POPE FRANCIS - A HERETIC? ON THE PUNISHMENT OF HERETICS AND ESPECIALLY OF THE POPE WHO HAS BECOME A HERETIC WILLIAM OF OCKHAM Dial. 7 CHP. XLVIII

Pope Francis & Diego Maradona

Chapter 48

Student: The authorities just outlined clearly demonstrate to me that a single Catholic is capable of confidently waging war against a heretic pope and all his minions, nor should he in any way despair of victory. But if some future pope ever becomes a heretic I am uncertain whether the following statement of our Saviour might be uttered about the multitude of Christians: "nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"[Luke 18:8], because I fear that very few Christians will resist the heretic pope. Indeed I think that at that time will be fulfilled the prophecy of blessed Paul who states in 2 Timothy 4: "for the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables"{2 Timothy 4:3-4]. Because it is particularly the host of ambitious and greedy masters which will follow the fables and errors of a heretic pope. I pray therefore that you will reveal by reference to the opinion of some, what ought to be done by those few learned persons (whether they be masters or students) should the pope become a heretic, and what would all preachers and doctors have to do if they all supported the truth of faith.

Master: Here is the answer. If the pope were defamed of spreading erroneous doctrine, all preachers and doctors or lecturers or masters, indeed even all the learned to the extent that this would apply to anyone's intellect and knowledge, would have the duty to see, to study, to examine and to discuss the pope's false theory, following the example of those about whom it is said in Acts 17 that they "searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so" [Acts 17:11].

Student: This is said of those who search for the truth daily, not of those who scrutinize false doctrines.

Master: One replies that it pertains to the same persons to scrutinize truth and errors contrary thereto, as witnesses Solomon who states in Ecclesiastes 1: "and I gave my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly"[Ecclesiastes 1:17]. From these words one gathers that errors against the faith are to be investigated and discussed as much as catholic truths, because, as the Wise One attests: "the same one is judge of the direct and of the slanted"[Aristotle, De anima, I, 5. Cf. also J. Hamesse, Les Auctoritates Aristotelis, Louvain-Paris 1974, p. 176], and: "the science of contraries is one and the same"[Aristotle, Physica VIII, I, 8 (and Ockham, OPh VI, p. 119). Cf. also J. Hamesse, op. cit., pp. 134, 183]. It is therefore proper for preachers and doctors to examine, to study, and to scrupulously discuss the errors of a heretical pope, because by proceeding in this manner they will arrive at many truths which they previously did not know, witness the gloss borrowed from a comment on 1 Corinthians 11 by Augustine, who states: "a problem raised by an opponent became a learning opportunity"[De Civitate Dei (The City of God), XVI, 2].

Student: What will they do after having scrupulously examined the erroneous doctrine of the pope.

Master: The answer is that they must provide themselves with as many arguments and scriptural attestations against it as they possibly can, and those amongst them who have been blessed with literary talents will write and compose books, treatises, sermons, and letters, whatever seems expedient, in order to condemn the pope's erroneous doctrine. And of course they will communicate and publish their works by whatever means are possible to them, concealing or revealing their names as expediency dictates. For certain works are looked at with greater pleasure because of their author, and in that case it will be useful to state the author's name expressly. In some instances however many feel hatred towards the author, and in that situation it is expedient to conceal the author's name from them, so that enemies concentrate not on who is speaking but on what is being said [Seneca, De quattuor virtutibus cardinalibus, in J. Hamesse, op. cit., p. 282 n.8. This doctrine was posited as the basis of Ockham's method in the Dialogus: cf. 1 Dial. Prologus]. As for those who have little talent for composing books, treatises and other works, let them earnestly engross themselves in authentic scriptures and also in the new works which analyze the pope's false doctrine more systematically, so that when the opportune time will come they might be able to condemn effectively the pope's errors. Hence those preachers and doctors who will have composed new works against the wickedness of a heretic pope and their less creative colleagues both have the duty, as far as their talents allow, to effectively condemn the pope's errors and to declare the contrary truth, impressing it on all listeners as much as they can, in public lectures and sermons, in secret conversations also, whenever there might be an opportunity to speak. Hence, so as to disclose their view in one brief sentence, these commentators would say that, following the custom of fighters attempting to defeat their enemies directly, or by ambushes and all conceivably permissible methods, preachers and doctors or masters must destroy the treachery of a heretic pope directly or by ambushes, publicly as well as secretly, by methods they find convenient, nor are they otherwise free of the sin of aiding and abetting heretical wickedness, because "suspicion of involvement in secret conspiracy is not out of place where someone who can, fails to act against an obvious crime"(Extra, De homicidio, Sicut)[col. 795]. This is to be understood of a situation where someone can prevent an obvious crime and it is not immediately apparent that someone else can prevent the obvious crime.

