ver at 1 Luther 5, Eric Sammons asks the reader to imagine himself as a “professor of theology at the University of Paris in 1333.” “You have heard,” he writes, “that the reigning pope, John XXII, is publicly preaching that souls do not enjoy the Beatific Vision until after the Last Judgment.”
You know from your studies that this contradicts the perennial teachings of the Church. You publicly challenge Pope John XXII’s views, worried that his public preaching may lead people astray. You ask him to conform his teachings to the teachings of the Church. Thankfully, the pope recants his views, and after his death, his successor, Benedict XII, declares it doctrine that souls who are saved see Heaven after death.
May I ask her how John XXII could have contradicted “the perennial teachings of the Church” if no one defined the doctrine until after his death? That seems like an embarrassing oversight from Mr. Sammons.
•••
This article is a companion piece to an earlier one from 2017, about Pope Honorius I. One more is coming, on Pope Liberius. These three popes are the ones commonly cited to prove that popes can be heretics. Sometimes anti-Catholic Protestants are looking for an example of why infallibility can’t be true and the papacy is a tradition of men. Other times, anti-Catholic Catholics are looking for a precedent as they seek to justify themselves in their belief that Pope Francis is a heretic.
•••
In the case of Pope John XXII, it is clear that his statements on the Beatific Vision were false. He had said, both prior to his papacy and in homilies during his papacy, that the Beatific Vision was delayed until the Final Judgment. But this teaching, as Mr. Sammons himself admits, was not formally defined until after John XXII’s death. His successor, Benedict XII, defined the doctrine two years later—in 1336. In Benedictus Deus, he taught “with apostolic authority” that the souls of the departed enjoy the Beatific Vision immediately. (Immediately after any necessary purgation, that is.)
But the crux of the question—as far as John XXII goes—has to do with what you mean by the word “taught” and what you mean by the word “heresy.”
If by “taught” you mean “advanced the opinion,” then there is no question that is what he did.
If by “heresy” you mean “false theological statement,” then there is no question that it was heresy.
But we need to be careful here, because the standard is more strict than that.
•••
When you use the word “teach” in reference to the Supreme Pontiff, the sense is that the pope is binding the Church to a point of faith and morals. He is stating something as part of his Magisterial office. But not everything a pope says binds Catholics. No less an authority than St. Francis de Sales makes that clear, in his book The Catholic Controversy (ca. 1596):
When [the pope] teaches the whole Church as shepherd, in general matters of faith and morals, then there is nothing but doctrine and truth. [But not] everything a king says is … a law or an edict, but that only which a king says as king and as a legislator. So [not] everything the Pope says is … canon law or of legal obligation; he must mean to define and to lay down the law for the sheep, and he must keep the due order and form. We must not think that in everything and everywhere his judgment is infallible, but … only when he gives judgment on a matter of faith in questions necessary to the whole Church.
Contrary to the self-sure opinion of Mr. Sammons, I am well aware that not everything a pope says is infallible, and I am well aware that some things a pope says may be in error. I’ve never said otherwise.
(It’s also worth noting here, by way of parenthesis, that some people like to claim that infalliblity was a novelty of Vatican I. Before the nineteenth century, infallibility was not even “a twinkling in a pope’s eye.” But here is Francis de Sales making reference to infallibility three hundred years earlier, as though it were common knowledge. Very interesting.)
In any case, John XXII himself said that he was only stating his opinion, and he considered the question open to theological speculation, and he never meant to bind the Church. The Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes what happened:
In the last years of John’s pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment.
[Obviously anything he wrote “before his elevation to the Holy See” does not count as teaching meant to bind the Church.]
After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition [from] many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical.
But wait. The CE says here that the view John XXII transgressed was “the usual opinion.” But Mr. Sammons, in his article at 1 Luther 5, says that it was “the perennial teaching.” Which is it? Perhaps Mr. Sammons has in mind “common teaching,” which according to Ott “belongs to the field of free opinions.” In other words, it may be “accepted by theologians generally,” but it hardly counts as the “perennial teaching of the Church.” If it did, it could hardly “belong to the field of free opinions” and the CE could hardly characterize it as “the usual opinion.” Nor could te theologians at Paris right characterize the pope’s view as “heresy.”
Back to the Encyclopedia:
A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope’s view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter.
Right. John XXII, in other words, was speaking from his “perfect freedom” as a theologian, not as teacher of the Church. Recall that the pope emeritus, Benedict XVI, emphasized the same point with respect to his publications on the life of Jesus. Although John wrote these while he was pope, he said he was writing as a theologian, not as teacher of the Church. John XXII said the same for himself.
Back to the Encyclopedia:
In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favour of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to confirm their decision.
[Even the theologians themselves understood that the pope was not trying to bind the Church; this did not count as “teaching.”]
John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.
Now, if the pope said he was not exercising his teaching office, and if even the theologians at Paris agreed he was not exercising his teaching office, then it would be impertinent of us to claim that the pope was exercising his teaching office. He was giving a theological opinion. Popes may have theological opinions; nothing in the “perennial teaching of the Church” proscribes it.
•••
“But Alt!” you cry. “It was still heresy, because he was wrong. Benedict XII said he was wrong, and you agree he was wrong. So he was wrong, wrong, wrong—that’s heresy!”
No. You can’t make someone a retroactive heretic. That’s like an ex post facto law. Canon 751 formally defines heresy:
Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith.
The Church’s teaching about the Beatific Vision—i.e., that those who die saved enjoy it immediately after Purgatory (should they require Purgatory)—did not exist prior to 1336. John XXII died in 1334. He could not heretically “deny” or “doubt” something that was in the category of theological opinion when he lived.
“But Alt! Canon 751 describes the conditions of formal heresy. There still is such a thing as material heresy.”
Yes, but let’s be careful here. Not all theological error counts as heresy. Error only graduates to heresy once the Church defines it as heresy.
An example of a material heretic is someone who believes a heresy without having any reason to know that it is a heresy.
Or an example of a material heretic is someone who knows the Church has condemned, say, justification by faith alone, but believes this doctrine because he’s a Calvinist and disputes Catholic teaching. He’s a material heretic but not a formal heretic because he’s not bound in conscience to Catholic teaching.
But having a wrong theological opinion on a question the Church has left to opinion is not material heresy because it’s not heresy at all. It’s just a wrong opinion.
That’s the most we can say about Pope John XXII.
Discover more from To Give a Defense
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.