Part II
Suspicion of Heresy
Before considering what constitutes manifest heresy, or public and notorious heresy - a crime and violation of divine law that some believe results in immediate loss of office for a Pope - let us consider some actions that merely render a man suspect of heresy – which, it should be noted, does not result in the immediate loss of office for a Bishop or Pope.
The 1917 code of canon law teaches that to knowingly and willingly assist in the propagation of heresy (canon 2316), or to actively assist at sacred functions of non-Catholics (ibid.) only renders a man suspect of heresy. The highly respected commentary on the 1917 code of canon law by Wernz-Vidal, teaches that there is merely suspicion of heresy in those who take part in the exercise of magic, of charms or of divination, and of those who become members of sects which, whether openly or secretly, hatch plots against the Church. (7)
To be clear, a man caught in any of these acts is not thereby considered a manifest heretic, but is only considered suspect of heresy. And what is the penalty for such actions?
“Canon 2315 affirms that ‘the suspect of heresy who, once he has been admonished, does not remove the cause of the suspicion is to be prohibited from legitimate actions and, if he be a cleric, when the warning has been once repeated in vain, he will be suspended a divinis; and if the suspect of heresy does not amend himself in the space of six full months, starting from the moment when he incurred the penalty, he will be considered as a heretic, subject to the penalties of heretics’. Let us observe from this how patient and prudent the Church is in respect of such people. In addition to the warning which must be reiterated in the case of a cleric, she gives six months for the retraction or for ultimate clarifications before imposing the penalties proper to heretics. These penalties are not automatic; rather, they must be imposed by the bishop who may ultimately have reasons for not putting them into effect”. (8)
So a man can propagate heresy, practice magic, or be a member of a secret sect that hatches plots against the Church, and he is only considered suspect of heresy, and allowed six months to amend before being considered a heretic. And if the man is a Bishop, he retains his jurisdiction. As the above quotation says, “let us observe from this how patient and prudent the Church is in respect of such people”.
But consider how easily one could reason their way to a false conclusion if they erroneously believed that the sin of heresy, as such, results in the loss of Papal office. How easy would it be for one to conclude that a Pope who was caught “in the exercise of magic”, or “propagating heresy”, or who took “active part in non-Catholic worship” had lost the faith, and thereby lost his office? But as we have seen, the loss of faith in and of itself does not result in the loss of office; neither do the actions which merely render a man suspect of heresy. From this we can see how a false premise results in erroneous reasoning and easily leads to a false conclusion.
Before we discuss the issue of manifest heresy, let’s consider the following hypothetical case. Let’s imagine a Bishop, or perhaps an Archbishop, who publicly preached heresy to a body of important governmental figures. We’ll say that the heresy in question was a public denial of a basic truth of the faith, such as the dogma that the Pope is the head of the universal Church. And let’s say the liberal media gleefully published this throughout the region for all to read, thereby resulting in untold scandal to the faithful. And to take it a bit further, let’s say that this Archbishop was warned by the Pope himself that his belief was heretical (thereby removing any chance of innocent ignorance), yet retracted nothing.
Should such a man be considered a manifest heretic? And if so, would he have immediately lost his office? I venture to say that most, if not all sedevacantist apologists, would respond in the affirmative before citing a litany of Saints, Doctors, and canonists to support their position. In fact, many would say that a Catholic who remained in union with such a man should be considered a heretic themselves for remaining in union with a public heretic. Is this not the kind of reasoning sedevacantists often engage in?
Yet this hypothetical scenario of the Archbishop is not hypothetical at all. It is instead the historical case of Msgr. Darboy, Archbishop of Paris, who lived at the time of Pope Pius IX – the Pope in the above story who warned him that his public position was heretical.
The following historical account of the Darboy affair is taken from the article Heresy in History, written by the sedevacantist author, John Daly, who no one can accuse of distorting the facts in order to undermine the position he himself holds. Let us consider what Mr. Daly wrote about the case of Archbishop Darboy.
“In 1865 Mgr Darboy, archbishop of Paris and member of the French senate expressed in an important speech to the senate ideas clearly opposed to the divinely instituted primacy of the Roman Pontiff over the entire Church, which, unlike papal infallibility, already belonged to the corps of Catholic doctrine. The speech was a public defiance of the pope and a refusal to recognize the pope's ordinary and universal jurisdiction in the dioceses of France.
“Pope Pius IX, already aware of the ideas of this wayward bishop, reprimanded him sternly in a private letter in which he reminds him that his stated ideas are comparable to those of Febronius (already condemned) and opposed to the teaching of the IVth Lateran Council. In the same letter the pope complained also of the presence of Mgr Darboy at the funeral of a freemason and other scandals.
