## Analysis of 1 Dialogus 6: On the punishment of heretics, and especially of the Pope who has become a heretic

##### John Kilcullen

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).

Contents
About a pope accused of heresy (perhaps falsely)
(a) Does the pope have any judge on earth?|
(b) Is it permitted, and necessary, to appeal against a pope concerning heresy?
(c) Should other Catholics defend those who accuse a pope of heresy?
(d) Who can investigate an accusation of heresy against a pope?
About a pope who really is a heretic
(e) Who can depose a heretic pope?
(f) What penalties should be inflicted on a heretic pope?
(g) Who is competent to judge a heretic pope?

(Chapters I find particularly interesting are: 8, 14, 57, 71, 79, 83-85, 92-96.)

-----------------

ABOUT A POPE ACCUSED OF HERESY, PERHAPS FALSELY

DOES A POPE HAVE ANY JUDGE ON EARTH?

Chapter 1

Does anyone on earth (ever) have jurisdiction over a pope? Some say (A) that the pope has no superior on earth, others (B) that while no individual person is the pope's superior, the universal Church and also the general council are the pope's superior. Of those who say the pope has no superior, some say (A1) someone canonically elected pope may never be justly deprived of the papacy, even if he becomes a heretic, others (A2) that a pope has no superior on earth while pope, but if he becomes a heretic he is instantly deprived of the papacy by divine law (not by human law) and becomes inferior to Catholics.

Arguments for what (A1) and (A2) have in common, that a pope (while pope) has no superior.

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. (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) (Marsilius): 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 4 Second argument for (B1).

Chapter 5 Third argument for (B1).

Chapter 6 Argument against (B1): the pope is the Emperor’s superior. Chapter 7 Arguments 2-5 against (B1).

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 11 Arguments that the Church is 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). Suppose a pope asserts that the Catholic faith is false and that the sect of the Saracens should be adopted.

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 "tiny" 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 "partners (even if they are not in positions of authority) must support partners", 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.

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? 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 a former pope who has become a heretic.

-----------------

WHO CAN DEPOSE A POPE WHO REALLY IS A HERETIC?

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.

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. Another opinion: By divine or natural law only some criminals excluded from testimony (those whose crimes relate to falsehood and lying), others by human law. Another opinion: 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 are 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. Quotations from Deuteronomy. 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.)

Return to 1 Dial. 6 and 7
Go to Analysis of the argument of the Dialogus