Will pope Francis limit the pope's power?

[OraLabora]

I think we can go even earlier in the document with this little gem, my emphases added.

I had a very interesting “debate” with a “traditional leaning” friend today. This did not make him happy.

I have not read the whole document yet, but so far I am very impressed. I have read lots of church documents while working on my Master’s and this is the first one that has been “user friendly” and hasn’t made my head hurt trying to understand it!

Run this one under his nose and see what he thinks (from the same document) :

1. The Church is called to be the house of the Father, with doors always wide open. One concrete sign of such openness is that our church doors should always be open, so that if someone, moved by the Spirit, comes there looking for God, he or she will not find a closed door. There are other doors that should not be closed either. Everyone can share in some way in the life of the Church; everyone can be part of the community, nor should the doors of the sacraments be closed for simply any reason. This is especially true of the sacrament which is itself “the door”: baptism. The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.[51] These convictions have pastoral consequences that we are called to consider with prudence and boldness. Frequently, we act as arbiters of grace rather than its facilitators. But the Church is not a tollhouse; it is the house of the Father, where there is a place for everyone, with all their problems.

(my bold)

 

[Cojuanco]

I think we can go even earlier in the document with this little gem, my emphases added.

I had a very interesting “debate” with a “traditional leaning” friend today. This did not make him happy.

I have not read the whole document yet, but so far I am very impressed. I have read lots of church documents while working on my Master’s and this is the first one that has been “user friendly” and hasn’t made my head hurt trying to understand it!

Note that the pope says that the alternate course of action is inadvisable. Not impermissible. Also note he only speaks against applying it in every question. Some he does have to intervene. We’ve seen this before with Fr. Reynolds, or with the FI Controversy.

 

[thistle]

I heard trough the media that pope Francis wants to limits the pope’s power and the pope’s always last word thing. Is it true?

Where did he say anything about limiting HIS powers? He was talking about decentralising many things from the Vatican. That does not necessarily mean any of his powers are diminished.
People jump too quickly to incorrect conclusions.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Note that the pope says that the alternate course of action is inadvisable. Not impermissible. Also note he only speaks against applying it in every question. Some he does have to intervene. We’ve seen this before with Fr. Reynolds, or with the FI Controversy.

I realize this. Although, I also realize that language like this has a tendency to make some more “traditionally minded” people very uncomfortable, which was the point I was making.
My friend read up to what I quoted and nearly lost his mind. I see that as a bit of an over-reaction. It is not the Pope’s job to “micro-manage”, much to the chagrin of some, but it is his job to intervene when necessary. The Holy Father is saying nothing new, he is just saying it in a way that, IMHO, is much easier to understand.

 

[JReducation]

There are several things happening here that seem to be confusing people, including journalists who are reporting it. My take is that they don’t understand the authority of the papacy.

First:

No pope can limit the authority of the papacy. He can limit his personal use of that authority. As someone said, he can invoke subsidiarity and give the bishops, abbots and superiors general of men broader authority.

Why do I throw in abbots and superiors general of men? They too are Ordinaries. Anything that is outside of the scope of Holy Orders, but within the scope of ordinary jurisdiction would apply to an abbot and male superior general. Abbesses and female superiors general fall under a different category.

Second:

There seems to be a misunderstanding of infallibility in this thread. There is a difference between infallibility and ex cathedra. The latter is when the pope speaks on faith and morals. He need not declare from the Chair of Peter (ex cathedra) that abortion is always immoral as did Bl. John Paul II. That is a moral statement. The pope is protected from error when he speaks on morality. For example, when Pope Francis says that the world shares a collective responsibility for the plight of immigrants. He is making a moral statement. Therefore, this is true. A pope is protected from declaring morality or doctrine with error. The morality statements get a little sticky.

Sometimes a pope will make a statement on a moral issue, but he’s not speaking as the supreme teacher. He’s sharing a thought. The best example was Pope Benedict, condoms and male prostitutes. It was a reflection coming from a scholar, not a decree from the pope.

