![\"Peter&Paul\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/01\/PeterPaul.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>\u00a0<\/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,\u00a0On 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\u00a0positively reviewed it<\/a>) and briefly with author Phil himself (one\u00a0<\/a>\/\u00a0two<\/a>\u00a0\/\u00a0three<\/a>).<\/p>\n Previous Installments:<\/strong><\/p>\n #1 Critique of Introduction<\/a><\/p>\n #2\u00a0Homosexuality & \u201cJudging\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n #3 The Pope Annihilated Hell?<\/a><\/p>\n #4 Communion \/ Buenos Aires Letter\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Phil Lawler goes after yet another of the pope\u2019s homilies in his Chapter Seven, pp. 154-155:<\/p>\n In a memorable homily delivered in May 2017, Francis argued\u00a0that an excessive concern with doctrine is a sign of ideology rather\u00a0than faith. Reflecting on the day\u2019s Scripture reading from the Acts\u00a0of the Apostles, which recounted the debate over enforcing Mosaic\u00a0Law on Gentile Christians, the pope said that the \u201cliberty of the\u00a0Spirit\u201d led the disciples to an accord. The dispute, however, he said\u00a0was caused by \u201cjealousies, power struggles, a certain deviousness\u00a0that wanted to profit from and to buy power,\u201d temptations against\u00a0which the Church must always guard.<\/p>\n The disciples who insisted on the enforcement of Mosaic Law,\u00a0the pope said, were \u201cfanatics.\u201d They \u201cwere not believers; they were\u00a0ideologized.\u201d Thus he appeared to suggest that the early Church leaders\u00a0who disagreed with St. Paul on the enforcement of Mosaic Law\u2014\u00a0including St. James and, before the Council of Jerusalem, which\u00a0settled the question, even St. Peter himself\u2014\u201cwere not believers.\u201d The\u00a0Scriptural account of that council offers no evidence that those on\u00a0opposite sides of the question rendered harsh judgments of one other.\u00a0They met, argued vigorously over a point that was not yet clear, and\u00a0with the help of the Holy Spirit reached a decision that resolved their\u00a0differences. Francis acknowledged that it is \u201ca duty of the Church to\u00a0clarify doctrine,\u201d as the apostles did at the Council of Jerusalem. But\u00a0he did not acknowledge that his critics within the hierarchy were\u00a0calling for precisely the same sort of clarification with respect to\u00a0papal teaching on marriage and the Eucharist.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Alright. Let\u2019s take a closer look at the homily and the scriptural passages\u00a0the Holy Father\u00a0was commenting upon. Lawler loves clarity. I\u2019m happy \u2014 delighted \u2014 to do my part in helping him achieve more<\/em> of that (where the pope is concerned).\u00a0Here he has temporarily\u00a0 gotten away from gossipy discussions of \u201cpalace intrigue\u201d and internal Vatican politics that take up much of his book (which, personally, I have less than no<\/em> interest in) and gotten down to a theological issue that can actually be objectively examined.<\/p>\n And as usual (like so many papal critics) he puts quite the obligatory cynical slant on a homily where I (for what it\u2019s worth) see nothing whatsoever contrary to Scripture or good Catholic piety. But it seems that the critics invariably see what they want<\/em> to see and it just so happens to\u00a0so often come out as supposedly scandalous and objectionable.<\/p>\n The homily in question was preached on 5-19-17<\/a> and is preserved at the Vatican Radio<\/em> site. Lawler characterizes the pope\u2019s thoughts as \u201cFrancis argued\u00a0that an excessive concern with doctrine is a sign of ideology rather\u00a0than faith.\u201d I don\u2019t see this at all in the homily.\u00a0 Lawler spins it as if the pope is somehow hostile to serious doctrinal discussion or examination: as if\u00a0that is a bad thing, and hence, he dismisses such as mere \u201cideology.\u201d These notions are not in the homily, folks (sorry, Phil!). The homily is accurately summarized at the top as: \u201cTrue doctrine unites; ideology divides.\u201d Perfectly true and uncontroversial . . . Pope Francis states:<\/p>\n It was at the heart of the \u201cfirst Council\u201d of the Church: the Holy Spirit and they, the Pope with the Bishops, all together,\u201d gathered together in order \u201cto clarify the doctrine;\u201d and later, through the centuries \u2013 as at Ephesus or at Vatican II \u2013 because \u201cit is a duty of the Church to clarify the doctrine,\u201d so that \u201cwhat Jesus said in the Gospels, what is the Spirit of the Gospels, would be understood well . . .\u00a0this is the problem: when the doctrine of the Church, that which comes from the Gospel, that which the Holy Spirit inspires \u2013 because Jesus said, \u2018He will teach us and remind you of all that I have taught\u2019 \u2013 [when] that doctrine becomes an ideology. And this is the great error of those people.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n He\u2019s not<\/em> saying that \u201cexcessive concern with doctrine is<\/em> ideology.\u201d That\u2019s a wholesale distortion. He\u2019s saying that on the one hand there is true<\/em> doctrine, determined by the Church, and on the other, the distortion<\/em> or corruption<\/em> of the true doctrine, which becomes mere \u201cideology.