Prominent clergy, scholars accuse Pope Francis of heresy in open letter

When Jimmy Akin dismissed the letter writers because they didn't have a doctorate in theology, he dropped so low in my estimation that, short of an abject apology to them, I have no interest in anything he says. Also, his attempt to pass off the Wiccan stang as symbolising the Holy Spirit was simply pathetic.

Does Jimmy Akin hold a Doctorate in Theology? I doubt it. Pope Francis doesn't. Some saints who also didn't achieve doctorates in theology are Doctors of the Church. I'll certainly be discounting everything Jimmy Akin says from now on. The Pope's actions and words thus far have led me to the conclusion that he, too, is best ignored with or without a PhD.

What matters here is whether or not there is a heretic occupying the seat of St. Peter. That's far more divisive and dangerous to the Church than whose sensibilities were offended by the letter or the academic qualifications of its signatories. Those Catholic scholars put their livelihoods on the line when they called the Bishops' attention to the very, very scandalous trouble Pope Francis has brought on the Church. Meanwhile, Jimmy Akin, sitting pretty on the Catholic Answers fence, would have us believe that asking questions is permissible provided we don't expect an answer or provided we ignore the fact that the answers are coming by way of the Pope promoting blatant heretics and rolling out the Vatican's red carpet for enemies of the faith. I'll give Jimmy's "analysis" a miss, thanks all the same.

 

Worth watching. In English.

 

How much evidence does one need! How any pope could publicly praise this killer is beyond comprehension. No wonder OurLady of Akita is warning us! The problem Is right in front of our face!
Cardinals against cardinals, bishops against bishops.....

Do we need anymore?

 

Amen to that!

 

Evil rewarding absolute evil!
Soros has been funding organizations that are speaking at Vatican conferences. Look up Liz Yore ...she exposed this Vatican globalist gang.

 

It looks like we’ve arrived...
All we can do is pray....

 

Dolours, Well, I don't really think that Jimmy Akin is alone in his analysis and all of this is above my pay grade that is for sure.

I do remember what Cardinal Raymond Burke stated that a heretic pope ceases to be the pope* and I would much prefer if he or Cardinal Gerhard Mueller would have labeled the pope a heretic but they have not and to my knowledge they have not commented on this letter nor has any other cardinal at this time.
*https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/6_noheretic_pope.pdf

Frankly, I don't know if Jimmy Akin is correct in his analysis but I appreciate that he gave me some pause to truly think about what is happening but so did Dr. Taylor Marshall, Fr. Joesph Fessio, Mark Brumley, and Raymond Arroyo. None of these men fully agreed with this letter but most of them stated that they would like a clarification from the Holy See on the 7 possible heresies that were outlined. Unfortunately, I don't believe that the possibility of that happening is very good.

 

I think it is important to note this part of the open letter quoted above.
By saying that PF is a heretic, the action taken by bishops to address the problem must necessarily include nullifying PF's elevation of modernist bishops and cardinals and reversing his sacking of conservative/ orthodox bishops and cardinals from their posts.

 

Thank you for this Dolours. I just don’t have the stomach for this fight any more, but if I did, your post would sum up what I wanted to say quite well.

Sorry, I’m not giving Akin “the benefit of the doubt.” What he did was cowardly yet arrogant and patronizing at the same time.

I have to go back to “radio silence.” The current situation is taking me from a peace and serenity I’ve worked so hard to find, to total aggravation and righteous anger, in a nanosecond. (No, I have no doubts. This doesn’t threaten my faith, it solidifies it.) I’ve come too far to let this pope do that to me. One more reason to question his legitimacy.

 

https://akacatholic.com/jimmy-akin-on-open-letter/

 

Thank you Dolours. Excellent summation.

I also thank Carol for posting the article because there was some useful information in it, plus it is always good to get different views on something as momentous as this.

That being said, I haven't been relying on Mr. Akin or Catholic Answers for information about the crisis for several years now. No matter what the questions that come into them they constantly evade and misguide the callers.

As the Church crumbles around us their constant refrain is "There's nothing to see here."

 

I don't doubt, Carol, that Jimmy Akin is not alone in his analysis. Catholic internet forums are awash with "Catholic Spring" types who would agree with anything he says provided it is dismissive of the letter and the very valid accusations of heresy. Don't think for a minute that their activities stopped as soon as they were exposed with the publication of Podesta's emails. By his own standards, Jimmy Akin's analysis is not worth the paper it's written on unless he has a doctorate in theology. Did he publish evidence of his doctorate alongside his analysis?