Ex Cathedra is always infallible, but not every infallible statement is made from the chair of Peter. In other words, not every infallible statement is a motu proprio. Most often they are repetitions or interpretations of doctrine or moral law.

Canonizations are Ex Cathedra.

Third

Even if their were an ecumenical council as someone suggested, no council can bind a pope. St. Boniface made this very clear. The pope ratifies the council, the council does not ratify the pope. What often confuses people is that sometime councils will make doctrinal statements. This are binding, not because the council said so, but because truth is always binding. How far and whom a council binds is really up to the pope.

When Pope Benedict said that the SSPX had to accept Vatican II as is, he is applying this last principle. As pope, he is binding them to Vatican II. This he can do. Which leads to the fourth point.

Fourth

Pope speak with authority and the faithful have to submit, even when they do not speak on matters of faith and morals. Some people confuse this with ultramonanism. It’s not the same. Pope Paul VI made this very clear. Peter has the right to govern and we do not have the right to contradict him. In that case, he may or may not be protected by infallibility, but it does not matter, because he is exercising the authority of his office to which all are subject.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Run this one under his nose and see what he thinks (from the same document) :

(my bold)

I am part of a small group that meets over coffee once a month to discuss all things Catholic. We have decided today that at our next gathering in January, we will discuss this document- I can’t wait!!

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Fourth

Pope speak with authority and the faithful have to submit, even when they do not speak on matters of faith and morals. Some people confuse this with ultramonanism. It’s not the same. Pope Paul VI made this very clear. Peter has the right to govern and we do not have the right to contradict him. In that case, he may or may not be protected by infallibility, but it does not matter, because he is exercising the authority of his office to which all are subject.

Br. JR, do you think there are cases where it would be appropriate to correct the pope? St. Thomas says,

To withstand anyone in public exceeds the mode of fraternal correction, and so Paul would not have withstood Peter then, unless he were in some way his equal as regards the defense of the faith. But one who is not an equal can reprove privately and respectfully. Hence the Apostle in writing to the Colossians (4:17) tells them to admonish their prelate: “Say to Archippus: Fulfil thy ministry [Vulgate: ‘Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.’ Cf. 2 Timothy 4:5.” It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, “Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.”
www.newadvent.org/summa/3033.htm#article4

Would you say this is different because Paul reproved Peter for his conduct rather than refusing an order? Is there an appropriate situation to refuse orders of the pope, or is the pope protected from issuing any orders and teachings that ought to be refused?

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR, do you think there are cases where it would be appropriate to correct the pope? St. Thomas says,

To withstand anyone in public exceeds the mode of fraternal correction, and so Paul would not have withstood Peter then, unless he were in some way his equal as regards the defense of the faith. But one who is not an equal can reprove privately and respectfully. Hence the Apostle in writing to the Colossians (4:17) tells them to admonish their prelate: “Say to Archippus: Fulfil thy ministry [Vulgate: ‘Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.’ Cf. 2 Timothy 4:5.” It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, “Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.”
www.newadvent.org/summa/3033.htm#article4

Would you say this is different because Paul reproved Peter for his conduct rather than refusing an order? Is there an appropriate situation to refuse orders of the pope, or is the pope protected from issuing any orders and teachings that ought to be refused?

The answer is not quite simple. We have to factor in several things.

1. Aquinas’ authority does not trump the pope. Canon law is very specific that there is no recourse when the pope speaks. We have to limit Aquinas advice to the local bishop.
2. Aquinas does not trump Canon Law. Canon Law says that the faithful have a right and even a duty to make known their thoughts, needs and opinions to their bishops. But Canon Law also protects the bishop. He is bound to listen. He is not bound to yield. Though I don’t get the sense that Aquinas is saying that the prelate must stand down. Aquinas seems to be encouraging a dialogue, not a confrontation and certainly not an abdication of authority on the part of the prelate. This is where people often make mistakes.

