Seeing the statements and positions that Bergoglio has taken over the years (I will add several of his blasphemous remarks), I wonder not only if he is a blasphemer and a heretic, but if he is really Catholic. So in this basis, Can a Pope be excommunicated? And if you can, how would you do it?, also how it would apply to the current Pope.

About the Trinity

“Inside the Holy Trinity they’re all arguing behind closed doors, but on the outside they give the picture of unity.” [source]

About God

I believe in God, not in a Catholic God; There is no Catholic God, there is God. And I believe in Jesus Christ, his Incarnation. Jesus is my teacher, my shepherd, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Self. [source]

Yes, He himself affirms it when He says in Isaiah that perhaps a mother can forget her child, a mother can also forget her child … “I, instead, will never forget you.” Here God’s maternal dimension is seen. Not everyone understands when there is talk of “God’s maternity,” it’s not a popular language – in the good sense of the word – it seems a language that is somewhat chosen. Therefore, I prefer to use [the word] tenderness, proper to a mother, the tenderness of God, tenderness born from the paternal insides. God is Father and Mother. [source]

About Jesus

A priest who never missed an opportunity to attack the Jews. One day, in a sermon, the priest found a pretext and began to attack Jews, as always. Suddenly, Jesus came down from the cross, looked to the Virgin and says, 'Mom, let's go, it seems that they do not like us here. [source]

Blasphemies in Francis' book, Rome and Jerusalem: Rabbi Talks with Pope, using “Yeshu” instead of “Yeshu’a” is a perversion of the name of Jesus in Hebrew and was used as a polemical curse, an acronym short for "Let his name and memory be blotted out" the same as "Jesus anathema". Also the word “komer” to refer to Catholic priests, this term is used in the Old Testament only for priests that worship idols. The neutral word for priest is “kohen”. [source]

In the book Pope Francis: ​​ His Life in His Own Words (page 103) he says: “The kerygma summarizes the core Christian tenets​​ (among which is the belief)​​ that God is in Jesus.”

"the memory of him [Jesus] who has made himself sin, who has made himself the devil, the serpent, for us; he has humbled himself to the point of complete annihilation." [source]

Pope Francis' favorite painting, is The White Crucifixion by 'Marc Chagall' which represents Jesus with no crown of thorns, instead a turban and blasphemous Yeshu ("Let his name and memory be blotted out" the same as "Jesus anathema") above his head. [source]

They are proof that Jesus of Nazareth, once he became a man, although a man of exceptional virtue, was not a God at all. [source]

"Jesus plays the fool a bit", “he [Jesus] failed against morality”, “And who is dirty more than the hands of Jesus.”, “Jesus (himself) got dirty (even) more.” [source]

For this little “escapade”[Lk 2:51], Jesus probably had to beg forgiveness of his parents. The Gospel doesn’t say this, but I believe that we can presume it. [source]

About the Holy Spirit

The Paraclete creates all the differences among the Churches, almost as if he were an Apostle of Babel. [source]

About Saints

Peter was crucified head first so that God could wash his feet. [source]

Francisco when he was presented with the relic-cane of Saint Teresa of Avila for his veneration. He said, "And with this the old hag walked?" [source]

Making sacred and holy those who reject Jesus Christ

“For Catholics, anti-Semitism is more than a human rights concern. It’s viewed as a form of sacrilege and blasphemy against God’s chosen people. In recent weeks, our country has seen a new wave of anti-Semitism on the rise. It’s wrong and it should deeply concern not only Jews and Catholics, but all people.” [source]

And literally a hundred things more, like about the Church, the fact that you do not need Jesus to be saved, in favor of homosexuality, in favor of jewish literature like Talmud and Kabbalah, in favor of ecumenism, in favor of all religions leading to God and serving to be saved, in favor of praying to different gods in different religions, in favor of communism and humanism, against evangelization and proselytism, in favor of the cult of idols and other topics like Amoris Laetitia, Evangelii Gaudium, Veritatis Gaudium, Gaudete et Exsultate, Laudato Si’, the Amazonian Synod, the document signed in Abu Dhabi, The Abrahamic Family House, the book life after the pandemic, or the 'Reinventing the Global Educational Alliance', but there is not enough time or space to continue writing all the things.

