When it comes to Catholic discourse, I tend to prefer the essay over the interview, the written word over the verbal presentation. Why? Because it’s more likely to remove the subjective matter of personality from the equation, leaving objective doctrinal truths to dominate. It also eliminates the potential for slips of the tongue, i.e., it forces the writer to commit to a position via substantive arguments that, presumably, are well thought out in some detail prior to publication.
When a work such as this is especially effective, the reader will be left not so much convinced as intrigued, moved to ponder certain questions, whether explicitly raised or simply implied in the text. And here’s the kicker: When the writer has done a truly exemplary job, the answers to these lingering questions, based on the content of the work, are largely obvious.
On May 2, 2024, Rorate Caeli published just such a work, a “Major Statement” that calls for “the resignation of Pope Francis.”
The text, which weighs in at nearly 11,000 words, bears the signatures of seventeen co-authors, the most recognizable of which among U.S. readers are Peter Kwasniewski and John Henry Westen. The content of the document includes a brief Introduction followed by four main sections:
- Crimes of Pope Francis
- Heresies of Pope Francis
- Background and effects of the crimes of Pope Francis
- Action to be taken in response to the crimes of Pope Francis
In this post, we will focus on points raised in the Introduction and Sections 1, 2, and 4. (Section 3 merits a post of its own.) We will conclude by considering some obvious questions and their nearly as obvious answers.
The Introduction reiterates the Statement’s intention as announced in the title:
“We therefore call for Pope Francis to resign the papal office…”
NB: Right out of the gate, the authors of the text reaffirm their belief that Jorge Bergoglio is the Holy Roman Pontiff. Just a few sentences later, however, they state:
“He has shown that he rejects the Catholic faith, and has worked to destroy the faith of other Catholics.”
Section 1 begins by framing the crimes of “Pope Francis” as violations of Canon Law while adding that “the Church has by divine right the power to legislate for her members and to inflict juridical punishments on them.” The intent, evidently, is to suggest that the Church can prosecute and punish a reigning pope, a notion that no serious Catholic supports.
It is surprising that seventeen persons with knowledge of the Catholic faith would sign-off on such an implication without demanding clarity, namely, the pope is judged by no one.
Section 1 concludes by stating that the crimes of Francis “make him unfit to be pope.”
By “unfit,” it seems they are suggesting that, with regard to Francis, an impediment to the papacy exists. We will address this in more detail moving forward.
Section 2 begins:
“Pope Francis has publicly and pertinaciously contradicted a number of central teachings of the Catholic faith.”
This is a strong statement. It is entirely unambiguous. Even so, for clarity it may be useful to consider the Catholic Encyclopedia definition of pertinacity:
Pertinacity, that is, obstinate adhesion to a particular tenet is required to make heresy formal. For as long as one remains willing to submit to the Church’s decision he remains a Catholic Christian at heart and his wrong beliefs are only transient errors and fleeting opinions.
With respect to Francis, it is a well-known matter of historical fact that he has been the recipient of fraternal correction on many occasions, i.e., he has been invited, and even passionately urged, to submit to “the Church’s decision” on various immutable doctrines and he has been unwilling to do so. This being so, the authors of the “Major Statement” are entirely justified in stating that Francis is pertinacious in his contradiction of the true faith.
At the conclusion to Section 2, the authors reiterate the point in such a way as to make it plain that Francis is not merely guilty of “transient errors and fleeting opinions.”
“These greater and lesser crimes give reason to believe that his heretical assertions are truly a stubborn and deliberate rejection of the Catholic faith.”
At this, we jump to Section 4, which begins:
“Pope Francis is manifestly unfit for the papal office.”
Once again, the authors label Francis “unfit,” a concept that requires an explanation, which we will attempt momentarily.
“His fundamental offence against the office is unbelief. Since he no longer accepts the Catholic faith that it is his task as pope to uphold, he has a moral obligation to resign the papacy.”
This statement is ambiguous at best, and we may even say that it is incorrect, in more ways than one.
“Unbelief” – which, in the case of Francis, the authors have boldly defined as his “public, pertinacious, and deliberate rejection of the Catholic faith” – is not, properly speaking, an offense against the Office of Peter, rather, it is an offense against Jesus Christ and His Church, one that is incompatible with the Office of Peter. In other words, it is an impediment to the papacy. It is in this sense that one may conclude that he is “unfit.”
For the record, it is questionable whether or not “unbelief” by itself morally obligates a man to resign the papacy. Now, one may reasonably argue that it’s the right thing to do, but it’s also the case that a true pope who becomes an occult heretic – that is, secretly heretical, doubting or denying a truth of Catholic faith within himself – may still uphold the duty of his office, to safeguard and to teach what the Church teaches. It is public pertinacity that renders a man unfit. More on that momentarily.
