![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/05\/Peter7.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I have compiled various comments I made in a vigorous combox discussion on my Facebook page (see the whole thing<\/a>), in response to my article,\u00a0On Rebuking Popes & Catholic Obedience to Popes<\/a>\u00a0(12-27-17).<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I\u2019ve written at National Catholic Register<\/em> and expressed my opinion that it would be good for Pope Francis to answer the dubia<\/em><\/a>. As my paper made clear, I\u2019m not against all criticism whatever. My point is: how<\/em><\/strong> should it be done, when<\/em><\/strong>, and by whom<\/em><\/strong>? The \u201cwhom\u201d is\u00a0not<\/strong><\/em> every Tom, Dick, and Harry on Facebook who has a gripe with the pope and must<\/em><\/strong> express it publicly.<\/p>\n I completely agree that someone like St. Francis is the type of person who should do such things. That\u2019s exactly my position. We should wait for a St. Francis or a St. Catherine to rebuke a pope privately<\/em><\/strong>, not in the eyes of the whole world.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t see my article as bashing the pope; it\u2019s simply offering an opinion that I think it would be good for him to follow. But he\u2019s still the pope, and I won\u2019t second-guess him or declare him some sort of heretic\u00a0or bad guy without remotely enough evidence to do so.<\/p>\n It\u2019s like the show The Crown<\/em>. It had an episode where a guy was criticizing the Queen of England. People thought he \u201chated\u201d her. But he clarified that he was actually pro-monarchy and was trying to offer constructive advice for it to flourish in modern times.\u00a0The royals later admitted that he played a great role in helping to maintain the monarchy. And they adopted most of his suggestions.<\/p>\n My tone and approach was completely with respect and deference. This is the element that is missing in much \u201cpapal analysis\u201d today. The pope is in effect often today \u201clectured\u201d as if he is some sort of dolt or spiritual \u201cmidget\u201d: as if he hasn\u2019t given these matters a moment\u2019s thought.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t think we even understand the notion of what it is to be obedient to the pope. I think a lot of this is \u201cAmericanist\u201d-type mentality. We never had a king, etc. We don\u2019t understand how that works. I got into that in my post. Everyone thinks they know better.\u00a0That is obviously Protestant and dissident liberal influence, in my opinion: at least to some extent.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n A case can be made that it is stupid for anyone to think that \u201coff the cuff remarks in an airplane\u201d are dogmatic changes in Church teaching.\u00a0It becomes an issue of how \u201cdumbed-down\u201d should a pope\u2019s statements be, in order to not be ludicrously misinterpreted by some.<\/p>\n It\u2019s not an easy question. I\u2019ve had it come up many times in my own work: how simple<\/em> should I make things? I have solved it by doing both: providing short papers and book excerpts for beginners and novices (The One-Minute Apologist<\/em>, New Catholic Answer Bible<\/em> one-page inserts, even some \u201ccomic tracts\u201d, etc.), and very in-depth stuff for those more advanced.\u00a0Generally speaking, I think it is better to challenge people to think more about things, than to make it so simple that some might think Catholicism was a simpleton\u2019s religion.<\/p>\n With the pope, I agree that it would be good for him to directly clarify things that folks have misunderstood about what he is saying: maybe have a long conference devoted to just that.<\/p>\n I think he would do well to do both<\/em> things: be spontaneous, but also clarify if something is repeatedly misunderstood. I don\u2019t know why he doesn\u2019t, but I am different from many in that I don\u2019t assume that he is being lax or irresponsible. I\u00a0assume that he must have a good reason, but I simply can\u2019t figure it out.\u00a0I don\u2019t choose to immediately judge what I don\u2019t understand, as many are doing. One sees it in their petulant, scolding, condescending tone towards the Holy Father.<\/p>\n I know that when people ask me<\/em> to clarify something I wrote, I\u2019m very happy for the opportunity to make it clearer and more plain. So when we get to the pope and see that he chooses not<\/em> to do the same in many or most cases, it\u2019s difficult to understand, yet I believe that he must have some reason: that he\u2019s not just operating on some irrational, arbitrary, superficial level.\u00a0It could be that he thinks explanations are being adequately done by others, such as Cdl. Muller, etc.