Can the Pope be removed from office? This is what a group of seventeen conservative Catholics suggests. In their view, the bishops should declare that Francis has ceased to be the successor of St Peter. While the proposal seems a simple and hence tempting solution to the problems plaguing the modern Church, it is in fact a return to the heresy of conciliarism – and an encouragement of the unacceptable dethronement of the Pope.
Seventeen conservative accusers
An indictment of Pope Francis and a call for his dethronement has been prepared by a group of traditional Catholics; among them are the author of widely read books on traditional liturgy Peter Kwasniewski and the editor-in-chief of the Life Site News website John-Henry Westen.
Wesprzyj nas już teraz!
The statement was titled by the signatories: ‘Calling on Pope Francis to resign’. Seventeen people in total signed it. The reader will find a full list of them, together with the text itself, at least at this link: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/prominent-catholics-urge-bishops-cardinals-to-declare-francis-has-lost-the-papal-office-if-he-refuses-to-resign/.
What do the ‘seventeen’ claim?
The authors point out that there has been such a serious crisis in the Church due to the Holy Father’s activities that the Pope should step down. If he would not, he should, in their opinion, be removed from office.
They write:
„We therefore call for Pope Francis to resign the papal office, and to repent and do penance for his actions. If he does not do this, we request that the cardinals and bishops of the Catholic Church ask Pope Francis to resign the office of pope. If he refuses to resign or recant the heresies that he has upheld, we ask that they declare that he has lost the papal office”.
In the following section of the ‘Declaration’, the seventeen signatories enumerate the pope’s various – as they write – ‘crimes’. I will discuss these later in the text, now dealing directly with the conclusions of the text.
The authors concluded that Pope Francis is unfit for the papal office due to ‘lack of faith’ and ‘has a moral obligation to resign the papacy’. Additional reasons in favour of resignation are said to be the pope’s ‘lack of virtues’, ‘lack of knowledge’, ‘lack of graces’ and, finally, the pope’s ‘character flaws’.
The signatories anticipate that, despite their appeal, the pope will not give up after all, so they are calling on the whole Church to act.
Firstly, in their view, all those endowed with authority in the Church should warn the faithful against Francis.
Secondly, they feel justified in declaring the Pope an outspoken heretic. The authors state that the „Catholic Church has always held that popes can be heretics, and that a pope who commits the public crime of heresy loses the papal office thereby. […] Clearly a pope who chooses to leave the Church by embracing heresy cannot remain pope”.
The authors admit that it is not clear exactly how such removal from office would occur.
Thirdly, they write about the „duty of the bishops and cardinals” „to proceed to declare that he has lost the papal office for heresy’. If this would not be possible as a result of the lack of a sufficient number of hierarchs willing to participate in such an initiative, they should form ‘a united group to publicly warn the faithful’ against the pope, declaring that the validity of his office is in doubt and calling on the faithful ‘not to believe his statements or obey his orders’, unless it is clearly proven that it should be otherwise.
Removing the Pope from office. The heresy of conciliarism?
Simply calling for a pope to abdicate is not in itself an evil act, and this means that under certain conditions it could be acceptable. A papal resignation – as the authors of the ‘Statement’ themselves admit – is a painful thing and should remain rare. However, I am very sceptical about the legitimacy of making such appeals publicly. They create an atmosphere of pressure on the popes and, even if made in good faith, provide a tool that can also be used in bad faith. The way was opened for this by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who called on Francis to resign in 2018.
Instead of harshly calling on the Pope to step down, one can after all write a letter in the form of a humble and filial request. ‘The statement’ could be read as a de facto form of blackmail.
The authors claim that if the Pope does not step down, he should simply be removed from office. They maintain that the Church has ‘always taught’ that a heretic pope loses his office. If this were the case, the matter would be quite obvious. The problem is, in such a simple form there is no such teaching at all: for it is also in no way possible to carry it out without undermining the very structure of the Church based on the papacy. Bishop Athanasius Schneider has written about this many times in recent years; the reader interested in this issue in detail can be referred to his publications (see: https://onepeterfive.com/bishop-athanasius-schneider-on-the-validity-of-pope-francis/).
