Hypothetical case: Would it be a sin to call a heretic pope/bishop/priest by the name “heretic”?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sub_Tuum_Praesidium
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sub_Tuum_Praesidium

Guest
Hypothetical case:
  1. Would it be a sin to call a hypothetical pope (or bishop or priest) teaching blatant heresy “a heretic” (not to their face, but in candid conversation or on an online forum or social medium) or “communist” etc?
  2. What about the same but to the hypothetical pope/bishop/priest’s face? Would that change the morality of it (worsen, of course)?
    I don’t mean a hidden heretic who you would be shocked to learn that he was one in the case a leak came out --no, I mean blatant.
    The intellectual context is Mt 5: 22, to wit:
But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca,’ shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, ‘Thou fool,’ shall be in danger of hell fire.
Click to expand...
… and also Ex 20: 12, to wit:
Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
Click to expand...
…given that popes and bishops and priests are our spiritual fathers.
But also in the light of the fact we are to oppose spiritual murder, such as the kind that is done ok’ing sodomy, Communism, idolatry or schism; which is, no doubt, our duty.

Also, add to the recipe, given a hypothetical widespread climate of heresy, there is no superior to denounce this person to (in the case of a priest, his bishop, and in case of a pope, well, no one on earth is the superior of a supposed Pope).
 
Last edited:
It’s not possible for a Pope to officially teach heresy from the chair.

As far as priests or bishops: unless a certain member of the clergy has been officially denounced I would be extremely cautious in what you say and how you say it, as well as consider whether such conversation is meaningful in the first place. As human beings we love to emotionally involve ourselves in all sorts of world events that we have zero immediate participation in and the fact is we could spend our entire lives living faithfully and with charity without ever having a clue what is going on in Rome or anywhere else.
 
Last edited:
I have no intention of arguing for or against a heretic pope. Suppose the hypothetical case is an impostor pope who was not duly elected and is a heretic. Since this is a hypothetical case, just suppose this is the case. If you believe a pope cannot be a heretic, consider this detail to be a godsend way to discover the impostor!

Now, back to the regularly scheduled question…
 
It certainly risks being gossip, detraction, or even calumny. We are not privy to the private reasoning behind he Holy Father’s actions. Until and unless we are, we should do him the one favor he asks of us: Pray for him.
 
What you say is a matter of course. The question still remains: is it a sin to call a priest in blatant heresy a heretic? Such as, “Father James is a heretic!”, or, alternatively, “Bishop Timothy is a Communist!” in a conversation?

Or, let’s put it this way. po18guy, are you suggesting that saying such a thing merely imprudent, or a downright sin, even a grave sin?

( [a] imprudent, or sin, [c] a grave sin)
 
Last edited:
Sub_Tuum_Praesidium said:
Would it be a sin to call a hypothetical pope (or bishop or priest) teaching blatant heresy “a heretic” (not to their face, but in candid conversation or on an online forum or social medium) or “communist” etc?
Click to expand...
Even if your own intentions are pure, I think entirely too many CAFers will not read your question as hypothetical.
 
St. Paul says, “After a first and second warning, break off contact with a heretic, realizing that such a person is perverted and sinful and stands self-condemned.” (Titus 3:10-11). So one must be able to identify such a person. And it is certainly possible for clergy to commit this sin–all the way to the top–as history shows.

That being said, as alluded to by St. Paul, simply being wrong does not a heretic make. There has to be manifested a certain obstinacy. Especially when it comes to errors of our higher-ups, most of us are only in a position to point out and refute the error, rather than correct the person, so it is best to stay within the realm of ideas and let those in a position to make the correction make the judgment where there is any doubt.

We also shouldn’t make such accusations loosely, otherwise we risk sinning ourselves through slander. As St. Peter Damian said, “It is only too true that he who customarily takes pleasure in reviling the failings of others will not avoid sinning himself, since even if he is zealous in practicing justice, at some times he will have to fall into the snares of slander.” (Letter 44).
 
Last edited:
This:
blackforest said:
Even if your own intentions are pure, I think entirely too many CAFers will not read your question as hypothetical
Click to expand...
Hypothetical questions are typically ones that are being “tested” to see if the actual question can then be asked.

If the purpose of calling a cleric a heretic (or a communist) is to discredit them, then yes, it is sinful.

If you think you know better than a particular member of the clergy on some topic or question, it is very unlikely that you do. The word “heresy” comes from the Greek word for “choice.” That is, making a choice contrary to that given by the hierarchs in your example.

