On November 20, LifeSite News hosted a Rome Life Forum in Kansas City where its Editor-in-Chief, John-Henry Westen, gave a presentation addressing “the growing confusion within the Catholic Church … over whether Pope Francis is actually the pope.”
LifeSite’s coverage of this topic has been slowly evolving. When once their editorial posture seemed to exclude the mere possibility that Jorge Bergoglio is anything other than a true Roman Pontiff, they have come to the point where, today, they’re at least open to having the debate. To their credit, they’ve even recently published articles written by proponents of the sedevacantist position.
One of the themes repeated throughout Westen’s presentation concerns the observation that sincere individuals, “saints” even, can be found on both sides of the discussion.
John-Henry Westen is one of those individuals. His approach to this topic (and others) gives every indication that he is genuinely interested in finding the truth of the matter, and he is to be commended for his openness to debate.
That said, Westen, despite his sincerity, is entering the debate attached to certain false premises and assumptions that, unless corrected, practically guarantee that the truth of the matter will forever escape his recognition. Worse still, those in his considerable circle of influence, readers and viewers who put stock in his commentary, will find themselves likewise relegated to a permanent state of bewilderment.
Westen opened his presentation by stating:
The title of my talk today is called, “The Question that Everyone is Asking.” And it’s that question: Is Jorge Bergoglio the pope? It’s no longer: Is the pope Catholic? That was done away with about 11 years ago.
From there, however, Westen seemed to lose sight of the endpoint toward which the debate is ordered.
Several times throughout his presentation, he suggested that the true purpose of the debate under review is to seek a solution to the present ecclesial crisis overall. For instance, he shared the contents of a personal letter from Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who wrote:
I will not engage in further discussions about the issue of a heretical pope or the validity of Pope Francis’ papacy … We must have a true supernatural view on the current crisis of the papacy, and trust in the Lord, for he alone can and will resolve this.
Westen also told his listeners:
The solution doesn’t change. “In the end my Immaculate Heart will Triumph.” That’s the promise that we’re working towards.
Did you notice how the focus has shifted?
Yes, debates concerning the validity of Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy and speculation concerning the solution to the broader crisis are interrelated topics, but they are not interchangeable endeavors.
The debate over the “sedevacantist theory” boils down to the very simple question that Westen posed in his opening statement: Is Jorge Bergoglio the pope? That’s it, nothing more nothing less, and the answer to this question is either yes, or no. Period.
Further evidence of Westen’s confusion is found in the second half of his opening salvo:
“It’s no longer: Is the pope Catholic? That was done away with about eleven years ago.”
Though it isn’t entirely clear what he meant, he appears to be saying that it is now widely accepted that this pope, the one elected in 2013, isn’t really Catholic, or stated otherwise, he doesn’t actually hold the Catholic faith. Indeed, this much is entirely obvious.
If that be so, one wonders, what are we actually debating?
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves…
The only alternative understanding of Westen’s comment is that he is suggesting that questions concerning Jorge’s status as a Catholic are now overshadowed – perhaps even to the point of irrelevance – by the more important question, Is Francis pope?
With all due respect, it is stunning to hear intelligent, sincere men speak in such ways! Westen, however, is far from alone.
In my experience, nearly every “non-sedevacantist” Catholic who wades into these waters seems to have an ironclad mental block that prevents them from giving genuine consideration to the absolutely fundamental question concerning Bergoglio’s claims to mere membership in the Church.
Though only circumstantial, this inability (or unwillingness) to attack the problem at hand logically – starting with an examination of the most basic elements of the papacy – serves as evidence that the House of God on earth is, in fact, without a Father, and has been for so long that many of the children are presently lost and confused to the point of being practically unable to engage in a rudimentary thought process.
In any case, the question upon which this entire debate most certainly rests remains: Is the man claiming to be pope Catholic?
My advice to John-Henry and others like him: Take a small step back from the bigger question concerning whether or not the Office of Peter is presently occupied, and take up the far simpler task of defending the following proposition, offering as many proofs as you possibly can in favor its legitimacy:
Jorge Bergoglio is a member of the Mystical Body of Christ according to the requirements for membership long ago established by the Sacred Magisterium.
If you can defend this proposition without twisting those requirements to make Jorge Bergoglio fit, great. Now, move on to the papacy debate.
If you cannot, however, then you have already answered, in the negative, the bigger question: Is Jorge Bergoglio the pope?
A common rejoinder is the facile accusation that this line of thinking is a gross oversimplification of the issue, one that falls squarely into the category of dismissing an eminently logical argument out of hand. The truth of the matter is that the definition of membership is, in fact, both overly simple and yet supremely relevant.
I’ve written hundreds upon hundreds of words on this topic and will not repeat all of them here. Suffice it to say that membership in the Church is manifest and visible. It isn’t secret. No one with any credibility argues otherwise. It is also eminently knowable, in particular with respect to persons, like Bergoglio, with an extensive public record of pronouncing on matters of faith.
