Catholic Candle note: Sedevacantism is wrong and is (material or formal) schism.  Catholic Candle is not sedevacantist.  We recommend a small book explaining the errors of sedevacantism.  It is available:

❖  Here, for free: https://catholiccandle.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/sedevacantism-material-or-formal-schism.pdf

❖  Here, at cost ($4): https://www.amazon.com/Sedevacantism-Material-Quanta-Cura-Press/dp/B08FP5NQR6/ref=sr_1_1

Below is the third article in a series which covers specific aspects of the error of sedevacantism.

Catholic Bishops throughout History have Judged and Excommunicated Heretical Subordinates.  Doesn’t this Show that it is Permissible for Catholics to Judge the Pope’s Culpability for Heresy?

We address this question after first setting forth the context for this question by summarizing the first two articles in this series.

Synopsis of the First Article of this Series

In a previous article[1], we saw that a pope does not cease to be pope when he preaches heresy, regardless of how public, manifest, and notorious his heresy is, as long as he does not know that he is holding a position which prevents him from being Catholic.

We saw that when any person (including the pope) understands that he denies what he is required to believe in order to be Catholic (i.e., to belong to the Catholic Church), then that denial causes him to cease to be Catholic.  This is to be a formal heretic.  If a pope becomes a formal heretic, he ceases to be pope.

By contrast, if a person (including the pope) holds a heretical position but he does not know that his position is incompatible with being a Catholic, he would be a material heretic and not a formal heretic.[2] 

We saw in that previous article that Pope John XXII (who reigned from 1316 until his death in 1334) was a public and material heretic, yet he did not cease to be pope.  This pope denied a dogma of the Faith without knowing that his position was heresy.  The dogma he denied (like all dogmas) was always part of the infallible Catholic Faith in spite of the fact that this dogma was not defined ex cathedra until later. 

But again, the dogma this pope denied was already infallibly part of the Catholic Faith because (as we know) all dogmas are part of the Faith from the beginning of the Church.  No dogma “becomes true” or “becomes a dogma” later, e.g., at the time it is defined ex cathedra.  Pope John XXII’s denial of the dogma constituted his denial of an article of the Faith because heresy is a statement against the Catholic Faith.[3]  But again, Pope John XXII was a material heretic and not a formal heretic, and because of this, he remained the pope until his death.

In the case of Pope Francis, however-publicly he teaches heresy, that does not tell us whether he remains pope precisely because we cannot be certain that Pope Francis understands that he is contradicting what he is required to believe in order to be Catholic. 

But the sedevacantists would reply (often in a tone of exasperation): “Oh, come on!  He knows he is contradicting the Catholic Faith.”  That reply raises the topic of the sedevacantists’ (objective) sin of rashly judging Pope Francis (as well as rashly judging the 1.2 billion other persons who profess to be Catholic but who hold false, conciliar positions).

Synopsis of the Second Article of this Series

Because of the sedevacantists’ readiness to judge Pope Francis by concluding that he “knows” he teaches heresy, we then considered (in a second article[4]) whether it is permissible for us to judge Pope Francis’s interior subjective culpability, based on his words and actions.  If it is permissible for us to conclude that he knows that what he teaches is incompatible with being a Catholic, then he is a formal heretic and is neither the pope nor a member of the Church.

We saw in this second article that the pope says he is Catholic and he has never said that he does not qualify to be Catholic.  Thus, for the reasons given in this second article, we should give him every benefit of the doubt and conclude he is Catholic (if we judge him at all).

In light of the fact that Pope Francis says he is Catholic and is the pope, if we were to say that he is not a “real” Catholic and that he is lying to us that he thinks he qualifies to be a Catholic, then we are rashly judging his interior subjective disposition and culpability. 

As St. Thomas Aquinas shows (as quoted in this second article), it is better to be usually wrong about persons’ interior disposition and culpability rather than to ever be wrong in judging too negatively any person (including Pope Francis).  Thus, unlike what the sedevacantists do, no faithful and informed Catholics would ever conclude that Pope Francis is not the pope based on the assertion that he “knows” that he does not qualify to be Catholic but won’t admit this “fact”.

Thus, we must avoid rash judgment and we must judge Pope Francis to be a material heretic, not a formal heretic, and judge (if we judge him at all) that he is the pope).

However, at the end of this second article, the question arose:

How can rash judgment be forbidden when the hierarchy of the Church has judged and excommunicated heretics throughout the history of the Church? 

