Does Canon Law provide a loophole whereby Jorge Bergoglio is presently immune from losing the Office of the Papacy, even if he is guilty of manifest heresy? Fr. Brian Harrison, OS, SthD, seems to think so.
On Nov. 25, 2024, One Peter Five published an article by Fr. Brian Harrison titled, Is Francis Pope? A Priest’s Reply to John Lamont.
Here, I would like to offer a counterargument to portions of Fr. Harrison’s article, in particular as it concerns his claims of recourse to canon law.
Fr. Harrison sums up Dr. Lamont’s position as follows:
John Lamont’s argument, following the view of St. Robert Bellarmine, can be expressed as the following syllogism:
- Major: A pope who is a notorious heretic ceases to be a member of the Catholic Church, and therefore ipso facto falls from the papal office.
- Minor: Francis/Bergoglio is a notorious heretic.
- Conclusion: Francis/Bergoglio has fallen from the papal office and the See of Peter is vacant.
Before examining the particulars of this exchange, I find it striking just how often Bergoglio’s defenders argue – at times, casually so – against the view of St. Robert Bellarmine, as if his opinions are no weightier than the contemporary theologians who cite him.
Of course, the Doctors of the Church are not infallible in their every opinion, but there’s quite a substantial difference between the views expressed by Bellarmine and the ideas put forth by even the best modern-day theologians, each of whom were reared and educated in this post-conciliar age of widespread doctrinal illiteracy.
That said, Fr. Harrison deserves credit for presenting Bellarmine’s view accurately, which is more than can be said for many others who feel entitled to twist (or to lie) about it in order to make Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy seem credible.
(For example, readers may recall the pitiable, un-Christian, calumnious behavior of Fr. Albert Kallio, O.P. and his shameful enablers at the new Fatima Center.)
In his rebuttal of John Lamont, Fr. Harrison posed the following rhetorical question:
How are the countless millions of ordinary lay Catholics in the pews to prudently decide this question, given that they don’t have the theological and canonical formation necessary to weigh and evaluate the respective arguments of Dr. Lamont and the scholars who disagree with him?
Do you see what Fr. Harrison did there, albeit inadvertently, no doubt? He climbed into the ring to wrestle with the view of St. Robert Bellarmine, but he squared off against John Lamont instead. Let’s be clear:
At base, the argument with which Fr. Harrison disagrees is that of St. Robert Bellarmine (aka Doctor of the Papacy), at least insofar as the syllogism under review is concerned. In other words, Fr. Harrison has set a rather high bar for himself!
That said, I do not share Fr. Harrison’s opinion that ordinary lay Catholics need substantial theological and canonical formation in order to comprehend, and apply, St. Robert Bellarmine’s view on the matter. (Where, by the way, does Fr. Harrison suggest that one go in our day to obtain that sort of formation – a secular college, a diocesan seminary, a Pontifical University? No thanks!)
The good news, as I expect you will discover shortly, is that one need only apply logic, reason, and Catholic common sense to the Bergoglian situation in order to prudently answer the question: Is Francis pope? The even better news is that the basis for the major premise of said syllogism – notorious heretics are not members of the Catholic Church at all – is the perfect foundation from which to launch our inquiry. Why? Because it is uncontested by all, i.e. it’s not an open question.
I am aware of no one with even an ounce of Catholic credibility who insists that merely calling oneself, or being called, “pope” is tantamount to possessing irrevocable lifetime membership in the Church, one that endures even if that man should publicly defect from the faith.
Fr. Harrison doesn’t argue against this undeniable truth directly, rather, he states the following:
First of all, the major, even if true in itself, seems to me canonically inapplicable to the case of Pope Francis even if Lamont’s minor premise also turns out to be true.
NB: Fr. Harrison comes close to conceding that Francis may in fact be a manifest heretic. More on that later. He then explains his reasoning for presuming to grant Francis a veritable get-out-of-jail-free card. He writes:
Canon 194 §1, no. 2 of the Code of Canon Law does indeed provide that “a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith” is “removed from ecclesiastical office by the law itself.” And this ecclesiastical law also embodies divine law, because someone who through heresy or apostasy is no longer even a member of the Catholic Church could not possibly hold office within her with God’s approval.
Let’s stop here for a moment. This is crucial.
According to Fr. Harrison himself, we can be certain that a manifest heretic is a non-member of the Church, and thus cannot hold office in the Church, because it embodies divine law. So far so good. And yet, he also contends that it’s “canonically inapplicable to the case of Pope Francis.”
