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. XLI

President Of Dominican Republic, Danilo Medina Sanchez & Pope Francis

Chapter 41 

Student: I think that I clearly understand the assertion we are examining, although its truthfulness has not been demonstrated to me. Continue the task of offering arguments in support of it, so that I may know the theoretical foundations whereby brother M. and his followers attempt to prove that they must be defended by catholics against the supreme pontiff.

Master: Here is what appears to be a tenth possible proof in support of the examined assertion. That, the absence of which endangers both the catholic faith and human society, should be provided by catholics more for the preservation of the catholic faith than for the preservation of society, since every catholic is obligated to show a greater zeal for the faith than for human society. But in the absence of mutual defense both the catholic faith and human society are endangered. And Christians are obligated to afford each other mutual assistance for the preservation of human society, because as Truth attests in Matthew 12: "every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand". [Matthew 12:25] Thus, every society which is not united by mutual defense will not stand, and this Truth Itself seems to openly convey in the cited context when It states: "he that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad". [Matthew 12:30] One gathers from these words that he who is not with someone, providing him with defense in a way both appropriate and possible, is known to be against that someone. From which it follows that such a society will not stand. And thus one person is obligated to provide defense to another so that human society might be preserved. Therefore all the more must someone provide defense and protection to another, if he can, so that the catholic faith might be preserved. From which one concludes that defense must be provided to the opponents of a heretic pope.

Here is the eleventh reason. He who must provide assistance and counsel to another in some cause must provide the same with an appropriate defense. But a catholic must provide assistance and counsel to the opponents of a heretic pope, for otherwise he would not show himself to be an ardent devotee of the catholic faith. Therefore he must likewise provide a defense for them.

Here is the twelfth reason. Everyone is bound to defend, if possible, someone who suffers harm no matter what its nature. Therefore all the more is everyone bound to defend, if possible, someone who suffers harm because of attempted opposition to a heretic pope in defense of the catholic faith. The consequence is clear and evident, for if someone suffering harm must be defended, he is to be defended above all if he is known to be sustaining harm for the cause of justice and the catholic faith. The antecedent proposition for its part appears to be expressly proved by authorities of the holy fathers. For Pope Symachus states in dis. 83: "he is proven to have inflicted death on the seriously ill who does not prevent it when able to do so", [col. 293] and consequently he is proved to have caused the harm who does not prevent it when he can. But no one must cause a harm. Therefore everyone is obligated, if possible, to defend someone suffering harm. Again, Ambrose states in the book 'On offices' (and this is recorded in dis. 86 c. Pasce): "for whoever, for if you, might have saved a man by feeding him, you killed him if you did not provide nourishment." [col. 302] One gathers from these words that someone who does not provide bodily sustenance to another when he can is said to be killing him. Therefore in similar fashion someone is understood to be inflicting harm if he does not prevent it when he can. And thus everyone, if he can, must defend someone who suffers harm. Again, Innocent III asserts evidently in Extra, De sententia excommunicationis, c. Quante that "canonical authority condemns those who do the deed and those who consent to the deed as meriting the same punishment, and also favours counting among delinquents those who fail to act against an obvious crime when they can". [col. 909] One gathers from these words that he who can but does not defend his neighbour from impending harm is to receive a punishment equal to that of the harm's perpetrator. Thus, where possible, everyone must provide defense to someone who suffers harm.