In Dialogus Part 1, Books 1-5, we have
seen Ockham’s view of the Church. Neither the pope nor any other
individual or body is infallible (1 Dial. 5). Anyone, even an
ignorant layperson, is free to put forward a theological opinion
and argue for it a thousand times -- even an
opinion that is actually heretical – provided they do not try to
compel others to hold it and provided they listen to people who
try to show them they are mistaken.
This freedom extends also to the pope. A pope who argues
for an heretical opinion without attempting to impose it is not a
heretic (see 7:37). On
the other hand, anyone, including the pope, who tries to impose an
heretical opinion on others becomes
a heretic by the very attempt. What makes a mistaken person a
heretic is pertinacity,
and an attempt to impose a heresy on others evidences pertinacity.
For the controversy between the Franciscans and John XXII this
means that the Franciscans are not heretics even if they are
wrong, because they coerce no one, whereas if John is wrong he is
a heretic, since he does attempt to impose his opinions.
Ockham's opinions as inferred from Books 1-5 might be described (at the risk of anachronism) as "liberal". Books 6 and 7 take a different turn. These Books are about the coercion and punishment of heretics, especially of a heretic pope, and of those who believe in, support, communicate with, defend or receive heretics. The Master describes a very comprehensive program of opposition to a heretic pope (here, here, here). People who do not yet know whether a pope accused of heresy is actually a heretic should find out, though some people may be excused from that obligation. There should be no unfairness, no hatred, toward a heretic pope (here), but a heretic pope and his supporters deserve to be punished. For the controversy between the Franciscans and John XXII this means that every Christian ought to give the pope's critics a hearing, and, if they are convinced that John is actually a heretic, every Christian should join in the effort to remove him from his de facto occupation of the papal office and inflict on him the punishments due to heretics.
In liberal modern societies controversy is
supposed to be conducted with courtesy, with open-mindedness to
views one disagrees with, and without coercion. In the ancient and
medieval Church, and even into modern times, heresy and heretics
were often referred to in language of great contempt (as “insane”,
“wicked”, "heretical filth", etc.), heretics could be listened to
only for the purpose of refuting
them, and there was much coercion. For Ockham the coercion of
heretics was required by divine law, as set out in the Bible, Deuteronomy
chapters 13 and 17.
Several key distinctions recur: between the
truths that a given person is obliged to believe explicitly, and
those in which implicit belief is enough (what must be believed
explicitly varies from one
person to another); between heresies condemned explicitly and
those condemned only implicitly; between ignorance that is
culpable and ignorance that excuses; between situations in which
heresy can be opposed fruitfully and without undue disturbance,
and situations in which it may have to be tolerated for a time. A
key example showing how a pope may be judged by inferiors is the
case of Pope Marcellinus.
In various places Ockham discusses views akin
to those of Marsilius of Padua. See Ockham and Marsilius.
In both his academic and "political" writings
Ockham complains of slander directed against him. In 1 Dial. 6 and
7 again there are strong denunciations of slanderers (e.g. in 7.25).
Chapters
of particular interest include: Book 6, chapters 14,
57-8,
71,
79, 83-85,
92-96;
Book 7, chapters 13-21, 70-73.
In making this analysis I have consulted Pierre D'Ailly's Abbreviatio
(Ian Murdoch, Critical
Edition of Pierre D'Ailly's "Abbreviatio dyalogi okan",
Ph D thesis Monash University, 1981).
-----------------
ABOUT A POPE ACCUSED OF HERESY (PERHAPS FALSELY)
Does a pope have
any judge on earth?
Chapter 1
Chapter 2 Arguments for (B), the pope
does have a superior on earth, even while pope. Versions of this
position: (B1), the Emperor or another judge and secular ruler, or
the people or some multitude, is the normal judge of the
pope (cf. Marsilius). (B2) No person or body has power to judge or
coerce the pope except in two cases, (B2i) if the pope were
seriously (even if falsely) slandered of heresy, (B2ii) if he is
notoriously involved in some crime that would scandalize the
church and shows himself to be incorrigible. First argument for
(B1): Since a pope has no coercive jurisdiction, he must be
subject to the coercive jurisdiction of the Emperor.
Chapter 3 Arguments that the pope has
no coercive jurisdiction.
Chapter 6 Argument against (B1): the
pope is the Emperor’s superior.
Chapter 8 How supporters of (B1)
answer arguments against it. Preliminary: different versions of
(B1), different definitions of temporal and spiritual. Answer to
arguments of Chapter 6 to show that the pope is the Emperor’s
superior. Chapter
9 Answer to arguments of Chapter 6 continued.
Chapter 10 Discussion of (B2i), as
it relates to the Church. Arguments that the Church is not the
judge of a pope defamed of heresy.
