![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/03\/Impasse.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Stephen Phelan<\/a>\u00a0is vice president of family initiatives for the St. John Paul II Foundation, based in Houston, Texas. He has produced three documentaries that have been broadcast on EWTN, and his articles have been published in\u00a0First Things<\/em>,\u00a0Lay Witness Magazine<\/em>, and other publications. He was replying to my Amazon review of Lost Shepherd<\/em><\/a>, on a thread at The Catholic World Report<\/em><\/a>, where my review was linked. His words (reproduced in their entirety) will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Mr. Armstrong\u2019s article fails for precisely the same reasons that he says Lawler\u2019s book fails. In citing articles that \u201cprove\u201d Pope Francis\u2019s intent in Amoris Laetitia, Armstrong ignores the many, many claims from Francis\u2019 allies that the Church\u2019s teaching (no longer just \u201cpastoral practice) have undergone a \u201cparadigm shift\u201d or \u201crevolution\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n The first rule of logic is a=a. A book review is a book review. I was reviewing a book written by Phil Lawler: a credentialed Catholic journalist and author. Thus, I was reviewing his<\/em> thoughts and particular arguments: not the opinions of who knows how many \u201callies\u201d of the pope. They may or may not have false views. These would have to be examined one-by-one. But it was simply not within the purview of a book review.<\/p>\n I\u2019m not a [muckraking] journalist (as I alluded to in my review). I don\u2019t get into \u201cwho said what?\u201d and \u201cwho did what?\u201d and \u201cpalace intrigue\u201d-type speculation. That\u2019s the \u201cstuff\u201d and domain of journalists and\/or gossips, not theologians and professional apologists like myself: who prefer to stick to theology and ascertained facts. Now, Mr. Lawler claims in the book that the pope is actively seeking to subvert Catholic teachings and traditions.<\/p>\n My reviews (I\u2019ve written five; summarized or condensed in the Amazon review to which Mr. Phelan was responding) specifically dealt with the grandiose claims made by Mr. Lawler in his Introduction. Accordingly, I was looking for some serious and compelling proofs of the claims made, and I never found them. I saw no proofs documented from the pope himself; nothing remotely compelling at all.<\/p>\n Instead I discovered arguments from silence, conclusions based on false premises from remarks taken wildly out of context (\u201cWho am I to judge?\u201d), \u201carguments\u201d based on paraphrases from memory of the pope\u2019s statements, as well as flat-out absurd and unsubstantiated or fallaciously argued assertions (my favorite of those was: \u201c[Francis] appeared to suggest that . . . St. James and . . . even St. Peter himself\u2014were not believers\u201d).<\/p>\n And now, defenders of Mr. Lawler like Mr. Phelan want me to also deal with \u201callies\u201d of the pope (these include, for example, Cardinal M\u00fcller, who thinks the pope is perfectly orthodox), in a book review of a book that directly accuses Pope Francis of very grave errors. Sorry. I\u2019m a big believer in dealing with one major issue at a time. It\u2019s not my burden \u2014 in this context \u2014 to deal with every Tom, Dick, and Harry having to do with Pope Francis (he<\/em> is, after all, supposedly the \u201clost shepherd\u201d). It\u2019s Mr. Lawler\u2019s<\/em> intellectual burden to substantiate his extraordinary accusations. I believe I have demonstrated some serious weaknesses in his attempt to do that.<\/p>\n Then Armstrong accuses Lawler of taking Pope Francis\u2019s (Who am I to judge) statement out of context, and Armstrong does this by deliberately taking Lawler out of context, and dismissing his qualifications as if he hadn\u2019t said them.<\/span><\/p>\n I did no such thing. I cited Mr. Lawler\u2019s own words: \u201cthe pope\u2019s statement\u00a0seemed to suggest that the Church should move away from its clear\u00a0and constant teaching that homosexual acts are gravely immoral.\u201d I provided a link to the actual statement in context<\/a>, that he or anyone else can read for themselves. Then I chided him for overlooking context (as a veteran journalist), gave examples of three concrete actions or statements, which reveal that the pope is not soft on the issue at all, and cited Jewish New York Times<\/em> columnist Laurie Goodstein, who \u201cgets\u201d this, while Mr. Lawler doesn\u2019t. Now I\u2019m accused of taking Mr. Lawler out of context (an alleged instance of projection<\/em>, I guess). Okay, let\u2019s examine that.