Here is a link to the original publication of this document, “Call for the Resignation of Pope Francis”, found at Rorate Caeli. Today, I’ll discuss the accusations of heresy made in this ‘Call for Resignation’ as well as mentioning, again, the complete lack of authority and competency of the signatories to judge or condemn the Pope for heresy (or anything else).

I should also mention that in the many examples of this type of document accusing Pope Francis of various errors, there are usually signatories, but the authorship of the document is obscured. It does not appear to be the case that all the signatories are co-authors. Perhaps the author or authors are listed among the signatories; but they do not put their names on the document as authors. This fact undermines the claim that the signatories are “Catholic scholars”, as the authors, in whole or in part, may not be among the signatories. These are essentially anonymously written documents. And in the present case, the document proposes that the Pope must repent or resign or be removed. The absurdity of this proposal is extreme. A person who has a certain authority cannot exercise it anonymously, as those subject to that authority cannot determine that it came from proper authority. But worse still is this “Call”, where the signatories usurp an authority not given to them, not given to anyone under the Roman Pontiff, and were the authorship is additionally anonymous.

Claims of Heresy

In the section “2. Heresies of Pope Francis”, the Call to Resignation and its signatories state the following:

“Pope Francis has publicly and pertinaciously contradicted a number of central teachings of the Catholic faith. Only the clearest cases of heresy on his part will be given here, together with a brief reference to the places in which he has stated these heresies. These statements have been analysed at length by faithful Catholic scholars, whose work can be consulted for a more detailed discussion.”

So what makes the scholars who accuse the Roman Pontiff of heresy “faithful”? Many scholars have defended the Pope against these very accusations. Then the body of Cardinals, the body of Bishops, and the body of the faithful still adhere to him, as to a valid Pope who is not a heretic and has not lost his authority or office due to heresy. Essentially, the opponents of Pope Francis treat anyone as faithful who opposes the Vicar of Christ — in direct contradiction to the words of Christ in Luke 22:32, that Peter and his successors have a never-failing faith.

Why should these claims that the Pope has committed heresy be treated as certainly true, as the document assumes, when the Cardinals, Bishops, most of the faithful, and most Catholic scholars do not accuse the Roman Pontiff of heresy at all? These are not “the clearest cases of heresy.” Instead, it is a summary of accusations of heresy which have been accepted by a small subset of Catholics, particularly on the far right, without due process and contrary to the example of the body of Cardinals and the body of Bishops and the body of the faithful, which certainly still support Pope Francis as the true and valid Roman Pontiff.

The list of alleged heresies by Pope Francis begins by assuming that he is guilty, and that these accusations cannot be in any way mistaken. But the authors and signatories of that document are not able to exercise infallibility, as a Roman Pontiff or an Ecumenical Council potentially may do. The Roman Pontiff is protected by the indefectibility of the Church and the charism of truth and never-failing faith. The authors and signatories of this “Call for Resignation” have no such charisms. They can fall into error to any extent, including schism and heresy. So these are not “the clearest cases of heresy”. A Pope can err to some extent, without failing in faith or harming the indefectibility of the Church. So on the one hand, these alleged heresies could simply be lesser errors by the Roman Pontiff, such as imprudence in not clarifying the meaning of Pachamama, or excessive harshness in restricting the Latin Mass — possibly. On the other hand, the papal accusers could possibly be guilty of schism, for refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff. The papal accusers could possibly be guilty of material heresy, if they perhaps badly misunderstood a dogma and taught that error, because they were unwilling to be taught or corrected by Pope Francis, by most recent Popes, or by Vatican II.

In the Call for Resignation document, Pope Francis is accused of heresy with a wording chosen by his accusers: “2.A. Acts that violate divine commandments in grave matters can nevertheless be morally good and acceptable to God.” But the Roman Pontiff did not say those words as a quote, nor in any similar wording. Then the two citations given to support this grave accusation of papal heresy, do not say anything like the above quote. Cited are n. 301 and 303 from 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.’ ”

“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.”

So n. 301 simply states the perennial teaching of the Church on the distinction between actual mortal sin and a sin that is objectively grave, but lacks full culpability. There is nothing heretical or even speculative about that theological statement. You might legitimately complain that Pope Francis should have worded that section more clearly. He certainly was not saying that a person must sin gravely due to a concrete situation, but rather that fallen sinners have great difficulty in certain situations avoiding objectively grave sins, when they lack full knowledge or full culpability.

Neither is it possible to claim that the Roman Pontiff is actually guilty of heresy by insisting on the least charitable interpretation of his words. The Lord Jesus teaches through each Roman Pontiff, just as Vatican I taught, just as the Church has always taught. Pope Pius XII wrote: “Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head” of the one Church [Mystical Body of Christ 40]. So a charitable interpretation, in harmony with past magisterial teaching as well as Tradition and Scripture, is not an optional meritorious act, but rather the minimum required by the moral law.