Chapter 12 Discussion of (B2i), as
it relates to the Council. Arguments that a Council is not the
judge of a pope defamed of heresy. Chapter 13 Arguments that a Council
is the judge of a pope defamed of heresy.
Chapter 14 Master presents modified
(B2i): Church, Council, Bishops, must inquire, but if they find
that the pope is not a heretic they have no jurisdiction over him;
if he is, they do have jurisdiction. Chapter 15
Arguments supporting modified (B2i).
Is it permitted, and
necessary, to appeal against a pope concerning heresy?
Chapter
16 If an appeal is made, the pope is thereby
“defamed”. Some say that an appeal against a pope concerning
heresy must never be entertained (even if he is in fact a
heretic). Arguments for that position.
Chapter 17 Explanation of the opinion
that in some cases appeal against a pope concerning heresy can
be made. (1) It is not allowed to appeal directly for cause of
heresy from a Catholic pope. (2) It is allowed to appeal from a
heretic pope. (3) If appeal is made
against a Catholic pope, it must be legally honoured until it
becomes clear that the appeal is not legitimate. Clarification of
(1): if there is no probable cause to believe that the pope is a
heretic, no appeal should be made, but if there is probable cause,
it can be; and if there is a scandal, one can call for it to be
resolved without asserting that the pope is a heretic. Argument
supporting (1).
Chapter 18 Meanings of "appellatio";
"provocatio".
Chapter 19 Argument supporting (2),
that appeal may be made from a heretic pope -- e.g. if the pope
asserts that the Catholic faith is false and that the sect of the
Saracens should be followed.
Chapter 20 Objection: a heretic pope
is an unbeliever, and Christians should not appeal from an
unbeliever. Answer: it is not necessary to appeal (so the martyrs
did not appeal), but it is permissible (as Paul appealed).
Discussion of whether Christians should not appeal from an
unbeliever or to an unbeliever continued in Chapters 21, 22, 23.
Chapter 24 But it is not absolutely necessary
to appeal against a pope concerning heresy.
Chapter 25 Argument that if an appeal
is made, the form usually used in appeals need not be followed.
Continued in Chapters 26, 27.
Chapter 28 Second answer to argument
of Chapter 20 (that an appeal is not permitted), viz. that appeal
is necessary. Chapter 29 Answer to arguments of
Chapter 24 that appeal is not
absolutely necessary. Chapter 30 Answer to argument of
Chapter 28 that appeal is necessary (and a case when it is
necessary).
Chapter 31
(Further) argument for assertion of Chapter 19, that it is
permitted to appeal from a pope's heretical judgment. Chapter 32
Objection against an argument of Chapter 31, and answer.
(Completes discussion of question raised in Chapter 19.)
Chapter 33
Can appeal be made against pope who defines even a "small" heresy?
Yes.
Chapter 34 Can
appeal be made if the pope does not define, but preaches? It is
permitted to appeal against the doctrine as heretical,
but whether against the pope as a heretic depends on
whether he is bound to know the truth of the matter explicitly,
and (if not) whether he is pertinacious.
Chapter 35
Appeal or accuse? These theorists not concerned with technical
verbal accuracy.
Should
other Catholics defend those who accuse a pope of heresy?
Chapter 36 Should
opponents of a heretic pope be defended by other Catholics, even
against a pope? One position: Not unless they make an “appeal”.
Chapter 37
Other Catholics are bound (under appropriate circumstances) to
defend opponents even if they do not appeal. Chapter 38
Arguments against the position of Chapter 37. Chapter 39
Three clarifications, and answers to the objections of Chapter 38.
Chapter 40
Refinement of the position of Chapter 37.
Chapter 41
More arguments for position of Chapter 37.
Chapter 42
Student’s objections: The cited texts mean that judges and
prelates must defend the heretic pope’s attackers, not that
everyone must.
Chapter 43
Brother M and his followers do blame people who do not defend
them. Arguments that socii (variously translated "equals",
"partners", "companions", "neighbours"), even if they are not in
positions of authority, must support socii, in support of
the thesis of Chapter 37.
Chapter 44
Answer to objections of Chapter 42.
Chapter 45 Student: Arguments so far
apply to those who know or believe that the pope is a
heretic, not to those who do not. Answer: The previous arguments
do apply; all Catholics must defend the opponents until it becomes
clear to them that their opposition is not legitimate. (Cf.
conclusion (3) of Chapter 17.)
Chapter 46 Arguments against the
position of Chapter 45: those who do not know must continue to
obey the pope. Answers to Chapter 46: Chapter 47 Rule of obedience to the
pope has exceptions. Chapter 48 The pope ought not
exercise his authority over appellants so as to prejudice their
appeal before they are convicted of malice. Chapter 49 The
pope is bound to honour an appeal.
