The single sentence under the title to Regis Martin’s article reads: “Pope Francis has to stop the madness, and until he steps in to do so the Church will continue to fracture and unravel, spiraling completely out of control.”

His article is labeled “opinion” by Crisis Magazine. But the first problem with the article is that it is presented, not as the fallible opinion of a fallen sinner, but as a pseudo-authoritative judgement that cannot err. Regis Martin speaks as if his evaluation of the Pontificate of Pope Francis and his evaluation of the current state of the Church were certain and absolute. Regis Martin tells the public and the Catholic faithful that the Pope must “stop the madness”, that the Pope is depleting the Deposit of Faith, and that the Church will “fracture and unravel, spiraling completely out of control,” unless the Pope changes his ways according to Martin’s criticism. Such extreme claims, presented as if absolutely urgent, do not allow for the possibility that it is Regis Martin who is in error, who has misunderstood the Deposit of Faith, and who is behaving contrary to faith and reason (a figurative madness).

I marvel at how many papal critics, seeing that the teaching of the Roman Pontiff, supported by the vast majority of Bishops, is contrary to their own understanding, do not consider for even a second that perhaps the explanation is that the critic is the one who is wrong, and that the successor to Peter, along with the successors to the other Apostles, exercising the divine authority given to them by Christ, have not erred gravely, if at all.

Instead, these critics and accusers of the Pope assume they themselves cannot have erred gravely, nor at all. This arrogant assumption, that the papal critic — or in severe cases such as that of Regis Martin, the papal accuser — cannot possibly have erred or misunderstood, results in a set of astounding, earth-shattering, Church-shattering conclusions: that the Pope has erred gravely on many important subjects of faith and morals; that the body of Bishops have supported the Pope in these alleged grave errors; that the Church is leading the faithful astray and so has defected from the path of truth and salvation; and also, the latest accusation that is in vogue among papal accusers, that the Vicar of Christ is somehow “depleting” the Deposit of Faith. All of these conclusions are contrary to the teaching of Christ on the indefectibility of the Church and on the never-failing faith of the Roman Pontiff (Mt 16:18; Lk 22:32; see also Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 4, 7). And all of these conclusions are predicated on a common pride-filled and rather absurd assumption, that whenever the teaching of the Pope, the body of Bishops, or an Ecumenical Council differs from that of any individual Catholic, the individual cannot possibly have erred. And while none of these critics claim infallibility, that is the implied premise of their conclusive accusations against the Church, the Pope, and the Apostolic College.

Now these persons might argue that “many scholars” have expressed the same criticisms and accusations. But Christ did not leave the Deposit of Faith (Tradition and Scripture) in the hands of professors, authors, popular speakers, or even priests, deacons, and religious. Rather, Christ founded His Church on Peter and his successors, with the body of Bishops, who are successors to the other Apostles, leading and teaching under the authority of the Pope. So it does not matter how many critics one might find, or how many alleged scholars sign a rebellious document or petition attacking the Magisterium of the Vicar of Christ. (In truth, the signatories of such sinful writings are very small compared to the body of the faithful worldwide.) The Church is founded on Peter and his successors as on a Rock.

So Regis Martin errs gravely by assuming both that his understanding of the Faith cannot err gravely, and that the exercise of the Keys of Peter by the Vicar of Christ can supposedly err gravely.

The second point on this subject is the ancient and constant teaching of the Church, which is found in current Canon Law and in the previous code of Canon Law: that the First See is judged by no one but God. The First See is the Apostolic See; it is the See of Peter and his successors. The meaning is that the decisions of the Supreme Pontiff under the Keys of Peter, that is, on doctrine and discipline, is not to be judged by anyone on earth, but only by God alone. And one of the reasons for this teaching and law is that Christ himself guarantees that every successor of Peter will be a Rock of never-failing faith, due to the charism of truth and never-failing faith. And this charism is the ancient constant teaching of the Church, confirmed by the First Vatican Council.

If one wishes to criticize the off-hand remarks of a Pope to the press or in an informal interview, it is permissible, I suppose. But such remarks are not an exercise of the Magisterium, and so cannot do grave harm to the Deposit of Faith. Even so, it is sinful to give uncharitable interpretations of any assertions or remarks by the Pope.