“Darboy did not reply to the pope for some months and, when he finally did so, adopted a haughty tone to justify himself and to rebuke the pope! He retracted nothing whatever of the errors which had been reported throughout France with glee by the anti-Catholic press! … Nothing was done and in 1867 he met the pope in Rome, but, contrary to the hope he had given, did not mention the subject of this conflict at all.
“In 1868 a new clash ensued between Mgr Darboy and Rome, when the private letter of the pope dated 1865 was "leaked" and widely published. Still Rome allowed the situation to “ride” and meanwhile the Vatican Council was in preparation. Before and at the council, Darboy, needless to say, opposed the dogma of papal infallibility. For more than five years, despite the rebukes of the pope and of the nuncio, he never withdrew his extremely public errors against the faith. And then when the council proclaimed the dogmas concerning the pope, in 1870, he did not adhere to them. On 2nd March 1871, he at last informed the pope privately of his adherence to these dogmas, and even then he continued to delay before carrying out his duty of promulgating these decrees in his diocese. Only that promulgation at last constituted an implicit withdrawal of the false doctrines he was on public record as holding, despite the rebuke of the pope, since 1865.
“Now was Mgr Darboy during that period a public heretic or not? If one answers "yes", one is in manifest disagreement with Ven. Pope Pius IX. And of course those who not only accuse others lightly of heresy, but even hold that remaining in communion with un-condemned heretics is an act of heresy, schism or at best a grave public sin entailing exclusion from the sacraments must conclude that all the Catholics of Paris, laity and clergy, simultaneously fell from grace by continuing to recognize Darboy as their bishop even when they deplored his behaviour”. (9)
As Mr. Daly asked, was Msgr. Darboy a public heretic or not? After all, aren’t we told by sedevacantist apologists that if someone makes a heretical statement pertinacity is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven (10), and that “if the delinquent… be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed” due to his “ecclesiastical training in the seminary (11). And don’t they conclude from this that a Bishop who makes a heretical statement has “publicly defected from the faith” (canon 188.4) and thereby lost his office? And further, that we are morally bound to withdraw from communion with the one they declare to be a public heretic lest we share in the heretic’s guilt?
Yet here we have the example of a Bishop who taught heresy in pubic, and “retracted nothing” after being warned by the Pope himself that his teaching was heretical. Yet Pius IX – the pope who gave us the Syllabus of Errors, Quanta Cura, and who ratified the First Vatican Council – remained in union with the man! If the sedevacantists were consistent, should they not conclude that Pius IX was an antipope for remaining in union with a “public heretic”? And what would this say about the First Vatican Council that he presided over and ratified?
Or could it be that the sedevacantist apologists are rash in claiming that a Bishop or pope who says something false, or seeming heretical, qualifies as a public heretic? Could it be that their interpretation and private application of canon law is erroneous?
Let’s consider just one more example from Mr. Daly’s article, which is of additional interest since it involves St. Robert Bellarmine, whom sedevacantists often quote as an authority for their position. Let us see how St. Bellarmine reacted to a professor and celebrated theologian from the university of Louvain who was publicly teaching heresy. And let us compare this example of a Saint and Doctor of the Church to the rashness of the sedevacantist apologists in our day.
“Doctor Michel de Bay (Baius), born in 1513 took part in the council of Trent and became a celebrated theologian at the university of Louvain where he opposed the Protestants, and in particular the Calvinists. ‘He seems to have been activated by a sincere desire to defend the Church, but...like so many of the Church's impulsive and ill-equipped champions he fell into the very errors which he had set out to destroy.’ (Brodrick: Blessed Robert Bellarmine, Vol. II, p. 3) From his youth he had a love of novelty disguised as a return to more ancient traditions. He affected to disdain the scholastics, without being very familiar with them, and to adhere instead to St Augustine.
“A pronounced vice in his character was the ease with which he called heretics all those who failed to agree with his theological ideas, which, of course, he considered to be manifestly the only orthodox ones. From 1551 onwards he spread his errors from his professorial chair. In 1561 Pope Pius IV imposed silence on him, which he did not respect. In 1567 St Pius V drew up a decree condemning 79 of his theses, without promulgating it. De Bay was sent a copy and defended himself; reading his defense determined the pope to give public confirmation to the condemnation, in which several of de Bay's ideas were qualified as heretical. De Bay himself, out of charity, was not named, as it was hoped that his opposition to the doctrines of the Church was not conscious.
“De Bay made himself the model of the future Jansenists… by pretending to submit, without changing his beliefs in the slightest. He continued to spread his errors on the pretext that the decree condemned only false interpretations of his thinking.
“St Robert Bellarmine arrived in Louvain as professor of theology also. From 1570 to 1576 he publicly opposed the errors of de Bay in his lectures, but without ever naming him. In speaking of him he always considered him as a learned Catholic, most worthy of respect, and at this time called him "prudent, pious, humble, erudite".
