Phil Lawler: No Proof Pope Francis is a Heretic

Last updated on: March 5, 2021 at 12:57 pm By Dave Armstrong

Phil Lawler is the author of Lost Shepherd: How Pope Francis is Misleading His Flock (2018). One can tell from the title that Phil was making some pretty serious accusations. In my many critiques of it (perhaps more than from any other Catholic), he seemed to be declaring that Pope Francis was a heretic: at least in a vague, broad way. For example, in the Introduction, he stated that Pope Francis is:

. . . leading the Church away from the ancient sources of the Faith. . . . a source of division. . . . radical nature of the program that he is relentlessly advancing. . . . encouraged beliefs and practices that are incompatible with the prior teachings of the Church. If that complaint is justified, he has violated the sacred trust that is given to Peter’s successors. . . . a Roman pontiff who disregarded so easily what the Church has always taught and believed and practiced on such bedrock issues as the nature of marriage and of the Eucharist . . . a danger to the Faith . . .

That sure sounds to me (as an apologist) that he believed the pope was guilty of some sort of heresy (and entails even judgments of his motivations and the inner workings of his heart and mind). Wouldn’t you agree? In chapter two, p. 20, Lawler opined that “Francis . . . appeared to cast doubt on the existence of hell.” That would most certainly be heresy, if true, as the existence of hell is a de fide dogma that can’t be doubted.

In his chapter six, writing in the context of reception of the Holy Eucharist, Lawler contended that the pope “has deliberately avoided the exercise of his authority, giving the impression that formal Church teachings and laws do not really matter and can safely be ignored.”

If things like these (assuming for the sake of argument that they are accurate) aren’t heresy, they certainly are an excellent impression of same.

Yet when push came to shove, and Lawler had to agree or disagree with the many “statements” or “rebukes” put out by overwhelmingly reactionary signees, Phil Lawler essentially argued that we don’t know for sure whether the pope is a heretic and so we shouldn’t claim that he is. To me, this is a very positive development in his thinking. Let’s look at what he stated in this regard. On 3 May 2019, Phil wrote the article, “Is the Pope a heretic? The danger of asking the wrong question” (Catholic Culture), in which he wrote:

Was it sheer frustration that prompted a group of Catholic scholars to issue their open letter charging Pope Francis with heresy? If so, I can understand. I share the frustration. The silence of the Catholic hierarchy, in the face of confusion that is tearing the Church apart, is maddening.

. . . Nevertheless I fear that this letter does more harm than good, compounding the problem that loyal Catholics now face.

Well, is the Pope a heretic? I am not qualified to address that question. . . . Who could make the authoritative judgment that the Pope had fallen into heresy and therefore lost his authority? Certainly not a handful of independent scholars.

To their credit, the authors of the Easter Letter recognize the need for an authoritative statement, for a judgment by the world’s bishops. But if that is their goal, should they not have approached sympathetic bishops privately, quietly, to make their case? . . .

Peter Kwasniewski, one of the principal authors of the letter, now says that the document lists “instances of heresy that cannot be denied.” This, I’m afraid, is a demonstrably false statement. The “instances of heresy” mentioned in the letter have been denied, and repeatedly. The authors of the letter are convinced of their own arguments, but they have not convinced others. In fact they have not convinced me, and if they cannot persuade a sympathetic reader, they are very unlikely to convince a skeptical world. . . .

It will be easier, now, to classify anyone who challenges the Pope as a member of the same group that is making charges of heresy. Consequently life will be more difficult for those of us who are not calling for the deposition of the Roman Pontiff, but simply for a clarification of Church teaching. . . .

Now, by asking bishops to do something that none of them is likely to do, the authors of the Easter Letter have given timid bishops one more excuse for their silence. Pleas for clarity can now conveniently be lumped together with charges of heresy, as evidence of “extremism.”

In a follow-up article of 16 May 2019, Phil added: “the authors of the open letter made a tactical mistake, because the charge of heresy is very difficult to prove . . .”

On 31 May 2019, Phil objected to the “unjust” banishment of John Rist, — one of the signees of the notorious “Easter Letter” — from the Patristic Institute Augustinianum. Phil says that “Rist’s orthodoxy is not in question” and that “He is being punished for questioning the orthodoxy of another prominent figure. And since the target of his criticism is the Bishop of Rome, a special rule applies.” Indeed it does. To his credit, Phil (almost unwittingly) illustrates the legitimacy of Rist’s censure:

In that 2018 document Veritatis Gaudium, amending the rules of the pontifical faculties, Pope Francis stipulated that the professors must be loyal to the Church. The wording of the relevant clause (26.2) is noteworthy:

Those who teach matters touching on faith and morals are to be conscious of their duty to carry out their work in full communion with the authentic Magisterium of the Church, above all, with that of the Roman Pontiff. [emphasis {– Phil’s own –} added]

It looks to me like the action was perfectly justified, when we examine some of the outrageous things Rist has stated. For example:

I stop there to ask again whether harsh actions of this sort — combined with the well-documented rigging of the Synod on the Family — indicate that the Pope’s ‘paradigm shift’ should be recognized as an attempt — under cover of offering solutions to genuine social problems in Western society — to impose on the Church radical changes of doctrine, developed not by laity but largely in Germany by a group of relativist Hegelian theologians? . . .

I regard this papacy as a disaster and Bergoglio as possibly — because of his tampering with established doctrine — as possibly the worst pope we have ever had. . . .

*

The whole thing amounts to a heresy on the scale of the Arian heresy. That took some 60 years to work out. I fear that this set of moral heresies may last even longer. (“Scholar stumps Cardinal Cupich, asks if Pope’s ‘paradigm shift’ means ‘radical’ doctrinal change,” Dorothy Cummings McLean, LifeSite News, 2-15-18)

Phil Lawler appears very confused. He wants to be able to object to the pope’s teachings (and/or perceived lack of actions) in very strong terms, yet when asked if he is a heretic, he hesitates. I think the hesitation is the natural reaction of a pious Catholic. But it’s inconsistent with his other rhetoric. Lawler has in effect strongly insinuated that Pope Francis is heretical, many times, including, notably, in his pathetic book.

So what explains his hesitancy to use the “h word”? It’s pure speculation, but I think it’s plausible that he has observed the extreme reactionary nonsense of folks like Taylor Marshall and the crazed, virtual schismatic Archbishop Vigano and has stepped back a bit, so that he can still be taken seriously by serious orthodox Catholics. Perhaps an influence in this regard is his (presumed) good friend and associate at his website, Dr. Jeff Mirus, who absolutely excoriated and eviscerated Marshall’s trash-book, Infiltration: in a review published the same day as Phil’s defense of John Rist:

Infiltration is certainly an all-time classic…in the category of conspiracy theories.

It is hard to know where to begin a review, since discussing the book is rather like pointing out the absurdity of a crazy relative who always has an answer to every objection, pulled out of a world that exists only in his head. The fundamental stupidity of the book arises from the author’s felt need to explain the normal human condition in terms of a series of conspiracies. Developments and ideas the author considers bad—from the loss of the Papal States through the Second Vatican Council and right up to the current pontificate—are ascribed to the secret machinations of the Masons, the Modernists, the Communists, the gays, the St. Galen Mafia, you name it.

The technique is reminiscent of McCarthyism in America in the 1950s. If you have an idea that is similar to one held by one of the conspiratorial groups, it is a sure sign of the effectiveness of the conspiracy. If you happen to know someone in one of the conspiratorial groups, it is a sure sign that you have been successfully recruited. . . .

Infiltration, as I have indicated, displays an understanding of human history typical of your mad relative. What else can we expect from a book which makes wild assertions about plots, conspiracies and complex theological or institutional problems, each of which the author claims to treat decisively and beyond doubt in roughly three to five pages! Moreover, Marshall seems not even to realize that culture cannot be explained by conspiracy, and conspiracy cannot be proved by correlation. (“Infiltration: An idiot’s guide to the problems of the Church”, Catholic Culture, 19 May 2019)

This is not to say that Mirus doesn’t take his own shots at Pope Francis, too. In an article dated 10-22-20 he referred to “the disastrous papacy of Francis.” He was reacting to one of the never-ending tempests in a teapot; this one about homosexuals and family rights. The pope’s words have been quite sufficiently explained (as having been butchered and taken out of context) , so that there is no problem here whatever:

Pope Francis and Civil Unions: Critical Context (Mike Lewis, Where Peter Is, 10-22-20)

*

Those Pope Francis quotes: Video editing and media controversy” (Dr. Pedro Gabriel, Where Peter Is, 10-22-20)

*

Pope Francis’s Words on Civil Unions Distorted by Editing (Fr. Matthew Schneider, Through Catholic Lenses, 10-22-20)

*

Has Pope Francis changed Church teaching on same-sex civil unions? (Dawn Eden Goldstein & Robert Fastiggi, Where Peter Is, 10-22-20)

*

Full Text Proves Francis Meant Civil Unions INSTEAD OF “Gay Marriage” (Fr. Matthew Schneider, Through Catholic Lenses, 10-24-20)

*

Vatican breaks silence on Pope Francis’ gay civil union remarks (Vatican says pope’s comments taken out of context) (Fox News / Associated Press, 11-2-20)

*

Nuncio Further Clarifies Pope on Civil Unions (Fr. Matthew Schneider, Through Catholic Lenses, 11-5-20)

*

Has Pope Francis changed Church’s doctrine on Homosexuality? (Francis Figuero, The Reproach of Christ, 10-22-20)

The problem, then, seems to be that folks like Jeff Mirus and Phil Lawler aren’t willing in charity to withhold scathing judgment of the pope, until the full story of any given [almost always trumped-up] “incident” is heard. They’re lightning quick to judge. Mirus was falsely judging the Holy Father on the very date that several people above were explaining (indeed, proving) that the pope had done nothing wrong; overturned no Church precedent or tradition or moral teaching at all. So he likely never even read them.

As with so many people today, otherwise good Catholics and good men like Phil Lawler and Jeff Mirus have bought a cynical, hostile, outrageously false narrative regarding Pope Francis (a thing I’ve been strongly opposing these past eight years, as have many others): against which mere facts and reason — within this mentality — are oblivious and irrelevant, almost disallowed.

But I’m delighted that Phil Lawler has at least the sense and wits to not proclaim that Pope Francis a heretic. Credit where due . . .

***

Photo credit: An auto-da-fé of the Spanish Inquisition and the execution of sentences by burning heretics on the stake in a market place. Wood engraving by Bocort after Henty Duff Linton. This file comes from Wellcome Images, a website operated by Wellcome Trust [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license]

***

Summary: Phil Lawler, author of the hit-piece against Pope Francis, Lost Shepherd, hesitates to classify him as a heretic. This is good, but it’s inconsistent, given what he does state about the pope.

