In a recent Crisis piece, Dom Pius Mary Noonan, O.S. B. takes issue with Catholics who say that Francis is not truly the pope.
It’s a critical issue because Francis doesn’t seem to have much longer to live. If there is doubt about his own validity, it may cast doubt on the validity of his potential successors.
One would expect, then, that a defender of Francis’s legitimacy would look for the strongest arguments in his favor. One might also hope for a bit of originality.
Instead, Dom Noonan, who is the prior of a Benedictine community, rehashes two of the oldest and weakest arguments—first, that only the pope and the bishops are competent to judge the matter and, second, that the universal peaceful acceptance (UPA) by the Church’s hierarchy (preferably, a council of cardinals) of the election of a pope is proof that this individual is indeed the true pope.
In reality, it’s difficult to separate these two “proofs” because both are forms of the argument from authority (“we’re in charge here, so just shut up”) but it’s useful to look at them separately.
The argument about competence holds that only certain people are competent to decide whether or not Francis is a public heretic and therefore not qualified to be pope. According to Dom Noonan this means that only bishops and cardinals have the authority to make such a conclusion. A lay theologian, no matter how well-trained, would have no say in the matter. Moreover, according to Noonan, the lay theologian has no authority to publish his conclusions. Rather he should submit his writings to bishops and cardinals and leave the matter to them.
Continue reading at Turning Point Project