So, are we to understand that Jorge Bergoglio, or anyone else who claims to be pope, credibly or not, is somehow exempt from all matters related to divine law? Of course not. As St. Augustine states:
The divine law, which is the law of love, is written in the hearts of men, and no one can escape its binding force. (De Civitate Dei, Book XIX, Chapter 4)
Even so, Fr. Harrison went on to explain why he believes that Canon 194 §1 is inapplicable to Francis, despite his affirmation that it embodies divine law:
However, c. 194 §2 goes on to say, “The removal mentioned in §1 no. 2 . . . can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.” [Ellipsis in original] This is a purely human, ecclesiastical law; but it applies here because it imposes a limitation not on the pope’s power but on that of the lesser authorities who would have competence in this case, namely (if we follow Bellarmine), the remaining Catholic bishops.
This may be a bit confusing to some, so I will attempt to translate. If I understand him correctly, Fr. Harrison is saying that Canon 194 §2 places a condition on the bishops who would have the power to “enforce” Bergoglio’s “removal,” under the solitary condition that they issue a declaration. Apart from this, he believes, Francis is not removed, even though this contradicts what immediately preceded in Canon 194 §1 which plainly states that such men “are removed.”
Father’s mistake, I believe, is twofold.
For one, Fr. Harrison is assuming that “removal” such as it appears in Canon 194 §2 means “loss of office.” It is my contention, however, that is not the case, as I shall demonstrate shortly.
Secondly, he is conflating two separate matters, or events: the loss of office on the one hand, and the matter of enforcement on the other. After all, there is a reason these matters are addressed in individual sections.
With regard to the former, Fr. Harrison is suggesting that the cleric who defects from the Catholic faith (i.e., relinquishes his membership in the Church) will continue to hold ecclesiastical office for as long as the bishops may fail to issue the declaration mentioned in Canon 194 §2.
Recall, however, that he previously affirmed that the man who defects from the Catholic faith ceases to be a Catholic, thus making it impossible for him to hold office, and this, he said, is an ecclesiastical law that embodies divine law.
Now, he is arguing that the bishops’ inaction would effectively render the divine law (as embodied in Canon 194 §1) powerless, and this by virtue of what is stated in, as he called it, the purely human, ecclesiastical law (Canon 194 §2).
Does this mean that he disagrees with the teaching repeated by St. Augustine that no one can escape the divine law’s binding force? I seriously doubt it, and yet Fr. Harrison gives us reason to believe otherwise.
Moreover, according to Cardinal Pietro Gasparri, who assisted in the creation of the 1917 Code of Canon Law:
Canon law dare not contradict divine law, for the latter is immutable, while the former is subject to change according to the needs and conditions of the times. – Card. Gasparri, Tractatus Canonicus De Matrimonio, 1891).
As mentioned, none of this is doctorate level theology. All moderately well-formed Catholics know, even if only intuitively, that the divine law is applicable to all (yes, even actual popes), and that ecclesiastical law can never suspend it.
What we are witnessing here, however, is the price that one must pay in order to uphold an opinion that amounts to a denial of the objective, plainly observable reality that Jorge Bergoglio does not have the Catholic faith, it forces one to tacitly deny even the most basic of Catholic truths.
In any case, Fr. Harrison goes on:
Since they [the bishops] have never issued any declaration that Pope Francis has publicly defected from the Catholic faith and so has lost office, neither the bishops nor anyone else at this stage would have the power to enforce his removal and proceed to convoke a conclave for a new papal election. [Emphasis in original]
First, it must be said that public defection from the Catholic faith is just that, public. This means that whether or not defection has taken place is a manifest, observable, and knowable fact apart from any declaration, just like membership in the Church.
Notice also the wording of Fr. Harrison’s claim as it reflects a ray of important truth. He writes, “…any declaration that Pope Francis has publicly defected.”
Indeed, before any such decree can be issued, the defection must have already taken place. So too (according to c. 194 §1) has the result: Such men are removed from ecclesial office – not will be, not can be or might be, but are.
The disconnect here seems to be that Fr. Harrison is misunderstanding to what the word “removal” as invoked in 194 §2 refers.
Pay close attention: The Canons cited address a sequence of events, the order of which is absolutely crucial to keep in mind if they are to be understood in a Catholic sense.
First in this series of events: As established in Canon 194 §1, no. 2, the cleric who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith is removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself.
