Friday, February 13, 2026

Cancelled in L.A.

I had been invited to speak later this month at St. John’s Seminary in Los Angeles. I have now been informed that the event is being cancelled, due to complaints from unnamed critics who find me too controversial. Meanwhile, the always controversial Fr. James Martin will be speaking this month at the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress, on the theme “Hope on the Horizon: LGBTQ Catholic Update 2026.” It appears that, for some in Archbishop Gomez‘s archdiocese, Fr. Martin is welcome to speak about that topic to educators of Catholic youth, but I am not welcome to speak to seminarians about how to defend the Church’s teaching on the soul’s immortality.
Posted by at

68 comments:

  1. AnonymousFebruary 13, 2026 at 12:07 PM

    In today's culture, if you are not cancelled, you are not speaking enough truth.

    ReplyDelete
  2. KielFebruary 13, 2026 at 12:18 PM

    “Feedback is a gift”, or so they say. Well done, good and faithful servant. You’re doing the right thing. Keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  3. James ZahlerFebruary 13, 2026 at 12:47 PM

    "Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you"

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousFebruary 13, 2026 at 12:47 PM

    Give us some details on why your were cancelled. I didn't see any negative comments on Facebook or Instagram relating to your appearance.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bill HankelFebruary 13, 2026 at 12:53 PM

    Sadly, I'm not surprised ... thanks be to God, lest I go mad at the direction of this increasingly crazy world!

    “The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.”
    ― Flannery O'Connor

    ReplyDelete
  6. OA PoliceFebruary 13, 2026 at 1:13 PM

    This is odd--presumably someone behind the scenes was upset about the (relatively) mild criticism of Pope Francis? One can of course disagree with many of your positions, but they are standard recognised, if not universal, orthodox Catholic positions and nothing one wouldn't expect in terms of doctrine.

    Conversely (and perversely) someone there does not like your sharper criticisms of Trump.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Great Thurible of DarknessFebruary 13, 2026 at 2:10 PM

      Dr. Feser does openly dissent from 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and has more than a dozen posts defending his position. I don't know if that was the issue here (I doubt it, somehow), but given that the Pope has recently affirmed this teaching in no uncertain terms, I can see how a bishop might not think Dr. Feser's theological record is completely spotless.

      Delete
    2. OA PoliceFebruary 13, 2026 at 3:14 PM

      He’s argued for the death penalty, but his core contention (that it’s not intrinsically wrong), the dreaded “prudential judgement,” is—probably—granted by the wording of more “effective detention systems.” This is one of the areas I disagree with him on, though really doubt it can be *that* unusual for classical natural law theorists.

      (Ironically and perversely I am increasingly inclined to think it might be the anti-Trump stuff, especially with regards to the polices of certain special Levantine States)

      Delete
    3. The Great Thurible of DarknessFebruary 13, 2026 at 5:02 PM

      @OA Police

      The anti-Trump stuff is the main reason I hesitated to conclude that this is a liberal-backed "cancellation." Trump supporters are notoriously vindictive, and treat disloyalty to their lord and master as political and religious apostasy. I can absolutely see them deciding that a certain meddlesome Thomist needed to be taught a lesson.

      It's a shame either way. I like when Dr. Feser does metaphysics, and think he can't have too big an audience for that.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousFebruary 13, 2026 at 5:27 PM

      He is correct about the death penalty.

      Delete
    5. English CatholicFebruary 13, 2026 at 5:31 PM

      > Dr. Feser does openly dissent from 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

      Does every Pope (who has spoken on the topic) before Francis, along with Scripture itself, not to mention many of the Fathers and St. Thomas, also dissent from the non-authoritative, changeable catechism?

      Is the death penalty intrinsically immoral? If so, has it always been so? If so, are the above-named all wrong?

      Delete
    6. Tim LamberFebruary 13, 2026 at 6:05 PM

      Thurible:
      "Trump supporters are notoriously vindictive, and treat disloyalty to their lord and master as political and religious apostasy. I can absolutely see them deciding that a certain meddlesome Thomist needed to be taught a lesson."

      I have some tinfoil for you if your head covering is getting worn down, Thurible.

      I think we know who the culprit for this cancellation is. It's the same ones that have done it from Branden Eich to Ralph Martin.