  • 2
    This is not really a question anwerable from a objective point of view (e.g. the offcial views of the Roman Catholic Church in union with its Supreme Pontiff), but a opening of a discussion, wich does not fit to this site. In addtion it is way to broad and does not focus on one specific topic. – K-HB Sep 2 at 20:19
  • 1
    @KenGraham These are not only "jokes", they are answers to interviews, extracts of homilies, commentaries, books – wildmangrove Sep 2 at 21:15
  • 1
    Regardless of all the 'examples' listed the question isn't "Can THIS Pope be excommunicated" but rather "Can THE (A) Pope be excommunicated?". As such it should be answerable by official views of the Catholic Church even though it has never happened, right? – Mike Borden Sep 2 at 22:15
  • 2
    @mikeborden it is certainly answerable for the general case - but if that is the approach to be taken, the examples are irrelevant and should be removed. – Matt Gutting Sep 2 at 22:23
  • 1
    @nick012000 No valid pope has ever been excommunicated. Some have resigned, due to extenuating circumstances, but never excommunicated. – Ken Graham Sep 3 at 15:20

Can a Pope be excommunicated?

According to Scripture, a heretic definetly can be excommunicated

A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject [Titus 3:10]

According to Canon, a Pope who is heretic, theoretically can be excommunicated. (Can. 1371)

Thomas Aquinas in his Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to Titus said: “Such a person should be warned, and if he does not desist, he should be avoided. And he [the Apostle] says, after the first and second admonition, for that is the way the Church proceeds in excommunicating”

But the Church must do this admonitions, not the mere believers

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but ‘after the first and second admonition,’ as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.(ST, II-II, q. 11, a. 3, sed contra., St. Thomas Aquinas)

Also William of Ockham wrote a treatise called Dialogus inter magístrum et disculum de imperatórum et pontíficum potestáte (Dialogue between a teacher and his disciple on the power of the Emperor and the Pontiff), versed on heresy and the possibility that a Pope could fall into heresy, from which it is inferred that the aid of infallibility is only by the papal office and in favor of the defense of the Faith. A situation in which he is ipso facto and latae sententiae deposed from his authority and his subjects have the obligation to resist him and fight against him.

About how it should be done

The Pope is the head of the church and has no bishops above him (Can. 331), so presenting these warnings are a mere act of charity.

A subject is not competent to administer to his prelate the correction which is an act of justice through the coercive nature of punishment: but the fraternal correction which is an act of charity is within the competency of everyone in respect of any person towards whom he is bound by charity, provided there be something in that person which requires correction. (ST, II-II, q. 33, a. 4., Thomas Aquinas)

For a lay believer or a lesser bishop or parish priest, it is not an obligation to present these precautions prior to his excommunication as a Catholic for heresy.

Neither is it always demanded in the external forum that there be a warning and a reprimand as described above for somebody to be punished as heretical and pertinacious, and such a requirement is by no means always admitted in practice by the Holy Office. (De Lugo, disp. XX, sect. IV, n. l57-158, cited in “Essay on Heresy,” by Arnaldo da Silveira).

[H]e is not excommunicated on account of heresy, but should be excommunicated by being deposed. Therefore, the apostle’s command concerning the double admonition, which need not be observed [to the letter] in the case of others, who are inferiors, on account of the addition of excommunication latae sententiae, which the Church imposes on heretics, should be observed to the letter with him. (De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, p. 103. Cajetan)

However, it is possible to submit these admonitions to a Pope who is violating the Canon Law (Can. 1369 A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.), and above all the Holy Scripture.

Is it not true that, confronted with such a danger to the faith [a Pope teaching heresy], any subject can, by fraternal correction, warn their superior, resist him to his face, refute him and, if necessary, summon him and press him to repent? The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: ‘Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment’ (Tit. 3, 10-11). For the person, who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined dogma – not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity – this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such a way that now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, would remain himself hardened in heresy and openly turn himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will he had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate (De Potestate Ecclesiastica, (Monasterii Westphalorum, Deiters, 1847) ch. 6, sec. 2, pp. 124-125)

Thus, before the Pope could be considered a public heretic, he would have to be issued a first and a second warning by the Cardinals or other official Church authority, such as a Roman Synod.

I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible the Pope would cease to be Pope just when a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church. This is the common opinion among the doctors (De Fide, disp. X, sect. VI, nn. 3-10, p. 316; Suarez)

By what power should a deposition happen with regard to the pope? The entire question hinges on two points, namely one, a declarative sentence, by which it is declared (. . .) that the pope has committed the crime (. . . ) and two, the deposition itself, which must be done after the declarative judgment of the crime. (. . .) The Church is able to declare the crime of a Pontiff and, according to divine law, propose him to the faithful as a heretic that must be avoided. (. . . ) the deposition of the pope with respect to the declaration of the crime in no way pertains to the cardinals but to a general council. (Cursus Theologici II-II, John of St. Thomas, De Auctoritate Summi Pontificis, Disp. II, Art. III, De Depositione)

To carry out any type of sentence, it is necessary to form a council, which can be carried out without the presence of the Pope.

