Dr. Fastiggi & Dr. Goldstein Debate Dr. Shaw Regarding Pope Francis

FrancisBenedict

Previously, I have posted “Dr. Robert Fastiggi Defends Amoris Laetitia Against Critics” (10-3-17). Full disclosure: Dr. Fastiggi (a professor of systematic theology) is a good friend, and asked me to post material of his that was (initially) mistakenly believed to have been deliberately deleted. I happen to agree with his take on these issues, as well. He has asked again if I could post the present material, which is derived from all public postings, including an article by Dr. Joseph Shaw at Rorate Caeli, and a follow-up article in the same venue. Dr. Fastiggi’s portions, which he sent to me, are (he informed me) “in the public domain on Shaw’s twitter account.”

The words of Dr. Joseph Shaw (Fellow in Philosophy at Oxford) will be in blue. Dr. Fastiggi’s and those of his associate and co-writer Dr. Dawn Eden Goldstein (professor of dogmatic theology) will be in regular black. I have edited in a back-and-forth Platonic-type format, as much as possible, according to my usual custom, so that readers can grapple with opposing positions, side-by-side.

*****

You know you’ve had an influence when the Vatican Insider addresses you by name.

Robert Fastiggi and Dawn Eden Goldstein write:

It seems that the case for the Amoris laetitia critics’ self-proclaimed “Filial Correction” (1) of Pope Francis is weakening. Dr. Joseph Shaw, one of the signers of the Correctio filialis, recently wrote: “It is not that we’re saying that the text of Amoris cannot be bent into some kind of orthodoxy. What we are saying is that it has become clear that orthodoxy is not what Pope Francis wants us to find there.” (2) Shaw’s claim that Pope Francis doesn’t want orthodoxy, however, is based on subjective impressions derived from mostly non-authoritative statements of the Pope. This does not seem to be a very strong foundation for accusing the Roman Pontiff of promoting false teachings and heresies.

*
What interests me about this is less the attempt to suggest that the Correction’s signatories are shifting their position–we haven’t in the least, although we are getting used to our critics using calling us names and being economical with the truth–but the second paragraph I quote. For the information of Fastiggi and Goldstein, ‘impressions’ are always subjective, but they are our window onto the world. What we can determine about what what is going on, based–obviously–on what we can see and hear (‘impressions’), is indeed that ‘Pope Francis doesn’t want orthodoxy’.

And I would go further than what F & G say: our impression is not based ‘mostly’ on non-authoritative statements, but entirely upon non-authoritative statements by Pope Francis, plus his failures to speak. It should be obvious that it is impossible for the Supreme Pontiff to guide the Church away from the Deposit of Faith authoritatively, since his authority is given him to confirm the brethren in the Faith. What we find, indeed, is that Pope Francis has singled out modes of communication which cannot possibly be mistaken for authoritative statements, when he indicates the kind of interpretation he wishes people to have of Amoris laetitia. These include his remark in a press conference that Amoris makes a ‘change’; a private letter to the Bishops of Buenos Aires; the printing of the guidelines drawn up by the Bishops of Malta in L’Ossovatore Romano; and most eloquent of all, his refusal to answer the Four Cardinals’ Dubia.

It is not our impression only: it is the impression gained by many theologians and bishops who regard themselves as loyal to the Pope, who are taking the hints, the nods, and the winks, and are writing, and promulgating guidelines for their flocks, which are impossible to square with the constant practice and teaching of the Church, or indeed with Canon law as it currently exists.

My challenge to Fastiggi and Goldstein is a simple one. What would they do if they thought that the pope of the day were doing this: indicating non-authoritatively that bishops and ordinary Catholics should act and believe in ways contrary to the teaching of the Church? What would they regard as the correct response to the situation we believe we are actually facing?

This is clearly not an impossible situation. Even those with an exaggerated view of the authority of the Pope must surely admit, unless they have left common sense entirely behind, that it is theoretically possible for a Pope, who can after all teach non-infallibly, to say things about faith and morals, when not teaching, which are not correct. What should the Faithful, and particularly academics and pastors, do in this situation?

The answer which comes to mind, inspired by Canon 212, is that those who think that this is happening should make their concerns known to the proper authorities, without ruling out that they should make them known to their fellow Catholics. In light of Matthew 18:15, it makes sense to go public when private communications have had no effect.

What Fastiggi and Goldstein point to instead, is the passage in Donum veritatis which tells dissident theologians to talk to their superiors rather than to appeal to the mass media. F & G appear to imagine that this imposes silence on all educated Catholics whatever the situation might be. But Donum veritatis cannot be read in this way.