People often assume that since the law gives them the right to voice their concerns to the hierarchy, it must mean that the hierarchy must respond favorably. That’s not true. The principle is the exact same principle that one would use in one’s home. Our children tell us when they think that we’re wrong. In the end, it is the parent, not the child, who decides what is right or wrong. This leads to my next and final point.

1. Once a person has communicated his concern to the hierarchy, the person must be willing to accept the response or appeal to a higher authority until there is no more appeal left. At that point, the person must submit to authority. Not to submit is rebellion. Rebellion can lead to all kinds of sins, pride being the worse of them.

I guess what I’m saying is that we need to take Aquinas’ advice only as far as Church law allows us to do so. Aquinas never intended to dictate to the Church. This is a personal problem that I have with some Traditionalists. They want to throw Aquinas in everyone’s face as if Aquinas ever intended to dictate to the rest of us. In reality, he was the most humble and delightful fat little friar in the Dominican Order. He would be horrified to see how his work is used against the Church. Let’s not forget the times in which Aquinas lived. Today’s hierarchy are saints by comparison to the hierarchy of the 13th century. Yet, Aquinas never engages with the hierarchy. Neither did Dominic or Francis. The only one who engaged with the hierarchy was Bonaventure. But Bonaventure was a cardinal. These were his peers. Aquinas was a simple friar. The bishops were not his peers and he respected that, even though he saw their problems and their sinfulness. He was a genius after all. We not only have to take his work into account, but also look at his life and how he lived what he wrote. THAT will help us apply him in context.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I heard trough the media that pope Francis wants to limits the pope’s power and the pope’s always last word thing. Is it true?

I think some people mistakenly attribute too much power to the Pope, this allowing
Protestants to hold the Papacy and the Catholic Church to too high of standards. I
hear that Popes are not 100% perfect, and some people take the Popes’ Infallibility
TOO SERIOUSLY. I know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what Pope Francis is in-
tending to do, but I would bet that he is going to clarify what power the Popes have
always had, in the event that people have any false conceptions.

THIS IS MEDIA THOUGH!

Again though, I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS!

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The answer is not quite simple. We have to factor in several things.

1. Aquinas’ authority does not trump the pope. Canon law is very specific that there is no recourse when the pope speaks. We have to limit Aquinas advice to the local bishop.
2. Aquinas does not trump Canon Law. Canon Law says that the faithful have a right and even a duty to make known their thoughts, needs and opinions to their bishops. But Canon Law also protects the bishop. He is bound to listen. He is not bound to yield. Though I don’t get the sense that Aquinas is saying that the prelate must stand down. Aquinas seems to be encouraging a dialogue, not a confrontation and certainly not an abdication of authority on the part of the prelate. This is where people often make mistakes.

People often assume that since the law gives them the right to voice their concerns to the hierarchy, it must mean that the hierarchy must respond favorably. That’s not true. The principle is the exact same principle that one would use in one’s home. Our children tell us when they think that we’re wrong. In the end, it is the parent, not the child, who decides what is right or wrong. This leads to my next and final point.

1. Once a person has communicated his concern to the hierarchy, the person must be willing to accept the response or appeal to a higher authority until there is no more appeal left. At that point, the person must submit to authority. Not to submit is rebellion. Rebellion can lead to all kinds of sins, pride being the worse of them.

