![\"Silence\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/01\/Silence.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This is one of a series of my reviews of the book by prominent Catholic journalist, editor, and author\u00a0Philip Lawler<\/a>, entitled\u00a0Lost Shepherd: How Pope Francis is Misleading His Flock<\/a> <\/em>(due to be released on 26 February 2018). Phil was kind enough to send me a review copy, and he and others have encouraged me to read the book and review it. Their wish is granted!<\/p>\n For background, see my paper, On Rebuking Popes & Catholic Obedience to Popes<\/em><\/a>, and three posts concerning a few statements from the book that I found very troubling and questionable, including dialogues with both Karl Keating (who positively reviewed it<\/a>) and briefly with author Phil himself (one <\/a>\/ two<\/a> \/ three<\/a>).<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n The Introduction (as it should) provides a very meticulous summary of Phil\u2019s general outlook: to be explicated upon in the book. No one is left in any doubt as to his rather gloomy, troubled views after reading descriptions of Pope Francis and his opinions such as:<\/p>\n . . . leading the Church away from the ancient sources of the Faith. . . .\u00a0\u00a0a source of division.\u00a0. . .\u00a0radical nature of the program that he is relentlessly advancing. . . .\u00a0encouraged beliefs and practices that are incompatible with the prior teachings of the Church. If that complaint is justified, he has violated the sacred trust that is given to Peter\u2019s successors. . . . a Roman pontiff who disregarded so easily what the Church has always\u00a0taught and believed and practiced on such bedrock issues as the\u00a0nature of marriage and of the Eucharist . . .\u00a0a danger to the Faith . . .<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I do wholeheartedy agree with one<\/em> suggestion that Lawler throws out in the Introduction:<\/p>\n Maybe my entire argument is\u00a0wrongheaded. I have been wrong before and will no doubt be wrong\u00a0again; one more mistaken view is of no great consequence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If at length I conclude just that, then maybe these series of reviews (assuming they remain negative, as is likely) will persuade Phil that he is in the wrong. He\u2019s\u00a0been wrong before and will be again, as he humbly admits, so surely if I presently show that he is (entirely within the realm of possibility), he will change his opinion. And in that eventuality, I would be doing both him and<\/em> his readers the greatest service. Perhaps this is why he sent me his book to review. It\u2019s admirable for a man to be open to being proven wrong.<\/p>\n In my brief direct dialogue with Phil Lawler (recorded in one of my posts<\/a>), I warned him of the grave consequences of his being wrong on this matter. I am (thus far) very concerned about him<\/em>, as well as his readers:<\/p>\n Lawler in the Introduction cites one thing in particular: Pope Francis\u2019 homily from 24 February 2017<\/a> as, in effect, the final straw. It caused a sea change in his view of Pope Francis. He reports that \u201cSomething snapped inside me\u201d after reading what he construes as the Holy Father\u2019s capitalizing on \u201cone more\u00a0opportunity to promote his own view on divorce and remarriage.\u201d He concluded:<\/p>\n [I]n this case, the pope turned the Gospel reading\u00a0completely upside-down. Reading the Vatican Radio account of\u00a0that astonishing homily, I found I could no longer pretend that Francis\u00a0was merely offering a novel interpretation of Catholic doctrine.\u00a0No, it was more than that. He was engaged in a deliberate effort to\u00a0change what the Church teaches.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n No one had to wait for this book to come out, to realize the extent of Lawler\u2019s horror over this homily. He freely wrote about it in his Catholic Culture<\/em>\u00a0article of 1 March 2017: \u201cThis Disastrous Papacy\u201d<\/a>. Most of it was included in the Introduction, either unchanged or only slightly modified.<\/p>\n Very well, then. Since we know this was the single identifiable thing that decisively changed his mind about Pope Francis, let\u2019s take a look at it and see whether it really is<\/em> as radical and anti-traditional as he claims<\/em> it to be; whether it\u00a0truly suggests or requires such a remarkable and earth-shaking conclusion as what Lawler has drawn from it. I\u2019ve already linked to it above, so readers can read all of it: from the same source that Lawler got it from. What was Pope Francis trying to say<\/em>, and teach<\/em>?<\/p>\n It\u2019s not that complicated. It\u2019s one of many of Pope Francis\u2019 characteristic condemnations of legalism and casuistry or \u201ccasuistic logic.