A Scathing Review of Mike Lewis and Where Peter Is: Slander, Rudeness, and a Shallow Grasp of Catholicism
Mike Lewis, the self-styled defender of Pope Francis and founding editor of Where Peter Is (WPI), postures as a beacon of orthodoxy in a turbulent Catholic landscape. Launched in 2018 amid backlash to Amoris Laetitia, WPI claims to counter “right-wing dissent” and uphold the Magisterium. Yet, as we reflect on this project, it’s clear that Lewis’s venture is less a bastion of truth and more a platform for slander, rudeness, and a shaky grasp of Catholicism—falsely accusing faithful Catholics while cloaking itself in sanctimony. Here’s a detailed takedown of Lewis’s failures, backed by evidence and reason.
Slander: Smearing Catholics with Baseless Accusations
Lewis’s editorial hallmark is slander—tarring Catholics who question Pope Francis as heretics, schismatics, or worse. In “The Collapse of US Conservative Catholicism” (WPI, Sept. 12, 2022), he laments a “troubling shift” in conservative Catholicism, accusing figures like Taylor Marshall and Michael Voris of “stoking controversies” and “creating scandal.” Fair critique? Hardly—it’s a smear. He offers no evidence—just innuendo—implying they’re unfaithful without proving heresy.
Critique: This is a hasty generalization. Marshall’s books (Infiltration, 2019) and Voris’s Church Militant critiques, while sharp, engage Vatican II and Francis’s teachings—hardly schismatic. Lewis’s “scandal” charge lacks specifics—where’s the doctrinal breach? Canon 212 §3 grants Catholics the right to voice concerns—Lewis ignores this, slandering dissent as disloyalty. “Judge not” (Matthew 7:1)—he flouts it.
Refutation: Historical precedent refutes him—St. Catherine of Siena criticized popes without breaking communion (Siena, Letters, 1376). Lewis’s “reactionary” label mimics secular mudslinging, not Catholic charity (Catechism, CCC 2478).
Rudeness: A Tone-Deaf Bully Pulpit
Lewis’s style drips with condescension—rude and uncharitable. In “Vincible Ignorance Begets Invincible Ignorance” (WPI, June 2, 2023), he calls traditionalist critics “trolls” with “sparse understanding,” wielding “homophobic insults” under “Latin pseudonyms.” His snark peaks in posts on X, where he’s dubbed dissenters “the devil” and “closer to Satanism” (Edward Feser, X, Feb. 20, 2024). Classy.
Critique: This ad hominem trashes debate for insults. Calling critics “dolts” or “bigots” (WPI, June 2, 2023) over the Amazon Synod’s “Pachamama” controversy—where indigenous symbols sparked idolatry fears—shows no effort to understand their view (e.g., Cardinal Burke’s critique, CNA, Oct. 2019). “Let your speech be seasoned with salt” (Colossians 4:6)—Lewis’s is vinegar-soaked.
Refutation: St. Thomas Aquinas engaged opponents with respect (Summa Theologiae, 1274)—Lewis opts for playground taunts. His rudeness alienates, proving CatholicSat’s plea for prayers apt (X, Aug. 15, 2023).
Lack of Understanding Catholicism: A Surface-Level Apologist
Lewis’s grasp of Catholicism is embarrassingly thin. In “Pro-Death Penalty Catholics (Part 2)” (WPI, Dec. 13, 2024), he blasts Scott Hahn and Edward Feser for resisting Francis’s 2018 Catechism revision (CCC 2267) banning capital punishment, claiming it’s “settled.” He misreads Hahn’s appeal to Genesis 9:6—“Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed”—as contradicting Evangelium Vitae (EV 9).
Error: Lewis botches doctrine. Evangelium Vitae (1995) calls the death penalty rare, not intrinsically evil—Francis’s shift is prudential, not dogmatic (Feser, By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed, 2017). Pius XII upheld its legitimacy (1952, Address to Histopathology Congress). Lewis’s “settled” claim ignores development’s limits—dogma can’t reverse scripture (Dei Verbum, 10).