At this, let’s pause for a moment to consider what the 1917 Code of Canon Law has to say on this matter. As one may have expected, the Pio-Benedictine Code provides a much greater degree of clarity. It states:
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact, and without any declaration, by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric: Publicly defects from the Catholic faith. (1917 CIC 188, Art. 4)
NB: The office of one who publicly defects from the Catholic faith becomes vacant without any declaration.
Furthermore, the 1917 Code understands defection from the Catholic faith as a form of resignation. This is important (especially as it might apply to a reigning pope) insofar as resignation is something that one does of their own volition, by their own action, this as opposed to being fired or penalized, actions that necessarily originate from an external higher authority.
NB: There is no indication whatsoever that the 1983 Code intends to depart from the 1917 Code in this matter, in fact, both texts state the exact same things albeit phrased differently.
For example, “are removed from ecclesiastical office” (1983) is the same as stating that the “office becomes vacant” (1917). Likewise, “by the law itself” (1983) is just another way of expressing “without any declaration” (1917).
This much is clear in the 1983 Code alone, however, provided we read it carefully. For clarity, I will repeat what Fr. Harrison provided:
However, c. 194 §2 goes on to say, “The removal mentioned in §1 no. 2 . . . can been enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.” [Ellipsis in original]
Admittedly, the 1983 canons under review could be worded much more clearly. Even so, we can make sense of them, no Canon Law degree necessary.
Again, we must be careful to follow the logical sequence of events: First comes defection, at which point such men are removed from (lose) the office, and only then do we arrive at enforcement.
This being so, it seems rather obvious that Canon 194 §2, which deals with enforcement, is not addressing the loss of office since divine law as embodied in the previous section (194 §1, no. 2) has already taken care of that.
Removed vs removal
Pay close attention to the tenses. Canon 194 §1 states that defectors from the faith “are removed.” This indicates a present state of being. What are they? They are removed. (Not will be, not might be if only, etc…)
This is followed by Canon 194 §2 which speaks of “the removal.” Given that the defectors are removed already, we can only logically understand “the removal” to refer to such things as the extraction, elimination, or barring of the man from his former place (e.g., the bishop’s residence, the cathedra, the altar, the papal apartment, etc.).
For example, the members of a parish whose pastor has publicly defected from the Catholic faith do not have the right to change the locks on the rectory, even though the man has lost his office, until such time as the “competent authority” issues a declaration.
“Enforce” might also refer to certain next steps, e.g., as Fr. Harrison mentioned, the calling of a new conclave.
The difficulty with Fr. Harrison’s reading of these canons is that it forces one to concede that there is a blatant contradiction in the text, e.g., they are removed, but not really until… Now, don’t get me wrong. The conciliar counterfeit church is more than capable of contradiction. Indeed, the documents of Vatican II have many! As stated, however, there is no indication of an intent to contravene the 1917 Code in this matter.
It is true, as Fr. Harrison states, that the “competent authority” has yet to issue a declaration regarding the defection of Francis, which is a necessary step toward proceeding to convoke a conclave for a new papal election. He is incorrect, however, in stating that they (cardinals, bishops) do not have the power to do so for this reason.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if indeed Francis has defected from the Catholic faith and is no longer even a member of the Catholic Church, then the papal office would most certainly be vacant. This alone means that the “competent authority” does, at this very moment, possess the power to do whatever is necessary in order to convoke a new papal conclave, starting with the power to issue a declaration.
Whether or not the competent authority acts on that power is another matter altogether.
NB: In order for such a “competent authority” to exist at all, one that it has the power to issue the declaration under discussion, the man in question must have already been removed from the papal office and is no longer the pope!
Don’t gloss over this point as it lends genuine clarity to the matter.
Imagine a group of cardinals – every single one, even – issuing a declaration in 1911 stating that Pope Pius X defected from the Catholic faith when he revised the Breviary and he is, therefore, no longer the pope. The Holy Father as their superior could, and presumably would, reprimand and punish them accordingly. Point being: Unless Giuseppe Marto had been removed from the papacy before those cardinals ever took paper and pen in hand, their declaration would be meaningless since they could not be considered a “competent authority.”
