Has Richard Bennet overdone his interpretation of Canon Law?

At 39:04 of a video Presenting Papacy as Antichrist (which is very stupid even if Bergoglio should be it) Richard Bennet referred to certain canons of the 1983 code.

Codex Iuris Canonici 1983		Canon Law as given by Vatican site
The groups of canons referred to by Richard Bennet
Canon 1370. § 1. Qui vim physicam in Romanum Pontificem adhibet, in excommunicationem latae sententiae Sedi Apostolicae reservatam incurrit, cui, si clericus sit, alia poena, non exclusa dimissione e statu clericali, pro delicti gravitate addi potest.		Can. 1370 §1. A person who uses physical force against the Roman Pontiff incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if he is a cleric, another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, can be added according to the gravity of the delict.
2. Qui id agit in eum qui episcopali charactere pollet, in interdictum latae sententiae et, si sit clericus, etiam in suspensionem latae sententiae incurrit.		§2. A person who does this against a bishop incurs a latae sententiae interdict and, if he is a cleric, also a latae sententiae suspension.
§ 3. Qui vim physicam in clericum vel religiosum adhibet in fidei vel Ecclesiae vel ecclesiasticae potestatis vel ministerii contemptum, iusta poena puniatur.		§3. A person who uses physical force against a cleric or religious out of contempt for the faith, the Church, ecclesiastical power, or the ministry is to be punished with a just penalty.
Canon 1371. Iusta poena puniatur:		Can. 1371 The following are to be punished with a just penalty:
1° qui, praeter casum de quo in can. 1364 § 1, doctrinam a Romano Pontifice vel a Concilio Oecumenico damnatam docet vel doctrinam, de qua in can. 750 § 2 vel in can. 752, pertinaciter respuit, et ab Apostolica Sede vel ab Ordinario admonitus non retractat;		1/ in addition to the case mentioned in ⇒ can. 1364, §1, a person who teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff or an ecumenical council or who obstinately rejects the doctrine mentioned in ⇒ can. 750, §2 or in ⇒ can. 752 and who does not retract after having been admonished by the Apostolic See or an ordinary;
2° qui aliter Sedi Apostolicae, Ordinario, vel Superiori legitime praecipienti vel prohibenti non obtemperat, et post monitum in inoboedientia persistit.		2/ a person who otherwise does not obey a legitimate precept or prohibition of the Apostolic See, an ordinary, or a superior and who persists in disobedience after a warning.
Canon 1372. Qui contra Romani Pontificis actum ad Concilium Oecumenicum vel ad Episcoporum collegium recurrit censura puniatur.		Can. 1372 A person who makes recourse against an act of the Roman Pontiff to an ecumenical council or the college of bishops is to be punished with a censure.
One of them points back to a somewhat previous canon
Canon 1364. § 1. Apostata a fide, haereticus vel schismaticus in excommunicationem latae sententiae incurrit, firmo praescripto can. 194 § 1, n. 2; clericus praeterea potest poenis, de quibus in can. 1336 § 1, nn. 1, 2 et 3, puniri.		Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
§ 2. Si diuturna contumacia vel scandali gravitas postulet, aliae poenae addi possunt, non excepta dimissione e statu clericali.		§2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.
Definitions about our submission to Church in matters of belief, as of Canon Law (?)
Canon 750. § 1. Fide divina et catholica ea omnia credenda sunt quae verbo Dei scripto vel tradito, uno scilicet fidei deposito Ecclesiae commisso, continentur, et insimul ut divinitus revelata proponuntur, sive ab Ecclesiae magisterio sollemni, sive ab eius magisterio ordinario et universali; quod quidem communi adhaesione christifidelium sub ductu sacri magisterii manifestatur; tenentur igitur omnesquascumque devitare doctrinas iisdem contrarias.		Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.
§ 2. Firmiter etiam amplectenda ac retinenda sunt omnia et singula quae circa doctrinam de fide vel moribus ab Ecclesiae magisterio definitive proponuntur, scilicet quae ad idem fidei depositum sancte custodiendum et fideliter exponendum requiruntur; ideoque doctrinae Ecclesiae catholicae adversatur qui easdem propositiones definitive tenendas recusat.		§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Canon 751. Dicitur haeresis, pertinax, post receptum baptismum, alicuius veritatis fide divina et catholica credendae denegatio, aut de eadem pertinax dubitatio; apostasia, fidei christianae ex toto repudiatio; schisma, subiectionis Summo Pontifici aut communionis cum Ecclesiae membris eidem subditis detrectatio.		Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Canon 752. Non quidem fidei assensus, religiosum tamen intellectus et voluntatis obsequium praestandum est doctrinae, quam sive Summus Pontifex sive Collegium Episcoporum de fide vel de moribus enuntiant, cum magisterium authenticum exercent, etsi definitivo actu eandem proclamare non intendant; christifideles ergo devitare curent quae cum eadem non congruant.		Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.
About removal from office
Canon 192. Ab officio quis amovetur sive decreto ab auctoritate competenti legitime edito, servatis quidem iuribus forte ex contractu quaesitis, sive ipso iure ad normam can. 194.		Can. 192 A person is removed from office either by a decree issued legitimately by competent authority, without prejudice to rights possibly acquired by contract, or by the law itself according to the norm of ⇒ can. 194.
Canon 193. § 1. Ab officio quod alicui confertur ad tempus indefinitum, non potest quis amoveri nisi ob graves causas atque servato procedendi modo iure definito.		Can. 193 §1. A person cannot be removed from an office conferred for an indefinite period of time except for grave causes and according to the manner of proceeding defined by law.
