Heresy by Action:
The MhFM's Error Concerning Pope Alexander VI
1917 CIC 2359 § 2 clearly states:
“If [members of the priesthood] engage in a delict against the sixth precept of the Decalogue [the Ten Commandments] with a minor below the age of sixteen, or engage in adultery, debauchery, bestiality, sodomy, pandering, [or] incest with blood-relatives or affines in the first degree, they are suspended, declared infamous, and are deprived of any office, benefice, dignity, responsibility, if they have such, whatsoever, and in more serious cases, they are to be deposed.”
In his 2012 video “Pope Alexander VI was no Antipope Benedict XVI", Brother Peter Dimond attacks an MhFM website e-mail contributor as being a “faithless heretic” for questioning his erroneous claim that Pope Alexander VI (the notorious corrupt, incestuous, murderous, nepotistic, promiscuous and overall amoral Rodrigo Borgia) was a valid pope; whereas Pope Benedict XVI was declared to be a wicked public heretic and antipope.
Dimond attempts to justify his spurious position by stating:
"... despite Alexander VI’s alleged moral problems, theologically he taught the faith. For instance, he indicated that the Eastern schismatics could not be saved; whereas Antipope Benedict XVI teaches that they can be saved, that they are part of the Church, and that they don’t need conversion. Hence, even the worst true pope from a moral standpoint is not in any way comparable to Antipope Benedict XVI, whose violation and denial of the rule of faith proves he is not a legitimate occupant of the office."
From 1917 CIC 2359 § 2 mentioned above it should be clear to everyone that Dimond committed a grave mistake in using Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia) to compare with Benedict XVI.
In Canon Law we find that “Heresy” is the offense of one who, having been baptized and retaining the name of Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that one is under obligation of divine and Catholic faith to believe and uphold. (cf. Codex iuris canonici [Rome 1918; repr. Graz 1955] c. 751).
"Heresy" becomes a punishable crime only when it is proven that the one committing the offense is fully aware of what he/she is doing and therefore is pertinacious in the condemnable “act, attitude, gesture, omission and/or statement" that nourishes their heretical animus.
Many there are who incorrectly profess that “Heresy” is confined only to the outward “vocal” and/or “written” expression of a belief that goes contrary to an established “doctrine of faith”; of which the sixth precept of the Decalogue (1917 CIC 2359 § 2) is undeniably one.
In short, the Church has always held to be true that one can fall into heresy (externally) by deeds / actions regardless of what Dimond erroneously believes to be the case.
By his deplorable iniquitous “actions” Alexander VI proved himself pertinacious in his lascivious lifestyle as a member of the “priesthood” which is considered “heretical”; thus qualifying him for condemnation as the infamous “antipope” that he most certainly was.
In his video Dimond goes on to state that:
“Antipopes are not true popes. They are men who are not validly elected and never sat in the Chair of Peter. Hence God does not need to protect their actions because their actions and their teachings cannot impact the infallibility of the papal office.”
Dimond is correct in that assertion. So, with that said, let’s take a brief look at the life of Rodrigo Borgia and his election to the papacy as Alexander VI and you can decide.
In his book “the Vicars of Christ: the dark side of the Papacy”, Peter De Rosa explains that Rodrigo Borgia was reputed to have committed his first murder when he was twelve years old. He repeatedly drove his scabbard into another boy’s belly.
As a young man, Rodrigo’s amorous propensities were renowned. In 1456, at the age of 25, his uncle (Pope Callistus III) made him Archbishop of Valencia, the chief See in Spain. He was by then already famous for having made impartial love to a widow and her two beautiful daughters, one of whom became his ever-beloved “mistress” (Vannozza Catanei). At 26, he was called to Rome by his uncle (Pope Callistus III) and made a “cardinal”. One year later he became Vice Chancellor of the Church and moved his “mistress”, in luxurious style, to Venice.
During this darkened period of Church history it seemed that everything in Rome was for sale, from livings and indulgences to cardinal’s hats and even the papacy itself.
Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia took full advantage of that situation at the conclave held in 1492.
In his diaries, John Buchard, the conclave’s Master of Ceremonies, exposes Rodrigo as having acquired the votes he needed from of the Sacred College by way of graft, coercion and collusion. Buchard confirms that the conclave had been compromised, becoming illegitimate, thus making Cardinal Borgia a “false claimant”.
One would think that even Dimond would recognize that the Holy Spirit had nothing at all to do with choosing Rodrigo Borgia (Alexander VI) as St. Peter’s successor.
After becoming Pope, in 1501, within the Apostolic Palace, Alexander VI organized what history refers to as a “Joust of the Whores,” where 50 of Rome’s finest danced in increasingly scanty attire before disporting themselves naked around the his table. Alexander VI and his family then gleefully threw chestnuts on the floor, forcing the women to grovel around their feet like swine while handing out prizes of fine clothes and jewelry for the man who could fornicate with the most women.
The list of documented debased amoral behavior goes on and on …
Pope Alexander VI’s lascivious lifestyle was a direct “violation of chastity” to which all the faithful are called (CCC 2337-2359) and of the continence to which all members of the "priesthood" are specially called (Canon 277 § 1).
Once again ... 1917 CIC 2359 § 2 is clear:
“If [members of the priesthood] engage in a delict against the sixth precept of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of sixteen, or engage in adultery, debauchery, bestiality, sodomy, pandering, [or] incest with blood-relatives or affines in the first degree, they are suspended, declared infamous, and are deprived of any office, benefice, dignity, responsibility, if they have such, whatsoever, and in more serious cases, they are to be deposed.”
Alexander VI, though not “yet” officially condemned by the Church, was indeed, by the laws of the Church, an “external” heretic and antipope.
Dimond should be ashamed of himself for erroneously exonerating Alexander VI of his “proven” culpability and unjustly condemning Benedict XVI of his “suspected” heresy.
“Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying: This people honoreth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me. And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.” – St Matthew 15:7-9
- Pax Tecum