Carl Trueman has recently written an online piece published by First Things, entitled, “Why I Am Not a Catholic.” Here is the heart of his answer: “the present pope seems to be nothing more than a liberal Protestant in a white papal robe. And as a Protestant, I am acutely aware of the damage such people do.”

There are reasonable objections to the Catholic faith. Trueman’s claim that Pope Francis is “nothing more than a liberal Protestant in a white robe” is not one of them.

To be fair, Trueman concedes that his use of “liberal Protestant” is a little loose. For example, Trueman knows full well that Francis affirms both the existence of the devil and the bodily resurrection of our Lord. Instead, Trueman uses “liberal Protestantism” to refer to a Christianity “characterized by a commitment to the supernatural that is nonetheless eclipsed by the natural. It has a concern for the immanent and no real use for the transcendent.”

Trueman’s real concern is that Francis has somehow let immanent concerns “eclipse” the transcendent. It is this specific claim that needs to be interrogated.

Francis’s Integrated Approach

Trueman’s characterization runs the risk of turning the gospel into a zero-sum game between the transcendent and the immanent in which the two are not integrated but merely opposed. One is either focused on the “supernatural” or one overvalues the “earthly.” Because of this, for Trueman, Francis’s stated concern about “immanent” realities necessarily makes him a “liberal Protestant” who has “no real use for the transcendent.”

But, of course, this is alien to a biblical worldview, according to which immanent or temporal realities are intrinsically ordered toward eternal and supernatural realities. Matthew 25:31–46 should tell us all we need to know in this regard—the immanent and temporal is ordered to the transcendent and eternal. Francis’s teaching demonstrably and habitually maintains this intrinsic, ordered connection.

Certainly, Francis exhibits pastoral solicitude concerning temporal matters. And he is also very much concerned about the danger of losing sight of the Christian life’s heavenly goal. In a homily he gave in 2022, he urged: “Brother and sisters, let us feed our expectation for Heaven, let us exercise the desire for paradise. Today it does us good to ask ourselves if our desires have anything to do with Heaven. … Losing sight of what matters to follow the wind would be the greatest mistake in life. Let us look upwards.” Living in expectation of heaven involves commitment to a way of life that renounces repayment in this world and an outlook that prioritizes loving others as Christ loved us. To fail to do this is nothing less than to “compromise” the gospel: “Let us admit it: we are becoming rather good at compromising with the Gospel.”

The pope goes on to detail the excuses people use to avoid acting in obedience to Christ: “Feeding the hungry yes, but the matter of hunger is complex, and I certainly cannot resolve it! Helping the poor yes, but then injustices must be faced in a certain way and so it’s better to wait, also because by getting involved we risk always being disturbed and maybe we would realize that we could have done better; better wait a bit. … Welcoming migrants yes, of course, but it’s a complicated general matter, it has to do with politics.”

For Francis, failing to respond with urgency to those in temporal need is to betray Christian faith—to “compromise” the Gospel with eternal consequences: “The Gospel explains how to live in expectation: going towards God, loving, because He is love … He waits for us among the poor and wounded of the world” (emphasis original). This is how we as Christians “look upwards.”

A Reed Shaken in the Wind?

Trueman says that “a person, rooted in the transcendent, would always fear the wrath of God more than the op-eds of men.” The implication is clear: Francis is more concerned with op-eds than divine judgment. Yet Pope Francis has frequently reiterated teachings that garner no love from the secular-minded press.

For example, Pope Francis has repeatedly condemned abortion. Consider the words from a speech Francis delivered on May 25, 2019. Here he acknowledges that Catholic teaching is unpopular, yet he does not back down: “Sometimes we hear people say, ‘You Catholics do not accept abortion; it’s a problem with your faith.’” Yet Francis refuses to concede that the Church’s prolife convictions are merely a matter of religious faith. “No,” Francis explains, “the problem is pre-religious. … The problem is a human problem … First: is it licit to eliminate a human life to solve a problem? Second: is it licit to hire a killer to resolve a problem? … Never, never eliminate a human life or hire a killer to solve a problem.”

Likewise, while Pope Francis has insisted that transgender people “must be accepted and integrated into society,” this does not mean that he agrees with the notion that genders can be reassigned in a way that is contrary to one’s biology. In an encyclical letter—the weightiest genre of ordinary papal teaching—he talks about the need for a “human ecology,” which entails the “acceptance of our bodies as God’s gift” (Laudato Si’ §155). Francis maintains that “valuing one’s own body in its femininity or masculinity is necessary. … In this way we can joyfully accept the specific gifts of another man or woman, the work of God the Creator. … It is not a healthy attitude which would seek ‘to cancel out sexual difference because it no longer knows how to confront it.’”

