Part 3:

Regis Martin was a guest on the show The World Over, June 1, 2023, PUT AN END TO THE MADNESS! Dr. Regis Martin with Raymond Arroyo. The link goes to the video on the EWTN YouTube channel. On the show, Dr. Martin discusses his article accusing Pope Francis of grave errors on matters of faith and morals in his teaching of the Church: Put an End to the Madness!

If one wishes to disagree with a non-infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff, one must provide a substantial theological argument, treat the Roman Pontiff with the respect due to his role as the Vicar of Christ, and not assume that you are right and the Magisterium is wrong, even when the matter is non-infallible. See Donum Veritatis n. 26ff.

Dr. Martin’s accusations against the Roman Pontiff (article and interviews linked above) and against the body of Bishops (interview above) are not supported by any substantial theological argument, not even a poor one. Instead, his claims are “supported” or maybe I should say “adorned” with a long series of querulous questions, which Martin does not answer. There is not even the pretext of a theological argument. Dr. Martin goes so far as to accuse the Bishops who support Pope Francis of cowardice (interview above), apparently for not rebuking Pope Francis for his failure to teach the version of Catholicism found in the mind of Dr. Martin.

Then far from treating the Pope with respect, Martin accuses the Pope of madness, which reminds me of the Gospel passage:
[Mark]
{3:20} And they went to a house, and the crowd gathered together again, so much so that they were not even able to eat bread.
{3:21} And when his own had heard of it, they went out to take hold of him. For they said: “Because he has gone mad.”

[John]
{10:20} Then many of them were saying: “He has a demon or he is insane. Why do you listen him?”

Accusing the Roman Pontiff of “madness” is indefensible, especially when the cause for this accusatory rhetoric is his exercise of the Keys of Saint Peter. One might as well accuse Saint Peter of the same madness, since:

“2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and forever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors, the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.” [Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus]

It is not the case that the decisions of the Pope, when exercising the Keys of Peter, can err to any extent. The indefectibility of the Church, the charism of truth and never-failing faith (also taught by Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus), and the principle that Christ teaches through the Church, through the Pope and the body of Bishops, as well as the teaching that Peter still lives, presides, and exercises judgment in his See all prove without doubt that even the non-infallible decisions of the Pope on doctrine and discipline have only a limited possibility of error.

Dr. Martin: “There was certainly no ambiguity on the part of Francis when, pronouncing on the “pluralism and diversity of religions,” he went on to insist that it was all “willed by God in his wisdom, through which he created human beings.”
…
It would seem, in light of the language agreed upon by both the Grand Imam and God’s Vicar, that the place occupied by Christ for the last two thousand years had just been downsized. The absolute singularity of the Christ Event will no longer apply.

How does one reconcile that alongside all the Gospel accounts in which Christ is presented not as an optional extra but as the real deal, the pivotal figure in the entire history of the world? In other words, once the Incarnation happened, everything and everyone changed, nothing would ever be the same again. Otherwise, it could not have been God who came down among us more than two millennia ago. And if Christ is no longer the authoritative center of the cosmos, why be Christian at all?”

Martin asks a number of questions, which he does not answer.

Martin: “When exactly did God change his mind and decide to include all religions in the plan of salvation? Is Islam now to be considered a necessary player in divine revelation? An instrument of divine grace? What does that do to the importance heretofore assigned to Christ, without whom no one can be saved?”

My reply: God’s providence encompasses all things. The Babylonian captivity as well as the Return to the Holy Land of God’s people, the Jews, were part of His plan of salvation. All the events that occurred prior to the writing of even the first book of the Bible and prior to God’s revelation to Abraham and the other Patriarchs were part of His plan of salvation. Persons were saved, by Christ, prior to Abraham; persons were saved from the time of Abraham up to just before the time of Christ; and persons continue to be saved from that time until today and thereafter. Christ saves, even before Christianity, even before Judaism, and Christ saves Christian, Jews, Muslims, other believers, and even non-believers. All human persons are offered salvation; but not all accept that offer.

Now certainly devote Muslims, who worship God and love their neighbor, are on the path of salvation, can be in the state of grace, and can be saved without converting to Christianity. For salvation was offered even before Christianity and before Judaism. Then the path of salvation was not narrowed by Christ, such that, since Christ, only Christians could be saved. They accuse God of a lack of mercy who make such a claim. And the Church has long taught that non-Christians can certainly obtain salvation:

Pope Pius IX: “There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”

This teaching opens a possible path to salvation, even for atheists, and certainly for persons who believe in God and love their neighbor. But this does not make Christ unnecessary for salvation. All salvation comes through Christ, even outside the formal structure of the Church. So persons in the state of grace, who are not Christians, are non-formal members of the Church and therefore are included in the Ark of Salvation and in the flock of Jesus Christ.

