Doctrine, Discipline, and Dissent: A Catholic Response to Francis’s Critics Seifert, Viganò and others

In the wake of Pope Francis's passing, voices like Dr. Josef Seifert and Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò have intensified their critiques, alleging heresy and doctrinal confusion. While it's undeniable that Pope Francis's papacy introduced statements and actions that stirred debate, a thorough examination reveals that these did not constitute heresy within the framework of Catholic doctrine.

Throughout Church history, there have been instances where individuals were considered illegitimate popes, often referred to as "antipopes." These figures typically arose during periods of political turmoil or schism, such as the Western Schism in the 14th century, when multiple claimants to the papacy existed simultaneously. The legitimacy of a pope is determined by the proper election through the College of Cardinals and acceptance by the Church. Once elected, a pope's legitimacy is generally upheld unless clear evidence of procedural invalidity emerges.

Dr. Seifert's call for an investigation into alleged heresies lacks specificity regarding which teachings of Pope Francis directly contravene established Church doctrine. Similarly, Archbishop Viganò's accusations, particularly concerning the handling of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick's misconduct, are serious but remain contested. Viganò claimed he informed Pope Francis in 2013 about McCarrick's abuses, asserting that the Pope failed to act. However, this claim is disputed, and the Vatican has not confirmed such a briefing took place.

The cases of Cardinal Bernard Law and Theodore McCarrick highlight different aspects of the Church's handling of clerical misconduct. Cardinal Law resigned from his position as Archbishop of Boston in 2002 after revelations that he had reassigned priests accused of sexual abuse without proper investigation. He was subsequently appointed to a ceremonial position in Rome, which many viewed as a lack of accountability.

In contrast, Theodore McCarrick, a former cardinal, faced direct allegations of sexual misconduct. After an investigation, he was laicized in 2019, marking a significant disciplinary action against a high-ranking Church official. The differing responses to these cases have fueled discussions about consistency and transparency in addressing clerical abuse.

Archbishop Viganò's own standing within the Church has been compromised. In 2024, he was excommunicated for schism due to his public refusal to recognize Pope Francis's authority and his rejection of the Second Vatican Council's legitimacy. Canon law defines schism as the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. Viganò's actions, including his declaration that Pope Francis is illegitimate and his break from communion with the Church, fulfill this definition.

Pope Francis's approach to contentious issues often emphasized pastoral care over doctrinal rigidity. His decision to allow blessings for homosexuals, for instance, was not an endorsement of same-sex marriage but a gesture of pastoral outreach, distinguishing between the individuals and the institution of marriage. Similarly, his guidance in "Amoris Laetitia" opened pathways for divorced and remarried Catholics to participate more fully in Church life, emphasizing discernment and integration without altering the Church's teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.

Historically, the Church has weathered the leadership of popes whose actions were far more egregious. Popes like Alexander VI, known for nepotism and moral corruption, and John XII, whose papacy was marked by scandal, did not precipitate a doctrinal crisis within the Church. Moreover, the prevalence of clerical abuse during periods when the Latin Mass was the norm underscores that liturgical form alone does not safeguard against moral failings.

Throughout the centuries, some popes have made statements or taken actions that were later deemed problematic or erroneous. One of the most cited examples is Pope Honorius I, who reigned from 625 to 638. Honorius became embroiled in the Monothelite controversy, a theological dispute about the nature of Christ's wills. While orthodox Christology affirms that Christ has two wills—divine and human—united in one person, Monothelitism proposed that Christ had only one divine will. In his correspondence with the Patriarch of Constantinople, Honorius failed to clearly reject this heresy and instead appeared to support the idea of one will in Christ. This ambiguity led to his posthumous condemnation as a heretic at the Third Council of Constantinople (681), although he was not condemned for formally teaching heresy ex cathedra. The Church has since used this episode to clarify that papal infallibility, as defined later at Vatican I (1870), only applies when the pope defines doctrine "ex cathedra" on faith or morals and not to all his personal correspondence or opinions.

This incident illustrates that popes are not personally infallible in all things and that even popes can err when not speaking definitively on doctrine. The Church distinguishes between private opinions or non-definitive teachings and the solemn declarations protected by the Holy Spirit under the charism of infallibility. It also underscores the Church’s capacity for self-correction through councils and tradition when theological errors or ambiguities arise.

A real pressing concern among the faithful is whether the moral failings of clergy, including grievous sins, affect the validity of the sacraments they administer. This concern is not merely theoretical—history is replete with examples of clergy committing grave moral offenses. During the Spanish colonization of the Philippines, for instance, there were credible accusations that some Franciscan missionaries participated in the abuse and rape of Filipino women. Similar atrocities were reported in colonial Latin America and in the early missionary settlements across North America, where clergy in isolated missions were implicated in the exploitation of Native American women. While these acts were never sanctioned by Church teaching and often stood in direct contradiction to it, they tragically occurred under the guise of religious mission. In Canada and the United States, clergy in residential schools were found to have committed widespread abuses, both physical and sexual, against children—leading to deep intergenerational trauma that the Church continues to publicly acknowledge and atone for today.