***

Marshall, Keating, & Lawler: Exchanges Re Pope Francis

Last updated on: March 4, 2021 at 12:59 pm By Dave Armstrong

Setting the Record Straight: My Supposedly “Personal” & Unsavory Exchanges with Karl Keating, Phil & Leila Lawler, & Taylor Marshall

I ran across this curiosity piece today, in an Amazon review of Karl Keating’s book, The Francis Feud: Why and How Conservative Catholics Squabble about Pope Francis (2018). Reviewer “Pseudo D” stated:

Keating’s book seems to be prompted by his disputes with fellow apologist Dave Armstrong and others over the appropriate way to criticize the pope. Armstrong reacted to Lawler’s book in a deeply personal way and began an endless discussion with Keating.

Huh? First of all, I get a kick out of the description, “deeply personal.” What is that supposed to mean? I was simply doing my apologetics as I have always done, and strongly disagreed with Lawler’s book. It’s nothing “personal” at all.

But today, it seems that every honest, principled, passionate disagreement in theology or other matters has to be couched in personal, subjective terms. This is the postmodernist society we live in. And I submit that this excessive subjectivism has deeply penetrated the thoughts of Christians, too. In the brief exchange that I actually had with Phil Lawler, I was far more respectful towards him than vice versa. I wrote:

Thanks for replying and for the generous offer to send me your book, which you know I will likely be critical of. Thank you. Let me assure you, first of all, that none of this is personal. I have admired your work for a long time and often linked to your articles and others at Catholic Culture. And I know that you guys have always positively reviewed my website in your ratings of sites. I have another apologist friend who cares little for Pope Francis, yet we remain best of friends. For me, disagreements are no reason to end a friendship.

*

But know that it is precisely out of existing profound respect for folks like you and Karl, that I am all the more distressed to see the positions you have arrived at, which I deeply, sincerely believe are erroneous.

I expressly denied that it was “personal” at all. I always mean what I say and say what I mean. Two months later (March 2018) I had an ugly interaction with Phil and his wife Leila on Facebook (on Patrick Coffin’s and Leila’s pages):

Me: Phil already made it clear he had no interest in dialogue with me, he certainly wouldn’t live, on-air. He wants to do all he can to utterly ignore all my critiques.

*

Phil Lawler: I responded at length to you, privately, about your critiques. You ignored my response, and continued to mischaracterize my ideas. That’s why I see no point in continuing an exchange.

*

Me: I don’t recall any lengthy personal letter about my critiques. I certainly would have responded, as you see I have been doing many times . . . It may be, then, that I never received a private lengthy letter. Was that sent in email or in a PM? By all means, send it again, and I will reply point-by-point and post everything on my blog (with your permission).

*

[89 more minutes pass by]

*

Phil Lawler: Don’t troll, Dave; you’re better than that.

*

Me: You say you sent me a letter. I say I never received it. You say I ignored it and mischaracterize you. So send it to me. This isn’t trolling. [My friend] Mike Mudd tagged me and I came and commented.

*
[Meanwhile, Phil wrote the day before on his Facebook page: “I am angry- at the tactics of those who, while speaking in lofty terms about open dialogue and respectful debate, do their utmost to impugn the motivations and question the good faith of those who disagree with them.” I totally agree!]

Leila Marie Lawler: Dave Armstrong misrepresents Phil and doesn’t hesitate to ascribe opinions to him that are not supported by the text. So if you prefer something that is about one man’s desperate attempt to avoid reality, well there is nothing I can do about that. . . . He’s a good man. But he is very wrong about Phil’s book.

*

Me: I’d be glad to be shown where I am wrong, and will modify portions of my reviews accordingly, if this is demonstrated. Phil just claimed earlier today that he sent me a long private letter in response to my critiques that I ignored, continuing to supposedly misrepresent him. I never received such a letter. I asked him to send it to me so that I can hear his thoughts and interact with them. Now he appears reluctant to send it. Why?

*

Leila Marie Lawler: Frankly, Dave, your comments here and elsewhere are amounting to trolling — I’ve already had to delete a comment on a post that was downright sneering — perhaps you will remember it, as it was a mean-spirited response to my request that people leave reviews on Amazon, which you had already done and yet found it important to sort of gloat at your negativity. If you continue this way, I will block you.

*

It is clear to anyone who reads all the comments here and on Phil’s posts that we are fine with comments and even with arguing. But this is too much.

[Phil refused to engage in a simple discussion with me, trying to find more common ground. He seems unwilling to send me this long private letter that he referenced. He falsely accused me of trolling, then his wife did, when I was trying to be conciliatory. I’m still accessible via email if they have second thoughts about wishing to communicate again like normal orthodox Catholic adults]

So now, back to the reviewer’s observation that I was engaged in “endless” discussion with Karl Keating about Phil Lawler’s and Ross Douthat’s books. Here are the papers I made of exchanges with Karl, along with dates:

Dialogues with Karl Keating & Phil Lawler on Pope Francis [12-29-17]

Dialogues with Karl Keating Regarding Pope Francis [12-29-17]

My Critiques of Lawler’s Lost Shepherd / Exchanges w Karl Keating [1-7-18]

Douthat’s To Change the Church: Mini-Debate w Karl Keating [3-24-18]

Are Pope-Critics Evil? Reply to Karl Keating [4-13-18]

Keating & The Francis Feud: Six Errors Documented [6-2-18]

Am I “Monomaniacal about [Phil] Lawler”?? (Karl Keating’s Charge) [Facebook, 7-28-18]

The discussions with Karl about Lawler, specifically, lasted all of nine days (that’s “endless”?). Then two months later we had one dialogue about Douthat. Three weeks after that we had a general discussion about criticizing popes. Big wow. Of course, I was busy writing many other things during this time (far more than just this stuff), per my usual modus operandi.

Then someone informed me that they had a Kindle version of Karl’s book in June 2018 and that he literally mentioned me 99 times. He never gave me the courtesy of telling me that he would be citing me that much, using our discussions, listed above. Why? I don’t think it’s unethical; just odd and weird for a friend and fellow apologist to do that.

Naturally, then, I made a response to that, only dealing with six representative issues that were brought up. I also wrote an Amazon review. Karl made it clear that he resented my posting of a panning review on the first day his book was released, so I removed it, with apology, in Dec. 2018. But I retained my post on my blog that contained the substance of the Amazon review. I have a right to respond to 99 mentions of myself in a book.

Karl then claimed in July 2018 that I was “monomaniacal about Lawler.” My reply was as follows:
*

Merriam-Webster Online:

Definition of monomania

*

1 : mental illness especially when limited in expression to one idea or area of thought

2 : excessive concentration on a single object or idea

Other online dictionaries use terms to describe “monomania” such as “psychosis,” “insanity,” and “Pathological obsession with one idea or subject, as in paranoia”.

To say that I am obsessed with Phil Lawler to the point of mental illness is absolutely asinine. Here is the record: I wrote 20 posts about Lawler (regarding his unwarranted attacks upon Pope Francis) from 28 December 2017 till 30 March 2018. Given my prolific writing, that’s not much. Many of those were responding back to the arguments of others.

I wrote one more (as an exception on 4-28-18). Then I found out that Karl had mentioned me some 99 times in his book, The Francis Feud, and so (as one might expect) I wrote one paper in response to that on 6-2-18.

Since then I have agreed with one of Lawler’s articles. Karl classifies this as “monomaniacal about Lawler.” This is ridiculous and absurd. I usually crank out two articles a day on average (many recently have been re-postings of old stuff as I continue to reorganize papers from my old blog).

A very rough estimate, then, of the number of my articles this year would be about 420. Of those, 22 (or 5%) had to do with Phil Lawler. And five of those were only on Facebook: not even on my blog. That’s certainly a far lower percentage than what Phil Lawler has written about Pope Francis in the same period (or even the percentage of Karl’s Facebook posts devoted to hiking in the mountains of California).

Thus, if I am a “monomaniac” for devoting 5% of my writing this year to Lawler, how much more so is Lawler in writing about the pope? That would make him a super-duper monomaniac! And Karl (by this odd, weird, incomprehensible “reasoning”) would be far more “monomaniac” on the topic of hiking than I ever was regarding Phil Lawler and his never-ending bashing of Pope Francis.

***

I haven’t written any post on my blog or Facebook about Phil Lawler since July 2018: and even that was in direct reply to Keating’s outlandish charge. My last self-generated post about him was from April 2018.

Also, at some point during these discussions with Karl, he claimed that I was going off “half-cocked” in my critiques of Lawler. I also critically described him with regard to one particular thing (I forget the phrase I used, but it was certainly far milder than his descriptions of my imaginary attitudes). Karl objected and asked me to remove this description of him. I gladly did, and then asked if he would return the favor and remove the “half-cocked” description. He didn’t.

I think my aims, goals, and my spirit is evident throughout these exchanges: even to the extent of removing things that offended others. My attempts to dialogue with Phil were rudely spurned, and Phil refused to send me a letter he says he wrote to me, that I never received.

This often happens in online discussion. I was equally respectful of Taylor Marshall when I critiqued his book, Infiltration. In my very first critique (dated 5-30-19) — my most well-known one –, I made this quite clear:

Now, before I offer my critique below, let me say that I don’t know Taylor Marshall personally, but I had been recommending his work till recently . . . And of course, none of this is personal [italics in original].

But Taylor blocked me from his Twitter page within 24 hours, made disparaging remarks to the effect that I was trying to profit off of criticizing him, and has ignored any criticism of mine ever since. And all that, despite formerly writing about me (c. 2010 or earlier):

Dave Armstrong’s book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything ranging from sacraments to sedevacantists. Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.

Taylor also thanked me (among many others), for my “friendship and encouragement along the way” in the Acknowledgments of his 2009 book, The Crucified Rabbi. He also placed a long sidebar ad for 15 books of mine that I was selling, on his website: at least as far back as 16 July 2009. It was there for several years.

All that went out the window with one critique from me. And I’m supposed to be the one who is so “personal” and supposedly “sensitive” (as another reactionary accused me yesterday)? I don’t run from cordial, respectful criticism; I welcome it, actually love it. It creates an opportunity for dialogue and in-depth clarification.

If people are scared to dialogue; even to clear up evident misunderstandings or miscommunications, and if they don’t take kindly to any substantive criticism, then I think that indicates something troubling and concerning about their spirit. We all have to be willing to be criticized and to retract where necessary. It’s part of being both accountable and humble. The Bible states:

Proverbs 9:7-8 (RSV) He who corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse, and he who reproves a wicked man incurs injury. [8] Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you.

*

Proverbs 15:12 A scoffer does not like to be reproved; . . .

*

Proverbs 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy.

*

***

Exchanges with Karl Keating on this issue resumed on my Facebook page when he showed up regarding another matter (3-4 December 2020):

Karl Keating: [A]t Amazon, he gave my book The Francis Feud a single star while admitting he hadn’t even read it. He glanced through the book, he said, to see how many times his own name appeared, and then he wrote his “review.” He just “knew” that he would disagree with my book, and that apparently was justification enough. . . . I suppose it was the Amazon episode that shattered the remaining respect I had for Dave as a commentator.