Pope Saint John Paul II: However, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, the gift of salvation cannot be limited “to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all.” And, in admitting that it is concretely impossible for many people to have access to the Gospel message, I added: “Many people do not have the opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions” (RM 10).
…
For this reason, the Council states in the Constitution Gaudium et Spes that in the heart of every man of good will, “Grace works in an unseen way…. The Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery” (GS 22).
…
as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her.”
All Salvation Comes through Christ (Pope Saint John Paul II, General Audience — May 31, 1995)

So admitting the plurality and diversity of religions as willed by God does not take away the importance of Christ, nor the importance of Christianity and in particular Catholicism as the ordinary and preferred path of salvation. Then the further one goes from the fullness of truth in the Catholic Christian Faith, the more difficult and unsure is the path of salvation. And those who know that Christianity or Catholicism is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, but who refuse to convert, are culpable. So one cannot simply choose any religion or belief system and be judged the same by God. Invincible ignorance can excuse objectively grave sins, sins of commission or omission. But no one is saved unless they die in the state of grace. Invincible ignorance does not grant grace. Then an implicit baptism of desire (or a baptism of blood) is needed for those who are not baptized Christians.

As for the diversity and plurality of religions, when Pope Francis issued that document, his critics complained that non-Catholic religions are merely permissively willed by God. Then the Pope agreed, stating this in a General Audience, in a letter to Bishop Athanasius Schneider, and also in statement to Bishop Schneider in person: permissively willed by God.

Pope Francis, Human Fraternity: “Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept;”

Freedom of religion is spoken of by Pope Francis in the context of society as a whole. Governments, cultures, societies must not attempt to force people to believe one religion over another. This freedom of religion does not imply that all religions are equal, or that those who know the truth about Christ and Christianity are morally free to ignore that truth. It is a statement about human rights in society as a whole, that government and culture must not force any particular beliefs on people. But it is also against Church Law to compel someone to become Catholic:

Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

§2. No one is ever permitted to coerce persons to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience.

Each person is judged by their conscience; and each person is bound by what they understand to be truth, even if they err by a sincere but mistaken conscience. However, a bad conscience will be judged by God.

So this freedom of religion does not assert that the path of salvation is the same for all religions, or regardless of beliefs. But God gave persons free will, and so they must be free to choose. Then each person is also to be judged by God at the end of their lives. Freedom of choice does not mean that every choice is equal.

In an General Audience of April 3, 2019, Pope Francis clarified that the diversity of religions is due to the permissive will of God:

“But some might ask themselves: but why is the Pope going to the Muslims and not just to Catholics? Because there are many religions, and why are there many religions? Along with the Muslims, we are the descendants of the same Father, Abraham: why does God allow many religions? God wanted to allow this: Scolastica theologians used to refer to God’s voluntas permissive. He wanted to allow this reality: there are many religions. Some are born from culture, but they always look to heaven; they look to God. But what God wants is fraternity among us and in a special way, this was the reason for the trip, with our brothers, Abraham’s children like us, the Muslims. We must not fear differences. God allowed this. We should be afraid were we to fail to work fraternally to walk together in life.” [General Audience]

When his critics objected to his teaching on the will of God and the pluralism and diversity of religions, saying that this must be due to the permissive will of God, Pope Francis agreed with them, as shown above. Yet they continued to accuse the Pope of grave error, even of heresy, on this point. They claimed that the text of the document (“The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.”) implies that diversity of religions is positively willed by God, rather than merely permitted. So they reject Pope Francis’ interpretation and explanation of his own words. They insist that the Pope should not only teach their position, as he has on this point, but also use the wording they choose. Their arrogance exceeds that of the Pharisees.

First, no one can be accused of heresy for saying that the diversity of religions is positively willed by God, since the Magisterium has never issued an infallible teaching on this point. It is still an open question as to how to understand the plan of God in salvation for those who are non-Christians. However, Feeneyism is condemned by the Church as heresy; so one cannot take the position that only Catholics or only baptized Christians can be saved. This fact certainly gives a place in the plan of salvation for non-Christian believers.

Second, so far from interpreting the words of the holy Father charitably, it is open malice to accuse the Roman Pontiff of heresy or grave error, when he explicitly agrees with your position, that the diversity of religions is due to the permissive will of God. Pope Francis says the diversity of religions is willed by God. His critics object, saying it is only the permissive will of God. He states agreement in a General Audience and elsewhere. And they accuse him of heresy, even though he agrees with him, because they interpret his words to possess the opposite view from that which he stated he holds. How can they be corrected by the Vicar of Christ, when they accuse him of heresy, even though he agrees with them? Even the Pharisees of old would be impressed with this level of intellectual dishonesty and malicious false accusation.

Third, the correct position on the will of God and the diversity of religions is, in my opinion, more complex than permissively willed or positively willed. So it is possible that some non-Catholic religions, e.g. Orthodox Christianity or Protestantism, are positively willed by God, for the sake of fallen sinners who are not strong enough in faith to adhere to the fullness of Catholicism — so that their only other option is not to join the reprobate. But in so far as any non-Catholic version of Christianity or any misinterpretation of Catholicism err gravely, such errors are only permitted by God. He positively wills the good and truth in different versions of Christianity; He permissively allows error.

