For any readers of my recent reply to Michael Lofton who have not been following events at Twitter and YouTube, Lofton has, over the course of the last few days, posted a series of tweets at the former and a series of videos at the latter strongly taking exception to my article. I have to say that I am mystified at the number and vehemence of these responses. But Lofton seems especially angry about my characterization of his initial video as “defamatory” and “libel.” What follows are some brief remarks that I hope will put his mind at ease and allow us to move on from this affair.
First, Lofton appears to think that I was accusing him of “libel” in the legal sense. I would have thought it obvious to the average reader that that is not the case. Words like “libel” and “defamation” have narrow and technical legal meanings, but also broader meanings in moral theology and everyday life. “Libel” and “defamation” in the legal sense have to do with matters of provable fact. They do not have to do with matters of opinion, not even opinions that are reasonable, well-founded, etc.
Hence, suppose someone said, “Feser is incompetent as a philosopher.” Naturally, I think this is not only false, but (I also like to think!) easily shown to be false by (say) perusing some of my better academic articles. Moreover, if someone got lots of people to believe this false proposition, he could plausibly be said to be “defaming” me. However, it would be ridiculous to suggest that this imaginary critic had committed “libel” or “defamation” against me in the legal sense. Judgements about a person’s competence are too controversial and complicated a matter to fall into the category of provable fact in the legal sense. By contrast, if someone had claimed that I had once been convicted of drunk driving, the falsity of such a defamatory claim would be a matter of provable fact. For it can crisply and clearly be established that such an event never happened.
When I said that Lofton’s remarks about me were “defamatory” and “libel,” what I (obviously) meant is that in my opinion, his opinions about what I had written were defamatory in the broader, moral sense. I was not claiming that he had committed libel in the legal sense.
Second, I explained the reasons for my judgment in my previous article, but let me say a little more here. As manuals of moral theology note, someone can be morally guilty of defamation or libel (even if not legally guilty) by damaging someone’s reputation not only directly and explicitly but also either “implicitly,” or by way of “half-truths that convey the impression of what is untrue,” or in an otherwise “indirect” way. (I take these phrases from McHugh and Callan’s Moral Theology, Volume II, pp. 221-22.) It was in this sort of way that Lofton’s remarks about me in his original video seemed to me to be defamatory and libelous. As I noted in my article responding to that video, the video gave the impression that I was defending the claim that with the appointment of Archbishop Fernandez, the Magisterium of the Church would be entirely suspended. He describes the things I say in my article as “weird,” “odd,” and “serv[ing] an agenda” in such a way that he is “left scratching [his] head” about what I might be up to. But he also suggests that some people advance such views in order “to prepare people to reject papal teaching authority… to use it as an excuse to ignore the papal magisterium.” All of this makes it seem as if this is likely my intention but that I’m not being up front about it.
I explicitly acknowledged that Lofton goes on to state that he “[doesn’t] know what [Feser’s] intentions are, specifically.” But the innuendo and insinuation seemed, in my view, so obvious from the overall video that I judged this remark to be nothing more than a way to avoid being accused of stating directly what I took him to be obviously implying. Viewers of the original British version of the series House of Cards will be familiar with the lead character’s signature line, “You might very well think that; I couldn’t possibly comment,” uttered when scandalous suggestions about another party were put to him. It was famously a way for him to spread defamatory claims in a manner that on the surface pretended to be doing otherwise. It seemed to me that that is the sort of thing Lofton was doing in his original video.
Lofton has since explained that I have misunderstood him. I’ll come back to that in a moment. But it is important to note that many of Lofton’s own viewers seemed to derive from his video exactly the message that I claimed it was sending. For example, in the chat and comments sections of the video, one reader judged my view to be “sedevacantism with extra steps”; another took it to be “an essentially Protestant view of teaching authority”; a third said “I believe Feser is proposing/defending this theory because it allows him to dissent from the Magisterium”; another regarded my view as “very obviously an ad hoc hypothesis made up to justify dissent from the Magisterium”; yet another averred that I was trying to “prove… a suspended Magisterium” and that this “makes me question whether Edward Feser deserves his teaching license after making such terrible claims”; yet another said “Please tell me Ed Feser isn’t going the Pseudo-Trad Protestant route.” Then there were viewers who also thought that Lofton was alleging such things, but judged it “slander” for him to do so (as one viewer put it).
I submit that it was hardly unreasonable for me to judge that Lofton was guilty of defamatory innuendo and insinuation, when many of his own viewers took him to be saying exactly what I claimed he was saying.
