Some Thoughts on the Recent Open Letter against Pope Francis

Some conservative teachers and theologians have recently put out an open letter in which they accuse Pope Francis of heresy.  I'm sure there will be a ton of responses to this in coming days and weeks.  What I would like to do here is simply provide a few brief thoughts and point out what I take to be some of the fundamental problems with this letter.  You can find the letter itself here.  I don't intend to point out every problem I might have with the letter, but just to focus some attention on a few major concerns.

First Problem - The Reliability of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium

The first problem with this letter is that the writers fail to recognize the unfailing reliability of the ordinary magisterium of the Church and particularly of the Pope.  They point out rightly that the Pope cannot err (and therefore certainly cannot teach heresy) when teaching infallibly or definitively.  They obviously believe, however, that the Pope can teach heresy when he is teaching authentically but non-definitively.  The problem with this is that this is contrary to Church teaching.  The teaching of the Catholic Church is that the Pope, and the bishops as a whole, can teach with various levels of definitiveness, but that Catholics are bound to submit with mind and will to all magisterial teaching according to the intention of the magisterial teacher.  So if the Pope teaches something and intends it to be a definitive pronouncement, Catholics are to submit to it as the final word on the subject and irreformably and forever true.  If the Pope teaches something which he intends the people to believe, but it is not intended as necessarily the final word on the subject, then Catholics are bound to accept that teaching, but not necessarily as the final word on the subject.  All magisterial teaching is to be regarded as inherently reliable, for it all comes with the authority of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  We can never be led astray by following magisterial teaching, although non-definitive teaching can lead us to provisional conclusions that may later turn out to be augmented or even corrected.  The fact that non-definitive teaching is not necessarily irreformable is not contrary to its reliability, for the reformable nature of such teaching does not come from any unreliability in the teaching but in the non-definitiveness of the magisterial intention.  If the Pope teaches us that X is the best position to hold right now and that we ought to hold position X, but that this is not necessarily the final word on the subject, if later on we find that X is false we cannot be said to have been led astray by the Pope's teaching, for that teaching did not teach us that X would never be overturned.  But the reliability of the Pope's ordinary teaching obviously precludes that teaching from including heresy--that is, from including ideas that contradict what the Church has previously affirmed definitively to have been revealed by God.  For we already know that such teachings cannot be true and that we should not hold them.  It would be contrary to the justice and truth of God for legitimate authority appointed by him to legitimately bind us to teaching that it would be wrong to hold.

25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.  (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, #25, found here at the Vatican website)

I have made a thorough case documenting this teaching of the Church in this article, so I won't duplicate that case here.

So if the Pope cannot teach heresy in his authentic magisterium, even when he teaches non-definitively, then Pope Francis cannot have taught heresy in any of his authentic magisterial teachings, such as those found in Amoris Laetitia.  Rather, all Catholics are bound to submit to all that Pope Francis has taught the Church to believe.  The writers of the open letter are in violation of the teaching and laws of the Church on this point, as Canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law points out:

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.  (Catholic Church, Code of Canon Law, Canon 752, embedded links removed, found here on the Vatican website)

Second Problem - Nothing Pope Francis Has Taught Can Be Shown to Conflict with Catholic Doctrine

If it could be shown that a Pope has taught something in his authentic, ordinary magisterium, intended as binding on the Church, that is contrary to previous definitive Catholic teaching, this would be a serious problem for Catholic epistemology.  As with claims of biblical contradictions, we have to look at alleged errors and contradictions in papal teaching to determine if a contradiction can truly be proved.

