Bishop Schneider: And because the entire faith of the church is stronger, the church can endure an erring Pope, because he is not eternal. It’s common sense we have to apply alongside the supernatural vision, simply common sense, practical sense. Know the history of the church and say this case is irresolvable.
John-Henry Westen: Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano wrote a piece where he gave several arguments, but one wasn’t so much about deposing Pope Francis as it was about questioning Pope Francis’s actual acquiring of the papacy. What he was talking about was the mens rea, or the intent with which Pope Francis went into the papacy. For the laity, it makes a lot of sense because when we enter into marriage, if we intend to never have children or intend not to be faithful to our spouse, the marriage, even though we go through the ceremony, would be invalid. Archbishop Vigano presented that it seems clear to him that Pope Francis went into accepting the papacy with an agenda. We get that from the biography by Cardinal Daniels, in a program. It seems very much that, if anyone reads it, they are following the program of Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini. If you read his 1972 dream for the church, it almost seems verbatim. So his suggestion was perhaps Pope Francis, in accepting the papacy, went in with such an agenda, and therefore, like with a marriage, if you go in with an agenda not to fulfill the ends of the sacrament, or in his case, the end of the Pope would be to protect and defend the doctrine of the Church. What do you make of Archbishop Vigano’s argument in that sense?
Bishop Schneider: These are very weak arguments, completely weak without a basis. First, you cannot compare the papacy with a sacrament. It’s not a sacrament, so this argument is not applicable here. Second, the church always, this is an axiom of the church, de internis non judicat ecclesia, about interior things. The church has no power to judge intention. Only God knows. Even when there are some elements we can deduce, as you mentioned, this is too weak, because at the last moment, a person can change. Even in the moment of election, he can change and say, no, I do not have these intentions which I had before the election. This is so weak, an air hypothesis, impossible to apply. In this case, it is completely subjective and arbitrary. We could apply this to many Popes. Let us take the popes of the saeculum obscurum in the 10th century, who were put in the papacy by the Roman mafia families, their immoral sons. John XII was an immoral young man, and he lived a dissolute life before he became pope. He wanted the papacy for power and money, and he lived all his pontificate this way. Even the official Roman description of the popes after their death stated this about him. But he was recognized as a valid Pope. No one said, maybe he only wanted the papacy for money and pleasure. We have other cases also. Therefore, this argument is completely weak and not applicable.
Second, more basically, which these people do not observe, is that in cases of an invalid election, let us say there was simony, or several cases of valid, invalid, or allegedly invalid elections, from the moment of election, the praxis of the church, though not a written norm, is strong. For 2000 years, the church behaved this way. From the moment the electors, the Cardinals, start to name him Pope, and the entire episcopacy recognizes him, he is the true Pope. Any irregularities of intention, election, bribery, or simony are healed in this moment because of the entire church. The election of a Pope is not a divine law. This is also an error of Archbishop Vigano and similar people. They exalt simply the rules of an election, which are human, to the category of untouchable, infallible, divine rules. The method of election is only a human method, not an absolute value. Unfortunately, Archbishop Vigano gives an absolute value to the norms of the conclave, which does not correspond to the praxis of the church. This is common sense. If not, we would have a complete disaster. No one would know who the supreme pastor of the church is. Doubts would start, and to eliminate this greater evil for the church, to establish a second Pope, there would be an entire schism. This is a worse evil than accepting formally an invalidly elected Pope, who is accepted by the entire church. I repeat, the church, the entire episcopacy, and the people recognize him. The Pope is not an absolute norm. The Pope is not the church itself. He is only a servant of the servants of God.
John-Henry Westen: Hello, friends. To celebrate the momentous overturning of Roe v. Wade, we at LifeSite have minted just under 10,000 of these brand-new, limited-edition pro-life silver rounds. Each round is stamped with the image of the Supreme Court of the United States, featuring the date the High Court delivered this historic victory. On the front of our pure silver rounds is LifeSite’s logo, surrounded by a brilliant sunburst and draped with olive branches. They commemorate our 25-year anniversary of LifeSite News. We began in September 1997, so September 2022 marked 25 years. These one-ounce silver rounds are available from our partners at StJosephsPartners.com, where you can fulfill all of your silver and gold needs in this perilous time. May God bless you.