The problem is that what the signatories of the ‘Statement’ are proposing seems to be simply… taken from conciliarism. According to conciliarism, it is the assembly of bishops of the Church that is the supreme authority in the Church.
However, conciliarism is a heresy; the idea of the ‘removal’ of the pope by a majority group of cardinals and bishops is in no way reconcilable with the teaching of the last two councils – neither with the dogmatic constitution Pastor aeternus of Vatican I nor with the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium of Vatican II.
The signatories seem to be subconsciously ‘stung’ by democratic thinking, where parliamentary collectives have the possibility to dismiss the head of state in special cases, as is the case in the United States (impeachment) or in Poland (ruling of the State Tribunal). The Catholic Church, however, is not a democracy. Bishops, indeed, have power in the Church, but never – without the Pope:
„But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head” (Lumen gentium 22).
Church without a head?
How can the College of Bishops remain connected to the Bishop of Rome as its head, while at the same time acting against him and recognising that he has no authority? The College of Bishops cannot act without the Pope, because it would be acting without a head. Thus, to speak against the Pope with the intention of recognising that he has no authority is already, by its very nature, the speech of a body without a head, and therefore simply a contradiction and, consequently, an error. The proposal of the authors of the ‘Statement’ comes dangerously close to negating the dogmatically stated structure of the Church. The proposal to fight the ‘heretical pope’ by means of a method of the nature of crypto-Conciliar heresy constitutes a profound disorder. For, in essence, we are dealing with more than an accusation against the Pope. As for its effects – it is a real attack on the Church itself, regardless of the intentions of the seventeen signatories, which I believe were good, that is, related to a genuine concern for the Church so much experienced today.
The allegations that the ‘seventeen’ are making against Francis
I will now deal in more detail with the allegations themselves. The issue is somewhat secondary to the previous one, but still important; and in my opinion, the authors of the ‘Statement’ have treated the matter too hastily.
They have divided the allegations into two categories: ‘crimes other than heresy’ and ‘heresy’. The first group included various cases of people alleged to have committed or to have covered up the committing of sexual crimes, who, according to the authors, enjoyed the support of Francis. This was also pointed to the Pachamama scandal, the removal of bishops from office (the Joseph Strickland and Daniel Torres cases), the strike against the traditional Latin liturgy, the problem of Holy Communion for divorcees in remarriages; the establishment of blessings for same-sex couples; the collaboration with the Chinese communist government.
In the case of heresies, attention was drawn to: Amoris laetitia’s passages on human conscience; the religious diversity proclaimed in the Abu Dhabi document; the blessing of homosexual couples; the rejection of the death penalty; the attitude towards changes in Church teaching; and the attitude towards Scripture.
The authors then described the background of the above-mentioned problems (real or apparent, as will be discussed shortly) by referring to the history of the modernist crisis.
A hasty list of ‘crimes’
Firstly, the list of ‘non-heretical crimes’ that the authors have put forward is, in parts, quite lacking in seriousness.
Yes, there is no shadow of a doubt that Francis did not behave as the public would have expected him to behave towards many of those involved in sexual abuse. In many cases, it can be presumed that justice itself would have demanded something different as well, although here a thorough investigation would have been necessary, which, after all, no one has done.
The fundamental problem, however, is that the same accusation can also be made against other popes, such as St John Paul II. Mistakes, omissions, negligence, cronyism – all this, unfortunately, happens to people, including popes. However, it cannot be said that Francis deliberately and fundamentally supported the scourge of sexual offences – for in Poland, for example, a really large group of bishops were punished during his pontificate. And yet, punishments were handed down to hierarchs in other countries as well.
The allegation of ‘cooperation’ with the Chinese government is also incorrect. The Vatican, like any state, conducts diplomacy. It can be judged well or badly, it can be criticised – but to accuse it of a ‘crime’ for an agreement of unknown content (!) with Beijing is a serious mistake. I would add that, from a Catholic perspective, cooperation with a communist regime raises understandable objections – but so does cooperation with an extremely relativist, pro-abortion and pro-gender government in Washington. This, however, is what the signatories of the ‘Statement’ fail to see.
The other accusations seem to be more legitimate, although the question is to what extent the actions described therein can be called ‘criminal’: for example, the promulgation of the motu proprio Traditionis custodes. By the same principle, St Paul VI, who promulgated the new missal, and, in a way, St John Paul I, St John Paul II and Benedict XVI (until the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum in July 2007), who upheld Montini’s restrictions, would be ‘criminals’.