I'm not going to attempt to do a thorough analysis of this here.  But I see nothing in anything that Pope Francis has taught that contradicts previous Catholic doctrine.  The biggest set of objections mentioned in the open letter have to do with Pope Francis's teaching in Amoris Laetitia.  They allege that Pope Francis has contradicted previous Catholic teaching on the illicitness of adultery, the indissolubility of marriage, and the inappropriateness of someone in mortal sin being admitted to communion, because, in Amoris Laetitia and in subsequent teaching, he has said that it might be permissible in some cases, as judged by a pastor on a case-by-case basis, for some people who are in "irregular unions" (read: objectively adulterous relationships) to be admitted to communion to some degree and in some way.  Pope Francis's basis for saying this is, at least in part, his recognition that some people who find themselves in objectively adulterous relationships might be legitimately confused about what they should do.  For example, imagine a person who, through a series of events, finds herself in a "marriage" with a man who is not her canonical husband.  They have children.  She wants to do the right thing, which would seem to involve at least no longer engaging in sexual activity within her current "marriage" relationship.  But she is not sure this is really the right thing to do.  Perhaps she is aware that her husband will not accept this situation and will leave the relationship, or that one or both of them might be tempted to adultery.  In such cases, the relationship could be destroyed, which would lead to great harm to the children.  Now, Pope Francis isn't saying that such a person should continue engaging in sexual relations within her current relationship.  He is only saying that it might be that such a person might be confused in conscience about how she ought to proceed, even if she knows in her mind what the objective rules of the Church require.  He envisions that this person's pastor might get to know and understand this person and the nature of her relationship, and while attempting to help her get into a better objective situation, he might recognize that she is truly trying to do what is right but is confused, and that she seems to be truly in a state of grace, and so, if scandal can be sufficiently avoided, he might allow her to receive Holy Communion, at least to some degree.

So Pope Francis's critics are saying that this contradicts previous Catholic teaching.  But it doesn't.  It doesn't contradict the indissolubility of marriage.  It doesn't contradict the illicitness of adultery.  It doesn't contradict the idea that those in mortal sin should not take communion or be allowed to do so.  So there is simply no basis here for any charge of heresy.

(For more on Amoris Laeititia, I would recommend the excellent writings of Stephen Walford, some of which can be found here,  He has written a book-length treatment of this as well which is very helpful.  Pope Francis himself wrote a letter to be used as a preface to the book.)

The other arguments the authors of the letter make are equally vacuous, so far as I can see.  They accuse the Pope of buying into Luther's doctrine of justification.  Pope Francis has indeed expressed that he thinks Luther got justification right.  But he hasn't expressed which aspects of Luther's views he agrees with, nor has he shown with any clarity or depth of nuance what he thinks Luther's views really were.  He has not expressed any intention to overturn the doctrines of the Council of Trent.  It seems from context that he has simply meant to say that he thinks Luther's idea that we are saved by God's grace and not by our own works or merits was fundamentally correct--and, of course, Catholic theology has always agreed with this.  One might argue that Pope Francis might have spoken on this subject more carefully and with greater clarity.  But it cannot be shown that he has intended anything heretical by anything he has said.

The authors of the letter say that Pope Francis teaches that it is impossible to obey all the commandments of God, contrary to Church teaching at Trent, against the Jansenists, etc.  But they have misunderstood him, and they have oversimplified the doctrine of the Church.  What the Church has taught is that grace makes it possible for us to do what the law of God requires of us.  This was against the Jansenists and others who would say that God might command of us actual impossibilities--which would be absurd, because then we could not be guilty for disobeying, which would make sin to be no sin.  But the Church has never taught that all people at all times and all places can obey all the objective commands of God.  For example, there are people who literally cannot get baptized.  There are people who, through invincible ignorance, don't know they ought to get baptized, or join the Church, or who haven't heard the gospel command to believe in Christ, etc.  All of us are subject to errors, inabilities, and confusion from time to time.  But here is the key point:  God does not require people to do what they cannot do.  He requires all people to be baptized, but, speaking with stricter accurately, we should really say that he commands all people to get baptized who know and understand that command and who are capable of fulfilling it.  He commands all others to do the best they can to figure out what they ought to do and to try to do it to the best of their ability.  God commands all people to avoid adultery.  But if a person legitimately doesn't know or understand that command, or is truly confused or ignorant about what they should do in some particular situation, what they are commanded to do is to follow God's will as best they can.  They cannot be blamed for not doing what they truly cannot do.  What the Church has taught is that grace removes all impediments to people being able to be truly righteous--to love God, love their neighbors, and choose to fulfill the commands of God.  This is all the law of God requires of any person.  Grace does not make it so that all people in any situation can, instantaneously, live up to every general objective command that God has given.  So it is Pope Francis's critics, not Pope Francis, who have distorted Church teaching on this subject.  Pope Francis's teaching explores a nuance related to personalized pastoral care, but it doesn't contradict anything the Church has previously taught about the efficacy of grace.

