(LifeSiteNews) – (Editor’s note: This is an article in two parts. Part Two will appear on December 20, 2024.)
PART ONE
Beginning with the publication of “Is Archbishop Viganò really in schism?” in late July, I have followed Matthew McCusker’s articles for LifeSite concerning Pope Francis, heresy, Church membership, loss of office, and related topics with interest. His analysis of the Vatican’s penal decree against Archbishop Viganò prompted me to write a two-part series detailing my concerns about certain aspects of His Excellency’s position (here and here), in particular, his belief that Francis is not the Pope.[1]
Since then, I have read Mr. McCusker’s subsequent articles (here, here, here, and here), as well as four related pieces by Dr. John Lamont (here, here, here, and here), and would now like to offer a response (focused primarily on McCusker’s arguments, although I will address a few of Lamont’s as well) and thus contribute to the ongoing public discussion about the crisis we face in the Church today. At the center of this unprecedented ecclesial crisis is, of course, Pope Francis,[2] who has undeniably propagated heresies, not only “by the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia,” but also “by other words, deeds and omissions,” to quote the Correctio Filialis (2017).
In the introduction to an article published in late October, McCusker states:
There is an urgent need for faithful Catholics — all those who look to the magisterium of the Catholic Church as their rule of faith — to work together to come to a deeper understanding of what has happened in the Church in recent decades and how we ought to respond to it. This requires engaging with the Church’s teaching and seeking, as best we can, to apply it to the facts of our times; it requires openly discussing and debating opposing positions with the mutual intention of arriving at the truth.
We will not always agree with each other, but we need to remain charitable, even when we disagree. We must not condemn others for holding positions which the Church herself does not condemn, even if we believe those who hold to them have made a mistake in the application of theological principles.
I agree with his appeal for open discussion and debate while maintaining a spirit of fraternal charity amidst disagreements. It is in such a spirit that I offer this new contribution.
RELATED: Is Francis really the pope? — The debate
McCusker’s Main Arguments and Counterpoints
Throughout his articles, McCusker has advanced several noteworthy arguments. Three of the most consequential can be summarized as follows:
- Public heretics are not members of the Church; but Francis is a public heretic; therefore, Francis is not a member of the Church and thus not her visible head (argued here).
- Peaceful and universal acceptance of a man as the Pope by the Church (a proof of his legitimacy according to several eminent theologians) is inseparable from submission to him as the “living rule of faith”; but many Catholics today do not submit to Francis as their rule of faith in practice; therefore, peaceful and universal acceptance does not apply to Francis (argued here and here).
- An extended period of sede vacante would do nothing to harm the Church’s visibility and apostolicity (argued here).
Let us examine each of these arguments more closely and consider some counterpoints.
First, McCusker holds that Francis is not the Pope due to his status as a public heretic. In McCusker’s own words:
Francis is a public heretic. If Francis is morally culpable for being a public heretic [i.e., a formal heretic], then it is certain that he is not the pope. If Francis is not morally culpable for being a public heretic [i.e., a material heretic], then is it probable that he is not the pope. If it is probable that he is not the pope, then his claim to the papacy is doubtful. If his claim to the papacy is doubtful, then he cannot be regarded as ‘the proper head of the visible Church instituted by Christ.’
Therefore, as a result of his public heresy, we ought to hold that Francis is not the pope.
He explains the nature of heresy and its various species (formal vs. material; public vs. occult) and cites renowned theologians such as Salaverri,[3] Billot, Berry, and Van Noort to support his arguments. “The question of membership is intrinsically connected to the visibility of the Church,” McCusker says, after quoting Van Noort to that effect:
It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics [i.e., those not culpable] are likewise excluded from [Church] membership [the same as public formal heretics]. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ’s Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the ‘Catholic Church’? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.[4]
With all due respect for Msgr. Van Noort, it seems to me that material heretics — those “who externally deny a truth … or several truths of divine and Catholic faith … ignorantly and innocently,” in his words — must necessarily remain members of the Church, given that pertinacity (obstinate denial or doubt) is the hallmark of heresy in its full and proper sense. If full knowledge and full consent are lacking, it is simply not the case that one is a true heretic, canonically speaking.
Canonical Definition of a Heretic
According to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, a heretic is a baptized person who “pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith” (can. 1325 §2). Moreover, since heresy is a canonical delict (crime) — that is, “an external and morally imputable violation of a law to which a canonical sanction, at least an indeterminate one, is attached” (can. 2195 §1) — the older code mentions the use of warnings issued by ecclesiastical authorities (cf. can. 2314 §1, 2315), presumably as a means of establishing pertinacity in the external forum (based on Titus 3:10-11).
