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.
My apologies, KMC, I must clarify: the hypothetical case is labeling a certain member of the clergy or episcopate a “heretic” or “Communist” not in their face (that would be certainly against charity) but in a conversation when the person is not present or known to be present (and given the evidence they have spread heresy or Marxist/Communist ideas).

In other words: Although it is true we must denounce heresy (etc), and therefore it is not a sin but a virtue; is it a sin (or simply imprudent) to label them a “heretic” or “Communist” or whatnot? Would that be against deference/reverence due to them by the laity?
 
Yes, there is. And while ambiguity is unwise in these matters, and one can certainly be critical of the ambiguity, and ask for clarification, it does NOT justify calling a cleric a heretic. Do you disagree?
 
Again, unless you are absolutely sure a cleric is a heretic or communist, it would definitely be a sin to call him such. No question about it.
On can be critical without such denunciation and calumny.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Calmuny:

In its more commonly accepted signification it means the unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty. The sin thus committed is in a general sense mortal, just as is detraction.
 
Last edited:
MiserereMeiDei said:
It looks to me that you interpreted what he said through a lens of uncharitableness.
Click to expand...
Not in the least. I restated the question in a way that asked what his position was. It was unclear to me what his remarks had to do with the thread, so I tried to connect what he said. If he, or you, have something to say about the substance of the thread, I will happily consider it.
 
Why the need to use this terminology? Wouldn’t it be just as effective & kinder to say “such and such viewpoint seems heretical / communist / whatever to me”? Softer and more humble than “so and so is a heretic!” but still making it clear you’re concerned about the issues at stake.
 
I would personally refrain from calling a bishop a heretic. However, I would have no issue calling his comments heretical if they are.

This may sound like a distinction without a difference but attacking the comments is objective, while attacking the person imputes culpability. To call a person a heretic is to accuse him of a crime, and only a competent authority (Ordinary, court) can do that.
 
So basically, saying “John Doe has blatant and obviously lied”, is not a sin, whereas saying “He is a liar”, is a [grave?] sin (in the case where John Doe has, in fact, blatantly lied)?
 
Last edited:
Thistle, we’re talking about a question of morals, not a bar fight over whether a specific such and such priest, bishop etc is a heretic or somesuch. I believe it avoids brawls quite effectively.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for my misunderstanding. I am very careful about labeling someone a “heretic,” or a “communist,” or “(pick a name)”.

“Heretic” implies a person who is obstinately in opposition to the truth. Sometimes, and just call me crazy, some people are wrong, and need a charitable correction.

Now certainly, there are some people within the Church who are heretics. There was a priest a few years ago (name escapes me) who wrote the divinity of Christ was symbolic…said that we need reinterpret prior Church council teachings in the light of modernity, etc. He was censured by the CDF…not allowed to teach or speak publicly as a priest anymore. They did everything but call him a heretic…but in that case, since he was given the opportunity to retract, but did not, and could have legitimately be referred to as a heretic. But that IMHO is a pretty extreme example.

Is there a particular priest / bishop / bishop of Rome you are referring to?
 
Last edited:
porthos11 said:
This may sound like a distinction without a difference but attacking the comments is objective, while attacking the person imputes culpability. To call a person a heretic is to accuse him of a crime, and only a competent authority (Ordinary, court) can do that.
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying. It is like saying that a statement is not true without calling someone a liar.
 
tafan2 said:
Do you disagree?
Click to expand...
Not even a little. Not sure why you’d even think to ask based on my comment. It had nothing to do with the thread topic. If you’d like to flag me for being off topic…I never really care about being on topic. I try not to derail threads, but the odd off topic post isn’t something about which I concern myself.
 
Never would cross my.mind to flag your post. Being a chronic complainer about the flagging on this forum, it would be rather hypocritical of me to do so 🙂
 
Agreed. Even saying “that’s heresy!” is fine. One isn’t a heretic because he utters heresy so you aren’t calling him a heretic in some roundabout way.
 
Not really comparable as lying requires intent to deceive. A heretic must be obstinate in his heresy.
 
Sub_Tuum_Praesidium said:
So basically, saying “John Doe has blatant and obviously lied”, is not a sin, whereas saying “He is a liar”, is a [grave?] sin (in the case where John Doe has, in fact, blatantly lied)?
Click to expand...
I would not even go that far. I would say,

“What Fr. John Doe said is not true” or “What Father John Doe said is contrary to Catholic teaching.”

To call John Doe a liar is to impute a judgment on his character, something I cannot do unless he establishes a pattern, and to say he lied also imputes a moral judgment, when he in fact may have just made a mistake. Or put simply, he may just have been wrong.
 
Sub_Tuum_Praesidium said:
So basically, saying “John Doe has blatant and obviously lied”, is not a sin, whereas saying “He is a liar”, is a [grave?] sin (in the case where John Doe has, in fact, blatantly lied)?
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone said that. Why not just say one style is a bit rude whereas the other is not so much? How could any of us know the gravity or lack thereof attached to either phrase as a “sin”?
 
porthos11, that’s why I said “blatanty”, meaning obviously, or abundantly enough to conclude such a thing. I mean, someone who repeatedly has shown to favor, for example, sodomy, or communion for adulterers, or the belief that theology evolves in jumps that practically contradict past magisterium (heresy of modernism). Suppose this person is famous on twitter and other media. OBVIOUS heresy.
Now the question is: Is calling him a heretic (not to his face, but in conversation with someone else, or even many people) a venial sin, grave sin or just imprudent?
 
Last edited:
TK421 said:
It’s not possible for a Pope to officially teach heresy … “from the chair”.
Click to expand...
Meaning “ex cathedra”

APPARENTLY There are conditions to be met for Papal 'teachings" be considered, “ex cathedra”

Conditions for teachings being declared infallible

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition,
the conditions required for ex cathedra papal teaching are as follows:

the Roman Pontiff (the Pope alone or with the College of Bishops)
speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, (in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,) he defines a doctrine
concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church

The terminology of a definitive decree usually makes clear that this last condition is fulfilled, as through a formula such as “By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We declare, pronounce and define the doctrine . . . to be revealed by God and as such to be firmly and immutably held by all the faithful,” or through an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church.

For example, in 1950, with Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII’s infallible definition regarding the Assumption of Mary, there are attached these words: “Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which We have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.”
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top