It’s not surprising that the New York Times has, over many decades, often run pieces critical of the Catholic Church and the Pope, especially regarding issues related to sexuality and marriage.
But the criticisms made by Times columnist Ross Douthat in To Change the Church: Pope Francis and the Future of Catholicism are unusual, for rather than dissenting from Church teaching on, say, contraception or homosexuality, Douthat argues that Francis is causing confusion, especially when it comes to Holy Communion for divorced-and-civilly-remarried Catholics. Douthat—the youngest columnist in the newspaper’s history, one of the few conservative voices at the Grey Lady, and a convert to Catholicism—insists that Francis has been creating a “mess” (Francis’ own term), undermining Church teaching and authority, and laying the groundwork for the progressive “pastoral” practices that will essentially change key Church disciplines and even doctrines.
Douthat recently spoke with Catholic World Report by telephone to discuss his book and its critics as well as the current pontificate.
CWR: How did the book come about?
Ross Douthat: Well, I’d written a large number of columns in my day job as a columnist for the New York Times, and I’m honestly not completely sure whether my publisher raised the possibility with me or the other way around! But either way, this is a very timely and interesting story, the Francis pontificate, and by virtue of being something of a critic of the Holy Father I had an interesting thesis that was maybe worth arguing out at length. But ultimately there was a sense in which the story of what’s been going on in Rome under Francis in this pontificate is just interesting. And if you have a story about an interesting topic, you can argue that it cries out to be a book.
CWR: Over the course of the research and writing, did your assessment of the Francis papacy change very much?
Douthat: I think I really started writing it after the second Synod on the Family, which was one of these interesting, one might say, crisis points in the pontificate. I think the battles around the two synods were the points at which the most important questions of the pontificate were sort of exposed, and I began writing after them. But the argument of the book I don’t think changed that much. There were, obviously, further developments, with the controversy about Amoris Laetitia, the Pope’s document on marriage and family; the dubia that the four cardinals put together; and so on. But I think that Francis’ approach to those has been a sort of deliberate ambiguity, and there hasn’t been any sort of dramatic shift in direction. So the broad picture has remained the same, I think.
Inevitably when you write a book, you finish some time before it comes out. And other things happen in the meantime. One thing I wish I could have addressed in the book is the debate about the Vatican’s attempt at opening up to China. I’ve written about that in the Times, but most of what we know about it has come out in the last few months. I don’t think that would have changed the overall thesis of the book, but it’s an important part of his pontificate, whether it succeeds or fails. And I think when the paperback edition comes out, I’ll certainly need to address it.
CWR: In that same line of thought—things that have happened since the book was written—have you had a chance to read and assess the new apostolic exhortation, Gaudete et Exsultate?
Douthat: Well, I’ve read it once, and as with all papal documents it is unwise to (if you will) “pontificate” too much on the first reading. After the first reading, though, it’s clearly a very characteristic document of the Francis pontificate. It gives a lot of broad pastoral insights, often expressed in helpfully earthy language. I think the Holy Father is at his best when he is essentially talking about the everyday Christian life, how to be a Christian within the pressures and temptations of normal life, but also in the general complex of technology and commercial capitalism, which creates particular pressures that he’s very good at teasing out. That’s sort of the broad brush of the document.
But then it also contains—as is characteristic, as well, of Francis—passages where you might raise an eyebrow at their theological implications, and then a number of sections that are clearly meant to be either responses to or counterattacks against his various conservative critics, where they are scolded for being rigid, or judgmental, with “liturgical fussiness,” and so on.
One thing that has developed, I think, in his approach (maybe it was always the intent and I just misunderstood it) is that he has this tendency to draw out critiques of two heretical temptations: Gnosticism and Pelagianism. These critiques appear in documents going all the way back to the beginning of his pontificate. In the beginning, I had the sense that, in these criticisms, he was using Pelagianism to critique conservative temptations—the temptation to just say, “We have to follow the moral law, and if we follow the moral law then all will be well,” in ways that don’t leave room for complexity and grace—and the Gnostic temptation— self-absorption, individualism—would be the more liberal temptations. At least, that was my reading originally. And, at least in this document, it seems like he’s using them both to critique conservatives. I don’t know if that’s really a change in what he’s intending, or just a change in how I am reading it. But I do think there’s been movement over the course of the pontificate—as he’s come into conflict with conservatives, there’s been a tendency to move from an even-handed, “Here are the problems with the liberals, here are the problems with the conservatives,” much more to almost exclusively critiquing conservative temptations.
CWR: At this point, how would you summarize or assess the responses to the book that you’ve encountered so far?