These questions are very difficult because I know you have read Universi Dominici Gregis, the 1992 constitution of Pope John Paul II regarding the election of the Roman Pontiff. In paragraph 76, it lays out the rules for the election of the Roman Pontiff. But then, in paragraph 76, it also talks about how, if the rules laid down there were not followed, the election would confer no power on the one elected. In times past, when this was not the case or not written, perhaps this has changed now. Archbishop Vigano, in his document, addressed the issue you mentioned, about the acceptance of the election by the majority. But he notes that in the past, one of the antipopes also had the majority of bishops and cardinals in the church accepting his election. How do we make sense of that?
Bishop Schneider: First, I would repeat that the norm of Universi Dominici Gregis is a human law. It is not a divine law, I repeat. It has no absolute value and must be subordinated to the greater good of the Church, which is clarity about who the Pope is, as I already said.
Second, the example Archbishop Vigano brings is not applicable here because it is a different situation. In that case, there were two claimants to the papacy. Here, there is only one. There is no second claimant against him, no one claiming the papacy on the side of France. This is a fundamental distinction.
In the case Vigano mentioned, there were two claimants. Urban VI was elected even though the election was, in my opinion, invalid because the Cardinals faced immense pressure from the people of Rome to elect an Italian Cardinal, not a French one, after Avignon. They feared for their lives. In this situation, they elected an Italian Cardinal, the Archbishop of Bari, who took the name Urban VI. In the first month, the entire College of Cardinals accepted him as Pope. He was mentioned in the Mass, and it was proven.
When Pope Urban began to rule as a dictator, injuring the Cardinals, they were disappointed. After some months, part of them, especially the French Cardinals, separated themselves and claimed the election was invalid because of the pressure. They then elected Pope Clement VII, the French Pope, who went to Avignon, while Urban remained in Rome.
This is a completely different situation. I repeat, in the first months, the entire episcopate recognized Urban as Pope. Only later, when they elected an antipope, did the church start to split for over 30 years. Even saints, including Saint Vincent Ferrer, initially supported the antipope in Avignon, but later recognized their error and joined the true Pope.
John-Henry Westen: Stunning, stunning times, and we have all this to look back on, thank God, because otherwise, it would seem so helpless. Yet now, looking back, for me it was comforting because we have great men of the Church on either side of this question. Saint Vincent Ferrer was there, and Saint Catherine of Siena at the same time, and they were on opposite sides. It always struck me that God did not stop the miracles that Saint Vincent Ferrer was performing, even though he was on the wrong side of the papacy debate. And of course, he came to the right conclusion in the end. But oh my goodness, what a time.
There is another question here. You address it a little, but it is one where the saints have spoken. It is about heresy. Following this papacy, even as a layman without a theological background, but knowing my catechism and trying to raise my children in the faith, it seems to me that there has been heresy, of what type is a different question, but over and over again, over the last 10 years, there have been very many departures from the Doctrine of the Faith.
One quote I have here pertains to the question of heresy. It is from Cardinal Newman. Newman summarized the tradition of thinking that a Pope who falls into heresy loses office. He presents this as the tradition of the Church, saying, “We hold also that a heretical Pope ipso facto ceases to be Pope by reason of his heresy.” If I could get your take on that.
Bishop Schneider: Yes, this is a view of some theologians, even of saints, but it is not the teaching of the Church. We have to distinguish this from the Magisterium of the Church, the constant Magisterium. This is important. The constant Magisterium of the Pope never established this. There is only an indication in the old Canon Law, the Corpus Juris Canonici, a collection of canonical norms from the Middle Ages until 1917, when the new Code of Canon Law started.
There was a norm in the Decretum Gratiani, which said the Pope cannot be judged by anyone unless he is falling into heresy, but it did not give norms on how to proceed. No norms, only this affirmation, which was simply kept in the collection. The Popes did not take this phrase as teaching in the Magisterium. They never taught this, with one exception, Paul IV in the 16th century, who made a famous bull that a heretic cannot be elected Pope. Only one document in 2000 years, this is not the constant Magisterium of the Church. We have to distinguish this; it is not an extraordinary decision as some erroneously present it.
