WHETHER ALL BELIEVERS, AND SIMILARLY ALL ABETTORS, AND ALL DEFENDERS, AND ALL RECEIVERS OF A HERETIC POPE AND OF OTHER HERETICS, ARE TO BE JUDGED EQUALLY REPREHENSIBLE.- WILLIAM OF OCKHAM Dial. 7 CHP. LXIX

Pope Francis Addresses The Catholic Fraternity of the Charismatic Renewal

Chapter 69

Student: After this specific investigation concerning believers, abettors, defenders, and receivers of heretics, brief though it was due to the abundance of the material, I ask that you examine by reference to some opinion, but without major probative arguments so as to avoid unwelcome length in the presentation, whether all believers, and similarly all abettors, and all defenders, and all receivers of a heretic pope and of other heretics, are to be judged equally reprehensible.

Master: The answer is that there are two ways of understanding that some are to be judged as more, or less, or equally reprehensible, namely, by reference to divine judgement, and by reference to human judgement. According to divine judgement, they are to be judged more reprehensible who sin in one of the mentioned situations with greater contempt of God or with greater negligence. However, this is known only to God.

Student: I did not intend to inquire about any save those who would be judged reprehensible according to human judgement, and furthermore, not in some absolute fashion, but by reference to specific circumstances and events. For I don't want involved (and according to some, fantastic) questions to be analyzed in this work.

Master: Focusing on your intention, one responds that there are a few thinkers who say that, according to human judgement, of those who believe heretics and heretical wickedness, the learned sin more seriously than the unlearned, because the learned, other things being equal, may come to know the truth more easily. Again: among the learned, other things being equal, the theologians sin more seriously than do the others, and among the theologians, they sin more seriously who were more comprehensively educated in the contrary truth. For if some pope, or someone else, were to officially teach and attempt to assert the errors of certain Parisian masters condemned by supreme pontiffs, masters who had erroneously criticized the status of mendicants, namely that of the Preachers [Dominicans] and of the Minors [Franciscans], it is these very Preachers and Minors who would be known to have committed the more serious offence among all the believers of such errors of the pope or of someone else. For to the extent that someone has or is in a position to have a greater knowledge of some truth, to that extent does he commit a more serious sin if he denies that truth. Therefore, since it pertains most specifically to Preachers and to Minors to know the truth of their status, and since they were more intensely educated than others in the knowledge of their status, if, desiring to please the pope or for some other reason, they believe the errors by which their status is criticized, they are known, other things being equal, to be committing a greater sin than others. And if these errors impact on the faith, they must be understood to have not only betrayed their Orders, but Christendom as well, nor may Christendom ever have confidence in them in a time of temptation. For if he is a traitor to the truth who does not freely profess a truth which needs to be proclaimed (11 q. 3 Nolite), [cols. 649-650] all the more strongly is someone a traitor to the truth who believes an error which he previously considered to be such. Therefore in the case just mentioned, and in any similar cases, Preachers and Minors would sin beyond all others by believing these errors. And among them those more learned would sin more seriously, whether they were masters or students. For in our times, students are frequently superior to masters in knowledge of the truth. Indeed, because those prone to show undue favouritism to persons elevate the ambitious to master status, many masters in our times are again in dire need of being taught the rudimentary elements of the words of God, and have become as those who require milk rather than solid food. Therefore those who are more learned, whether they are students or masters, sin more seriously by believing errors.

Student: Who sin more seriously among the abettors of a heretic pope and his followers.

Master: The answer is that kings and princes who knowingly support a heretic pope, sin more seriously than others, by reason of the temporal power which would make it possible for them to resist this pope without temporal danger. For others, not having such power to safeguard them, would perhaps not be in a position to resist the heretic pope without some danger, and thus the fear of danger would reduce the seriousness of their sin. And from this one concludes that to the extent that some would have greater defense capabilities than others, to that extent they would sin more seriously in supporting a heretic pope. Indeed, if some king or prince were to defend (or fail to attack) all those residing in his dominion who resisted a heretic pope, they would commit a far greater offence who would support the heretic pope in some manner while residing in the dominion of this king or prince, than others residing in the dominions of kings and princes who would not defend opponents of a heretic pope, but either persecute them or fail to prevent their being persecuted and harmed by others.

Student: It seems astonishing that in this case kings and princes would sin more seriously than prelates, since it is more the function of prelates to resist a heretic pope than that of kings and princes.