But in the case of Regis Martin, he rails against the Vicar of Christ, denouncing him in such broad and absolute terms as to put into question the indefectibility of the Church and the never-failing faith of Peter and his successors.

For it is contrary to the teaching of Christ (specifically, that the gates of Hell will never prevail over the Church) to say that the Church “will continue to fracture and unravel, spiraling completely out of control.” Even with the proviso of “until” the Pope changes his ways, the claim contradicts indefectibility as this dogma does not merely say that the gates of Hell will not prevail over the Church in the end, or in the long term, but — as the Church has always understood it — that the gates of Hell will never prevail over the Church at any time. So the claim that the Church has or will “fracture and unravel” or spiral “completely out of control” is material heresy.

On the teaching and law that the First See is judged by no one but God:

Pope Saint Boniface I, 418-422: “No one has ever boldly raised his hands against the Apostolic Eminence, from whose judgment it is not permissible to dissent; no one has rebelled against this, who did not wish judgment to be passed upon him.”

Pope Saint Nicholas I (the great), 858-867: “Neither by the emperor, nor by all the clergy, nor by kings, nor by the people will the judge be judged…. The first See will not be judged by anyone….”

Pope Saint Leo IX, 1053: “By passing a preceding judgment on the great See, concerning which it is not permitted any man to pass judgment, you have received anathema from all the Fathers of all the venerable Councils…. As the hinge while remaining immovable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors have free judgment over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because ‘the highest See is judged by no one.’ ”

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302, approved by the Fifth Lateran Council: “Therefore, if the earthly power goes astray, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a lesser spiritual power goes astray, it will be judged by its superior; and truly, if the highest power goes astray, it will not be able to be judged by man, but by God alone. And so the Apostle testifies, ‘The spiritual man judges all things, but he himself is judged by no one.’ [1 Cor 2:15]”

Pope Gregory XI, 1377, condemned the error: “An ecclesiastic, even the Roman Pontiff, can legitimately be corrected, and even accused, by subjects and lay persons.”

Canon 1404: The First See is judged by no one.
[Current Code of Canon Law, 1983]

Canon 1556: The Primatial See can be judged by no one.
[Previous Code of Canon Law, 1917]

Regis Martin and the other papal accusers are judging and condemning the Roman Pontiff, based on their own fallible opinions, contrary to the indefectibility of the Church and the never-failing faith of the Roman Pontiff. They judge the Pope contrary to the teaching that the First See is judged by no one but God.

I should also point out that no one has a right to judge the soul of the Pope, even as concerns his personal decisions apart from his decisions on doctrine and discipline. God alone judges the soul of each person.

Regis Martin: “it would not be possible to acquit His Holiness from complicity in the disasters taking place in the life of the Church. He will own them. Whether wittingly or not scarcely matters anymore. The point is, it has got to stop, and until he steps in to do so the Church will continue to fracture and unravel, spiraling completely out of control. Will he do so? Will he finally decide to put an end to the madness?”

Here Martin is judging the Roman Pontiff as to personal (alleged) sin, as well as judging that his Pontificate as a whole has gravely harmed the Church. Such claims as “madness” and “fracture and unravel” and spiral “completely out of control” are contrary to indefectibility. Martin contradicts Christ in the Gospel of Matthew, that the gates of Hell will never prevail over the Church founded on Peter and his successors. In this way, Martin violates the teaching and law that the First See is not to be judged by anyone but God, and also implies the heresy that the Church is not indefectible and that the faith of the Roman Pontiff is not never-failing.

Regis Martin also accuses Pope Francis of planning to deplete the Deposit of Faith: “Why not begin with the Deposit of Faith, the depletion of which appears to have been a programmatic theme of this pontificate from the beginning.” But according to Church teaching, the Roman Pontiff has the charism of truth and never-failing faith, which therefore preserves him from grave errors on doctrine and discipline. So the accusations of Regis Martin are necessarily false as they are contrary to dogma, and also sinful as these accusations judge and condemn the Roman Pontiff, who is judged only by God.

My next post on the topic will deal with the idea of the plurality and diversity of religions.

Ronald L Conte Jr