1. Amoris laetitia 295: ‘Saint John Paul II proposed the so-called
“law of gradualness” in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves
and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth”. This is
not a “gradualness of law” but rather a gradualness in the prudential
exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position
to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands
of the law.’ (I, II, IV)
2. Amoris laetitia 298: ‘The divorced who have entered a new
union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations,
which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications
leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One
thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven
fidelity, generous self-giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness
of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without
feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church
acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s
upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate
[footnote 329: In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting
the possibility of living “as brothers and sisters” which the Church
offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking,
“it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the
children suffers”.] There are also the cases of those who made every
effort to save their first marriage and were unjustly abandoned, or
of 5 “those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s
upbringing, and are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that
their previous and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid".
Another thing is a new union arising from a recent divorce, with all
the suffering and confusion which this entails for children and entire
families, or the case of someone who has consistently failed in his
obligations to the family. It must remain clear that this is not the
ideal which the Gospel proposes for marriage and the family. The Synod
Fathers stated that the discernment of pastors must always take place
“by adequately distinguishing”, with an approach which “carefully discerns
situations”. We know that no “easy recipes" exist.’ (III, IV)
3. Amoris laetitia 299: ‘I am in agreement with the many Synod
Fathers who observed that “the baptized who are divorced and civilly
remarried need to be more fully integrated into Christian communities
in the variety of ways possible, while avoiding any occasion of scandal.
The logic of integration is the key to their pastoral care, a care which
would allow them not only to realize that they belong to the Church
as the body of Christ, but also to know that they can have a joyful
and fruitful experience in it. They are baptized; they are brothers
and sisters; the Holy Spirit pours into their hearts gifts and talents
for the good of all. … Such persons need to feel not as excommunicated
members of the Church, but instead as living members, able to live and
grow in the Church and experience her as a mother who welcomes them
always, who takes care of them with affection and encourages them along
the path of life and the Gospel.”’ (II, IV)
4. Amoris laetitia 301: ‘It is [sic] can no longer simply
be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a
state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved
here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the
rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values,
or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act
differently and decide otherwise without further sin."’ (II, III, IV)
5. Amoris laetitia 303: ‘Conscience can do more than recognize
that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall
demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty
what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God,
and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself
is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not
fully the objective ideal.’ (II, IV, V)
6. Amoris laetitia 304: ‘I earnestly ask that we always recall
a teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas and learn to incorporate it in our
pastoral discernment: “Although there is necessity in the general principles,
the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter
defects… In matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the
same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles;
and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not
equally known to all… The principle will be found to fail, according
as we descend further into detail” . It is true that general rules set
forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their
formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations.’
(VI)
7. On Sept 5th, 2016 the bishops of the Buenos Aires region issued
a statement on the application of Amoris laetitia, in which they
stated:
6) En otras circunstancias más complejas, y cuando no se pudo obtener
una declaración de nulidad, la opción mencionada puede no ser de hecho
factible. No obstante, igualmente es posible un camino de discernimiento.
Si se llega a reconocer que, en un caso concreto, hay limitaciones 6
que atenúan la responsabilidad y la culpabilidad (cf. 301-302), particularmente
cuando una persona considere que caería en una ulterior falta dañando
a los hijos de la nueva unión, Amoris laetitia abre la posibilidad del
acceso a los sacramentos de la Reconciliación y la Eucaristía (cf. notas
336 y 351). Estos a su vez disponen a la persona a seguir madurando
y creciendo con la fuerza de la gracia. …
9) Puede ser conveniente que un eventual acceso a los sacramentos
se realice de manera reservada, sobre todo cuando se prevean situaciones
conflictivas. Pero al mismo tiempo no hay que dejar de acompañar a la
comunidad para que crezca en un espíritu de comprensión y de acogida,
sin que ello implique crear confusiones en la enseñanza de la Iglesia
acerca del matrimonio indisoluble. La comunidad es instrumento de la
misericordia que es «inmerecida, incondicional y gratuita» (297).
10) El discernimiento no se cierra, porque «es dinámico y debe permanecer
siempre abierto a nuevas etapas de crecimiento y a nuevas decisiones
que permitan realizar el ideal de manera más plena» (303), según la
«ley de gradualidad» (295) y confiando en la ayuda de la gracia.
...
6) In other, more complex cases, and when a declaration of nullity
has not been obtained, the above mentioned option may not, in fact,
be feasible. Nonetheless, a path of discernment is still possible. If
it comes to be recognized that, in a specific case, there are limitations
that mitigate responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), especially
when a person believes they would incur a subsequent wrong by harming
the children of the new union, Amoris Laetitia offers the possibility
of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist (cf. footnotes
336 and 351). These sacraments, in turn, dispose the person to continue
maturing and growing with the power of grace. …
9) It may be right for eventual access to sacraments to take place
privately, especially where situations of conflict might arise. But
at the same time, we have to accompany our communities in their growing
understanding and welcome, without this implying creating confusion
about the teaching of the Church on the indissoluble marriage. The community
is an instrument of mercy, which is unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous”
(297).
10) Discernment is not closed, because it “is dynamic; it must remain
ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable
the ideal to be more fully realized" (303), according to the “law of
gradualness” (295) and with confidence in the help of grace.]