I guess what I’m saying is that we need to take Aquinas’ advice only as far as Church law allows us to do so. Aquinas never intended to dictate to the Church. This is a personal problem that I have with some Traditionalists. They want to throw Aquinas in everyone’s face as if Aquinas ever intended to dictate to the rest of us. In reality, he was the most humble and delightful fat little friar in the Dominican Order. He would be horrified to see how his work is used against the Church. Let’s not forget the times in which Aquinas lived. Today’s hierarchy are saints by comparison to the hierarchy of the 13th century. Yet, Aquinas never engages with the hierarchy. Neither did Dominic or Francis. The only one who engaged with the hierarchy was Bonaventure. But Bonaventure was a cardinal. These were his peers. Aquinas was a simple friar. The bishops were not his peers and he respected that, even though he saw their problems and their sinfulness. He was a genius after all. We not only have to take his work into account, but also look at his life and how he lived what he wrote. THAT will help us apply him in context.

I am very thankful for your responses because I do not know canon law. The other relevant section of the Summa is the one on obedience.

Man is subject to God simply as regards all things, both internal and external, wherefore he is bound to obey Him in all things. On the other hand, inferiors are not subject to their superiors in all things, but only in certain things and in a particular way, in respect of which the superior stands between God and his subjects, whereas in respect of other matters the subject is immediately under God, by Whom he is taught either by the natural or by the written law. (III, q. 104, a. 5, ad. 2)
newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm#article5

Let me ask you two questions which I am not sure are possibilities.

(1) Is one bound to obey the pope in something that is a clear moral evil? If the pope told me to murder my mother, would I be obliged to comply?

(2) If the pope orders me to believe something that is clearly heretical (e.g. Christ did not rise from the dead), would I be obliged to believe it?

Are either of these cases possibilities or are they precluded by infallibility? If possible, would I be held responsible for complying with evil?

Another question I have concerns a situation like Honorius. Honorius was anathematized as a heretic at the Constantinople III. However, this took place after his death. Is it only possible to take such action against popes after they die, or is there some way to take action against them while they are living?

Thank you for your responses.

 

[JReducation]

I am very thankful for your responses because I do not know canon law. The other relevant section of the Summa is the one on obedience.

Man is subject to God simply as regards all things, both internal and external, wherefore he is bound to obey Him in all things. On the other hand, inferiors are not subject to their superiors in all things, but only in certain things and in a particular way, in respect of which the superior stands between God and his subjects, whereas in respect of other matters the subject is immediately under God, by Whom he is taught either by the natural or by the written law. (III, q. 104, a. 5, ad. 2)
newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm#article5

Let me ask you two questions which I am not sure are possibilities.

(1) Is one bound to obey the pope in something that is a clear moral evil? If the pope told me to murder my mother, would I be obliged to comply?

(2) If the pope orders me to believe something that is clearly heretical (e.g. Christ did not rise from the dead), would I be obliged to believe it?

Are either of these cases possibilities or are they precluded by infallibility? If possible, would I be held responsible for complying with evil?

Another question I have concerns a situation like Honorius. Honorius was anathematized as a heretic at the Constantinople III. However, this took place after his death. Is it only possible to take such action against popes after they die, or is there some way to take action against them while they are living?

Thank you for your responses.

Let’s begin by answering the easiest question. It is not disobedience if one refuses to obey a sinful command. Nor is it dissent if one refuses to assent to error.

Now we get into the sticky part of this.

Q. Who defines what is sinful?
A. The Church defines what is sinful.

Q. Where is the authority of conscience?
A. One is always bound to follow one’s conscience, even an erroneous conscience, if one does not know that one is in error. However, one always has a moral duty to form one’s conscience according to revealed moral law.

Q. Can a pope be excommunicated?
A. No it is not possible, because a pope cannot be put on trial. The pope may excommunicate himself but this is so difficult that it has never happened.

Q. What’s the deal with Honorius?
A. The case against Honorius was not truly a trial nor an excommunication. It was a reflection that took place after his death. To this day, the Church has never formally stated that he was a heretic. This is almost an urban legend. What has been said is that he was in error on certain points. Some of his positions were anathema. It is very hard to be qualify as a heretic. Embracing a single heresy is not enough to be a heretic. If that were the case, every Catholic would be a heretic, because all of us have embraced error in one or more situations. But with time and education we self-correct.

