![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/09\/Crisis.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I shall be responding to Fr. Thomas G. Weinandy, O.F.M. Cap. and his article, \u201cIs Pope Francis a Heretic?\u201d<\/a> (First Things<\/em>, 5-7-19). His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Nineteen theologians and academics recently released a letter to all Catholic bishops throughout the world, accusing Pope Francis of being a heretic and urging the bishops to take action, even canonical, in order to rectify this dire state of affairs.<\/span><\/p>\n That sounds impressive<\/em>, doesn\u2019t it, until one realizes that at least 13 of the 19<\/a> are radical Catholic reactionaries<\/a>; that is, on the extreme far right of the ecclesiological spectrum. One can follow my link<\/a> to see the other<\/em> sorts of things (besides the pope being a heretic, which Vatican I clearly stated<\/a> \u2014 de fide<\/em> \u2013\u00a0 cannot happen<\/em><\/strong>) that they believe. Not a single bishop<\/em> signed (see the signatories at the end of the document<\/a>). It\u2019s little different from the liberal theologians in 1968 bashing Humanae Vitae<\/em> and refusing to abide by its authoritative teaching against the grave sin of artificial contraception. The only difference is that this is theological far right rather than far left. But the bottom line is the same: dissent.<\/p>\n There is no need to repeat the concerns expressed within that letter. They are well known, and have already been critiqued by many theologians, academics, priests, bishops, and even cardinals. What makes this open letter unique is its formal charge of heresy. This is an extreme position to take, as the authors themselves admit, but they believe that, given the critical situation that has developed in the Church,<\/strong>\u00a0such a position is merited.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes it is extreme: so much so that even strong papal critics like Phil Lawler<\/a> and Canonist Ed Peters<\/a> have rightly opposed the outrageous accusation.<\/p>\n Undoubtedly, many of the statements Pope Francis has made are ambiguous, and therefore troubling\u2014for they can be interpreted in both an orthodox and a heterodox manner.<\/span><\/p>\n This drives me nuts: the \u201cambiguous\u201d accusation is trotted out: just as it has been for fifty years from the far right critics of Vatican II. But it has no content; it\u2019s entirely subjective<\/em> (at least when stated baldly like this). We have to have particulars in order to have a constructive, objective discussion. The Bible itself<\/em> <\/strong>is also far too often \u201cinterpreted in both an orthodox and a heterodox manner.\u201d<\/span> Is that the fault of the Bible or the interpreter<\/em>? Likewise, the same can be true in the case of this pope and his endlessly prattling critics.<\/p>\n What is most disconcerting is that erroneous interpretations, those contrary to the Church\u2019s doctrinal and moral tradition, are often propounded by bishops and cardinals\u2014those who want to implement misguided teaching within their dioceses and urge that they become the norm within their national jurisdictions.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n If that is true, it\u2019s terrible, and the fault lies with the bishops who do this. Without specifics, no further comment can be made.<\/p>\n In view of this, many of the concerns addressed in the open letter are valid, some more than others.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n No content to address . . .<\/p>\n However, the fact that Pope Francis articulates these positions in an ambiguous manner makes it almost impossible to accuse him rightly of heresy. (This is, in a sense, a saving grace.) Those who interpret his ambiguous teaching in a manner not in keeping with the Catholic faith may be heretical, but the pope is not, even if the pope appears to give silent approval to their erroneous interpretations.<\/span><\/p>\n The same vague accusation is repeated, which makes it no more of an \u201cargument\u201d than it already was (which was not at all any rational argument).<\/p>\n Thus, I think that the letter\u2019s authors have gone beyond what is objectively warranted. <\/span><\/p>\n Good.<\/p>\n Yes, there are grave concerns and important doctrinal and moral issues at stake\u2014ultimately the truth of the gospel itself.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Serious charge minus particulars. I\u2019m still waiting for those.<\/p>\n But the manner in which they were presented, the conclusions drawn, and the actions proposed will not help rectify the present crisis within the Church.<\/span><\/p>\n We agree!<\/p>\n Actually, the open letter makes it more difficult for others to appropriately critique the ongoing doctrinal and moral chaos within the Church, a disorder that will continue to intensify as this pontificate progresses.<\/span><\/p>\n This assumes<\/em> \u201cdoctrinal and moral chaos\u201d<\/span> without argument (petitio principii<\/em> logical fallacy<\/a>).<\/p>\n Why do I say that? First, let me speak of the bishops to whom the letter is addressed.