First, it speaks of theologians who reject the Ordinary Magisterium, not to those who wish to uphold it. Secondly, it speaks of theologians who have (or easily could have) dialogue with their superiors. It would be a very different matter for Donum veritatis to say that theologians should not publicly support the Magisterium, or for it to contradict Canon 212 by saying that lay Catholics in general should not make clear ‘concerns’ to their fellow Catholics, or indeed to contradict Matthew 18:15-17 about making problems public when private admonitions have failed. For DV to have said any of those things would, obviously, have been insane.

It is not the signatories of the Correction who are ignoring the Ordinary Magisterium: if it were not enough to cite Canon Law and Familiaris Consortio, we could cite canons and magisterial documents going back centuries, all the way, in fact, back to St Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:27, and beyond. It is this teaching, the teaching of the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which Fastiggi and Goldstein do not want us to reiterate in this moment of crisis.

Dear Dr. Shaw,

Dr. Dawn Eden Goldstein and I wish to thank you for your tone of civility. We hope to reply with equal civility regarding your post: “A Challenge for Fastiggi and Goldstein.”

Thank you.

[Dr. Shaw replied to this entire letter as follows: “Robert Fastiggi and Dawn Eden Goldstein have done me the honour of a reply, at some length, to my post, in my comments box. I want to take this as seriously as possible, so I paste it in below, in full, in bold, with my replies to each point.”]

Our points of response are the following:

1. You are correct that “impressions” are subjective. Our point, however, is that your subjective impressions regarding papal words and actions are not shared by all. In justice there is always a need to determine what people mean before making judgments of potential heresy. When the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith examines cases of possible heresy, it follows strict norms of procedure in order to insure justice for the one accused (See CDF, Regulations for Doctrinal Examination, Ratio Agendi May 30, 1997; AAS 89 [1997] 830–835). If so much care is given to the examination of individual theologians before making judgments of heresy, should not the same be extended to the Roman Pontiff? Canon law tells us: “The First See is judged by no one” (CIC [1983] canon 1404).
*

Certainly the Pope deserves the chance to clarify what exactly he means, in the context of disagreement about what that may be. That is why many people, including the ‘Four Cardinals’, have been respectfully but urgently asking Pope Francis for such a clarification: as you know they wrote to him in September 2016, more than a year ago. He has not responded formally, but meanwhile many of his supporters have been telling us that various informal responses are clear enough, and have criticised strongly those unwilling to allow their interpretation of Amoris to be guided by these informal indications. In any case, other people have been guided by them, and Pope Francis has not intervened to put them right.

The Correctio makes it very clear that we are not judging the Pope or accusing him of the sin of heresy.

2. You object to the word “mostly” when we say that your claim of Pope Francis not wanting orthodoxy is derived “mostly [from] non-authoritative statements of the Pope” and not, as you assert, “entirely [from] non-authoritative statements.” Mostly is correct because, in addition to citing references to non-authoritative sources, the Correctio filialis speaks of “the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia and by other words, deeds, and omissions of Your Holiness.” As a papal exhortation, Amoris laetitia would carry the same authority of the ordinary papal Magisterium as St. John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio of 1981.
*

Documents emanating from the Holy See or General Councils can contain both Magisterial and non-Magisterial statements. Non-Magisterial statements would include, obviously, those not concerning faith and morals, such as historical claims. They also include statements which are unclear: there can be no obligation on Catholics to believe a statement if they cannot determine what the statement means. Yet another category of non-Magisterial statements in official documents are those which go beyond or against the Ordinary Magisterium.

An example of this last case which is not controversial is the claim of the Council of Florence-Ferrara that the sacramental ‘matter’ in priestly ordination is not the laying-on of hands, but the handing over of the chalice. We commonly say that statements of General Councils other than anathemas have non-infallible teaching authority from the Ordinary Magisterium. In such a case, however, it would be more accurate to say that this statement is not a statement of the Ordinary Magisterium at all, since it contradicts the Ordinary Magisterium, and the Ordinary Magisterium cannot contradict itself.

The contention of the Correctio Filialis is that the statements of Amoris which concern us are ambiguous: they can be read in accordance with the Ordinary Magisterium, which we would obviously accept, or they can be read as contradicting the Ordinary Magisterium. Those who insist on the latter possibility cannot, of course, simultaneously claim that they are examples of the Ordinary Magisterium and are therefore binding. You can’t be bound, by the Ordinary Magisterium, to reject the Ordinary Magisterium.