<\/p>\n Mr. Lawler devoted two-and-a-half pages to the question. First of all, I can hardly cite all of that. It would have taken up half of my review. So I can\u2019t give the reader all<\/em> of that context, whereas I can link to the context of the pope\u2019s remarks. Lawler obviously set the stage for the insinuation that Pope Francis was a \u201cliberal\u201d; hence, soft on homosexuality as both theological and political liberals notoriously are. He wrote:<\/p>\n At first, Francis seemed to defy easy classification as a \u201cliberal\u201d\u00a0or \u201cconservative,\u201d but as the months passed, a pattern emerged of\u00a0support for causes usually associated with the political Left\u2014environmentalism,\u00a0disarmament, unrestricted immigration, income\u00a0redistribution.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He qualifies a bit (but it itself<\/em> is qualified by \u201cat least initially\u201d):<\/p>\n After all, on other hot-button political issues, Francis seemed to\u00a0have taken a conservative position\u2014at least initially. During his tenure\u00a0as archbishop of Buenos Aires he had denounced a proposal for\u00a0acceptance of same-sex marriage as the work of the devil. More\u00a0recently, he had admitted that he was concerned about the possible\u00a0influence of a \u201cgay lobby\u201d within the Vatican.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So there is a qualification (granted). But Mr. Lawler immediately \u201ctakes it back\u201d in the next paragraph:<\/p>\n But if orthodox Catholics had concluded that Francis would\u00a0stand firm against homosexual influence within the Church, their\u00a0confidence was shattered by his remarks to reporters on a trip to\u00a0Brazil in July 2013. Asked about homosexual priests, he replied, \u201cIf\u00a0they accept the Lord and have good will, who am I to judge them?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n After that, Mr. Lawler descends to \u201cpalace intrigue\u201d elements (as he often does in the book) and what he thinks the pope should<\/em> have addressed in that interview but didn\u2019t. Then he chided the pope for his lack of care. That\u2019s all well and good, and reasonable people can possibly take such a stand in good faith. But in the final analysis, the impression is still undeniably left that the pope is personally soft on the issue: not just guilty of imprecise, irresponsible statements regarding it.<\/p>\n And Lawler still has not examined the five infamous words in their proper context<\/em>: which is always a primary responsibility in dealing with others and a matter of fundamental journalistic ethics.<\/p>\n The book makes many<\/em> such mere insinuations, yet without anything near compelling proof; whereas in my critiques I provided actual concrete examples<\/em> of the pope\u2019s stand on the issue:<\/p>\n I went much<\/em> more in-depth in my earlier review on this issue alone<\/a>. I wrote there:<\/p>\n [Lawler] Why were the most\u00a0famous words of his pontificate uttered in an informal question-and-answer\u00a0session on an airplane ride?<\/p>\n To answer the last question first: obviously it was because the media \/ reporters from the session\u00a0wanted<\/em>\u00a0the words taken\u00a0out of context<\/em>\u00a0to be spread far and wide. I don\u2019t see how the pope is to blame for that. Everyone knows that words are often taken out of context in order to suit some particular agenda of the one citing them. And everyone knows that the\u00a0secular media<\/em>\u00a0very often does that. I need not waste any time arguing\u00a0this<\/em>. It\u2019s perfectly self-evident.<\/p>\n The relevant question is, then (as in our previous installment): what is the pope\u2019s\u00a0true<\/em>\u00a0view, and what did he express in this interview,\u00a0in context<\/em>?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Same with his weird claim in which he quotes Lawler, including his qualification of Scalfari\u2019s method and translation, when Lawler (rightly) says that Scalfari\u2019s quote of Pope Francis \u201cappeared to cast doubt on the existence of hell.