Then n. 303 goes on to talk about a different situation, in which a person falls short of what is “fully the objective ideal”, such as be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect, such as love one another as Christ has loved you. Allowing that fallen sinners, who (as discussed in n. 301) may not be in a state of actual mortal sin, can be in the state of grace and can cooperate with actual graces, even when they fall short of the Gospel ideal, and make choices that are imperfect and/or include venial sins to some extent.

Reading those two texts as teaching that “Acts that violate divine commandments in grave matters can nevertheless be morally good and acceptable to God” is entirely unjustified by the wording. Pope Francis did not say the words in the quoted accusation, nor anything similar. So the papal accusers had to make up a text that is heretical, and put those words in the Pope’s mouth, in order to appear to convict him. And at the same time, the text they cite has no grave errors at all.

The next accusation of heresy reads as follows: “2.B. God not only permits, but positively wills the pluralism and diversity of religions, both Christian and non-Christian.”

Again, the wording in the accusation is not found in the words of Pope Francis. In fact, when the document in question was published, the critics of Pope Francis objected to the wording “willed by God” saying that this diversity and plurality is only permissively willed by God. Pope Francis then confirmed that he meant permissively willed — in a general audience, in a face-to-face meeting with Bishop Athanasius Schneider, and in a written letter to the same Bishop. And yet to this day the papal accusers still claim that the Roman Pontiff meant “positively willed”. The Roman Pontiff agreed with his critics clarification, that the text means permissively willed, such that his position was the same as theirs, yet they continued to accuse him.

Furthermore, there is no definitive magisterial teaching, which would be infallible under Papal Infallibility, Conciliar Infallibility, or under the ordinary universal magisterium, saying that diversity and plurality of religions is only ever permissively willed. Therefore, various positions on the topic, whether correct or incorrect, are not heresy. You can accuse someone of heresy, let alone the Roman Pontiff, for having a theological position, which is not contrary to any infallible teaching.

The next accusation of heresy reads: “2.C. Adulterous relations can be morally good,” and is followed by the explanation: “In the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia, Pope Francis asserts that in some circumstances adulterers do not sin by committing adultery. See Amoris laetitia 301 and 303, cited above.”

AL 301 and 303 were quoted above and contain no such assertions about adultery. Certainly, according to the ancient constant teaching of the Church, an objectively grave sin is not also an actual mortal sin unless it is committed with full knowledge and full deliberation. But this does not imply that an objectively grave sin is “morally good” — something the Pope never said — not does it mean that the adulterer did not sin at all. Some adulterers may be guilty of actual mortal sin, and others might not have full culpability, but rather partial culpability short of actual mortal sin.

Again, this is a case of putting words into the mouth of the Roman Pontiff, words he never said or wrote.

The next accusation claims: “2.D. Adultery, fornication, and homosexual relations can be morally good.” But the Roman Pontiff never said any such thing. The claim that the blessing of human persons, who may perhaps have committed such sins in the past, constitutes approval for their sins is absurd. Any priest will give a blessing to an individual, especially one who appears sincere and contrite, regardless of their past sins.

[Luke]
{7:36} Then certain Pharisees petitioned him, so that they might eat with him. And he went into the house of the Pharisee, and he reclined at table.
{7:37} And behold, a woman who was in the city, a sinner, found out that he was reclining at table in the house of the Pharisee, so she brought an alabaster container of ointment.
{7:38} And standing behind him, beside his feet, she began to wash his feet with tears, and she wiped them with the hair of her head, and she kissed his feet, and she anointed them with ointment.
{7:39} Then the Pharisee, who had invited him, upon seeing this, spoke within himself, saying, “This man, if he were a prophet, would certainly know who and what kind of woman is this, who is touching him: that she is a sinner.”
{7:40} And in response, Jesus said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” So he said, “Speak, Teacher.”
{7:41} “A certain creditor had two debtors: one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty.
{7:42} And since they did not have the ability to repay him, he forgave them both. So then, which of them loves him more?”
{7:43} In response, Simon said, “I suppose that it is he to whom he forgave the most.” And he said to him, “You have judged correctly.”
{7:44} And turning to the woman, he said to Simon: “Do you see this woman? I entered into your house. You gave me no water for my feet. But she has washed my feet with tears, and has wiped them with her hair.
{7:45} You gave no kiss to me. But she, from the time that she entered, has not ceased to kiss my feet.
{7:46} You did not anoint my head with oil. But she has anointed my feet with ointment.
{7:47} Because of this, I tell you: many sins are forgiven her, because she has loved much. But he who is forgiven less, loves less.”
{7:48} Then he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven you.”
{7:49} And those who sat at table with him began to say within themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?”
{7:50} Then he said to the woman: “Your faith has brought you salvation. Go in peace.”

more in future posts, God willing

Ronald L Conte Jr