contrary position.

Master: The answer to the first is that when a sentence becomes legally conclusive (unless it is suspended by an appeal), then the person who, without reasonable cause, neglected to appeal from an unjust judgement within the time frame specified by the law appears, in the eyes of the law, to be obeying the rendered sentence. But when the iniquitous sentence can in no way become legally conclusive nor acquire by any means the firmness of an established decision, the person who does not appeal from such a judgement is not understood by legal interpretation to be obeying the sentence. And this is the judgement of the pope rendered against the faith, because it can in no way become legally conclusive nor can anyone ever become obligated by such. Therefore it is not necessary to overtly appeal, and sufficient to abhor the judgement by word or deed as time and place require, without uttering the appeal formula. By this very fact someone is understood to be disagreeing with the sentence, and such a disagreement is to be accepted as the equivalent of an appeal. The answer to the second reason is that the remedy of an appeal is instituted for the protection of innocence, when innocence cannot be secured by any other method save that of an appeal. But when innocence can be made safe by a method other than the remedy of an appeal, then an appeal is plainly unnecessary, although it may sometimes be useful even if innocence can be secured in some other manner. At this time, however, the law provides for the innocence of a catholic against whom the pope were to proclaim that the Christian law is false to be protected otherwise than by the remedy of an appeal, since legally such a sentence cannot bind this catholic in any way. Therefore it is legally sufficient for a catholic not to obey such a sentence and to oppose it by word or deed without a formal appeal.

Student: What if in fact a catholic is not safe unless he appeals from such a papal sentence.

Master: In that case he is bound to appeal in order to defend the faith and his own innocence. For if other Christians would not want to defend someone condemned in this manner by the pope unless he formally appealed, it would be necessary for him to appeal, not because it was a legal obligation, but because otherwise he would in effect be unable to secure his situation. The answer to the third reason is this. If someone must make use of something, he must indeed use it for its intended purpose. But one need not use something for its intended purpose in every case and at all times. Medicine, for instance, has been instituted for the purpose of achieving health, and therefore he who must make use of it must have this purpose in mind. Yet someone should not utilize medicine at all times for the purpose of achieving health, because such constant use would frequently prevent one from achieving health and would rather cause illness. Similarly, he who must use the appeal process must use it so as to be liberated from harm or to prevent his being unreasonably harmed. But it is not necessary to always utilize the appeal remedy if someone is capable of being liberated from harm in another way. And therefore it is not absolutely necessary to appeal from the unjust sentence of a pope who proclaims the Christian faith to be false, although occasionally it would be necessary to appeal if the person harmed could not find relief in some other way.