\u201d \u201cCasuistry\u201d is one of the classic anti-Catholic accusations; often (ironically) made specifically against Jesuit reasoning. Dictionary.com<\/a> defines the word as follows:<\/p>\n specious,<\/span>\u00a0deceptive,<\/span>\u00a0or<\/span>\u00a0oversubtle<\/span>\u00a0reasoning,<\/span>\u00a0especially<\/span>\u00a0in<\/span>\u00a0questions\u00a0<\/span>of<\/span>\u00a0morality;<\/span>\u00a0fallacious<\/span>\u00a0or<\/span>\u00a0dishonest<\/span>\u00a0application<\/span>\u00a0of<\/span>\u00a0general<\/span>\u00a0principles; sophistry<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n It goes on to give the \u201chistorical example\u201d of: \u201cHis<\/span>\u00a0spirit<\/span>\u00a0is<\/span>\u00a0the<\/span>\u00a0opposite<\/span>\u00a0of<\/span>\u00a0that<\/span>\u00a0of<\/span>\u00a0Jesuitism<\/span>\u00a0or<\/span>\u00a0casuistry<\/span>\u00a0<\/em>(Wallace).\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n In itself, this is not and shouldn\u2019t be considered in the slight bit controversial. After all, it was a strong emphasis of St. Paul. He wrote quite a bit in his epistles about the relationship of law and grace, and how grace is the predominant factor by far (while not nullifying law altogether). Jesus\u2019 view was exactly the same. He expressly denied abolishing the Law in\u00a0His Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:17-20). Jesus emphasized justice and mercy over against legalism, precisely as Pope Francis does in this homily:<\/p>\n Matthew 23:23<\/strong> (RSV) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Likewise, Francis hammers down this theme in his homily, which was about the Pharisees asking Jesus, \u201cIs it lawful for a husband to put away his wife?\u201d And the pope commented:<\/p>\n Jesus does not answer whether it is lawful or not lawful; He doesn\u2019t enter into their casuistic logic. Because they thought of the faith only in terms of \u2018Yes, you can,\u201d or \u201cNo, you can\u2019t\u201d \u2013 to the limits of what you can do, the limits of what you can\u2019t do. That logic of casuistry. And He asks a question: \u201cBut what did Moses command you? What is in your Law?\u201d And they explained the permission Moses had given to put away the wife, and they themselves fall into the trap. Because Jesus qualifies them as \u2018hard of heart\u2019: \u2018Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment,\u2019 and He speaks the truth. Without casuistry. Without permissions. The truth.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The point he\u2019s making is that Jesus didn\u2019t approach the question from merely a legal standpoint<\/em>, which is how they<\/em> were approaching it. They were doing their usual \u201cdill and cummin\u201d routine and missing the \u201cweightier matters\u201d about (in this case) marriage and divorce. Jesus went much more deeply into the matter, telling them that God only allowed divorce at all because of their hardness of heart. Jesus continued (the initial \u201cbut\u201d shows that He is starkly contrasting His teaching with theirs):<\/p>\n Mark 10:6-12<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0But from the beginning of creation, `God made them male and female.\u2019\u00a0[7] `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,\u00a0[8] and the two shall become one flesh.\u2019 So they are no longer two but one flesh.\u00a0[9] What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.\u201d\u00a0[10] And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter.\u00a0[11] And he said to them, \u201cWhoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her;\u00a0[12] and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Lawler (as best I can tell) seems to think that the pope was quite negligent and lax in his duty because he didn\u2019t go on to cite these other parts of the gospel (Lawler cited 10:8-9, 11-12). But that doesn\u2019t follow<\/em>. These homilies are mostly to priests. They know what the passage is. The pope is trying to bring out the deeper meanings<\/em> of the passage, just as Jesus was doing with the overall question. It doesn\u2019t follow logically that if the pope doesn\u2019t expressly mention<\/em> something in any given specific context, that he therefore denies<\/em> it.<\/p>\n Yet that is how Lawler thinks. It really is outrageous, to treat a pope so cavalierly. If he claims that the pope has now denied the indissolubility of marriage (or worse), then by all means, his burden is to find direct passages<\/em> where the pope did<\/em> that, and condemn it (and I would immediately join him in his condemnation).<\/p>\n I will go find such passages now \u2014 i.e., do Lawler\u2019s work for him \u2013, since\u00a0he didn\u2019t have time to trouble himself to treat the pope with even a minimum of routine fairness. Instead, we get a pathetic argument from silence, that completely misses<\/em> the pope\u2019s point, just as the Pharisees missed\u00a0Jesus\u2019 point in the original incident that is now recorded in Scripture.