<\/p>\n But it\u2019s not like this is the first time popes have been misunderstood. With Pope St. John Paul II, we heard complaints (from orthodox Catholics, tending \u201ctraditional\u201d) that his writing style was impossibly complex. So that is the same problem, but from the other end: too complex, hence, not understood, rather than too simplistic or off-the-cuff, and hence not understood. Different styles, different approaches, different people.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Objections to Pope Francis have gone far<\/em> beyond just an alleged lack of \u201cclearness\u201d. Now it\u2019s made out that he is either a heretic or just a hair away from that, or some sort of conniving conspiratorialist, who wants to change the Church: actually change moral teaching \/ orthodoxy.<\/p>\n Now, Philip Lawler, author of the upcoming book, Lost Shepherd: How Pope Francis is Misleading His Flock<\/em>, states in the introduction: \u201cI 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.\u201d\u00a0And Karl Keating seemingly cites that in agreement . . .<\/p>\n This is an extremely serious charge. What is Lawler claiming? That Pope Francis thinks adultery is fine? Or that he denies some Catholic dogma (perhaps the indissolubility of marriage)? This simply hasn\u2019t been shown. Even many of his critics grant that no heresy is being asserted or advocated.\u00a0Instead we have the usual (familiar) reactionary game of claiming that Pope Francis is trying to move the goalposts while no one notices. He\u2019s being ambiguous and sneaky: precisely what reactionaries have been saying about Vatican II for fifty years, and what they said about St. John Paul the Great.<\/p>\n In other words, Phil Lawler, Karl Keating, and others have agreed with the standard reactionary position for 50 years now: the subversives out to change the Church have now gotten control of the papacy itself.\u00a0This is what extremist, fringe sites like 1 Peter 5<\/em>, The Remnant<\/em>, and Rorate Caeli<\/em> have been maintaining all along. That\u2019s why those folks dominated the Correctio<\/em>, as I have documented<\/a>.<\/p>\n Reactionaries also apply the same dynamics to Vatican II and the ordinary form Mass (and to ecumenism). The Francis critics haven\u2019t gotten that far, but they are now accepting one of the key planks of classic reactionary thought.\u00a0And that is very troubling indeed . . .<\/p>\n I\u2019ve agreed that it would be good for the pope to clarify things that people are confused about. I do not<\/em> <\/strong>agree that he is \u201cengaged in a deliberate effort to change what the Church teaches.\u201d<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n The controversy over Amoris Laetitia<\/em>\u00a0is with regard to a pastoral matter. Difficult cases come up that have already been dealt with by priests and popes before this one. He is not<\/em> teaching that unrepentant adulterers can receive communion. That\u2019s the caricature, but it hasn\u2019t been proven at all. I\u2019ve collected many articles about it (search \u201cAmoris Laetitia\u201d in my large collection of defenses of Pope Francis<\/a> and the collection of my own defenses<\/a>).<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n I do have a certain \u201clong view\u201d perspective as a Catholic apologist for 29 years (published one for 27): having observed past criticisms of popes (Pope St. Paul VI, Pope st. John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI), and having defended them, and Pope Francis in many particulars.\u00a0I\u2019ve seen what comes of it (nothing good), and now I see people I admire and respect adopting key aspects of the same sort of thinking. I think they\u2019re mistaken. They\u2019re no doubt sincere, well-meaning, and worried about orthodoxy and the Church, but wrong about the facts.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n I think with Pope Francis it is a lot of things coming together, where he has been vastly misunderstood. It\u2019s a cumulative effect. People have heard so many things that they assume he is radically different, in terms of wanting to overthrow legitimate Catholic teaching.\u00a0But when confronted with providing specific proof, most of the critics hesitate and fall back to an arbitrary vague conspiratorialism.\u00a0It\u2019s gone on so long, that people just keep jumping on the \u201cbandwagon\u201d: because they see others whom they respect, doing so.<\/p>\n Karl himself has made the distinction between impeccability and infallibility, noting that the former is irrelevant to the latter. But now he is highlighting what may be personal faults of the Holy Father. If they\u2019re really there, we can do nothing better than to pray for him.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t see any particular merit or usefulness in discussing his personality, approach, etc. It would be unseemly, for example, for an employee of Catholic Answers to go on and on about this and that personal fault in how Karl Keating used to run the organization. I\u2019m sure people have some negative views (because they are universal in organizations of any sort).