This asserts that according to Amoris laetitia, although the
indissolubility of marriage is not denied, the divorced and remarried
can receive the sacraments, and that persisting in this state is compatible
with receiving the help of grace. Pope Francis wrote an official letter
dated the same day to Bishop Sergio Alfredo Fenoy of San Miguel, a delegate
of the Argentina bishops’ Buenos Aires Region, stating that the bishops
of the Buenos Aires region had given the only possible interpretation
of Amoris laetitia:
Querido hermano:
Recibí el escrito de la Región Pastoral Buenos Aires «Criterios básicos
para la aplicación del capítulo VIII de Amoris laetitia». Muchas gracias
por habérmelo enviado; y los felicito por el trabajo que se han tomado:
un verdadero ejemplo de acompañamiento a los sacerdotes... y todos sabemos
cuánto es necesaria esta cercanía del obíspo con su clero y del clero
con el obispo . El prójimo «más prójimo» del obispo es el sacerdote,
y el mandamiento de amar al prójimo como a sí mismo comienza para nosotros
obispos precisamente con nuestros curas.
El escrito es muy bueno y explícita cabalmente el sentido del capitulo
VIII de Amoris Laetitia. No hay otras interpretaciones. 7
[Beloved brother,
I received the document from the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region, “Basic
Criteria for the Application of Chapter Eight of Amoris laetitia."
Thank you very much for sending it to me. I thank you for the work they
have done on this: a true example of accompaniment for the priests ...
and we all know how necessary is this closeness of the bishop with his
clergy and the clergy with the bishop. The neighbor ‘closest’ to the
bishop is the priest, and the commandment to love one’s neighbor as
one’s self begins for us, the bishops, precisely with our priests. The
document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter
VIII of Amoris laetitia. There are no other interpretations.]
This letter to the Bishops of Buenos Aires was then published in
the Acta Apostolicae Sedis of October 2016, with a note saying
that Pope Francis had ordered their publication as an act of the authentic
magisterium. This note does not assert that the statements of Amoris
laetitia or of the Buenos Aires bishops themselves constitute part
of the authentic magisterium; it states with magisterial authority that
the Buenos Aires bishops' understanding of what Pope Francis meant to
say in Amoris laetitia is correct.
It must be noted that the denial of Communion to divorced and invalidly
remarried or cohabiting couples is, in itself, a doctrine based on Sacred
Scripture and founded upon the divine law.2 To assert the possibility
of giving Holy Communion to divorced and invalidly remarried couples
implies, by a necessary inference, the belief in heresies II, IV, and
V, or else a denial of the dogma of the indissolubility of marriage.3
2 Cf. Familiaris consortio 84. See also: Dichiarazione del
Pontificio Consiglio per i Testi Legislativi: Circa l’ammissibilità
alla Santa Comunione dei divorziati risposati (L’Osservatore
Romano, 7th July, 2000, p. 1; Communicationes, 32 [2000]).
3 Cf. Card. G. Müller, in: Riccardo Cascioli, "Vogliono far tacere
Benedetto perché dice la verità", La Nuova Bussola quotidiana:
http://www.lanuovabq.it/it/vogliono-far-tacere-benedetto-xvi-perche-dice-la-verita:
“An emeritus bishop, when he celebrates Mass, shouldn't he tell the
truth in the homily? Should he not talk about the indissolubility of
marriage just because other active bishops have introduced new rules
that are not in harmony with divine law? Rather, it is the active bishops
who do not have the power to change divine law in the Church. They have
no right to tell a priest that he must give communion to a person who
is not in full communion with the Catholic Church. No-one can change
this divine law; if anyone does so, he is a heretic, a schismatic."
Cf. http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2019/04/17/between-the-two-popes-there-is-%E2%80%9Cfracture-%E2%80%9D-the-silence-of-francis-against-benedict/
8. On June 16th, 2016, at a Pastoral Congress for the diocese of
Rome, Pope Francis stated that many ‘co-habiting’ couples have the grace
of matrimony. (II, IV, V)
9. In a press conference on June 26th, 2016, Pope Francis stated:
I think that the intentions of Martin Luther were not mistaken. He
was a reformer. Perhaps some methods were not correct. … And today Lutherans
and Catholics, Protestants, all of us agree on the doctrine of justification.
On this point, which is very important, he did not err. (I)
10. In a homily in the Lutheran Cathedral in Lund, Sweden, on Oct
31st, 2016, Pope Francis stated: 8
The spiritual experience of Martin Luther challenges us to remember
that apart from God we can do nothing. “How can I get a propitious God?"
This is the question that haunted Luther. In effect, the question of
a just relationship with God is the decisive question for our lives.
As we know, Luther encountered that propitious God in the Good News
of Jesus, incarnate, dead and risen. With the concept ”by grace alone",
he reminds us that God always takes the initiative, prior to any human
response, even as he seeks to awaken that response. The doctrine of
justification thus expresses the essence of human existence before God.
(I)
11. On 31st October, 2016 Pope Francis signed the Joint Statement
on the occasion of the Joint Catholic-Lutheran Commemoration of the
Reformation, which included the assertion: “We are profoundly thankful
for the spiritual and theological gifts received through the Reformation."
(I)
12. On February 4th, 2019, Pope Francis and Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, the
Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Mosque, publicly signed and issued a statement
entitled 'Document on Human Fraternity'. In it, they made the following
assertions:
Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom
of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity
of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His
wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is
the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom
to be different derives.4 (VII)
4 Pope Francis has offered some informal explanations of this statement,
but none of these explanations offers an unambiguous interpretation
that is compatible with the Catholic faith. Any such interpretation
would have to specify that God positively wills the existence only of
the Christian religion. Since the statement is a joint statement with
the Grand Imam, it cannot be interpreted in a sense that the Grand Imam
would reject. Since the Grand Imam rejects the position that God positively
wills only the existence of the Christian religion, it is not possible
to give an orthodox interpretation to the statement. We therefore understand
this statement in its natural sense as a denial of a truth of the Catholic
faith.
Understood in their most obvious sense, the statements listed above
are heretical. This was pointed out, in regard to many of them, in the
Filial Correction sent to Pope Francis and in the theological
censures of Amoris laetitia that were sent to the college of
cardinals by 45 Catholic scholars. They have been understood in a heretical
sense by a large part of the church, which has taken them to legitimize
belief and actions that conform to them. Pope Francis has not corrected
anyone who has publicly interpreted these statements in a heretical
sense, even when the persons upholding these heretical understandings
have been bishops or cardinals.