<\/p>\n The pope ends by making a both\/and observation that is exactly what Jesus did in Matthew 23:23, cited above. It\u2019s beyond odd that he is now thought to be subverting the ancient faith, by following closely an explicit line of thinking that we have right from our Lord in the inspired revelation of Holy Scripture.<\/p>\n It takes the grace of God to help us to go forward in this way. And we should always ask for it. \u2018Lord, grant that I might be just, but just with mercy.\u2019 Not just, covered by casuistry. Just in mercy. As You are. Just in mercy. Then, someone with a casuistic mentality might ask, \u201cBut what is more important in God? Justice or mercy?\u2019 This, too, is a sick thought, that seeks to go out\u2026 What is more important? They are not two things: it is only one, only one thing. In God, justice is mercy and mercy is justice.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n He\u2019s opposing the either\/or mentality that infested the Pharisees, and very often, Protestant contra-Catholic theology. Catholics, like Jesus, think in both\/and terms. He\u2019s also fighting against the juvenile conception of Christianity, or Catholicism in particular, as merely<\/em> a set of \u201cdo\u2019s and don\u2019ts.\u201d He\u2019s hardly the first person to do that! This is a very common teaching among Catholics, and Protestants and Orthodox as well.<\/p>\n In fact, I myself constantly exercise this approach (virtually every day!) as an apologist. If I\u2019m asked a question, especially by a non-Catholic or even by an atheist, my approach is not simply<\/em> to say \u201cwe believe this\u201d (a \u201cdo\u201d) or \u201cThe Catholic Church\u00a0teaches that this is wrong\u201d (a \u201cdon\u2019t\u201d). That\u2019s catechetics (what<\/em> is believed), and perfectly legitimate to begin with. But the problem is that the inquirer generally wants to know why<\/em> we believe certain things are true and\/or wrong. And that\u2019s apologetics, which gets into the why<\/em>: the deeper rationales and intellectual \/ biblical justifications.<\/p>\n That\u2019s what the pope was doing. He knows everyone in his audience knew the passage already. He chose to hone in on the deeper meaning<\/em> of it: beyond legalism and casuistry and pharisaism and religion as merely a set of \u201cdo\u2019s and don\u2019ts\u201d: and on to the deepest realities of the teaching. The Pharisees (with Lawler in effect joining them) want a simple, sound bite answer. Jesus and Pope Francis (and Catholic thinking, generally) would much rather give a deeper, more involved, complex answer.<\/p>\n Lawler, on the basis of reading this<\/em> homily, somehow concluded that Pope Francis\u00a0 \u201cwas engaged in a deliberate effort to\u00a0change what the Church teaches.\u201d This was his turning-point, and a major reason why his book exists in the first place (which is why he highlighted<\/em> it, front and center, in the Introduction, and in an earlier article). But it is the height of uncharity and unfairness to draw such a momentous, negative conclusion on the basis of an argument from silence (i.e., the idea that the pope didn\u2019t assert and reaffirm indissolubility in this sermon; therefore, he must deny<\/em> it).<\/p>\n I don\u2019t see what\u00a0 sees. To me, it is the 168th example of people seeing things; reading into things the pope said, that (far as I can tell) just aren\u2019t there, and can\u2019t even plausibly be construed as possibly being there. It\u2019s like the improper eisegesis that is done all the time with the Bible: reading \u201cinto\u201d Scripture stuff that isn\u2019t there, as opposed to \u201creading out\u201d of it.<\/p>\n If Lawler wishes to assert that Francis has overthrown \u2014 or seeks to overthrow \u2014 the constant Catholic teaching on marriage, then certainly he can find passages where the pope undeniably does \/ seeks to do\u00a0just that<\/em><\/strong>. So why didn\u2019t he do<\/em> that? I would say that it\u2019s because they don\u2019t exist. And what would Lawler<\/em> say? That the pope is being deliberately secretive<\/em> and conniving<\/em> about his \u201creal\u201d beliefs? In other words, that it\u2019s a grand evil, nefarious \u201cjesuitical\u201d conspiracy? Certainly, if this radical strain of thought is present in Francis, then it can be found<\/em>, in a way infinitely more persuasive or compelling than the always-weak method of arguing from silence. And if it can\u2019t<\/em>, it ought not be asserted that the pope believes something that can\u2019t<\/em> be documented from his voluminous writings and talks.