*

Me: Right. I apologized for that and removed it from Amazon (even though your book mentioned me 99 times and you didn’t bother to let me know before publication), and here you are still bringing it up. I did read your whole book soon after, but as I noted to no avail, it made no difference whatever as to the points I made (or to my overall opinion), because I was responding to your massive citation of me.

*

As for respect, that works both ways. You have obviously become bitter towards me. I don’t reciprocate that, and will continue to treat you with respect as the “father of modern Catholic apologetics”, and recommend your books. But I’m most unimpressed with the ethics of your behavior and moving to the far ecclesiological right over the past few years.

*

Karl Keating: Contrary to your imagining, I have no bitterness against you, . . . I could say more, but there’s no point. I’m not here to argue your characterizations of me or of anyone else. You’ve done good work for the Church. I expect you will do more, and I wish you well.

*

Me: You show a note of conciliation today and I appreciate that. Tell me, then, do you now accept my apology for the review on Amazon, which I removed? If you did at the time, I don’t recall it. If you did then or now, then why are you bringing it up, publicly, on my page? Are we not supposed to forgive and forget? What more can a person do than apologize in cases of offense and/or wrongdoing? You show little sign of having accepted my apology (that’s part of that “transaction”!). But here’s your chance now.

*

You mentioned me 99 times in your book, without even giving me the courtesy of letting me know beforehand. I responded with one Amazon review / one paper on my blog. You seem to think I am not entitled to give my side of things. Someone simply made me aware that you had mentioned me in your book. So I went and looked at it and replied (the usual search methods of books revealed that it was literally 99 times).

*

Did you expect I wouldn’t or shouldn’t do so? You mischaracterized both my views and arguments and even several of Lawler’s. It begged for a response. You act like it’s Chicken Little that I (or anyone?) dare disagree with you and express it publicly. This is most disappointing: especially from an apologist well-used to back-and-forth argumentation. We simply could have had a good dialogue. But you have had very little interest in that ever since we disagreed on Lawler.

*

Your failure to accept my apology and the acerbic, condescending nature of your words last night, including “shattered the remaining respect I had for Dave as a commentator” certainly did not, I submit, leave an impression other than unforgiveness and a seeming bitterness over that incident (and basically a shattering of whatever friendship remained).

*

[still no acceptance of my apology from Karl. It was a stony silence after that]

***

(originally written on 7-28-18, 2-27-20, and 3-4 December 2020 on Facebook)

Photo credit: image of the cover of Taylor Marshall’s book, Infiltration, on its Walmart purchase page.

***

Summary: I collect various public exchanges with Taylor Marshall, Karl Keating, & Phil & Leila Lawler re Pope Francis. See who was cordial & polite, & who was rude, dismissive, & contentious.

Chris Ferrara & My Debates w Keating & Lawler Re Pope Francis

Last updated on: September 25, 2020 at 6:41 pm By Dave Armstrong

This is a response to Ferrara’s article, “The Importance of Not Being Us” (The Remnant, 12-31-17), which was in turn a critical commentary on my post, “Dialogues with Karl Keating & Phil Lawler on Pope Francis [12-29-17]. Ferrara’s words will be in blue.

*****

Ferrara’s always entertaining and a stylish, colorful writer. I’ll grant him that (wholly apart from his atrocious content). It’s particularly fascinating to read his sociological analysis of what is going on today among non-reactionary orthodox Catholics, in regard to Pope Francis.

Ferrara is scarcely more favorable towards Lawler and Keating, who (from his perspective and mine) have basically now adopted a highly critical view of the pope. He seems to consistently ignore the fact that Keating endorsed the book in his review. The main thing Ferrara cares about in his analysis is how Keating wished to distance himself and Lawler from reactionaryism.

Note that Ferrara nonchalantly verifies my point that Lawler’s reasoning is in line with (though not identical to) reactionary reasoning about Pope Francis (which is why all the major reactionary sites are praising him). He refers to “Lawler’s exposition of what has long been obvious to traditionalists” and describes Lawler’s book as one that “essentially echoes the traditionalist view of what Lawler himself calls ‘this disastrous papacy.’ “

Ferrara verifies my analysis of how reactionaries think, all down the line. If you want to understand the same, read this article. It’s a classic.

Note that for Ferrara and all reactionaries, their self-title is “traditionalist.” They want to co-opt that term for themselves, even though they have gone far beyond a traditionalist position. That’s exactly why I came up with “radical Catholic reactionary”: so as to separate these pretenders from legitimate traditionalists: with whom I am very close in my own opinions.

Traditionalists themselves were loudly protesting having any association at all with what was then called “radtrads” (i.e., “radical traditionalists.”). They said “we ain’t them” and in consideration of their strong feelings of resentment over that state of affairs, I agreed, and so coined a term that would make the stark distinction clear.

And for the reactionary, a regular old orthodox Catholic (traditionalist or not) is a “neo-Catholic.” I have studied the origins of that as well. It was a term coined by Gerry Matatics, who later became a sedevacantist (no sitting pope) and now has gone far beyond even that, to a wacky view where there are virtually no valid priests around at all. I think at length that Gerry will conclude that God isn’t here at all, either. Pray for the tragically lost man.

Ferrara was the one who greatly popularized the term in his pathetic book (at least for a time, virtually the “Reactionary Bible”), The Great Façade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church (2002). Now it’s standard usage among reactionaries. Again, I strongly urge anyone to read Ferrara’s piece to learn how reactionaries think. Don’t just take my word for it (even though everything he says here almost spectacularly verifies what I’ve been saying for at least 15 years now).

“Always learning and never able to come to the truth . . . “

I’m never allowed to comment at The Remnant, so these clowns will be talking about me (and Karl) for the next week, safe from my being able to have my say in the same venue. Not that I actually care to do so there, anymore (those days have long since passed), but it’s the principle of the thing. Only intellectual cowards ban someone they are writing about merely because he is of a different opinion. If the person so referenced is trolling or violating site rules, that would be one thing, but simply having another opinion, as one of the subjects of an article? That is cowardice.

I don’t know if Karl is banned there, too, or if Phil is. That would be fascinating to see, too, if they showed up. Maybe Karl will get in a playful, mischievous mood and go over there. That would be fun to see.

This piece is also notable in that Ferrara actually makes at least a half-hearted attempt to interact (here and there) with a few actual arguments of mine. This is a brand-new development. Up till now, all he could do is mock and say that I wasn’t worth his time, since my website had a low ranking. That was my Blogspot site, which I’ve now moved to Patheos. I now get 4-5 times the traffic daily that I used to get.

Perhaps that is why Ferrara actually minimally interacts with my reasoning now. I must have moved up to the pantheon of “neo-Catholic” gods, and am now worthy of the Great Man’s time. The last time The Remnant dealt with me, all they could (literally) come up with was “Super Dave” (some character I had never even heard of) and claims that “no one” reads my writing at all or cares about it. That means you guys out there reading don’t exist! LOL

This time we get a clip of the Three Stooges. At least they’re actually funny, . . .

***

Ferrara writes in the combox over there:

The term “radical Catholic reactionary” pretends to be one of substance, not timing. So it doesn’t matter how long it took Lawler to reach his conclusion. The conclusion is rejected in itself, as something false. Armstrong denounces the substance, not the timing of Lawler’s claims.

Keating, however, tries to obfuscate the issue by arguing that Lawler is not a reactionary merely because he “took his time.” But how long he took is not the issue. The issue is whether Lawler’s criticisms of the Pope, as such, make him a radical Catholic reactionary.

Yep; this exactly echoes a point I made. We actually agree here (minus the one word, “pretends”)! I argued that it was irrelevant that Lawler took his time to come to his conclusion; in fact, that it was even worse, because he came to the wrong conclusion after studying the matter relatively more.

But again, I have not classified Lawler as a reactionary. I have said that he argues like one in two (of the hallmark four) respects: bashing the pope and starting to seriously question Vatican II itself (not just liberal abuses of it). I also just stated in one of my Facebook threads that I thought Michael Voris was on the line of being a reactionary, but technically not one.

***

The next day I clarified (on Facebook), my opinion (against pointed criticism) that reactionaries “in effect, become their own popes”:

First of all, my statement is not one that charges reactionaries with sedevacantism, nor of any schism at all. It’s a statement about how they view authority. Like Protestants, they ultimately appeal to themselves as the court of final appeal. It’s part of their outlook. This is why they are always moaning and groaning and complaining about popes (and not just this one, believe me). Otherwise, they couldn’t judge popes day in and day out. They complain infinitely more about popes than we used to complain about our local pastors, as evangelicals.

The words, “in effect” also show that I don’t mean the statement literally. But that’s how this guy interprets it. DUH!

Thus, his retort that most of them think there is a pope, is a complete non sequitur. I never said they didn’t. I would go beyond his opinion and say that all of them, by definition, accept the validity of the pope.

Nor do I think they have left the Church. I don’t regard them as schismatics at all (hence the inclusion of “Catholic” in my title for them: and it was included for precisely this reason). Thus, he completely misunderstands my position, and hence, can’t grasp that there is no “calumny” here whatsoever. My term describes what they really are.

***

On the same day on my Facebook page, my friend, Fr. Dwight Longenecker wrote:

I honestly don’t know why you give Skojec and The Remnant people the oxygen of attention. Why put your hand into a nest of vipers? You will not convince any of them or their readers. All the attacks will do is harden their hearts further. Shake the dust from you feet man.

1. To warn others of their errors, partially by naming them, as apologists do. If someone says, “who are these reactionaries you talk about?” I answer, “Remnant, One Peter 5, Rorate Caeli, & LifeSiteNews.” The more people who then avoid them, the better.

*
2. In this case, it was entertainment.

3. Also, in order to illustrate that folks don’t always know what someone else is saying, and should try much harder.

4. And it gave me a chance to clarify the term I coined, which is always good.

5. I’m not trying to convince their readers, but rather, mine who might possibly be swayed by their errors. That’s why this post is here, not there.

I mention them a lot as prime examples of reactionaries (because of #1).

I grant that it’s somewhat of a dilemma (or partially so) to name people, because of “publicity.” Yet it protects people from their errors. Many people, for example, aren’t aware that LifeSiteNews is reactionary. The Church Fathers certainly named heretics and heresies; else they couldn’t have protected the flock.

***

See also further related discussion in the combox: Uncensored Exchange at Reactionary Site, The Remnant [1-4-18]

***

Critique of The Remnant [2000]

Critique of Chris Ferrara’s Radical Reactionary Hit-Piece in Opposition to Pope Francis’ Christian Environmentalism [6-20-15]

Chris Ferrara vs. Pope Benedict XVI (New Mass) [12-18-15]

The Remnant Replies; Sez I’m a Writer No One’s Ever Read! [2-18-16]

Remnant Reactionary Michael Matt’s Reading / Logic Disabilities [3-10-16]

Reactionaries at The Remnant Do “Editorial” on Yours Truly [9-9-17]
*

Dr. Fastiggi’s “Exchange” with Correctio Signatory Chris Ferrara [10-12-17]

Reactionary Chris Ferrara’s Lies Re Pope Francis & Hell [3-31-18]
*

Coronavirus: Chris Ferrara vs. Science & Historical Precedent (Social Distancing Was Used in the 1918 Flu Pandemic and Has Been Shown Again and Again to be Highly Effective) [4-7-20]

The Remnant’s Anti-Francis Insanity (“Vicar of Christ”) [4-7-20]

“The Remnant” Winks at Anti-Semitic Hatred [10-12-17; revised on 9-16-20]

***

(originally posted on 1-1-18 and 1-2-18 on Facebook; minor additions and changes on 9-25-20)

Photo credit: [public domain / Flickr]

***

Phil Lawler’s Mythical Private Letter (Unfruitful Discussion)

Last updated on: May 6, 2020 at 1:09 pm By Dave Armstrong

This occurred in a public post on Patrick Coffin’s Facebook page, then later on Leila Lawler’s public Facebook page.