These statements are not however the only evidence for Pope Francis’s
public adherence to heresy. It is possible to demonstrate belief in
a proposition by actions as well as by words. Canon law has always admitted
non-verbal actions as evidence for heresy; for example, refusing to
kneel before the Blessed Sacrament has been considered to furnish evidence
for disbelief in the doctrine of the Real Presence. Non-verbal actions
on their own can indicate belief in a heresy, or they can do so in conjunction
with verbal and written statements. In the latter case, they provide
a context that makes clear that the verbal and written statements in
question are to be understood in a heretical sense. A large number of
Pope Francis’s public actions have manifested his belief in the heresies
listed above, in one 9 or the other of these two ways. We provide a summary list of such
actions below. This list is not meant to be exhaustive. Nor does it
need to be exhaustive; when taken in conjunction with the statements
of Pope Francis given above, the number and gravity of the actions listed
below are sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Pope
Francis has publicly manifested his belief in the heresies we accuse
him of holding.
Pope Francis’s actions manifest his belief in the heresies listed
above in several ways. Such actions include protecting, promoting, and
praising clerics and laymen who have manifested their beliefs in these
heresies, or who have consistently acted in ways that defy the truths
which these heresies contradict. Canon law has traditionally considered
that protecting, promoting and helping heretics can itself be evidence
of heresy. By praising clerics and laity who advance these heresies,
or by naming them to influential posts, or by protecting clerics of
this kind from punishment or demotion when they have committed gravely
immoral and criminal acts, he assists them to spread their heretical
beliefs. By choosing heretical prelates for the most important posts
in the Roman Curia, he manifests an intention to impose these heresies
upon the whole Church. By protecting clerics who are guilty of immoral
and criminal sexual acts even when this protection causes grave scandal
to the Church and threatens to lead to calamitous action by the civil
authorities, he manifests disbelief in Catholic teaching on sexual morality,
and shows that support of heretical and criminal clerics is more important
to him than the well-being of the Church. By publicly praising individuals
who have dedicated their careers to opposing the teaching of the Church
and the Catholic faith, and to promoting and committing crimes condemned
by divine revelation and natural law, he communicates the message that
the beliefs and actions of these individuals are legitimate and praiseworthy.
It is noteworthy that his public approval and endorsement are not
indiscriminate; he does not often extend his praise to Catholics who
are known for being entirely faithful to the teaching of the faith,
or hold up the behaviour of individual Catholics of this kind as examples
to follow. And it is also to be observed how he has demoted or sidelined
those of faithful and orthodox stamp.
The following is a list of actions that indicate belief in the heresies
above.
Cardinal Calcagno was known to have protected Nello Giraudo, a priest
who had abused a same-sex minor, before Pope Francis's election. Pope
Francis retained him in office as president of the Administration of
the Patrimony of the Holy See until he reached retirement age in 2017.
(II, V)
Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio
Cardinal Coccopalmerio publicly stated in 2014 that Catholic leaders
must emphasise the positive elements in homosexual relationships, and
that in certain circumstances it would be wrong to deny communion to
persons living in adulterous relationships or to require them to dissolve
their relationship. He has shown other indications of approval of homosexual
activity. Pope Francis has appointed him to a number of important posts
including a working group tasked with speeding up the process for assessing
the nullity of marriage, and to the board of review within the Congregation
of the Doctrine of the Faith that reviews appeals from clergy found
guilty of sexual abuse of minors. (II, IV, V)
Cardinal Blase Cupich
At the 2015 Synod on the Family Cardinal Cupich supported the proposals
that persons living in adulterous relationships and sexually active
homosexuals could receive the Eucharist in good conscience under certain
circumstances. Pope Francis appointed him as Archbishop of Chicago in
2014, named him a Cardinal in 2016, and named him a member of the Congregation
for Bishops and 10
the Congregation for Catholic Education. (II, IV, V)
Cardinal Godfried Danneels
Cardinal Danneels was requested in 1997 and 1998 to take action on
the catechism textbook Roeach, which was used in Belgium under
his authority. This textbook corrupted minors with a sexual education
contrary to Catholic principles, teaching them to seek whatever sexual
lust they like, solitary, heterosexual, or homosexual. It presented
standard propaganda claims used for legitimizing the sexual abuse of
pre-pubescent children. He defended the textbook and refused to have
it altered or removed, even when Belgian parents objected that it encouraged
pedophilia. He acted to protect the pedophile Bishop Roger Vangheluwe
after it became known that Vangheluwe sexually abused his own nephew,
beginning when the nephew was five years old. When the nephew, then
an adult, asked Danneels to take some action against Vangheluwe, Danneels
refused, told the nephew to keep quiet about the abuse, and told the
nephew that he should acknowledge his own guilt. All these actions were
public knowledge in 2010. Cardinal Danneels stood at the side of Pope
Francis on the balcony of St. Peter’s when the Pope made his first public
appearance after his election. Pope Francis named him as a special delegate
to the 2015 Synod on the Family. At his death in 2019, Pope Francis
praised him as a ‘zealous pastor’ who 'served the Church with dedication'.
(II, IV, V)
Cardinal John Dew
Cardinal Dew argued for the admission of adulterous couples to the
Eucharist at the synod on the Eucharist in 2005. Pope Francis named
him a cardinal in 2015 and named him as a special delegate to the 2015
Synod on the Family. (II, IV, V)
Cardinal Kevin Farrell
Cardinal Farrell has expressed support for the proposal that the
divorced and remarried should receive communion. Pope Francis has named
him prefect of the newly established Dicastery for Laity, Family and
Life, promoted him to the rank of cardinal, and made him cardinal camerlengo.