3. You mention the private letter of Pope Francis to the Bishops of Buenos Aires as an example of something that is “impossible to square with the constant teaching of the Church.” Cardinal Müller, however, in his Sept. 28 National Catholic Register interview with Edward Pentin, said: “[If] you look at what the Argentine bishops wrote in their directive, you can interpret this in an orthodox way”. What you consider “impossible” to square with orthodoxy, others find possible.

That no-one disagrees with me is not part of what I am claiming. It would be interesting, though hardly decisive, to know what Cardinal Müller thinks of the guidelines of the Bishops of Malta, which seem to go beyond those of the bishops of Buenos Aires, in clearly contradicting Canon 91.

4. You ask what we would do if we thought the pope of the day were indicating non-authoritatively that bishops and ordinary Catholics should act and believe in ways contrary to the teaching of the Church? This is something purely hypothetical. Neither of us believe Pope Francis is asking people to act or believe in ways contrary to the teaching of the Church. If, though, we thought we were facing such a situation, we would make our concerns known to our Ordinary first and then, if need be, to the papal Nuncio or the Holy See. We would not have recourse to the mass media.

We and many others who have had concerns over Amoris and its interpretations have gone to considerable trouble to go through the proper channels. Grouping together to compose and sign a joint statement is an obvious way to maximise the ‘knowledge, competence and position’ mentioned in Canon 212 in relation to appeals by the Faithful; it would also be impractical to expect the Holy See to respond to hundreds of individual petitions. Being an international group means that we do not have a single Ordinary or indeed a single Papal Nuncio. There is nothing in Canon Law which prohibits us from appealing directly to the Pope, but as a matter of fact many of us first appealed to the College of Cardinals, a year ago. Finally, we did not ‘have recourse to the mass media’ until six weeks had passed, without response, since our petition was given personally to the Holy Father.

Ruling out ‘recourse to the mass media’ in all circumstances clearly contradicts Canon 212 which notes that it can be an obligation to make concerns known to ‘others of Christ’s faithful’, and is therefore ruled out as a sensible reading of Donum veritatis, from which you take the phrase.
*

I would suggest that were you facing that situation, and were you to respond as you suggest, you could very well find yourselves failing to discharge the duty which Canon 212 mentions, to make your concerns known to other members of the Faithful. For myself, I feel subjectively obliged to act because it seems clear to me that, given the knowledge, competence and position of my fellow signatories, and given that bishops and the Holy Father are not (or not all) acting to defend the Magisterium, we can and must warn the Faithful about a proximate danger to the Faith.

5. Your point about Donum veritatis referring to theologians who reject the ordinary Magisterium begs the question because you have not established that Pope Francis is going against any teaching of the Magisterium. You cite canon 212§3, but you fail to mention that it also requires manifesting opinions with reverence toward pastors and attention to “the common advantage and the dignity of persons.” We question whether accusing Pope Francis of propagating heresies is really showing reverence, and we question whether this serves the common advantage of the Church and the dignity of persons. We also do not believe that the Correctio follows the guidelines of Donum veritatis, as we explained in our article.

The text of the Correctio makes the case in detail, and with copious documentation, for the view that, by his words, deeds, and omissions, Pope Francis is propagating views contrary to the Magisterium. A bald denial by you is hardly an adequate response.

We are very aware of the requirement of Canon 212 (and of common sense) for reverence, attention to the common advantage, and so on. Again, a bald assertion by you that we have failed to do this is no argument.

You appear to be missing what should be obvious, that we believe that Pope Francis is doing what we claim he is doing. Given our subjective position, what is it we are obliged to do, in conscience, and how should we go about it? It is not an act of reverence or affection to fail to point out grave and urgent problems in a Pope’s government of the Church: to fail in this way is to act as a timeserving courtier, not a faithful member of the Mystical Body. Those who love the Pope and respect his office should feel profoundly the duty to make clear exactly how serious the problem is, however much what they say is expressed in respectful terms, and however much they may wish to give the Pope the chance to clarify his position privately and so on. I really cannot see how the Correctio can be faulted on these grounds.

6. You mention that Matthew 18:15–17 allows for making problems public when private admonitions fail. This text, though, advises taking a brother to the Church for correction. It does not advise correcting the head of the Church.

