POPE FRANCIS - A HERETIC? ON THE PUNISHMENT OF HERETICS AND ESPECIALLY OF THE POPE WHO HAS BECOME A HERETIC WILLIAM OF OCKHAM Dial. 6 CHP. XXXIX

Chapter 39

Master: Some say that these objections demonstrate your lack of wisdom, and indicate that you do not understand the assertion being discussed. They say that three points must be noted in order to clarify matters. Here is the first of these points. In the same way that there are differing works of justice, some of which may appropriately concern both subjects and rulers (for whether you are a subject or a ruler you must return by necessity of justice property which is not yours unless you are excused from this by some reasonable cause), while other works of justice do not concern everyone but only rulers (for instance to judge with justice only pertains to a superior), so are there some works of compassion and kindness which may concern everyone (for instance to pray, or to intercede on someone's behalf, and a few other such) while there are certain works of compassion, on the other hand, which must not concern everyone, such as the task which sometimes arises of defending certain individuals by force of arms.

It must secondly be noted, they say, that although affirmative commands are always obligatory, they are nevertheless not binding under every circumstance which might arise. And thus everyone remains obligated to perform personally appropriate works of mercy to his neighbours. Nevertheless everyone is not bound to exercise such works of compassion at all times, but only when the time and the place are opportune, and when other relevant circumstances are taken into account.

They say that it must thirdly be noted that a person may defend others in many ways. One way is by resisting with force of arms; another is by verbally arguing on someone's behalf or by dissuading would-be attackers from violence by words of encouragement, command, prohibition or by other words of whatever nature; another is by hiding someone or by not betraying him to the authorities, or by giving him shelter in one's home or in some safe place. And there exist many other ways to defend others, which it would take a long time to recount.

Student: Describe how one responds to my objections with the help of the points just listed.

Master: They say to the first objection that although occasionally it might be proper to exhibit works of compassion even to bad people, nevertheless all works of mercy must not be performed on behalf of all bad and irreligious persons. For instance, it is a work of mercy to intercede before a judge on behalf of guilty individuals who must be punished, and yet no one has the duty of interceding for the liberation of incorrigible scoundrels (23 q. 4 c. Est iniusta). [Col. 915] Therefore while certain works of mercy must be afforded to heretics who oppose the catholic faith, nevertheless a defense which might in some fashion result in benefiting heretical wickedness or prejudicing the Christian faith must be completely denied to them, and believers must provide the appropriate defense only to catholics who oppose a heretic pope in support of orthodox belief.

A possible response to your second objection is that all works of compassion are obligatory for a certain time, just as the love of one's neighbor (from which all works of compassion must proceed) is obligatory. And therefore the defense of opponents of a heretic pope is obligatory when the relevant circumstances are there, even though the precept in question is not understood to be obligatory at all times.

Student: According to these theorists when does this precept become obligatory.

Master: The answer is that just as a person who can afford it is necessarily bound to give alms when an obvious and urgent requirement exists on the part of the needy, and the person does not know anyone else whom he probably believes to be willing and able to relieve the need of the individual in crisis, in the same way anyone who can is obligated to defend, in the manner possible and relevant to his situation, opponents of a heretic pope, when these opponents necessarily require such a defense and no one else emerges who is willing and able to provide protection. Indeed, just as when a danger to the faith were imminent prelates would have to be verbally confronted by subjects and catholic belief faithfully stated, in the same way when a danger to the faith or a diminution of God's honour were imminent due to the defense of a heretic pope's opponents being neglected, these opponents of the pope would have to be defended by all those who could help [at that moment], if no one else would appear to protect them. And whoever would in some appropriate situation deny these opponents the defense owed to them would lapse into mortal sin and become an aider and abettor of heretical wickedness, nor might anyone be excused here save by lack of power.

Student: I shall inquire carefully about this issue in the 7th Book of this work. Therefore report how one responds to another objection.

Master: The response to the next objection is that some category of defense only pertains to those who wield jurisdiction, as for instance the regular punishment of delinquents only pertains to them. However, besides this kind of defense, as was stated above in the third notable point, there are many other ways of defending the opponents of a heretic pope which might be relevant to individuals other than judges. Some indeed are frequently defended from the violence of others by prayers alone, whence such a method of defense is mentioned in dis. 87 c. Eos, [col. 305] where we read the following: "it is not proper to surrender those who flee to a church for security, but rather to defend them by the religious awe and intercession of this holy place". One gathers from these words that sometimes certain persons are defended by the very fact that they are not surrendered or that intercession is made on their behalf. Indeed someone may be defended in many different ways, which are known to pertain not only to those who possess jurisdiction but also to ordinary individuals. Therefore the least among catholics, those who have no jurisdiction, and also the powerful, may defend the opponents of a heretic pope in many ways: sometimes by not betraying them, or by hiding them, or by using all needed words to convince those who persecute these opponents to desist, and by other means it would take a long time to describe.

One responds similarly to the fourth objection, because there are many other ways of defending the aforesaid opponents than to use the defense that relies on arms. And where you suggest that it does not pertain to perfect individuals to ward off intended injury, this is negated as to many ways in which such repulsion may proceed. And when you advance the authority of Christ, the response is to follow Augustine's commentary on John, which we read in 23 q. 1 c. Paratus, [col. 891] that the stated command of Christ is directed more towards inner motivation than towards action in the real world. And when you say that arms ward off harm, you speak the truth. But besides this mode of warding off harm, there are many others, which are compatible with the status of perfect individuals and clerks.