The importance of distinctions - some reflections of Fr. Gleize's "The Question of Papal Heresy"

+

JMJ

Fr. Gleize's study on "The Question of Papal Heresy", has  caused a few people to, unknowingly, enter into mental gymnastics as they "jump" to conclusions and "leap" through flaming hoops.

I've seen Fr. Gleize have the same affect a few years ago when he penned another scholarly article. My suspicion is that the ability to read a long academic article is not a skill easily learned. I now consider myself fortunate to have read over a hundred such articles for my under-grad thesis, although I definitely did not think so at the time.

So, if you're going to read Fr. Gleize, Dr. Lamont, Dr. Shaw et al, you're going to have to exert yourself and if necessary draw a mind-map of the concepts as they are described.

Why?  Because the concepts and principles being discussed are not simple and require deep study to master.



I have received the following brief explanations to some questions posed about Fr. Gleize's article:

At the beginning of Part 4, he clearly stated  "after carefully defining terms, we review the essential question; can the Vicar of Christ be heretical, in the exact sense of the word?"

Fr. Gleize makes all the distinctions, clearly defining the terms used: internal forum vs. external forum; material heresy vs. formal heresy; act of heresy vs. heretical proposition; occult, occult vs. public or notorious heresy.  Then, he applies these terms to the question of the possibility of a heretical Pope.   He explains that what makes a formal heretic is the notoriety of the heresy along with the pertinacity of that person in teaching heretical statements. Now, applying to the person of the Pope, Fr. Gleize concludes that a Pope could not be declared as notorious heretic during his lifetime, because notorious heresy has in fact to be declared by the competent superior, and since the Pope has no superior here on earth, no one is competent to declare his heresy canonically.

The astute reader will note that Fr. Gleize and Dr. Lamont (Considerations on the Dubia) are not in perfect agreement.  While most people like things black and white, this is not the case in unprecedented cases of theology - such as we have today. Theologians will need to work this out by putting forth arguments and discussions.  As Sts. Robert Bellarmine and Suarez were not in perfect agreement, we shall have to sit back and listen to the arguments of various theologians to reach a concensus.  I know more than one person who is impatient for this process to end, but there is nothing for it, we'll have to just wait.

Fr. Gleize adds  further: "the question that we are asking ourselves here is extremely precise: Does Pope Francis deserve this designation [heretic] in the eyes of simple theology... and does he deserves it because of what he affirms in the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia?"

This is a hang-up for many mental gymnasts. Don't jump to the conclusion that you want, do the heavy lifting and work through the points one by one.

To answer that question, Fr. Gleize went over the Five Dubia from the Cardinals.  Father then concludes that even though they point out to a number of very confusing and misleading propositions from Amoris Laetitia, we cannot conclude that the said propositions could be considered as "heretical statements" stricte sensu.

I agree with Fr. Gleize who, by the way, is in agreement with the other 40+ theologians.

I think that we have to be careful when we use such words like "heretical".  We have to make the distinction between the broad sense and the technical meaning, according to Catholic theology and Canon Law.

I agree absolutely, as I've seen many use the work "heretic" when they meant simply error.

In any case, there is no much else we can do besides "Oremus pro pontfice nostro Francsico!"

On that note:

P^3