Ed Feser's "Respectful and Reserved Criticism" of the Holy Father (?)

Dr. Ed Feser is a Catholic philosopher and author, who runs a very active and lively blog. Recently, he has chimed in on the controversy over Cardinal Burke and the pope. He wrote on his Twitter (X) page on November 28, 2023:

This combination - respectful and reserved criticism of the pope only where strictly necessary combined w/ horror of any denigration of the person of the pope - is not just an admirable trait of Cardinal Burke, though it is that. It is precisely what Catholic teaching calls for.

Having clashed on occasion with Dr. Feser in the past regarding Pope Francis and other issues such as capital punishment, this was a bit too much to take, and it just isn't in me to let it slide without some counter-reply. I'd like to provide some examples of what Dr. Feser seems to think is his own "respectful and reserved criticism of the pope." It seems that today the game that the pope-bashers are playing is to make a distinction between theological criticism and personal insults and attacks.

I would submit that the two things are not nearly as far apart or morally opposite (good vs. bad) as they are making out. If one utters ten different falsehoods about a person (in this instance, the pope), how is that not as insulting (if not more so) as calling him a bunch of names? If we lie about and misrepresent a pope's teachings, and claim he is deliberately subverting Catholic tradition, how is that not extraordinarily insulting? Ultimately, it becomes "personal" too: to attribute beliefs to a person that aren't true.

Dr. Feser has made many statements that add up to the conclusion that Pope Francis has made more problematic theological and moral statements than any other pope ever. So, for example, he referred in his article,  “The Church permits criticism of popes under certain circumstances” (5-20-18) to:

. . . the doctrinal errors of Pope Honorius I and Pope John XXII, the ambiguous doctrinal formula temporarily accepted by Pope Liberius, the Cadaver Synod of Pope Stephen VI and its aftermath, and the mistakes of Pope Urban VI that contributed to the Great Western Schism.

After a long analysis he takes on Pope Francis at the end:

I hardly need point out that these considerations have contemporary relevance. Pope Francis has made statements that at least appear to conflict with traditional Catholic teaching on Holy Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics and non-Catholics, contraception, capital punishment, the criteria for the validity of a marriage, and other topics. . . .

None of these things are true, as I have contended in my own 225 defenses of the pope, and as others have written about, in 308 additional articles that I have collected. To address just one of these four potshots that Feser takes at the pope, I'd like to cite an article entitled, "Pope Francis upholds Catholic ban on contraception," by Simon Caldwell in Catholic Herald (5-2-23). Caldwell noted that the Holy Father "sent a message to a Natural Family Planning (NFP) conference in which he upheld the central teachings of Humanae Vitae, the papal encyclical of 1968 that prohibited married Catholics from using contraception." He cited Pope Francis' words:

There is a need always to keep in mind the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of the conjugal act. When these two meanings are consciously affirmed, the generosity of love is born and strengthened in the hearts of the spouses, disposing them to welcome new life. Lacking this, the experience of sexuality is impoverished, reduced to sensations that soon become self-referential, and its dimensions of humanity and responsibility are lost. . . .

We need to discover the beauty of human sexuality by once again turning to the great book of nature, learning to respect the value of the body and the generation of life, with a view to authentic experiences of conjugal love. In a world dominated by a relativistic and trivialised view of human sexuality, serious education in this area appears increasingly necessary, . . .

Today the ideological and practical separation of the sexual relationship from its generative potential has resulted in the quest for alternative forms of having a child, no longer through marital relations but through the use of artificial processes . . . At the root of the current demographic crisis is, along with various social and cultural factors, an imbalance in the view of sexuality.

Does that sound like Pope Francis denies the teaching of the Catholic Church and Humanae Vitae regarding artificial contraception? It sure doesn't strike me that way. This is but one example. Is his claim that the pope's view on contraception "at least appear[s] to conflict with traditional Catholic teaching" warranted in light of the above? Is it a "respectful and reserved criticism of the pope" and a "strictly necessary" observation? I think not. It's a falsehood, and in the vernacular, a lie, and bearing false witness against others -- let alone the pope -- is a mortal sin. It's one of the Ten Commandments. But Feser insists on making numerous charges against the Holy Father, and concluded in the same article I cited above:

For so many prominent faithful Catholics publicly to criticize a pope seems unprecedented, though perhaps the criticism Pope John XXII faced from the theologians of his day was somewhat similar. However, for a pope to make so many problematic statements while persistently ignoring repeated respectful requests for clarification is certainly unprecedented. Hence the criticism is not surprising. [italicized in the original]

That may not be technically saying that Francis is the worst pope, but it is awful close and appears to me at the very least harmonious with such an opinion. If it’s claimed that he has gone against that many doctrines and dogmas (“so many problematic statements”) and has faced unprecedented criticism, then it’s not unreasonable to conclude that Feser may think he is indeed the worst pope. He’s surely comparing him (and not favorably) to the three notorious / infamous cases of Honorius, Vigilius, and Liberius. Yet Feser has vociferously denied that this was his meaning and intent. I don't deny that he is sincere in his protests, but my point is that words mean things, and his words don't leave much room for doubt as to what he is implying and insinuating. Is he merely sloppy in his language and communication skills? That would be an odd trait for a professional philosopher and author.

Perhaps his strongest criticism of the pope and the one most consistent with the opinion that Pope Francis is the worst pope ever -- though Feser is careful to never flat-out state this --, came in his article, “Pope Victor redux?” (7-18-21):

Usually, errant popes exhibit serious failings of only one or two sorts. But Pope Francis seems intent on achieving a kind of synthesis of all possible papal errors. Like Honorius I and John XXII, he has made doctrinally problematic statements (and more of them than either of those popes ever did). Like Vigilius, his election and governance have involved machinations on the part of a heterodox party. The Pachamama episode brings to mind Marcellinus and John XII. Then there are the bad episcopal appointments, the accommodation to China’s communist government, and the clergy sexual abuse scandal, which echo the mismanagement, political folly, corruption and decadence of previous eras in papal history. And now we have this repeat of Victor’s high-handedness. Having in this way insulted a living predecessor, might Francis next ape Pope Stephen VI by exhuming a dead one and putting the corpse on trial?

Probably not. But absolutely nothing would surprise me anymore in this lunatic period in history that we’re living through. [my italics and bolding. to highlight the extraordinarily insulting claim made]

Is this "respectful and reserved criticism of the pope" and a "strictly necessary" observation? You decide, dear reader. On 7-23-21 (“Pope Francis’s scarlet letter”), Feser even went so far as to virtually accuse the Holy Father of sanctioning open adultery:

Consider two groups of Catholics: First, divorced Catholics who disobey the Church’s teaching by forming a “new union” in which they are sexually active, thereby committing adultery. . . . In Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis radically altered the Church’s liturgical practice in order to accommodate the former group.

Again, on 4-12-22 (“Benevacantism is scandalous and pointless”) Feser reiterated:

It is not news that Pope Francis has, over the years, made a number of theologically problematic statements (about Holy Communion for those living in adulterous relationships, capital punishment, and other matters) and done a number of problematic things (such as reversing Benedict’s motu proprio on the Latin Mass). I’ve addressed these controversies many times before and am not going to rehash it all here. . . .

Francis may have said and done more theologically dubious things than the best-known popes of the past who have done so (such as Honorius and John XXII), but they are dubious statements and actions of the same basic kind. The problem is extremely serious, . . . 

In another article, “Benedict contra Benevacantism” (8-5-22), Feser opined that "the state of the Church" was "in ghastly shape." But all of this is, of course, "respectful and reserved criticism of the pope" and "strictly necessary".

What I have documented is perfectly compatible with the proposition: “Pope Francis is the worst pope ever.” Feser (like a good lawyer or politician) obviously doesn’t want to say it straight out, but he says everything in the world that would suggest or insinuate or describe the attributes of that conclusion. If he’s not the worst, he is certainly up there — in Feser’s estimation — with Honorius and Vigilius and Liberius (top 5?), and Feser even said he was worse than they were.