However – and to come to the final point – Lofton insists that, despite how things appeared to me and others, in fact he intended no such thing. And the number and vehemence of his comments over the last few days indicate that he feels very strongly about this. I certainly understand why someone would be upset if he believes he is being misunderstood, since it happens to me quite frequently, and I believe Lofton in his original video badly misunderstood my article.
But again, he insists that he did not mean to do this. I am willing, then, to take Lofton at his word, and I accept his explanation that he did not intend to defame or libel me. Online exchanges often produce more heat than light and lead to mutual misunderstanding. Charity requires that parties to a dispute try to clear up such misunderstandings. Having already explained in my previous article what I actually meant, I am happy to accept Lofton’s explanation of his own intentions and to leave the matter there. I wish Lofton well and hope that this will close this matter so that we can both move on to other, more edifying things.
(Editor’s note: This essay originally appeared on Dr. Feser’s blog in a slightly different form and is reprinted here with the author’s kind permission.)
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.
Is this academic “querelle des inscriptions” really worth the mass verbiage that has been and is being devoted to it, here and elsewhere? It appears that what is at issue is a matter of wounded egos on both sides.
Agreed. I appreciate Dr. Feser’s academic work and writings, including his attempt at helping us understand the limitations of papal infallibility. I also like Lofton’s videos and how much effort he puts into developing a perspective that is both faithful to the Church Magisterium and extending a charitable reading of OUR current Vicar of Christ on Earth, Pope Francis.
It’d be great if the pissing contest would end.
What’s ego got to do with it?
Lofton’s experience, knowledge, and sense compared to Feser’s are woefully inadequate. Lofton speaks from the hip and speaks too much without a solid understanding of the issues nor regard for the care with which Feser’s words have been written and the reason such ideas carry. Feser is hoping to teach a fool and others who don’t know how foolish fools can be.
Feser’s argument is in fact a boon and a good to any man wanting to grant the current pontificate an off-ramp to its well-and oft-traveled road to hell.
Engage the arguments and stop criticising the person. Also, Feser doesn’t need a cheerleader.
Lest I also be accused of hypocrisy or of chanelling Feser, please revise the last sentence of paragraph one to read: “I believe that Feser is able to teach fools and to alert others who don’t know how foolish fools can be.
Thank you.
Jealous, are you???
I’ll engage an argument if one is given AND IF AND WHEN I CHOOSE TO DO SO. Thank you for noticing my writing. I’m flattered!
Pray tell, oh guiding ruling Theophrastustic guru : Where is the argument of the sentences which begin, “I like…” and “I appreciate”? Where is the argument that this “appears that [this]… is a matter of wounded egos….”
Theophrastus. Check him out.
“For any readers of my recent reply to Michael Lofton who have not been following events at Twitter and YouTube”.
I’d suggest to Dr. Feser that “events” on Twitter and YouTube are not worth anyone’s time. I could use some choice words for someone like Mr. Lofton whose life seems to be spent there, but I suppose that would go against the generous tone of Feser’s article.
Feser is a fine scholar and Catholic mind, and its a shame that he feels it necessary to spend ten seconds addressing the ephemera of the internet and personalities whom none of us would know about except, well, for Twitter and You-Tube.
This comment and others like it are silly and dare I say, a little sycophantic. Feser certainly is a “fine scholar” and as such he doesn’t need commentators telling him what a great guy he is and how terrible Lofton is. Perhaps you agree with Feser, perhaps you think Lofton missed the mark. There’s no need to make it personal.
Also, I think you underestimate Lofton. From what I can see he’s always always looking for and sharing the truth, no matter the cost and tries to be charitable in his criticism of others. I’ve found his content very helpful especially regarding Ecclessiology and the Magisterium. On these topics I’ve generally found him more compelling than Feser though I think their views are actually quite close.
You must be over 40.
Words are signs that point to realities.
But words can be said to operate in two ways: denotatively and connotatively.
Denotation refers to the relationship between the word and reality, between the sign and the thing signified.
Connotation refers to the wider net of associations we make either with a word or with the thing signified by the word, or both.
Good for a real thinker to take apart a lightweight blogger and then move on to the resumption of serious work. Lightweight bloggers have their (limited) place, but internet and social media intensively promote a damaging lack of thought.
Yea verily, we live in a hair-trigger and IED world (Improvised/intellectual Explosive Device).
What if, for example, one simply claimed that Fezer was a “backward, bigoted, rigid, and even fixistic” defender of the magisterium? Fezer might respond with an intelligently precise analysis how this is not at all true or the Truth…
But this would be an obsolete appeal to the intellect! When, in fact, the “throwaway culture” (not only in the ecological sense!) was simply operating at the level of preemptive reflex. A brain-stem reaction. Amnesiac graffiti artists in cap and gown and sometimes red hats. Finally, is it all really about pre-emptive strikes? And brainstems—and, sometimes politically, about the displacement of even backbone with another part of the backside anatomy?