The current (1983) Code likewise defines heresy as “the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith” (can. 751). Expounding on this definition, the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law explains: “The denial or doubt must be born of ‘bad faith’ … that is, positions taken with full knowledge, deliberate intent, and the understanding that they are contrary to divine and Catholic faith. The denial or doubt must be pertinacious, that is, obstinate, defiant, and enduring, even after a process of reflection, reconsideration, dialogue, and attempted reconciliation,”[5] which no doubt includes the use of formal warnings (as mentioned above).
These canonical norms are based on sound theology. St. Thomas Aquinas observes in his Summa Theologiae that “it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error” (ST II-II, q. 5, art. 3). Such reasoning is no doubt why, according to Salaverri and Nicolau, the position that “merely material heretics, even if manifest, are members of the Church, is defended by Franzelin, De Groot, D’Herbigny, Caperan, Terrien, and a few others.”[6]
McCusker does not accuse Francis of being a formal (pertinacious) heretic (“I will not attempt to see into his soul”), although he argues that Francis “does not submit to the rule of faith proposed by the magisterium of the Catholic Church,” while simultaneously defining the proximate rule of faith as “the ecclesiastical magisterium as it exists in the present. It is the pope and bishops teaching now.” This implies a rather bizarre and contradictory charge, namely, that Francis refuses to submit to his own magisterium, since, according to McCusker, the Pope himself is “the supreme rule of faith” (more on that claim later).[7]
Lamont, for his part, does hold that Francis is a formal heretic (i.e., guilty of the canonical delict of heresy) whose pertinacity is sufficiently established by means of notoriety of fact,[8] and thus he holds that no warnings are necessary.[9] He quotes Cardinal Juan de Lugo to support his position,[10] after which he argues, “Such warnings are mentioned in the Epistle to Titus, which requires that a person who rejects admonition one or two times be avoided (Titus 3:10-11). However, the epistle does not require that a person be admonished one or more times before avoiding him,” and further, “The Scriptures do not require such warnings in every instance before rejecting a person as a heretic.”
With all due respect to Cardinal de Lugo and Dr. Lamont, St. Paul does seem to say that warnings are necessary to establish pertinacity: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he that is such a one is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment” (Tit. 3:10-11). The implication is clear: a heretic should be avoided only “after the first and second admonition,” and not before.
Similarly, Lamont cites Matthew 18:17 as a Scriptural proof that “the faithful are required to shun the heretic,” yet that verse also calls for the involvement of the Church in dealing with a public sinner: “And if he [the sinner in question] will not hear the Church: let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” And the Catholic Encyclopedia notes the connection between Titus 3:10-11 and Matthew 18:17 as follows:
St. Paul writes to Titus: ‘A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such a one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment’ (Titus 3:10-11). This early piece of legislation reproduces the still earlier teaching of Christ: ‘And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican’ (Matthew 18:17); it also inspires all subsequent anti-heretical legislation. The sentence on the obstinate heretic is invariably excommunication.
In this author’s view, the warnings mentioned by St. Paul serve two purposes: (1) to establish pertinacity in a public and undeniable manner and (2) to alert the attention of the entire Church to the gravity of the matter at hand, which seems vitally important when the accused is none other than the Pope himself (warnings would not matter nearly as much if the accused were merely a private individual). Examples of notoriety of fact (such as Lamont gives in his essays) could be incorporated into the warnings, but this author is not convinced that such examples are a sufficient replacement for the warnings themselves. It should also be noted that such corrections would be fraternal (as opposed to juridical) in nature if addressed to the Pope, based on Aquinas’ teaching that “if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly” (ST II-II q. 33, art. 4, ad 2).
Automatic Loss of Office Due to Heresy?
Both McCusker and Lamont hold that a Pope who lapses into formal heresy automatically ceases to be the Pope without any involvement of the Church whatsoever, even in establishing the fact that he is pertinacious. To quote Lamont (following his critique of Cajetan and John of St. Thomas’ position): “We should therefore accept the view of Bellarmine, according to which a pope loses the papacy ipso facto for committing the public crime of heresy due to his being directly deposed for this crime by Christ, the head of the Church.”