\u00a0 Yes, it is disheartening, especially for the laity, that the bishops do not speak out more forthrightly in defense of the Church\u2019s authentic doctrinal and moral tradition. Yet, if bishops do maintain the integrity of the gospel within their own dioceses, this in itself is a major achievement, given today\u2019s oppressive and fearful ecclesial atmosphere. Their silence, then, may be a guarded expression of their displeasure with the present pontificate.<\/span><\/p>\n Or they are choosing to \u201cAnswer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself\u201d (Prov 26:5, RSV). That\u2019s why the pope doesn\u2019t answer all these numerous charges made mostly by the same reactionary \u201cusual suspects\u201d over and over (in order to magnify their influence), as I have documented<\/a>. Dr. Pedro Gabriel has explained<\/a>\u00a0 (now twice<\/a>) why the pope takes the route of silence in these instances.<\/p>\n Nonetheless, because the open letter is extreme in its appraisal and intemperate in its approach, more than likely it will make it more difficult for bishops, and even cardinals, to address present concerns.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I agree that it is \u201cextreme\u201d<\/span> and \u201cintemperate.\u201d<\/span> And that\u2019s exactly why the pope (and apparently bishops, too) ignore it. It deserves no reply. I\u2019ve been talking about extreme, unethical, and intemperate approaches to the Holy Father (and not just Pope Francis) for eight years now. I will continue to do so, no matter how few listen, because it\u2019s wrong.<\/p>\n While they may be displeased, and even annoyed, with Pope Francis\u2019s ambiguity and the manner in which he conducts his Petrine ministry, yet they rightly are nowhere near judging Francis a heretic and will remain silent about the letter.<\/span><\/p>\n Again, these things are assumed. He is assuming that most readers will automatically agree with him, sans actual evidence and documentation. Sadly, that is true. People are sheep, and \u201cthe time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings\u201d (2 Tim 4:3). There is an entire cottage industry now of folks who hang upon every word that bashes, slanders, and lies about this pope and his alleged interior motivations. Fr. Weinandy is of moderate tone, but he still definitely contributes to the scandalous onslaught, in his more subdued fashion.<\/p>\n Moreover, if a bishop does attempt to comment on the present serious concerns, he will now be labeled as one who agrees with and promotes the \u201cextremist\u201d cause of the letter\u2019s authors. Thus, this letter, while it may have been well-intentioned, has made it even more difficult for bishops to address the crisis within today\u2019s Church.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n First, we have to establish what these \u201cpresent serious concerns\u201d<\/span> are<\/em>, and if they are wrongheaded or nonexistent upon examination.<\/p>\n Second, if we focus on whether or not the pope is heretical, the more pressing issue confronting the Church is pushed to the background: The doctrinal and moral chaos this pontificate has nurtured, regarding such issues as the sacramental nature of marriage, the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts, and whether Judaism and Christianity are merely two of the many religions that God willed.<\/span><\/p>\n Ah, finally we have some particulars to work with, and it\u2019s all boilerplate anti-Francis rhetoric, tossed out as if no one could possibly disagree with the charges. As for Pope Francis\u2019 true views on the indissolubility of marriage and impermissibility of divorce, see:<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Pope Francis, Same-Sex Unions, & Chicken Little Mass Hysteria<\/a>\u00a0[10-22-20]<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n \u201cGay Unions\u201d: Leftist & Reactionary Catholics vs. Pope & CDF<\/a>\u00a0[3-23-21]<\/p>\n Pope Francis vs. Same-Sex \u201cMarriage\u201d: The Record<\/a>\u00a0[3-25-21]<\/p>\n Pope Francis\u2019 \u201cEndorsement\u201d of Fr. James Martin, SJ (Does it Entail a Denial of Church Teaching on Gravely Disordered Homosexual Sex?)<\/a>\u00a0[6-30-21]<\/p>\n As to God willing supposed religious indifferentism, see:<\/p>\n Pope Francis: Don\u2019t be afraid that God has allowed different religions in the world\u00a0<\/a>(Carol Glatz,\u00a0America<\/em>,\u00a0Catholic News Service<\/em>, 4-3-19)<\/p>\n Which God\u2019s Will? <\/a>\u00a0(Dr. Randall B. Smith,\u00a0The Catholic World Report<\/em>, 11-15-19)<\/p>\n Dr. Smith wrote:<\/p>\n Pope Francis\u00a0later clarified\u00a0<\/a><\/u>that when he said the multiplicity and diversity of religions was \u201cwilled by God,\u201d he meant \u201cGod\u2019s permissive will.\u201d If he meant God\u2019s permissive will, then his statement is absolutely unobjectionable. Since he says that is what he meant, I take him at his word, and there\u2019s an end of it. [Unfortunately, the link has been taken down]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But the problem is that many folks don\u2019t<\/em> take Pope Francis at his word, even when he clarifies. They still want to hold on to suspicion and misrepresentation and mind-reading and second-guessing. Catholic writer Scott Eric Alt brilliantly dissected this nonsense<\/a>:<\/p>\n No Catholic ought be troubled by this.