Misconceived allegations of heresy
The situation is not much better with allegations of heresy. With regard to Amoris laetitia and the doctrine of conscience, the text in question is so confused that it is difficult to distil from it any content that can be reliably assessed for heresy at all. The text may suggest erroneous teachings, and it may have been deliberately written that way; but this presumption is still insufficient to establish formal and outright heresy. Heresy is – again, a simple canonical definition – the ‘persistent’ denial of the truth of the Catholic faith, and it is indeed difficult to extract such ‘persistence’ from the passages on conscience in AL.
The allegation of the heresy of religious indifferentism in the Abu Dhabi document is completely misplaced. Yes, a heretical interpretation of the text is implied, but the Pope has publicly dissociated himself from this, explaining that he meant something quite different. He has done so in a way that is, in my view, insufficiently reliable, but in view of the evident lack of ‘persistence’, there is no question of formal and overt heresy here.
The allegations about the Pope’s attitude to changes in Church teaching and to the interpretation of Scripture are also not very serious, because they are based on very vague and general discourses of Francis, from which no categorical statement can be distilled. The reader can consult the text of the ‘Statement’ to judge this for himself. To accuse the Holy Father of heresy here is, in my opinion, merely ‘wanting’.
More serious are the accusations of heresy in connection with the rejection of the death penalty, the admission of divorcees in remarriages to Holy Communion and the agreement to bless homosexual couples; but here, too, there is by no means any certainty – and I stress, certainty – that one can speak of overt and formal heresy. The matter is complicated and still debated by canonists and theologians. The Pope did not deny the Nicene Creed like the Arians, nor did he undermine the sacrament of the priesthood like the Lutherans, so that to consider him an outright heretic is a matter of fact for any educated Catholic. This is not the case; papal statements are interpreted by many churchmen in favour of the pope – and because of their structure, they provide at least some basis for this, making it difficult to prove formal heresy.
All in all, one would have to think carefully before making the categorical statement that Francis ‘does not have the Catholic faith’. The authors of the ‘Statement’, meanwhile, are arbitrarily handing out a sentence that does not belong to them…
Let me stress again that, in any case, it is not the list of Francis’ real or supposed faults that is the biggest problem of the “Statement”, but the proposals for practical steps, i.e. the crypto-Conciliarist heresy of removing the Pope from office. To follow the advice of the authors of the text would lead the Church into an unprecedented crisis – far greater than the one we are currently in.
Prayer instead of deposition
From a Catholic perspective, I think a different path must be taken – the path of humility towards the structure of the Church based on Peter. There is always the hope that the Pope will recognise that he has gone astray, and as a result – by the power of his supreme authority – will put right what has gone wrong, putting the pontificate back on course. Although this seems humanly unlikely to us, we should not, so to speak, ‘close’ this path by demanding the Pope’s resignation, or worse, his deposition.
It is also worth noting what the consequences of ‘removing’ the Pope would be. This would, after all, involve the election of his successor. Francis, however, if ‘removed’, would continue to regard himself as pope ( technically – rightly so!). There would therefore be a schism – with all its disastrous consequences.
Besides, we have no guarantee that Francis’ successor would have led the pontificate differently. What about a situation in which he would continue the current line? Would he be deposed again? And who would replace him? As the Readers can see, the proposal of the ‘Seventeen’ is a road leading in a straight line to endless chaos.
The faithful of the Catholic Church must follow a different path. It is a path of prayer for the Holy Church, for the Pope and the Bishops; it is a path of firm adherence to the unchanging Tradition and of adherence to all the brethren against the errors that are associated with the present confusion. We need the virtues of patience and profound humility. The Catholic Church belongs to Christ. The Holy Spirit, at the right time – He knows, after all, when the time is right! – will rectify the present difficult situation by endowing the Church with a holy and good Pope. It may humanly seem to us that we should take things in our own hands and do the work of repair ourselves; but while in many areas of ecclesiastical life our activity is needed and necessary, by no means in this case; and not in this way.
Instead of deposing the Pope – let us pray for him.
Paweł Chmielewski
