ON DEFENDERS OF HERETIC POPE FRANCIS AND OF HERETICAL WICKEDNESS (DEFENDERS LIKE MICHAEL VORIS): WILLIAM OF OCKHAM Dial. 7 CHP. LXV

Pope Francis & President Of The Democratic Socialist Republic Of Sri Lanka, Mahinda Rajapaksa

Chapter 65 

Student: Although many matters pertaining to abettors of heretics and of heretical wickedness would still require to be investigated, (and I shall scrupulously proceed to do so, with reference to specific persons, in the treatise On the deeds of those disputing about orthodox faith), nevertheless, putting these matters aside, I now focus attention on defenders of heretics and of heretical wickedness, and as to these I request first of all that you would explain to me who are to be identified as defenders of heretics and of heretical wickedness.

Master: The answer is that since to defend some thing is to protect it from attack or to render assistance against an attacker thereof, while an attack may be undertaken in three ways, namely, verbally, in writing, or by deed, one may defend heretics and heretical wickedness in many ways, just as heretics and heretical wickedness may be attacked in many ways. For a heretic may be attacked by the action of someone who attempts to capture him, or to arrest him, or to bring him before a judge, or to haul him off to judgement so that justice might take its final course concerning him. [=execution GK] A heretic may also be attacked verbally, and this in many ways, either when he is duly and properly accused in court, or outside of the courtroom when preachers and doctors, prelates, or others in the know, reveal his treachery to the uninformed so that the latter may take precautions. A heretic may also be attacked in writing: in court when one writes against him, or outside of the courtroom when his treachery is demonstrated by reasons and authorities, and the absent informed of it by letters. Heretical wickedness, for its part, may be attacked verbally and in writing. Verbally: when it is castigated in sermons or lectures or in secret discussions; and in writing, when catholic works are composed to condemn heretical wickedness.

One gathers from these options that heretics and heretical wickedness may be defended in many ways, and that by whatever methods one might attack heretics and heretical wickedness, the same methods (and possibly more) would be available for purposes of defense. Therefore, one may defend heretics by deed, namely, by preventing their capture, or by preventing their being arrested, so that they not suffer justice taking its final course. One may also defend them verbally in court, or outside of the courtroom, by maintaining that they are not to be considered heretics. One may also defend them in writing, by composing books and letters to prove and to proclaim that they must not be numbered among the heretics. One may likewise defend heretical wickedness in three ways, namely, by deed, verbally, and in writing. And as to action two methods might be mentioned at present. One would be to forbid its opponents to attack it. Another method would consist in destroying their written oppositions and allegations, either by having these burned or through some other means, or by maliciously confiscating them and preventing them from coming to the notice of others. One may also defend heretical wickedness verbally, by contending that it ought not to be numbered among the heresies; and one may similarly defend heresy in writing.

Student: According to the aforementioned there would be a large number of issues needing to be investigated concerning defenders of heretics and of heretical wickedness, but I shall put aside many for the sake of brevity. Some, however, I shall pursue. Furthermore, since I consider it arguable that if some pope were ever to become a heretic, he would be more harmful and more dangerous than all the other heretics past and future except for the Great Antichrist (assuming, that is, that this Antichrist would not be the pope himself), [cf. 1 Dial. 6.19] I shall apply any future questions concerning the defenders of heretics and of heretical wickedness to the defenders of a heretic pope and of his followers, as well as of his heresies. Tell me at the outset what penalty should be inflicted on those who actively prevent justice taking its final course with respect to the person of a heretic pope, but do not involve themselves in the defense of his errors.

Master: The answer is that such obstructionists, who assist a heretic and obstructionist pope in avoiding the final course of justice as to his person, either know that the pope is a heretic, or they do not know it. If they do not know, then, either their ignorance is grossly passive (for they do not want to know, or scorn to know, or neglect to know that the pope is a heretic), or it is justifiable. If they know that the pope is a heretic, or are ignorant of this due to grossly passive ignorance, and yet help him to avoid the final course of justice while not involving themselves in a defense of his errors, perhaps even asserting openly that his errors are contrary to catholic truth, then they are defenders of a heretic, even if they are not directly defenders of, or assenters to, heretical wickedness. And therefore, in no way do they incur the punishment of heretics, but they rather lapse into a sentence of excommunication, and cannot have the benefit of a legitimate church burial (Extra, De hereticis, Sicut, [cols. 779-780] and Extra, De sententia excommunicationis, Noverit). [col. 910] And other punishments await them (mentioned in Extra, De hereticis, Excommunicamus 1) [cols. 787-789] if they remain excommunicated for an entire year. Some of their further punishments are mentioned in Extra, De hereticis, Si adversus. [cols. 783-784] But if they do not know that the pope is a heretic, and their ignorance is justifiable, they incur no punishment.

Student: Must those who know that the pope is a heretic (or even those who are ignorant of this, but whose ignorance is grossly passive), and who have authority and power to inflict terminal justice upon a heretic pope, be classified among defenders of a heretic pope if they neglect the performance of their function.

Master: One opinion holds that they are defenders of a heretic pope, and incur the punishment of defenders, just as those who have the official function of defending a battered clerk are considered abettors of the violence he suffers, and incur the same punishment as the batterers, if they can defend the clerk yet fail to do so (Extra, De sententia Excommunicationis, Quante). [col. 909] There is another opinion that such are not defenders of a heretic pope, because a defense implies some overt action. Such people, however, do not perform any overt action relevant to the stated defense.

Student: What is the feeling concerning those who defend a heretic pope verbally or in writing, asserting and stating that he is not to be reputed a heretic.

Master: There are many ways in which this can happen. One way is to maintain and to confirm verbally or in writing that the heretic pope does not hold nor utter, either as an assertion, or as an opinion, or as a mere recited statement, the errors which are imputed to him, errors which in reality he holds with pertinacity. Another way is to claim that he holds and utters these errors merely as opinions, and that he does not assert them with pertinacity. Yet another way is to suggest that the errors imputed to the pope are not to be classified among the heresies. If one follows the first option, a distinction is in order. For either the defenders know that they are lying, or they do not know that they are lying, and in the latter eventuality their ignorance is either grossly passive, or justifiable. If they know that they are lying, they not only commit the crime of mendacity, but are also to be reckoned conscious defenders of a heretic pope, and incur the penalty due to such defenders. If, however, they do not know that they are lying, ands their ignorance is grossly passive (because they do not want to know, or scorn to know, or neglect to know), then, although according to some they might be excused of the crime of mendacity, they nevertheless are hardly excused of the crime of defending a heretic pope, and therefore they lapse into the penalty due to such defenders. If, on the other hand, they do not know that they are lying, and their ignorance is justifiable, then they commit neither the crime of mendacity nor the crime of defending heretics, since their justifiable ignorance excuses them of both crimes. There is a similar distinction with respect to those who assert that a pope is stating the errors imputed to him merely as opinions or recitations. For if they know or believe that they are lying, then they manifestly commit the crime of mendacity, and also the crime of defending a heretic. If, on the other hand, they do not know that they are lying, and their ignorance is grossly passive, then they are involved in the crime of defending a heretic. But if their ignorance is justifiable, they are excused of both crimes. And if they say that the errors imputed to the pope are not to be classified among the heresies, then they must not only be reckoned defenders of heretics, but also defenders of heretical wickedness. This is true if the errors of a heretic pope are errors explicitly condemned, and if those who defend a heretic pope in this way pertinaciously hold that the imputed errors must not be numbered among the heresies.



Comments