\u201d Of course the quote did, and the fact that Pope Francis has many times spoken of hell does not change the fact of the Scalfari quote in question. <\/span><\/p>\n The claim is that my<\/em>\u00a0counter-argument was \u201cweird\u201d? I submit that it was nowhere near as weird as Mr. Lawler\u2019s joke-of-a-pseudo-\u201cargument\u201d based on paraphrases of the pope\u2019s words from memory from a 92-year-old atheist, who also recently claimed that the pope denies the existence of heaven and purgatory too (!!!). No one could make that up in imagining a novel. And to top it off, Mr. Lawler again refused to do the research himself as to what Pope Francis actually believes<\/em>; so I had to do it for him, and he comes off looking quite reckless and feckless indeed: to make such charges.<\/p>\n So why attribute to Lawler the false claim (or implication) that he thinks the pope doesn\u2019t believe in hell, other than his obvious point that the pope often speaks carelessly about important things,\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Again, Mr. Lawler somewhat subtly insinuates this. But that\u2019s all he needs<\/em> to do, in the present toxic, gossipy environment where many millions will eagerly eat up any suggestion (subtle and\/or qualified or not) that the pope is \u201cagain\u201d heterodox or out of line or \u201cscandalous.\u201d All Lawler had to (and did) say was, \u201cThis time Francis\u2014at least as interpreted by his favorite\u00a0interviewer\u2014appeared to cast doubt on the existence of hell\u201d. Then he quoted the words (which again, are not the pope\u2019s own) and left them hanging (like a bitter aftertaste or a frightening image in a nightmare).<\/p>\n He certainly must<\/em> know that the typical reader of a book of this nature will interpret that as \u201cthe pope denies hell!\u201d So why would he present this\u00a0 as he did, with no effort to document what the pope actually believes<\/em> (as I have done<\/a>): if indeed he doesn\u2019t<\/em> think the pope actually denies<\/em> it? It\u2019s scurrilous, muckraking journalism. We expect that of Big Liberal Media. But it\u2019s a disgrace, coming from a reputable Catholic journalist, regarding the Holy Father.<\/p>\n or, in the case of Scalfari, keeps giving him interviews in which he is misquoted, but does not demand a correction.<\/span><\/p>\n I think it\u2019s legitimate to question the prudence and wisdom of the pope continuing to utilize Scalfari (I do, myself), but that\u2019s a different question from whether he actually denies hell<\/em>\u00a0(not to mention purgatory and heaven) or not.<\/p>\n If this is a \u201cdefense\u201d of Pope Francis, then let us pray he gains more able defenders, and advisors. As a critique of Lawler\u2019s book, it fails miserably.<\/span><\/p>\n Mr. Phelan is entitled to his opinion. He also can choose to ignore this\u00a0 critique of mine, just as all my critiques of Mr. Lawler\u2019s books have been utterly ignored by the legions of Francis bashers, as to their substance: not touched with a ten-foot pole by anyone (including by Mr. Lawler, who informed me when he gave me a copy of his book that he had no interest in further dialogue).<\/p>\n As always, I am quite happy to let my readers judge the merits of my arguments. And (as above) I allow those I am critiquing to have their say in their own words, so my readers can read the arguments of both sides of a difference of opinion, expressed by both proponents, and then determine where the truth more plausibly lies.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:<\/strong> Image by<\/span>\u00a0geralt <\/a>(12-8-15)<\/span> [Pixabay<\/a> \/ CC0 Creative Commons<\/a> license]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Stephen Phelan\u00a0is vice president of family initiatives for the St. John Paul II Foundation, based in Houston, Texas. He has produced three documentaries that have been broadcast on EWTN, and his articles have been published in\u00a0First Things,\u00a0Lay Witness Magazine, and other publications. He was replying to my Amazon review of Lost Shepherd, on a thread […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":16700,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[138],"tags":[897,4808,899,137,890,891,4979,4801,571,4800,900,4802,74,902,5051,135],"class_list":["post-16697","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-papacy-infallibility","tag-catholic-dissidents","tag-communion-for-divorced-remarried","tag-dissenters","tag-heterodoxy","tag-indefectibility-of-the-church","tag-infallibility-of-the-church","tag-lawlers","tag-lost-shepherd-how-pope-francis-is-misleading-his-flock","tag-modernism","tag-phil-lawler","tag-progressives","tag-quasi-defectibility","tag-radical-catholic-reactionaries","tag-sacred-tradition","tag-stephen-phelan","tag-theological-liberalism"],"yoast_head":"\n\n