The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the crime of heresy in this way:
"Heresy is the willful and obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; " (Paragraph 2089)
The Church's moral theology has always distinguished between objective (material) heresy and formal heresy.
The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is considered to be in objective heresy. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council, we now speak of them as our “separated sisters and brothers”.
The person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.
Only the person who both willfully and obstinately denies some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same is guilty of the crime of heresy.
When it comes to Catholics who are formally guilty of heresy, the Church applies the penalty of excommunication. For Prelates, the additional penalty of the loss of office is likewise attached to the crime of heresy.
It is important to understand that, for a person to be guilty of the crime of heresy, he or she must be both willful and obstinate in their denial or doubt. Thus, before the penalty of excommunication (and loss of office) becomes effective, the person must be given an opportunity to renounce his or her denial or doubt.
For this reason, canon law requires that a warning be given before a Prelate is excommunicated and loses his office. This aspect of canon law is founded on divine law and is considered so necessary that even one who publicly defects from the faith must be warned before losing his office.
The warning determines, with a sufficient degree of certitude, whether or not the person who has professed heresy is willful and obstinate, rather than merely mistaken, or perhaps only guilty of a regrettable statement made out of human weakness, which might be a sin, but not necessarily the crime of heresy.
Since willful obstinance is itself a necessary element of the crime of heresy, it does not suffice that its presence be presumed; it must be confirmed. The warning accomplishes this by removing any chance of innocent ignorance, and/or providing the suspect with a chance to affirm what was denied in a moment of weakness.
In addition to the canonical warning, in most cases the loss of office also requires a Declaratory Sentence of the crime.
Some have claimed that a Pope who professes a heresy cannot be warned. They say that a warning requires a judgment, and since “the first See is judged by no one”, no one is permitted to warn a pope. They further maintain that a warning must come from a superior, and since the Pope has no superior on earth, it follows that he cannot be warned.
Both of these objections fail to consider that a warning can be either an act of justice (which is proper to a superior), or a work of mercy and therefore an act of charity. As an act of charity, an inferior can certainly warn, or fraternally correct, a superior, “provided,” wrote St. Thomas Aquinas, “there be something in the person that requires correction.”
Once a Pope’s willful obstinance in heresy has been sufficiently established, an imperfect Ecumenical Council would issue a Declaratory Sentence of the crime of heresy, which finds that the Pope has willfully professed heresy and has shown himself to be both obstinate and incorrigible.
John of St. Thomas explains that this declaration must come from an Ecumenical Council. He wrote: “regarding the deposition of the Pope with respect to the declaration of the crime, [it] in no way pertains to the Cardinals alone but to a General (Ecumenical) Council.”
It should also be noted, as Fr. Wernz S.J. has observed, that the Declaratory Sentence of the crime “does not have the effect of judging a heretical pope, but of demonstrating that he has already been judged by virtue of divine law.”
Thus, the Declaratory Sentence merely confirms what has already occurred, by affirming that the Pope has deprived himself of the Pontifical Office.
The Council does not cause the deposition of the Pope. It merely confirms that the Pope has deposed himself by virtue of his willful and obstinate heresy.
Admittedly, this is a very rare situation which the Church may be facing: a Pope in danger of a formal correction for introducing error into the dogmatic and moral teachings of the Church.
We can only pray that the Holy Spirit touch the hearts and minds of everyone thus far involved and allow kinder and gentler words of dialogue resolve what has the potential of bringing great harm to the unity of the Church.
No comments:
Post a Comment