§ 2. Idem valet, ut quis ab officio, quod alicui ad tempus determinatum confertur, ante hoc tempus elapsum amoveri possit, firmo praescripto can. 624 § 3.		§2. The same is valid for the removal of a person from an office conferred for a definite period of time before this time has elapsed, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 624, §3.
§ 3. Ab officio quod, secundum iuris praescripta, alicui confertur ad prudentem discretionem auctoritatis competentis, potest quis iusta ex causa, de iudicio eiusdem auctoritatis, amoveri.		§3. A person upon whom an office is conferred at the prudent discretion of a competent authority according to the prescripts of the law can, upon the judgment of the same authority, be removed from that office for a just cause.
§ 4. Decretum amotionis, ut effectum sortiatur, scripto intimandum est.		§4. To take effect, the decree of removal must be communicated in writing.
Canon 194. § 1. Ipso iure ab officio ecclesiastico amovetur:		Can. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:
1° qui statum clericalem amiserit;		1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;
2° qui a fide catholica aut a communione Ecclesiae publice defecerit;		2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;
3° clericus qui matrimonium etiam civile tantum attentaverit.		3/ a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.
§ 2. Amotio, de qua in nn. 2 et 3, urgeri tantum potest, si de eadem auctoritatis competentis declaratione constet.		§2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.
Canon 195. Si quis, non quidem ipso iure, sed per decretum auctoritatis competentis ab officio amoveatur quo eiusdem subsistentiae providetur, eadem auctoritas curet ut ipsius subsistentiae per congruum tempus prospiciatur, nisi aliter provisum sit.		Can. 195 If a person is removed not by the law itself but by a decree of competent authority from an office which provides the person’s support, the same authority is to take care that the support is provided for a suitable period, unless other provision is made.
About punishments of expiatory character
Canon 1336. § 1. Poenae expiatoriae, quae delinquentem afficere possunt aut in perpetuum aut in tempus praefinitum aut in tempus indeterminatum, praeter alias, quas forte lex constituerit, hae sunt:		Can. 1336 §1. In addition to other penalties which the law may have established, the following are expiatory penalties which can affect an offender either perpetually, for a prescribed time, or for an indeterminate time:
1° prohibitio vel praescriptio commorandi in certo loco vel territorio;		1/ a prohibition or an order concerning residence in a certain place or territory;
2° privatio potestatis, officii, muneris, iuris, privilegii, facultatis, gratiae, tituli, insignis, etiam mere honorifici;		2/ privation of a power, office, function, right, privilege, faculty, favor, title, or insignia, even merely honorary;
3° prohibitio ea exercendi, quae sub n. 2 recensentur, vel prohibitio ea in certo loco vel extra certum locum exercendi; quae prohibitiones numquam sunt sub poena nullitatis;		3/ a prohibition against exercising those things listed under n. 2, or a prohibition against exercising them in a certain place or outside a certain place; these prohibitions are never under pain of nullity;
4° translatio poenalis ad aliud officium;		4/ a penal transfer to another office;
5° dimissio e statu clericali.		5/ dismissal from the clerical state.
§ 2. Latae sententiae eae tantum poenae expiatoriae esse possunt, quae in § 1, n. 3 recensentur.		§2. Only those expiatory penalties listed in §1, n. 3 can be latae sententiae.
Canon 1337. § 1. Prohibitio commorandi in certo loco vel territorio sive clericos sive religiosos afficere potest; praescriptio autem commorandi, clericos saeculares et, intra limites constitutionum, religiosos.		Can. 1337 §1. A prohibition against residing in a certain place or territory can affect both clerics and religious; however, the order to reside in a certain place or territory can affect secular clerics and, within the limits of the constitutions, religious.
§ 2. Ut praescriptio commorandi in certo loco vel territorio irrogetur, accedat oportet consensus Ordinarii illius loci, nisi agatur de domo extradioecesanis quoque clericis paenitentibus vel emendandis destinata.		§2. To impose an order to reside in a certain place or territory requires the consent of the ordinary of that place unless it is a question of a house designated for clerics doing penance or being rehabilitated even from outside the diocese.
Canon 1338. § 1. Privationes et prohibitiones, quae in can. 1336 § 1, nn. 2 et 3 recensentur, numquam afficiunt potestates, officia, munera, iura, privilegia, facultates, gratias, titulos, insignia, quae non sint sub potestate Superioris poenam constituentis.		Can. 1338 §1. The privations and prohibitions listed in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 2 and 3, never affect powers, offices, functions, rights, privileges, faculties, favors, titles, or insignia which are not subject to the power of the superior who establishes the penalty.
§ 2. Potestatis ordinis privatio dari nequit, sed tantum prohibitio eam vel aliquos eius actus exercendi; item dari nequit privatio graduum academicorum.		§2. Privation of the power of orders is not possible but only a prohibition against exercising it or some of its acts; likewise, privation of academic degrees is not possible.
§ 3. De prohibitionibus, quae in can. 1336 § 1, n. 3 indicantur, norma servanda est, quae de censuris datur in can. 1335.		§3. The norm given in ⇒ can. 1335 for censures must be observed for the prohibitions listed in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, n. 3.

