Francis Is a Heretic - Bp. Germán Fliess 04-21-24

SummaryBp. Germán Fliess presents an extended allegory involving a young athlete and an old lawyer who witness a man strangling a woman in front of a house. Despite the presence of a distant policeman, no immediate intervention occurs. The athlete, driven by charity and practical judgment rather than strict adherence to the law, breaks trespassing laws to save the woman, subdues the attacker, and awaits the police. Although technically he has broken the law by entering private property and using force, the judge later exonerates him, recognizing his actions as morally justified and praiseworthy due to the imminent danger and absence of official intervention. The narrative then draws a parallel between this story and the situation faced by traditionalist clergy and faithful Catholics concerning the Vatican II Council and "Pope" Francis. Bp. Fliess argues that while only an official ecclesiastical authority (a general council or the College of Cardinals) can juridically declare Vatican II a false council or Francis a heretic, the silence of these authorities after decades compels others—like the young athlete in the story—to speak out loudly out of charity to protect souls from spiritual harm. His Excellency emphasizes that this is not an act of usurpation but a necessary intervention borne out of responsibility and charity, pending official ecclesiastical judgment. The conclusion calls for prayer and hope for eventual official condemnation, but insists on the moral imperative to continue warning the faithful in the meantime.HighlightsA young athlete intervenes to save a woman from strangulation despite legal prohibitions against trespassing.The old lawyer represents strict legalism, while the athlete symbolizes practical judgment and charity.The athlete’s actions, though illegal, are ultimately exonerated by the judge as morally justified.The story is an analogy for the current ecclesiastical crisis involving Vatican II and Pope Francis.Only official Church authorities can juridically declare heresy or false councils, but their inaction forces others to act.Speaking out against perceived heresy without official authority is an act of charity, not usurpation.The speaker urges continued vocal opposition until official Church authorities fulfill their duty.Key InsightsThe Tension Between Legalism and Practical Judgment: The old lawyer’s rigid adherence to the letter of the law contrasts with the athlete’s application of common sense and charity. This highlights a crucial principle: laws are made to serve justice and the common good, but sometimes strict legalism fails in emergency situations requiring immediate moral action. This distinction is essential in both civil and ecclesiastical contexts.The Primacy of Charity Over Legal Formalism: The athlete’s decision to intervene is motivated by charity—a desire to save a life—rather than legal obligation. This underscores the ethical principle that charity can and sometimes must override strict legal constraints when lives or souls are at stake. The analogy implies that spiritual charity demands action to protect souls from heresy, even if canonical authority is absent or inactive.The Role of Official Authority vs. Private Intervention: The story acknowledges the rightful role of authorized agents (police, cardinals, popes) in administering justice and correcting errors. However, when those authorities fail or delay, ordinary individuals—though lacking formal jurisdiction—may act out of necessity and charity. This insight cautions against blind obedience when official channels neglect their duties, emphasizing moral responsibility at all levels.The Importance of Reason and Common Sense in Moral Decisions: The lawyer’s failure to act reflects a deficiency in practical wisdom—his “book knowledge” blinds him to the urgent reality. This signals that moral decisions must integrate reasoned understanding of circumstances, not just literal rule-following. This is particularly relevant in complex theological and ecclesiastical disputes where rigid formalism can obscure urgent spiritual truths.The Necessity of Public Witness in the Face of Silence: The analogy justifies public denunciation of heresy and false teachings when official ecclesiastical authorities remain silent. Silence in such critical moments can lead to spiritual harm on a massive scale, akin to leaving a woman to die in the story. The speaker makes a strong case that speaking out is a moral imperative grounded in charity, even if it lacks formal juridical authority.The Distinction Between Juridical Judgment and Moral Certainty: While only a pope or council can officially declare heresy or false councils with juridical authority, individuals can and should recognize and reject heresy on moral and theological grounds. This distinction allows for the coexistence of personal conviction and the pursuit of official canonical judgment, without undermining Church order.Hope for Future Official Resolution Coupled With Present Responsibility: The analogy concludes with hope that one day a true pope or council will officially address the crisis, just as a judge ultimately adjudicates the case in the story. Until then, those who see the danger must continue to act in charity for the good of souls. This balance between patient hope and urgent action reflects a nuanced approach to ecclesiastical dissent and reform.Detailed AnalysisThe story of the young athlete and the old lawyer serves as a powerful metaphor for understanding the complex dynamics of law, morality, authority, and responsibility. The young athlete represents those who, despite lacking formal authority, respond to immediate dangers using practical judgment and charity. The old lawyer represents those who, while knowledgeable about laws and procedures, fail to apply common sense in emergencies, resulting in moral paralysis. The policeman symbolizes the proper authority that is ideally responsible for maintaining justice and order but is absent or inattentive in the crisis.This narrative is directly applied to the situation within the Catholic Church regarding the Vatican II Council and the legitimacy of Pope Francis. Bp. Fliess acknowledges the theoretical correctness of the claim that only a general council or the College of Cardinals can officially declare heresy or a false council. However, this theoretical correctness is challenged by the reality that no such authority has acted for over 60 years, leaving many faithful exposed to what the speaker perceives as spiritual danger.The key takeaway is that in such extraordinary circumstances, moral charity obliges those who recognize the error to intervene vocally and publicly to warn others, even if they lack formal jurisdiction. This is framed not as rebellion or disrespect for Church authority, but as an act of charity aimed at saving souls from eternal harm.Bp. Fliess also makes a subtle but important distinction between actions done “out of justice” (formal, authoritative, juridical acts) and “out of charity” (moral acts driven by love and concern). The young athlete’s intervention, as well as the traditionalist clergy’s public denunciations, fall into the latter category. They await the formal juridical judgment but cannot remain passive in the meantime.This approach balances respect for ecclesiastical authority with the urgent pastoral need to protect the faithful. It recognizes that the law serves higher ends—justice, order, and ultimately the salvation of so...