“Nonetheless St Robert never ceased to hope for a new condemnation of his errors, and this appeared in 1579 (Pope Gregory XIII).
“Bellarmine returned to Rome and later the Venerable Leonard Lessius came to replace him at Louvain. By way of preparatory information, Bellarmine told him that in his opinion the doctrine of de Bay and his disciples on the subject of predestination was heretical
“Lessius wrote from Louvain to Bellarmine at Rome, informing him that de Bay continued to spread his errors in private, even after the new condemnation, and sometimes even in public, and that his numerous disciples propagated them with great enthusiasm.
“Supported by the advice of Bellarmine, Lessius continued to oppose these errors in his lectures, but without ever naming him or condemning the man who was the source of so much evil, and the precursor of Jansenism.
“Now in the light of this account, one is forced to ask whether some sedevacantists in our days are not very much prompter than St Robert Bellarmine was in identifying pertinacity, and more animated by the bad example of de Bay himself than by the good example of St Robert and of the Ven Leonard Lessius. For in the light of the principles of those who call all SSPX followers heretics or schismatics, and place all traditional priests save one or two in the same bag, how is it possible to deny that de Bay was a heretic? And that granted, how is it possible for them not to condemn St Robert Bellarmine, doctor of the Church, for having remained in communion with (and even praised) one whose heretical doctrines and manifest bad faith he was all too well aware of?
“Once again, if the Church presumes all who go astray in doctrine to be pertinacious, St Robert Bellarmine was clearly not aware of it. And while it can be possible to recognize someone as a pertinacious heretic even before the intervention of the Holy See, the fact remains that St Robert was slower to draw that conclusion, even after several Roman condemnations, than some are today when relying only on their own judgment of what seems evident”. (12)
Here we see St. Robert Bellarmine’s reaction to a man who continued to teach errors that had been formally condemned by the Church, but who himself had not been named in the condemnation. How did St. Bellarmine react to this man? Did he condemn him as a manifest heretic? Did he withdraw from communion with him and declare that all others must follow him, lest they share in the public heretic’s guilt? On the contrary, although the Saint desired that another condemnation of his errors would be forthcoming, in the meantime he treated him with respect and even referred to him as “prudent, pious, humble, erudite”. Neither did he assume pertinacity, even though one could have easily drawn such a conclusion since de Bay continued to promote his errors, which had just been condemned by the Church.
With Mr. Daly we must ask “whether some sedevacantists in our days are not very much prompter than St Robert Bellarmine was in identifying pertinacity, and more animated by the bad example of de Bay himself than by the good example of St Robert and of the Ven Leonard Lessius”. The answer to this rhetorical question is obvious.
We will now consider the issue of publicly manifest heresy.
Public Heretic
Some theologians have held that if a pope became a manifest heretic he would automatically lose his office, thereby rendering the Chair of Peter vacant. The great Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine, was of this opinion. He wrote:
Bellarmine: “[T]the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church”. (13)
The question we must consider is what constitutes manifest heresy in the external or public forum? According to the late Canon Gregory Hesse, who held a Ph.D. in canon law and Thomistic theology, a formal heretic in the external forum is a declared heretic. He explained that a heretic can be declared in one of two ways: either he is declared a heretic by the proper authorities, or he declares himself a heretic. But how would a person declare themself to be a formal heretic?
Since formal heresy requires pertinacity, in order for a statement that is materially false to be considered formally heretical in the external forum, pertinacity would also have to be manifest. Without a formal declaration by the Church, and short of the man in question leaving the Church, or publicly admitting that he rejects a defined dogma, pertinacity would have to be demonstrated another way. The other way, according to St. Robert Bellarmine, would be for the man to remain manifestly obstinate after two warnings. Only then would pertinacity be demonstrated in the external form, thereby rendering him a manifest heretic.
Bellarmine: “The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom the manifestly heretical Pope is not “ipso facto” deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority, and from reason, that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed. The argument from authority is based on Saint Paul, who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence”. (14)
So according to St. Bellarmine, who bases his opinion on St. Paul, a heretic is considered to be manifestly obstinate after receiving two warnings. But who would be responsible for warning the Pope? The eminent eighteenth-century Italian theologian, Father Pietro Ballerini, discusses this very point.