<\/p>\n With searching capabilities online today, finding relevant passages is ridiculously simple. And so I will find them. Francis teaches nothing different about marriage than what any other pope, or the Church teach:<\/p>\n 1) Right in The Catholic World Report<\/em> (1-23-16) \u2014 of which Lawler was editor from 1993 to 2005 \u2014 we have the article, \u201cFrancis affirms indissolubility of marriage, objectivity of annulment conditions.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0The pope stated: \u201cThe family, founded on indissoluble marriage, unitive and procreative, belongs to the \u2018dream\u2019 of God and of his Church for the salvation of humanity.\u201d Does that sound like Pope Francis is \u201cengaged in a deliberate effort to\u00a0change what the Church teaches\u201d as regards marriage?\u00a0 Not to me. If it does to anyone else<\/em>, perhaps they can explain to me\u00a0why<\/em>.<\/p>\n 2) Aleteia hosted an article (9-30-15), entitled, \u201cPope Francis Reaffirms that Catholic Marriage is Indissoluble.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0Pope Francis stated, \u201cMarriage is indissoluble when it is a sacrament. And this the Church cannot change. It\u2019s doctrine. It\u2019s an indissoluble sacrament.\u201d And he also observed:<\/p>\n With the reform of the marriage annulment procedure, I closed the door to the administrative path, which was the path through which divorce could have made its way in. Those who think this is equivalent with \u201cCatholic divorce\u201d are mistaken because this last document has closed the door to divorce by which it could have entered. It would have been easier with the administrative path. . . .\u00a0\u201cCatholic divorce\u201d does not exist. Nullity is granted if the union never existed. But if it did, it is indissoluble.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n That<\/em> is supposedly radically anti-traditional and overthrowing what the Church has taught about it? If that were the case, then words mean absolutely nothing<\/em>, and Lawler should withdraw his book as a result (since words have no meaning, and we\u2019re all mumbling and grunting incoherently like apes). Or we can fall back on the conspiratorial view, that Francis is lying through his teeth and concealing his \u201creal\u201d evil intentions . . .<\/p>\n 3) Deacon Nick Donnelly wrote in National Catholic Register<\/em> on 20 April 2016 (\u201c\u2018Amoris Laetitia\u2019: A Hymn to Indissolubility and Fidelity\u201d<\/a>):<\/p>\n During the 2015 Synod, some\u00a0synod fathers<\/a>\u00a0advocated that the Church replace the term \u201cindissolubility\u201d to describe the life-long commitment of marriage, arguing most modern couples don\u2019t understand the word. However, indissolubility can be described as the dominant motif of\u00a0Amoris Laetitia,\u00a0<\/em>with the word used 10 times and \u2018lifelong\u2019 six times.<\/p>\n It should not surprise us that Pope Francis views indissolubility as the one of the essential characteristics of the sacrament of Marriage:<\/p>\n \u201cThe indissolubility of marriage \u2014 \u2018what God has joined together, let no man put asunder\u2019 (Matthew 19:6) \u2014 should not be viewed as a \u2018yoke\u2019 imposed on humanity, but as a \u2018gift\u2019 granted to those who are joined in marriage\u2026\u201d (62).<\/p>\n The Holy Father describes the indissolubility of the sacrament of marriage as \u201csalvation history\u201d for the couple, a reference to the Biblical notion of \u201csalvation history,\u201d the history of God\u2019s fidelity, constancy and loyalty towards Israel and the human race:<\/p>\n \u201cEach marriage is a kind of \u201csalvation history,\u201d which from fragile beginnings \u2014 thanks to God\u2019s gift and a creative and generous response on our part \u2014 grow over time into something precious and enduring.\u201d (221).<\/p>\n A number of times in\u00a0Amoris Laetitia<\/em>\u00a0Pope Francis refers to the indissolubility and fidelity of marriage as being a great and mysterious gift, quoting the words of St. Robert Bellarmine: \u201cthe fact that one man unites with one woman in an indissoluble bond, and that they remain inseparable despite every kind of difficulty, even when there is no longer hope for children, can only be the sign of a great mystery\u201d (124).<\/p>\n The Holy Father, with the Synod Fathers, is clear that the guarantor of this great mystery of indissolubility in marriage is the presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ, He who is perfectly faithful and perfectly loyal:<\/p>\n \u201c\u2018Only in contemplating Christ does a person come to know the deepest truth about human relationships. \u2018Only in the mystery of the Incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light\u2026 Christ, the new Adam, by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and his love, fully reveals man to himself and makes his supreme calling clear\u2019 (Gaudium et Spes<\/em>, 22). It is particularly helpful to understand in a Christocentric key\u2026 the good of the spouses (bonum coniugum<\/em>) which includes unity, openness to life, fidelity, indissolubility and, within Christian marriage, mutual support on the path towards complete friendship with the Lord.