{"id":42813,"date":"2020-01-02T15:17:13","date_gmt":"2020-01-02T19:17:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=42813"},"modified":"2020-01-02T15:17:14","modified_gmt":"2020-01-02T19:17:14","slug":"my-critiques-of-lawlers-lost-shepherd-exchanges-w-karl-keating","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/01\/my-critiques-of-lawlers-lost-shepherd-exchanges-w-karl-keating.html","title":{"rendered":"My Critiques of Lawler’s “Lost Shepherd” \/ Exchanges w Karl Keating"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>
\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

First posted on Karl Keating\u2019s Facebook page. His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

Mine was not a chapter-by-chapter examination, but rather, critiques of five separate portions that I took particular exception to. The series is now done.<\/p>\n

Most of the book was taken up with \u201cpalace intrigue\u201d and internal affairs of Cardinals, and what Karl calls \u201cadministrative or leadership style and actions\u201d, etc. I\u2019ve never had an interest in that, so I didn\u2019t interact with it. I was specifically interested in seeing how Phil would back up the extraordinary claims made in the Introduction. My area of interest is theology, not relationships of high prelates in the Church and who said what and did what.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s my opinion that Phil has absolutely not demonstrated that Pope Francis is deliberately trying to subvert or overthrow Catholic tradition. The closest attempt was (in my opinion) some rather poor interpretation of the pope\u2019s homilies. It was like peeling an onion to get to the core. There is none. It\u2019s not like an apple. You keep peeling it and in the end there is nothing at all. The \u201cnothing\u201d in this case was the proof that Pope Francis is a dissident \/ progressive \/ modernist bent on ditching orthodoxy.<\/p>\n

There were insinuations, however, that the pope is talking out of both sides of his mouth and being two-faced: not saying what he \u201creally\u201d means. Anyone can say that about anyone<\/em> at any time and attempt to \u201cprove\u201d any theory whatever<\/em>, with this approach. But I prefer hard and demonstrable facts, not \u201cjesuitical\u201d conspiracy theories.<\/p>\n

One person claimed on my page that I was judging people\u2019s motives and putting people into camps of \u201cdeplorables.\u201d This is absolutely untrue. I think both Phil and Karl have only the best intentions, are well-meaning, and are saying and doing what they sincerely think is the best course for the Church. I\u2019ve expressed how much I respect both men.<\/p>\n

I think they\u2019re wrong, and seriously so, and I believe the consequences will be quite bad, but I\u2019m not questioning their motives or making out that they are \u201cbad\u201d people at all. Just<\/strong><\/em> for the record . . .\u00a0 If anyone reading this hears otherwise, it\u2019s not true<\/em><\/strong>. You heard it from me.<\/p>\n

Nor have I ever said that Phil is<\/strong><\/em> a reactionary. I have said he thinks like them in two respects (but not all respects). That remains my opinion after having read the book.<\/p>\n

If you like to eat steak and walk around the block, it doesn\u2019t prove that you are a dog . . .<\/p>\n

\u201cStraw man: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent\u2019s real argument\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Where in Lawler\u2019s book does he say that his purpose is to show that Pope Francis is trying to \u201coverthrow Catholic tradition\u201d? Catholic tradition is a pretty big thing, not easily overthrown by one man, no matter how astute or clever.<\/span><\/p>\n

Or maybe you have misconstrued what Lawler is trying to say.<\/span><\/p>\n

You cited his relevant words in this regard in your own review, Karl (and this was why I wanted to critique the book):<\/p>\n

I did my best to provide assurance\u2014for my readers and sometimes for myself\u2014that despite his sometimes alarming remarks, Francis was not a radical, was not leading the Church away from the ancient sources of the Faith. But gradually, reluctantly, I came to the conclusion that he was. . . .<\/p>\n

I found I could no longer pretend that Francis was merely offering a novel interpretation of Catholic doctrine. No, it was more than that. He was engaged in a deliberate effort to change what the Church teaches.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I describe these words as \u201cdeliberately trying to subvert or overthrow Catholic tradition\u201d and I say that Phil didn\u2019t come within a million miles of proving this in his book.<\/p>\n

\u201cwhat the Church teaches\u201d = \u201cCatholic tradition.\u201d Or is that a point of contention, too?<\/p>\n