Francis, therefore, wants to distinguish between “gender ideology” and “transgender people”; the former is to be rejected; the latter are always to be respected as created in the image of God and treated with the love of Christ.

Is this approach too subtle or ambiguous? Not at all. In one address, Francis even made the following startling statement: “today the worst danger is gender ideology, which cancels out differences.” He calls “gender ideology” an “ugly ideology.” This is hardly pandering to the non-religious press!

The Scandal of God’s Blessings

Trueman also points to the “confusion” that erupted last year when the Holy Father approved the release of a Church document, Fiducia Supplicans, that allowed for the blessing of same-sex couples. In reality, however, Francis was not the primary cause of the “confusion” that ensued. In fact, Francis has been laudably precise, unwilling to compromise either Catholic teaching or to refuse to respond in love to all. Trueman’s failure to offer a fair presentation of the matter is not entirely his fault. I hold certain Catholics responsible for the confusion that ensued.

Pope Francis is a man caught in the middle. On one side there is the secular media, which salivates over the possibility that Francis is somehow an iconoclast who plans to overturn centuries of Christian tradition. It is not difficult to understand why the media has an interest in papal teaching. The bishop of Rome still plays a pivotal role today in shaping the way millions of people answer moral questions. As Trueman himself says, “If Rome equivocates and falls on these issues, the world will become colder and harsher for all of us.”

On the other side, however, Francis has to deal with a more disappointing challenge: Catholics who appear to relish the idea that their suspicions of Francis’s orthodoxy will be proved correct and that he is somehow leading the Church into a “crisis.” Instead of trying to calm fears about aspects of the pope’s teachings, they stoke the flames of panic. They quickly dismiss any nuanced explanation of the pope’s words and deeds as “popesplaining.” They give Christians like Trueman the impression that Francis either is “ignorant” or that he has “contempt for … orthodox Christianity in general.”

What precisely did Pope Francis do regarding blessing same-sex couples? The press indicated that the Holy Father had allowed for not only the blessing of same-sex couples, but a blessing of “same-sex unions.” Even some within the Church who should have known better appeared to confirm the media’s narrative.

In fact, Fiducia Supplicans says absolutely nothing about blessing “same-sex unions.” It changes nothing about the Catholic Church’s teaching on same-sex relations. One had to read the lengthy document, however, not the headlines, to know this. (Ironically, some who claim Francis is “ambiguous” also fail to read his documents, complaining that his output is too voluminous. So, if he says too little, he is criticized for not saying enough; if he tries to offer in-depth explanations, he is criticized for being too verbose!)

I should also add that Fiducia Supplicans pertains to informal blessings given outside of the liturgy. In fact, it explicitly states of such blessings, “there is no intention to legitimize anything but rather to open one’s life to God, to ask for his help to live better, and also to invoke the Holy Spirit so that the values of the Gospel may be lived with greater faithfulness” (§40). The document made clear that blessings of same-sex couples are not to take place in the liturgy or with any kind of fixed liturgical formula, “precisely to avoid any form of confusion or scandal” (§39).

Can those in a same-sex relationship receive an informal blessing? Of course! In fact, all those present at every Mass—whatever their state—are invited to receive such a blessing in their pursuit of holiness. Likewise, if a man and woman approach a priest on the street and ask for a blessing, he has never been required to first inquire about their fidelity to Catholic teaching about, say, the use of contraception. Why would the Church’s ministers refuse to pray over someone? Is not the goal of the Church to lead people to pray to God?

“The Lord Made It That Way”

When the document was published, some told me privately that they thought the Holy Father simply wanted to “muddy the waters” with this new document. He was deliberately ambiguous, they claimed. “Really? What would convince you this is not true? Do you want him to go to the press and explain it all himself in detail?,” I asked.

Well, it turns out, that is precisely what Francis did. Shortly after the document’s release, the pope sat down with Norah O’Donnell on 60 Minutes for a wide-ranging interview. As part of their conversation, he expressly reiterated that he had changed no aspect of Catholic teaching. Blessings are for people, but the pope insisted that a same-sex union cannot be blessed as such. “No,” he explained to O’Donnell, “what I allowed was not to bless the union. That cannot be done because that is not the sacrament. I cannot. The Lord made it that way. But to bless each person, yes. The blessing is for everyone. For everyone. To bless a homosexual-type union, however, goes against the given right, against the law of the Church.”

