As manyreaders will have heard by now, last week Detroit’s new archbishop Edward Weisenburgersuddenlyfired three well-known professors at Sacred Heart Major Seminary:theologians Ralph Martin and Eduardo Echeverria and canon lawyer EdwardPeters.  No official explanation has beengiven.  Martin has said that he was told onlyand vaguely that it had to do with “concerns about [his] theologicalperspectives.”  Echeverria has declined commentbecause of a non-disclosure agreement. Peters says that he has “retained counsel.”

I have beencommenting on the matter at Twitter/X and, because of its importance, thoughtit appropriate to do so here as well. One thing all three of these professors are known for is their longstandingdefense of the Magisterium and traditional teaching of the Church.  They have in recent years also respectfullycriticized Pope Francis, because of words and actions of the pope that generatedcontroversy due to their apparent conflict with the Church’s traditional teaching(on matters such as Holy Communion for those in adulterous unions, the deathpenalty, non-Christian religions, and blessings for homosexual couples).

In doing so,they were perfectly within their rights as theologians and as Catholics.  As Ihave documented elsewhere, the Church has always acknowledged that therecan be cases where it is legitimate for the faithful with the relevanttheological expertise respectfully to raise criticisms of problematicmagisterial statements, even publicly.  TheChurch addressed the matter in some detail during the pontificate of St. JohnPaul II, in the instruction DonumVeritatis.  Martin, Echeverria,and Peters all have the relevant expertise and have presented their objectionswith respect to the person and office of the pope.  They have no history as “rad trad” firebrandsor the like but are men of proven learning and sobriety.  A reasonable person might disagree with them,but could not accuse them of violating the theological and canonical normsgoverning theological discussion in the Church.

All thesame, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that they were fired because oftheir theological views.  Again, Martin,at least, was explicitly told that his firing had to do with that.  And that theological animus was the motive ismade even more plausible by the fact that one of the first things Archbishop Weisenburgerdid upon taking office was to crackdown on traditional Latin Mass communities in the archdiocese.  The archbishop has not explained how hisharsh dealings with Catholics of more traditional opinions can be reconciledwith whathe has said elsewhere about how the faithful should treat one another:

Pope Francis is calling us to be a truly listening church...It is perhaps helpful also to note what synodality is not.  It is not a political process in which thereare winners and losers.  We must notthink of synodality as a power game whereby those with differing theologicalvisions of the church and its mission contend for control and dominance…Dialogue and communication are essential for bishops to exercise theirservant-leadership role on behalf of God’s people.

Nor, despitehis admiration for Pope Francis, has the archbishop explained how his actionscan be squared with what DDF prefect Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández tellsus was the late pope’s desire “instead of persecutions and condemnations,to create spaces for dialogue” and to avoid “all forms of authoritarianism thatseek to impose an ideological register.”

Otheradmirers of Pope Francis well-known for their endless chatter about dialogue, inclusion,and mercy have reacted with merciless glee at the peremptory exclusion of Martin,Echeverria, and Peters – and in some cases thrown in gratuitous smears to boot.  Austen Ivereigh matter-of-factly characterizes themas “notoriously... intemperate.”  It isdifficult to judge this to be anything but a brazen lie, which Ivereigh perhapsthinks he can get away with because few of his readers are likely to know muchabout the three professors.  But whetheror not he knows it to be false, the reality is precisely the opposite of whathe says.  Echeverria long defended PopeFrancis before only reluctantly and cautiously changing his mind, Peters iswell-known for lawyerly nuance, and Martin is about as mild-mannered as can beimagined.

Mike Lewis accusesthe three professors of “heresy.”  Thisis a preposterous calumny.  As the Catechismdefines it, “heresy is the obstinatepost-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine andcatholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same”(2089).  Never have any of the threeprofessors expressed any denial or doubt about any such doctrine.  Michael Sean Winters is especially shamelessin his bad faith, applauding the firing of Martin, Echeverria, and Peters whilein the same breath defending Fr. Charles Curran’s notorious dissent fromthe Church’s teaching on sexual morality.

It should berecalled that last week’s firings are not the first time prominent and loyalCatholic academics lost their positions because they criticized Pope Francisfor failing to uphold traditional teaching. For example, in 2017, after criticizing the pope for sowing doctrinalconfusion, Fr. Thomas Weinandy wasremoved from his position as consultant to the U.S. bishops’ Committee onDoctrine.  After signing a letter thataccused Pope Francis of heresy in 2019, philosopher John Rist wasbanned from all pontifical universities, and theologian Fr. Aidan Nichols has had difficulty finding a stable academicposition.

It isimportant to emphasize that, like the three professors fired last week, theseare not mere media influencers, “rad trad” hotheads, or otherwise marginal figures.  They are eminent academics long known for theirdeep learning, scholarly rigor and nuance, and fidelity to the teaching andMagisterium of the Church.  Nor were theycritical of Francis from the start, but only after his problematic statementsand actions accumulated.  One candisagree with some of the things they have said (for example, I think Rist andNichols went too far, asI said at the time), while acknowledging that their arguments are serious,presented in good faith, and worthy of respectful engagement.

And itshould be noted too that these men are only a handful from among a much largerbody of eminent scholars known for their longtime loyalty to the Church and itsMagisterium who were deeply troubled by aspects of Pope Francis’s pontificate –Germain Grisez, John Finnis, Josef Seifert, Msgr. Nicola Bux, Cardinal RaymondBurke, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Cardinal George Pell, and on and on and on.  Even if we confined ourselves just toacademics and other Catholic thinkers and churchmen who have been publiclyrespectfully critical of Pope Francis, the list would be very long.  If we added those who have opted for variousreasons to keep their concerns private, it would be extremely long.

The reasonis not that these people, long known for their deep loyalty to the Church andto other recent popes, somehow magically all became heretics or dissenters underFrancis.  The reason is that Pope Franciswas simply unlike any previous pope in history in thenumber of his theologically problematic statements and actions.  None of the previous popes notorious for suchwords and actions – not Liberius, not Honorius, not John XXII – comes close.  It is impossible for a theologicallywell-informed and intellectually honest person not to see the problem, and thegravity of the problem.

Yet for themost part, Pope Francis’s defenders have not seriously engaged with thesethinkers’ arguments, and none of Francis’s defenders is remotely as notable fortheological expertise and sobriety as the most eminent of the pope’s critics.  Instead, for the most part Martin, Echeverria,and Peters, like Weinandy, Nichols, and Rist before them, have been subject tovulgar abuse and dismissiveness from their moral and intellectual inferiors –adding insult to the grave injury of having their livelihoods unjustly takenfrom them.

Again, Donum Veritatis taught that it ispossible for there to be cases in which Catholics with the relevant theologicalexpertise can legitimately raise criticisms of defective statements from theChurch’s magisterial authorities.  Indeed,the instruction even acknowledges that “such a situation can certainly prove adifficult trial.  It can be a call tosuffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that ifthe truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail.”

The scholarswho have lost their positions for criticizing Pope Francis’s errors are nowindeed suffering for the truth.  But thetruth will ultimately prevail, as it did in the cases of Liberius, Honorius,and John XXII.  We do not know how longthis will take.  In the case of JohnXXII, it happened very quickly; in the case of Honorius, it took decades.  But we can have good hope that Pope Leo XIV,who seems to be a kind and generous man who appreciates theological learningand wants to unify the Church, will approach these controversies in a lessdivisive and draconian manner than did his predecessor.