Q. Is there a body that can depose a pope?
A. There is something close to that, but its power is limited. The College of Cardinals can agree that the person is no longer the pope because of a situation such as insanity. But this has to be proven by medical authorities. In this situation they are not actually deposing, because the Chair becomes vacant when the man in the chair does not possess the mental faculties to exercise the Petrine Ministry

Q. Can a pope be put on trial?
A. No human authority, civil or ecclesial has jurisdiction over the pope. Therefore, not human authority can put the pope on trial.

Q. Traditionalists argue that we do not have to comply with the pope unless he speaks infallibly. Is this what the Church teaches?
A. NO. The Church has never subscribed to democracy. The Pontiff exercises both temporal and spiritual authority over the faithful. Therefore, he must be obeyed in all matters that are not sinful. Obedience has nothing to do with infallibility. Obedience is a virtue that all of us are bound to embrace. It’s not about being subservient. It’s about being virtuous. This is where the Traditionalist School of the 21st century often derails. There is a tendency to think that only what is infallible must be obeyed.

There is a wonderful example in John’s Gospel of this very thing. Mary goes to Jesus, “They have no wine.” We know the rest of the story. Is Mary speaking infallibly? No. She’s not even speaking about faith or morals. She’s talking about wine.

Observe how Jesus answers. “My time has not arrived”

But . . . Jesus complies with her wishes. Her wish is for him to help. He does just that. He obeys.

There is nothing infallible here. It’s about rights and duties. The mother has the right to expect her son to respond to her pleas. The son has a duty to do so, because she’s not asking for anything contrary to moral law. Jesus feels that this is not the right day to go public, but he does it anyway out of respect for his mother’s authority.

The same applies to the faithful and the pope.

 

[DebChris]

I SUSPECT what it means has NOTHING to do with Papal Authority; rather it aims to get the entire church involved in new ways. Most especially the Bishops.

I don’t see Pope Francis limiting papal power. What I do see him doing is delegating authority, which is the role of a leader. “You can handle these matters yourself.” Not everything has to be handled by Rome.
My immediate thoughts went to the advice that Moses’s father-in-law gave him, to appoint minor judges in Exodus 18, and only the more difficult cases were referred to Moses. The pope’s authority is not limited, but his burden as a man is lightened.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t see Pope Francis limiting papal power. What I do see him doing is delegating authority, which is the role of a leader. “You can handle these matters yourself.” Not everything has to be handled by Rome.
My immediate thoughts went to the advice that Moses’s father-in-law gave him, to appoint minor judges in Exodus 18, and only the more difficult cases were referred to Moses. The pope’s authority is not limited, but his burden as a man is lightened.

So is this a change from the principle of collegiality as offered by Vatican II?

 

[Mike30]

I feel that no Pope since Vatican II has actually tried to hard too fully implement the collegiality that was called for ,and in fact actually strengthened and centralized the authority in the Vatican even more
.
That was always a sticking point between the Bishops and the Vatican.

I think that Pope Francis will probably try to change that.

 

[DebChris]

So is this a change from the principle of collegiality as offered by Vatican II?

When elevated to the position of pope, Pope Francis referred to himself as the Bishop of Rome. Sharing power does not diminish authority.
The first thing that Pope John Paul I did was refuse to wear the papal crown to enforce the idea of shepherd rather than royalty. We see the continued display of humility with Pope Francis.

 

[bilop]

Q. Is there a body that can depose a pope?
A. There is something close to that, but its power is limited. The College of Cardinals can agree that the person is no longer the pope because of a situation such as insanity. But this has to be proven by medical authorities. In this situation they are not actually deposing, because the Chair becomes vacant when the man in the chair does not possess the mental faculties to exercise the Petrine Ministry

Q. Can a pope be put on trial?
A. No human authority, civil or ecclesial has jurisdiction over the pope. Therefore, not human authority can put the pope on trial.