Chapter 50, 51, more argument for position of Chapter 45.
Chapter 52 Prelates and those having jurisdiction in the Church must defend the pope's opponents. Chapters 53, 54 Kings and rulers and other public authorities must defend them, if necessary by arms.
Chapter 55 (Transition
summary). Answer to arguments (chapter 16) to show that it is not
permissible to appeal from the pope.
Who can investigate an
accusation of heresy against a pope?
Chapter 56 Return to the matter
left at the end of Chapter 15:
If the pope has been defamed as a heretic, how should Catholics
investigate? What if the pope tries to prevent investigation? They
may take him captive. Objection: If the pope is falsely defamed,
they do not have jurisdiction over him so cannot take him captive.
Answer:
The power to detain may be separated from jurisdiction. Note: General words
not always to be taken generally.
Chapter 57 Who ought to conduct
the investigation? Answer: First the universal Church, then a
council, then a bishop, then clergy, then laity.
Chapter 58 For what infamy must
a pope must be investigated? Depends on its origin. The pope ought
to submit to inquiry if the rumour originates from a credible
source. A reasonable procedure described.
Chapter 59 Pope is bound by
necessity of salvation to submit himself to the judgment of
inferiors.
Chapter 60 If the accusation
fails, must the pope purge [i.e. take an oath affirming his
innocence]? Sometimes. Chapter 61 Objections to the
thesis of Chapter 60, and answers. Chapter 62 What if pope does
not wish to purge himself? He should be considered convicted, and
therefore he should be deprived of the papacy.
Chapters 63, answer to texts
and 64
answers to arguments of Chapter 1 (purporting to prove that the
pope never has a superior) made by those who assert modified
(B2i) (cf. Chapter 14). Chapter 65 Their answer to
arguments of Chapter 10. Chapter 66 Their answer to
arguments of Chapter 12 (purporting to prove that a general
council does not have jurisdiction over a pope defamed concerning
heresy).
Chapter 67 A summary of the
ways in which Catholics and the faithful have power (simpliciter
or secundum quid) over a pope, or over a former pope
who has become a heretic.
ABOUT A POPE WHO REALLY IS A HERETIC
Who can depose a heretic
pope?
Chapter 68 If a pope does become a heretic, is he ipso facto stripped of all authority and ecclesiastical dignity? Some say yes, others say only if not tolerated by the Church. Arguments that ipso facto he ceases to be pope by divine law.
Chapter 69 Arguments for No: a
heretic pope is not deprived of the papacy by divine law. Chapter 70
Answer to the arguments of Chapter 69.
Chapter 71 What power does the
Church have over a heretic pope? Opinion 1: Those who say that a
heretic pope is deprived of the papacy by divine law (cf. Chapter
68) say that the Church, a general council, any Catholic, has the
same power as over any heretic. Supporting arguments.
Chapter 72 Opinion 2: Those who
say that a heretic pope is not deprived of the papacy by divine
law (cf. Chapter 69) say that no one has power over the pope
except the Universal Church or a General Council, until he has
been deposed by the Universal Church or a General Council.
Chapter 73 Opinion 3: not only
the universal Church and the general council, but the Roman
diocese, and the college of cardinals, and the Emperor, and also a
bishop in whose diocese a heretic pope is sojourning, could depose
him.
Chapter 74 Opinion 4: a heretic
pope, unless he is willing to resign of his own accord, cannot be
deposed by any congregation or person. An inferior cannot depose
his superior; but a heretic pope, since has not been deprived of
the papacy by divine law (according to this opinion, Chapter 69),
is superior to every Christian congregation and person.
Chapter 75 Disciple remarks
that opinion 4 is to the detriment of the orthodox faith. The
other three make deposition a matter of law, divine or human.
Deposition by divine law has been argued Chapter 68. Chapter 75
argues that the deposition is by human law.
What penalties should be
inflicted on a heretic pope?
Chapter 76
A heretic pope is subject to all penalties to be inflicted on
heretics in general by divine law, natural law, general councils
and canons of the supreme pontiffs. Argument that he is subject to
the penalties imposed on heretics by newly-elected or previous
popes.
Chapter 77 Two distinctions:
some penalties are assessed in divine law or natural law, others
are assessed and determined in human law; and heretics incur some
penalties ipso facto,
others by sentence. First penalty, by divine or natural law: loss
of office.
[As background to the next few chapters, see Müller, “Procedures
and
Courts”; Donahue, "Procedure
in the Courts of the Ius commune".]
Chapter 78. Another penalty by
divine or natural law: Infamy. Infamy of law (ipso facto or
by sentence), infamy of fact.
Chapter 79 Another penalty:
rejection from giving testimony and never being believed.