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n Pope Francis exhorts us to so cherish and uphold the divine gift of indissolubility, that we have the courage to accompany and care for those wounded by the evil of divorce. Such care acknowledges the tragedy of separation and divorce and expresses the love at the heart of indissolubility:<\/p>\n \u201cThe Christian community\u2019s care of such persons is not to be considered a weakening of its faith and testimony to the indissolubility of marriage; rather, such care is a particular expression of its charity\u201d (243).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n 4) Catholic News Agency<\/em>, 25 April 2014 (Pope emphasizes \u2018indissolubility of Christian matrimony\u2019<\/a>):<\/p>\n \u201cThe holiness and indissolubility of Christian matrimony, often disintegrating under tremendous pressure from the secular world, must be deepened by clear doctrine and supported by the witness of committed married couples,\u201d Pope Francis said.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Much more along these lines could easily be found. This is documentation of what the pope actually holds: not mere cynical speculation from an argument from silence (\u201cthe pope didn\u2019t assert<\/em> particular Catholic teaching x<\/em> in papal homily y<\/em>; therefore, he must deny<\/em> it, and wants to change x<\/em> and constant Church tradition in general\u201d). That won\u2019t do. And Phil Lawler will have to do much better in order to prove his extraordinary thesis. Perhaps he has somewhere in the book. I\u2019ve only just started reading and reviewing it. But this<\/em> particular argument, made a centerpiece of the Introduction, and a self-understood key to Lawler\u2019s own odyssey to a position of opposition to Pope Francis as a supposed radical theological dissident, utterly fails.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:<\/strong> Image by \u201cTPHeinz\u201d (December 2017): discovered by a Google search for \u201csilence\u201d<\/span> [Pixabay <\/a>\/ CC0 Creative Commons<\/a> license]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This is one of a series of my reviews of the book by prominent Catholic journalist, editor, and author\u00a0Philip Lawler, entitled\u00a0Lost Shepherd: How Pope Francis is Misleading His Flock (due to be released on 26 February 2018). Phil was kind enough to send me a review copy, and he and others have encouraged me to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":15023,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[132,138,130],"tags":[894,898,897,899,892,893,901,137,890,891,1134,4801,571,4800,900,4802,902,896,135,561,895],"class_list":["post-15017","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-liberal-modernist-theology","category-papacy-infallibility","category-traditionalism-vs-radical-catholic-reactionaries","tag-anxiety","tag-cafeteria-catholics","tag-catholic-dissidents","tag-dissenters","tag-faith-in-god","tag-fear","tag-guidance-of-the-holy-spirit","tag-heterodoxy","tag-indefectibility-of-the-church","tag-infallibility-of-the-church","tag-karl-keating","tag-lost-shepherd-how-pope-francis-is-misleading-his-flock","tag-modernism","tag-phil-lawler","tag-progressives","tag-quasi-defectibility","tag-sacred-tradition","tag-synod-on-the-family","tag-theological-liberalism","tag-trust-in-god","tag-worry"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n\n
[Y]our book\u00a0will<\/em>\u00a0sell like hotcakes. I\u2019m happy to see any author sell well (believe me), but I tremble for you, if in fact you are wrong about what you are saying. If you are, you will be responsible for leading many thousands astray, and that is a heavy burden indeed. [see James 3:1-12]<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n
\nI wrote recently, that I\u2019d much rather be wrong (if I am) defending the pope, than to be wrong criticizing him wrongly and leading multiple thousands of people down the same path. I\u2019m sure you\u2019ve agonized about it, because you have taken a long arduous path to your present position. I\u2019m urging \u2014 begging \u2014 you, to ponder it even more. Pray, fast, but (I say as a friend and colleague) be aware of the gravity of the topics that you have chosen to write about, in what will be a very popular book. You can ride that wave of fashionable opinion, but I\u2019m not sure it will be a blessing for you or your readers.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n
Even Luther always claimed that he never intended to split the Church (and his followers say the same to this day), and look what happened. It could have been very different, even from a Protestant perspective, but it wasn\u2019t.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n