I disagree with this. If a Pope were to teach heresy, he would have to be deposed.

Now perhaps the right way of phrasing it would be that by teaching heresy, he ceases to be Pope, and therefore is not technically being deposed.

But, it must be possible for a Pope to be declared an anti-Pope and removed, otherwise, the Church can not be prevented from teaching heresy.

Q. Traditionalists argue that we do not have to comply with the pope unless he speaks infallibly. Is this what the Church teaches?

A. NO. The Church has never subscribed to democracy. The Pontiff exercises both temporal and spiritual authority over the faithful. Therefore, he must be obeyed in all matters that are not sinful. Obedience has nothing to do with infallibility. Obedience is a virtue that all of us are bound to embrace. It’s not about being subservient. It’s about being virtuous. This is where the Traditionalist School of the 21st century often derails. There is a tendency to think that only what is infallible must be obeyed.

You’re missing an important qualification. The Pope is to be obeyed when he teaches definitively on faith and morals, or on matters of Church discipline even if he doesn’t speak infallibly.

But, we are not obliged to obey the Pope on matters outside his proper jurisdiction. If the Pope says the maximum appropriate top marginal tax rate is 15%, Catholics are not obliged to support that position politically.

God Bless

 

[JReducation]

I disagree with this. If a Pope were to teach heresy, he would have to be deposed.

There is no provision in the law for this. Pope John Paul took it out of the law. The only thing that he left in the law was incompetency. This is referring to health.

Now perhaps the right way of phrasing it would be that by teaching heresy, he ceases to be Pope, and therefore is not technically being deposed.

A pope cannot teach heresy. That’s the point. No pope has ever taught heresy. A pope can embrace heresy as an individual and this certainly has happened. but it has never happened that he taught it as part of the faith.

But, it must be possible for a Pope to be declared an anti-Pope and removed, otherwise, the Church can not be prevented from teaching heresy.

Again, Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul took this mechanism out of Canon Law. There was such a mechanism once upon a time. But it no longer exists. Therefore, there is no legal way to do this, because only a pope can re-insert it into Church law.

You’re missing an important qualification. The Pope is to be obeyed when he teaches definitively on faith and morals, or on matters of Church discipline even if he doesn’t speak infallibly.

This is not being debated.

But, we are not obliged to obey the Pope on matters outside his proper jurisdiction. If the Pope says the maximum appropriate top marginal tax rate is 15%, Catholics are not obliged to support that position politically.

It depends how he states it. If he states it as a matter a moral good, then we are bound to obey. If he states it as a civil good, we are free to disagree. I’ll give you a perfect example of this.

Popes dictated to kings on civil matters. When the kings failed to comply, they excommunicated themselves. How did this work? The pope would couch his command in a moral law or a doctrine. Very often popes would tell kings that certain civil actions were morally necessary. Once he couched it in morality or doctrine, he was within his jurisdiction.

Today, if a pope says that it is morally necessary that we pay X% in taxes, then we are bound to a moral mandate. The tax is not the issue, the moral mandate is.

Popes are very careful when it comes to civil actions that overlap with moral law or with doctrine, as the case with abortion. The popes have never said that it is immoral to vote for a pro-choice candidate. If they did, that would bind Catholics at the polls, because we are bound by moral law. Evangelium Vitae very tactfully dances around elections and speaks only of abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, infanticide and embryonic stem cell research, but says nothing about the individuals. What it says about government is that government has a moral duty to protect the sanctity of life. From there, the voter has to use his brains. So too it is when the pope speaks about the economy as has Pope Francis. He has packaged his statements on the economy in moral wrappers. Morality is within his jurisdiction. We can’t just blow off what he has to say about the economy.

 

[catholicguy23]

I Think the Pope is referring to smashing the power of the curia as opposed to depleting his own power. Giving power back to the local bishops on administrative issues seems like common sense. He may also be talking about initiatives similar to the Group of 8 cardinals he appointed to advise him on other issues.