I hasten to add that in none of this have I claimed that Dr. Feser classified the pope as a "heretic." Feser claimed that I did assert that, but I never did, and a long excruciatingly tedious exchange ensued between us. It's not a pleasant thing, believe me, to disagree with Dr. Feser: especially if one is not an academic and is merely a lowly peasant lay apologist like myself. Among many other colorful and ludicrous insults, he characterized my critique of his views as "ridiculous" and "foolishness" and "buffoonery" and "hotheaded" and "insanity" and "kicking and screaming" and "stupid" and he even mocked a specific apology I made (about a title of one of my articles) as an insincere "half-assed 'apology'”. When I consulted with my friend, the theologian Dr. Robert Fastiggi about the exchange, Feser ridiculously shot back:

Seriously, Dave, are you now frantically emailing theologians for back up in this ridiculous tantrum you’re throwing? Would you please get a life and move on? Surely you have something better to do – mow your lawn, play Scrabble, watch Netflix? Something?

This was all public, on my blog or Facebook page or on his blog. Nothing I present here was private. Dr. Fastiggi, calm and reasonable as always, wrote on my blog:

For Prof. Feser to suggest that these orthodox statements are analogous to the efforts of the Modernists to hide their unorthodoxy with occasional orthodox statements strikes me as very unfair to the Holy Father.

At length, someone actually defended me on Feser’s blog, after dozens of insults were sent my way, one after another. David Gudeman wrote:

For what it’s worth, I’ve never heard of Dave Armstrong before, and am something of a fan of Edward Feser, but in my opinion, Dr. Feser is clearly in the wrong here. Mr. Armstrong has repeatedly tried to dial down the heat, and clarify and correct misunderstandings, while Dr. Feser has repeatedly mocked him, taken him out of context to ridicule him, and ignored his overtures. Dr. Feser is acting a lot like a troll.

That's what we call a fair-minded and objective opinion. But let it not be thought that Dr. Feser doesn't attack other academics as well as those like myself whom he considers vastly intellectually inferior to himself, and scarcely worth spending any time debating about anything. Dr. Feser, after all,  put up a post on his blog, entitled, “A lexicon for the capital punishment debate” (12-29-17). This was his take-off on his many opponents in the capital punishment debate (he being a big advocate for it). Many of the entries were non-objectionable and even funny (and I am a great admirer of satire). But some were, in my opinion, unethical and not funny at all, because they insinuated lying and dishonesty on the part of the recipients. Yours truly was included in this. Here are those three:

fastiggious, adjective.   Fussily deferential to doctrinally imprecise and non-binding papal statements.  “Bob has gotten so fastiggious lately.  He’s convinced that even the pope’s doodles are magisterial.” [about theologian Dr. Robert Fastiggi]

grisez, adjective.  Portmanteau of griff and blasé.  Excessively confident in the consistency of a novel view with orthodoxy.  “Germain casually waves aside millennia of consistent Catholic teaching, which strikes me as grisez.” [about the late Catholic moral philosopher Germain Grisez]

armstrong, verb.  Boldly but casually to insinuate a falsehood in the hope that others will go along with it.  “Dave tried to armstrong me into a debate.  Can you believe that guy?”

Feser doubled down on the same lie about me some 3 1/2 years later, with his post, "Dave’s armstronging again" (6-3-21), complete with an image of "Stretch Armstrong." The inimitable professor pontificated:

Longtime readers might recall Dave Armstrong, a Catholic apologist who, to put it gently, has a tendency to stretch the truth in bizarre ways.  His odd behavior has even inspired a definition [i.e., his "satire" documented above]: . . . Well, Dave “Stretch” Armstrong is at it again.  . . . 

An argument can be made for simply ignoring this sad spectacle.

But alas and in fact, Feser felt compelled to treat a dispute we were having in this childish and slanderous (and, as always, public) fashion, so that folks could (how did he put it?) "come to know what kind of a person Dave Armstrong is . . ." [my italics]

But my point and intention in this article is not how Feser approached me or even Dr. Fastiggi or Dr. Grisez. That's just an aside from my personal experience, to illustrate my overall point, which is that Dr. Feser talks a good game about respect for the pope, but seems to not be quite as consistent in the application of his stated principle. The pope receives scarcely any more respect or consideration than "nobody" folks like myself, in instances where Dr. Feser can't bring himself to agree with him.

Related Reading (my articles):

Inept Satire Case Study: Dr. Edward Feser’s “Lexicon” (2-2-18)

Pope Francis: Indissoluble Marriage & No Divorce (+ Analysis of Ed Feser’s “Doctrinally Problematic” Criticisms) (6-1-21)

Ed Feser, Pope Francis, Divorce, “Ambiguity”, & Implosion (6-3-21)