Since you mention Cardinal Burke, the four Cardinals who submitted the dubia were dripping academic qualifications, yet no doubt the same cacophony of people who denounced the Cardinals and questioned their integrity and motives will be among those who agree with Akin's analysis. Cardinal Burke did come out in support of Archbishop Vigano's testimony. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that Vigano testimony include something along the lines that if Pope Francis was serious about a zero tolerance policy, he should resign?

Looking at the video of Bonino getting the award and Soros talking about their close friendship reminds me of the Catholic Spring and their objectives. It reminds me that (Vice-Pope) Maradiaga was the Open Society's contact with Pope Francis. Of course, with Soros owning half a million acres in Argentina it's entirely possible that he and the Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires were known to each other, so perhaps Maradiaga wasn't the Open Society's only link with the Pope. It also reminds me that the Vatican's association with Bonino continues via their promotion of the Italian charity which invited her to speak at their gathering at the UN building in New York. I'm pretty sure the topic being discussed was women's rights particularly in Africa. We all know that Bonino's version of women's right comes with the promotion of abortion. When promoted in Africa, that's cultural colonisation. The reason I know that the Vatican is still playing footsie with Bonino is that EWTN's Vaticano programme had a segment devoted to promoting the Italian charity. The charity's website had a piece about Bonino addressing their gathering in New York.

I agree with you that the Pope won't answer the charges in the letter. His failure to answer the charges will confirm rather than refute the accusations of heresy. It took about 40 years for Pope Honorius 1 to be anathematised, and by all accounts Honorius was a model of orthodoxy in comparison with Pope Francis. It could take a century before Pope Francis is denounced but even if it takes a millennium for the Church to formally acknowledge what's staring us all in the face, it won't make it any less true in the meantime.

The Catholic faith is simple enough. It's contained in the Creed. We live that faith by keeping the Commandments - all ten of them. Being extra good at keeping one Commandment doesn't give us a pass for failing to keep any of the other nine. Someone needs to tell Pope Francis and his inner circle that secular humanism with the odd mention of Jesus is not Catholicism. The Bishops should be doing the telling but since they can't be bothered, I'm very grateful to those who have written this letter.

 

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what Jimmy Akins actual credentials and schooling are? I looked around online and could only find amorphous qualifications such as "25 years of Catholic apologetics" and "extensive knowledge of canon law and theology", but I couldn't even find if he graduated high school. It would only make sense to me that if he has stellar credentials they would be either listed after his name or at least in his bio.

 

P., I know that he had a conversion experience when his wife died of cancer but I have no idea what degrees, if any, that he has. You can email him and ask him, his email address is available at the following link http://jimmyakin.com/about/contact .
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/AKINSTOR.htm

For me, I still need to hear from Cardinal Burke or Cardinal Mueller or possibly Cardinal Sarah on this letter. In addition, everything that I have heard so far about the letter is similar in that they all think that the signatories should have asked for a clarification and waited on accusing the pope of heresy.

I just found the following from Steven O'Reilly,

Regarding the Open Letter accusing Pope Francis of Heresy
April 30, 2019 (Steven O’Reilly) – A group of twenty Catholic scholars just released an open letter which accuses Pope Francis of heresy (see Prominent clergy, scholars accuse Pope Francis of heresy in open letter). The full document issued by these scholars may be found here.

All should read the document. It is a must read for all Catholics. It provides a very strong case for the accusation it makes, one which the cardinals and bishops of the Church would be derelict not to take up and sincerely consider. Unfortunately, for all the early talk about a “formal correction” of the Pope from Cardinal Burke, the leadership in the Church has for the most part been quite disappointing during this prolonged moment of crisis. There have been laudable efforts to raise the alarm, such as the Filial Correction and the critique of Amoris Laetitia offered by 45 theologians. It appears to be undoubtedly true that at least a few cardinals believe Francis should be corrected, but they have for various reasons held back from doing so (see What to do with a heretical pope…Nothing?).