Presumption that no criminal is truthful. Kinds of
virtue; the virtues of pagans. Vices dispose to
other vices "according to preparation of the heart". Pride.
Desire for money. Anger.
Injustice.
Self-love.
Another opinion: Only some criminals excluded from
testimony by divine or natural law (those whose crimes relate to
falsehood and lying), others by human law. Third opinion:
Criminals are excluded from giving testimony only by human law,
which provides that criminals may accuse and testify in some
cases. Whether excluding criminals from testifying endangers the common
good.
Chapter 80 In matters canvassed
in Chapter 79 there are many difficulties. Arguments that a
heretic pope (specifically) is not to be trusted.
Chapter 81 Another penalty:
Excommunication. Not by divine law, but by Church law.
Chapter 82 More penalties,
incurred not by divine law but by Church law: including expulsion
from the Holy See, degradation from holy orders, imprisonment,
confiscation of property, etc. (These penalties can be remitted,
Chapter 87).
Who is competent to judge a
heretic pope?
Chapter 83 Who is the competent
judge? Who should impose the penalties? A general council, a
Catholic pope, the cardinals; if these are negligent, a bishop, or
secular rulers. Student's objections and answers. How some might
campaign for the holding of a council.
Chapter 84 Who can convene a
council? It can be done without a pope, by prelates and
theologians, rulers, all Catholic men and women, who could attend
the council. How it could be organised. Local parishes or
communities could send delegates.
Chapter 85 Kings and rulers and
other laymen and laywomen could convene a council and take part in
it, shown by texts, examples and arguments. "What touches all must
be treated and approved by all" qualified: "if it can be discussed
by all, and there is no apparent reason why anyone should be
excluded from such discussion." Church affairs do concern
laypeople, including women. If laypeople have been excluded from
some councils, it must have been with their consent.
What penalties can be inflicted on a heretic
pope by a council (Chapter 86), a newly-elected
pope (Chapter 87), the cardinals (Chapter 88),
the Romans (Chapter
89), the bishop of the diocese in which the heretic pope
resides (Chapter
90). Note (Chapter 86) that a council in which a
Catholic pope takes part can remit penalties mentioned in Chapter
82. Note (Chapter 88) that the role and privileges of the
Cardinals exist by delegation from the pope.
Chapter 91
Whether secular and lay rulers have power to coerce a heretic
pope. First opinion: the coercion of a heretic pope does not
concern secular rulers at all.
Chapter 92 Opposite opinion:
diverse ways of stating it. Coercion of a heretic pope is the
business of: (1) The entire multitude of Christians, and
therefore of secular rulers; (2) Primarily of the pope and
prelates, secondarily, in two cases, to secular rulers, viz. (2a)
if called on by prelates, (2b) if clerics are heretics, supporters
of heretics, or negligent. Arguments in favour of (1).
Chapter 93 Explanation of
(2b). They say (A) that the cause of faith in some way pertains to
the laity. Second, they endeavor to explain (B) how the
question of faith pertains to the laity. Third, they endeavor to
show (C) that the coercion of a heretic pope in some case pertains
to the laity, even if not called on by the prelates of the Church.
Arguments in favour of (A).
Chapter 94
(B) In what ways does a question of faith concern the laymen and
laywomen? Discussion of (B) continued in Chapters 95, 96
Chapter 97
(C) Lay heretics, even as regards the crime of heresy, are within
the forum of the secular judge.
Chapter 98 (C) Heretic
clerics: can they be coerced by the laity, even if not called on
by the prelates of the Church. Opinions: (1) No, lay people should
in no case interfere with heretic clerics unless they have been
called on by the prelates of the Church. (2) Yes, when
ecclesiastical power is deficient, a lay judge can pronounce a
definitive sentence on clerics, even on a heretic pope, and order
the same sentence to be executed. (3) Yes, when ecclesiastical
power is deficient, the laity can and must detain a heretic pope
and other heretical clerics, but cannot pronounce a definitive
sentence or order such a sentence to be executed.
Chapter 99
What (2) and (3) hold in common. Ecclesiastical power may be
deficient through importance, malice, negligence, or ignorance.
Arguments that lay people can coerce heretics when ecclesiastical
power is deficient without waiting to be called on by the clergy.
The divine law that mandates coercion of heretics is found in Deuteronomy
13 and 17. What is moral binds still, the judical (that
heretics must be killed) does not.
Chapter
100 Answers to arguments in Chapter 98 for opinion that lay
people should not coerce heretic clerics unless called on by
prelates, and in Chapter 91 for opinion that coercion of a
heretic pope does not concern secular rulers at all. (Incidental
discussions of the interpretation of laws,
making exceptions;
the role of experts.)
Go to Analysis of Book 7.
Return to Analyses
of the Dialogus