Douthat: I would say the critical reviews generally fall into two categories: a sort of friendly and mildly condescending style, which says, “I know you’re well-intentioned, Mr. Douthat, and you love the Church and so on, but you’re a little bit naive about past changes, and therefore how much the Church can change in the future, and you shouldn’t worry so much, because the most important thing is that Catholics just assume that the Holy Spirit is guiding everything”; and then the second category is a little more irate and slightly spittle-flecked, and attacks me for getting everything wrong and totally mischaracterizing the Pope. But I would say more have been in the first category. And I think overall, the Pope’s admirers at the moment feel reasonably confident about the direction the Church is going. They feel that Pope Francis’ reforms are the work of the Holy Spirit and they feel they can afford to be tolerant of critics like me who couch it all in fairly respectful language. And also, my book is called To Change the Church rather than The Dictator Pope! So it might be in the interest of the Pope’s defenders to engage with me while sort of attacking some of the more striking formulations in some other critical books.
CWR: The fact that you are a New York Times columnist seems to give you some degree of freedom in writing about these things. When people hear your name they think “New York Times columnist,” unlike when they hear (for example) Cardinal Burke’s name and think “virulent critic of the Pope.” Do you think your position as a writer for a major secular outlet has given you some freedom in writing about the Pope?
Douthat: I think people are quite comfortable describing me as a critic of the Pope. [Laughs] One advantage of being a columnist is that I am not employed by the Roman Catholic Church, or part of the hierarchy or bureaucracy, or anything like that. So obviously there’s a degree of professional distance, working for a secular publication. Even Catholic journalists operate in an environment that has a relationship with the institutional Church that the New York Times does not. So there is a certain freedom, for better or for worse.
I would say that the way that I write is informed by the fact that, in my day job, I am writing for a largely secular audience. So the main part of my job in looking at these controversies is, while doing that, to explain to my readers who don’t know a lot about Catholicism what the stakes are in these matters, and so on. I’m not sure if I’m always successful at this, but the goal in the book is to do something similar—make arguments in such a way that no one will come away from this book confused about what I think about, say, the controversy over the Kasper proposal and Communion for the remarried, but at the same time to embed those in a story, an account that can be usefully read by anyone who is interested in these battles, and could be read by a more liberal Catholic who disagrees with me vehemently, as well.
And this is probably a habit of secular journalism, but I try in the book to entertain scenarios where I’m wrong, to imagine what it looks like in 300 years if everyone agrees that Francis was always a wise reformer and his critics were always mistaken. I think there are probably some more zealous Catholics who would read those portions and think that I was conceding too much. And maybe I am. But I think it’s part of the habit of mind that you get in this peculiar role, as a Catholic who is deeply invested in these controversies but is also writing every week for an audience that is curious, interested, but still a little bit outside the Church in many ways.
CWR: Has there been a critique or response to the book that has been especially insightful or helpful for you personally?
Douthat: I think it’s a little too soon to say. I’m still in the frantic book-promotion phase, so I don’t think I’ve fully internalized all of the critiques. … [M]y complaint about the more “liberal” side of intra-Catholic debates is not just that I’m seen as mistaken in some general sense, but I think that liberal Catholicism doesn’t always know—or admit to itself—what it fully wants, so it sort of moves back and forth between, “These changes are minor and are in perfect continuity with everything that’s come before,” and saying, “Francis is a great reformer, and this is demonstrating that Vatican II was a complete revolution and the revolution is finally being completed.”
One of my hopes for my own book is that it helps prod liberal Catholics toward resolving the contradiction or the tension of those perspectives, settling the internally inconsistent view as far as how much the Church can change, really, and what actual limits are beyond just a sort of, “Well, we tried this, and now we’ll try that.” So as I read critiques, I’m looking for a kind of systematical rebuke of my argument, rather than an ad hoc one. Many of the responses I’ve read—maybe especially the kind and tolerant ones—still feel very ad hoc. But there are still several critical reviews out that I have barely even read yet.
My hope is that in the paperback edition, or online sometime in the next six months, I’ll be able to write a piece to really dig in to some of the responses.
One thing I try to stress in the book is that what is going on right now is really very interesting, it’s a big deal theologically, and it’s something I think will be studied and argued over by future theologians and Church documents. In that sense, I’m offering the book as a very partial and obviously somewhat biased entry into that debate. But I want the readers to know that we live in interesting times as Catholics; it’s okay to be interested in those times, because certainly our Catholic descendants will be interested in them.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Ross Douthat is honest regarding his thoughts moreso than most journalists, indicated by quandary regarding “deliberate ambiguity” and admitting in another interview he’s not certain where all this is heading. Apparently leaving himself open to good result. Douthat is a fine Catholic convert whose NYT columns I’ve read for years. Surprisingly despite his editors he defends traditional Catholicism with panache. Thrown into the arena with the “Roaring Lion” Satan [and perhaps a Times editor or two] seeking to devour him. Dignitate Humanae written by liberal Avery Dulles SJ is incomplete on limits to conscientious inviolability. Douthat says in To Change that Vatican II tried to adjust some of the earlier papal “thundering denunciations of religion freedom” to the spirit of the 1960s. The Church possesses coercive authority in formation of conscience. Premises in Amoris Laetitia consistent with Dignitatis place personal conscience in contradiction to observable behavior. Manifest grave sin in canon 915. The falsehood that undergirds the New Paradigm is that men can discern the conscience of another. That is reserved to God. The premises of AL mitigation, “concrete circumstances” place morality within personal conscience. Moral teaching becomes relative. Douthat recognized this noting media both Catholic and secular “marshaled for total continuity between Francis and his predecessors, a case of special pleading”. We are obliged to reject it and voice our rejection to Hierarchy for their salvation and our own. Douthat perhaps for sake of journalistic integrity perhaps personal questioning declines. Most Catholic editors seem to follow that tack. Their priorities as journalists of course differ from mine.
