Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
Presented in two Catholic Family News articles, authored by John Salza, are more silly arguments against sedevacantism. This New Jersey state lawyer continues to be regarded by the unsuspecting as an authority on Canon Law, which he is not. Reminiscent of Protestantism, Salza’s attempt to lampoon sedevacantism, results from his mangling of ecclesiastical laws, a gross misrepresentation of Matthew 18:17, and a misapplication of Galatians 2:11. He omits key quotes from Sts. Thomas Aquinas, Robert Bellarmine, Alphonsus Liquori, and two popes, so that his readers don’t see that these sources actually confirm those who believe the conciliar popes have lost the faith.
The big problem for Mr. Salza is that his fabricated explanations are contradicted by all the Vatican approved experts in Canon Law. Salza, anxious to win by default, either didn’t investigate and review any official commentaries on the law, or was simply dishonest about them. I’m reminded of the line in the movie, Star Wars, “Who’s the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?”
Confusing Censure and Vindictive Penalties
The first flawed argument presented by Salza is that only the Church (authorities) can determine if a manifest heretic is a manifest heretic and therefore, outside the Church. He skips Canon 2314.1 and continues to Canon 2314.2, and argues, “While canon 188.4 says the office becomes vacant when one publicly defects from the Faith, canon 2314.2 requires formal warnings followed by the obstinate refusal to heed the warnings before the public defection can be established.”
Canon 2314.1, ignored by Salza, states that all heretics incur ipso facto excommunication. An explanation of canonical penalties by Professor of Canon Law, Rev. P. Charles Augustine, O.S.B., D.D., shows that Salza’s assertion is erroneous:
“2) The penalties here enunciated are twofold: censure and vindictive penalties; besides, a distinction is drawn, according to can. 2207, n. 1, by reason of dignity, between laymen and clerics.
a) The censure inflicted is excommunication incurred ipso facto, which per se requires not even a declaratory sentence… Note that the term moniti [warnings] (2314 §1, n. 2) does not refer to the incurring of the censure. Consequently, no canonical warning or admonition is required.” (A COMMENTARY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW, Volume VIII, Book V, Penal Code, Canon 2314, pp. 275-276; B. Herder Book Company, Imprimatur by John J. Glennon, Archbishop of Saint Louis, Friday, August 25, 1922)
In one clean sweep, Salza’s entire argument is wiped out.
As far as the papacy is concerned, not one of the three canons (1939.1, 2223.4, 2314.2) used in Salza’s argument could possibly apply. Another Professor of Canon Law, R. P. Udalricus Beste, O.S.B., I.C.D., explains why not:
“Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See [i.e., the See of Peter] is judged by no one.
“The reason is that, by falling into heresy, the pope ceases to be a member of the Church. He who is not a member of a society, obviously, cannot be its head. We can find no example of this in history.” (Introductio in Codicem. 3rd ed. Collegeville: St. John’s Abbey Press, 1946)
In addition to Augustine’s explanation of Canon 2314, Augustine also explains in Canon 2315 that there are three types of suspicion for heretics.
“Violent suspicion amounts to morally certain proof…and is to be considered as a positive proof and therefore rather falls under can. 2314.
Interestingly, under Canon 2315, repeated warnings are to be given to suspected heretic clerics, and if they don’t amend themselves, shall be deemed heretics and liable to the penalties thereof. Under Salza’s silly rubric, those same heretics would have to be warned again and again to fulfill Canon 2314.2.
Using Ecclesiastical Law to Trump Divine Law
Another major problem with Salza’s entire argument is that he uses Ecclesiastical Law to trump Divine Law. He writes, ”While, according to Divine Law, formal heresy results in self-expulsion from the Church without the need for a declaratory sentence, ecclesiastical law (can 2223.4) requires a declaratory sentence (sententia declaratoria dari debet) of said heresy if the common good of the Church requires it.”
Salza apparently did read that Canon 2223.4 referred to a superior making the declaratory sentence. The pope has no superiors and therefore the law can’t apply as I mentioned earlier. All the expert canonists teach that a heretic pope automatically loses his office “without any declaratory sentence.” The pope is judged and warned by no one.
However, Salza doesn’t stop there. He also writes, “Popes St. Pius X and Pius XII’s legislation is clear that ‘by reason of any excommunication ‘whatsoever’ a Cardinal is not excluded from being elected to the papacy. “Any excommunication…whatsoever”necessarily includes a Cardinal’s excommunication for heresy. This means the governing ecclesiastical law – which Sedevacantists agree applies to the question at hand – presumes the validity of papal elections, until there is a determination by the Church of whether or not Divine Law has been violated. Ecclesiastical law, then, requires this formal determination to be made by the Church after the election.”
In other words, despite the Divine Law that heretics are outside of the Church (top quote from Pope Pius XII), Salza thinks two popes have legislated the permission for a known heretical non-member of the Church, while still in heresy, to be elected to the head of the Church only to be determined later by church authorities if the newly elected pope is, indeed, a heretic, and therefore not a true pope. Yet, no one can judge the pope to be a heretic, anyway. Someone might argue that since the election wouldn’t have been valid to begin with because of an election of a heretic, then no one would be judging a true pope. However, if this were the case, then the papal legislation would simply be stupid, because it would be a complete waste of time, not to mention, dangerous. Why would the popes legislate the permission of a formal heretic to be elected at all? The answer is they wouldn’t.
Since Salza misinterprets Canon 188.4, 2314, and others, his error leads him to misapply Popes St. Pius X and XII’s legislation. Heretics lose all jurisdiction of authority therefore any cardinal who becomes a heretic ceases to be a cardinal. The cardinals being referred to in the papal legislation of Popes Pius X, and XII, are those that fall under different penalties. The experts in Canon Law such as, Maroto, Coronata, Werbz-Vidal, and Marietti explain that heretics and schismatics are barred from the papacy by Divine Law.
Anti-sedevacanters like to create their own novel interpretations, and in the end, their interpretations violate the Divine Law.
It Gets Comical
Salza states, “Sedevacantists are schismatic and hence automatically excommunicated from the Church under both Divine and ecclesiastical law (canon 1325, par. 2).”
So what? According to his own argument, we (sedevacantists) could still be validly elected pope with jurisdiction over the whole Church. Yet, he contradicts himself here, because he argued using Canons 1939, 2223.4, and 2324.2 that it takes investigations, warnings, and perhaps a trial before someone could be considered schismatic and automatically excommunicated. Salza is applying the very argument which he condemns as invalid. What baffoonery!
Finished With Salza
A couple of more commentaries that bury Salza’s arguments against sedevacantism:
Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.”
“The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity… Excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.” (Eric F. Mackenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L. Rev., The Delict of Heresy, Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Univ. of America, 1932, p. 35. (Cf. Canon 2200.2)
Rev. P. Charles Augustine goes into more detail as he explains Canon 2216-2217 and the different penalties:
“Why can the Church, unlike the State, inflict a penalty latae sententiae? It appears unjust and unworthy of a perfect society to condemn one before he is heard. But we must not forget that the Church is a peculiar society, with a religious character that does not remain on the surface, but penetrates and encompasses the whole man. She reaches into the court of conscience. Besides, the most sacred offices might be neglected and abused without punishment because of lack of witnesses and plaintiffs, and the fear of penalty and final exposure may check malice and carelessness. Therefore the first traces of censures latae sententiae coincide with the spread of evil influences in the sixth and seventh century. In order to protect ecclesiastical discipline more efficaciously, this quasi self-executory remedy was found most efficient and secure. (pp. 74-75 Book Vol. VIII, book V)