The same can be said of non-membership. It too is knowable, i.e., we can recognize non-members based upon the faith that they manifest and proclaim.
In the present case, even many heretics have observed that Bergoglio is not a Catholic, of any rank!
The problem with so many Catholics, like John-Henry Westen, is not so much that they insist on defending Bergoglio’s status as a true member of the Church. This I would wholeheartedly welcome! The real issue is that they don’t (and have never, as far as I can tell) even bother to engage in a serious examination of Bergoglio’s status as a member of the Church according to the parameters clearly established by the Sacred Magisterium.
Rather, they proceed as if it is simply a given that Jorge Bergoglio is a Catholic, a presumption so entirely disconnected from the historical record that it is nothing short of delusional. Otherwise, it seems that many tacitly concede that the man has not the Catholic faith, but then go their merry way as if this entirely obvious fact isn’t germane to the matter of his claims to the papacy – also delusional.
Westen revealed yet another false premise that threatens to stand in the way of his arriving at the truth when he said of the debate at hand, “It’s not one of those arguments where it’s about, ‘I’m right, you’re wrong.’”
Actually, it is exactly about this. Either Bergoglio is a member of the Church, or he isn’t. Likewise, either he is the pope, or he is not. There is no middle ground, just as there is no such thing as “partial communion.”
In this misunderstanding, Westen also has many con freres who, for whatever reason, enter into the present debate wringing their hands about its complexity even before they roll up their sleeves and get to it. The truth of the matter is that, at its most basic, (e.g., ascertaining Bergoglio’s status as a member of the Church) the query under consideration is actually quite simple.
Even so, Westen assures his audience that “there’s one answer to these difficult questions, which He will reveal in His time.”
Without leveling any accusations at Westen or anyone else in particular, it occurs to me that the benefit of painting this issue as overly complex and unanswerable apart from Divine intervention is that it relieves one of any responsibility for drawing a morally certain conclusion of their own, much less laboring to arrive at one. This quickly leads to an attitude of ambivalence, one that is unfortunately rather common among such persons. We’ve all heard the arguments:
What does it really matter if Francis is a true pope or not? We have to resist anything that isn’t consonant with the faith either way! Besides, even if we conclude that he’s an anti-pope, only God can fix it.
A detailed essay on why it matters (and it most certainly does!) is beyond the scope of the present article. Westen himself, however, gives one rather good reason why it matters, saying:
It’s the pursuit of truth that we’re after. We’re pursuing truth, because Truth is a person, Jesus Christ!
I couldn’t agree more. Where I must diverge with Westen is in his portrayal of that pursuit.
In addition to what has been said thus far, Westen further mischaracterized the debate surrounding Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy by saying “it’s not unprecedented.”
True enough, but rather than mentioning the misdeeds of Francis’ post-conciliar predecessors he pointed to the Great Western Schism as a meaningful precedent.
So, there was a thing called the Great Western Schism … It lasted 39 years, where they didn’t know who the pope was because there was more than one claimant to the papacy.
Westen summarizes, “The point of the story is that they had 39 years of confusion of over who the pope was, and Saints were on either side.”
To be clear, there really is something of a precedent here insofar as a person living in those times could only have speculated as to how the situation was ultimately going to be resolved. At the same time, the faithful had every reason to continue trusting in the indefectibility of the Church and Our Lord’s promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against her.
The same is true today. None among us can state with certainty how the current crisis might be resolved, only that the Divine promises remain as intact as ever.
That said, one notes that the confusion that accompanied the Great Western Schism was entirely different in kind than the confusion that infects the hearts and minds of so many Catholics today regarding the person of Francis.
Ironically, one of the reasons why it was so difficult to discern exactly who was, and who was not, the true pope during those thirty-nine years was the fact that none of the claimants to the papacy were heretics. Not a one of them manifested anything other than the true faith. If, on the other hand, any of them had behaved as Jorge Bergoglio behaves, all concerned would have known to eliminate that man from any and all consideration!
As it is, Westen’s comments, despite his sincerity, only further cemented in the minds of his audience the false premise that the Bergoglio question is somehow beyond their paygrade, when, in fact, it’s well within their grasp to answer with moral certitude.
Westen did share with his audience an important observation that was made by the nineteenth century theologian, Fr. Edmund O’Reilly who, in looking back at the example of the Great Western Schism, stated:
Contingencies regarding the Church not excluded by Divine promises cannot be regarded as practically impossible just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.
The relevance of this observation for us is simple: There are many who reject the sedevacantist theory with little or no forethought based simply on the claim that an interregnum of multiple decades is inconceivable given the havoc that such a situation would wreak on the faithful.
The truth of the matter is, however, while such a tragedy invites all manner of difficulty for the faithful, and raises questions not easily answered (unlike those surrounding membership), the Divine promises do not exclude it.