This seems a most surprising reading of Matthew 18:15-17, in light of Galatians 2:11, in which St Paul recalls how he ‘opposed’ St Peter, the Pope, ‘to his face’, and the tradition of interpretation the latter text has had among the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. The most famous example of this tradition of interpretation is St Thomas Aquinas , who notes two other scriptural passages:

Sir 4:27: ‘Reverence not thy neighbour in his fall and refrain not to speak in the time of salvation’

Lev. 19:17: ‘Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart: but reprove him openly, lest thou incur sin through him.’

We could also add Ezekial 33:8: ‘If thou dost not speak to warn the wicked man from his way: that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand.’

Aquinas continues: ‘Apropos of what is said in a certain Gloss, namely, that I withstood him as an adversary, the answer is that the Apostle opposed Peter in the exercise of authority, not in his authority of ruling. Therefore from the foregoing we have an example: prelates, indeed, an example of humility, that they not disdain corrections from those who are lower and subject to them; subjects have an example of zeal and freedom, that they fear not to correct their prelates, particularly if their crime is public and verges upon danger to the multitude.’

7. Like you, we wish to affirm the teachings of the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. We are not questioning your faith or sincerity; we are only questioning your methods.

Affirming the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium requires of Catholics that they not only live by it, but as God’s honour and the good of their neighbours requires, witness to it publicly.

Oremus pro invicem,

Robert Fastiggi, Ph.D. and Dawn Eden Goldstein, S.T.D.

Thank you for responding.

Dear Dr. Shaw,

*
We appreciate your attempt to respond to our seven points, but you argue in a way that concedes the main point we are making. In so many words, you acknowledge that all you can present is your subjective belief that Pope Francis is doing what you claim he is doing, viz., effecting the propagation of heresies in the Church. You, of course, are entitled to your opinion, but we find your accusations unjust and excessive. As we noted, even private theologians accused of heresy are entitled to the due process outlined in the CDF document, Ratio agendi of 1997. But you and your associates have accused the Roman Pontiff of facilitating the spread of heresies, and all you can present are some references, assertions, and subjective beliefs, which are all open to question. Because the Holy Father did not respond to your accusations submitted at first privately, you have taken it upon yourselves to make your accusations public via the mass media. Thus, you have publicly accused the Roman Pontiff of propagating heresies.

We do not question your faith or your sincerity, and we are aware that you believe you are acting for the good of the Church. Nor do we dispute your rights under canon 212§3. What we do question, though, is whether the Correctio embodies the virtues of prudence, justice, and charity that bind all of the faithful. You say that our “bald assertion” that you have failed with respect to due reverence, etc. “is no argument.” But all you can counter with is your “bald assertion” that you have observed due reverence, common advantage and so on. This, though, actually supports our major point. You are using subjective impressions and interpretations to accuse the Roman Pontiff of propagating heresies. The force of your argument is that you believe your impressions are true. This, though, will be convincing to those who share your impressions but not to those who don’t. It seems to us that you are arguing in a circle. Your impressions are true because you believe they are true. You admit that others disagree with your impressions, but this does not falsify your impressions because you believe they are true.

There are other points you bring up that we could challenge, such as your understanding of magisterial documents as well as your interpretations of Mt 18: 15–17 and Gal 2:11. These might be interesting discussions, but we would rather focus on the main point we have presented above. We know you can appeal to a few Cardinals, bishops, and theologians who have also raised questions about Amoris laetita and its applications. We, though, could counter with many other Cardinals, bishops, and theologians who have expressed appreciation for the exhortation and who agree with these words of Cardinal Müller:

In Amoris Laetitia there’s no new doctrine or explication of some juridical points of the doctrine, but an acceptance of the doctrine of the Church and the sacraments. The only question is their pastoral application in extraordinary situations. The Pope will not and cannot change either the doctrine or the sacraments. What he wants is to help couples in very difficult circumstances as a good shepherd, but in accord with the word of God. (Interview with Edward Pentin, National Catholic Register, Sept. 28, 2017)

We know you disagree with his Eminence in this analysis, and that is your privilege. Your disagreement, though, does not disprove what the good Cardinal says. We certainly accept the right of Catholics to raise questions and ask for clarifications from the Holy Father. We believe, however, that the accusations contained in the Correctio are excessive and based on subjective impressions that are highly questionable.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Robert Fastiggi, Ph.D. and Dawn Eden Goldstein, S.T.D.

I think we are going round in circles at this point. Some brief rejoinders.

You say: ‘In so many words, you acknowledge that all you can present is your subjective belief that Pope Francis is doing what you claim he is doing, viz., effecting the propagation of heresies in the Church.’