(II, IV, V)
Cardinal Oswald Gracias
Cardinal Gracias has publicly expressed the opinion that homosexuality
may be an orientation given to people by God. Pope Francis appointed
him as one of the organisers of the Vatican summit on sexual abuse in
February 2019. (II, IV, V)
Cardinal Jozef de Kesel
In 2014 Cardinal de Kesel, then bishop of Bruges, appointed Father
Tom Flamez as a pastor after he had been convicted of sexual abuse.
He did not remove Fr. Antoon Stragier from ministry until 2015, although
Stragier’s crimes were known to the diocese in 2004. Pope Francis chose
Bishop de Kesel as Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels in November 2015
and named him a Cardinal in November 2016. (II, IV, V)
Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga
In an address to the University of Dallas in 2013, Cardinal Maradiaga
stated that the Second Vatican Council ‘meant an end to the hostilities
between the Church and modernism, which was condemned in the First Vatican
Council’, and claimed that ‘modernism was, most of the time, a reaction
against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and the rights
of the person’. He stated that ‘within the people, there is not a dual
classification of Christians – laity and clergy, 11 essentially different’, and that ‘to speak correctly, we should not
speak of clergy and laity, but instead of community and ministry’. He
asserted: ‘Christ himself did not proclaim or preach Himself, but the
Kingdom. The Church, as His disciple and His servant, ought to do the
same.’
Cardinal Maradiaga failed to act on accusations of sexual misbehaviour
with seminarians and peculation by Jose Juan Pineda Fasquelle, auxiliary
bishop of Tegucigalpa. These accusations were the subject of an apostolic
visit carried out by Bishop Alcides Jorge Pedro Casaretto, who presented
a report to Pope Francis in May 2017. Bishop Fasquelle resigned his
office in July 2018 at the age of 57. Maradiaga refused to investigate
complaints made by 48 out of 180 seminarians about homosexual misbehaviour
at the Honduras seminary, and attacked the complainants. Pope Francis
named Maradiaga as a member and coordinator of the council of nine cardinals
that he set up in 2013 to advise him in the government of the universal
church. (II, IV, V)
Former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick
According to numerous credible accusers, former Cardinal McCarrick
pressured seminarians to engage in homosexual relations with him. These
charges were known to the Holy See as early as 2002. Between 2005 and
2007, the Diocese of Metuchen and the Archdiocese of Newark paid financial
settlements to two priests who had accused McCarrick of abuse. Pope
Francis was personally informed of this behaviour in 2013, and was told
that Pope Benedict had placed restrictions upon him. Pope Francis brought
McCarrick out of retirement and used him for many important tasks, including
trips as a representative of the Holy See to Israel, Armenia, China,
Iran and Cuba. He accompanied Pope Francis on his trips to Israel and
Cuba. When Archbishop Carlos Maria Viganò asserted in August 2018 that
Pope Francis had known from 2013 that McCarrick was a serial predator,
the pope refused to answer this claim. In February 2019, the former
cardinal was returned to the lay state. Despite the example of the former
cardinal’s behavior, the subject of the homosexual abuse of adults,
and in particular of seminarians, was excluded from discussion at the
summit on sexual abuse that took place in Rome in the same month. (II,
IV, V)
Cardinal Donald Wuerl
Cardinal Wuerl allowed Fr. George Zirwas to continue in ministry
after learning that he had committed numerous crimes of sexual abuse.
Wuerl resigned as Archbishop of Washington after his actions in this
and other cases of sexual abuse were criticised by a Pennsylvania grand
jury report. When Wuerl resigned as a result of these failures, Pope
Francis praised him for his nobility, kept him in charge of the Archdiocese
of Washington as apostolic administrator, and retained him as a member
of the Congregation for Bishops. (II, IV, V)
Archbishop Mario Enrico Delpini
As vicar general of the archdiocese of Milan, Delpini moved Fr. Mauro
Galli to a new parish after being informed that Galli had sexually abused
a young man. Delpini admitted this in a court deposition in 2014. The
Holy See was made aware of this. Pope Francis named him as Archbishop
of Milan in 2017. (II, IV, V)
Bishop Juan Barros Madrid
Barros covered up the grave sexual crimes of Fr. Fernando Karadima,
who was convicted of sexual abuse by a Church tribunal in 2011. Pope
Francis appointed Barros bishop of Osorno in 2015 despite strong protests
from the faithful and described his critics as calumniators. Bishop
Barros accepted responsibility and resigned in 2018 after Pope Francis
admitted he had made "serious mistakes" in dealing with his case. (II,
IV, V) 12
Bishop Juan Carlos Maccarone
Maccarone was bishop of Santiago de Estero in Argentina and dean
of the Faculty of Theology of the Pontifical University of Buenos Aires.