*****

Patrick Coffin: Don’t miss next week’s episode of The Patrick Coffin Show —Making Sense of Pope Francis with author Phil Lawler.

Mike Mudd: Wanna make it really interesting, have Dave Armstrong on as well.

Lawler would never agree, even if I wanted to, so it’s a complete non-starter.

Mike Mudd: Even so, it would be a great show to discuss the opposite views.

And would be the first time — to my knowledge — that the two sides were actually heard together. But since Phil already made it clear he had no interest in dialogue with me, he certainly wouldn’t live, on-air. He wants to do all he can to utterly ignore all my critiques.

Phil Lawler: I responded at length to you, privately, about your critiques. You ignored my response, and continued to mischaracterize my ideas. That’s why I see no point in continuing an exchange.

Hi Phil,

All your responses (unless I am forgetting something) were posted publicly on my page, and I replied. I recall you sending a short note when you sent me the book file. Our last public exchange was originally posted on my site and Karl Keating’s.

I don’t recall any lengthy personal letter about my critiques. I certainly would have responded, as you see I have been doing many times (the latest, today, vs. Stephen Phelan). It may be, then, that I never received a private lengthy letter. Was that sent in email or in a PM? By all means, send it again, and I will reply point-by-point and post everything on my blog (with your permission).

[14 minutes pass]

Is this exchange already over, too, before it begins?

[89 more minutes pass]

Phil Lawler: Don’t troll, Dave; you’re better than that.

You say you sent me a letter. I say I never received it. You say I ignored it and mischaracterize you. So send it to me. This isn’t trolling. Mike Mudd tagged me and I came and commented. Achieving further mutual understanding and desperately needed unity in the Church is a good thing, not bad.

Here’s something I heartily agree with. Phil wrote yesterday on his Facebook page: “I am angry- at the tactics of those who, while speaking in lofty terms about open dialogue and respectful debate, do their utmost to impugn the motivations and question the good faith of those who disagree with them.”

Over on Leila Lawler’s Facebook page, my name came up as well:

SK McKenna: I prefer David Armstrong’s review of this book on Amazon.

Leila Marie Lawler: Well you don’t actually know if you prefer that review, if you haven’t read the book. As it happens, Dave Armstrong misrepresents Phil and doesn’t hesitate to ascribe opinions to him that are not supported by the text. So if you prefer something that is about one man’s desperate attempt to avoid reality, well there is nothing I can do about that.

Thomas Berryman: Without wishing to stick my nose where it doesn’t belong, or be disrespectful, I prefer to read a book myself and reach my own conclusions, especially before attempting comment on said book. Some of us adult converts (like Dave) tend to be a little zealous in our desire to protect our newfound Church, without regard for the facts. I remember meeting him once back in the early 80s here in Detroit, when we were both evangelicals. He was well-intentioned and obviously a man of faith, but even then he had a tendency to build up a head of steam and shoot off in occasionally odd directions.

He’s a good man. But he is very wrong about Phil’s book.

I’d be glad to be shown where I am wrong, and will modify portions of my reviews accordingly, if this is demonstrated. Phil just claimed earlier today that he sent me a long private letter in response to my critiques that I ignored, continuing to supposedly misrepresent him. I never received such a letter. I asked him to send it to me so that I can hear his thoughts and interact with them. Now he appears reluctant to send it. Why?

Frankly, Dave, your comments here and elsewhere are amounting to trolling — I’ve already had to delete a comment on a post that was downright sneering — perhaps you will remember it, as it was a mean-spirited response to my request that people leave reviews on Amazon, which you had already done and yet found it important to sort of gloat at your negativity. If you continue this way, I will block you.

It is clear to anyone who reads all the comments here and on Phil’s posts that we are fine with comments and even with arguing. But this is too much.

In answer to the comment above I have tried to be evenhanded and give you the benefit of the doubt. Yet you come on the very page where I am basically defending you, to be on the attack. I’m done.

Phil refused to engage in a simple discussion with me, trying to find more common ground. He seems unwilling to send me this long private letter that he referenced. He falsely accused me of trolling, then his wife did, when I was trying to be conciliatory. So I will now block them both. I’m still accessible via email if they have second thoughts about wishing to communicate again like normal orthodox Catholic adults.

Both are now blocked, having both falsely accused me today of “trolling” when I was trying to be conciliatory and open up lines of communication. Should they change their minds and seek to talk like adult Catholics ought to, again, my email is always accessible:

apologistdave [at] gmail [dot] com

And they can comment on my blog. But I’m through with the silliness with them on Facebook.

***

(originally posted on 3-10-18 on Facebook)

Photo credit: book cover of Phil Lawler’s book, from its Amazon page.

***

Phil Lawler vs. Vatican II? (“Troublesome” / “Ambiguities”)

Last updated on: May 5, 2020 at 11:57 am By Dave Armstrong

Papal nitpicker Phil Lawler (“Personally I am not a traditionalist. I love the Latin Mass, and attend it occasionally, but I do not seek it out”: 8-24-17), author of the notorious book, Lost Shepherd: How Pope Francis is Misleading His Flock (2018), which I have critiqued many times, appears to expressly question the Second Vatican Council. The use of the word “ambiguities” in particular is taken straight from the playbook of reactionaries. They clearly have influenced Lawler’s thought, even though he is not one of them (since he hasn’t forsaken the ordinary form Mass).

One of the key differences between us plain old “orthodox” Catholics and those who call themselves traditionalists; and the more radical reactionaries, is in our view of Vatican II. The non-traditionalist, non-reactionary orthodox Catholic contends that the council itself was fully orthodox and in line with previous Catholic tradition (Pope Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity”), and that its teachings were cynically distorted by liberals after the council for their own nefarious purposes (“the spirit of Vatican II”).

The traditionalist and (more so) reactionary usually argue that there are intrinsic problems with the council documents themselves, which arose from modernist influence at the council: folks who deliberately planted “ambiguous time-bombs” that could later be interpreted in a heterodox manner, in contradiction to received Catholic tradition.

One can observe Lawler below grappling with the issue and being torn between these two options. Though he doesn’t come right out and firmly espouse reactionary views, his rhetoric suggests that they are altogether respectable, honest interpretations, and worthy of consideration. And in my opinion, that is already going way too far and forsaking the uncompromising, strong view of the authority of ecumenical councils that observant Catholics have always held.

*****

But what about the “conservative” interpretation? Is it persuasive? Can it be reconciled with the facts? . . . the time has come for a frank—that is, uncensored—discussion of these questions.

Did the problems that arose after Vatican II come solely because the Council’s teachings were ignored, or improperly applied? Or were there difficulties with the documents themselves? Were there enough ambiguities in the Council’s teaching to create confusion? If so, were the ambiguities intentional—the result of compromises by the Council fathers?

Suggesting that there could be difficulties with some Vatican II documents does not mean denying the authority of the Council’s teaching. No document drafted by human hands will ever be perfect. There may be a need for clarification, elucidation, explanation, even correction.

More to the point, while it is certainly true that the “spirit of Vatican II” that is often cited in support of radical changes cannot be reconciled with the actual teachings of the Council, it is also true that the proponents of change can cite specific passages from Council documents in support of their plans.

So are those passages being misinterpreted. Are they taken out of context? Or are there troublesome elements of the Council’s teaching, with which we should now grapple honestly? One thing is certain: we will not solve the problem by pretending that it does not exist. (“Let’s stop pretending: something DID go wrong after Vatican II,” Catholic Culture, 8-23-17)

***

Related Reading

See many papers on Vatican II (via word search) on my Church web page.

***

Photo credit: Pope St. Paul VI makes Joseph Ratzinger a cardinal in 1977 [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

My Critiques of Lawler’s “Lost Shepherd” / Exchanges w Karl Keating

Last updated on: January 2, 2020 at 3:17 pm By Dave Armstrong

First posted on Karl Keating’s 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 “palace intrigue” and internal affairs of Cardinals, and what Karl calls “administrative or leadership style and actions”, etc. I’ve never had an interest in that, so I didn’t 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.

It’s 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’s homilies. It was like peeling an onion to get to the core. There is none. It’s not like an apple. You keep peeling it and in the end there is nothing at all. The “nothing” in this case was the proof that Pope Francis is a dissident / progressive / modernist bent on ditching orthodoxy.

There were insinuations, however, that the pope is talking out of both sides of his mouth and being two-faced: not saying what he “really” means. Anyone can say that about anyone at any time and attempt to “prove” any theory whatever, with this approach. But I prefer hard and demonstrable facts, not “jesuitical” conspiracy theories.

One person claimed on my page that I was judging people’s motives and putting people into camps of “deplorables.” 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’ve expressed how much I respect both men.

I think they’re wrong, and seriously so, and I believe the consequences will be quite bad, but I’m not questioning their motives or making out that they are “bad” people at all. Just for the record . . . If anyone reading this hears otherwise, it’s not true. You heard it from me.

Nor have I ever said that Phil is 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.

If you like to eat steak and walk around the block, it doesn’t prove that you are a dog . . .

“Straw man: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument”

Where in Lawler’s book does he say that his purpose is to show that Pope Francis is trying to “overthrow Catholic tradition”? Catholic tradition is a pretty big thing, not easily overthrown by one man, no matter how astute or clever.

Or maybe you have misconstrued what Lawler is trying to say.

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

I did my best to provide assurance—for my readers and sometimes for myself—that 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. . . .

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.

I describe these words as “deliberately trying to subvert or overthrow Catholic tradition” and I say that Phil didn’t come within a million miles of proving this in his book.

“what the Church teaches” = “Catholic tradition.” Or is that a point of contention, too?

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.

The “reasoning” was that “Pope Francis didn’t directly assert x in this one homily; therefore he must deny x.” That’s hardly persuasive, and no basis whatsoever to conclude that a pope is “leading the Church away from the ancient sources of the Faith” and “engaged in a deliberate effort to change what the Church teaches.” I demonstrated, from what Pope Francis did say in several places, that in fact he does not deny x.

Then he made much hay out of five of the pope’s words (“who am I to judge?”): 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’t do that, either.

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’ direct assertions of eternal punishment in hell. But let’s 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’s severest, most relentless critics don’t make those bizarre claims.