\u201d This is\u00a0essentially the same distinction that Cardinal Newman draws in his famous comparisons of true developments of doctrine vs. heretical corruptions, and how Scripture differentiates between good, apostolic tradition and bad \u201ctraditions of men.\u201d Why can\u2019t Lawler grasp these rather elementary distinctions? Well, you tell me (if you can figure it out).<\/p>\n For my part, I think it is likely one of innumerable instances where intelligent, qualified people let their passions of one sort or another, cloud their judgment and logic in ways where it normally would be clear and logical. No one is so blind as one who will<\/em> not see. It happens all the time. I critique it all the time, in my capacity as an apologist. And that\u2019s what I see here, because this homily is not<\/em> difficult to understand, and there is nothing wrong<\/em> with it whatsoever. The pope reiterates his clear comparison between the good thing and the bad thing at the end:<\/p>\n The Church, he concluded, has \u201cits proper Magisterium, the Magisterium of the Pope, of the Bishops, of the Councils,\u201d and we must go along the path \u201cthat comes from the preaching of Jesus, and from the teaching and assistance of the Holy Spirit,\u201d which is \u201calways open, always free,\u201d because \u201cdoctrine unites, the Councils unite the Christian community, while, on the other hand, \u201cideology divides.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n See what he\u2019s saying? It\u2019s not (Phil\u2019s take): \u201ctoo much consideration of doctrine is bad!\u201d It is, rather: \u201cdoctrine is good and unitive; mere ideology is bad and divisive.\u201d It\u2019s shameful to distort (unconsciously or not) a pope\u2019s words and alleged thoughts like this.<\/p>\n If Lawler had actually cited the pope\u2019s words at any length, readers could actually see what he meant<\/em>. But instead, we get the cynical summaries. He tries to \u201cframe\u201d how his readers think, rather than letting them think and discern for themselves<\/em>. He spoon-feeds them carefully selected aspects and phrases, that end up distorted. This is the \u201cpropagandistic\u201d approach. One tires of this!<\/p>\n If someone\u00a0wants to bring up some homily of the Holy Father, and object to it, let the people read it for themselves! He gives no specific date or link. I provide the date and a link<\/a>,\u00a0and very considerable excerpts. My readers can go read the homily (or read most of it here) and make up their own minds\u00a0about whether my interpretation is accurate (or if Phil\u2019s is). I believe that the truth always wins in the end and that knowledge is power.<\/p>\n In his breathtakingly erroneous analysis, Lawler claims that the pope was preaching (and believes) that \u201cThe disciples who insisted on the enforcement of Mosaic Law, . . . were \u2018fanatics.\u2019 They \u2018were not believers; they were\u00a0ideologized.\u2019 \u201d Note the internal logic here: he is literally claiming that the pope thinks some disciples<\/em> were \u201cfanatics\u201d and not \u201cbelievers\u201d at all (!!!). And this, in a book, one of the central themes of which is that the pope<\/em> is consistently unclear and incoherent: a dim guide at best. I always appreciate irony.<\/p>\n Now, let\u2019s see what the biblical passage says in the first place. In the passage about the Jerusalem Council itself, \u201capostles and elders\u201d are referred to, not \u201cdisciples.\u201d The text (RSV) refers to \u201csome men\u201d (not \u201cdisciples\u201d) who disputed with Paul and Barnabas before<\/em> the council:<\/p>\n Acts 15:1-2<\/strong>\u00a0But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, \u201cUnless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.\u201d\u00a0[2] And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Then during the council we see this one line:<\/p>\n Acts 15:5<\/strong> But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, \u201cIt is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The word \u201cdisciples\u201d never appears in the homily: at least not in this summary of it that appears to be the one Lawler referenced. Acts 15:1 doesn\u2019t even make clear whether those teaching this legalism are Christians. 15:5\u00a0refers to \u201cbelievers.\u201d We only have these little tidbits, so they could possibly be different groups, teaching (perhaps) somewhat different things. The second group was participating in the council, after all, so it is implied that they were at least elders. It\u2019s irrelevant that they called themselves Pharisees. Paul did that, too, and Jesus followed their ritual customs.<\/p>\n The pope seems to reference not only this group of \u201cJudaizers\u201d but the entire group of those who opposed early Church teaching. He often digresses in his talks, to make a larger \u201cfootnoted\u201d point. I\u2019m very familiar with such a technique, because I do it a lot, myself, and sometimes people don\u2019t understand my meaning or reference point. The pope does specifically differentiate the apostles from others who disagree (my italics):<\/p>\n The group of the apostles<\/em> who want to discuss<\/em> the problem, and the others<\/em> who go and create problems<\/em>. They divide, they divide the Church, they say that what the Apostles preached is not what Jesus said, that it is not the truth. . . .