Talk about the real backward! We can thank God, then, or whatever, that at least within the Church, defenders of memory, open thought, and the living magisterium are not pre-emptively discarded as backward and stuff like that.
Well done.
I come away with greater appreciation of Dr. Feser (and the inverse for some others).
The tone of Lofton’s video that Feser initially responded to was not at all angry, but reasonable, charitable, and intellectually engaging. The response of Feser was livid, immature, and uncharitable. Yes, I’ve been following the back and forth. It’s a shame, and it’s bringing down the reputation of CWR. If Feser’s response had not included a ridiculous and slanderous word like libel, we wouldn’t be here. Feser’s article responding to the video admits he’s very, very angry. This is why decisions shouldn’t be made and arguments shouldn’t be made when under the influence of anger.
I am glad that Dr. Feser here makes the distinction between the narrow legal definition of libel/defamation and the moral one as well. I too had been thinking that this distinction needed to be invoked. I hope this is a first step at a real reconcilation between the parties in this dispute.
“If you bring your gift to the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift before the altar, go and be reconciled with your brother and then come offer your gift.”
“Every idle word that men shall speak shall be brought to account on the Day of Judgement”.
Now, I believe there can be no doubt that all parties who engage in these present controversies over the Pope and the Catholic verities are involved in perilous business!
As I have stated before I find most of the conservative world far too critical and closed to what Pope Francis brings. Therefore, despite the fact that there has been this acrimonious exchange between Michael Lofton and CWR I would like to ask Carl Olson, CWR and Ignatius to prayerfully consider moving closer to an overall position such as that of Michael Lofton’s on account of how he remains open to the magisterium of Pope Francis and inclines to defend him as much as is possible given his own understanding of what is true. I don’t say I agree 100% with Lofton’s approach and stances, still I think he is located in a far better place which may be a good first step for CWR as it hopefully moves away from what I think false.
And Michael Lofton, if you happen to see this, might you consider moving a bit closer to Mike Lewis? But not all the way though because I think they need to perhaps move a bit your way as well.
Let’s pray, pray, pray that we can all, Pope included, get situated dead center in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary!
Thank you for your consideration
“I would like to ask Carl Olson, CWR and Ignatius to prayerfully consider moving closer to an overall position such as that of Michael Lofton’s on account of how he remains open to the magisterium of Pope Francis and inclines to defend him as much as is possible given his own understanding of what is true.”
Light,by its very nature, cannot have fellowship with darkness. Excusing Francis amounts to defending the indefensible, so what you are asking is not possible.
Dear ‘Timothy’, thanks for your voice of moderation; or is it? Looking at what your basic expressed position is:
“Michael Lofton’s account of how he remains open to the magisterium of Pope Francis and inclines to defend him as much as is possible given his own understanding of what is true. I don’t say I agree 100% with Lofton’s approach and stances, still I think he is located in a far better place which may be a good first step for CWR as it hopefully moves away from what I think false.”
Basically, you propose Lofton is faithful to truth about our current Church leaders; and thus Fesser & CWR are misleading! This is plainly preposterous!
Please read this from a former post:
Does Pope Francis sincerely believe the pastoral approach he has chosen corresponds to the will of Jesus? NO – not according to overwhelming evidence:
Up until about a year ago I, too, considered Pope Francis to be doing his honest best. Since then, the excellent, factual and logical articles we are blessed with in CWR have caused me to look deeper. Now see that I was taken in by the powerful pr patina of orthodoxy & decency PF employs to conceal an hubristic revolt against the Apostolic teachings of The New Testament and thus against The Holy Spirit of God and against Jesus Christ, our lord.
Check out the heretical teachers who have influenced Jorge Bergoglio. Check out his disastrous betrayal of our suffering, Chinese Catholic brothers & sisters to the monstrously cruel communist military regime Francis favors. Check out PF’s flouting of even basic Catholic family ethics by – for goodness-sake – giving the Holy Eucharist to prominent, public adulterers & advocates of baby murder. Check out PF’s tolerance of a fellow Jesuit’s multiple sexual abuses of vulnerable women. Check out the sordid history of his innumerable injustices to minors abused by his fellow clergy.
Francis is inveigling Catholics to accept an unrepentant, free-sex Church. Possibly, mainly because his coterie thinks this will help whitewash the abominations that have been covertly tolerated for years among the clergy at large.
And dear ‘Timothy’ sadly there is much more of the same. I pray that your eyes would be opened as mine have been.