Then he engaged in a rather “inventive” interpretation of another homily and made out that Pope Francis questioned whether St. Peter and St. James were “believers.” 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.

It was very heartening, at least, insofar as I saw that if this 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’s considered the best historical case against papal infallibility, and yet it proved no such thing (only private letters were involved).

Likewise, terrible arguments like the ones above prove absolutely nothing against this pope. Phil should have stuck solely to the palace intrigue and gossipy “talk”: do the National Enquirer thing. That’s subjective enough that folks can say little against it, even if they have an interest in the topic (as I don’t).

***

Here is Karl Keating’s “review” of my reviews:

In my review of Lawler’s book I endorsed the book as a whole but not everything in it. This is common in book reviews–and even in judgments of individuals.

Some of Lawler’s 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.

In other words, I didn’t 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’ve endorsed several of your books even though I thought you had weak arguments on some points.

In fact, I can endorse your current series of critiques of Lawler’s book, even though I think the critiques, so far, have been awkwardly composed, hard to follow, and often not the least convincing. That’s my opinion; others may think them faultless. Fine. I don’t have to think them faultless to think people should read them.

I don’t think you’ve approached Lawler’s book with anything close to objectivity. You have brought to the discussion a certain mindset (I called it “ostrichism”) that makes it difficult for you to give an arm’s length look to the book or its arguments.

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’re not. (I think you’ve been misapplying Newman, by the way.)

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’s helpful that objectivity be approached at least asymptotically. I don’t think that’s 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.

I would like to see Lawler’s book be critiqued by others who don’t labor under such a disability.

Since this is mostly psychobabble and doesn’t address the actual arguments I make, there is no particular need to reply to it. There’s nothing here to reply to. It’s utterly obvious that Phil Lawler and Karl Keating are as “emotionally” against Pope Francis as I am “emotionally” inclined to not like Phil’s book, so why should “bias it be an issue? It’s a wash. In the end, the arguments themselves are all that can be objectively examined.

Related Reading:

Quasi-Defectibility and Phil Lawler vs. Pope Francis (see also more documentation of Lawler’s reactionary leanings, on the Facebook thread) [12-28-17]
*

Dialogues with Karl Keating & Phil Lawler on Pope Francis [12-29-17]
*

Dialogues with Karl Keating Regarding Pope Francis [12-29-17]
*

Lawler vs. Pope Francis #1: Critique of Introduction [1-1-18]

Lawler vs. Pope Francis #2: Homosexuality & “Judging” [1-2-18]

Lawler vs. Pope Francis #3: The Pope Annihilated Hell? [1-2-18]

Lawler vs. Pope Francis #4: Communion / Buenos Aires Letter [1-3-18]

Lawler vs. Pope Francis #5: Jerusalem Council vs. “Ideology” [1-3-18]

Shock! Former Catholic Rod Dreher Loves Lawler’s Pope-Bashing Book [2-22-18]

Phil Lawler’s Lost Shepherd: My One-Star Amazon Review [2-26-18]

Popes Leading the Church Into False Doctrine (E.g., Paul VI) (+ Facebook discussion) [3-8-18]
*

Reply to Stephen Phelan Re Phil Lawler’s Lost Shepherd [3-10-18]

Merits of Phil Lawler’s Lost Shepherd: Three Common Fallacies [3-12-18]
*

Protestant Takes Solace in Douthat’s Pope-Bashing Book (also discusses Phil Lawler) [3-24-18]
*

Pope Francis, Hell, Phil Lawler, Lies, Damned Lies, . . . [3-30-18]
*

Lawler Hypocritically Acts Like He Claims Pope Francis Does [4-28-18]
*

Keating & The Francis Feud: Six Errors Documented [6-2-18]

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If 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 — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I 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.

My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll 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 “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!

See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.

***

(originally 1-7-18 on Facebook)

Photo credit: The Good Shepherd, by James Tissot (1836-1902) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Lawler Hypocritically Acts Like He Claims Pope Francis Does

Last updated on: April 28, 2018 at 3:31 pm By Dave Armstrong

. . . That is, He Deliberately Sows Confusion, When it Need Not Be So At All

Phil Lawler has engaged yet again in condescending rhetoric regarding Pope Francis, in his latest hit-piece: “Yes, the Pope is a Catholic. But he’s confusing other Catholics.” (4-26-18). Recently (15 days ago), I announced a self-imposed moratorium on articles about Pope Francis, because rational, calm, constructive, factual discussion about the Holy Father is (in my opinion, from now five years of experience) basically no longer possible in the present toxic environment. That’s mostly why I stopped (having done far more than my share in the first place: 119 separate articles, including this one).

An exception to a self-imposed rule or “resolution” is just that, so no one should think I have changed my mind. I may allow exceptions now and then, as occasions warrant. I was made aware of Lawler’s outrageous piece (one of many such), in a PM and I simply cannot not respond to such foolishness and hypocrisy. Lawler’s words will be in blue.

***

Blogger Mark Mallett has done a real service—and I mean this sincerely—by a long list of links to statements by Pope Francis voicing clearly orthodox Catholic beliefs on topics important to conservative Catholics, including abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, population control, ideology, and the existence of hell.

At least Lawler had the sense and rudimentary fairness to link to a source that does show that Pope Francis is orthodox. He could have just as easily linked to a similar paper (from Dan Marcum that I have hosted on my blog for over three years now (material originally posted on the Catholic Answers discussion forum). Then imagine: Phil would have to agree that I (and Dan Marcum) have “done a real service”!

And Lawler could have long since compiled such a resource himself, if he is so worried and concerned about teaching the faithful that the pope is orthodox.

It’s difficult to imagine that anyone would have compiled a similar set of links to demonstrate that Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II held conventionally Catholic beliefs.

I was quite busy defending them, too (in my 22 years online), against various false charges (especially in Pope St. John Paul II’s latter years, where it was virtually open season on him in certain circles, and regarding the trashing of his canonization itself). Granted, it was not as often as now, for several reasons, but the critics were assuredly out there, and they were mostly radical Catholic reactionaries.

What’s notable and surprising these days is that the papal critics have largely adopted reactionary methodologies and mentalities (I’m not saying that all papal critics agree with all aspects of reactionaryism; I do not say — and have never said — that Lawler himself is a reactionary). Error and falsehood very often have a “recycled and regurgitated” nature. Nothing new under the sun . . .

Precisely the same argument could be and has been made with regard to Blessed Pope Paul VI. All acknowledge that there was widespread confusion following Vatican II. The theological liberals / dissidents claimed that Vatican II was subversive of prior and established Catholic tradition, and they exploited this falsehood (the so-called “spirit of Vatican II”) to the hilt.

Reactionaries (who fundamentally think like both liberals and Protestants) came to believe the same thing. It was widely held then (and more so since) that Pope Paul VI was not decisive enough in clarifying and refuting all the nonsense that occurred during that troubled period (i.e., very much the same criticism we hear now about Pope Francis).

People usually didn’t dispute that he was orthodox. But they thought he was lax and should have done a lot more to lessen the widespread confusion. Whether he was or not (I actually tend to agree that he was too lax during those 13 years) is beyond our purview. My present point is the analogy to Pope Francis. Both men are orthodox, and both were or are accused of allowing (moral and/or doctrinal and/or liturgical) confusion to unnecessarily spread.

And by the way, Phil Lawler (acting like a good reactionary zealot in this instance and in his pope-bashing) has already started questioning Vatican II itself (in an article dated 8-23-17):

Did the problems that arose after Vatican II come solely because the Council’s teachings were ignored, or improperly applied? Or were there difficulties with the documents themselves? Were there enough ambiguities in the Council’s teaching to create confusion? If so, were the ambiguities intentional—the result of compromises by the Council fathers? . . .

[A]re there troublesome elements of the Council’s teaching, with which we should now grapple honestly? One thing is certain: we will not solve the problem by pretending that it does not exist.

Why is it necessary in the case of Pope Francis?

I would say that the primary (or at least a major) reason is because of folks like Phil Lawler, who appear to want to spread far and wide the “fact” that Pope Francis is to blame for all the confusion. I submit that there would be a lot less confusion if Lawler and those like him weren’t doing the destructive, gossipy, rumormongering things they are doing now, causing all sorts of division and scandal: a shameful thing indeed.

If Lawler is so worried and concerned about the pope sowing confusion, he ought to also worry about his responsibilities as a teacher, since he, too, is sowing confusion big-time himself, when he could have been out there doing what I did: showing that the pope believes in hell, period. Full stop. Next question . . . That would help lessen confusion among the faithful, wouldn’t it? That’s what a defender of Holy Mother Church, concerned about the flock and about orthodoxy, does.

We are already seeing signs that anti-Catholic mockers of the Church love Lawler’s book, and of course, so does former Catholic Rod Dreher. Such people love books that bash the pope and in effect, also Holy Mother Church. It’s a godsend for them: confirming them in their errors; allowing them to preserve the rationalizations and the disinformation in their heads.

But instead, Lawler would rather hypocritically enter right into what he is criticizing, and help folks become more confused and more anti-Francis. There is a reason that Scripture says, “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1; RSV), Lawler appears to be far more interested in muckraking, National Enquirer-type journalism than he is in teaching the faithful what the pope actually believes. Instead, he helps (whether unwittingly or not) to spread confusion with these sorts of statements:

Pope Francis himself has raised the questions about his own orthodoxy, with a long series of provocative public statements. . . .

When any Pope makes a statement that seems at odds with previous expressions of the faith, it is disquieting. When he makes such statements frequently—and, to compound the problem, declines to clarify them—the result is widespread disorientation.

. . . not that Pope Francis is preaching heresy, but that he has spread confusion about the content of orthodox Catholic belief. . . .

And after all what does Pope Francis believe about Hell? He has alluded to its existence on many occasions. Still it is possible that he might proclaim belief in Hell without accepting anything like the ordinary Catholic understanding of what Hell is. . . .

Yes, the Pope is a Catholic. But he sometimes sounds like a confused Catholic, and therefore a confusing Catholic leader. To recognize that problem does not require accusing the Pope of heresy; the confusion among the faithful is trouble enough.

Like it’s a big mystery what the pope believes? Lawler has been shown over and over that the pope clearly accepts the orthodox view of hell and of Satan, but it doesn’t matter. Documented facts of this nature don’t fit into his agenda. After all, Eugenio Scalfari (the 94-year-old atheist who cites the pope’s “words” in interviews merely from his memory) says the pope doesn’t, and also that he doesn’t believe in heaven or purgatory, either, as was documented by Sandro Magister and the reactionary Lifesite News, where Scalfari “reported”:

Pope Francis has abolished the places where souls were supposed to go after death: hell, purgatory, heaven. The idea he holds is that souls dominated by evil and unrepentant cease to exist, while those that have been redeemed from evil will be taken up into beatitude, contemplating God.