Capisce? Moving on…
As for how we, the faithful, are to behave until such time as the competent authority acts, Fr. Harrison continued his examination of Canon Law, stating:
And in the meantime, even though through his (putative) notorious heresy Francis would have incurred latae sententiae excommunication the instant after losing the papal office, his continuing acts of papal governance would still be valid, even though illicit. Why? Because according to c. 1331, §2, no. 2, those acts, unlawful though they be, will be invalid only after his excommunication has been declared by the competent authority. [Emphasis in original]
I find this assertion unconvincing. As for the canon cited (c. 1331, §2, no. 2), it reads:
Canon 1331 § 2. If a ferendae sententiae excommunication [not by the law itself but rather imposed by authority following a juridical process] has been imposed or a latae sententiae excommunication declared, the offender: 2° invalidly exercises any acts of governance which, in accordance with § 1 n. 6, are unlawful.
Canon 1331 § 1, n. 6, states:
An excommunicated person is prohibited from performing acts of governance.
It seems that confirmation bias is causing Fr. Harrison to read into this text that which simply is not there. Specifically, the canon cited does not suggest that acts of governance undertaken by one who has defected from the Catholic faith (and is no longer Catholic) remain valid provided no one in authority bothers to declare otherwise. Rather, Canon 1331 § 2 merely describes a particular situation whereby such acts are both invalidly exercised and unlawful. Nothing more.
Fr. Harrison’s position appears to be born of a fixation on the act of declaration when, in fact, the critical factor in this debate concerning validity centers around the question of competence.
Canon lawyer Edwards Peters clarifies:
The validity of any act of ecclesiastical governance requires, above all, that it be performed by a competent authority. No matter how well-intended or how formally correct an act may be, if the person performing it does not possess the requisite jurisdiction, the act is invalid from the start. (Edward N. Peters, Canon Law: A Very Short Introduction, 2011).
Once again, bear in mind the 1917 Code’s treatment of the same topic, wherein it states:
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact, and without any declaration, by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric: Publicly defects from the Catholic faith. (CIC 188, Art. 4)
Unless Fr. Harrison can reasonably demonstrate that the 1983 Code (setting aside arguments concerning its own validity) intends to depart from the traditional canon, his position – that the unlawful acts of a pope who defects remain valid until a declaration is issued – falls apart entirely.
Why? Because one can neither possess nor exercise “competent authority” from the vacant office to which the requisite jurisdiction is attached.
All of that said, for as much fun as parsing Canon Law can be (you are having fun, right?) it cannot provide an answer to the question that Fr. Harrison proposed to answer:
Is Francis the pope?
What can provide a reliable answer is sober consideration of another, relatively simple, and much more basic question: Has Jorge Bergoglio defected from the Catholic faith?
On this note, Fr. Harrison stated that he does not believe that there is enough “publicly available evidence that confirms beyond a reasonable doubt that he pertinaciously rejects one or more teachings that he knows to be taught by the Church as divinely revealed?” [Emphasis in original]
With no disrespect of Fr. Harrison intended, it seems to me that the only reason a well-informed Catholic might fail to see any such publicly available evidence is that he is burdened by a severe case of confirmation bias, i.e., he is so attached to his current opinion that he is practically blind to anything contrary. (I know. I’ve been there.)
In truth, public evidence of Bergoglio’s defection is plentiful. Consider, for example, the Final Document of the Synod on Synodality, one that Francis plainly declared to be “papal magisterium.” It plainly states:
In every place on earth, Christians live side by side with people who are not baptized yet serve God by practicing a different religion.
This amounts to a blatant denial of the First Commandment (addressed in more detail HERE), and it certainly isn’t Bergoglio’s first such offense. Recall his Joint Declaration with Grand Imam Ahmed el-Tayeb wherein he insisted that God wills “the pluralism and the diversity of religions.” More recently, he publicly declared:
All religions are a path to arrive at God. They are, of a comparison, like different languages, different idioms, to arrive there. (Address to Young People, September 13, 2024)
On all of these occasions, Francis was publicly (and presumably privately also) encouraged to correct himself, to bring his teaching in line with the true faith. One cannot even begin to count how often he has been publicly called to correct various parts of Amoris Laetitia, at times even by high ranking clerics.
One would have to abandon reason (something we are never called to do) in order to imagine that Francis is merely mistaken because he doesn’t really know what is taught by the Church in such matters.
More could be written in response to Fr. Harrison’s disappointing article, but enough for now.
In closing, let me just say that I do not envy the man who would take on the task of arguing that Francis has not defected from the Catholic faith, or otherwise stated, that he does publicly manifest and profess the true faith.
I ask, is Fr. Harrison willing to take up that challenge? Is anyone?
