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. XLIX

Pope Francis At Austro-Hungarian Cemetery of Fogliano di Redipuglia   

Chapter 49

Student: We have inquired of preachers and doctors whether they would be bound to reject the false doctrine of a pope. Proceed now to treat of those preachers and doctors who would condemn or persecute or harass in whatever fashion the opponents of a heretic pope.

Master: It appears to some that this question requires distinctions. There are two ways of condemning the opponents of a heretic pope. One way is by attempting to dissolve their contentions solely by authorities and arguments. Another way is by disparaging their persons or inflicting wickednesses upon them, or by arranging for them to suffer any kind of persecution, or by provoking others against them, or by distressing them in whatever fashion, directly or through others. Again, either the pope's false proposition is condemned explicitly or only implicitly. Again, if it is condemned explicitly, either those preachers and doctors who do not attack it may easily learn that the pope's proposition is condemned explicitly or they have no possibility of obtaining such information. Again, either they know that the pope is being strongly attacked concerning certain propositions by men learned in Holy Writ, or they do not know this.

Student: How can it happen that some false proposition of the pope is explicitly condemned and yet preachers and doctors cannot know this with ease.

Master: The answer is that this may happen because of the ignorance of preachers and doctors, and because of a lack of documents. Indeed there are preachers and doctors who are so simple-minded and have such minimal knowledge of and expertise in written sources, that they are ignorant of very many truths of Holy Writ, and know little or nothing about the church's determinations. And there are also many preachers and doctors who do not have easy access to copies of writings in which many catholic truths are explicitly approved, and consequently many contrary falsehoods are rejected and condemned. Just as, say these commentators, few except the Brothers Minor possess the decretal of Nicholas III in which there is explicit approval that Christ taught by word and confirmed by example the abandonment of property in all things, and thus the contradictory falsehood is explicitly condemned [Exiit qui seminat, Liber Sextus, col. 1112]. Few likewise, except the Brothers Preachers and Minors have the condemnation issued by supreme pontiffs who condemned certain Parisian masters for their negative judgement on the status of Mendicants [Alexander IV, Non sine multa (1257): cf. Ockham OP III, p. 115]. And thus many preachers and doctors do not have easy access to writings which contain the condemnation of such heresies, while some preachers and doctors are far removed from specially qualified erudites and have no opportunity of consulting them. Therefore if they are not well instructed as to written sources they cannot easily know that such heresies are explicitly condemned.

We shall discuss the enumerated examples in the second treatise "Concerning the doctrines of John XXII". Although his enemies are pursuing a wicked agenda in presenting these examples, I do understand through them how it is possible that some preachers or doctors cannot easily know about certain heresies whether they are explicitly condemned. Wherefore describe how one answers the question initially raised with the help of these distinctions.

Master: The answer involves holding five conclusions. The first of these is that preachers and doctors who attack in words alone the contentions of those who oppose a statement by a heretic pope which is not explicitly condemned, attempting to prove through arguments and authorities that the contentions of these opponents which are contrary to the statement of the heretic pope are not truthful, should not be interpreted as aiding and abetting heretical wickedness, nor are they to be reckoned by this fact alone to have committed a mortal sin. The proof of this conclusion is that theologians are entitled, without being deemed collaborators in heretical wickedness or mortals sinners, to offer contrary opinions concerning theological propositions which are not yet explicitly approved nor explicitly condemned, and to attempt to bolster their contrary opinions by arguments and authorities. Therefore even if a heretic pope and his opponents should hold contrary opinions, preachers and doctors may attempt to positively defend a statement of the pope which is in truth heretical, although they do not know this, and to reject the contrary assertion, without lapsing into collaboration with heretical wickedness and without committing a mortal sin.

Student: Two objections occur to me against this conclusion and its proof. The first of these is that if the pope's statement is not explicitly condemned, he must not be judged a heretic on its account. Therefore those who oppose the pope because of this statement, claiming that he is a heretic, are deservedly to be silenced. The second objection is directed against the stated insinuation that even though preachers and doctors were to attempt by authorities and arguments to refute the contention of those who attack the pope's heretical statement, they must not be judged to be collaborators in heretical wickedness. This indeed does not seem true. For no one can favour heretical wickedness to a greater extent than by attempting its commendation, and by demonstrating its veracity through authorities and arguments. If therefore some try to confirm by arguments and authorities that a heretical assertion of a heretical pope is true and that the contrary assertion is false, it appears that they must be viewed as collaborators in heretical wickedness.

Master: The answer to the first objection is that even if the pope's assertion is not explicitly condemned, it is permissible in a particular situation to contend and to hold that the pope is a heretic. The following clarification is stated as evidence for this point. If the pope's assertion is not explicitly condemned, then either the pope holds it as a mere opinion (and it is then permitted to those who know in truth that the assertion is heretical to contend that it is so, but they are not permitted to state or to contend that the pope is a heretic - because of the fact that the pope only utters this assertion as an opinion he is not to be reckoned a heretic), or else the pope holds such a heresy (which is not explicitly condemned) not as an opinion but as a pertinacious assertion. Such pertinacity, and Book Four of our treatise makes this clear [1 Dial. 4, passim], may be discovered in many ways, and in that case Catholics who know that the pope is pertinaciously asserting and holding a heresy which is only condemned implicitly are allowed not merely to claim that the pope's assertion is heretical, but are allowed to believe that the pope himself is a heretic. However it would be dangerous for them to proclaim this publicly because they might not, perhaps, be able to prove it, and perhaps they ought not to publicly claim this outside of a general council and in the absence of a catholic pope, even if it were true.