It has been the position of Roma Locuta Est that the most charitable thing to be said of Pope Francis’ words and actions, without descending into false flattery, is that he has, at best, been ambiguous and confusing (i.e., saying things which might be interpreted in either an orthodox or heretical manner). There are many ways to show this ambiguity and the resulting confusion, but recent articles on this blog have shown an example where even those who are self-described defenders of Pope Francis contradict one another in irreconcilable ways (see Confusion at Vatican Insider?; Comments on the Remnant, Mercy and Amoris Laetitia; Mr. Walford’s “appeal” and why it rings hollow). That is, even Pope Francis’ defenders disagree on how to interpret him — and thus “dissent” from one another. Yet, all the while, they deny there is a need for Pope Francis to clarify his meaning. I (and others) have often compared this ambiguity and confusion to the words and actions of Pope Honorius (e.g., Honorius Redivivus – Addendum; Why the Case of Pope Honorius Matters, Mr. Alt — as just a couple examples on this blog). However, while Pope Honorius, guilty of favoring heresy, might be excused of holding to heresy; the extension of the same courtesy to Pope Francis is, again at best, difficult. Just as one example, Pope Francis — and cardinals he favors — supported Mr. Walford’s recent defense of Amoris Laetitia ( See note 1 below) which contains many of the errors outlined in the recent accusation against Pope Francis.

While I do note the LifeSiteNews article provides an email address for other clergy and academics to sign on to the effort, I can’t help but feel the impact of the document in question has been blunted by having so few signatures attached to it upon its release. My comment here is not meant as a criticism, but it seems to me the academic-based critiques of Pope Francis to date have had far too few signatories at the outset, allowing others to more easily dismiss them. I hope I am wrong — but I fear we may see this again. Could there not have been 100, 200 or 500 signatures on the initial document? World headlines proclaiming “500 theologians accuse Pope” are not as easily set aside or ignored by cardinals and bishops as “20 theologians accuse Pope.” Again, that is not a knock against the present signatories or their courage. What they have done is courageous, and they will likely suffer real consequences as a result. However, is the Catholic theological field so barren that there were not many others who could have and would have added the weight of their names to this document at the outset? It’s unfortunate, and I hope I am wrong….but this may well be a flash in the pan. I hope not.

I have written it before. The answer to the question ‘what do we do with a heretical pope’ (see What to do with a heretical pope…Nothing?) cannot be “nothing” — nor can we afford to punt that question or its answer to a future generation when we are dealing with error in our own time. The scholar signatories in the document cited above have done a great service to the Church. Let’s hope other academics and clergy — bishops and cardinals, too — join them. It is for the cardinals and bishops to take up the accusations set out before them. Now is the moment for some of the clerics who have shown courage (Cardinals Burke, Muller, Brandmuller, Sarah, Eijk, and Bishop Schneider), to now muster a great deal more. For one, it is time for the long awaited, and seemingly mythical “formal correction” promised by Cardinal Burke to now come forward. Charity demands there be a public correction, both for the benefit of the pope and the faithful.

At a minimum, the few good bishops and cardinals who have publicly taken a stand on the many theological issues outlined in the accusation should draft a formula or profession of Faith — of the sort suggested by Bishop Schneider (see Guest Op-Ed – Bishop Schneider: On the question of a heretical pope). This formula or profession should be circulated to all Catholic bishops around the world. Those willing to sign it should also be asked to profess it publicly in their own dioceses. This is something a few good bishops, ‘awakened by Divine Providence for this time,’ can do. Such a document would be something the next conclave should have before it, as it would frame the debate and their deliberations over who the next pope should be. Given there have been so many questionable cardinals appointed over the last six years, such a document is very much needed.

In the meantime, we should pray for Pope Francis. Let us pray for Pope Francis that he remembers the Lord’s words to Peter: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren” (Luke 22:31-32).

Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. He and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta with their family. He has written apologetic articles and is working on a historical-adventure trilogy, set during the time of the Arian crisis. The first book of the trilogy should be out later this summer or by early fall. He asks for your prayers for his intentions. He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA).​

 

I am not familiar with Fr. Thomas Petri, O.P., the vice president and academic dean at the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, DC, but he appears to have a PhD in Moral Theology and he stated the following about the letter.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/theologians-accuse-pope-of-heresy-39597



https://twitter.com/PetriOP/status/1123751328688349189

I am only offering the above because at the moment I think we have discussed almost all the input that we can find up until now. I still would like to hear from a cardinal that I am familiar with and that I trust.

 

I found Ed Condon's analysis of the letter. He is a canon lawyer. I think that some members on the forum are also very critical of him but here it is anyway...