And therefore if a heretic pope were labouring to corrupt true believers, the doctors and preachers of regions where the pope's noxious doctrine had just arrived would have the duty to courageously stand against it. Lest the inhabitants of those regions be alienated from the faith, nor in this case would the doctors and preachers be free of suspicion of involvement in secret conspiracy unless they opposed the pope's false doctrine, if there were no others in those regions who might know how, and be willing and able, to resist the pope's false doctrine. And so preachers and doctors residing in France are bound to condemn the erroneous doctrine of the pope before that doctrine begins to spread in France, or there is probable doubt that it might corrupt some in France unless it is firmly opposed. Likewise, the preachers and doctors of Italy must preserve Italy from the same deadly doctrine, or try to purify the land should Italy have become infected in one of its parts. And the same must be said concerning preachers and doctors who reside in other regions. If however there are some preachers and doctors or masters in France or in another region who sufficiently protect or purify that region from the stated doctrine, the other preachers and doctors or masters of that region are not bound to oppose that doctrine by necessity of salvation, since there is adequate resistance to it by others. But where the others were to fail, then these preachers and doctors would be bound to stand as a stone wall protecting the catholic faith against a heretic pope, otherwise they would lapse into the sin of aiding and abetting heretical wickedness, as implied by the authority posited earlier ("suspicion of involvement in secret conspiracy etc.")

Student: It appears that this authority and similar ones must not be understood of all and sundry, but only of those who have power over others. Preachers and doctors are not in this category unless they happen to be prelates.

Master: Some say that here you are clearly wrong, because this authority and similar ones must be understood as applying not only to prelates but also to associates and subjects. This may be evidently proved, to begin with, by the decretal Extra, De homicidio, Sicut, which was used in argument earlier. Indeed the author of this decretal, namely Alexander III, speaks of the killers of blessed Thomas of Canterbury and of those who collaborated in this crime with varying degrees of culpability. And concerning some of these collaborators Alexander states the following words: "and those also must receive a slightly lesser punishment who were there not to carry out the deed, but to assist the killers should they perhaps have been impeded by the force of others; for, as Scripture says, 'he who can free a man from death and does not, slays him' [echo of Proverbs 24:11]. It stands that those who came to assist the killers against others are not free from the guilt of homicide, nor is suspicion of involvement in secret conspiracy out of place when someone who can, fails to act against an obvious crime"[col. 795]. We gather from these words that Alexander III is in effect attempting to prove twice over that those who came to assist the killers are not free from the guilt of homicide. First by this text: 'he who can free a man etc.', and then by this one: 'nor is suspicion of involvement etc.' Therefore each of these statements, namely 'he who can free a man etc.', and 'nor is suspicion of involvement etc.' must be understood of those who came to assist the killers. But these were neither the prelates of the killers nor the superiors of the soldiers who were the killers: they were their associates, or attendants, or servants. Therefore such authorities as 'he who can free a man etc.', 'nor is suspicion of involvement etc.' and similar ones must be understood not only of prelates and superiors and of such as have power over others, but of all and sundry. This is true in time of necessity, when a specific someone willing and able to free a neighbour from danger is not readily available.

And that such authorities as 'he who can etc.' and 'nor is suspicion of involvement in secret conspiracy etc.' must be understood of associates and of all others is secondly proved thus. A given associate and subject or prelate is no less bound to support a neighbour's spiritual necessity than his physical necessity. But anyone, at a critical moment, when no one else is available to support a neighbour, is bound to provide charitable physical assistance to the neighbour if he can. Therefore all the more is any subject, associate, and prelate, bound to provide charitable assistance of a spiritual kind to a neighbour in time of necessity, if he can do this conveniently, when no one else is there to provide such support. But these actions-preventing an obvious crime when one can do this conveniently, protecting a neighbour lest he be corrupted by the false doctrine of a heretic pope, purifying through sermons, informations, exhortations and catholic writings a region infected in whole or in part by the pope's false doctrine-and similar ones, are to be assessed works of spiritual charity. Therefore in time of necessity any person, whether a subject or an associate, who may conveniently perform such works, is bound by necessity of salvation to provide them to his neighbours, when there are none (prelates or others) willing or able to do so. We gather from these considerations that if preachers and doctors or masters are able, either through public sermons and lectures or by secret communications, to dissuade some or someone from accepting a pope's false doctrine, their failure to do so when there is no one else available for the task makes them aiders and abettors of heretical wickedness, nor are they free from the suspicion of secret conspiracy since they can prevent an obvious crime and do not (there is no one else willing and able).

Student: What if they fail to prevent such a crime for fear of being killed.

Master: It appears to some that if these preachers and doctors were to hold a probable belief that they might dissuade a number of people from accepting the pope's false doctrine, and if these preachers and doctors do not surmise with probability that by remaining alive they might reap a larger harvest at another time, they would commit a mortal sin by avoiding for fear of death to dissuade others from accepting the pope's false doctrine. Nevertheless fear of death would excuse them to this extent that they would not incur a sentence of excommunication. Similarly, if someone living among Moslems and other non-believers were to deny Christ for fear of dying, and offer homage to Mohammed, he would commit a mortal sin but escape a sentence of excommunication.