      Delete
    7. The Great Thurible of DarknessFebruary 13, 2026 at 6:06 PM

      @English Catholic

      I'm not interested in relitigating this issue, which has been done a thousand times in every comment thread of every post Dr. Feser has on the topic. The point is that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the formal position of the Church as an institution with the authority of the Pope behind it, and whether or not Dr. Feser's position on the DP is theologically or historically legitimate, it is contrary to expressed teachings of the Catholic Church. Maybe that Church is corrupt, or apostate, or all its claims about its own authority are all false. The point is that if someone (like a bishop) is acting as a representative of the institutional church, it would make perfect sense for them to regard Dr. Feser as theologically suspect because he openly and publicly dissents from what the Church reports to be its own official teachings.

      But again, we have no idea if that's what's actually going on here. It's all speculation right now.

      Delete
    8. The Great Thurible of DarknessFebruary 13, 2026 at 8:17 PM

      @Tim Lamber

      You'll notice I wasn't ruling out the other interpretation—just pointing out that there is another raging mob that might be chanting "Down with Feezer!" (That's a throwback reference for you oldheads). The fact that the event organizers didn't include BMSHBBS in Feser's bio does suggest that they consider his position on that issue problematic, which favors the liberals being the culprits. But then again, Doc Feser has been in far more hot water over the past few months because of his posts about Trump than his posts about the DP. I certainly hope the seminary chooses to explain itself.

      Delete
    9. AnonymousFebruary 14, 2026 at 1:12 AM

      The Archbishop holds the canonical authority to prevent Professor Feser from speaking at a seminary under his jurisdiction if he considers that to be inappropriate. Regardless of whether we like the Archbishop or not, or whether we consider his reasons to be well-founded or not, he has the canonical right to make such a decision and the Canon Law of the Catholic Church is binding on all members of the Church. However, if the decision to cancel Professor Feser does not belong to the diocesan ecclesiastical authority, then things are completely different.

      Delete
    10. English CatholicFebruary 14, 2026 at 6:29 AM

      Your logic does not follow. Neither statements by clerics nor the CCC are identified with the "expressed teaching of the Catholic Church". (The exception is if infallibility is invoked by a council or pope, which obviously doesn't apply here.)
      If they were to be so identified then Catholicism would be false, since many contradictions about allegedly unchanging subject matters could be identified.

      Similarly, if scripture, tradition and many popes say X, and the most recent (two?) popes say not-X, it is not dissent to say X.

      Delete
    11. EXEFebruary 14, 2026 at 1:29 PM

      English Catholic:

      Well, then, don't you have an irreconcilable contradiction, or at least a right royal mess on your hands? Catholics like to take refuge in the notion that they have a definitive interpreter that enables them to know for sure what the Truth is, but whenever that becomes awkward, all of a sudden those grandiose statements about papal infallibility get hedged into oblivion, and now we aren't talking about submitting to the Pope anymore, we're talking about how the Pope can, in very specific circumstances that almost never occur, ensure that he doesn't say anything that's explicitly wrong. In other words, the teaching authority of the Church becomes rather muddled and useless, because discovering the "true position of the Church" becomes basically impossible, certainly for any layman. So, listen to the Pope, unless he contradicts this ideological/interpretative/traditional structure that I have constructed for myself, at which point, defer to the structure and disregard the Pope.

      Delete
    12. The Great Thurible of DarknessFebruary 14, 2026 at 1:41 PM

      @English Catholic

      Benedict XVI called the Catechism "a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine." John Paul II called it "a sure norm for teaching the faith." I'm sure I don't have to explain to you that "sure" means "worthy of trust" and "authoritative," and that it makes no sense to claim that something can be a "sure norm for teaching the faith" and yet not in any way constitute the "expressed teaching of the Catholic Church." Your minimalist construal of the Church's teaching authority is certainly convenient if you consider yourself the definitive interpreter of the Magisterium (and don't want any bishops or popes to get in the way of your one-man defense of the Apostolic Deposit), but it would certainly be news to the Pope that his teachings are mere suggestions (given prsumably to be ignored) unless made explicitly ex cathedra.

      Delete
    13. English CatholicFebruary 14, 2026 at 2:40 PM

      > Regardless of whether we like the Archbishop or not, or whether we consider his reasons to be well-founded or not, he has the canonical right to make such a decision and the Canon Law of the Catholic Church is binding on all members of the Church. However, if the decision to cancel Professor Feser does not belong to the diocesan ecclesiastical authority, then things are completely different.

      Why does it make any difference whether it's the Archbishop or the dean? Both have authority to forbid speakers in Catholic universities; it doesn't change the goodness or otherwise of the decision.