So because Scalfari’s nonsense fits into Lawler’s cynical, confused, jaded narrative about the pope, he runs (the wrong way down the field) with that ball. I have wholeheartedly agreed with Karl Keating that it’s stupid for the pope to keep interviewing with Scalfari and for these controversies to keep coming up regarding him. But it’s even more stupid (exponentially more) for Lawler to keep making an issue of it when the pope clearly believes in eternal hellfire.

All he could manage to do in his book (on this topic) was cite Scalfari (regarding hell) and wonder aloud what the pope believes. He couldn’t trouble himself to spend ten minutes on Google to see what the pope has said in indisputably real, accurate quotations.

Instead, Lawler is much more motivated to crank out the lie that Pope Francis is a lying equivocator, speaking out of both sides of his mouth. This is the clear insinuation of much of his rhetoric. It was present in his book and is in subsequent articles. The lightly veiled implication is that when Pope Francis states orthodox notions, he doesn’t really mean it (wink wink nod nod). That’s just to fool people, you see.

Someone like Chris Ferrara (an extreme reactionary, not far from sedevacantism) says this quite brazenly and openly. Lawler (of much less bombastic temperament) prefers to play games and mostly insinuate it — which assuredly he does — with nuance and subtlety: which I think is even more contemptible than what Ferrara does.

At times, Lawler comes right out and says that he believes the pope is deliberately speaking out of both sides of his mouth (which amounts to deception and lying, and an evil motivation: pure and simple). Here is a typical example, from his article, “Confusion—now about hell—is the hallmark of this pontificate” (3-29-18):

In Lost Shepherd I wrote: “The confusion in Amoris Laetitia is not a bug; it is a feature.” Pope Francis realized that he cannot directly contradict the perennial teaching of the Church, put forth so clearly by St. John Paul II. But he could and did create confusion about that teaching, and thereby provided new maneuvering room for those who are unhappy with the Church’s stand.

By the same logic, Pope Francis cannot deny the existence of hell without directly contradicting the teaching of the Church. But he can create confusion, and he has done so once again. Did he deny, or at least question, the existence of hell? We don’t know.

Now I ask you directly, dear reader: is this what you wish to / choose to believe: that the Holy Father is a deliberate liar and deceiver: purposely seeking to overthrow Catholic tradition and to be a dissident “radical” modernist (yes, Phil used that word, too, in his book)? We know that this is what Phil Lawler believes, since in the Introduction to his book, Lost Shepherd, he wrote that Pope Francis:

. . . [is] leading the Church away from the ancient sources of the Faith. . . . a source of division. . . . encouraged beliefs and practices that are incompatible with the prior teachings of the Church. . . . he has violated the sacred trust that is given to Peter’s successors. . . . a Roman pontiff who disregarded so easily what the Church has always taught and believed and practiced on such bedrock issues as the nature of marriage and of the Eucharist . . . a danger to the Faith . . .

I continue to maintain that Lawler has not proven his extraordinary accusations. He loves to repeat them. That’s what all mere propagandists and gossip-column type journalists do, because they know it works. But repetition itself is neither argument, nor does it strengthen a real and substantive, serious argument. Lawler simply hasn’t proven his case (which is one reason why he’s totally unwilling to defend it over against someone like me, who has substantively criticized it). Hence, I wrote at the end of my Amazon review of his pathetic, scandalous book:

In my opinion, he has absolutely failed to demonstrate that Pope Francis is deliberately trying to subvert or overthrow Catholic tradition. That hasn’t been even remotely proven in this book. . . .

Personally, I prefer hard facts, not “jesuitical” conspiracy theories. It was heartening, however, in the sense that if this is considered the best shot against the pope, then the fashionable “Francis is a heterodox bad pope” opinion indeed lacks a demonstrable basis.

***

Photo credit: Standard You Tube License: still from EWTN Bookmark (3-2-14).

***

Pope Francis, Hell, Phil Lawler, Lies, Damned Lies, . . .

Last updated on: March 30, 2018 at 5:50 pm By Dave Armstrong

Now there is another stink about Pope Francis supposedly not believing in hell (flat-out denying it). It’s based on the words of a 94-year-old atheist interviewer of the pope, Eugenio Scalfari, who has a very annoying habit of writing down the pope’s alleged “words” merely from memory. It’s all very familiar to me, because I wrote about the same phenomenon almost three months ago now. Here is a somewhat abridged treatment of a longer review devoted exclusively to the topic of hell, in my Amazon review of Phil Lawler’s book, Lost Shepherd:

A third instance (still in Chapter Two) is even poorer “reasoning”. It involves a 92-year-old atheist journalist who is in the habit of paraphrasing the pope’s words after the interviews he does with him.

Apparently, he has terrible lapses of memory or is deliberately deceiving his readers, since (again) the pope’s utterances elsewhere show that he believes the contrary of what he supposedly “expressed.” In Chapter Two, p. 20, Lawler writes:

In March 2015, the talkative pope again spoke with [Eugenio] Scalfari for La Repubblica. This time Francis—at least as interpreted by his favorite interviewer—appeared to cast doubt on the existence of hell.

Scalfari (as reported by Sandro Magister in L’Ezpresso Magazine, 10-27-17), also thinks that the pope has denied the existence of heaven and purgatory, too. Right.

And sure enough, for the third time, Lawler doesn’t make the slightest effort to do the necessary research and see what the pope actually states elsewhere about the topic under consideration. It’s not hard to find:

1. Pope Francis strongly asserted belief in hell in a homily of 11-12-16.

2. Talking in March 2014 to about 900 relatives of victims of the Italian mafia, the Holy Father addressed the mobsters as follows:

This life that you live will not give you joy or happiness. Convert, there is time before you finish up in hell, which is what awaits unless you change path.

“Hellfire and brimstone” preaching from a pope who supposedly denies hell? Once again, Catholic Phil Lawler is out to sea, despairing of the pope’s eschatology, yet Jewish talk show host Dennis Prager rapturously praised the pope for strongly asserting the doctrine of hellfire and judgment (National Review, 3-25-14). What is this: alternate universes?

3. Pope Francis again issued a rather striking challenge to the wealthy who exploit or ignore the poor, in his annual Lenten message, written on 10-4-15:

[T]he danger always remains that by a constant refusal to open the doors of their hearts to Christ who knocks on them in the poor, the proud, rich and powerful will end up condemning themselves and plunging into the eternal abyss of solitude which is Hell.

We have to be on-guard against terrible “liberal / heterodox” preaching like that!

4. Pope Francis was in Fatima on 5-13-17 and stated that the Blessed Virgin Mary “foresaw and warned us of the risk of hell where a godless life that profanes Him in his creatures will lead.”

My friend Pete Vere wrote a similar article today, and discussion ensued over on his Facebook page. Matthew Cox’s words will be in green; Karl Keating’s in blue.

I have no doubt that the Holy Father believes in Hell. Why Pope Francis continues to be interviewed by Scalfari who completely misrepresents what the Pope said is a scandal and it has to stop.

Why doesn’t Lawler make it clear, then, that Pope Francis believes in hell, rather than milk this bilge over and over? Is he more concerned about the truth and the faithful or about his own propagandistic agenda?

Phil is probably frustrated like a lot of us that he continually grants interviews to Scalfari, and at a certain point you have to wonder why the Pope is doing this. Also while Lawler did bring that up in his article and like I said I have no doubt that the Holy Father believes in Hell (I don’t believe that a Pope can be a heretic at all ever) it is beyond frustrating that he meets with Scalfari and interviews [with] him. That is the big issue.

I wonder that, too, but that’s a completely separate issue from whether or not he believes in hell.

If Lawler was so concerned about saying that the pope shouldn’t get interviewed by Scalfari, he could have said that and also cited the many instances where Pope Francis affirmed hell. But he refused to do the latter, because it doesn’t fit with his particular agenda. If he’s concerned about the flock, then he would show them that the pope believes in hell. Instead, he writes:

I can only conclude that Pope Francis . . . is deliberately creating confusion. . . .

Pope Francis realized that he cannot directly contradict the perennial teaching of the Church, put forth so clearly by St. John Paul II. But he could and did create confusion about that teaching, and thereby provided new maneuvering room for those who are unhappy with the Church’s stand.

By the same logic, Pope Francis cannot deny the existence of hell without directly contradicting the teaching of the Church. But he can create confusion, and he has done so once again. Did he deny, or at least question, the existence of hell? We don’t know. . . .

What possible purpose could this interview with Scalfari have served, if not to cause confusion about the Catholic faith? Confusion is the hallmark of this pontificate: not a bug but a feature.

In fairness to Phil Lawler, I think Pete has missed the point in his post at Where Peter Is. Phil’s concern was what the pope meant or didn’t mean, or seemed to mean or seemed not to mean, in the “interview” with Scalfari. I’m sure Phil knows that on multiple occasions in the past–Pete refers to some of them–that the pope spoke about hell as a real and not a mythical thing.

When writers are criticized, usually it’s best to focus on what they just have written and on its own terms. There hardly has been a piece written by Pete or Dave or me that couldn’t be misconstrued or faulted for not covering a much wider area than was intended in the piece.

Phil thinks that the pope has engendered confusion through his “interview” with Scalfari. Given what has appeared in headlines around the world, I think one has to say that that is so. The Vatican’s weak response hasn’t helped.

We all know that the pope believes in hell (as I said, it’s been quite clear from his remarks over the years), but it’s also clear that, each time Scalfari comes out with another “interview” in which he took no notes, the pope’s assistants have to rush out with clarifications and often enough with clarifications, such as the recent one, that are ham-handed.

Why does the pope keep operating this way? He now has given five “interviews” to Scalfari, a man who seems entirely incompetent as a journalist. Yes, he’s the pope’s friend, but the pope has lots of friends, not a few of them journalists, and probably all of those would be more competent than Scalfari.

Phil wonders whether the pope operates this way because it somehow is part of his desire to “make a mess.” Maybe. Others will suggest other reasons. I think it can be said that the pope is savvy enough that he hasn’t been doing this purely accidentally. He has a reason for repeatedly turning to Scalfari, but I don’t know what it is, and I don’t know that anybody knows.

Absent that knowledge, people will speculate, as Phil has done. I welcome speculation from Pete, Dave, and others. Perhaps someone will proffer a reason that neatly explains things. I hope so.

I think you make a valid point. I don’t know why he keeps interviewing with Scalfari. I would even call it “stupid.”

My point, though, directly follows from what Lawler wrote in his latest article. Therefore, I am dealing with it on its own terms (at least in one respect), as you suggest. He says there is confusion. Okay, if that is the case, then it’s not true [as a statement about the faithful as a whole] that “We all know that the pope believes in hell.”

Lawler is implying that the faithful do not know that; thus, the present confusion! We can’t have it both ways. If they knew it, there wouldn’t be confusion, right?: as to whether the pope believed the doctrine.

There would only be perplexity (which I think even all of us here agree on) as to why he keeps talking to this old fool, who has even claimed that he denies heaven and purgatory too.

So, seeing that Phil is concerned about the confusion, why doesn’t he (knowing that the pope does in fact believe in hell, as you say), give several quotes proving that he does (as I have done, and as Pete has in his article)?

