CathInfo.com

Why does anyone care what an excommunicated priest said about theology, or about anything, really? He was not authorized by the Church to write about theological matters, and wrote his books without the necessary Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat.

He was not a theologian, but just a simple Jesuit -- for a while, until he was expelled from the order.

He is not an authority on anything. It just blows my mind that people quote him incessantly as if he were the prophet Isaias instead of a disgraced and excommunicated priest. Even the words that people quibble over were written without the Church's approval and in violation of canon law. There should be no need to refute or even address anything of such a nature.

The Church is a hierarchical religion. People cannot teach its doctrine without approval from those who are authorized to give such approval, usually bishops or the pope. People are explicitly forbidden to teach Catholic doctrine without such approval. Feeney did not enjoy such approval in the works cited here and in other discussions of his errors. The only works he wrote that had Church approval were works of poetry or light entertainment, in one of which he actually did express belief in Baptism of Desire.

The whole discussion of his ideas is a complete non-issue for Catholics who understand how the Church works.

Why does anyone care what an excommunicated priest said about theology, or about anything, really? He was not authorized by the Church to write about theological matters, and wrote his books without the necessary Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat.

He was not a theologian, but just a simple Jesuit -- for a while, until he was expelled from the order.

He is not an authority on anything. It just blows my mind that people quote him incessantly as if he were the prophet Isaias instead of a disgraced and excommunicated priest. Even the words that people quibble over were written without the Church's approval and in violation of canon law. There should be no need to refute or even address anything of such a nature.

The Church is a hierarchical religion. People cannot teach its doctrine without approval from those who are authorized to give such approval, usually bishops or the pope. People are explicitly forbidden to teach Catholic doctrine without such approval. Feeney did not enjoy such approval in the works cited here and in other discussions of his errors. The only works he wrote that had Church approval were works of poetry or light entertainment, in one of which he actually did express belief in Baptism of Desire.

The whole discussion of his ideas is a complete non-issue for Catholics who understand how the Church works.

Who was going to give him permission to write on Exclusive Salvation, Yeti? Notorious heretic Archbishop Cushing? His Jesuit superiors who denied Exclusive Salvation?

Fr. Michael Muller was silenced by his superiors in the 19th century for defending EENS while heretic priests were allowed to attack him and his works while denying EENS. And Fr. Muller even held "BOD". 

Who is going to defend the most important dogma of the Church if the vast majority of the hierarchy deny it?