Lawler seems to have forgotten what appeared to be his central thesis in the introduction. He used a mere argument from silence regarding the homily that shocked him so much and changed his mind about the pope.<\/p>\n

The \u201creasoning\u201d was that \u201cPope Francis didn\u2019t directly assert x in this one homily; therefore he must deny<\/em> x.\u201d That\u2019s hardly persuasive, and no basis whatsoever to conclude that a pope is \u201cleading the Church away from the ancient sources of the Faith\u201d and \u201cengaged in a deliberate effort to change what the Church teaches.\u201d I demonstrated, from what Pope Francis did<\/em> say in several places, that in fact he does not deny x.<\/p>\n

Then he made much hay out of five of the pope\u2019s words (\u201cwho am I to judge?\u201d): isolated and taken wildly out of context, to imply that the pope supposedly espoused serious homosexual sin. Again, I found several other utterances that absolutely proved that he didn\u2019t do that, either.<\/p>\n

Then he cited the paraphrased recollections of a 90-year-old atheist journalist, to insinuate that the pope denied the doctrine of hell. It was easy to find many instances of Pope Francis\u2019 direct assertions of eternal punishment in hell. But let\u2019s go by one paraphrase of a recollection instead . . . The same journalist is now out there saying that the pope denies heaven and purgatory, too. Even the pope\u2019s severest, most relentless critics don\u2019t make those<\/strong><\/em> bizarre claims.<\/p>\n

Then he engaged in a rather \u201cinventive\u201d interpretation of another homily and made out that Pope Francis questioned whether St. Peter and St. James were \u201cbelievers.\u201d So he tried here and there but none of these attempts were anywhere near compelling. They were not even plausible at all, in my opinion, as one who has intensely engaged in debates about theology for 35 years.<\/p>\n

It was very heartening, at least, insofar as I saw that if this<\/em><\/strong> is considered the best shot against the pope, then the case is pathetic indeed. It reminded me of the ongoing efforts from Protestants and Catholic liberals to try to prove that Honorius officially promulgated heresy. That\u2019s considered the best historical case against papal infallibility, and yet it proved no such thing (only private letters were involved).<\/p>\n

Likewise, terrible arguments like the ones above prove absolutely nothing against this pope. Phil should have stuck solely to the palace intrigue and gossipy \u201ctalk\u201d: do the National Enquirer<\/em> thing. That\u2019s subjective enough that folks can say little against it, even if they have an interest in the topic (as I don\u2019t).<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Here is Karl Keating\u2019s \u201creview\u201d of my reviews:<\/p>\n

In my review of Lawler\u2019s book I endorsed the book as a whole but not everything in it. This is common in book reviews\u2013and even in judgments of individuals.<\/span><\/p>\n

Some of Lawler\u2019s arguments I found not entirely convincing, and he emphasized some matters that I think deserved less emphasis and under-emphasized other matters that I think should have had more emphasis. (I think too many pages were devoted to the synods and AL, for example.) There were several paragraphs where I winced at the tone and wish he had run the text by someone (maybe even me) before going into print.<\/span><\/p>\n

In other words, I didn\u2019t write his book. The only books I agree with completely are my own, plus maybe a few others. I can endorse a book without endorsing everything the author says. Over the years I\u2019ve endorsed several of your books even though I thought you had weak arguments on some points.<\/span><\/p>\n

In fact, I can endorse your current series of critiques of Lawler\u2019s book, even though I think the critiques, so far, have been awkwardly composed, hard to follow, and often not the least convincing. That\u2019s my opinion; others may think them faultless. Fine. I don\u2019t have to think them faultless to think people should read them.<\/span><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t think you\u2019ve approached Lawler\u2019s book with anything close to objectivity. You have brought to the discussion a certain mindset (I called it \u201costrichism\u201d) that makes it difficult for you to give an arm\u2019s length look to the book or its arguments.<\/span><\/p>\n

You seem to take it as axiomatic that criticism of a pope equals disobedience to him. You and others write as though obedience and agreement are the same thing, which they\u2019re not. (I think you\u2019ve been misapplying Newman, by the way.)<\/span><\/p>\n

I suppose my main point here is two paragraphs earlier: you have approached the book with an agenda. While no reviewer ever is purely objective, it\u2019s helpful that objectivity be approached at least asymptotically. I don\u2019t think that\u2019s been the case with you in this regard. That makes you a less-than-ideal commenter on the book, because you bring to your comments too much of your own baggage.<\/span><\/p>\n