What he will not do, which some have been suggesting elsewhere is start giving bishops doctrinal authority in their own dioceses. This just wouldn’t make any sense even to the most liberal Catholics.

 

[Mike30]

I Think the Pope is referring to smashing the power of the curia as opposed to depleting his own power. Giving power back to the local bishops on administrative issues seems like common sense. He may also be talking about initiatives similar to the Group of 8 cardinals he appointed to advise him on other issues.

What he will not do, which some have been suggesting elsewhere is start giving bishops doctrinal authority in their own dioceses. This just wouldn’t make any sense even to the most liberal Catholics.

Good to know that someone here has knowledge of the inside track and knows exactly. what the Holy Father has in mind:thumbsup:

 

[bilop]

A pope cannot teach heresy. That’s the point. No pope has ever taught heresy. A pope can embrace heresy as an individual and this certainly has happened. but it has never happened that he taught it as part of the faith.

Again, Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul took this mechanism out of Canon Law. There was such a mechanism once upon a time. But it no longer exists. Therefore, there is no legal way to do this, because only a pope can re-insert it into Church law.

Then it would have to be done extra-legally. The curia would declare him insane, whether or not he had a mental illness.

The reason that the Pope can’t teach heresy is because others in the Church will stop him. He clearly has the free-will to do so.

This is not being debated.

It depends how he states it. If he states it as a matter a moral good, then we are bound to obey. If he states it as a civil good, we are free to disagree. I’ll give you a perfect example of this.

Popes dictated to kings on civil matters. When the kings failed to comply, they excommunicated themselves. How did this work? The pope would couch his command in a moral law or a doctrine. Very often popes would tell kings that certain civil actions were morally necessary. Once he couched it in morality or doctrine, he was within his jurisdiction.

Today, if a pope says that it is morally necessary that we pay X% in taxes, then we are bound to a moral mandate. The tax is not the issue, the moral mandate is.

Popes are very careful when it comes to civil actions that overlap with moral law or with doctrine, as the case with abortion. The popes have never said that it is immoral to vote for a pro-choice candidate. If they did, that would bind Catholics at the polls, because we are bound by moral law. Evangelium Vitae very tactfully dances around elections and speaks only of abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, infanticide and embryonic stem cell research, but says nothing about the individuals. What it says about government is that government has a moral duty to protect the sanctity of life. From there, the voter has to use his brains. So too it is when the pope speaks about the economy as has Pope Francis. He has packaged his statements on the economy in moral wrappers. Morality is within his jurisdiction. We can’t just blow off what he has to say about the economy.

I agree that the Pope can bind our votes on matters of faith and morals. He could, and in my opinion should, say that anyone who votes for a pro-abortion candidate (when a pro-life one is available) excommunicates themselves. He could, and should, bind us to vote against socialist candidates. Both of those cases are possible because abortion and socialism have been clearly defined as opposing the eternal truths the Church teaches.

But, what he can’t do is to extend that binding to matters that aren’t subject of clear Church teaching and doctrine. The Pope can’t bind us to vote against the death penalty, because the death penalty is doctrinally fine, and is a matter of prudential judgement. He can’t bind us on what level of government spending is appropriate. Whether the Gov’t should tax and spend 20% or 40% or 60% of GDP is not addressed anywhere in Church teaching. The Pope’s opinion on whether the US minimum wage should be $8, or $10, or $12, can not be made binding.

The Pope certainly can make binding economic pronouncements; e.g. against the abuse of power by the rich in the crony capitalism that infests the world. Or against the mis-treatment of workers. But that’s because those abuses involve theft and corruption. They violate moral laws.

When economic actions violate moral teachings, the Pope is free to condemn those actions, and should do so vociferously. But the Pope is not free to enact binding pronouncemente beyond that, based on his opinions of the “best” system.

God Bless