Not that anyone delights in the rotten fruit being born by the present incumbent of The Chair of Saint Peter; but is it not the duty of every Catholic who follows Jesus to abjure Frankolatry and frankly speak the truth, no matter how distasteful . . .
More strength to Dr Edward Fesser and all the other honest Catholic analysts!
Blessings in the Name of Christ; always in the love of The Lord; from marty
“I would like to ask Carl Olson, CWR and Ignatius to prayerfully consider moving closer to an overall position such as that of Michael Lofton’s on account of how he remains open to the magisterium of Pope Francis and inclines to defend him as much as is possible given his own understanding of what is true.”
Huge ditto!
I absolutely appreciate and can agree with what you wrote here.
I pretty much tuned out to contemporary Catholic media in the past five years because it seems to have a huge animus against Pope Francis.
I recently discovered Michael Lofton and one thing I really appreciate about him is that he really does support Pope Francis and does not spend the bulk of his time undermining the Holy Father or communion with the universal Church.
This whole spat is a perfect argument for Catholics to delete twitter. Catholic twitter has wrought more negatives than positives. And has caused people, who have a lot more similar viewpoints on things than they realize to be at each other’s throats when they should be together bringing people into Christ’s church. It’s amazing how these conflicts escalate over such minor things.
Twitter can certainly be a cesspool (but also a valuable tool, if used correctly). But this particular debate, while it eventually spilled over into Twitter, was about an essay, a video response to that essay, and then another essay. Also, I’m not sure that the disagreement was over a “minor thing,” but I’m also not interested in arguing that point on Twitter. (Ahem.)
Good on you, Prof, and CWR for publishing your original reply to Michael Lofton. I think that Mr. Lofton got a well-deserved smackdown (finally) by a competent Catholic scholar and then he proceeded to complain and equivocate. I doubt he will be humbled by this experience. I find his entire demeanor, as presented on this show, brimming with a palpable arrogance. He reminds me of a first-year law student I once knew (ahem), who began to read books and acquire real knowledge, and then, feeling intellectually (and thus morally) superior, began to nitpick others who had the bad luck to misuse a term of art in his hearing. As Dr. Feser is right to point out for Lofton’s benefit, there is an enormous difference between study and practice, as any practicing lawyer can tell you. As my old man was fond of telling me, “You don’t know that you don’t know what you don’t know.” In other words, you’re not nearly as smart as you think you are young man. Mr. Lofton would get a wider interest in his show if he took a more respectful, balanced, careful approach to controversial issues in the Church and stop habitually bashing traddies.
Feser is not a scholar of ecclesiology, canon law, or Church history. This is not to claim he can’t speak meaningfully on such issues, but to act like he’s more studied in said areas than Lofton is risible.
I don’t really have a dog in the fight. I’ve benefitted from Feser’s work immensely. However, Feser tends to grow acerbic and supercilious in disputes like this, occasionally running afoul of charity. He and Hart both exhibited such vitriol in their past arguments, but Lofton is actually far more humble and good natured. I think Feser went in too hard and, when confronted by those genuinely affronted over his acrimonious–and frankly hyperbolic– rhetoric toward another faithful Catholic, decided to clarify.
Or simplistically bashing anyone taking offense a the public remarks of a Pope who uses words like coprophilia or calls defenders of the Deposit of Faith mentally ill.
In defence of Dr Feser, I appreciate him introducing me to the work of Dr David Bentley Hart during a similar online dispute over Pope Francis and capital punishment. Hart in defending the Holy Father has become one of my favourite Christian philosophers, forcing me to rethink my former support as a Catholic for capital punishment.
Catfights bore me.
On August 1 at onepeterfive.com, T.S. Flanders comments and explains his understanding of Newman’s/Feser’s ‘suspense/suspension’ of the Magisterium. Flanders’ explanation uses the Aristotelian/Thomist concept of potency/actuality to add force to Feser’s argument. Flanders therefore sees validity in the ‘suspense/suspension’ argument.
Of course I agree.
I am not a favorite of Michael Lofton. First of all, he constantly defends Pope Francis. Just because a person is a Pope it does not mean they do every thing correctly. Nor does the public have to agree with a Pope. Clearly this Pope has made major mistakes and has done outrageous. Your not supposed to change Catholic doctrine Michael Lofton. The Pope is wrong for doing that. So wake up! I really think Lofton defends the Pope because he knows it irritates a great many people. The Bible says if you chose to follow and live by rules set forth by even a religious leader who is misleading the people and leading them to sin then you are possibly placing your own salvation in Jeoprady! I guess Lofton is ignorant to this fact. YES- you have to speak out against a Pope who is wrong and causing dissention in the church.