Are Catholics allowed to criticise a Pope?
Are Catholics allowed to criticise a Pope?
I have always found blind papal devotion in opposition to faith, truth, and reason, highly annoying. Especially, if the proponents of this do not know their own Catholic Faith.
When Bishop Joseph Strickland published an open letter earlier this week criticising not only his fellow bishops but also Pope Francis, the comment sections on social media became war zones.
The battle was especially heated between those on the one side saying you can’t criticise a Pope and those on the other side arguing there are valid justifications for doing so.
I have always found blind papal devotion in opposition to faith, truth, and reason, highly annoying. Especially, if the proponents of this do not know their own Catholic Faith. Closely adjacent to this crowd, is of course the “don’t judge” contingent.
In Galatians 1:6-9 we read “I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema” and in Acts 20:29-30, “I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them”.
To the above two groups, I would like to pose the following question. How are we to determine who is preaching a false gospel, or what is a false gospel, or who is a “ravening wolf” amongst us, if we do not “judge” or “criticise”?
It would be helpful to define these terms, “criticise” and “judge”, before we go on.
“Criticise” I will define as an attempt to evaluate or analyse, by examining or discussing something in detail, assessing both strengths and weaknesses, in order to establish its value or legitimacy.
“Judging” I will define as forming an opinion or conclusion about something or someone based on information, evidence, or perception of facts and reality.
In both cases, it is a process based on reason, information, facts, and the like. Not damning someone to hell or an exercise in “I am holier than thou”. As a certain cancelled priest always says, “God has given you a brain, use it!”.
This brings us back to the question, are Catholics allowed to criticise (or then judge) a Pope?
Let us start by looking at Canon Law.
Canon Law, while addressing the rights and duties of the faithful in various contexts, does not explicitly outline rules or guidelines for criticizing the Pope specifically. However, it does contain canons that offer insight into how Catholics might approach the topic of expressing concerns or voicing opinions within the Church, including opinions that could involve Church leaders, including the Pope.
Here are some relevant canons that implicitly inform the issue:
· Canon 212 §3: Right and Duty to Express Concerns
“According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence towards their pastors, and attentive to the common advantage and the dignity of persons.”
This canon affirms that Catholics have the right and even the duty to express their opinions on matters affecting the Church. This includes theological, moral, and pastoral matters and would theoretically extend to the Pope’s teachings and decisions when they impact the faithful. However, Canon 212 §3 emphasizes that any criticism or expression of concern should be done with respect for the office of the Pope and other Church authorities and in a way that maintains the unity and dignity of the Church.
· Canon 1373: Penal Measures for Inciting Disobedience
“A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical power or ministry…is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.”
While Canon 1373 addresses extreme cases where a person might “incite animosities or hatred” against the Pope or other Church leaders, it serves as a caution against any form of criticism that could incite division or rebellion against the Pope’s authority. In other words, criticisms must not seek to undermine the unity of the Church or encourage others to reject the Pope’s legitimate authority.
· Canon 1369: Public Offenses and Scandal
“A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication, utters blasphemy, gravely harms good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church, is to be punished with a just penalty.”
Although this canon does not specifically mention the Pope, it applies to public expressions that could damage the Church’s reputation, cause scandal, or generate hatred. Any criticism of the Pope, therefore, should avoid inflammatory or disrespectful language that could be construed as insulting or harmful to the Church’s moral and spiritual credibility.
· Canon 751: Definition of Heresy, Apostasy, and Schism
“Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
Canon 751 defines schism as a “refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff,” underscoring the importance of remaining in communion with the Pope. Criticism that crosses into the realm of outright rejection of the Pope’s authority or public rebellion against his governance could be considered schismatic and would be canonically problematic.
· Canon 333 §3: The Pope’s Supreme Authority
“There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgment or a decree of the Roman Pontiff.”
Canon 333 §3 affirms the Pope’s unique and final authority in Church matters. Catholics are reminded that, while they may respectfully express concerns, there is no higher appeal or tribunal to challenge the Pope’s decisions formally. This does not prevent Catholics from expressing concerns but underscores the Pope’s ultimate governance within the Church.
Canon Law provides Catholics with the right to express their views on matters affecting the Church (Canon 212 §3), while also setting boundaries to ensure this is done respectfully and without promoting division or contempt (Canons 1369 and 1373). While Canon Law does not directly discuss the issue of criticizing the Pope, it upholds a balance: Catholics are allowed to share their concerns, provided they maintain reverence, avoid inciting discord, and respect the Pope’s final authority in Church matters.
This framework encourages constructive dialogue and fraternal correction within the Church while safeguarding unity and reverence toward Church leadership, including the Pope.