      Delete
    14. English CatholicFebruary 14, 2026 at 3:06 PM

      @EXE:

      There is no contradiction. My position is "clerics' statements/CCC are not the same as the Church's teaching"; it is not "one can disregard anything that isn't infallible, if it goes against what one already believes and likes". You are claiming I'm saying the latter. I'm not. If one implies the other, you need to state how.

      @Thurible:

      Similar comment. I haven't said the Pope's non-infallible teaching or the CCC are mere suggestions. I've simply said they're not correctly identified with Church teaching. If they were so identified, it would follow either that Church teaching contradicts itself, or that its subject matter (faith and morals) could change over time.

      Neither of you are responding to anything I've said, just what you imagine I've said.

      Again, the Catholic anti-DP position is indefensible. People who hold it will never state openly whether they think the death penalty is intrinsically immoral; if so, whether it has always been so; and if so, whether every Pope who spoke on the topic before Francis was wrong (not to mention Scripture, St. Thomas, etc). They just try to bully the other side by claiming they're bad Catholics. We know that, occassionally, even Popes teach things fallibly that are wrong or even heretical. See poor Pope Honorius, condemned as a heretic by several subsequent ecumenical councils.

      Delete
    15. TonyFebruary 14, 2026 at 5:32 PM

      Feser has gone to great lengths to be careful about his criticisms of the Francine stuff on the DP, and at the same time Francis himself expressed explicit limits on his own declarations, i.e. that his teaching was in conformity with past teaching. If one is able to thread a meaning for the old statements and the the statements so as to not be essentially contradictory, doing so is NOT "rejecting what Francis taught" even if its tenor tends to be uncomfortable to Francine styles of preference. Furthermore, the Vatican's own authoritative teaching office taught that disagreement with the pope's prudential judgment regarding the DP is not sinful. And Feser primarily has (since after Francis changed the CCC) limited himself to a narrow thesis that IS NOT contradictory to what Francis said, their comments are on different planes. (And if it is NOT POSSIBLE to square what Francis said (taught fallibly) with the Church's consistent 2000-year doctrine, then wouldn't that mean Francis's teaching was not magisterial, since one and the same magister cannot teach A and also teach not-A?)

      Delete
    16. AnonymousFebruary 14, 2026 at 11:05 PM

      @English Catholic

      "Why does it make any difference whether it's the Archbishop or the dean? Both have authority to forbid speakers in Catholic universities; it doesn't change the goodness or otherwise of the decision."

      I doubt that Professor Feser was invited to speak at the Seminary without the Dean's and the Rector's knowledge. Usually, their approval is obtained first, and only then are invitations sent out.

      Delete
  7. AnonymousFebruary 13, 2026 at 1:49 PM

    Seems like one of the greatest honors one could receive these days!

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousFebruary 13, 2026 at 1:58 PM

    I think your right wing political views got you disinvited.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Vini TadeoFebruary 13, 2026 at 2:36 PM

    This just reflects how ridiculous the world we live in nowadays is -- and what these "institutions of education" really aim at.

    These people's minds must go like this:

    "Oh, this guy is really good, and he's going to talk about the immortality of the soul, which is a cornerstone of catholicism....wait? what? Is he a conservative?... AND HE IS ALSO FAVORABLE TO THE DEATH PENALTY??? He's too controversial and a danger to our ideology! Cancel him!"

    Meanwhile, "Oh, we love these liberal fathers, look at how he tries to make us look good and inclusive to the gay community! Call him in!"

    What makes me really upset about all this is that Ed is not even politically aggressive to begin with (unlike a lot of the figures we are all bringing up to mind right now). He's just a good old conservative Catholic (just like most of us), a chill guy (and always willing to help) that we all know (even the dissidents), and a philosopher worried about truth (which is a relic in itself), that we all know and hang out here in the blog. (I wonder if these unknown critics, being the usual liberal minds that they are, would even allow 5% of the freedom of speech that Ed himself allows in the comment section.)

    At the end of the day, for these people, it doesn't matter if you are polite, friendly, or charitable to their arguments; you are simply judged and stigmatized for the views you endorse. All of this is just outrageous.