There are no new heresies, just old ones poured into new wineskins.
Deacon Christopher
 
There is a proper process for dealing with a cleric teaching something that is not true. “Fraternal Correction” is the phrase I was taught. There is a history of correction starting with St. Paul correcting St. Peter (Gal 2:11-14).

So “no” its not a sin to call out an error, but it should be done in charity.
 
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.
Lumen Gentium 25
Click to expand...
I cannot really picture callng a pope a heretic while acknowledging his magisterium with reverence. They seem kind of antithetical. But whether it is sinful depends on full knowledge and consent. You can almost assume there is not full knowledge if they are calling the pope a heretic.

It gets harder when there is a pope and an antipope claiming to be pope. Then there is almost certainly not full knowledge. If you do know which is the rightful pope, then it pobably is a sin to call him a heretic.
 
Dovekin said:
I cannot really picture callng a pope a heretic while acknowledging his magisterium with reverence.
Click to expand...
Not everything a Pope says and does is “magisterium.”

Even with regard to magisterium, the “religious submission” spoken of is not the unconditional obedience of faith. It is based on the hierarchical structure of the Church and the divinely instituted (why it’s “religious”) role of bishop as teacher, especially the bishop of Rome as chief teacher.

I like to think of it this way: in a classroom, a student should generally take to heart and mind what the teacher teaches. That is the rule–the teacher is authorized to teach and the student is there to learn. Students should not be disruptive, nor should they let the lesson go in one ear and out the other.

But sometimes the teacher might teach something that just doesn’t seem right to the student based on his prior learning from other trusted, authorized teachers. The student may need to seek further explanation or clarification. There’s nothing wrong with this.

The teacher may mistakenly get something clearly wrong, that the student might want to address with the teacher after class in a respectful way. He may even need to make sure other students do not accept the clear falsehood in the meantime. There might even be rare, extreme situations where a student might be obliged in conscience to stand up right then and there and defend the truth or good morals for the good of all.

If the Pope’s “manifest mind and will” is manifestly contrary to the faith, then it should be adhered to accordingly–that is, not at all. Likewise, a Pope who promoted his own novelties, rather than handing on what was entrusted to him, would be dishonoring the papal magisterium, and reverence for it would require opposing it. Again, though, this is the exception, not the rule.
 
Last edited:
I would not assume that it is a sin. Especially, if there were facts to prove it. It may be more prudent to address the heretical teaching rather than the person, however.
 
Genesis315 said:
I like to think of it this way: in a classroom, a student should generally take to heart and mind what the teacher teaches. That is the rule–the teacher is authorized to teach and the student is there to learn.
Click to expand...
And you think a respectful way to do this is to call the teacher a heretic? I have a hard time imagining that.

All that you say is fine afaik. But it does not address the question asked, which is whether it is appropriate to call papal teaching heretical. Resist if there is error, but the condemnatory nature of an accusation of heresy does not seem like reverence to me.
 
It’s very simple, unless you are ironclad, 100% sure, using terminology such as heretic with regards to a priest, Bishop, or Pope would be the sin of calumny. A very grave sin.
And by 100% sure, that means you know the theological aspects well enough to know it is clearly the case, you know there is no ambiguity in their teaching, you know it was an intentionally heretic statement (as opposed to a miswording, or mistranslation), you know they are adamant in their position.
 
Dovekin said:
And you think a respectful way to do this is to call the teacher a heretic?
Click to expand...
Did he say that?

And remember that to say something is heresy is not to say the person speaking it is a heretic.
 
Last edited:
MiserereMeiDei said:
40.png
Dovekin:
And you think a respectful way to do this is to call the teacher a heretic?
Click to expand...
Did he say that?

And remember that to say something is heresy is not to say the person speaking it is a heretic.
Click to expand...
Yes. It is the topic of this thread, so his answer should be read as an answer to the question. That he did not explicitly answer the question is why I said “it does not address the question asked.” As it is, he leaves the impression that yes, it is respectful to correct the pope, which in the context of this question, means calling him a heretic.
 
IOW, he didn’t say that. You say he said it and you’re trying to convince me ‘he said it without actually saying it’ because you choose to interpret it that way. It looks to me that you interpreted what he said through a lens of uncharitableness.
 
I mean there is lots of ambiguity these days. Lots and lots and lots of ambiguity. That’s why I picked that bit out of your post.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top