He wants to speculate about the pope’s intentions (“I can only conclude that Pope Francis . . . is deliberately creating confusion”). Very well; we can give him the same treatment:

I would wonder what his agenda is: making sure the Catholic flock knows the truth about Pope Francis’ true beliefs about hell and other things, or making sure that they only hear things that fit into his agenda: that the pope deliberately wants to sow confusion and subvert the Catholic faith? Pointing out [with documentation] that he does in fact believe in hell runs contrary to that agenda, and so he omits it: both from his book and from this article.

Because I am motivated by 1) educating the flock (catechesis / apologetics), and 2) showing them what the pope actually believes [factual journalism, rather than muckraking or sensationalistic journalism], by demonstration and not cynical insinuations based on an argument from silence and 94-year-old atheists who “cite” from memory, I do provide that information, but Phil doesn’t.

Why would he not do so? You tell me, Karl. If he continues not to do that, I have every bit as much justification to question or speculate about his intentions, as he does with regard to the Holy Father’s intentions.

I wasn’t commenting on your article but on Pete’s.

I didn’t say you were commenting on mine. Now I would appreciate your thoughts in reply. You did say: “I welcome speculation from Pete, Dave, and others.” I gave mine. So how do you reply? My article and Pete’s are essentially the same, anyway. As I see it, we’re both arguing the same thing in the same way.

I started out agreeing with your main premise, but I went into a deeper analysis, too (as I habitually do).

We can have a real discussion between two orthodox Catholics who disagree about Phil Lawler’s book, or it can just abruptly end, once again (at the point where it might involve some slight criticism of Phil Lawler). I happen to like challenging dialogue. It’s a major reason why I became a Catholic.

Oddly enough, Karl seems extremely reluctant to utter any public criticism of Phil Lawler. He’s not nearly so skittish about uttering public criticisms of the Holy Father. I think an examination of proper priorities is in order.

When he was criticizing Pope Francis, he wrote at length. I’ve yet to see any criticism of him of Lawler’s reasoning and book, apart from general statements that he doesn’t agree with everything in the book.

Here’s his chance.

[If Karl replies in due course, it’ll be posted here with further counter-reply. If it doesn’t appear here, then he has not replied at all]

***

[further comments of mine on two other threads]:

Why do people “need” Pope Francis to come out and say he believes in hell when it is clear that he already has said it many times in homilies? Anyone can find that in 20 minutes on Google, as I did. It’s not difficult. But I’ve made it easier: just read one of my two articles on it.

Why are they unable to take 20 minutes and do a Google search and put it to rest? Why is that so difficult? Then they have no problem. People manage to do far more difficult things every day.

***

I agree it would be good to “put his foot down.” But I also think he has made it clear many times that he believes in hell. We go by what he actually says: not by what a 94-year-old atheist reciting from memory claims that he said. The same atheist also has claimed that Pope Francis denied the existence of heaven and purgatory, too. He has no credibility. Why the pope keeps doing interviews with him, I have no idea. But it’s clear that Scalfari is off his rocker.

I do agree that the Holy Father ought to stop giving interviews to this guy altogether, and even called it “stupid” in my article [above]. It makes the weak stumble, to hear these things, even though they are easily refuted.

I’m just saying that it would be good to not interact with Scalfari in this way, or demand editorial consent or something. It’s absurd to have this happen over and over. I do agree that much with the criticisms being made.

If I did an interview with someone and then I read it later and he recited my words from memory and said I denied hell or salvation by grace or the Immaculate Conception or some other dogma, he would have hell to pay! And I’m just a lowly apologist.

It seems that with the pope, he should be more vigilant to not allow such silly things to keep happening and make people stumble. I don’t think it’s a conspiracy or that he’s deliberately seeking to spread confusion (Lawler’s thesis), but I think it may arguably be lax and too little concern for impressions and false notions getting out into the media.

***

I’m giving him every benefit of the doubt. I’m defending him! I just got accused of heresy on my page for doing so. I don’t think there is anyone out there who has defended the pope as much as I have, and have taken big hits for it, too (paid a price).

All l’m saying is that there are millions of souls involved, and it’s not helpful that they read the current idiotic press releases. Even Rush Limbaugh talked about it on his show today. That’s not good. And it could have been prevented by avoiding interviews or whatever it was with this guy, knowing that he will again publish his “recollections.” This is not the first time. The pope has done about five prior interviews with him.

None of this had to happen. In saying this, I’m not making the slightest accusation about the pope’s orthodoxy. It’s simply bad “media policy” or “public relations” or whatever one wants to call it.

The pope has not been promised infallibility in media savvy or media relations or flawless wisdom and prudence in communicating the Catholic message.

I don’t see how it is helpful for the message to go out (which is dead-wrong) that he denies hell. How in the world is that a good thing at all? Millions read that and go no further, and they have been stumbled. And it never had to happen.

The thing, too, is that it is not just “the Church-hating atheist saying” this nonsense. We now have people like Phil Lawler saying it in a best-selling book (my original reply on this topic was to that book). And we have it being sopped up uncritically by people like Raymond Arroyo, who spreads it to many more millions on TV, on a trusted Catholic station.

***

The difference between a guy like Lawler and me is that he looks at this and says: “see? The pope obviously wants to deliberately spread confusion.”

I say that it was bad policy to do interviews with the wingnut, but I don’t judge the pope. I simply conclude that it is stupid and unwise PR. I don’t know why he can’t see that, but I don’t start judging his orthodoxy and motivations, even when something is inexplicable to me.

***

Photo credit: Eugenio Scalfari (11-7-11) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license]

***

Merits of Phil Lawler’s “Lost Shepherd”: Three Common Fallacies

Last updated on: March 12, 2018 at 2:09 pm By Dave Armstrong

I’ve noticed these motifs coming up again and again in reviews of this book and in comments opposing critiques of it (such as my own):

Fallacy #1: Lawler’s Temperament: Phil Lawler is a mid-mannered, temperate, easy-going, moderate, non-fanatical, non-extremist, measured, deliberate, objective, non-reactionary, scholarly person.

Example: Dr. Samuel Gregg (The Catholic World Report, 3-2-18):

The power of Lawler’s narrative was derived from its calm tone, a meticulous attention to facts, a refusal to overstate or downplay how bad things were, . . .

But one of his book’s strengths is that it tries, at every point, to give Francis the benefit of the doubt. In addition to avoiding the hyperbole, polemics, and more bizarre theories about Francis which populate some of the internet’s weirder outposts, Lawler prudently distinguishes between the pope’s words and actions, and the more flagrantly outrageous statements of some of the garrulous characters surrounding him.

This judicious approach won’t save Lawler from the barrage of insults, frenetic name-calling, splenetic tweets, conspiracy theories, and limp non sequiturs which, alas, we’re come to expect from some of Francis’s defenders.

Great. Glad to hear that Lawler is calm, cool, and collected. He’s the Catholic journalist equivalent of NBA star Stephen Curry. But this has exactly zero relation to the question of whether his arguments are correct or not. A person can outwardly be as mild-mannered as Clark Kent, but still believe in false things.

All this proves is that Person A has Temperament B. It doesn’t follow that Person A’s opinion on Issue X is correct because he possesses pleasant Temperament B. It’s sort of the reverse of the “poisoning the well” fallacy (Person A is wrong on Issue X because he is a scoundrel and overall rascal). That’s not true; nor is it true that a person’s opinions are true because the person may have favorable characteristics (a variant of the genetic fallacy, which is one of the large category of ad hominem attacks).

Fallacy #2: Lawler’s Reluctance: Phil Lawler took such a long time to arrive at his negative conclusions regarding Pope Francis, and was very reluctant to adopt it; therefore, his judgment is either a) true, or 2) more likely to be true.

Example: in his glowing Facebook review of Lawler’s book (12-23-17), Karl Keating stated:

Unlike some of the most vocal critics of this pope, Lawler took his time and gave him the benefit of every doubt. The result is 256 pages that lay out recent history well, without exaggeration or histrionics and with enough to substantiate Lawler’s reluctant conclusions.

This clearly has no relation to the truth of a given opinion or proposition. One could take a long time to come to any number of conclusions, and the chance that one is wrong (broadly speaking), is just as much as the chance that one is right. Cardinal Newman took about six years to become a Catholic. We Catholics obviously agree with his final judgment on that score. But of course there are Catholics who gradually forsake the faith, taking a long time to do it, and we disagree with their conclusion. In both cases, the length of time involved doesn’t in the least prove the conclusion arrived at. All it proves is that said person was careful, deliberate, and took his or her time to change their mind. We can say that that is admirable, but in any event, it doesn’t prove the correctness of the eventual conclusion.

One could turn this around, too, and say, for example, “Dave Armstrong remains unconvinced that Pope Francis is a ‘lost shepherd’ and the new Attila the Hun. He’s been studying and defending him for almost five years, and taking a great deal of time to arrive at a negative conclusion, because he is so deliberate and non-fanatical and not given to jumping to conclusions.” Thus far I haven’t come to the conclusion that Phil Lawler has. But (like what he is presently being praised to the skies for) I’m very careful in making judgments and changing my mind. Therefore, I am very much like Phil Lawler is said to be! Ergo, I should be praised for my reluctance, not excoriated for it.

After all, I may agree with Phil’s view in a few months’s time. If I do that, people will say, “See! Dave Armstrong took a long time to agree that the pope is Vlad the Impaler; therefore, his conclusion must be profoundly true!” I haven’t so concluded, but on the same basis that Lawler is lauded, I should be, too. Both views are entirely fallacious. The truthfulness of a proposition is based on evidence, reason, logic, and persuasive argumentation, not the care we may have taken to ultimately espouse the proposition.

Fallacy #3: Popularity / Currently Fashionable: Everyone and their third cousin’s banker and lawyer and psychiatrist agree with the conclusions of Lawler’s book, and the book is ripping up the Amazon Catholic charts; therefore it must be compelling and true!

This is, of course, the ad populum fallacy, or notion that a lot of people believe X; therefore it must be true. Lots of people believe lots of things, but they can still simply be wrong. People are sheep. They love to follow and believe what their friends are following and believing, so they can be popular and fit in with the crowd. It’s tough to go against the grain and be a nonconformist. That’s why very few people are that (and why we often celebrate the ones who are: as “glorious exceptions to the rule”).

It’s quite obvious and unarguable that people can be wrong en masse. The consensus of scientists before Copernicus was that the sun went around the earth. They were wrong. The consensus of all the “smart people” and the pundits regarding the presidential election of 2016 was that Hillary Clinton would win. They were wrong. The vast majority of Germans in 1936 thought Hitler was great and was a positive influence in the future of their country. If we had polled scientists 50 years ago as to whether we would have discovered extraterrestrial life by now, I would venture to guess that 80-90% of them would have said yes. If so, they would have been wrong.