Two observations.

One is that unlike me Richard Bennet has been ordained a Catholic priest and he has therefore incurred the penalties of removal from office, and unlike me Richard Bennet has defected from the Catholic Faith and Communion, not just into Eastern Schism with which the same Vatican is being so ecumenical, but into positive heresies. One of his videos is very probably a real repudiation of the Holy Mass and certainly his repudiation of what he understood the doctrine to be.

He is so old, he was around as a Catholic priest in Vatican II event in Rome, I do not think he can be expected to have been badly taught or to repudiate what is not in fact the Catholic doctrine.

The point - which is my other observation here - is that none of these Canons includes anything like death penalty for heresy or apostasy, except insofar as excommunication is a kind of spiritual death. Now, death penalty for heresy was not at all unheard of, but it was in the normal theological theory a civil penalty. When English Catholic bishops burned Lollards, they did so according to a law of the English parliament from 1401, as far as I know it was not Papacy that insisted on it, but Lollards had in the decade before made themselves so unpopular by the twelve conclusions (or were they thirteen) that the decision was pretty speontaneous from the House of Commoners and House of Lords. Precisely as when Catholics were executed at Tyburn or killed in Ireland the decision there too did not come from Rome.

None of the canons even mentions holding someone prisoner against his will, though it is mentioned that ecclesiastical prison is one expiatory penalty.

The canon about it does not specify whether the Church as such can or cannot hold an ecclesiastical offender, a cleric or monk who has offended, in prison through physical force. In traditional doctrine the Church does have that right. Or even with laymen guilty of heresy or magic or blasphemy. Or needing exorcism.

St Ignatius of Loyola was a prisoner of the Inquisition three times, and he was acquitted three times, the third time with injunction to give no spiritual guidance (specifically about the difference between venial and mortal sins) without having first studied to priesthood. St John of the Cross was a prisoner somewhere too and ran away. This did not make him a man hunted by the Spanish justice, however.

The canon 752 is a bit tricky. When it comes to things not openly contradicting Faith and Morals, neither in verbal coflict with any passage of the Bible nor with passage after passage from Church Father after Church Father, it may seem reasonable. Except for the clause "even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act" if taken as I suppose it is often taken by Modern Canonists. They accept as licit the taking of interest, and not only in the context of paying the whole or even better only half the very modest wages of a clerk and a cleaningwoman per municipal pawn broker with it, and this is against the decision of the Councils of Vienne in what is now France and of Lateran Council V. So they will argue in favour of their right to disagree now, with the codes of 1917 and even more 1983 behind their backs, that the Church did not intend to proclaim this by definitive act. But the wording was so solemn that they cannot say Catholics had a right back in 1313 or 1515 to disregard this and charge interest enough to make moneylending a lucrative business, if they did so they could not back up Vatican II either, so they say that their submission was wanted even without the Church having intended to make a definitive act. And similarily with regards to acts of 1633 stating that it is heresy in faith to say the Sun stands immobile in the centre of the Universe and at least erroneous in faith to say the Earth does not stand immobile [in the centre of the Universe] and both statements are furthermore absurd in philosophy, that is in science, and of 1909 stating Genesis 1 - 3 must - with or without days longer than 24 h - be taken as a historical account. The Moderns would not accept the Church is now bound by those definitions, but their concern for the authority of people, either making opposite decisions or pretending to back up an opposite decision which they pretend to have made or that someone else made earlier, is so great that they need to say Catholics were bound by those decisions back then - even if they are not binding in themselves. Well, guess who is disagreeing with them ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Casimir
4-III-2014