In 2005, a video of Maccarone being sodomized by a taxi driver was made
public. He subsequently retired as bishop. After this incident, Archbishop
Bergoglio signed a declaration of solidarity with Maccarone issued by
the Argentine Bishops’ conference, of which he was then the head. (II,
IV, V)
Bishop José Tolentino Mendonça
In 2013 Mendonça praised the theology of Sr. Teresa Forcades, who
defends the morality of homosexual acts and claims that abortion is
a right, and who stated that ‘Jesus of Nazareth did not codify, nor
did he establish rules’. Pope Francis made him an archbishop and head
of the Vatican Secret Archives in 2018. He also chose him to preach
the Lenten retreat to the pope and high curial officials in 2018. (II,
IV, V, VI)
Bishop Gustavo Óscar Zanchetta
Zanchetta had been named by Pope Francis as bishop of Oran in Argentina
in 2013. Zanchetta engaged in homosexual misconduct, including the sexual
harassment of seminarians. Photographic evidence of this was submitted
to the Holy See in 2015. In December 2017 Pope Francis named Zanchetta
as assessor of the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic
See. (II, IV, V)
Mgr. Battista Mario Salvatore Ricca
Battista Ricca was engaged in grave homosexual misbehaviour while
employed in the papal nunciature in Uruguay. This included getting trapped
in an elevator with a male prostitute and having to be rescued by the
fire department. After these scandals had become public, Pope Francis
put him in charge of his residence, the Casa Santa Marta, and named
him as prelate of the Istituto delle Opere di Religione. (II, IV, V)
Fr. Julio Grassi
Grassi was convicted in 2009 of sexually abusing a teenage boy. The
Argentine Bishops’ Conference under the chairmanship of Cardinal Bergoglio
made great efforts to prevent Grassi’s conviction. The Bishops’ Conference
commissioned a four-volume work for this purpose that slandered Grassi’s
victims. Grassi stated that all through his legal process, Archbishop
Bergoglio had ‘held his hand’. (II, IV, V)
Fr. Mauro Inzoli
Fr. Inzoli was condemned for sexual abuse to minors to reduction
to the lay state by the CDF in 2012 in the first instance, but the enforcement
of that sentence was suspended after he appealed, and in 2014 Pope Francis
changed it into the much milder prescription to a retired life. In 2016
he was arrested and condemned by an Italian court. Only after he fell
under the civil judgement did Pope Francis finally reduce him to the
lay state. (II, IV, V)
Fr. James Martin S.J.
Martin is a well-known advocate for the legitimising of homosexual
relationships and homosexual activity. In 2017 Pope Francis appointed
him as a consultant to the Secretariat of Communications of the Holy
See. (II, IV, V) 13
Father Timothy Radcliffe O.P.
In 2013 Radcliffe stated that homosexual activity can be expressive
of Christ’s self-gift. Pope Francis appointed him as a consultor to
the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace in May 2015. (II, IV, V)
Emma Bonino
Emma Bonino is the foremost political activist on behalf of abortion
and euthanasia in Italy, and has boasted of personally performing many
abortions. In 2015 Pope Francis received her at the Vatican, and in
2016 he praised her as one of Italy's ‘forgotten greats.’ (II, IV, V,
VI)
Pontifical Academy for Life
In 2016 Pope Francis dismissed all 132 members of the Pontifical
Academy for Life. He removed the requirement that members of the Academy
swear to uphold Catholic teachings on human life and not perform destructive
research on the embryo or fetus, elective abortion, or euthanasia. The
45 new members of the Academy whom he appointed include several persons
who reject Catholic moral teaching. Fr. Maurizio Chiodi has argued for
euthanasia through denial of food and water, and has rejected Catholic
teaching on the morality of contraception. Fr. Alain Thomasset has rejected
the idea of intrinsically evil actions and has stated that some homosexual
relationships can be paths of holiness. Fr. Humberto Miguel Yanez holds
that artificial contraception can be licit under some circumstances.
Professor Marie-Jo Thiel rejects the Church’s teaching that homosexual
acts are intrinsically evil and her teaching that contraception is morally
wrong. Prof. Nigel Biggar holds that abortion up to 18 weeks of pregnancy
can be licit, and accepts that euthanasia can in some cases be justified.
(II, IV, V, VI)
Promoting reception of the Eucharist by divorced and remarried persons
Pope Francis has persistently promoted the reception of the Eucharist
under certain circumstances by persons who have civilly divorced their
spouse and are living in a sexual relationship with someone else. His
letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires cited above explicitly endorsed
this practice. He intervened in the composition of the Relatio post
disceptationem for the 2014 Synod on the Family. His addition to
the Relatio proposed allowing Communion for divorced-and-remarried
Catholics on a “case-by-case basis”, and said pastors should emphasize
the “positive aspects” of lifestyles the Church considers gravely sinful,
including civil remarriage after divorce and premarital cohabitation.
These proposals were included in the Relatio at his personal
insistence, despite the fact that they did not receive the two-thirds
majority required by the Synod rules for a proposal to be included in
the Relatio. He issued guidelines for the diocese of Rome permitting
the reception of the Eucharist under certain circumstances by civilly
divorced and remarried Catholics living more uxorio with their
civil partner. These teachings and actions are themselves an offence
against the faith, since the teaching that Catholics with a living spouse
who are openly cohabiting with someone else may not receive the Eucharist
is at least a truth belonging to the secondary object of the infallibility
of the Church. It is at least a truth whose acceptance is necessary
in order that the deposit of faith can be effectively defended or proposed
with sufficient authority. We do not deny that it is part of divinely
revealed Sacred Tradition. Its denial has not been listed as a heresy
espoused by Pope Francis because some Catholic theologians worthy of
respect have maintained that it does not form part of the divinely revealed
deposit of faith. Denial of this truth gives support to heresies (IV)
and (V) listed above. 14
Other indications
On June 9, 2014, Pope Francis received the leaders of the militantly
pro-homosexual Tupac Amaru organisation from Argentina at the Vatican,
and blessed their coca leaves for use in their pagan religious rituals,
which involve recognition of the coca plant as sacred. (II, IV, V, VII)
Pope Francis has failed to speak a word in support of popular campaigns
to preserve Catholic countries from abortion and homosexuality, for
example, before the referendum to introduce abortion into Ireland in
May 2018. (II, IV, V, VI)
At the opening mass of the Synod on Youth in 2018, Pope Francis carried
a staff in the form of a ‘stang’, an object used in satanic rituals.
(VI, VII)
During the Synod on Youth in 2018, Pope Francis wore a distorted
rainbow-coloured cross, the rainbow being a popularly promoted symbol
of the homosexual movement. (II, IV, V)
Pope Francis has concluded an agreement with China that permits the
Chinese government to choose Catholic bishops in that country, and has
ordered a number of faithful Catholic bishops to yield their dioceses
to bishops appointed by the state. China is an atheist state that persecutes
Christians, and enforces an immoral population policy that includes
promotion of contraception, and coerced abortion on a massive scale.