Right now, at least in certain circles, it’s very popular and fashionable to be “anti-Francis”: even though Pew Research informed us (January 2018) that Pope Francis has an 84% favorable rating in America. Just as the pope is not proven to be good and right due to the 84% approval, likewise, he’s not proven to be wrong and heretical because Phil Lawler’s book is the most popular thing since sliced bread, and because everyone’s currently jumping on the bandwagon, slobbering all over themselves, praising it. Neither thing is true, and it’s because they are both variants of the ad populum fallacy.

*****

The alternative to all these logical fallacies (and others in play, too, no doubt) is to judge the book by its actual arguments. Very few of the gushing reviews do that. They make general statements in agreement, while not providing many (or, usually, any) particulars or reasons. I’ve written a series of reviews in which the actual evidence that Lawler produces for his conclusion that the pope is deliberately seeking to subvert Catholic tradition and teaching, is scrutinized (and found wanting). See all my efforts in this regard, listed in the final section of my Papacy and Infallibility web page. One person so far (Stephen Phelan) has actually examined and attempted to interact with my arguments (and only very briefly at that, and with gratuitous insults). I replied to him at length yesterday.

Phil Lawler himself made it clear (personally, to me) that he was not interested in interacting with my critiques: even before I wrote them. Yesterday I had a random encounter with him on Patrick Coffin’s public Facebook page. Here it is:

Phil Lawler: I responded at length to you, privately, about your critiques. You ignored my response, and continued to mischaracterize my ideas. That’s why I see no point in continuing an exchange.

Me: Hi Phil,

All your responses (unless I am forgetting something) were posted publicly on my page, and I replied. Here is the last public exchange, originally posted on my site and Karl Keating’s. I recall you sending a short note when you sent me the book file.

I don’t recall any lengthy personal letter about my critiques. I certainly would have responded, as you see I have been doing many times (the latest, today, vs. Stephen Phelan). It may be, then, that I never received a private lengthy letter. Was that sent in email or in a PM? By all means, send it again, and I will reply point-by-point and post everything on my blog (with your permission).

[after 14 minutes pass] Is this exchange already over, too, before it begins?

[after 89 more minutes] Phil Lawler: Don’t troll, Dave; you’re better than that.

So he claims he has answered my critiques and that I ignored them and keep mischaracterizing him. I say, please send it again; I never received it, and he refuses to do so. How compelling . . . How indicative of a strong confidence in his own position . . .

Later in the day, his wife, Leila, on her public Facebook page, repeated the same “attack and avoidance” mentality:

Leila Marie Lawler: As it happens, Dave Armstrong misrepresents Phil and doesn’t hesitate to ascribe opinions to him that are not supported by the text. So if you prefer something that is about one man’s desperate attempt to avoid reality, well there is nothing I can do about that. . . . He’s a good man. But he is very wrong about Phil’s book.

Me: I’d be glad to be shown where I am wrong, and will modify portions of my reviews accordingly, if this is demonstrated. Phil just claimed earlier today that he sent me a long private letter in response to my critiques that I ignored, continuing to supposedly misrepresent him.

I never received such a letter. I asked him to send it to me so that I can hear his thoughts and interact with them. Now he appears reluctant to send it. Why?

Leila Marie Lawler: Frankly, Dave, your comments here and elsewhere are amounting to trolling — I’ve already had to delete a comment on a post that was downright sneering — perhaps you will remember it, as it was a mean-spirited response to my request that people leave reviews on Amazon, which you had already done and yet found it important to sort of gloat at your negativity. If you continue this way, I will block you.

It is clear to anyone who reads all the comments here and on Phil’s posts that we are fine with comments and even with arguing. But this is too much. In answer to the comment above I have tried to be evenhanded and give you the benefit of the doubt. Yet you come on the very page where I am basically defending you, to be on the attack. I’m done.

So much for serious adult discussion with Phil and his wife! So it seems that there is no dialogue to be had about the actual merits of the arguments contained in the book. I’m trying to address those (at least some of them), and no one (save Stephen Phelan in a very limited way) is willing to have that discussion, including the author, who wants to make charges against me while studiously avoiding any serious, normal discussion with me: between two orthodox Catholic writers.

President Trump can talk to the madman dictator of North Korea, but two orthodox Catholic writers and authors cannot constructively dialogue with each other, because one of them is utterly unwilling to do so. As they say, “you can take the horse to the stream, but you can’t make it drink.”

***

Photo credit: Promotional image of Leonard Nimoy as Spock from Star Trek: The Original Series (1967) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Reply to Stephen Phelan Re Phil Lawler’s “Lost Shepherd”

Last updated on: March 10, 2018 at 3:46 pm By Dave Armstrong

Stephen Phelan is 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 First Things, Lay Witness Magazine, and other publications. He was replying to my Amazon review of Lost Shepherd, on a thread at The Catholic World Report, where my review was linked. His words (reproduced in their entirety) will be in blue.

*****

Mr. Armstrong’s article fails for precisely the same reasons that he says Lawler’s book fails. In citing articles that “prove” Pope Francis’s intent in Amoris Laetitia, Armstrong ignores the many, many claims from Francis’ allies that the Church’s teaching (no longer just “pastoral practice) have undergone a “paradigm shift” or “revolution”.

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 thoughts and particular arguments: not the opinions of who knows how many “allies” 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.

I’m not a [muckraking] journalist (as I alluded to in my review). I don’t get into “who said what?” and “who did what?” and “palace intrigue”-type speculation. That’s the “stuff” 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.

My reviews (I’ve 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.

Instead I discovered arguments from silence, conclusions based on false premises from remarks taken wildly out of context (“Who am I to judge?”), “arguments” based on paraphrases from memory of the pope’s statements, as well as flat-out absurd and unsubstantiated or fallaciously argued assertions (my favorite of those was: “[Francis] appeared to suggest that . . . St. James and . . . even St. Peter himself—were not believers”).

And now, defenders of Mr. Lawler like Mr. Phelan want me to also deal with “allies” of the pope (these include, for example, Cardinal Müller, 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’m a big believer in dealing with one major issue at a time. It’s not my burden — in this context — to deal with every Tom, Dick, and Harry having to do with Pope Francis (he is, after all, supposedly the “lost shepherd”). It’s Mr. Lawler’s intellectual burden to substantiate his extraordinary accusations. I believe I have demonstrated some serious weaknesses in his attempt to do that.

Then Armstrong accuses Lawler of taking Pope Francis’s (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’t said them.

I did no such thing. I cited Mr. Lawler’s own words: “the pope’s statement seemed to suggest that the Church should move away from its clear and constant teaching that homosexual acts are gravely immoral.” I provided a link to the actual statement in context, 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 columnist Laurie Goodstein, who “gets” this, while Mr. Lawler doesn’t. Now I’m accused of taking Mr. Lawler out of context (an alleged instance of projection, I guess). Okay, let’s examine that.

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’t give the reader all of that context, whereas I can link to the context of the pope’s remarks. Lawler obviously set the stage for the insinuation that Pope Francis was a “liberal”; hence, soft on homosexuality as both theological and political liberals notoriously are. He wrote:

At first, Francis seemed to defy easy classification as a “liberal” or “conservative,” but as the months passed, a pattern emerged of support for causes usually associated with the political Left—environmentalism, disarmament, unrestricted immigration, income redistribution.

He qualifies a bit (but it itself is qualified by “at least initially”):

After all, on other hot-button political issues, Francis seemed to have taken a conservative position—at least initially. During his tenure as archbishop of Buenos Aires he had denounced a proposal for acceptance of same-sex marriage as the work of the devil. More recently, he had admitted that he was concerned about the possible influence of a “gay lobby” within the Vatican.

So there is a qualification (granted). But Mr. Lawler immediately “takes it back” in the next paragraph:

But if orthodox Catholics had concluded that Francis would stand firm against homosexual influence within the Church, their confidence was shattered by his remarks to reporters on a trip to Brazil in July 2013. Asked about homosexual priests, he replied, “If they accept the Lord and have good will, who am I to judge them?”

After that, Mr. Lawler descends to “palace intrigue” elements (as he often does in the book) and what he thinks the pope should have addressed in that interview but didn’t. Then he chided the pope for his lack of care. That’s 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.

And Lawler still has not examined the five infamous words in their proper context: which is always a primary responsibility in dealing with others and a matter of fundamental journalistic ethics.

The book makes many such mere insinuations, yet without anything near compelling proof; whereas in my critiques I provided actual concrete examples of the pope’s stand on the issue:

Pope Francis opposed so-called “gay marriage” in a Slovakian referendum in February 2015.
He did the same in December 2015 as regards Slovenia.
In January 2015, the pope visited the Philippines and stated: “The family is also threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life.”

I went much more in-depth in my earlier review on this issue alone. I wrote there:

[Lawler] Why were the most famous words of his pontificate uttered in an informal question-and-answer session on an airplane ride?

To answer the last question first: obviously it was because the media / reporters from the session wanted the words taken out of context to be spread far and wide. I don’t 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 secular media very often does that. I need not waste any time arguing this. It’s perfectly self-evident.

The relevant question is, then (as in our previous installment): what is the pope’s true view, and what did he express in this interview, in context?

Same with his weird claim in which he quotes Lawler, including his qualification of Scalfari’s method and translation, when Lawler (rightly) says that Scalfari’s quote of Pope Francis “appeared to cast doubt on the existence of hell.” 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.

The claim is that my counter-argument was “weird”? I submit that it was nowhere near as weird as Mr. Lawler’s joke-of-a-pseudo-“argument” based on paraphrases of the pope’s 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; so I had to do it for him, and he comes off looking quite reckless and feckless indeed: to make such charges.

So why attribute to Lawler the false claim (or implication) that he thinks the pope doesn’t believe in hell, other than his obvious point that the pope often speaks carelessly about important things,

Again, Mr. Lawler somewhat subtly insinuates this. But that’s all he needs 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 “again” heterodox or out of line or “scandalous.” All Lawler had to (and did) say was, “This time Francis—at least as interpreted by his favorite interviewer—appeared to cast doubt on the existence of hell”. Then he quoted the words (which again, are not the pope’s own) and left them hanging (like a bitter aftertaste or a frightening image in a nightmare).

He certainly must know that the typical reader of a book of this nature will interpret that as “the pope denies hell!” So why would he present this as he did, with no effort to document what the pope actually believes (as I have done): if indeed he doesn’t think the pope actually denies it? It’s scurrilous, muckraking journalism. We expect that of Big Liberal Media. But it’s a disgrace, coming from a reputable Catholic journalist, regarding the Holy Father.

or, in the case of Scalfari, keeps giving him interviews in which he is misquoted, but does not demand a correction.

I think it’s legitimate to question the prudence and wisdom of the pope continuing to utilize Scalfari (I do, myself), but that’s a different question from whether he actually denies hell (not to mention purgatory and heaven) or not.

If this is a “defense” of Pope Francis, then let us pray he gains more able defenders, and advisors. As a critique of Lawler’s book, it fails miserably.

Mr. Phelan is entitled to his opinion. He also can choose to ignore this critique of mine, just as all my critiques of Mr. Lawler’s 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).

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.

***

Photo credit: Image by geralt (12-8-15) [Pixabay / CC0 Creative Commons license]

***