    Ed, if you are reading this, YOU ARE DEFINITELY NOT THE PROBLEM; THESE PEOPLE ARE. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter to these people that you are not radical; all that matters to them is that you hold views that are contrary to theirs. Your mission there would be to deliver the truth about the immortality of the soul. You would be there to fight the good fight. If talking about the soul is also, somehow, included in the pack as "controversial," it really makes me wonder if these institutions are Catholic or a mere façade (adding to the fact that these institutions allow people like Fr. Martin, who, to say the least, is clearly controversial and opposite to two thousand years of tradition).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EXEFebruary 13, 2026 at 6:42 PM

      "At the end of the day, for these people, it doesn't matter if you are polite, friendly, or charitable to their arguments; you are simply judged and stigmatized for the views you endorse. All of this is just outrageous."

      Well, let me flip this around into a context where it might make more sense to you. Imagine you are having a meeting, and one of your speakers is a very nice, articulate, friendly, and charitable man. However, his core belief is that Conservatives are all ontologically evil and deserve to be killed or shut up in prison for life. You would hardly be blamed for not wanting to associate with the man after that, surely? Regardless of his personal disposition, his views logically entail doing great harm to you and yours. Perhaps a bit of an exaggeration for the sake of effect, but you get my point - that being that it can be perfectly reasonable to disqualify someone on the basis of their beliefs rather than their actions or attitudes, if those beliefs are sufficiently noxious.

      Delete
    2. Vini TadeoFebruary 13, 2026 at 8:03 PM

      @EXE, you said: "You would hardly be blamed for not wanting to associate with the man after that, surely? Regardless of his personal disposition, his views logically entail doing great harm to you and yours."

      Are you trying to say that Ed's views are noxious or something like that? If so, how? How his views are "sufficiently noxious"?

      Delete
    3. EXEFebruary 14, 2026 at 7:23 AM

      My example was exaggerated to make a point, but yes, many of Ed's views could be considered as noxious, at least by the standards of contemporary society. Not, in this example, the ones he's specifically lecturing about (I don't think anyone regards the existence of immortal souls as morally noxious) but certainly his broader views about the death penalty, homosexuality, etc are repugnant to modernity, and if implemented as public policy would logically entail the suffering and oppression of significant chunks of the population. Yes, those are also the traditional views of the Catholic Church, but that doesn't change anything. Now, I'm sure that Ed would be very happy to hear that he's out of step with modernity, but then he can hardly complain if modernity bites back at him for standing apart from itself.

      Delete
    4. OA PoliceFebruary 14, 2026 at 11:31 AM

      This is probably a lost cause, but you do realise Feser's general views especially on foreign policy are far less blood-thirsty, might-makes-right, than a significant percentage of the current Republican byline? Because the view you describe for rhetorical effect sounds far more like the associated (rightly or wrongly) with pro-Israel types against Palestinians. One can disagree with states legalising or refusing to legalise gay marriage/or capital punishment, but that's still less extreme than purported ethnic cleansing or random wars of expansion.

      Delete
    5. EXEFebruary 14, 2026 at 1:22 PM

      You are correct, but that doesn't really matter. I wasn't thinking of those types of Republicans in my comment, in my mind they have already crossed the moral event horizon with gusto in their zeal to "own the libs". I specifically had Feser's type of conservative in mind, and yes, I do still consider those kinds of views to be beyond the pale, even if they're less aggressively vile than the typical Trumpian Conservative's. Even if I didn't, modern society certainly does, as likely do the organizers of this event.

      Delete
    6. TonyFebruary 14, 2026 at 5:17 PM

      Yes, those are also the traditional views of the Catholic Church, but that doesn't change anything.

      It doesn't change your point, but it matters to others. Here's how:

      If Ed had been invited to speak at a non-Catholic venue in order to give his ideas a wider audience than Catholics, and others (like the KGB_LGBQXTVNKVD crowd) got upsot and got him disinvited, that would be something like "normal reaction of those who hate Catholic teaching". Fine, nothing odd there. Whoever operates that venue doesn't have to platform Catholic teaching if they don't want.

      It's quite another thing for that disinvite to come from a seminary. Whoever pushed the button on the seminary officials was effectively saying "we don't want no stinkin' Catholic teaching around here". That's disturbing. If the seminary official who rescinded the invite isn't effectively a subordinate of the complainer / objector, his decision to go along with the complaint means he is also on board with the complainer, or at least accepts the idea that "a controversy between those who teach Catholic doctrine and those who don't shouldn't be allowed to be brought out in the open here by someone who teaches Catholic doctrine." But that's effectively an admission that the seminary doesn't teach Catholic doctrine, cause otherwise a Catholic professor who teaches Catholic doctrine speaking at the seminary wouldn't be controversial, it would be the OTHER party who is controversial. So...either way, black marks on them.