Later on in their letter, the authors try to argue that Pope Francis has implicitly promoted various heresies by means of his actions.  Here, the letter slides into the realm of the more obviously implausible and even absurd.  For example, they allege that Pope Francis has not adequately rooted out certain prelates known to promote homosexual behavior, or that he has put some of these prelates into high positions in the Church, and they argue that this suffices to show that Pope Francis promotes the view that homosexual sexual behavior is morally acceptable.  But this is absurd.  Even if it is granted that Pope Francis has done what the authors say he has done, we cannot infer from this what his theological and moral views are.  Perhaps Pope Francis is simply very imprudent when it comes to how he deals with Church discipline.  Perhaps he is negligent.  But we cannot take such actions and, against what he has said explicitly or even without any explicit statement either way, impute to him heretical views that we construe his actions as implying.  Now, I don't accept that Pope Francis is guilty of the things the authors say he is.  I think they have distorted and oversimplified the facts.  I don't want to get into this now.  My main point here is that even if all their facts were correct, accurately interpreted, and complete, there would be no case from things of this sort to show that Pope Francis holds or teaches the heretical views they attribute to him.

Third Problem - Who Gets to Decide When a Pope is a Heretic, and What To Do With a Heretical Pope?

So far, the Church has yet to define with any definitiveness, clarity, or precision, whether a Pope can be a heretic, when he might be able to be a heretic, and what should be done with a heretical Pope.  So the authors have developed their own theories, without magisterial support, and without any substantial foundation at all to a great degree.

The questions surrounding the idea of a"heretical Pope" have been discussed and debated throughout Church history, as the authors of the letter point out.  While there is no Church teaching which nails down all the answers to all of these questions, there are some things we can say with reasonable safety.  We can rule out a Pope being able to teach heresy in his official magisterial capacity, for reasons discussed above.  Can the Pope be a heretic in his personal beliefs or in his private--that is, non-binding--teaching?  Some Catholic theologians have held that he can, and I am not aware of anything in Church teaching that rules it out.

What would we do if we found ourselves with a Pope who was a private heretic?  There is no authoritative answer to this question.  On this point, the authors of the letter pick their preferred answer without any substantial evidence and put it forward as if it were a justified and settled conclusion.  In reality, no one really knows what should be done in such a hypothetical case.  But we can say this:  In the context of a Catholic epistemology, it is the Church, and not private theologians, who has the authority to answer these questions.  It is the Magisterium of the Church--that is, the bishops in communion with the Pope--which has the authority to decide whether or not there can be a heretical Pope, whether there is a heretical Pope at any given time, and what should be done about it if there is.  The route chosen by the authors of our letter has no foundation, and it is evident that it is a route that, if followed through on, could only lead to schism.  They say that if a Pope were to manifest himself as a heretic, it would be the job of the Church (if it is anyone's job) to authoritatively declare him such.  So far they say well.  But then they say that this authoritative pronouncement need not be made "by all the bishops of the Catholic Church, or even by a majority of them. A substantial and representative part of the faithful bishops of the Church would have the power to take these actions."  What in the world does this mean?  Who gets to determine what constitutes a "substantial and representative part of the faithful bishops of the Church"?  The only thing this could mean in practice is that some sizable group of bishops in the Church can decide that they think a Pope is a heretic and then, even against the objections of the Pope and the rest of the bishops, they can authoritatively declare him such, from which follows automatically, according to the authors, his loss of papal office.  What happens then?  What if the rest of the Church refuses to go along with this, maintaining the legitimacy of the current Pope?  Does the "faithful" group get to elect a new Pope?  Do they have to wait for the cardinals?  How long do they have to wait?  Who gets to decide all of this?  Anyone with any reasonable degree of perceptiveness should be able to see that this is nothing but a recipe for disastrous schism in the Church.