\u00a0We all recognize that that would be improper and unedifying, and best left to private communications, if they must be discussed at all. And by the way, Catholic Answers has been savagely attacked by many individuals and I have always firmly defended it.<\/p>\n Yet with the Holy Father we have this mindset today that anything goes<\/em> in discussing him. And so it gets back to my topic of respect, deference, and the spirit of obedience. It\u2019s just not there. We\u2019d rather criticize, grumble, and complain.\u00a0I agree that there is confusion<\/em>. I disagree as to why<\/em> that is. I agree that it would be good for the pope to clarify areas people are confused about. I don\u2019t know for sure why he doesn\u2019t. But I won\u2019t sit here and condemn him. I opined above that he may be content to let others clarify things; thinking they have done a good job of it.<\/p>\n One must distinguish between 1) what is actually being taught, and 2) relatively less or more clear presentations of the teaching. The pope may indeed be guilty of a lack of clearness or clarity in what he teaches, which would make it helpful for him to clarify. I hope he does, because this mess ain\u2019t going away anytime soon.<\/p>\n I wrote today: \u201cKnowing human nature (and group behavior), I don\u2019t see how this will ever end, short of Pope Francis\u2019 death. How sad. And then, for all we know, the same people may be willing to trash the next pope, since they have gotten so comfortable with doing so on a weekly basis. After all, Pope Francis\u2019 two predecessors were trashed as well, as was Blessed Pope Paul VI (as I noted in the final portion of my paper).\u201d<\/p>\n I think we\u2019re past the point of no return now: past critical mass. Whoever\u2019s fault it is (the pope\u2019s or his critics or both), this is gonna become a bigger and bigger scandal and stink to high heaven and make the Catholic Church all the more unpopular, and harder to defend (my job).<\/p>\n It shouldn\u2019t be a public discussion. That<\/em> should have been agreed to by all parties. I\u2019m forced to write about it publicly because it\u2019s already out there and there ought to be a few \u201cloud\u201d voices who defend the pope or at least try to give him a fair shake: present a different view from the prevailing clamor of relentless criticism and attacks.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n St. John Henry Cardinal Newman [cited at the top of the original Facebook discussion]: \u201cI say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience.\u201d<\/p>\n My original word in the title of the paper we\u2019re discussing was \u201creverence\u201d but I decided to make it stronger and use the word \u201cobedience.\u201d I knew that would ruffle some feathers, but whatever. What else is new? I started with the Newman quote for a reason: it expresses what I am trying to discuss and get at; for example, in this section:<\/p>\n [W]hat need I say more to measure our own duty to it and to him who sits in it, than to say that in his administration of Christ\u2019s kingdom, in his religious acts, we must never oppose his will, or dispute his word, or criticise his policy, or shrink from his side? There are kings of the earth who have despotic authority, which their subjects obey indeed but disown in their hearts; but we must never murmur at that absolute rule which the Sovereign Pontiff has over us, because it is given to him by Christ, and, in obeying him, we are obeying his Lord.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n My citation of his at the top of this post was along similar lines. I made it clear in my article that I didn\u2019t agree with Cardinal Newman that no criticism can ever be made. But his general approach is far superior than what I see going on today. I\u2019m not an ultramontanist; nor was Newman. I\u2019m not for \u201cblind obedience.\u201d I\u2019m for routine \u201cdeferential obedience.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s about the spirit of reverence and obedience to a Holy Father: giving him immense respect due to the office. If he\u2019s not perfect, pray about it; pray for him. Don\u2019t run him down in public. If there are true issues (I grant that there are legitimate ones that can and should be discussed), they ought to be discussed privately, not aired in public: which has now resulted in Catholics (us orthodox ones) being a laughingstock.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n The pope might be wrong about some political thing, though. No biggie. He can\u2019t be up on all knowledge about everything.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n In other areas of life, such as business, politics, the military, even in sports, there is a chain of command that is unquestionable. And there are reasons for it.