Both men cite the following text from Bellarmine found in De Romano Pontifice: “Now the fifth true opinion is that a Pope who is a manifest [i.e., pertinacious] heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; whereby he can be judged and punished by the Church.”[11] Unfortunately, Lamont fails to mention Bellarmine’s appeal to “St. Paul, who commands Titus, that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, a heretic is to be shunned,”[12] thus emphasizing the need for warnings to establish pertinacity in a public and undeniable manner.[13] (McCusker quotes the pertinent text here but glosses over its significance.)
Moreover, both Lamont and McCusker fail to consider Bellarmine’s teaching in De Ecclesia, in which he lists six reasons “on account of which Councils are celebrated,” and “[t]he fourth reason is suspicion of heresy in the Roman Pontiff, if perhaps it might happen, or if he were an incorrigible tyrant; for then a general Council ought to be gathered either to depose the Pope if he should be found to be a heretic [ad deponendum Pontificem si inveniretur haereticus, in the original Latin], or certainly to admonish him, if he seemed incorrigible in morals.”[14] Later in the same work, Bellarmine (while refuting various Protestant objections) also observes that “it is lawful to admonish him [i.e., a destructive Pope] while preserving all reverence, and to modestly correct him, even to oppose him with force and arms if he means to destroy the Church,”[15] thus refuting Lamont’s argument that warnings must be “carried out by an ecclesiastical superior,” which is not the case when the person being admonished is the Pope, who has no superior on earth.
Ultimately, it must be conceded by all parties that even Bellarmine insists on the involvement of the Church in establishing and declaring that a Pope accused of heresy is indeed pertinacious, as Bellarmine himself taught: “For jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious. Because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men.”[16]
Fr. Sebastian B. Smith, a distinguished canonist, confirms this interpretation of Bellarmine in the first volume of his Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (first published in 1877). In answer to the question, “Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?”, he explains: “There are two opinions: one holds that he is, by virtue of divine punishment, divested, ipso facto, of the Pontificate [Bellarmine/Suarez]; the other [Cajetan/John of St. Thomas], that he is, jure divino, only removeable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church— i.e., by an oecumenical council or the College of Cardinals.”[17]
John Salza and Robert Siscoe note in True or False Pope? that “Fr. Smith’s book was carefully examined by two canonists in Rome following its initial publication. … Their detailed reports noted five inaccuracies or errors that required revision. The above quotation was not cited as an error, or even a slight inaccuracy. … That means the statement is correct and thus reflects the mind of the Church on the matter.”[18]
Salza and Siscoe also quote the Dominican theologian Charles-René Billuart, who states: “Christ by a particular providence, for the common good and tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.”[19]
The reasons why “the common good and tranquility of the Church” demand such an arrangement are summarized by Salza and Siscoe:
For if a Pope were able to fall from the pontificate without the Church being aware of it, we would never know for sure which Popes in the past were true Popes, and which had crossed the line into heresy and lost their office. Hence, we would have no way of knowing if the definitive decrees of the various councils had been ratified by a real Pope, or by one who had lapsed into heresy for a time and secretly fallen from the pontificate. Consequently, the object of the Faith itself (the dogmas that must be believed) would be uncertain, and the determination of which dogmas were defined by true Popes, and which were not, would be left to the private judgment of individual Catholics in the pew to decide. The scrupulous would be paralyzed by doubt, and the unstable would fall into the most outrageous conclusions.[20]
For all these reasons and more, it is surely necessary for the Church (i.e., those who are authorized to speak on behalf of the Church, namely, members of the hierarchy) to be involved in (1) establishing pertinacity on the part of an allegedly heretical Pope (by means of warnings per Titus 3:10-11) and (2) declaring the fact of his pertinacity (should he spurn fraternal correction) in order to give the faithful moral certitude that he has indeed lapsed into formal heresy.[21]
We will examine McCusker’s remaining arguments (listed above) in the second half of this two-part series.
END NOTES
[1] After seeing the aforementioned articles by McCusker and this author, Dr. Peter Kwasniewski commented on Facebook: “I doubt this was planned, but there have appeared simultaneously two pairs of articles, one by McCusker at LifeSite, the other by Gaspers at OnePeterFive, arguing precisely contrary theses. McCusker argues that Francis cannot be pope, and makes the very tightest case you will find anywhere for this conclusion. Gaspers argues that even if Francis was fraudulently elected and even if he is a heretic, he is still the pope at this time, ‘quoad nos’ (as far as members of the Church are concerned). In my opinion, Gaspers wins this ‘debate’ (as I said, they were not addressing each other). I will link all four articles below, for those who are interested.” LifeSite’s John-Henry Westen likewise mentioned the “debate” during his remarks at the 2024 Rome Life Forum (see here).