\u00a0Even Fr. Z<\/a>\u00a0says that we must read the Abu Dhabi statement in light of the distinction I made in my lead:<\/p>\n When we speak of God\u2019s will we make distinctions. God has an \u201cactive or positive will\u201d and a \u201cpermissive will\u201d. God\u2019s \u201cactive will\u201d concerns that which is good, true and beautiful. On the other hand, God has a \u201cpermissive will\u201d by which He allows that things will take place that are not in accord with the order He established.<\/p>\n That\u2019s Fr. Z, dear reader. And back on March 8, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, beloved of FaithfulCatholics\u2122,\u00a0said<\/a>\u00a0that Pope Francis had clarified. Let\u2019s listen to what the man said. The man said that the reference was to God\u2019s permissive will. \u201cThe bishop told LifeSiteNews that he had a direct exchange with Pope Francis.\u201d<\/p>\n (Oh, he said this to\u00a0Fake Site<\/em>, did he? Indeed he did.\u00a0Fake Site<\/em>\u00a0trumpeted it as a \u201cwin.\u201d<\/a>)<\/p>\n \u201cYou can say,\u201d the pope said, \u201cthat the phrase in question on the diversity of religions\u00a0means the permissive will of God<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n That\u2019s what the man said.<\/p>\n But no matter what the man said then, Bishop Schneider\u00a0tells\u00a0Fake Site News<\/em>\u00a0now<\/a>\u00a0that Pope Francis needs to clarify. (Well, he\u2019s not saying \u201cclarify\u201d this time; he\u2019s saying \u201ccorrect.\u201d) The pope needs to\u00a0correct<\/em>\u00a0the statement, because it represents \u201canother gospel.\u201d And if anyone preaches to you another gospel, let him be accursed! Schneider says this about the pope.<\/p>\n But wait. I thought Pope Francis had clarified. If the pope has clarified, if he has said the reference is to God\u2019s permissive will, what does he need to correct? Can someone explain? Can someone clarify this? Anyone? Buehler?<\/p>\n And\u00a0Fake Site<\/em>, in\u00a0this<\/a>\u00a0article by heresy accuser Paolo Pasqualucci, says that the bishop\u2019s new words \u201clend weight to heresy accusations.\u201d According to this article, the pope\u2019s clarification actually\u00a0contradicts<\/em>\u00a0the Abu Dhabi statement.<\/p>\n So let me see if I understand all this. Schneider asks Francis to clarify the words at Abu Dhabi about God\u2019s will. The pope says: Sure thing, Athanasius. I\u2019m always here to clarify. This document means God\u2019s permissive will. Athanasius says this to\u00a0Fake Site<\/em>, and they in turn characterize it as a \u201cwin.\u201d But now, the clarification is not enough, because it somehow contradicts Abu Dhabi, and we\u2019re back to Pope Francis preaching another gospel. We need a correction now!<\/p>\n So what we have here\u2014do I understand this right?\u2014is a case where no clarification could possibly be enough because Schneider has already decided before any of it that the document is heretical. If Pope Francis says, \u201cNo, I meant this,\u201d Schneider just says, \u201cOh, then it\u2019s a contradiction.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now, the above is what happens when actual propositions are set forth to debate, yay or nay, pro or con. Particular claims were made (critical of the pope). Even so, they weren\u2019t proven<\/em> to be troublesome in this article; they were merely named<\/em> and \u201ctrotted out\u201d (this time, a trio of charges). I happened to have dealt with all three accusations (or in the third case, linked to those who do), so I could quickly provide a rebuttal.<\/p>\n Thus, readers can now scrutinize both sides (what a novelty!) and make up their own minds if there is anything to<\/em> these charges. I say there is not. They\u2019re all whoppers about him, and blatantly so at that. I don\u2019t deny the sincerity of those making the accusations, but they are simply wrong.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n *<\/p>\n The wisdom, the forthrightness, the prudence, the respect, and the love with which they have worked to proclaim and defend the truth of the gospel could easily be lost in the clamor for anathematizing the pope or the ensuing uproar in his defense.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Very true! I have noted for over 25 years that when one becomes obsessed with bashing the Church or the pope or Vatican II or the New Mass, the first thing that goes out the window is evangelism and apologetics. This sort of junk doesn\u2019t make Holy Mother Church appealing to outsiders. It pushes them away and\/or makes us a ridiculous laughingstock.<\/p>\n What are lost are measured, intelligent, nuanced responses to the present ecclesial crisis and a rational Spirit-filled fortitude to bring truth to light in the midst of deceitful darkness.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Again, I deny the \u201ccrisis\u201d (i.e., as papal bashers and critics and nitpickers and reactionaries define<\/em> it). It\u2019s a trumped-up mythology based on relentless distortion of the pope\u2019s actual positions. Again, I know, because I have systematically dealt with these charges. Almost all of them are like an onion. You peel away the outside and keep peeling and end up with no core. If there is a crisis, it\u2019s with the actual theological liberals \/ dissidents in the Church and the far-right extremists as well; not with this orthodox pope.<\/p>\n So, while the open letter hopes to be a clarion call to rectify a grievous situation within the Church, it may have unintentionally contributed to making the victory of faith even more difficult.