A "Heretic Pope"?

About 50 [update: 80] scholars and clergy released a letter begging the Bishops of the Catholic church to convene and declare Pp. Francis to be a heretic.

As you can imagine, that was a nuclear explosion.  The reaction was near-immediate, ranging from stupid-obtuse statements attacking the letter's authors through over-the-top demands to (metaphorically, I *think*) toss Francis off the top of St Peter's dome.

One of the authors was asked to defend the letter, and presents a calm, considered, and wholly reasonable case.  I'll excerpt a few salient parts.

...I would like to distinguish between the accusation of heresy, and the formal declaration of someone being a heretic by the competent authority: the accusation of being a heretic is one thing, the sentence that formally declares him such is another, and that it is not up to us to issue, but precisely to the bishops to whom we have addressed the open letter....

The Pope's statements and actions are heretical, but to declare Francis a heretic takes a canonical trial during which he must cling (pertinacity) to the heretical statements.  It's directly comparable to the difference between a criminal indictment (the letter from the scholars) and a declaration of guilt (from a judge or jury after a trial).

Most of Francis' problems come from Amoris Laetitia--his letter on marriage.

...There are seven statements contained in the letter: the first six are distilled from passages of AL and the famous dispute over Communion for divorced persons who are living together in a new union more uxorio. Two roads can be taken to affirm that it is licit to give Communion to this category of people. The first would be to deny the indissolubility of marriage. This road was tried in several studies that preceded and accompanied the two synods on the Family (2014-2015), but it was effectively refuted and this strategy was abandoned. The other road is to state that, while marriage remains indissoluble, there are cases in which sexual relations outside a legitimate marriage would still be lawful. To sum up, therefore, I would say that the main heresy resides precisely in the doctrine — today called “situation ethics” — which denies that there are acts that by their very nature are intrinsically evil, and therefore cannot in any case be considered lawful. Once this doctrine is accepted, not only is the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage at risk but the whole of Christian ethics — and not only it, but the whole of natural ethics....

"Situation ethics" was all the rage with my Jesuit teachers back in the mid-'60's--about when Francis was in the Jesuit seminary.  "Situation ethics" is closely related to (but distinct from) "relativism," against which B-16 relentlessly preached; situation ethics was also condemned in no uncertain terms by JP2.  As the philosopher-interviewee points out, it is a head-shot at natural morality.  It cannot be tolerated.

Responding to the criticism of "Who do you think you ARE?":

...We do not claim any particular authority, except the theological competence necessary to carry out this study to highlight a factual situation which undermines a fundamental right of all Catholic faithful. The Code of Canon Law attributes to all the faithful, in proportion to their competence, the right to speak in so far as they deem it necessary to do so in order to point out a difficulty or problem in the Church....

He proceeds to knock down the straw-horses of Canons 1372 and 1373.  They do not apply.

Here's the most grave accusation against Francis--that which establishes grounds for "pertinacious" heretical belief:

...we are presenting these accusations after a great number of warnings have already been presented privately to the Pope, many more than would have been sufficient and fair. 

In fact, this was already done in the theological censures presented to him by a number of us in 2016 (first privately); then with the dubia (also previously presented in private), then with the Correctio filialis (2017), which was also put directly into his hands a full month before it was published.

But this is only a part of the story. Pope Francis was already warned of these errors by many bishops and cardinals and even lay scholars during the Synods on the family; then, after the drafting of AL, by the many corrections that came from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which were all rejected. Then by a series of articles, books and open letters by important authors. 

Faced with all these warnings, questions, books, articles, letters and corrections, the Pope had all the time and material to reflect and eventually to respond. But instead, he clearly and consciously chose the path of ignoring them altogether. In an answer given during a meeting with the Jesuits last year here in Chile, he stated verbatim regarding these critics that he “does not read them” because he does not find in them “spiritual goodness,” and limits himself to “praying for them” (quoted here). It remains to be explained how he knows that the critics do not have spiritual goodness, since he does not read them. ...

In a way, it's fortunate that most Catholics have no idea that all this is going on.  They are occupied with 'real life,' not with the flap-spoutings of the guy with the white beanie.  That was true with JPII, B-16, and Paul VI (except for his condemnation of artificial birth control, which most Catholics know about and flagrantly ignore.)

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis!!