Another day, another Phil Lawler bomb lobbed at Pope Francis. Another online article accusing the Holy Father of undermining orthodox Catholic teaching, causing confusion in the Church, and other alarmist sensationalism. Here we go… again.

Oh yes, and another concluding paragraph self-promoting Lawler’s new book. A book that paints Francis as a bad pope. As I have stated on several occasions: “The self-promotion in Phil Lawler’s neverending criticism of the Holy Father? It is not incidental but a feature.”

Controversy Creates Ca$h was the title of the autobiography published by legendary professional wrestling promoter Eric Bischoff. And few find controversy with every word and action of Pope Francis like Phil Lawler. Curious to know why? All you need is $13 U.S. and a Kindle-ready device!

Today’s controversy concerns a private conversation between Pope Francis and Juan Carlos Cruz–the latter a childhood victim of priestly sexual misconduct. Cruz is also openly gay. He reports that Pope Francis told him “you have to be happy with who you are” and “God made you like that and He loves you like that and I do not care.”

We do not know Pope Francis’s side of the story. What we do know is the following: First, the conversation was private. In fact, it may have been in a privileged forum like sacramental confession or spiritual direction. Such a forum obliges Pope Francis to confidentiality, but not Cruz.

Second, the catalyst for the conversation was Cruz’s painful experience as a childhood victim of priestly sexual abuse–a betrayal of the worst sort. Often its victims are left facing a lifetime of self-loathing and suicidal ideation. Not to mention Cruz was forced to fight all through adulthood to be taken seriously as a victim.

As America Magazine reports:

[Cruz] told the pope that when he came forward with allegations of sexual abuse, leaders in the Chilean church, including Cardinal Javier Errazuriz, a member of the pope’s advisory council, said that because Mr. Cruz is gay, he was not a legitimate victim of abuse because he may have “liked” it.

Yet in generating media controversy over this incident, Phil Lawler can only see two possibilities about why Pope Francis has not responded publicly:

1. The Pope did make the statements that Cruz attributed to him—or at least statements close enough so that no correction is necessary, because he intends to change Church teaching on the question of homosexuality.

2. The Pope did not make the statements attributed to him, but he does not choose to issue a public correction because he is content to allow confusion about Church teaching on the question of homosexuality.

Not surprisingly, both of Lawler’s possibilities generate controversy by attributing ill will or secret agendas to the Holy Father. At the same time, neither possibility considers that Pope Francis was speaking pastorally and in a privileged forum. Nor that he was speaking to a person who had twice been traumatized by the Church–first as a childhood victim of clergy sexual abuse, and second as a wounded victim whose pain was repeatedly mocked by those who represented his abuser.

“Really, is there any other way to explain the Pope’s statement and his subsequent silence—in this case and many others?” Lawler asks as he sets up the concluding self-promotion of his book.

Yes, there is.

There is the third possibility offered by Cruz himself:

Mr. Cruz, a victim of sexual abuse by a Catholic priest in his native Chile, said that even if the church’s teaching on homosexuality remains unchanged, the pope’s words provide an example as to how L.G.B.T. Catholics can be welcomed in the church.

“I saw a compassionate man, I saw someone who was caring for someone, not worrying about if we are gay, straight, brown, white. He was hearing from someone who has been hurt, abused,” Mr. Cruz said.

Of course this third possibility is not controversial to most Catholics. It fails to portray Francis as “a bad pope”. And thus it is unlikely to be as effective in generating sales of Lawler’s book.

Hence the self-promotion in Phil Lawler’s neverending criticism of the Pope Francis: it is not incidental but a feature.

Liked this post? Take a second to support Where Peter Is on Patreon!

Pete Vere is a canonist, author, and catechist. His books include Surprised by Canon Law (volumes 1 & 2), More Catholic Than The Pope, and Annulments: 100 Questions and Answers. Pete and wife Sonya are blessed with seven children. In his spare time Pete enjoys camping with his family, riding his Indian Scout motorcycle, and refereeing professional wrestling.

Another Phil Lawler Bomb: The Confusion is Self-Promotional

8 Responses

  1. LD says:

    Another case of a rogue apologist forming his own cult of personality without ecclesial oversight. Where are our bishops? This person needs to be brought under proper authority.

  2. Mary W. says:

    I just discovered your site, hoping that perhaps you might shed some balancing light on the confusion in the Church today. Unfortunately, I find in this piece that you are assuming the worst about Phil Lawler in the same way that you are accusing him of assuming the worst about Pope Francis. Here you could have set an example of how to do better. At least give him the benefit of the doubt and assume the best about his motives, that his concerns are sincere and not about making money, and his conclusions have been reached painfully after struggling unsuccessfully to find a way to fit Pope Francis into his understanding of authentic Catholicism. You would do well to imitate Thomas Aquinas and attempt to sincerely understand your opponent’s perspective rather than writing him off as motivated by money. God have mercy on us all, and bless Your Church with unity in truth!

    • Pete Vere says:

      The fact Phil Lawler has begun to introduce marketing type catch phrases into his online articles, promoting his latest book, pretty much sums of his agenda in my opinion.

      Basically Lawler’s signature jingo phrase has quickly become: “In Lost Shepherd I remarked: ‘The confusion in Amoris Laetitia is not a bug; it is a feature.’ The same could be said of this entire pontificate.”

      In writing, as in professional wrestling, this is referred to as “branding”.

    • Jane says:

      Hello Mary, If Phil Lawler has the attitude of St. Catherine of Siena, who said, “. . . He who rebels against our Father, Christ on earth, is condemned to death, for that which we do to him, we do to Christ in Heaven—we honor Christ if we honor the Pope, we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. . . ” then maybe we should listen to him (Phil Lawler). If he has the opposing attitude, maybe it would be a great disadvantage to our own souls, to listen to him.

    • Jane says:

      Hello Mary, If Phil Lawler has the same attitude as St. Catherine of Siena, who said, ““He who rebels against our Father, Christ on earth, is condemned to death, for that which we do to him, we do to Christ in heaven – we honor Christ if we honor the pope, we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the pope, ” then we must listen to him and do what he says. If he has the opposite attitude, I think it is gravely damaging to our souls to listen to him. I think, from what I know, that Phil Lawler may not be of the same mind as Saint Catherine of Siena. I can be wrong, though, but I do know from my experience that I feel absolutely no confusion in the church right now, as long as I keep my eyes and ears on the Holy Father who has been legitimately given to me/our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church by the Holy Spirit, and seek to understand and live what he teaches. If I don’t understand, I have to realize that the only person on this earth who has the graces to be the Pope is Pope Francis at this moment and not me or anyone else. Knowing that has really helped me along with this quote from Pope Pius x, who many folks love: And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth – 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, “si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,” [if any one love me, he will keep my word – Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.

      Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope. ( from the website Rorate Caeli ). God Bless you!

  3. Loni says:

    I have been sorely disappointed by Phil Lawler and the rest of his confreres at Catholic Culture. They have put their whole beings into sowing discord in the Church. The kicker is that you can’t even comment on their website without being an active donor. Good grief.

  4. Chris dorf says:

    You have got to look at this scurrilous diatribe from Maureen Malarkey from the Federalist

  1. June 4, 2018

    […] Before anything else, I would like to put in a good word for a new blog that deals with some of the subjects I’ve been talking about here: Where Peter Is. It has some excellent writers, including Peter Vere and Pedro Gabriel, who are devoted to defending Pope Francis and the Holy See in these troubled times. In fact, Vere has written an excellent post about the subject I’m about to take up. […]

Share via
Copy link