[2] It is critical to understand, however, that the current crisis did not begin with Francis. As Professor Roberto de Mattei has rightly observed, “The pontificate of Pope Francis certainly represents a leap forward in the process of the Church’s auto-demolition, following the Second Vatican Council. However, this is only a stage, the last one of this process: we could say that it represents its ripe fruit.”
[3] McCusker provides Salaverri and Nicolau’s definition of a heretic, i.e., “someone who, after being baptized, obstinately denies or doubts one of the truths that must be believed by divine and Catholic faith” (Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB [Keep the Faith, 2015], p. 422). Ironically, those same theologians define a public heretic as “someone who openly adheres to some heretical sect” (ibid., p. 423), which obviously does not apply to Pope Francis.
[4] Msgr. G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II: Christ’s Church (Westminster: The Newman Press, 1957), pp. 241-242.
[5] John P. Beal, et al (eds.), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (New York: Paulist Press, 2000), p. 916.
[6] Salaverri and Nicolau, S.J., op. cit., pp. 424-425.
[7] This author suspects that McCusker never accepted Francis as a true Pope in the first place, given this comment from the online journal he co-edits, which clearly implies that said journal is a sedevacantist enterprise.
[8] According to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, a delict (crime) is defined as “notorious by notoriety of fact, if it is publicly known and was committed under such circumstances that no clever evasion is possible and no legal opinion could excuse [the act]” (can. 2197 §3). Such delicts are distinguished from those which the same Code classifies as “notorious by notoriety of law,” i.e., “after a sentence by a competent judge that renders the matter an adjudicated thing, or after confession by the offender made in court in accord with Canon 1750” (can. 2197 §2). Although they are not found explicitly in the current (1983) Code, Lamont rightly notes that “the concepts of notoriety in law and notoriety in fact are basic legal notions that predate that [1917] code, and that are presumed by the 1983 code of canon law (cf. CIC 1983, canon 15 §2).” For worthwhile commentary on the meaning of “notorious” and “notoriety of fact,” see John Salza and Robert Siscoe, True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors (Winona: STAS Editions, 2015), pp. 232-235.
[9] Lamont argues, “Expertise in Catholic theology counts as evidence of pertinacity when a Catholic publicly denies a divinely revealed truth. Pope Francis possesses this expertise. He 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.” And further, “In the case of Francis, it can be presumed that he knows that the truths he is accused of denying have been taught by the Church as divinely revealed. The presumption of knowledge varies with the situation of the individual. In the case of a poorly educated layman, knowledge of all but the most basic truths of the faith cannot be presumed. In the case of a priest who has been given a proper theological formation, however, it can be presumed; even more so for a theologian and for a bishop.”
[10] Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira does the same in Can a Pope be…a heretic? The Theological Hypothesis of a Heretical Pope (Caminhos Romanos, 2018), pp. 204-206.
[11] Bellarmine (trans. Ryan Grant), De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Ch. 30 (Post Falls: Mediatrix Press, 2016), pp. 316-317.
[12] Ibid., p. 313.
[13] Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, and others likewise cite the need for warnings based on Titus 3:10-11 (see Salza and Siscoe, op. cit., pp. 239-250).
[14] Bellarmine (trans. Ryan Grant), De Ecclesia, Book I, Ch. 9 (Post Falls: Mediatrix Press, 2017), pp. 39-40. This certainly agrees with Bellarmine’s teaching in De Romano Pontifice that (1) “a heretical Pope can be judged” according to “the canon Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent [III],” (2) that heresy is “the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors to judge superiors,” and (3) that “in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be judged” (Book II, Ch. 30; op. cit., pp. 312-313).
[15] Bellarmine (trans. Ryan Grant), De Ecclesia, Book II, Ch. 19, p. 220.
[16] Bellarmine (trans. Ryan Grant), De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Ch. 30, p. 312.
[17] Fr. Sebastian B. Smith, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, Vol. I: Ecclesiastical Persons (7th Ed.) (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1889), p. 240 (n. 466).
[18] Salza and Siscoe, op. cit., p. 360.
[19] Ibid., p. 267.
[20] Ibid.
[21] But even here, the question becomes: How many cardinals or bishops would need to participate in order to ensure moral certitude? The Church offers no definitive teaching on this matter, nor do we have a historical precedent on which to rely. As such, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to know exactly what the hierarchical intervention would need to include in order to be sufficient. What we do know, however, is that in the absence of such an intervention, the necessary warnings and declaration of pertinacity could not be issued.