That question raises the important topic of excommunications and judgments made in the “external forum” (as it is called).  Below, in the present article, we examine that question.

A Superior who Punishes his Subordinate in the External Forum, for the Good of the Community, is Not thereby Judging Rashly.

Civil and ecclesiastical authorities cannot read the interior souls of their subordinates any more than parents can read the souls of their children.  But because these authorities have a special duty to care for the community over which they have charge (like parents do, for their children), they have a duty to punish the wrong-doing of their obdurate subordinates, for the good of the whole community.  They must use their best efforts to administer justice, although they could be wrong in their particular judgments.  God will judge them according to how diligently they fulfilled their duty. 

Thus, a civil judge has a duty to punish murderers (and other criminals), although it is possible for him to be mistaken in his judgment.  The judge is judging outwardly, i.e., in the external forum.  He must do the best he can, and he judges based on the evidence in front him.

Similarly, Church authorities have a duty to protect the community over which they have been placed, although they could be mistaken in their judgments.  These authorities must punish persons who spread heresy even though these authorities could be mistaken, just as a civil judge could be mistaken.

Among other punishments, a superior can separate the person who spreads heresy from the flock (in other words, excommunicate the person).  Of course, the easiest way for a superior to protect his flock, is often to try to convince the material heretic that he is wrong, rather than to inflict punishment.

Here is how Pope St. Pius X explains the duty of ecclesiastical superiors to judge in the external forum and punish their heretical subordinates, even though a subordinate might not be interiorly culpable for any sin and might not be a formal heretic:

Although they [the Modernists] express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their doctrines, their manner of speech, and their actions [which are the outward, objective criteria upon which a man judges in the external forum].[5]

Thus, as Pope St. Pius X explains, a superior might be mistaken about “the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge” but nonetheless, the superior has the duty to protect the community over which he has authority, by judging the outward conduct of wrong-doers under him (and punishing, where necessary).

Although many times in the history of the Church, a bishop or the pope has fulfilled his duty to judge one of his subjects to be a heretic, this is in the external forum and could be in error.  But the superior was required to make this determination nonetheless because of his position of authority and his duty to protect the community.

We Have No Right to Judge the Pope Even in the External Forum

Of course, subordinates like us do not have this right or duty to judge others except those who are subordinate to us.  As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches: “[Judgment] is not prohibited to superiors but to subjects; hence they [viz., the superiors] ought to judge only their own subjects.”  Lectures on St. Matthew’s Gospel, ch.7, §1.[6]

But we Catholics are not the pope’s superior, with the task of punishing him in even the external forum.  The pope has no such superior on earth in the external forum.  Therefore, we must not judge him in the external forum, seeking to remove him from the papacy.

No One has a Right to Judge the Pope In the Internal Forum

Nor are we (or anyone) allowed to conclude that the pope “knows” that he rejects what he must believe in order to be Catholic.  This would be to judge the pope in the internal forum.  We and everyone else are forbidden to judge his interior subjective culpability because only God may do this.  Pope St. Pius X taught this truth in the following words:

[Concerning] the internal disposition of the soul, … God alone is the Judge.

Pascendi, Pope St. Pius X, §3, (full quote is above).

That we are forbidden to judge anyone’s culpability in the interior forum, i.e., regarding subjective culpability – including for teaching heresy – St. Thomas teaches in the following words:

 

He [God] has committed to us the judgment about exterior things, but He has retained to Himself judgment about interior things.  Do not therefore judge concerning these; ….  For no one ought to judge about another that he is a bad man: for doubtful things are to be interpreted according to the better part.[7]

                                                         

Thus, we must neither conclude that Pope Francis is not Catholic nor that he is not the pope unless he tells us that he knows that he does not fulfill the qualifications for being Catholic and being the pope.  If he were to tell us this, then we are not rashly judging him but merely believing what he tells us.

From this we see that we must not judge the subjective, interior culpability of the pope (or anyone else) and declare that he is a formal heretic.  The internal forum is God’s domain, not ours.  This is true even though the bishops and pope have been required throughout history to judge and punish persons in the external forum for their heretical teachings, in order to protect the flock from contamination.

Follow-up Question:

But a person could ask:

➢  If we are forbidden to judge that Pope Francis knows that he is denying the Faith and knows he does not qualify to be a Catholic;

then

➢  Are Catholics defenseless against the pope’s heresies, since we cannot declare – “for our own protection” – that he is not the pope?

This question presents the issue of what can Catholics do when we have a bad pope (or other bad superior or bad father).  This issue will be addressed in a future article.