<\/span><\/p>\n Falsehoods always<\/em> do that, because they are of the devil, the father of lies. No good can come of them.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:<\/span> <\/strong>brett jordan<\/a> (6-28-21)<\/span> [Flickr<\/a> \/ CC BY 2.0<\/a> license]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: Fr. Thomas Weinandy was presented to me as a temperate critic of the pope. In some ways he is, in others, it\u2019s the same-old same-old: fallacies, falsehoods, myths, & misrepresentation.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I shall be responding to Fr. Thomas G. Weinandy, O.F.M. Cap. and his article, \u201cIs Pope Francis a Heretic?\u201d (First Things, 5-7-19). His words will be in blue. ***** Nineteen theologians and academics recently released a letter to all Catholic bishops throughout the world, accusing Pope Francis of being a heretic and urging the bishops […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":59879,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[138],"tags":[137,571,572,570,14713,156,14710,135,14783,573],"class_list":["post-59876","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-papacy-infallibility","tag-heterodoxy","tag-modernism","tag-orthodox-catholic-dogma","tag-orthodoxy","tag-orthodoxy-of-pope-francis","tag-pope-francis","tag-pope-francis-is-orthodox","tag-theological-liberalism","tag-thomas-weinandy","tag-traditional-catholic-doctrine"],"yoast_head":"\nTaylor Marshall Lies About Pope Francis & Divorce<\/a>\u00a0[6-8-19]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nPope Francis: Indissoluble Marriage & No Divorce (+ Analysis of Ed Feser\u2019s \u201cDoctrinally Problematic\u201d Criticisms)<\/a>\u00a0[6-1-21]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nEd Feser, Pope Francis, Divorce, \u201cAmbiguity\u201d, & Implosion<\/a>\u00a0[6-3-21]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nAs to homosexuality and sodomy, see:<\/div>\n*
\nLawler vs. Pope Francis #2: Homosexuality & \u201cJudging\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[1-2-18]<\/div>\n\nAnd the biggest problem is that when it\u2019s shown to them that they are dead-wrong, almost always folks of this mindset refuse to admit<\/em> it or to be corrected<\/em>. They want to hold on to<\/em> falsehoods. Once folks who make these accusations are shown that they are misguided and wrong, and have promulgated the very opposite<\/em> of the truth, they are fully culpable in terms of decided what to do<\/em> with the new refuting information. [and \u2014 just as a bit of added trivia \u2014 this is why people not infrequently become very angry<\/em> at me]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nNone of these three things are \u201cambiguous\u201d in Pope Francis\u2019 teaching in the least. They are crystal clear.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThis doctrinal and moral chaos is where the real battle must be fought.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nI deny<\/em><\/strong> that it is chaos! If examples like the three above are what Fr. Weinandy has in mind as \u201cproof\u201d of this supposed \u201cchaos\u201d, then he is (with all due respect) gravely mistaken and is participating in the bearing of false witness against the Holy Father.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThere are many theologians and academics, as well as many priests and laity, who have taken up this good fight of faith. They have done so through articles in academic journals and more serious periodicals, blogs, and websites.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThey are overwhelmingly extreme reactionaries (folks who also often, for example, bash Vatican II and the Pauline Mass), along with the usual fellow travelers<\/a> and useful idiots<\/a> who swallow the false narrative [the pope is a liberal, heretic, two-faced, dictator, bad man, etc. ad nauseam<\/em>] whole \u2013minus sufficient fair-minded analysis \u2014 and jump on the bandwagon.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThey have also done so in academic conferences and general public forums. The fruit is an ever-growing community of ardent believers, from all walks of life, academic backgrounds, and ecclesial vocations\u2014united in the truth that there is but one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, which cannot be destroyed or superseded by a new church, even if such is the aim of some in high ecclesial positions.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nSee the previous comment. But it\u2019s also true that the extreme anti-Francis zealots precisely believe, or come close to believing, that both the pope and the Church can defect from the faith (or come so close that it is virtually a distinction without a difference). I have documented many times, for example, this theme of ecclesial defectibility in the prominent reactionary Steve Skojec<\/a>. But he\u2019s not the only one with these tendencies, by a long shot.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nYet the open letter throws this work of the Spirit into jeopardy, for now those who have undertaken this battle will more easily be tarred with the brush of extremism.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nMost already were extremists long before this letter. I know. I\u2019ve been dealing with their errors<\/a> (as a Catholic apologist) these past eight years.<\/div>\n