(Important to note though. All of the above are based on cases where a legitimate Pope is occupying the Seat of Peter. Currently, there is a growing sentiment among a substantial segment of faithful Catholics that questions the legitimacy of Pope Francis’ papacy. This topic (sedevacantism) is for another discussion.)
Even though the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope holds a special role as the Vicar of Christ and the earthly head of the Church, and Catholics are called to show respect, obedience, and unity with him, the Church also acknowledges that the Pope, as a human, is not infallible in every action or statement he makes (infallibility applies only in specific contexts).
Thus, the topic of criticizing the Pope is nuanced. While the Church emphasizes loyalty and respect, historical and theological writings also show that there can be room for respectful disagreement or concern when there are serious issues at stake.
The following are some very important and relevant quotes and perspectives from Popes, Saints, and theologians on this matter:
· St. Paul’s correction of St. Peter (Galatians 2:11-14)
One of the earliest and most cited examples of correction within the Church is from St. Paul, who openly opposed St. Peter, the first Pope, over a matter concerning Gentile converts. In Galatians 2:11, Paul writes:
“But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.”
This episode is significant because it illustrates that even the first Pope could be subject to correction, particularly when his actions were inconsistent with the truth of the Gospel. The Catholic tradition often refers to this passage as an example of fraternal
correction, suggesting that even leaders of the Church may at times be in need of respectful admonishment.
· St. Catherine of Siena (1347–1380)
St. Catherine of Siena, a Doctor of the Church, is known for her strong letters to Pope Gregory XI during the Western Schism, where she urged him to return the papacy to Rome from Avignon. She did this out of love for the Church and a desire for reform:
“Most Holy Father, I say that you ought to be willing to die rather than tolerate any scandal or dishonor to be done to your Spouse the Church. Your pontifical dignity demands this.”
St. Catherine’s writings demonstrate a balance of respect for the Pope’s office with a sense of duty to urge the Pope toward what she believed was right. Her example underscores that love and fidelity to the Church can sometimes include calling leaders to higher standards.
· St. Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621)
St. Robert Bellarmine, a cardinal and Doctor of the Church, wrote about the possibility of a Pope falling into personal error and how the faithful might respond. In De Romano Pontifice, he says:
“It is permissible to resist the Pope if he is trying to destroy the Church. I say that it is permissible to resist him by not doing what he commands and by blocking him lest he carry out his will.”
St. Bellarmine clarifies that such resistance must be respectful and aimed at preserving the integrity of the Church. He emphasizes that loyalty to the Church may, in rare cases, require a conscientious response to protect it from harm.
· Pope Gregory the Great (540–604)
Pope Gregory the Great cautioned against excessive criticism of Church leaders but also acknowledged the duty of confronting error. In Pastoral Rule, he wrote:
“For indeed, the evil that is not corrected with a suitable rebuke is encouraged; and even if the deeds are opposed, if the one who has done wrong is not brought to correction, the wickedness is still stronger.”
Pope Gregory’s words remind Catholics that leadership includes accountability and that unchecked wrongdoing can harm the Church.
· Pope Pius XII on obedience and dissent
Pope Pius XII, addressing concerns about loyalty and obedience to Church authorities, made a distinction between faithful obedience and mindless assent. He taught that obedience to Church authority does not mean abandoning reason or faith, stating:
“It is true that no one has the right to decide matters of faith and morals, but that does not mean he has to accept a decision that is clearly wrong.”
Pius XII’s teaching implies that obedience in faith is balanced by an understanding that individual conscience must be formed and guided by Church teaching, not unthinking acceptance.
· Pope John Paul II on unity and respect
Pope John Paul II emphasized the importance of unity and respect toward the Pope’s office in his apostolic letter, Ut Unum Sint:
“The Church must breathe with her two lungs!” He emphasized the value of diverse perspectives within unity, noting that the Pope’s role is to safeguard this unity while valuing contributions from all members of the Church.
· St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)
St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the most influential theologians in the Catholic Church, addressed the question of correcting leaders in his Summa Theologica:
“There being an imminent danger for the faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was subject to St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith.” (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.33, Art.4)
Aquinas emphasizes that, when the faith is at risk, faithful members have a duty to raise concerns, even if it means questioning their leaders. This concept of "fraternal correction" is part of Aquinas's understanding of charity and truth within the Church.
· Pope Adrian II (867–872)
Pope Adrian II, in reflecting on the papal role, noted the importance of accountability for the Pope as well as other leaders:
"The Pope may be judged by no one... except if he were found deviating from the faith."
