Two thoughtful critiques of the Pope’s approach

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Sep 28, 2016

“Has Pope Francis Failed?” by Matthew Schmitz is a remarkable little essay, not only because it is persuasively argued, but also because it appears today in, of all places, the New York Times! The fact that the Times would run such a piece is, in a way, evidence for the author’s thesis.

Schmitz reports that although Pope Francis undoubtedly won popular attention early in his pontificate, the “Francis effect” has not been visible in the longer term. Mass attendance continues to slide, as does participation in other sacraments. “In spite of Francis’ personal popularity,” Schmitz writes, “young people seem to be drifting away from the faith.” Nor has there been any notable increase in converts to replace the young Catholics who defect. Thus while the “approval ratings” for the Pope himself remain high, the ratings for the Catholic Church continue to slip. Is that a coincidence, or are the two facts (and they are facts) related? Would a Pontiff who was more vigorous in upholding traditional Church teachings be more successful in bringing people into the fold? Liberal Catholic commentators, responding to the Schmitz essay on Twitter, have made the argument that the shrinkage of the active Catholic population is attributable to secularization, and cannot be blamed on the current Pope. No doubt that’s true. But what we can say is that the unusual pastoral approach taken by Pope Francis has failed to change the secularizing trend. The expectation that Pope Francis might reverse that trend, by stepping aside from the “culture wars,” has been proven wrong.

For that matter—as Schmitz also demonstrates—the initial excitement that Pope Francis would bring fresh winds of reform to the Vatican has also dissipated, as the promise of sweeping change in the Roman Curia has given way to reality that a few offices will be merged, a few other new offices created, but the “old guard” and the old way of business remain intact.

For First Things, meanwhile, Villanova theologian Jessica Murdoch argues against “Creeping Infallibility,” with a critical eye on Amoris Laetitia—or, to be more precise, on those (such as Cardinal Christoph Schönborn) who have claimed that the apostolic exhortation should be regarded as an act of the magisterium, requiring the assent of the faithful. Murdoch explains, thoroughly and clearly, how different papal statements command different levels of assent.

To be authoritative, she explains, a papal document must be clear, must be read in continuity with previous magisterial statements, and above all must be demonstrably in accord with Revelation. She argues that Amoris Laetitia does not meet those tests, and along the way she details why the document does not constitute a “development of doctrine” by Cardinal Newman’s criteria. All this does not mean, of course, that Amoris Laetitia should be disregarded. Murdoch’s point is that the Pope’s document does not definitely settle the questions that are clearly still in dispute among the faithful. (One test of an authoritative doctrinal statement is that it should represent what the faithful have always and everywhere believed. No one could possible claim that the Kasper Proposal qualifies.)

“Distinctions are necessary,” Murdoch writes. “And for this reason any sort of ‘creeping infallibility’ that would attach the same level of authority to every papal utterance or document must be avoided.”