I would like to see Lawler\u2019s book be critiqued by others who don\u2019t labor under such a disability.<\/span><\/p>\n

Since this is mostly psychobabble and doesn\u2019t address the actual arguments I make, there is no particular need to reply to it. There\u2019s nothing here to reply to. It\u2019s utterly obvious that Phil Lawler and Karl Keating are as \u201cemotionally\u201d against Pope Francis as I am \u201cemotionally\u201d inclined to not like Phil\u2019s book, so why should \u201cbias it be an issue? It\u2019s a wash. In the end, the arguments themselves are all that can be objectively examined.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Related Reading:<\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
Quasi-Defectibility and Phil Lawler vs. Pope Francis<\/a>\u00a0(see also more documentation of Lawler\u2019s reactionary leanings,\u00a0on the Facebook thread<\/a>) [12-28-17]
\n*<\/div>\n
Dialogues with Karl Keating & Phil Lawler on Pope Francis<\/a>\u00a0[12-29-17]
\n*<\/div>\n
Dialogues with Karl Keating Regarding Pope Francis<\/a>\u00a0[12-29-17]
\n*<\/div>\n
Lawler vs. Pope Francis #1: Critique of Introduction\u00a0<\/a>[1-1-18]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Lawler vs. Pope Francis #2: Homosexuality & \u201cJudging\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[1-2-18]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Lawler vs. Pope Francis #3: The Pope Annihilated Hell?<\/a>\u00a0[1-2-18]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Lawler vs. Pope Francis #4: Communion \/ Buenos Aires Letter<\/a>\u00a0[1-3-18]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Lawler vs. Pope Francis #5: Jerusalem Council vs. \u201cIdeology\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[1-3-18]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Shock! Former Catholic Rod Dreher Loves Lawler\u2019s Pope-Bashing Book<\/a>\u00a0[2-22-18]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Phil Lawler\u2019s\u00a0Lost Shepherd<\/em>: My One-Star Amazon Review<\/a>\u00a0[2-26-18]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Popes Leading the Church Into False Doctrine (E.g., Paul VI)<\/a>\u00a0(+\u00a0Facebook discussion<\/a>)\u00a0[3-8-18]
\n*<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Reply to Stephen Phelan Re Phil Lawler\u2019s\u00a0Lost Shepherd\u00a0<\/em><\/a>[3-10-18]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Merits of Phil Lawler\u2019s\u00a0Lost Shepherd<\/em>: Three Common Fallacies<\/a>\u00a0[3-12-18]
\n*<\/div>\n
Protestant Takes Solace in Douthat\u2019s Pope-Bashing Book<\/a>\u00a0(also discusses Phil Lawler) [3-24-18]
\n*<\/div>\n
Pope Francis, Hell, Phil Lawler, Lies, Damned Lies, . . .<\/a>\u00a0[3-30-18]
\n*<\/div>\n
Lawler Hypocritically Acts Like He Claims Pope Francis Does<\/a>\u00a0[4-28-18]
\n*<\/div>\n
Keating &\u00a0The Francis Feud<\/em>: Six Errors Documented<\/a>\u00a0[6-2-18]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist<\/strong>:<\/span>\u00a0If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 \/ month \u2014 a mere 33 cents a day \u2014 would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see\u00a0my Resume<\/a>).\u00a0My work has been proven (by God\u2019s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences\u00a0from unsolicited \u201ctestimonies\u201d<\/a>).\u00a0I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
My book royalties from\u00a0three bestsellers in the field<\/a>\u00a0(published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.\u00a0 I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have\u00a0written 50 books<\/a>.\u00a0It\u2019ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and \u201clikes\u201d and links and shares). Thanks!<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
See my\u00a0information on how to donate<\/a>\u00a0(including 100% tax-deductible donations). It\u2019s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my \u201cbusiness name\u201d there is called \u201cCatholic Used Book Service,\u201d from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through\u00a0Zelle<\/a>. Again, just send to my e-mail address.\u00a0May God abundantly bless you.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
***<\/div>\n

(originally 1-7-18 on Facebook)<\/p>\n

Photo credit:<\/strong>\u00a0The Good Shepherd<\/em>, by James Tissot (1836-1902)<\/span> [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