\u00a0Sometimes the commander \/ coach \/ CEO is wrong, but the authority remains. It\u2019s always a dilemma when he or she is in fact wrong.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n I wrote the following on Karl Keating\u2019s page:<\/p>\n And the same complaints were made by traditionalists against recent popes: Pope St. Paul VI was lax on the modernists and wrecked the liturgy; ditto for Pope St. John Paul II, as to modernists, and he\u00a0caught hell for kissing the Koran (if he even did) and for the Assisi ecumenical conferences. His \u201cphilosophical\u201d writing style was criticized as dense and inexplicable. The reactionaries attacked his canonization as well.<\/p>\n Robert Sungenis went after Pope Benedict and John Paul II as supposed universalists. Michael Voris said that Pope Benedict exaggerated his illness to resign, which was a dereliction of duty. Reactionaries (and even some traditionalists) have called all popes since John XXIII modernists or \u201cneo-Catholics.\u201d I know (and so do you) because I defended all of them.<\/p>\n So, lots of folks (tending traditionalist or reactionary) were disenchanted with various aspects of those popes. Now we have another set of grumbling complaints about the present one. I don\u2019t see any \u201cfundamental\u201d difference. The common ground is human nature: complaining and grumbling about our superiors. We know better. In every place that has a chain of command, this occurs. One would hope it would be different in the Church, but alas, it isn\u2019t.<\/p>\n Is Francis perfect? No. Maybe he is imperious, or too scolding. He has faults like all of us. He\u2019s confessing something . . . But that\u2019s precisely my point. The others obviously weren\u2019t thought to be perfect, either, or else they wouldn\u2019t have been subject to the criticisms for alleged or real shortcomings.\u00a0But, you and Lawler say, this time a lot<\/em> <\/strong>of people (important, high-placed ones) are complaining. That\u2019s significant, but it\u2019s not compelling. A \u201clot\u201d of people can be and have been wrong about a lot of things.<\/p>\n A \u201clot\u201d of people thought Pope St. John XXIII wouldn\u2019t do anything as momentous as calling an ecumenical council. They were wrong. A lot of people (including all or virtually all of his close advisors) thought Pope St. Paul VI wouldn\u2019t reaffirm teaching on contraception. They were wrong.<\/p>\n A \u201clot\u201d of people thought Reagan was a dunce who would start World War III. He not only didn\u2019t do that; he achieved amazing arms reductions, that virtually none of the \u201clot of people\u201d would have predicted. A lot of people thought Trump (whatever one thinks of him) could never be nominated, never win the election, never succeed in office. Wrong on all counts . . . [one Catholic academic, Dr. Rachel Lu, who decided to unfriend me, confidently predicted that because of Trump, Republicans would lose both the Senate and the House, too]\u00a0Thus, I\u2019m not always so impressed by merely appealing to numbers of folks who think thus-and-such. That often reduces to the ad populum<\/em> fallacy.<\/p>\n Each controversy regarding Pope Francis has to be argued on its own. And there are good defenses out there (rest assured), just as there are serious criticisms. And I personally know that many of the criticisms had no basis; were bum raps, because I dealt with them myself. Many were entirely based on something as silly and foolish as bad translators.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n I myself disagree with Pope Francis on global warming. It has nothing to do with faith and morals, as he himself noted when writing about scientific \/ environmental things.\u00a0I disagree a lot with popes on political matters. That\u2019s not their jurisdiction, and I think they get things wrong sometimes. It\u2019s the same with bishops\u2019 conferences, which aren\u2019t even magisterial. They were dead-wrong about Obamacare. We conservatives knew all along that it would be the disaster that it has become.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n I wrote this on another page:<\/p>\n It [my article above] was long for a few reasons:<\/p>\n 1) I had to clear myself of the ubiquitous charge of \u201cultramontanism\u201d and supposed belief in \u201cblind faith.\u201d That takes some ink.<\/p>\n 2) I had to show that I was not saying we have to absolutely follow every jot and tittle of everything a pope says. I cited Newman and then explained that I didn\u2019t *fully* agree with him.<\/p>\n 3) This was a synthesis of about seven older papers, including one very long dialogue.<\/p>\n You perceive it as squabbling because most of this came out of interactions with extreme reactionaries, who were tearing down popes and Vatican II and the New Mass. Most of this was written long before Francis was pope, and some of it before Benedict, too.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n