This population policy is a high priority for the Chinese government
and has caused incalculable harm. Control of the Church by the Chinese
government will ensure that the Church in China can offer no resistance
to this policy. (II, VI)
Pope Francis has refused to deny that Amoris laetitia teaches
heresies (IV), (V) and (VI) listed above, when requested to do so in
the dubia submitted to him by Cardinals Brandmüller, Burke, Caffarra,
and Meisner in September 2016. These dubia specifically mentioned
grave disorientation and great confusion of many faithful concerning
matters of faith and morals resulting from Amoris laetitia. The
submission of dubia by bishops and the provision of an answer
to them is an entirely traditional and normal procedure, so the refusal
to answer these dubia is a deliberate choice on the part of Pope
Francis.
(C) Pope Francis’s pertinacity in adhering to heretical propositions
Pope Francis completed the theological studies necessary for ordination,
obtained a licentiate in philosophy and a licentiate in theology, and
became a university professor in theology at the Facultades de Filosofía
y Teología de San Miguel, a Jesuit university and seminary in Argentina.
He subsequently became the Rector of these faculties. The apostolic
exhortation Familiaris consortio and the encyclical Veritatis
splendor, which condemn many of the heresies listed above, were
issued while he was a priest and a bishop respectively. He has cited
Familiaris consortio in his writings, and took part in a theological
conference on Veritatis splendor in 2004 in which he made a contribution
to the conference asserting the doctrine denied in heresy (VI) given
above. The dubia mentioned above, which were sent to Pope Francis
privately in September 2016 and made public in November of the same
year, recall the passages in Veritatis splendor and Familiaris
consortio. He can therefore be presumed to be well informed enough
on Catholic doctrine to know that the heresies he is professing are
contrary to Catholic doctrine. Their heretical nature was also documented
and pointed out to him in a filial 15 correction addressed to him by a number of Catholic scholars in August
2017, and made public in September of the same year.5
5 See http://www.correctiofilialis.org A selected bibliography to
support the case made in the Open Letter concerning the heresies of
Pope Francis has also been made available by its organizers.
The request we make to you as bishops
We therefore request that your Lordships urgently address the situation
of Pope Francis's public adherence to heresy. We recognise with gratitude
that some among you have re-affirmed the truths contrary to the heresies
which we have listed, or else have warned of serious dangers threatening
the Church in this pontificate. We recall, for example, that His Eminence
Cardinal Burke already stated in October 2014 that the Church appears
like a rudderless ship, and along with His Eminence Cardinal Pujats,
the late Cardinal Caffarra, and several other bishops, signed a Declaration
of Fidelity to the Church’s unchangeable teaching on marriage in
September 2016. We recall also the statement of His Eminence Cardinal
Eijk in May last year that the present failure to transmit doctrine
faithfully, on the part of the bishops in union with the successor of
St Peter, evokes the great deception foretold for the last days; and
somewhat similar remarks made more recently by His Eminence Cardinal
Gerhard Müller in his Manifesto of Faith. For these and other
such interventions by cardinals and bishops, which have gone some way
to reassure the faithful, we give thanks to God.
Yet in so grave and unprecedented an emergency we believe that it
will no longer suffice to teach the truth as it were abstractly, or
even to deprecate ‘confusion’ in the Church in rather general terms.
For Catholics will hardly believe that the pope is attacking the faith
unless this be said expressly; and hence, merely abstract denunciations
risk providing a cover for Pope Francis to advance and to achieve his
goal.
Despite the evidence that we have put forward in this letter, we
recognise that it does not belong to us to declare the pope guilty of
the delict of heresy in a way that would have canonical consequences
for Catholics. We therefore appeal to you as our spiritual fathers,
vicars of Christ within your own jurisdictions and not vicars of the
Roman pontiff, publicly to admonish Pope Francis to abjure the heresies
that he has professed. Even prescinding from the question of his personal
adherence to these heretical beliefs, the Pope's behaviour in regard
to the seven propositions contradicting divinely revealed truth, mentioned
at the beginning of this Letter, justifies the accusation of the delict
of heresy. It is beyond a doubt that he promotes and spreads heretical
views on these points. Promoting and spreading heresy provides sufficient
grounds in itself for an accusation of the delict of heresy. There is,
therefore, superabundant reason for the bishops to take the accusation
of heresy seriously and to try to remedy the situation.
Since Pope Francis has manifested heresy by his actions as well as
by his words, any abjuration must involve repudiating and reversing
these actions, including his nomination of bishops and cardinals who
have supported these heresies by their words or actions. Such an admonition
is a duty of fraternal charity to the Pope, as well as a duty to the
Church. If - which God forbid! - Pope Francis does not bear the fruit
of true repentance in response to these admonitions, we request that
you carry out your duty of office to declare that he has committed the
canonical delict of heresy and that he must suffer the canonical consequences
of this crime.
These actions do not need to be taken by all the bishops of the Catholic
Church, or even by a majority of them. A substantial and representative
part of the faithful bishops of the Church would have 16
the power to take these actions. Given the open, comprehensive and
devastating nature of the heresy of Pope Francis, willingness publicly
to admonish Pope Francis for heresy appears now to be a necessary condition
for being a faithful bishop of the Catholic Church.
This course of action is supported and required by canon law and
the tradition of the Church. We provide below a brief account of the
canonical and theological basis for it.
We ask the Holy Trinity to enlighten Pope Francis to reject every
heresy opposed to sound doctrine, and we pray that the Blessed Virgin
Mary, mother of the Church, may gain for your Lordships the light and
strength to defend the faith of Christ. Permit us to say with all boldness
that in acting thus, you will not have to face that reproach of the
Lord: 'You have not gone up to face the enemy, nor have you set up a
wall for the house of Israel, to stand in battle in the day of the Lord'
(Ezekiel 13:5).