<\/p>\n These individuals, the Pope explained, \u201cwere not believers, they were ideologized,\u201d they had an ideology that closed the heart to the work of the Holy Spirit. The Apostles, on the other hand<\/em>, certainly discussed things forcefully, but they were not ideologized<\/em>: \u201cThey had hearts open to what the Holy Spirit said. And after the discussion \u2018it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n As for the Judaizers themselves, respectable biblical scholars disagree amongst themselves whether they were Christians or not<\/a>. Some of the most eminent ones, like F. F. Bruce, don\u2019t even take a stand for one view or the other. If the pope took one view or another on that question it would be inconsequential and well within the thought of existing scholarship. But it\u2019s just as likely that he is referring to the dissenters described in Acts 15:1-2, and\/or generally to the much larger group who dissent from Christian teachings. But he never says that \u201cdisciples<\/em>\u201d are \u201cfanatics\u201d and \u201cnot believers\u201d and \u201cideologized.\u201d Lawler, however, then decides to descend into\u00a0yet\u00a0more absurd speculations:<\/p>\n [H]e appeared to suggest that the early Church leaders\u00a0who disagreed with St. Paul on the enforcement of Mosaic Law\u2014\u00a0including St. James and, before the Council of Jerusalem, which\u00a0settled the question, even St. Peter himself\u2014\u201cwere not believers.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Huh?\u00a0WOW!!<\/strong> It\u2019s beyond my comprehension that a learned Catholic man could include (not as some kind of joke) something so utterly ridiculous in a published book, and not only that: attribute the hyper-absurd opinion to the Holy Father, with no basis whatsoever<\/em> for doing so. This exhibits a level of illogic and sloppiness (not even to mention, lack of rudimentary Christian charity) that I have rarely seen (and I\u2019ve been around the block many times).<\/p>\n How he arrived<\/em> at this opinion (assuming he actually would claim to have some reason<\/em> for it) is anyone\u2019s guess. It\u2019s certainly not expressed in the homily. Anyone can go read it at the link I provide above and see that for themselves. The homily never mentions James or Peter. Lawler somehow nevertheless deduces that Pope Francis thinks as follows:<\/p>\n 1) There were arguments at the council;<\/p>\n 2) St. James was there, so he must have disagreed with St. Paul;<\/p>\n 3) Therefore St. James is not a \u201cbeliever.\u201d<\/p>\n 4)\u00a0St.\u00a0 Peter isn\u2019t a believer either, because (before the council) he, too, clashed with St. Paul [who accused him of hypocrisy<\/em>, not doctrinal error, readers may recall].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Oh boy. I have to really restrain myself at this point. This kind of nonsense is truly its own refutation, so I need not refute it, anyway. Suffice it to say that Paul and Peter never disagreed on Gentiles being received into the Church. It was St. Peter, after all, to whom God first revealed his plans for that. As I read the homily, the pope sure seems to be speaking about heretics in general, not just those (believers or no) who held that Gentile Christians had to observe the entire Mosaic Law.<\/p>\n Nor is there any basis in Scripture to conclude that Paul and James had any fundamental disagreement on this score. From what we know (the account of Acts 15): all three were in perfect agreement<\/em> (see also Galatians 2:1-9). The Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em> (\u201cJudaizers\u201d<\/a>) backs up what I\u2019m saying about Paul and Peter:<\/p>\n This incident [of Paul rebuking Peter] has been made much of by Baur and his school as showing the existence of two primitive forms of Christianity, Petrinism and Paulinism, at war with each other. But anyone, who will look at the facts without preconceived theory, must see that between Peter and Paul there was no difference in principles, but merely a difference as to the practical conduct to be followed under the circumstances. . . . That Peter\u2019s principles were the same as those of Paul, is shown by his conduct at the time of Cornelius\u2019s conversion, by the position he took at the council of Jerusalem, and by his manner of living prior to the arrival of the Judaizers. Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (1 Corinthians 9:20). Thus he shortly after circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1-3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem (Acts 21:26 sqq.).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n And the pope says nothing different in this homily. He says:<\/p>\n \u201cBut there were always people who without any commission go out to disturb the Christian community with speeches that upset souls: \u2018Eh, no, someone who says that is a heretic, you can\u2019t say this, or that; this is the doctrine of the Church.\u2019 And they are fanatics of things that are not clear, like those fanatics who go there sowing weeds in order to divide the Christian community.\u00a0. . .<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n