We have to be careful when examining the history of the Church. It was never the teaching of the Church. It was the opinion of theologians, for example, Robert Bellarmine, John Henry Newman, or Francis de Sales, but they were theologians. They were not speaking as the Magisterium. In 1917, the Magisterium, under Pope Pius X, who prepared the new code, eliminated the phrase that a Pope cannot be charged unless he falls into heresy. This was removed from Church documents, showing that the Magisterium does not support this idea.
Theologians present several possible norms on how to proceed in such cases, but there are none universally applicable. Such situations are really irresolvable. If a group of Cardinals attempted to depose a Pope or declare that he lost office, it would always create division. No College of Cardinals would unanimously agree. They would be divided. One would elect a new Pope, the other would say, “No, he is still the Pope.” We would repeat the same story as in the Middle Ages and create more confusion than enduring a short-term erring Pope.
From the dogma of faith, a Pope cannot pronounce heresy when speaking ex cathedra. Outside of that, it may rarely occur, but the Church is stronger than this erring Pope. The faith of the Church is stronger, and because the entire faith of the Church is stronger, the Church can endure an erring Pope because he is not eternal. We have to apply common sense alongside supernatural vision and simple practical sense. Know the history of the Church and understand that this case is irresolvable.
John-Henry Westen: In that, I think Archbishop Vigano agrees with you. He called it in his document a situation that is humanly irredeemable. Should the next Pope, or a future Pope, declare Pope Francis a heretic and say he wasn’t Pope, would you fight such a declaration? What would you think of that, or would that just be the Church, the Magisterium, finally providing clarity on the question?
Bishop Schneider: He will never do this. A Pope, I repeat, because the Magisterium of the Church never formally accepted the idea that a Pope loses his office because of heresy, cannot do this. He can condemn him as an erring Pope, but he cannot declare his pontificate invalid. This is the distinction.
Yes, we had the example of Pope Honorius I, who spread heresy. They did not declare that he was an invalid Pope. They said he was a Pope, but a bad Pope, and we condemn him. The same three Ecumenical Councils declared Honorius I a valid Pope, but an erring, heretical Pope. This is the distinction.
John-Henry Westen: What I guess is so stunning to many people is just this concept. Even in your catechism, which flows from the Catechism of the Council of Trent, it defines what a Catholic is. A Catholic must not only believe the faith, even if they might not fully practice it, they might feel too weak or otherwise unable, but they must also profess it. If they do not profess the faith, or they profess a faith different from the Church, which seems to be happening with the current papacy, then you must question if this person is a Catholic. This then begs the question: can a non-Catholic be Pope?
Bishop Schneider: Of course, a non-Catholic cannot be Pope. But when he is baptized and a priest, Canon Law does not impose other conditions for election to the papacy beyond being a male, baptized cleric. Historically, there have even been Popes elected directly from the laity, such as Saint Fabian in the third century, who was a holy martyr.
Implicitly, of course, the Pope must have the right faith. But unless he publicly declares heresy, we have to assume he is still Catholic. When he pronounces heresy, he is still Pope, though he performs his office badly. In our case, Pope Francis has not formally pronounced heresy. He has the art of ambiguity and confusion. We have to pray for him, and we must continue to profess our Catholic faith with conviction and joy. We should not be overly focused on the Pope. That is not healthy.
John-Henry Westen: Indeed, Excellency, you have been so patient with us and answered so many difficult questions. It is a great grace, a grace for the Church, because these things have confused the faithful. You are one of the voices of great clarity and simplicity, which is a joy. It is an honor to know you, to work with you a little, and to help spread your catechesis, which we will do. May I ask your blessing upon LifeSite, all of our staff, and also all of our viewers who love you and pray for you?
Bishop Schneider: Thank you, Mr. Westen, for your dedication and for all your collaborators, especially the young ones. I am happy to see young people so committed to the true Catholic faith in your work. May God bless your work with many fruits, and bless all to whom you bring this true benefit and work of truth, love for neighbor, and charity in truth. For this intention, I bless you and all your work.
Dominus vobiscum, et cum, spiritu tuo. Et benedictio Dei omnipotentis, Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti descendant, super vos et maneat semper. Amen
Praised be Jesus Christ.
John-Henry Westen: Now and forever. You’re welcome, and God bless all of you. We’ll see you next time.