We humbly request your blessing, and assure you of our prayers for
your ministry and for the Church.
Yours faithfully in Christ,
Georges Buscemi, President of Campagne Québec-Vie, member of the
John-Paul II Academy for Human Life and Family
Robert Cassidy STL
Fr Thomas Crean OP
Matteo d’Amico, Professor of History and Philosophy, Senior High
School of Ancona
Deacon Nick Donnelly MA
Richard P. Fitzgibbons, MD, Director of the Institute for Marital
Healing; former consultant to the Congregation for the Clergy; member
of the John Paul II Academy for Human Life and Family; former teacher
at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at
the Catholic University of America
Maria Guarini STB, Pontificia Università Seraphicum, Rome; editor
of the website Chiesa e postconcilio
Prof. Robert Hickson PhD, Retired Professor of Literature and of
Strategic-Cultural Studies
Fr John Hunwicke, former Senior Research Fellow, Pusey House, Oxford
Peter Kwasniewski PhD
John Lamont DPhil (Oxon.)
Brian M. McCall, Orpha and Maurice Merrill Professor in Law; Editor-in-Chief
of Catholic Family News
Fr Cor Mennen JCL, diocese of ‘s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands), canon
of the cathedral Chapter. 17
lecturer at de diocesan Seminary of ‘s-Hertogenbosch
Stéphane Mercier, STB, PhD, Former Lecturer at the Catholic University
of Louvain
Fr Aidan Nichols OP
Paolo Pasqualucci, Professor of Philosophy (retired), University
of Perugia
Dr Claudio Pierantoni, Professor of Medieval Philosophy, University
of Chile; former Professor of Church History and Patrology at the Pontifical
Catholic University of Chile
Professor John Rist
Dr Anna Silvas, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, Faculty of Humanities,
Arts, Social Sciences and Education, University of New England
Prof. dr. W.J. Witteman, physicist, emeritus professor, University
of Twente
Canon law and Catholic theology concerning the situation of a heretical
pope
The situation of a pope falling into heresy has long been a subject
of discussion by Catholic theologians. This situation was brought into
prominence after the ecumenical Third Council of Constantinople anathematized
the Monothelite heresy in 681, and posthumously anathematized Pope Honorius
for his support of this heresy; this condemnation of Honorius as a heretic
was repeated by Pope St. Leo II when he ratified the acts of that Council.
Since that time, Catholic theologians and canonists have reached a consensus
on several essential points concerning the implications of a pope falling
into public heresy. We will briefly present these points here.
It is agreed that no pope can uphold heresy when teaching in a way
that satisfies the conditions for an infallible magisterial statement.
This restriction does not mean that a pope cannot be guilty of heresy,
since popes can and do make many public statements that are not infallible;
many popes indeed never issue an infallible definition.
It is agreed that the Church does not have jurisdiction over the
pope, and hence that the Church cannot remove a pope from office by
an exercise of superior authority, even for the crime of heresy.
It is agreed that the evil of a heretical pope is so great that it
should not be tolerated for the sake of some allegedly greater good.
Suarez expresses this consensus as follows: 'It would be extremely harmful
to the Church to have such a pastor and not be able to defend herself
from such a grave danger; furthermore it would go against the dignity
of the Church to oblige her to remain subject to a heretic Pontiff without
being able to expel him from herself; for such as are the prince and
the priest, so the people are accustomed to be.' St Robert Bellarmine
states: 'Wretched would be the Church’s condition if she were forced
to take as her pastor one who manifestly conducts himself as a wolf'
(Controversies, 3rd controversy, Bk. 2, cap. 30).
It is agreed that ecclesiastical authorities have a responsibility
to act to remedy the evil of a heretical pope. Most theologians hold
that the bishops of the Church are the authorities that have an absolute
duty to act in concert to remedy this evil. 18
It is agreed that a pope who is guilty of heresy and remains obstinate
in his heretical views cannot continue as pope.6 Theologians and canonists
discuss this question as part of the subject of the loss of papal office.
The causes of the loss of papal office that they list always include
death, resignation, and heresy. This consensus corresponds to the position
of untutored common sense, which says that in order to be pope one must
be a Catholic. This position is based on patristic tradition and on
fundamental theological principles concerning ecclesiastical office,
heresy, and membership of the Church.7 The Fathers of the Church denied
that a heretic could possess ecclesiastical jurisdiction of any kind.
Later doctors of the Church understood this teaching as referring to
public heresy that is subject to ecclesiastical sanctions, and held
that it was based on divine law rather than ecclesiastical positive
law. They asserted that a heretic of this kind could not exercise jurisdiction
because their heresy separated them from the Church, and no-one expelled
from the Church could exercise authority in it.8
6 See e.g. Thomas de Vio Cajetan, De Comparatione auctoritatis
papae et concilii cum Apologia eiusdem tractatus (Rome: Angelicum,
1936); Melchior Cano, De Locis theologicis, book 6, chapter 8;
Bañez, In IIaIIae q. 1 a. 10; John of St. Thomas, Cursus theologici
II-II, De auctoritate Summi Pontificis, d. 8, ad. 3, De
depositione papae; Suarez, De fide, disp. 10; St. Robert
Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, book 2 ; Billuart, Cursus
theologiae, Pars II-II ; St. Alphonsus Liguori, Vindiciae pro
suprema Pontificis potestate adversus Iustinum Febronium; Cardinal
Charles Journet, L'Église du Verbe Incarné, vol. 1: l'hiérarchie
apostolique (Éditions Saint-Augustin, 1998), pp. 980-83
7 See e.g. St. Augustine, Sermon 181; Pope Pius IX, Bull 'Ineffabilis'
defining the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
8 This principle is applied to the loss of the papal office for heresy
by St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book 2, Chapter
30. Later authors have qualified this assertion by accepting that heretical
clerics can exercise jurisdiction in certain extraordinary circumstances,
because it is supplied to them by the Church. None of these authors
have however accepted that a pope whose heresy is manifest and established
can possess or exercise papal jurisdiction. The Church cannot grant
papal jurisdiction, and a heretical pope cannot grant this jurisdiction
to himself.