First posted on Karl Keating\u2019s Facebook page. His words will be in blue. ***** Mine was not a chapter-by-chapter examination, but rather, critiques of five separate portions that I took particular exception to. The series is now done. Most of the book was taken up with \u201cpalace intrigue\u201d and internal affairs of Cardinals, and what […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":42816,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[138],"tags":[897,4808,899,137,890,891,1134,4979,7312,4801,571,4800,900,4802,74,902,135],"class_list":["post-42813","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-karl-keating","tag-lawlers","tag-lost-shepherd","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-theological-liberalism"],"yoast_head":"\nMy Critiques of Lawler's "Lost Shepherd" \/ Exchanges w Karl Keating<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Lawler's "reasoning" in "Lost Shepherd" was that Pope Francis didn't directly assert x in this one homily; therefore he must deny x. That's hardly proof that he is a subversive radical.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/01\/my-critiques-of-lawlers-lost-shepherd-exchanges-w-karl-keating.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"My Critiques of Lawler's "Lost Shepherd" \/ Exchanges w Karl Keating\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Lawler's "reasoning" in "Lost Shepherd" was that Pope Francis didn't directly assert x in this one homily; therefore he must deny x. That's hardly proof that he is a subversive radical.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/01\/my-critiques-of-lawlers-lost-shepherd-exchanges-w-karl-keating.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-01-02T19:17:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-01-02T19:17:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/01\/GoodShepherd.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"382\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"713\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/01\/my-critiques-of-lawlers-lost-shepherd-exchanges-w-karl-keating.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/01\/my-critiques-of-lawlers-lost-shepherd-exchanges-w-karl-keating.html\",\"name\":\"My Critiques of Lawler's \\\"Lost Shepherd\\\" \/ Exchanges w Karl Keating\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-01-02T19:17:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-01-02T19:17:14+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"Lawler's \\\"reasoning\\\" in \\\"Lost Shepherd\\\" was that Pope Francis didn't directly assert x in this one homily; therefore he must deny x. That's hardly proof that he is a subversive radical.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/01\/my-critiques-of-lawlers-lost-shepherd-exchanges-w-karl-keating.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/01\/my-critiques-of-lawlers-lost-shepherd-exchanges-w-karl-keating.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/01\/my-critiques-of-lawlers-lost-shepherd-exchanges-w-karl-keating.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"My Critiques of Lawler’s “Lost Shepherd” \/ Exchanges w Karl Keating\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"My Critiques of Lawler's \"Lost Shepherd\" \/ Exchanges w Karl Keating","description":"Lawler's \"reasoning\" in \"Lost Shepherd\" was that Pope Francis didn't directly assert x in this one homily; therefore he must deny x. That's hardly proof that he is a subversive radical.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/01\/my-critiques-of-lawlers-lost-shepherd-exchanges-w-karl-keating.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"My Critiques of Lawler's \"Lost Shepherd\" \/ Exchanges w Karl Keating","og_description":"Lawler's \"reasoning\" in \"Lost Shepherd\" was that Pope Francis didn't directly assert x in this one homily; therefore he must deny x. That's hardly proof that he is a subversive radical.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/01\/my-critiques-of-lawlers-lost-shepherd-exchanges-w-karl-keating.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2020-01-02T19:17:13+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-01-02T19:17:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":382,"height":713,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/01\/GoodShepherd.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/01\/my-critiques-of-lawlers-lost-shepherd-exchanges-w-karl-keating.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/01\/my-critiques-of-lawlers-lost-shepherd-exchanges-w-karl-keating.html","name":"My Critiques of Lawler's \"Lost Shepherd\" \/ Exchanges w Karl Keating","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-01-02T19:17:13+00:00","dateModified":"2020-01-02T19:17:14+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"Lawler's \"reasoning\" in \"Lost Shepherd\" was that Pope Francis didn't directly assert x in this one homily; therefore he must deny x. That's hardly proof that he is a subversive radical.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/01\/my-critiques-of-lawlers-lost-shepherd-exchanges-w-karl-keating.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/01\/my-critiques-of-lawlers-lost-shepherd-exchanges-w-karl-keating.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/01\/my-critiques-of-lawlers-lost-shepherd-exchanges-w-karl-keating.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"My Critiques of Lawler’s “Lost Shepherd” \/ Exchanges w Karl Keating"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42813","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=42813"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42813\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/42816"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42813"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42813"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42813"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}