Yet, even amid such shameful histories, the Church maintains a clear and consistent theological stance: the efficacy of the sacraments does not depend on the personal holiness or moral standing of the minister. This is rooted in the Church’s teaching on ex opere operato—literally, “from the work performed.” As long as the priest or minister intends to do what the Church does, and uses the proper form and matter prescribed for each sacrament, the sacrament remains valid and efficacious. This principle safeguards the faithful from the spiritual instability that would arise if the value of the Eucharist, Reconciliation, or Baptism depended on the fluctuating sanctity of individual clergy. While the minister may incur personal guilt or even canonical penalties, the grace of the sacrament comes from Christ, not from the righteousness of the priest. St. Augustine addressed this concern directly in his dispute with the Donatists in the 4th century, affirming that the unworthiness of the minister does not invalidate the sacraments, because the true minister of every sacrament is ultimately Christ Himself.

This teaching is not a dismissal of priestly sin but rather a protection of the faithful and a reaffirmation that God’s grace cannot be held hostage by human corruption. The scandal and moral failure of individual clergy—however grievous—should be met with justice and accountability, but they do not nullify the objective grace offered by God through the Church’s sacramental life.

In light of the unfounded nature of many of the claims made by Dr. Josef Seifert and Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, one must ask whether their actions are truly motivated by fidelity to the Catholic faith or by personal grievance cloaked in theological concern. While disagreement with the pastoral tone or decisions of a pope is not, in itself, schismatic or disloyal, the spirit in which that disagreement is expressed matters deeply—especially in matters concerning the successor of Peter. Catholic tradition does not reject fraternal correction, but it demands that such correction be rooted in charity, humility, and unity with the Church. In contrast, Viganò’s language has grown increasingly defiant and hostile, culminating in his public rejection of the Second Vatican Council and refusal to recognize Pope Francis as pope—actions that directly led to his excommunication for schism in 2024. Dr. Seifert, though more measured, has also issued repeated condemnations of the Holy Father, often with inflammatory rhetoric that does not reflect the traditional Catholic posture of prayer and reverence for the deceased, especially for a pontiff.

Rather than offering prayers for the repose of Pope Francis’s soul, these men have chosen to stir suspicion and division. Their insistence on painting Pope Francis’s pastoral decisions as heretical suggests less a commitment to orthodoxy than a sense of personal betrayal—perhaps because they were sidelined, ignored, or disagreed with during his pontificate. It is also worth noting that the Pope, by virtue of his office, does indeed have the authority to appoint and remove clergy and laypeople from ecclesiastical positions—a prerogative exercised by nearly every pontiff in modern memory.

Pope St. John XXIII, for instance, removed Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani—long head of the Holy Office—when it became clear that Ottaviani’s theological vision was no longer in step with the direction of the Second Vatican Council. Pope Paul VI made sweeping changes to the Roman Curia and replaced conservative curial members who opposed his liturgical reforms. St. John Paul II laicized or removed numerous priests and bishops who had been involved in scandal or dissent, including the high-profile silencing of Fr. Hans Küng and Charles Curran for persistent doctrinal opposition. Pope Benedict XVI likewise disciplined various clergy and theologians and forced the resignation of bishops who had mishandled abuse cases or resisted ecclesial discipline.

Even cardinals are not immune. Pope Francis himself accepted the resignations of Cardinal Raymond Burke and Cardinal Gerhard Müller from key Vatican positions when their views or methods diverged from the pastoral priorities of his pontificate. He also laicized former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick in one of the most decisive disciplinary acts in recent Church history. These decisions are not unprecedented. They fall squarely within the papal responsibility to shepherd the Church and ensure that those in positions of leadership serve the unity and mission of the Body of Christ.

To portray these acts as tyrannical or vindictive—as some critics do—is to ignore centuries of papal governance and to misunderstand the office of Peter. The Holy Father is not a ceremonial figurehead but a living successor of the Apostle, charged with binding and loosening, correcting and building up, always for the good of the flock. Those who find themselves dismissed from positions or at odds with papal decisions would do well to recall the example of countless saints—like St. Catherine of Siena, who corrected the pope with humility—or St. Pius X, who bore heavy criticism but remained resolute in unity and charity.

In this light, the actions of Seifert and Viganò appear less like true theological concern and more like emotional retribution—a refusal to accept that the Church has not endorsed their particular vision. A faithful Catholic response to the death of any pontiff, regardless of one’s opinions, should be to pray for his soul, commend his papacy to God’s mercy, and entrust the Church to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the upcoming conclave.

Pope Francis's choice of name reflects a commitment to the values of St. Francis of Assisi, who was often misunderstood and labeled radical in his time for his emphasis on poverty, peace, and care for creation. Like his namesake, Pope Francis challenged the Church to embrace a more inclusive and compassionate approach, prompting both admiration and criticism.

While Pope Francis's papacy was not without controversy, the allegations of heresy lack substantiation when measured against the Church's doctrinal standards. His efforts to navigate complex moral and social issues reflect a pastoral sensitivity aimed at guiding the faithful through the challenges of contemporary life, staying true to the essence of the Gospel and the Church's mission.

God Bless