Then other religions, such as Islam, are positively willed by God in so far as they assist substantially in the path of salvation. Having only Christianity as a choice of religion for the whole world would result in fewer persons saved, as those who have invincible ignorance regarding our holy religion would be left with nothing to believe and no formal helps in the path of salvation.

Judaism is certainly a religion positively willed by God, as proven by the Old Testament and the revelations to Abraham, Moses, etc. From the Jews, we have the largest part of Sacred Scripture and the beginnings of Tradition. The claim, by some on the far right that the Jewish faith supposedly ceased to be a true religion when Christ arrived, accuses God of a lack of mercy. Those Jews who have invincible ignorance regarding Christ can still be in the state of grace, and therefore, in following the Jewish faith established by God, they please God and progress well on the path of salvation. Christ did not come to take away the Old Covenant, but to transform the Old Covenant into the New Covenant. So the Old Covenant is not null and void. It continues in its new form. Thus, the Jews who do not realize that the Covenant has been transfigured by Christ can continue to draw grace and truth from their true religion established by God and from the same Covenant, now transfigured.

To those who claim that the Jews have incorporated errors into the Jewish Faith, by rejecting Christ as the Messiah, I ask: do any of your beliefs about Catholicism or Christianity include errors? I would think that most Catholics, a large majority, have incorporated some serious errors into their understanding of Catholicism — especially those who oppose the Pope and the body of Bishops. So it is hypocrisy for them to accuse the Jews of following a false religion, due to the error of rejecting Christ, when those who so accuse have rejected the Vicar of Christ and the vast majority of his fellow Shepherds in Christ (the Bishops).

Certainly, some belief systems called religion offer no substantial help on the path of salvation. Such things are not true religions, and so not included in the diversity of religions from the above papal document (which contains multiple assertions narrowing the term religion, at least as concerns that document). Such belief systems are permitted by God as He also permits many sinful or harmful things in this life.

Catholic Christianity is positively willed by God. But many Catholics believe grave errors, despite bearing the name Catholic, because they do not listen to the Church. The non-Catholic Christian religions are positively willed by God, in so far as they retain true Christianity, and only permissively willed (it is God’s will to permit them) in so far as they might spread grave error. Judaism was positively willed by God from its inception, and continues to be positively willed by God in so far as it remains true to that foundation, and permissively willed beyond that point. Islam is positively willed by God in whatever it teaches and practices that is true and pleasing to God, which is substantial; in so far as any Muslim departs from that which is true and good, such things are only permitted by God. Then the extremist Muslims, who are a small number compared to devout Muslims, are not truly practicing any religion. They merely wear the mask of religion to justify their sins.

Other religions, similarly, are only positively willed if they provide any substantial helps to the path of salvation; otherwise, they are merely permitted. Some things that might be called religion do not really meet the definition in Human Fraternity. Belief systems that lead people quickly toward Hell, and away from all that is true and good, are permitted only in the same way that every grave sins are permitted by God, due to free will and the sinfulness of humanity.

The above is my opinion on the pluralism and diversity in religion as concerns the will of God. In any case, there seems to be no infallible teaching on this point.

Dr. Regis Martin’s position

In his interview on EWTN (cited above, see minute mark 3:09ff), Dr. Martin states the following, in reference to the document Human Fraternity:

Pope Francis “conceded that there’s a lot of pluralism in the world and that, as regards religion this was somehow God’s will, this was His creative intention, part of Divine providence, to permit a diversity of religious opinion, which strikes me as a direct frontal assault upon the centrality of Christ.”

Pope Francis’ position is that God permissively wills the diversity of religions. The critics of the Pope take the position that God permissively wills the diversity of religion; but they still accuse the Pope of grave error. Then Regis Martin appears to take the position that God neither positively nor permissively wills the diversity of religions — because even “to permit a diversity of religious opinion” would somehow be an attack on “the centrality of Christ”. What is left, if as Martin claims, God does not permit, as regards different religions, the things that actually occur? Martin implies, probably unwittingly, that God is not all powerful. For if anything occurs, it must be permitted by God, who is omnipotent. At the very least, Regis Martin has not thought through his own position, despite accusing Pope Francis of grave errors on faith and morals.

Martin criticized Pope Francis to an extreme degree, even accusing him of a program to deplete the Deposit of Faith and of teaching grave errors on sexual morality. But his attacks on the Pope lack even an argument that is internally coherent. What occurs is either permitted by God who is all powerful and whose providence encompasses all things, or it is positively willed by God. I suppose we could say, in general, that morally good things are positively willed by God, and moral evil as well as harm and suffering are only permitted by Him. And if we apply this to religion, the result is something like what I’ve already described above.

Regis Martin also criticizes Pope Francis’ extemporaneous remarks (later published by Disney for some insane reason) on sexuality. But off-the-cuff remarks are not an act of the Magisterium. They do not fall under the Keys of Peter. And such passing remarks cannot even possibly be heresy, as heresy must be deliberate and obstinate. If Martin disagrees, he should perhaps write an article on what he understands to be the correct teachings on each point. Instead, he just rails against the Vicar of Christ at every turn, and enjoys the notoriety that this gives him.

Ronald L Conte Jr