CathInfo.com

To save myself the time I will just reproduce the rebuttal in full for you here:
ANSWER:  As we’ve already shown, it’s a dogma that 1) heretics are not members of the Church; and 2) that a pope is the head of the Church.  It is a dogmatic fact, therefore, that a heretic cannot be the head of the Church, since he is not a member of it.
What, then, does Pope Pius XII mean in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis?  First off, one needs to understand that excommunication can be incurred for many things.  Historically, excommunications were distinguished by the terms major and minor.  Major excommunications were incurred for heresy and schism (sins against the faith) and certain other major sins.  Those who received major excommunication for heresy were not members of the Church (as we have just proven at length).  Minor excommunication, however, did not remove one from the Church, but forbade one to participate in the Church's sacramental life.  Pope Benedict XIV made note of the distinction.Minor excommunication, on the other hand, was incurred for things such as violating a secret of the Holy Office, falsifying relics (c. 2326), violating a cloister (c. 2342), etc.  These are all ecclesiastical or Church penalties.  Such actions, though gravely sinful, did not separate a person from the Church.  And though the terms major and minor excommunication are no longer used, it remains a fact that a person could incur an excommunication (for something other than heresy) which would not separate him from the Church, and he could incur an excommunication for heresy which would separate him from the Church.
Therefore, a cardinal who receives an excommunication for heresy is no longer a cardinal because heretics are outside the Catholic Church (de fide, Pope Eugene IV).  But a cardinal who receives an excommunication for something else is still a cardinal, though in a state of grave sin.  So when Pope Pius XII says that all cardinals, whatever ecclesiastical impediment they are under, can vote and be elected in a Papal conclave, this presupposes cardinals who have received an excommunication for something other than heresy, since a cardinal who has received an excommunication for heresy is not a cardinal at all.  The key point to understand is that heresy is not merely an ecclesiastical impediment – thus it is not what Pius XII is talking about – but an impediment by divine law. Notice, heretics are not excluded from the Papacy by merely ecclesiastical impediments, but impediments flowing from the divine law.  Pius XII’s legislation doesn’t apply to heresy because he was speaking about ecclesiastical impediments: “…or any other ecclesiastical impediment…”.  Thus, his legislation does not show that heretics can be elected and remain popes, which is why he didn’t mention heretics.  Pope Pius XII was referring to Catholic cardinals who may have been under excommunication.
To further prove the point, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Pope Pius XII’s legislation did mean that a heretical cardinal could be elected pope.  Notice what Pius XII says:Pius XII says that the excommunication is suspended only for the time of the election; at other times it remains in vigor.  This would mean that the excommunication for heresy would fall back into force immediately after the election and then the heretic who had been elected pope would lose his office!  Thus, no matter what way you look at it, a heretic could not be validly elected and remain pope.If a heretic (one who denies the faith) could be the head inside the Church, then the dogma that the Church is one in faith (as in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic) would be false.


Now, look here:

The Divine Will and Intelligence is not directing every single thing a pope does - absurd! The pope is not a human shell through whom Christ is reincarnate - I assume you know this. In ecclesiastical laws, Christ gave the papacy full autonomy "whatever you bind is bound...loose is loosed". But no one on earth has the power to go against Divine law - not even a pope. One can be excommunicated for many things other than heresy, that is why when basic catechisms speak of who DOES NOT belong to the Church it lists heretics and excommunicates separately. Heresy is the sin the "Severs from the Body" (you have no way of avoiding this). Even a child with 2nd grade reading skills can see and understand this. It is of Divine law that heretics do not belong to the Church and therefore cannot hold any offices. See how this basic Divine law shatters your whole argument? Christ gives a true pope supreme authority over the faithful and he has much leeway to do as he sees fit in the Church and he can even misjudge others, act imprudently, rashly, disrespectfully, and be an enormous personal sinner. What a pope cannot do is lose the faith and teach heresy in words/deeds. For so by doing, he would be manifesting public heresy - and proving he is not even a member of the Church and "obviously, anyone who is not a member of the Church cannot rule over Her." (Van Noort). 

The bolded portion of your quote above translates to, " Your conclusion seems really bad for lots of people, so it must be false!!!" This is of course all stemming from a compassionate root, but it is a false compassion based not on the Divine law and truths of the faith, but based on a human understanding and placing limits on what God will allow and what He wills.
 
Just how many people do you believe (roughly speaking) are part of the Church Militant on earth and please list the reason you think the number you produce are part of the Catholic Church (what makes them a member).

Why is infallibility attributed to +ABL? No one ever wants to admit he could have be wrong.

Let's face it, he was all over the place when it came to how JP2 could do what he was doing. +ABL went from JP2 being a public heretic and can't be the Pope to he's the Pope and we have to sift.

Let's use teachings of popes and councils as the litmus test...not +ABL.

Oh wait, the popes are wrong and +ABL isn't. /s