Analysis: Serious and unserious allegations of papal heresy


Pope Francis walk at the end of his weekly general audience in Saint Peter's Square. Credit: Shutterstock

By Ed Condon | https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...d-unserious-allegations-of-papal-heresy-63007
Washington D.C., May 2, 2019 / 04:15 pm (CNA).- On April 30, a group of 19 Catholics released an open letter to the bishops of the world, accusing the pope of heresy and demanding that the college of bishops act to make him “adjure.”

According to the letter’s signers, which include a handful of prominent academics, Pope Francis has committed the canonical crime of heresy, which entails publicly and obstinately doubting or denying credenda teachings - those Catholics are required, according to canon law “to believe with divine and Catholic faith.”

But despite the letter’s strident claims, the arguments advanced by its authors do not appear to make a legal, or consistent, argument against the Holy Father regarding the specific charge of canonical heresy.

Despite the insistence that the pope has committed the “canonical delict of heresy,” the letter’s authors appear unable to distinguish between the crime of heresy and what their letter actually appears to allege – material heresy.

Material heresy describes a situation in which a person has, in word or deed, manifested an opinion in doubt of or contradiction to a truth to be believed by divine and Catholic faith. Such a situation should, of course, be corrected by the Church. But the “evidence” presented in the letter appears, to many initial critics, to amount to little more than inferences open to interpretation.

Committing the canonical crime of heresy requires the obstinate doubt or denial of a credenda teaching, and like any crime, has to be clearly manifested in the external forum and not merely inferred to be a person’s inner disposition.

Legally, the criterion of obstinacy is demonstrated when a legitimate correction or warning is demonstrably rejected. The letter’s authors insist that the pope’s obstinacy – or “pertinacity” as they prefer – is demonstrated ipso facto by statements from the pope which he should, by his education experience and office, know better than to make.

The letter’s most substantive theological critique of the pope centers on the well-known controversies over some of the language in the 2015 Synod on the Family and the subsequent apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia. But the letter’s authors take no account of the number of bishops and theologians, including the pope himself, who contend that Amoris can and should be read in continuity with Catholic teaching on marriage, sexuality and the family.

While the letter may be an honest expression of opinion by the 19 signers, few experts have concluded that it serves to demonstrate the obstinate manifestation of heretical beliefs by the pope in law or fact.

Similarly, in their treatment of the pope’s signing of a declaration on interreligious cooperation in Abu Dhabi, which they also insist is heretical, the signers note that while the pope has offered both explanations and context for the document, “none of these explanations offers an unambiguous interpretation that is compatible with the Catholic faith.”.

Canonists commenting on the letter, apart from the single canon lawyer to sign it, have agreed that this does not meet the standards of an obstinate, explicit and external rejection of credenda teaching.

There is no legal requirement that the pope offer the letter’s signers an explanation of his behavior sufficient to meet their own standards, nor does canon law recognize the expression of their own concerns as a canonically meaningful warning.

Given the insistence of the letter that the pope is not only in material heresy, but guilty of the canonical delict, the apparent gap in legal understanding detracts significantly from the letter’s gravity.

Other papal “actions that indicate a rejection of truths of the faith” proposed by the letter consist of a long list of individuals Francis is accused of promoting or associating with. Further supposedly “indicative” proof appears even more tenuous, with the shape of a liturgical staff once used by Francis termed a “satanic stang” by the letter.

If support for the letter’s legal premise has been absent, its reception among theologians has largely been one of disappointment.

Though many have noted that some of the issues raised in it are ongoing sources of concern and confusion for Catholics that would certainly benefit from an unambiguous clarification by the pope, by grounding their complaints in the “canonical crime of heresy,” the letters authors have been seen by many to work from a deeply flawed premise.

The attempt to yoke together serious issues, like the language of parts of Amoris Laetitia, with trivial complaints, like the shape of a staff in a liturgical procession, has largely been met with skepticism.

Many have observed that the letter’s scatter-gun approach to topics as varied as theological language and episcopal appointments lessens the impact of its concerns, even as it attempts to amplify them.

For those with serious, even legitimate concerns about the clarity of teaching in some papal writings, this letter and its invocation of canonical heresy may prove to be an unwelcome distraction.

What is not disputed is that a formal public accusation of heresy against the pope by a group of Catholics, including clerics and academics associated with Catholic universities and institutions, cannot simply be ignored.

Whatever the document’s intentions, it does seem to represent a direct and public appeal to the college of bishops against what is explicitly termed a criminal exercise of the papal teaching office.