Pope Adrian’s words have often been cited to show that loyalty to the papal office does not preclude addressing deviations in faith or actions that may lead to confusion or harm.
· St. Francis de Sales (1567–1622)
St. Francis de Sales emphasized the importance of respect toward the Pope but also acknowledged the possibility of respectful dissent:
“To remain neutral in matters of faith is to disobey God; we must cry out as does St. Paul, ‘If an angel were to preach a different doctrine, let him be anathema.’” (The Catholic Controversy)
St. Francis reminds Catholics of their duty to remain steadfast in matters of faith, even if this sometimes requires resistance or clarification when Church leaders stray from truth.
· Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (1905–1991)
Archbishop Lefebvre, founder of the Society of St. Pius X, was critical of some decisions made during and after the Second Vatican Council. While he was excommunicated due to his actions, he is notable for his vocal criticism, saying:
“If it happens that the faith is endangered, it is necessary to resist the Pope who, in his capacity as a guardian of faith, is the first one who is to be resisted.”
Though Lefebvre's actions remain controversial, his statement reflects the belief that faithful Catholics may oppose even the Pope if it is believed that core teachings of the faith are compromised.
· Cardinal Raymond Burke (b. 1948)
Cardinal Burke, a contemporary and outspoken voice in the Church, has raised concerns regarding some pastoral decisions made by recent popes. He said in a 2016 interview:
“If a Pope would formally profess heresy, he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope… We are built upon the rock of Peter. This is our security and our peace, but the Pope is the visible source of unity, not someone with unlimited power.”
Burke underscores that loyalty to the Pope does not mean acceptance of potential errors in doctrine or morals. He insists that papal authority is bound to the Church's teaching tradition.
· Bishop Athanasius Schneider (b. 1961)
Bishop Schneider, a prominent Catholic bishop, has also addressed the role of criticism in the context of papal teaching, emphasizing the importance of faithfulness to tradition. In a 2018 interview, he stated:
“We have to see the Pope as a father, but we have to distinguish when the father is acting in a private manner and when he is acting as a teacher of the Universal Church.”
Schneider’s statement points to the need for discernment in distinguishing between the Pope’s personal opinions and his official teachings, a distinction that guides respectful critique.
· Pope Benedict XVI on "Obedience and Criticism" (1927–2022)
Before becoming Pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) wrote on the balance between obedience and criticism:
“Wherever men and their institutions are involved, there will be shortcomings, and they call for our criticism… a criticism that is not destructive but which enables us to deepen our faith and grow in love.” (The Ratzinger Report)
Pope Benedict here acknowledges the need for constructive criticism in the Church, emphasizing that such feedback, when done in charity, serves to deepen faith rather than divide the community.
· Canon Lawyer and Theologian Ed Peters
Ed Peters, a contemporary canon lawyer, has also commented on the rights of Catholics to voice concerns:
"Canon law recognizes the right of the faithful to make known their needs and desires to Church authorities... but with reverence and without scandalizing the faithful."
This recent perspective from a canonist reiterates that respectful expression of concern is permitted within the bounds of reverence and without the intention to cause division.
· Fr. Thomas Weinandy (b. 1946)
Fr. Thomas Weinandy, a theologian, wrote an open letter to Pope Francis in 2017 expressing concern about confusion in the Church:
“Holy Father, a chronic confusion seems to mark your pontificate… To teach with such a seemingly intentional lack of clarity inevitably risks sinning against the Holy Spirit.”
Weinandy’s letter is significant for its tone of respectful concern, presenting his worries in a way that is meant to invite dialogue rather than division. His approach demonstrates how a theologian might respectfully voice critique while still honoring the Pope’s authority.
· Cardinal Gerhard Müller (b. 1947)
Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has spoken on the need for doctrinal clarity, especially when Pope Francis introduced pastoral approaches that some considered ambiguous. In 2017, he said:
“The faithful are entitled to know clearly what the Church teaches and will always teach. They have a right to be able to understand what is morally right and what is morally wrong.” (First Things interview, 2017)
Müller’s statement reflects his concern for clear doctrine, especially in a time when certain teachings are seen as open to multiple interpretations. He suggests that ambiguity can harm the faith of ordinary Catholics who rely on the Church’s guidance.
· Cardinal Walter Brandmüller (b. 1929)
Cardinal Brandmüller, one of the "dubia" cardinals, publicly questioned Pope Francis regarding ambiguities in Amoris Laetitia, especially concerning Communion for the divorced and remarried. He wrote:
“If we are in doubt, then it is our duty to ask for clarity, because only the truth will set us free. In the face of this situation, the pope is, of course, obliged to give a clear response.” (La Repubblica interview, 2016)
Brandmüller, alongside other cardinals, formally asked Pope Francis to clarify points in his document Amoris Laetitia, reflecting a traditional Catholic expectation for doctrinal clarity, especially on moral issues.