At this, we arrive at what is perhaps the most regrettable portion of Westen’s presentation.
Without addressing it in great detail, he touched on ecclesiology, a topic inextricably related to questions concerning the papacy, and he did so in a most unfortunate manner.
Speaking of the challenges faced by believers in our day at the hands of a wicked ruling class (e.g., forced vaccinations, AI surveillance, various restrictions on basic freedoms, etc.), he states:
How are we going to fight this? We’re not going to, because we don’t even have the Church anymore. We’re not left with the solidity in the Church.
In fairness, it doesn’t appear that Westen was speaking from his prepared notes at this point, i.e., he evidently wasn’t attempting to do a deep dive on matters ecclesiological. Even so, what he did do remains deeply troubling, if for no other reason than the confusion (heresy, even) it invites.
These stunning statements were made shortly after Westen quoted Our Lady of La Salette, “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of Antichrist.”
“It’s not only prophecy,” Westen continued before going on to quote the 1992 [conciliar] Catechism:
Before Christ’s Second Coming, the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on Earth will unveil the mystery of iniquity in the form of a religious deception, offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy. (No. 675)
Based on the totality of his comments, one may easily get the gravely mistaken impression that when Our Lady says, “Rome will lose the faith,” she means to speak of the Church – that is, the one true Church of Christ.
Of course, this cannot be.
The only way a Catholic can comprehend the claim that Rome will become “the seat of Antichrist” is to understand it in a geographical sense, like a County Seat, the place from which a government might rule or be headquartered.
Likewise, the notion that the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers cannot be understood to mean that the Church will have her faith shaken, rather, this can only refer to individual believers.
While it’s not entirely clear what Westen meant by “solidity” when he said, “We’re not left with the solidity in the Church,” one can well imagine that many in his audience may have understood him to suggest that the Church has somehow failed to stand firm in the true faith. The Church, however, is holy and will ever remain as such. She can never be shaken in faith.
As for the comment, “We don’t even have the Church anymore,” it is difficult to say exactly what Westen intended to convey. I do not believe that he meant to suggest that the Church is gone from our midst, but rather that the contemporary voice of Holy Mother Church has grown faint, i.e., it has been so shouted down by the godlessness that abounds even in Rome that one struggles to hear her speaking in defense of Our Lord and His faithful.
There is truth to this observation, but there are two crucial realities that Westen fails to recognize.
One, what he is truly lamenting is the plainly observable fact that the conciliar church presently in occupation of the Vatican is not the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Secondly, the reason it seems as if the Mystical Body of Christ is absent is because the Chair of St. Peter is empty, i.e., there is no Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ the King, who daily teaches in defense of His Sovereign Rights and those of His subjects via the ordinary papal magisterium.
Westen went on to say:
That’s when you know our Lord’s going to act because he’s waiting for us to recognize we have nothing.
Evidently, he’s referring to that time “when we don’t even have the Church anymore … when we’re not left with the solidity in the Church.” He continued:
In the end, when we have nothing and truly have nothing, no power, our Lord will say, “Finally, I’ve been waiting for you to recognize you have nothing so that I can give you a tiny spark of my love, which is my holy mother, to act for you.” And boy will she! We’re working toward the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart, because the times are tough, we know that it’s coming soon, my friends.
Here, Westen refers to the apparition of Our Lady of Fatima dated July 13, 1917, when she said:
In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.
Understand very well that the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart presupposes a Roman Pontiff who will at long last carry out Our Lord’s wishes. That is to say that an obedient and faithful pope will precede Our Lady’s triumph, a Vicar of Christ who will teach, sanctify, and govern in His name. Likewise certain is that there can be no period of peace in this world if we don’t have the Church. Nor can peace exist if the Church is somehow less than solid in the true faith.
Yes, there is wisdom to the saying, “It is darkest before dawn.” Even so, let us be clear: The Triumph of the Immaculate Heart will not come when, or because, we have nothing, no Church, no power.
Moreover, there can be no peace on earth apart from the nations of the world recognizing the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King, He who reigns through His Church. (See Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas 19)
Clearly, Westen intended, by way of his concluding remarks, to leave his audience with a renewed sense of hope. Regrettably, however, he fell short. His presentation overall, despite its many good parts, imparted a large amount of confusion upon his audience, even if only inadvertently. This much was inevitable given his detachment from the fundamental matter of membership as outlined above.
The truth is, we presently, at this very moment, have a great deal more than nothing. We have the indwelling of the Holy Ghost and the infinite treasury of faith as taught throughout the centuries, along with the Lord’s assurance that the Holy Roman Catholic Church will ever stand firm against the gates of Hell.
As such, we have everything that we need to answer the question posed at the beginning of Westen’s presentation:
Is Jorge Bergoglio the pope?