A perfect council according to the present state of the Church [i.e., an imperfect council] can be summoned without the pope and against his will, if, although asked, he himself does not wish to summon it; but it does not have the authority to regulate the universal Church, but only to provide for the issue then at stake. Although human cases vary in infinite ways … there are only two cases that have occurred or can ever occur, in which, I declare, such a council should be summoned. The first is when the pope must be deposed on account of heresy; for then, if he refused, although asked, the cardinals, the emperor, or the prelates can cause a council to be assembled, which will not have for its scope the care of the universal Church, but only the power to depose the Pope. (De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, p. 70, Cajetan)

So, this require the Church to judge and declare the Pope guilty of the crime of heresy (Can. 1364) before Christ would remove him from office in latae sententiae (automatically).

It is necessary that, just as the Church designates the man and proposes him to the faithful as being elected Pope, so too is it necessary that the Church declares him a heretic and proposes him as one to be avoided. Hence, we see from the practice of the Church that this is how it has been done; for, in the case of the deposition of a Pope, his cause was handled in a general Council before he was considered not to be Pope, as we have related above. Therefore, it is not because the Pope is a heretic, even publicly, that he will ipso facto cease to be Pope, before the declaration of the Church and before she proclaims him as ‘to be avoided’ by the faithful. (John of St. Thomas, Cursus Theologici II-II, On the Authority of the Supreme Pontiff, Disp. 2, Art. 3.)

Even if he repents of his sins after the council has been held, he could not return to occupy the position, because as 1 Timothy 3:2 states "A bishop then must be blameless..."

Can this Pope be excommunicated?

Sadly, probably no.

Although it would not seem necessary for even the majority, much less all, the cardinals and bishops to declare and prove the incorrigibility of the Pope regarding the crime of his heresies. [Because a legitimate imperfect council unites the faithful without the approval of the Pope, it follows that it would not require the approval or participation of all bishops, not even most of them.] The new cardinals are allies of Bergoglio (sources: 1, 2) and would not condemn him.

Nevertheless, he has been already condemned of heresy by many cardinals, bishops, priests, theologians and lay believers (sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11), but the ears are deaf to all complaints, not only from the Pope, some bishops and priests, but from many believers as well.

Unfortunately, although he were excommunicated and deposed from office, Peter Kwasniewski comments on the future of the position are pessimistic: “The implausibility of this approach is demonstrated by, among other signs, the infinitesimal success that conservatives have had in reversing the disastrous “reforms,” trends, habits, and institutions established in the wake of and in the name of the last council, with papal approbation or toleration”.

But let us remember what Thomas Aquinas says about accepting this kind of acts: "It is praiseworthy to be patient under one's own wrongs, but the height of impiety to dissemble injuries done to God" (Aquinas Ethicus: The Moral Teaching of St. Thomas, Vol. 2). And also those words of St. Jerome: "A dog may bark in his master's defense, and am I to stand by silent when God's holy name is blasphemed? I would sooner die than forbear to speak".

We can only pray and prepare for what is to come, as G.K. Chesterton said in the conclusion to his book Heretics.

The great march of mental destruction will go on. Everything will be denied. Everything will become a creed. It is a reasonable position to deny the stones in the street; it will be a religious dogma to assert them. It is a rational thesis that we are all in a dream; it will be a mystical sanity to say that we are all awake. Fires will be kindled to testify that two and two make four. Swords will be drawn to prove that leaves are green in summer. We shall be left defending, not only the incredible virtues and sanities of human life, but something more incredible still, this huge impossible universe which stares us in the face. We shall fight for visible prodigies as if they were invisible. We shall look on the impossible grass and the skies with a strange courage. We shall be of those who have seen and yet have believed. THE END

| improve this answer | |
  • To be truly a Catholic reply to the question stated, it must incorporate proofs from Canon Law that are very explicit about what you are claiming to be true. Canon Law covers the rules of governance for the Church. – Ken Graham Sep 5 at 14:26
  • So this is not a Catholic answer? – wildmangrove Sep 5 at 15:02
  • It simply needs to be backed up with Canon Law. How the Church deals with heretics and excommunication is proper to the Code of Canon Law. – Ken Graham Sep 5 at 15:03
  • In my previous comment I linked a related answer, similar to what I am writing here. He do not even link to the Canon law (I put the links to Canon law in mine). So his answer is also not catholic, even when we cite catholic theologians? – wildmangrove Sep 5 at 15:12
  • The questions are different. Besides The First See is judged by no one. - Canon Law 1404 – Ken Graham Sep 5 at 15:14

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.