The Statement goes on:
“Without belief in the Catholic faith, he lacks the knowledge and the graces needed to repent of his past sins, to correct the evils he has done, and to fulfil the duties of his office.“
As the above hypothetical example of an occult heretic pope suggests, unbelief alone does not make a man “unfit” for the papacy. Clearly, however, something more is at play when the unbelief is public, pertinacious, and deliberate. Stick with me…
The authors of the Statement – roughly half of whom are native English speakers – actually go so far as to state:
“If Pope Francis refuses to resign, the duty of the bishops and cardinals is to proceed to declare that he has lost the papal office for heresy.“
To declare what? That he has lost the papal office.
This isn’t complicated folks. “He has lost” is past tense, i.e., the authors of the Statement are calling for Francis to resign the papacy, but then, within the very same sentence, they state that he has already lost the papacy.
As I wrote at the outset, the value of the written word is that the writer is immune from slips of the tongue, with every opportunity to consider his arguments in some detail prior to publication. In this case, there are no less than seventeen persons credited as co-authors. The plain meaning of the words they’ve chosen to use indicate their belief that Francis has lost the papacy.
Let’s evaluate what we’ve reviewed thus far…
If in fact Jorge was ever pope, it is true (as the authors suggest) that the loss of office has already happened. Not because I say so, and not because the brain trust that co-authored the “Major Statement” say so, but because Catholic doctrine most certainly says so, as we shall see.
Moreover, there is a place – a necessity even – for a declaration on the part of those who exercise Apostolic authority, but the nature of that declaration is not what many seem to think. For an explanation, we will turn to the eminent 18th century theologian, Fr. Pietro Ballerini.
Fr. Ballerini begins his treatment of the topic by stating that when confronted with a pope teaching heresy, the Cardinals, others in the clergy, and even private persons, can “refute him and, if necessary, summon him and press him to repent.”
With respect to Francis and his heresies, this has happened in full public view numerous times over many years, and God only knows how many other times in private. And yet, he refuses, “publicly and pertinaciously” (to quote the Statement’s authors once more) persisting in his heresy.
So, what happens in such cases?
According to Ballerini (and Bellarmine and others as we shall see):
For the person, who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined dogma – not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity – this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such a way that now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church.
NB: “No declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary,” the man is cut off from the Body of the Church by his own will, i.e., he is no longer a member of the Church. This is one of those central teachings of the Catholic faith that no one has the right to either doubt or deny.
Ballerini then makes known the purpose of a declaration on the part of those in authority:
So that he [the heretic] might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed [i.e., declared], so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will he had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate…
Pay close attention to the order of things: The public pertinacious heretic, refusing correction, loses both membership in the Church and the papal office, and this by his own will. Any declaration of that fact thereafter serves to warn the faithful about what has already taken place.
The Statement continues:
“The Catholic Church has always held that popes can be heretics, and that a pope who commits the public crime of heresy loses the papal office thereby.“
This statement is not quite half true, but the truth that it does contain is of the utmost importance.
First of all, as Ballerini states (and Bellarmine confirms below), the sin of public pertinacious heresy – apart from any criminal “conviction” or declaration – serves to separate a man from the Church and likewise from the papacy.
The fact remains, however, that the Church has never authoritatively spoken (much less always held a position) on whether or not popes can be heretics. In fact, St. Robert Bellarmine did not believe it possible for a pope to fall into heresy even as a private person. He did, however, as the authors of the Statement affirm, weigh-in on what would happen if he should so fall:
A Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church. (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Summo Pontifice)
Hopefully, what stands out to readers at this point is the matter of membership. As both Ballerini and Bellarmine indicate, a public pertinacious heretic ceases, of his own will, to be a member of the Church. This, my friends, is most certainly what the Church has always held. On this point, there is neither room for confusion nor debate. At all.
As such, the authors are perfectly justified in stating, as Bellarmine does, that such a one “loses the papal office thereby.”
They continue:
“This belief (ipso facto loss of papal office) is based on the teachings of the Scriptures, which assert that the heretic separates himself from the Church by committing the sin of heresy. Clearly a pope who chooses to leave the Church by embracing heresy cannot remain pope.”
NB: Here they speak of the sin of heresy. Indeed, such a man cannot remain pope, furthermore, he cannot be pope and, in fact, he is not pope, no more than he is a member of the Church of any rank.
At this point in the text, despite the ambiguities and contradictions mentioned, it appears that the authors are prepared at long last to plainly and publicly state the only possible conclusion: Francis is an anti-pope!
But then, just as it seems that they are on the verge of a breakthrough, they introduce a straw man into the argument via yet another dubious assertion:
“Theologians and canonists have disagreed on the details of how a heretical pope falls from office.“
This isn’t exactly true, and furthermore, it contradicts what the authors previously stated.
As mentioned, it remains a matter of speculation as to whether or not a pope can fall into heresy. As such, it only stands to reason that the Church has never pronounced on a specific procedure that must be followed if that should ever happen, i.e., these are the only pertinent “details” about which legitimate disagreement can exist.