The Catholic way is different.  The Church teaches that bishops do not have authority except in communion with the Pope.  (See, for example, Can. 336 and CCC #883.)  One of the main functions of the papal office is to prevent schism.  If bishops disagree with each other, we are to follow the See of Rome.  It is not for a private theologian, or a single bishop. or a group of theologians, or a group of bishops, to decide that a Pope can be a heretic, or that a certain Pope is a heretic, or that a certain course of action should be followed with regard to alleged papal heresy, without the approval of the Pope.  No such action could be legitimate.  We can envision all sorts of hypothetical possibilities that may or may not be possible or that may or may not ever happen, but none of them are legitimate possibilities if they contradict the fundamental structures of authority in the Catholic Church.

Sometimes it is alleged that there have been heretical Popes in the past.  I don't want to get into this now in any thoroughness.  There have been interesting cases in the past, but none of them provide any justification for the authors' point of view or for departing from the Church's views on Church authority.  Pope Honorius was declared a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and by later Popes for what he said to the Bishop of Constantinople about Christ only having one will.  But there are two things to notice here.  One is that nobody declared the Pope a heretic without papal approval.  If papal approval had not been given to the council's decisions, they would have had no authority from the Catholic point of view.  Also, it is not clear that Honorius intended to teach false doctrine authoritatively, or that later Popes ever claimed that he did.  The later Pope Leo II condemned Honorius for failing to stand up against heretical doctrine and thereby abetting it.  Honorius's comments themselves seem to suggest that he was not intending to affirm the doctrine of "one will" that was later condemned.  It is quite possible to understand Honorius's crime not as intending to teach authoritatively a false view, but as speaking unclearly in a way that negligently avoided attacking the sprouting heresy in the bud.  Other complexities of this situation could be noted as well.  But however we construe it, we cannot prove from it that Popes can be heretical in their authentic magisterial teaching (though they can be negligent and fail to fulfill all their duties adequately) or that individual bishops or groups of bishops can declare Popes heretical without the consent of papal authority.

Another historical case is that of Pope John XXII, who taught as a private theologian that saints who die don't get to experience the Beatific Vision until after the Last Judgment.  But when controversy erupted over his teaching, he clarified that he was teaching as a private teacher.  Also, his position had not yet been condemned by the Church.  (It was condemned by his successor.)  So there is no help here for the authors of our letter.

We could go on, but you get the picture.  There is nothing in history which justifies the positions taken by the authors of our letter.  They mention a provision of early canon law, also found in the teaching of some Popes, which seems to say that Popes cannot be judged by the Church except in cases of heresy or deviations from the faith.  But these statements are historically obscure, and it is not clear what they meant in any detail.  They have been subject to different interpretations.  Modern canon law has no such provision, and, as the authors of our letter themselves point out, the Church has made it abundantly clear that no one can judge the Pope as his superior, and that there is no recourse beyond the judgment of the Pope to a higher ecclesiastical authority.  At best (and I think this goes beyond what can be proved by the evidence), we might say that the Church has taught in the past that Popes might be private heretics and so might be judged to be such (or to have been such) by the Church (that is, by the Magisterium of the Church--the bishops in communion with the Pope).   [Note 4/1/23:  Here is an article with my updated and more full views on this subject.]  But this doesn't help our authors, who allege a Pope to have taught heresy in his official public teaching and who say that a "substantial and representative" group of bishops smaller than the majority have competence to authoritatively declare a Pope a heretic, thereby causing him to lose papal office, even without papal approval.

(If you want an example of theologians commenting on these issues in Church history, you might check out this selection from St. Francis de Sales.)

Much more could be said regarding this letter.  It is lamentable that these authors have taken a course of action that will tend to result in confusion among the members of the Church, without any good reason.  To the extent that they are successful in gaining a significant hearing, it can only lead to more confusion, dissent, and even to schism in the Church.  One positive thing I can envision coming out of this is that they might provoke the Pope and the CDF to come out with a new statement clearly smacking down this little movement of conservative dissent which has been yipping and yapping against Pope Francis for the past few years, with increasingly shrill yips and yaps.  But it may be that this little dissenting movement might be too small and insignificant to get much response from the Holy See.  Hopefully, in that case, it will simply fizzle out of its own accord over time, as so many dissenting movements throughout the history of the Church have done, some of which were much larger and lasted far longer.  But we can be sure that, whatever happens, all things are under the wise providence of God.

Published on the feast of St. Athanasius of Alexandria