· Bp. Joseph Strickland (b. 1958)
Back to Bp. Strickland, whose open letter is the reason we are asking this question. (Bp. Strickland is known for his traditional stance on doctrine, has expressed concern about various theological and pastoral issues under Pope Francis, and was removed as the bishop of Tyler in Texas in November 2023). In response to discussions around the Amazon Synod and possible changes to celibacy requirements, he tweeted:
“If we don’t uphold the Deposit of Faith in totality, we are not in union with Jesus and His Church… We must not lose our way in a modernized reinterpretation of Jesus’ teachings.” (Twitter, 2019)
Bp. Strickland’s remarks reflected his concern about adhering to the Church’s historical teachings without yielding to modern pressures or interpretations that, in his view, dilute the Catholic faith.
· Fr. Gerald E. Murray (b. 1959)
Fr. Gerald Murray, a canon lawyer and frequent Catholic commentator, has criticized Pope Francis’ approach to certain teachings and pastoral practices. He said:
“When the Pope speaks in an ambiguous manner… it’s not unreasonable to seek clarification, especially when it concerns the salvation of souls.” (EWTN, 2017)
Murray argues that because the Pope’s teachings have a profound effect on the faithful, clarity is essential. His view represents a call for consistency and transparency in Church doctrine.
· Professor Josef Seifert (b. 1945)
Catholic philosopher Josef Seifert raised concerns about potential doctrinal errors in Amoris Laetitia. He wrote:
“If only one exception to an absolute moral norm is admitted, then no absolute moral norm exists.” (Aemaet journal, 2017)
Seifert warned that allowing even a single exception to moral teachings, such as the indissolubility of marriage, risks undermining the entire moral framework of the Church. His criticism reflects a concern about the relativization of traditional moral teachings.
· Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò (b. 1941)
Archbishop Viganò has been one of Pope Francis’ most vocal critics, especially regarding issues of transparency and accountability on abuse cases. In an open letter, he wrote:
“I urge you to acknowledge your mistakes, repent, and demonstrate to the world and to the Church that you possess a good intention.” (2018 letter to Pope Francis)
Though his criticism is unusually direct, Viganò’s statement reflects the belief that Church leaders, including the Pope, should be transparent and accountable, especially on moral issues that impact the Church’s credibility. Vigano was sadly excommunicated recently.
These quotes illustrate the long-standing tradition in the Church of showing respect for the Pope’s unique role while also acknowledging that fraternal correction, grounded in charity and faithfulness, can sometimes be necessary. The recent examples, such as Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider, emphasize that criticism should be constructive, aiming at the truth, unity, and mission of the Church, not division or scandal.
Catholic teaching and tradition hold that the Pope’s authority is bound by divine law and tradition, and that the faithful have the right—and sometimes the duty—to express concerns when they believe that the integrity of the faith is at risk.
Two penultimate points.
First, it is important to note that to be able to be critical, it is presupposed that one has a solid knowledge of the Catholic Magisterium, Tradition, and Scripture to measure against. This doesn’t mean you have to have a doctorate in theology, but you should at least be able to know that something is rotten in Denmark when a Pope says there are many ways to God as opposed to what Jesus says in John 14:6.
This is unfortunately the problem today. Bad catechism, the neglect of clergy to properly teach the laity, and the quagmire of relativism have led to intellectual laziness on the side of the laity, making it easier to resort to a “the-pope-has-said-it-therefore-it-must-be-true” mentality.
Secondly, criticism must always be levelled with charity and with language that reflects charity. Not doing this automatically relegates one and whatever good arguments one might have had, to the lower moral ground.
To conclude and as final evidence that we are called to be critical as a measure to protect ourselves against the wolves that have entered the flock, I want to quote St. Paul from 1 Corinthians 5:7-13.
“Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened. For Christ our pasch is sacrificed. Therefore let us feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
I wrote to you in an epistle, not to keep company with fornicators. I mean not with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or the extortioners, or the servers of idols; otherwise you must needs go out of this world.
But now I have written to you, not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat. For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you judge them that are within? For them that are without, God will judge. Put away the evil one from among yourselves”.
Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!
Recognise and Resist!
ALSO READ:
The indisputable evidence for why you SHOULD receive Communion on the tongue
Modernist Trash 101: A guide from beyond the grave
John Senior vs the Church of Luce
URGENT: The REAL aim of the synod has been accomplished… and no one noticed
Dilexit Nos: Dangerous silence and other concerns with Pope Francis’ latest encyclical