The canon law of the Church supports this theological consensus.
The first canon to give explicit consideration to the possibility of
papal heresy is found in the Decretum of Gratian. Distinctio
XL, canon 6 of the Decretum states that the pope can be judged
by no-one, unless he is found to have deviated from the faith:
Cunctos ipse iudicaturus a nemine est iudicandus, nisi deprehendatur
a fide devius (‘he, the one who is to judge all, is to be judged by
none, unless he be found straying from the faith.’)
The wording of this statement seems to have been influenced by Cardinal
Humbert's De sancta Romana ecclesia (1053), which stated that
the pope is immune from judgment by anyone except in questions of faith:
‘a nemine est iudicandus nisi forte deprehendatur a fide devius.’ The
claim made in the canon is a development of Pope Gregory the Great’s
statement that evil prelates must be tolerated by their subjects if
this can be done while saving the faith (Moralia XXV c. 16: ‘Subditi
praelatos etiam malos tolerant, si salva fide possint …’).
The canonical assertion that the pope can be judged for heresy came
into being as an explication of the canonical principle that the pope
is judged by no-one. The statement in this canon is an enunciation of
a privilege; its object is to assert that the pope has the widest possible
exemption from judgement by others.
This canon was included, along with the rest of the Decretum
of Gratian, in the Corpus iuris canonici, which formed the
basis of canon law in the Latin Church until 1917. Its authority is
supported by papal authority itself, since the canon law of the Church
is upheld by papal authority. It was taught by Pope Innocent III, who
asserted in his sermon on the consecration of the Supreme Pontiff that
"God 19
was his sole judge for other sins, and that he could be judged by
the Church only for sins committed against the faith" ["In tantum enim
fides mihi necessaria est, ut cum de caeteris peccatis solum Deum iudicium
habeam, propter solum peccatum quod in fide committitur possem ab Ecclesia
judicari."] Rejection of the canon in the Decretum would undermine
the canonical foundation for papal primacy itself, since this canon
forms part of the legal basis for the principle that the Pope is judged
by no-one.
The canon was universally accepted by the Church after the compilation
and publication of the Decretum. The heresy referred to in this
canon is understood by virtually all authors to mean externally manifested
heresy (the thesis that a pope loses his office for purely internal
heresy was advanced by Juan de Torquemada O.P., but it has been conclusively
refuted and has been rejected by all canonists and theologians ever
since.) Neither the 1917 Code of Canon Law nor the 1983 Code of Canon
Law abrogate the principle that a heretical pope loses the papal office.
This is agreed by all commentators on these codes, who state that this
principle is correct.9
9 See e.g. Jus Canonicum ad Codicis Normam Exactum, Franciscus
Wernz and Petrus Vidal (Gregorianum, 1924-1949), II (1928), n. 453;
Introductio in Codicem, 3rd ed., Udalricus Beste, (Collegeville:
St John’s Abbey Press, 1946), Canon 221; New Commentary on the Code
of Canon Law, John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, and Thomas J. Green
eds. (New York: Paulist, 2000), p. 1618.
10 We do not reject the possibility that a pope who publicly rejected
the Catholic faith and publicly converted to a non-Catholic religion
could thereby lose the papal office; but this hypothetical case does
not resemble the current situation.
The early canonical tradition generally requires that in the specific
case of papal heresy, the pope must be admonished several times before
being treated as a heretic. The Summa of Rufinus, the Summa
antiquitate et tempore (after 1170), and the Summa of Johannes
Faventius (after 1171) all assert that the pope must be warned a second
and third time to desist from heresy before he can be judged to be a
heretic. The Summa of Huguccio states that before the pope can
be judged a heretic, he must be admonished to abandon heresy and must
contumaciously defend his error in response to such admonition.
Sedevacantist authors have argued that a pope automatically loses
the papal office as the result of public heresy, with no intervention
by the Church being required or permissible. This opinion is not compatible
with Catholic tradition and theology, and is to be rejected. Its acceptance
would throw the Church into chaos in the event of a pope embracing heresy,
as many theologians have observed. It would leave each individual Catholic
to decide whether and when the pope could be said to be a heretic and
to have lost his office. It should instead be accepted that the pope
cannot fall from office without action by the bishops of the Church.10
Such action must include adjuring the pope more than once to reject
any heresies that he has embraced, and declaring to the faithful that
he has become guilty of heresy if he refuses to renounce these heresies.
The incompatibility between heresy and membership of the Church is what
leads to the loss of the papal office by a heretical pope. The Church's
determining that a pope is a heretic, and the announcement of his heresy
by the bishops of the Church, is what makes the pope's heresy a juridical
fact, a fact from which his loss of office ensues.
There are some lesser differences of opinion between Catholic theologians
concerning the measures that the Church must take in dealing with a
heretical pope. The school of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas asserts
that in order for the papal office to be lost, the Church, after ascertaining
and pronouncing that the pope is a heretic, must also command the faithful
to avoid him for his heresy. The school of St. Robert Bellarmine does
not reject the step of commanding the faithful to avoid the pope as
a heretic, but it does not consider it a necessary precondition for
the pope's losing office for heresy. 20
Both these schools have adherents, up to and including the present
day. We do not take a position on these disputed questions, whose resolution
is a matter for the bishops of the Church.