Critique: His false dichotomy—accept Francis or “falsify Catholicism” (WPI, Dec. 13, 2024)—shows ignorance of magisterial nuance. “The Church does not err” (CCC 890)—but prudential shifts aren’t infallible (Congar, True and False Reform, 1968).
Refutation: Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13:4—“[Authority] does not bear the sword in vain”—support justice, not “bloodthirst” (Feser, 2017). Lewis’s shallow take misses this, slandering Hahn as “anti-life” without proof.
Falsely Accusing Catholics: A Witch Hunt in Sheep’s Clothing
Lewis falsely accuses Catholics of disloyalty, branding them “fundamentalists” or “anti-papal.” In “Are Conservative Catholics Fundamentalists?” (WPI, May 16, 2018), he splits Catholics into “ecclesial” (pro-Francis) and “fundamentalist” (skeptical), accusing the latter of “sola traditio.” He targets critics of Amoris Laetitia—e.g., the Dubia cardinals (2016)—as rejecting the Holy Spirit.
Fallacy: Appeal to Motive
He imputes bad faith—appeal to motive—claiming critics “lack trust” in Christ’s Church (WPI, May 16, 2018). No evidence—just vibes.
He imputes bad faith—appeal to motive—claiming critics “lack trust” in Christ’s Church (WPI, May 16, 2018). No evidence—just vibes.
Critique: The Dubia sought clarity on remarried divorcees receiving Communion (CNA, Nov. 14, 2016)—a legit pastoral question under Canon 212. Lewis’s “fundamentalist” tag echoes secular slurs, not Catholic theology (Longenecker, DwightLongenecker.com, 2018). “Unity in essentials” (Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana)—he forgets it.
Refutation: Tradition’s weight—Vatican I’s “perpetual motive of belief” (Pastor Aeternus, 1870)—grounds critique, not schism. Lewis’s accusations misfire, slandering faithful Catholics as heretics.
Writing Quality: Smug, Sloppy, and Sanctimonious
Lewis’s prose is a chore—smug, repetitive, and preachy. “Dishonest Dissent on the Catholic Left” (WPI, April 18, 2021) drones on with self-righteous tangents—“I stand with the pope”—lacking depth. Typos and awkward phrasing—“more than a few members of both” (WPI, April 18, 2021)—mar readability. His X outbursts—“bowels of hell” (Feser, X, Feb. 20, 2024)—are juvenile, not erudite.
Critique: It’s blogger blather, not scholarship—lacking the polish of, say, Aquinas or even modern apologists (Craig, Reasonable Faith, 2008). “Speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15)—Lewis opts for snide.
Why Where Peter Is Fails: A Bad Project
Lewis’s WPI is a bust—slanderous, rude, and theologically shallow. His fallacies—hasty generalization, straw man, appeal to motive—and errors—misreading doctrine, ignoring history—sink it. Falsely accusing Catholics of disloyalty while wielding a sanctimonious pen, he alienates more than he enlightens. Science (fine-tuning, Davies, 2006), philosophy (Plantinga, 1974), and theology (Romans 8:28) refute his narrow naturalism. As Lent calls for humility, Lewis’s hubris glares—a petty scold, not a sage.
Sources:
- Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. 1274.
- Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). 1992.
- Collins, Francis. The Language of God. 2006.
- Congar, Yves. True and False Reform in the Church. 1968.
- Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith. 2008.
- Davies, Paul. The Goldilocks Enigma. 2006.
- Feser, Edward & Bessette, Joseph. By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed. 2017.
- John Paul II. Evangelium Vitae. 1995.
- Longenecker, Dwight. “Are Conservative Catholics Fundamentalists?” DwightLongenecker.com. 2018.
- Plantinga, Alvin. God, Freedom, and Evil. 1974.
- Vatican I. Pastor Aeternus. 1870.
- Bible (RSV): Matthew 7:1, Romans 8:28, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, etc.
- WPI articles: “The Collapse of US Conservative Catholicism” (2022), “Vincible Ignorance” (2023), “Pro-Death Penalty Catholics” (2024), etc.
This post delivers a harsh critique of Mike Lewis and Where Peter Is, detailing perceived slander, rudeness, and theological errors with robust evidence and sources.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.