I read the book. Excellent work. But the pope will never read it because he has said he never ever listens to anyone who disagrees with him. That is incredibly dangerous. I think we are headed for schism. It pains me to say that. Much will depend on the next pope. If the liberals get what they want then those of us traditional folks will be pushed out of the Church. In fact they seem to revel in the idea of getting rid of us. None seem to look at the Anglicans and notice that their church embraces all of this and is dying, except in Africa and Asia where they have chosen an orthodox path. Wisdom let us attend…
“And I think overall, the Pope’s admirers at the moment feel reasonably confident about the direction the Church is going.” How true. If “Francis is causing confusion” (as noted in the opening of this piece) it appears to be rather by proxy. If you speak to many people in the pews they honestly don’t understand what the Pope is doing, nor do they grasp his so-called “pastoral” language which is often confusing to the experts. What I find interesting about the Pope changing the Church is that Francis does not appear to be effecting this directly with the people. Sure, many people can see a great emphasis on mercy, but they don’t understand the broader changes being made to the Church because the teaching of Francis is not clear. It is only by way of an army of liberal apologists (i.e. the “Pope’s admirers) at the local level and a episcopal structure that will not confront these liberals (many of these apologists are in the episcopate) that the Church is changing. But in places where the Pope lacks apologists or fervent admirers the local Church appears to be seeing little change.
We live in the new dark ages. Who knows how long it will last, but it’s getting darker.
Pat the great sage of communist China who had a handle on Darkness said “It’s always darkest before it gets pitch black” (Chairman Mao). Personally I can’t tell which we’re in.
Oddly enough, Pope Francis mwy initiate an era of light by making quiescent Catholics understand they must come to the aid of their religion. They must defend it, not waiting on priests or bishops. They must make sure that any perversions suggested by any Pope will be rejected and opposed. People who never knew the intricacies of their religion are now coming to understand them. The internet has allowed us access to basic documents, so we can all see that what Francis is doing is strange and warped. Imagine if God allowed this in previous times – why, we would get such things at “The Spirit of Vatican II”, But those days are over. The Pope and his admirers believe they can, by being masters of the media, pull the wool over our eyes. But they misjudge the times.
That would be the best outcome which is actually occurring despite the many embarking because of disputed premises on a more comfortable but perilous path.
Russ Douthat’s book is important precisely because it avoids the hysteria of such over the top treatments as “The Dictator Pope”. It is an indication that calm people, people without an ax to grind, are becoming increasingly concerned about this papacy. We have reached the point where ordinary people are saying “Wait a minute, something does not add up here.” At first, it was the hysterical people who disliked Francis, probably the same people that called Benedict and JP II “modernists”. But they are disposed to be bent out of shape by any Pope, so it was easy to dismiss their continual hysteria. But as time wore on, the calmer people who could understand how Catholic theology is constructed became concerned. After Amoris Laetitia, theologians and students of church teaching could see where it would lead. But it was somewhat esoteric. Normal people in the pews could not detect anything overtly wrong. But of course they were hearing occasional odd statements from the Pope, so their interest was piqued. Now, more and more ordinary Catholics are getting it that something is wrong with this Pope. The confusion has become apparent. Everything is always in a hubbub. Now the former head of the CDF Mueller, routinely publishes respectful articles saying the Pope is essentially wrong. The calm heavyweights are now lining up in opposition. There is too much talk swirling about about whether hell exists, etc. Now people are coming to realize they themselves might have to do something about this Pope.
God answers prayer with miracles.
While I greatly admire Mr. Douthat, I do not share your dismissal of Mr. Sire – suggesting he has violated the requirement for “calmness” and suggesting that he is a “lightweight” with “an axe to grind.”
Mr. Sire, as a member of the Knights of Malta, has watched Pope F abusive treatment of his order, and has chronicled his abuse of others.
Reporting abuse is a very virtuous act. As much as I love and like Mr. Douthat, Mr. Sire has a lot more Catholic ballast, and he has guts to stand up to a Pope who is abusive.
“We live in interesting times as Catholics”
A real wordsmith, this guy.