Does this sound like a man who is fearful of bad press?

Pope Francis and Christ “Our Hope”

Pope Francis’s unwillingness to back down from other controversial aspects of Catholic teaching could also be mentioned here. Let me simply mention a few examples:

• his excommunication of a theologian who had argued in favor of same-sex marriages and women’s ordination;
• his teaching against surrogacy (Dignitas Infinita §48–50);
• his repudiation of pornography;
• his implementation of new penalties of excommunication for those who attempt to ordain women;
• his recent statements prohibiting women from the ordained diaconate (also articulated in no uncertain terms to a visibly shocked Norah O’Donnell)

But here let me end with one more of Trueman’s objections: the apparent invitation for Catholics who identify as LGBT to have a special pilgrimage to Rome as part of the 2025 Jubilee Year celebration.

The pope has made no statement to date on this event himself. The event—coordinated not by the Vatican itself but by the Italian Bishops Conference and the Society of Jesus—has appeared on the official Vatican calendar of events. A Vatican spokesperson has even denied that it is officially “endorsed” by the Vatican Dicastery for Evangelization, stating that such events are the “responsibility of the dioceses and individual proposing associations.” At last reporting, it was removed from the official calendar due to a logistical issue but may be reinstated.

For Trueman, it seems, the inclusion of this one possible event is the cipher through which we can assess the whole of Francis’s plans for the Jubilee celebration. He writes: “But one thing is clear: Here we have the Church allowing the categories of our immanent frame—categories that seem to stand at odds with Catholic teaching on sexuality and the human body—to drive the Jubilee celebration.”

Given the befuddling commentary out there about Pope Francis, it is understandable that people are confused about the pope’s explicit teaching. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with questioning the specific language used for the framing of a Jubilee event. How we articulate ourselves is a matter of pastoral prudence and people of faith and love can come to different conclusions about how to best do that. But is it really fair to characterize this possible element of the Jubilee as an affront to “orthodox Christianity”?

Our Lord himself was rejected for being “a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Matthew 11:19). We cannot be constantly so paralyzed by the danger of giving the “wrong impression” that we fail to follow Christ’s own example of scandalous mercy. We must not imagine that proclaiming a message of repentance means somehow excluding those who need to repent. Jesus himself insisted, “I have come not to call the righteous but sinners” (Matthew 9:13).

I hasten to add here that we are all sinners (Romans 3:9). Let us not somehow allow the word “sinner” to become a cipher for one segment of society apart from all others. If we wish to be among those Christ comes for, we must identify as sinners ourselves in need of repentance. As one myself, I remain grateful to have a Holy Father who wants to emphasize the message of Christ, which includes the hope for repentance, reconciliation, forgiveness, transformation, and inclusion in the kingdom by grace. A hope that certainly transcends the horizon of this life. The Holy Father has been eminently clear about what is to “drive” the Jubilee celebration and it is certainly not “the categories of our imminent frame,” but these things.

In the official letter announcing the Jubilee Year, Francis writes, “may the Jubilee be a moment of genuine, personal encounter with the Lord Jesus, the ‘door’ (cf. Jn 10:7.9) of our salvation, whom the Church is charged to proclaim always, everywhere and to all as ‘our hope’ (1 Tim 1:1)” (Spes non Confundit §1).

Francis says: “The storms that buffet us will never prevail, for we are firmly anchored in the hope born of grace, which enables us to live in Christ and to overcome sin, fear and death. This hope, which transcends life’s fleeting pleasures and the achievement of our immediate goals, makes us rise above our trials and difficulties, and inspires us to keep pressing forward, never losing sight of the grandeur of the heavenly goal to which we have been called” (Spes non Confundit §25).

The hope Francis speaks of involves being “born of grace” and being able to “overcome sin, fear, and death,” a hope that “transcends life’s fleeting pleasures.” He hopes to appeal to millions of pilgrims in the Jubilee Year who are filled with this hope. The goal Francis wants us to turn our eyes to is a “heavenly goal.” The claim that these words are written by a man who is “nothing more than a liberal Protestant in a white papal robe,” who allows the natural to “eclipse” the supernatural, is simply not convincing.

---

Image: “Pope Francis” (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by Catholic Church (England and Wales)