Master: The answer is that some prelates are numbered among princes by reason of their temporal power, and therefore these prelates would sin most seriously by favouring a heretic pope, since the sin of the other prelates would be diminished in some measure by their fear of temporal danger. When you claim, however, that it is more the function of prelates to resist a heretic pope than that of kings and princes, the answer is that all have the function of resisting a heretic pope, because, as the gloss to Extra, De hereticis, Vergentis notes: "what is committed against the Christian religion is an injury which affects everyone, and it is the commission of a public crime, Codice, eo.tit., l. Manichaeos". [s.v. longe sit gravius, col. 1676] Similarly, we have this in dis. 1: "public right consists in the sacred, the priesthood, and the administration", [c. 11, col. 3] where the gloss states: "hence, he who does harm to priests, or to sacred objects, may be accused by all as one who has committed a public crime". [col. 6] Much more does public right consist in the Christian religion, and much more strongly may someone who harms and impacts upon the catholic faith be accused by all as one who has committed a public crime. Therefore everybody is obligated to resist a heretic pope as someone who is committing a public crime. And thus kings and princes have the function of opposing a heretic pope. This pertains in similar fashion even to those prelates who are not numbered among the princes, but here the approach is somewhat different. For it is the task of kings and princes to exercise temporal authority against a heretic pope, unless there be some among them who wish to submit voluntarily to martyrdom by divine inspiration, just as the Theban legion spontaneously offered itself to martyrdom, although, had it wanted to, it could have involved itself in armed resistance.

But to prelates who are not princes, it pertains to oppose the heretic pope by citing Scriptures, proferring holy exhortations, and requesting the assistance of the secular arm. Furthermore, because kings and princes would fear no danger in the process of opposing a heretic pope, while many prelates would be unable to oppose a heretic pope without temporal danger, kings and princes who support a heretic pope would sin more seriously than prelates threatened by danger. And likewise religious, preachers, and doctors [masters] , who would not be in danger if they opposed a heretic pope, would sin more seriously by supporting a heretic pope than kings and princes, in that they would possess a better knowledge of the truth, and because they had obligated themselves more strictly to the performance of spiritual deeds, among which opposition to a heretic pope hardly occupies an insignificant place.

Student: Is it sufficient for kings and princes to simply defend the opponents of a heretic pope.

Master: One replies that it is not. For if, having the power to do so, they did not strongly oppose the heretic pope, but merely defended his opponents, they would be neither hot nor cold but lukewarm, and hence God would begin to spew them out of his mouth. [Revelation 3:16] And a similar judgement must be made with respect to kings and princes were they to take harsh measures against some poor and insignificant followers of a heretic pope, while attempting to find excuses for the heretic pope himself. For such would hardly be taking notice of the following remark in Deuteronomy 1: "ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgement is God's". [Deuteronomy 1:17] To ignore this precept, while being condemnable in the case of all judges and power wielders, is known to be much more condemnable and ignominious in the case of kings and princes. And this unwarranted favouritism shown to the person of a heretic pope by kings and princes who hardly fear his temporal power, should be ascribed either to contempt for the Christian faith, or to a sad lack of zeal on its behalf, or to limitless avarice, pusillanimity, dull stupidity, or some other vice disgraceful to the royal or princely dignity.

Student: State who among those inferior to kings and princes sin more seriously by supporting a heretic pope, namely, whether it is the prelates or doctors, the secular clerks or the religious.

Masters: The answer is that as to certain things, prelates sin more seriously than doctors. Indeed, since prelates have responsibility for the spiritual care of the populace, and do not diligently enlighten it against the errors of the heretic pope, they sin more seriously in this connection than masters who do not have such spiritual responsibilities. And those who are both prelates and doctors sin most seriously. Further: because of the greater knowledge by which doctors prevail over unlearned prelates, doctors sin more seriously than such prelates. Again: other things being equal, religious sin more seriously in favouring a heretic pope than do secular clerks, and among religious they would sin most seriously whose status or something pertinent thereto the heretic pope would have erroneously condemned.

Student: Who sin more seriously, abettors of a heretic pope, or those who believe his errors.

Master: One responds that if some are abettors of a heretic pope but do not believe his errors, believers (because they are heretics) sin more seriously than abettors who are not believers. Another response is that since abettors, if they are not believers, knowingly commit a sin, while believers sin in ignorance, abettors sin more seriously than believers.

Student: Who sin more seriously, abettors or defenders of a heretic pope.

Master: The answer is that because every defender of heretics is their abettor, but not conversely, therefore those who defend a heretic pope sin more seriously than those who are merely abettors.

Student: Who among defenders of a heretic pope sin more seriously.

Master: The answer is that among the conscious defenders of a heretic pope, it is the kings, the princes, and the powerful who do not fear the power of the heretic pope, who sin more seriously. While among those who defend a heretic pope in ignorance, grossly passive ignorance is more to be condemned in prelates than in kings and princes whose normal function consists in the administration of secular affairs, and it is prelates who sin more seriously, along with doctors and religious.

Student: State who sin more seriously among receivers of a heretic pope.

Master: The answer is that to the extent that receivers of a heretic pope are endowed with greater power and have less to fear from the temporal power of a heretic pope, to that extent do they sin more seriously. And therefore a powerful king, by receiving a heretical pope, would sin more seriously than a duke, or a baron, or a fortress, or a city, unless for some reason this king would have more to fear from the temporal power of a heretic pope than someone of lesser temporal power. And from this one concludes that, other things being equal, among all kings and princes, he would be more seriously remiss against God and Christendom if he refrained from opposing a heretic pope, who would have greater power and who would be feared more intensely by the heretic pope.

Comments