Clearly, the pope ain’t catholic. Isn’t there any church doctrine that prevents a heretic from being pope?
Would some FReeper who knows something about Canon Law jump in and explain ?
As understand it (and I'm no a canon lawyer) there is a canon against a heretic having ANY office in the Catholic Church, since this person has placed himself out of communion by his heresy. However to be judged (canonically) a heretic, one has to not only hold to an erroneous view, but it has to be proved that you did so deliberately, after you had had it adequately explained to you, after you had been warned that you were in the wrong, etc.
The basic thing is, you can't just accuse someone ("That guy's a heretic!") and have him removed from office and declared excommunicated. Procedural due process must be observed, and that means a trial, the right to confront accusers, the right to answer the charges, etc.
And in the end, the right to appeal to the highest authority, which would be the pope; after which there is no other appeal.
If the pope is the final authority, the final appeal, IS there any canonical way to convict the pope himself of canonical heresy?
There's the rub!
Historically, it has happened --- I think, twice--- that a pope was seriously publicly accused of heresy.
Once was the case of Pope John XXII, who denied that the just experience the Beatific Vision immediately after heir particular judgment at the time of their death
Prominent bishops argued with him, and he was persuaded that he was wrong and needed to retract. Which he did.
The second was the case of Pope Honorious, (7th century), who supposedly embraced the heresy of Monothelitism (that Jesus had no human will.)
But Honorius seems to have been afflicted with vagueness --- he wrote something ambiguous, and he died before he had a chance to explain the truth in a clear, prompt, and forceful way. A subsequent council condemned him for heresy; but his own successor, Pope Leo II, did not condemn him for heresy, but only for employing a vague expression which could be used by others to the detriment of the Truth.
So it's his successor, the Pope, who had the ruling authority, finding him not guilty for promoting intentional, manifest heresy, but just for failing to adequately clear things up.
All this sounds tiresomely esoteric to us now. The upshot is, only a pope can definitively condemn a pope for heresy.
I guess if we can't get a face-to-face with Bergoglio to "pressure" him to recant, we'd have to wait for his successor. Or --- omigosh --- Pope Benedict XVI, that silent, thoughtful, fading man walking the Vatican gardens.
Grant this O Lord!