False. As I noted, we present at length a large amount of objective evidence, which you have and continue to decline to assess. I am getting the impression now of a small child with his fingers in his ears.

You say: ‘What we do question, though, is whether the Correctio embodies the virtues of prudence, justice, and charity that bind all of the faithful. You say that our “bald assertion” that you have failed with respect to due reverence, etc. “is no argument.” But all you can counter with is your “bald assertion” that you have observed due reverence, common advantage and so on.’

False, also. If you criticise our act, it is for you to bring forward reasons and evidence to back up your criticism, not for us to answer an argument against it which has not been made. (How are we supposed to do that, anyway?)

As for your quotation of Cardinal Müller, I agree with every word of it. Your conception of our position clearly needs a little refining.

According to us, the Pope is doing something which Cardinal Müller is far too polite even to consider, at least publicly: inviting Bishops and the faithful to ignore and act contrary to doctrine and sacramental discipline. Pope Francis does so, I am sure, in order to help people in difficult situations.

Dear Prof. Shaw,

Thank you very much for your latest reply. We are delighted that you agree with Cardinal Müller that Amoris laetitia has “no new doctrine … but an acceptance of the doctrine of the Church and the sacraments.”

We wonder why, then, you include twelve passages of Amoris laetitia in the Correctio, which you say— “in conjunction with acts, words, and omissions” of the Holy Father— “serve to propagate seven heretical propositions.” We also wonder why you mention—in the first paragraph of the Correctio—the propagation of heresies “effected by the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia and by other words, deeds, and omissions of Your Holiness.”

If the propagation of heresies is, in part, “effected” by Amoris laetitia, then it would seem that the papal exhortation is a cause for the dissemination of heresies. But if you agree with Cardinal Müller’s assessment of the exhortation, then you should revise the Correctio and omit any mention of Amoris laetitia as a cause for the spread of heresies.

We also note that you believe “the Pope is doing something which Cardinal Müller is far too polite to even consider, at least publicly: inviting Bishops and the faithful to ignore and act contrary to doctrine and sacramental discipline.” In effect, you are saying that you are reading into Pope Francis something subjective that others such as Cardinal Müller do not see. This only proves the point we made in our last reply. You are relying on subjective impressions that you believe are superior to the impressions of others.

You say you have “[presented] at length a large amount of objective evidence” which we have continued to decline to assess. It would take a much longer response to show how each one of your cases of “objective evidence” allows for a more benign interpretation. Moreover, your accusations are directed against Pope Francis, not us, so it would not be appropriate or possible for us to speak for the Holy Father in terms of his intentions regarding each of the statements, deeds, and omissions you bring forth as “evidence.”

You complain that we have not supplied adequate reasons why we question whether the Correctio embodies the virtues of prudence, justice, and charity—and this despite the arguments we put forth in our La Stampa article “Critics of Amoris laetitia ignore Ratzinger’s rules for faithful theological discourse” and our subsequent responses to you. It seems that you missed our point. Those who are accused of spreading heresies are entitled, in justice, to due process and a fair hearing. You, though, have publicly accused the Roman Pontiff of propagating heresies based on evidence that is colored by subjective impressions.

We know you believe you are acting for the good of the Church. That is why we respectfully urge you to consider the harm your actions can cause to the reputation of the Holy Father and ecclesial communion.

Let us trust in the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church and pray for Pope Francis.

In Cordibus Jesu et Mariae,

Robert Fastiggi, Ph.D. and Dawn Eden Goldstein, S.T.D.
*

We wonder why, then, you include twelve passages of Amoris laetitia in the Correctio, which you say— “in conjunction with acts, words, and omissions” of the Holy Father— “serve to propagate seven heretical propositions.” ‘

Because that is the case. This really isn’t so difficult: AL could be read in an orthodox sense, but the interpretation being given it doesn’t allow it. I think I’ve said that often enough now.

As to the Pope’s intentions, these are the intentions being imputed to him by his supporters, such as the bishops of Malta, and he is not correcting them. It is enough for us to say that what he is doing is an invitation, without seeking to judge what exactly he intends, since we are not in a position to judge that.

It seems you are now admitting that we have presented a large amount of object evidence which you have not even addressed, let alone refuted, so thank you.

I and others have already addressed your La Stampa arguments.

I think we’ve both said enough to allow our readers to make their own minds up.

***

Photo credit: Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI meet (photographed by Mondarte on 10-29-13) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

***