While canon lawyers often debate the hypothetical possibility and legal repercussions of an heretical pope, the discussion of what may or should be done about the challenge to papal authority by the letter’s authors may prove to be anything but theoretical.
​

***

Edited to add:

Catholic Scholars Accuse Pope Francis of “the Canonical Delict of Heresy”
Steve Skojec April 30, 2019
In the seemingly interminable war between Catholics and Pope Francis, another salvo has been fired. This time, it lands a bit closer to the target. In a 20-page open letter addressed not to the pope, but to the bishops of the …

Read More

 

More condescension. The authors don't know the difference between material and formal heresy? Come on...

These are leading theologians and academics and that is a canon law 101 lesson. I understood the difference in the first 10 minutes when I read about it years ago and Akin and Condon want us to believe that actual theologians don't understand it? A child can understand it. Please don't insult our intelligence.

It isn't that the authors of the letter to the bishops don't know the difference. It is that their qualifications differ from the extremely narrow qualifications that Akin, Condon and others are putting on them.

What the authors are relying on for pertinacity is that the Pope was made aware of the problems with his teachings years ago when the first letter called the Filial Correction was sent to him by this group. The fact that he did not deny or respond in any way is being taken as an admission of guilt. This idea of no answer=guilt comes from the teachings of some of the saints, doctors and other great theologians throughout Church history who have written about the possibility of a heretical pope. The idea is that if the accused does not respond, then legally it must be taken as an admission of wrongdoing i.e. pertinacity. Otherwise not answering would always be a perfect defense. I am not saying that is correct, but that is the line of theological thought that the letter writers are following. If I know this then certainly the great Akin and Condon know this. They can disagree with the line of thought, but they should say that is what they are doing.

Now again I am not saying the Pope has committed heresy. I am not qualified to judge that. I'm also not promoting the letter these men have addressed to the bishops. I do think that perhaps the authors of this letter should not have stated the pope has comitted the canonical delict of heresy. They are, however, being unfairly belittled and made to look foolish. Character assassination is always easier than dealing with the facts.

 

Thanks, Carol, for letting us know that Fr. Petri has a twitter account. Seems like he and Ed Condon are falling back on legalism to dismiss the accusations of heresy.

Someone was wondering whether Patrick Coffin would have agreed with Jimmy Akin. Here's what Patrick Coffin tweeted in response to Fr. Petri:

"Given you avatar pic with @pontifex, Father, it might be difficult to hear that what is *clear* or *unclear* to you really doesn't matter in this case. You don't offer any solutions for the weaponized ambiguity machine-gunned out daily by this Pope".
​

Looks like Patrick Coffin isn't as convinced as Jimmy or Fr. Petri. The avatar pic that Patrick Coffin refers to is at the top of Fr. Petri's twitter page here: https://twitter.com/petriop

 

He clearly doesn't have a doctorate in theology. And I reckon that a doctorate in Canon Law is the qualification (by Jimmy's standards) which would be required to make a judgement on whether the signatories were within their rights in sending the letter to the Bishops. While they have accused the Pope of heresy, citing evidence in support of the accusation, they have made it clear that only the Bishops have the authority to judge whether the Pope is guilty of heresy.

Since the Pope has refused to answer the dubia, perhaps they are hoping that an examination by Bishops will elicit some much needed clarity from the Pope. Some people, including Fr. Petri, have said that Canon Law provides for repercussions against the priests. If that's so and if the priests are charged under Canon Law, wouldn't they be entitled to a canonical trial? If they are subjected to a canonical trial, please God someone with a doctorate in Canon Law will represent them. Fr. Petri has a doctorate in moral theology but I don't think he has one in canon law.

As to the first see being judged by no-one. Martin Luther passed plenty of judgements against the first see and was roundly condemned by the reigning Pope and the Council of Trent. But the current Pope effectively rendered those judgements void when the Vatican issued the stamp commemorating Luther's judgements on the first see - remember that stamp with the image of Luther and Melanchton replacing Our Lady and St. John at the foot of the cross at Calvary? I think that image is a reproduction of one over the door of a Lutheran church in Germany. If Pope Francis is ok with Luther judging the first see, wouldn't it be hypocritical for him to take action against people judging the first see while he's the occupant? It is ludicrous to maintain that a reigning Pope cannot be declared a heretic. The Church teaches that reprimands or excommunications are acts of mercy meant to save the soul of the offender and bring him to his senses. If such an act of mercy was permissible after a Pope had died when it was too late to help the offender, wouldn't it be a contradiction to claim that the same act is forbidden while the offender is living and has time to repent?