And yet, what the Church has always and everywhere taught about the public pertinacious heretic is that he “ceases in himself to be a member of the body of the Church,” to quote Bellarmine once more. This, my friends, is not in doubt in the least. In fact, he who doubts it and refuses to submit to what the Church teaches in the matter is casting doubt on his own membership.
Now, let’s ask some of the obvious questions invited by the Major Statement.
Do the authors of the text really believe what the Church has always taught about public pertinacious heretics and membership, including the statements that they themselves make in the text?
Evidently, the authors of the Statement do not believe what the Church teaches regarding heresy and membership, despite paying lip service to that doctrine in the text. To be clear, this isn’t merely an exercise in speculation.
Pope Pius XII repeats what the Church teaches in the matter when he writes that “members of the Church must also be externally manifest through their profession of the same faith … the true faith.” (cf. Mystici Corporis) In other words, we know the members of the Church, in part, by the faith they profess.
It should go without say that external manifestation includes not only what we say, but also what we do. If one speaks the true faith and yet denies it in action, refusing to apply it to real world circumstances, or altering it in some way to fit a given circumstance, something other than the true faith is being made externally manifest.
What are the authors of the Major Statement manifesting?
Early in Section 4, they mention the “duty to speak out about the crimes and heresies of Pope Francis … a duty that falls on all the members of the Church who have some right and authority to publicly teach and uphold the faith.”
And yet, they are unwilling to uphold the faith by applying what the Church has always taught about membership to Jorge Bergoglio. If they were to manifest the true faith in this way, they would plainly and publicly state, Francis is an anti-pope! Hopefully, one or more of the signatories to the Major Statement will soon break from the pack and do their duty.
At present, however, they refuse to do so. As such, it cannot be said that they are externally manifesting the true faith. Rather, they conclude the Major Statement with a major contradiction:
“If such a declaration [that Francis has lost the papal office for heresy] cannot occur because there are too few bishops and cardinals willing to speak out about Francis’s heresy, the faithful bishops and cardinals should form a united group to publicly warn the faithful of his crimes and heresies, state that his tenure of the papal office is in doubt due to his heresy, and admonish the faithful not to believe his statements or obey his orders unless it is clear on independent grounds that these statements and orders should be respected.“
Despite making statements such as “he has lost the papal office for heresy; by embracing heresy a man cannot remain pope; the heretic separates himself from the Church by committing the sin of heresy, and a pope who commits the public crime of heresy loses the papal office thereby,” still, they refer to the heretic Bergoglio as “Pope Francis” throughout the text. In the concluding paragraph, they even suggest that his office is merely “in doubt.”
Wherein lies this doubt of which they speak?
For a Catholic, no doubt can exist whatsoever: Heretics like Francis are not members of the Church, and non-members cannot be pope. Nothing could be simpler. And yet, the authors of the Major Statement evidently do harbor doubt on these points.
So, what’s going on here?
Admittedly, the answer to this question is a matter of speculation. Even so, common sense alone suggests some obvious and even likely possibilities.
For one, it appears that the authors of the Major Statement want to have their cake and eat it too. The “cake” in this case consists of the temporal rewards that are derived from laboring in the “Resist the Pope” industry. Plainly speaking aloud what their very own words conclude – namely, Francis is an anti-pope! – would be like the owners of KFC publicly admitting that their 20-piece buckets don’t contain any real chicken.
Secondly, and very closely related, it seems rather clear that these persons are unwilling to endure the persecution that is necessarily visited upon those who say aloud what they themselves – as the Statement makes perfectly plain – damned well know to be true: Francis is an anti-pope!
Thirdly, the unwillingness of these persons to plainly speak their own conclusions aloud may perhaps come down to nothing more mysterious than a prideful unwillingness to say, “I was wrong.” Evidently, the embarrassment of plainly contradicting oneself in writing is more palatable to them than admitting error.
If there are better theories, I’m all ears. What I am not open to considering is that the authors of the Major Statement – intelligent persons each – are too stupid or confused to realize just how contradictory and utterly foolish their commentary is. Frankly, I am embarrassed for these people.
As the title to this post suggests, thanks to the Major Statement, the evidence is mounting, not however concerning the status of Jorge Bergoglio. Everyone with even a modicum of Catholic sense has known for years that he is a wholesale fraud, a false pope, who has genuine hatred for the Catholic faith.
Even so, the authors of the Major Statement have done a truly exemplary job of telling readers all that they need to know, not about Jorge, but about themselves; the evidence at this point is conclusive:
The Captains of the Resist the Pope industry are not to be taken seriously as purveyors, much less defenders, of Catholic truth.
Until such time as they are willing to manifest the true faith by applying what the Church plainly teaches to the heretic Bergoglio, their genre must be acknowledged and dismissed for what it truly is, little more than a perverse and profitable form of quasi-religious entertainment.