Fr. Ballerini: “The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: ‘Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment’ (Tit. 3, 10-11). For the person, who admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such form that now no declaration or sentence of any one whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. (…) Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will be had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate, which no one holds or can hold if he does not belong to the Church”. (15)
In the next quote, the great Jesuit Suarez comments on this same point:
Suarez: “I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope would cease to be Pope just when a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church. This is the common opinion among the doctors, and it is gathered from the first epistle of Saint Clement I, in which one reads that Saint Peter taught that a Pope heretic must be deposed. (…) In the first place, who ought to pronounce such a sentence? Some say that it would be the Cardinals; and the Church would be able undoubtedly to attribute to them this faculty, above all if it were thus established by the consent or determination of the Supreme Pontiffs, as was done in regard to the election. But up to today we do not read in any place that such a judgment has been confided to them. For this reason, one must affirm that, as such, it pertains to all the Bishops of the Church, for, being the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one must consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter is of more interest to these bishops than to those, and since by human law nothing has been established in the matter, one must necessarily sustain that the case refers to all, and even to the general council. That is the common opinion among the doctors”. (16)
A pope who merely seems to have lost the Faith, or who has made statements that are erroneous or even heretical, yet who has not openly left the Church or been publicly warned, does not constitute a manifest heretic. And since no such warnings have been given to any of the post-Vatican II popes, either before or after their election, none of them qualify as a manifest heretic.
And it should also be noted that many theologians have held that a manifestly heretical pope does not automatically lose his office. According to Suarez, this was the common opinion in his day.
Suarez: “in no case, even that of heresy, is the Pontiff deprived of his dignity and of his power immediately by God himself, before the judgment and sentence of men. This is the common opinion today”. (ibid.)
If one reads sedevacantist materials (which are usually the same quotations transferred from one website to another), they are left with the impression that virtually all agree that a Pope who becomes a manifest heretic automatically loses his office. Yet as we just saw, it was the common opinion in Suarez’ day that a heretical pope could only be deprived of his office by the judgment and sentence of men.
Below, Suarez explains why a Pope would not lose his office without a judgment and declaration of men, and then list the effects that would result if a declaration was not necessary – “effects” that sound like prophecies today.
Suarez: “f the external but occult heretic (17) can still remain the true Pope, with equal right he can continue to be so in the event that the offense became known, as long as sentence were not passed on him. And this for two reasons: because no one suffers a penalty if it is not “ipso facto” or by sentence, and because in this way would arise even greater evils. In effect, there would arise doubt about the degree of infamy necessary for him to lose his charge; there would rise schisms because of this, and everything would become uncertain, above all if, after being known as a heretic, the Pope should have maintained himself in possession of his charge by force or by other”. (ibid.)
Do these prophetic words not reflect the situation today for those who reject what was, according to Suarez, the common opinion of his day? How many “popes” have been elected by the sedevacantists to date? Well over a dozen. And how many more schisms are there between the various sedevacantist groups who have not gone so far as to elect their own pope?
And it should be noted that others have argued that a Pope could not be deprived of his office, even due to public heresy, because of the harm it would do to the Church. While this is only a minority opinion, the following teaching of the French canonist Bouix is worth citing.
D. Bouix: “There is not sufficient reason to think that Christ had determined that an heretical Pope could be deposed. … We deny absolutely, however, that Christ could have established as a remedy the deposition of the Pope. For … such a remedy would be worse than the evil itself. Indeed, one either supposes that this deposition would be carried out by Christ himself, as soon as the Pope were declared a heretic by a general council according to the doctrine of Suarez, or one supposes that it would be realized by virtue of the authority of the general council itself. Now, in both cases the evil would be aggravated, and not remedied. For the doctrine according to which Christ himself would depose the Pope heretic, as soon as the General council declared him a heretic, is no more than an opinion, rejected by any, and with which it is licit, for anyone whatsoever, to disagree. … Such being the case, even after it were declared by a General Council that a certain Pope were a heretic, it would absolutely not become certain that that Pope would be deposed; and in such a doubt one must rather continue to respect his authority. If another Pope were elected not only would he be of uncertain legitimacy, but he would even have to be branded as an intruder. Therefore, the remedy of a deposition made by Christ in the moment of a conciliar declaration, not only would not remedy the evil, but would create an evil much more grave, that is, a most intricate schism. Consequently, by no means should one think that Christ established such a remedy. But neither should one think that He established as a remedy deposition by the authority of the council itself. For, the deposition of a Pope by a council, besides being impossible, as will be said further on, would be followed by a worse evil if it were possible”. (18)
Although the above citation represents a minority opinion, it shows that whether or not a pope would automatically lose his office through manifest heresy is an open question.
Footnotes
7) Essay on Heresy, by Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira
8) ibid.
9) Heresy in History
10) “The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity” McKenzie, The Delict of Heresy, CU Canon Law Studies 77
11) ibid.
12) Heresy in History
13) De Romano Pontifice, Bk. 2
14) ibid.
15) De Potestate Ecclesiastica, pgs.104-105
16) De Fide, disp. X, sect. VI, nn. 3-10, pg. 316-317
17) An external but occult heretic is one who has manifested his heresy to a small group, but not to the general public
18) Tract. de Papa, tom. II, pgs. 670-671
Topic: Sedevacantism and the Manifest Heretic (Siscoe) (Read 5857 times)