The answer to the second objection is that in order to be an abettor of a heresy which is not explicitly condemned it is not sufficient that someone attempt to fortify it with arguments and authorities, but there is a wider requirement that he attempt to bolster or otherwise fortify such heresy with arguments and authorities in a pertinacious and wicked manner. Similarly, in order for heretical wickedness to exist it is not sufficient that someone should erroneously support heresy, but it is required that he support it pertinaciously.

Student: Disclose the other conclusions which are held by the opinion under review.

Master: The second conclusion is that preachers and doctors who attack thinkers opposing the pope's erroneous doctrine because of a statement not explicitly condemned, and attack them not just by arguments and authorities, but also by disparaging their persons and inflicting wickednesses upon them, or by provoking others against them, or by distressing them in whatever fashion, personally or through others, sin mortally and are collaborators in heretical wickedness. For he who causes notable harm to another on account of a good and lawful action, sins mortally, and is a collaborator in heretical wickedness if he causes harm to another because of the latter's lawful opposition to heretical wickedness. But to oppose a heretical assertion of the pope is a good and lawful thing even if that assertion is not explicitly condemned. Therefore preachers and doctors who cause notable harm to opponents because of such opposition sin mortally and are collaborators in heretical wickedness. And this is what they do who disparage the opponents, and inflict wickednesses and indignities upon them, and who provoke others against them, or distress them personally or through others. Therefore they sin mortally and are collaborators in heretical wickedness.

The third conclusion is that those preachers and doctors who attack thinkers opposing the pope because of a statement explicitly condemned, do not sin mortally and should not be considered collaborators of heretical wickedness if they merely attempt to fortify the pope's statement by arguments and authorities and only try to refute the contrary statement by arguments and authorities, and also if they cannot easily know that the pope's assertion is explicitly condemned - either due to their lack of expertise in understanding original documents, or because they don't possess the relevant texts, or because of any other reason whatsoever which explains their being unaware that the pope is being attacked for heresy. For as long as there is no added pertinacity on his part someone may, without committing a mortal sin, emit an opinion which negates even an explicitly approved catholic assertion, and hold as an opinion the contrary, explicitly condemned, heretical assertion. If for instance someone having a memory lapse about events described in the Book of Kings were to say without pertinacity and confirm with a few arguments that David did not simultaneously have many wives [2 Samuel 2:2], he would neither sin mortally nor be a collaborator in heretical wickedness. Similarly there are some who say that if those who have never seen the decretal of Nicholas III called Exiit qui seminat were to emit the opinion that Christ had property in some thing, and carefully confirmed their opinion by authorities and reasons, even were they to do this in imitation of a heretic pope's statement to the same effect, they would not sin mortally if they could not easily obtain this decretal Exiit, or did not know that the pope was being attacked by men highly learned in Holy Writ for having made the aforementioned declaration. For someone may unknowingly utter as an opinion a heresy which is explicitly condemned, without mortal sin and collaboration in heretical wicked ness, so long as pertinacity is in no way conjoined to his opinion.

The fourth conclusion is that preachers and doctors sin mortally, and are not innocent of collaboration in heretical wickedness, who attack or condemn thinkers opposing a heretic pope because of an explicitly condemned heretical assertion, which the preachers and doctors may easily learn to be explicitly condemned and on account of which they know the pope is being attacked for heresy. For they should have such zeal for the catholic faith, which they are bound to rank above the honour and favour of any mortal, that when they receive news that the pope has erred against the catholic faith on a certain issue, if they intend to become involved in the issue of his assertion either in a supportive or in a critical role, they must not neglect to scrupulously inquire whether the pope's assertion has been condemned. And thus, if they can easily learn that his assertion is explicitly condemned or the contrary truth explicitly approved, in no way would they be excused from mortal sin and collaboration in heretical wickedness if they presume to attack those who oppose the erroneous assertion of the pope.

The fifth conclusion is that preachers and doctors who because of the latter's opposition persecute opponents of a heretic pope's false and explicitly condemned doctrine by disparaging them or by inflicting wickednesses or indignities upon them, or by provoking others against them, or by distressing them in whatever fashion, directly or through others, sin mortally and are to be considered collaborators in heretical wickedness, whether they know or not that the pope's erroneous doctrine is explicitly condemned. And those who know that the doctrine of the pope is erroneous sin more grievously than those who do not know this.

Student: Why may the ignorant not be excused by their ignorance.

Master: The answer is that ignorance of a law which one is obligated to know is no excuse. And everyone is bound to know this: that those who are in opposition to a given doctrine because it is presumed by them to be erroneous must in no way be distressed unless it is quite certain that they are opposing this doctrine in error or without regard for equity. Therefore, since it is not possible to be certain, given that the pope's doctrine is false, that those who oppose it are by that fact alone attacking it wrongly or immorally (because their opposition is lawful), they are not to be in any way distressed on account of such opposition.