      I do still consider those kinds of views to be beyond the pale, even if they're less aggressively vile than the typical Trumpian Conservative's. Even if I didn't, modern society certainly does, as likely do the organizers of this event.

      Yes, it is possible that those in control of who is allowed to speak for the event hold many of the same views as modern society's anti-Catholic crowd. But that just is saying that those in charge hold Catholic teaching beyond the pale, and join with the anti-Catholic elements in the larger society.

      Delete
    7. Vini TadeoFebruary 14, 2026 at 7:13 PM

      @EXE, I am very upset with your comment about Ed, but I will try to express my ideas in a very respectable way.

      I really don't know which Ed you are talking about, but it is definitely not the EDWARD FESER I know. You or even modern society may disagree with what Ed has to say, but he never, ever talked any absurdities about homosexuality, DP, or anything in that way. I dare you to bring a single piece of evidence that shows Ed being "noxious" while defending his positions. He never said, for example, that homosexuals should die or that they will burn in hell or anything like that (just like muslims do, and, btw, people are way more tolerant to them than to us Catholics); also, if anyone dispassionately read 'By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed,' they would also see and agree that he didn't say anything degrading about human life in it at all (it is absurd to me that even though Ed and Bessette put a lot of effort trying to make their views clear, people who didn't even bother to read the book would simply label them as generic vindicative persons who endorse DP for the sake of it -- this is so outrageous).

      Also, whether or not "Modern Society" thinks that his views are noxious is irrelevant. It's not simply his views; it is the Catholic Church's view, which goes way beyond in relevance and scope than the views of modern society. The Catholic Church's view is the natural view of humanity from centuries ago until the world got indoctrinated to accept things contrary to human nature. The fact that Ed is defending what was natural is not a shame or even noxious -- it is a shame to the people nowadays who would love to rejoice in the cesspool of immorality and decadence that the world presents instead of the sane views that our ancestors once partook in.

      It is easy for the extreme leftists to say that we conservatives (simply labeled as "Trumpists") are vengeful, ignorant, and all, but what is really hard for them to see is that we are people who want to be left alone, grow our own families, and share the ideas that made us the people we are. It is hard for them to see the harm they actually cause because they are so virulent and slaves of an anti-human ideology that the mere fact of disagreeing with them just turns us into their dearest enemies. They bring the noise, they bring the violence, and the diabolical division of nowadays political views (people like Trump are just an effect of this).

      Also, finally, you haven't brought any arguments at all for why Ed "deserves" this kind of treatment or how his views bring "great harm" to anyone; all you have shown is that his views are contrary to modern society and that, for simply disagreeing with them, he was cut off. You should really think about what you said and think if it is really the right thing to defend.

      Delete
    8. Edward FeserFebruary 14, 2026 at 9:16 PM

      Thanks, Vini!

      Delete
    9. OA PoliceFebruary 15, 2026 at 3:53 AM

      What you considered beyond the pale is different from what a given society does though. I mean I consider the standard naturalist/atheist nonsense to be pretty much beyond the pale especially when its coupled with moralising, but would hardly expect this social climate to do so. If Ed's views with regards to the death penalty are the legal standard in some states they can hardly be beyond the pale in the US. Likewise some countries in Europe e.g. Greece, have only recently legalised gay marriage (I voice no opinion for or against this) and could hardly have been said to be brutalising gay people beforehand.

      I suspect I am in more radical disagreement with Ed and a lot of the people here, albeit not in popular ways. Having commented on this blog under one name or another for over a decade, and have never felt attacked let alone brutalised by him or his arguments.

      (I am all for the Church condemning the death penalty on the prudential grounds of weakening the power of the secular State which is the greatest threat to persons today. People make inaccurate scare-mongering hark-backs to the Inquisition nearly half a millennia go, seemingly obvious to the fact that Bush, Biden, Trump and Starmer wield power undreamed by the most zealous inquisitor or even the author of Leviathan himself)

      Delete
    10. Tim FinlayFebruary 15, 2026 at 8:19 AM

      Ed,
      I am very sorry to hear about your cancellation, but I am not surprised. Defending the natural law positions on the death penalty and human sexuality is just common sense; these used to be held by most people regardless of their religious affiliation, including the non-religious. In addition to the natural law and Biblical teachings, you have shown the support that these teachings have historically had in Roman Catholicism. The same holds historically for Reformation Protestantism in its Lutheran, Calvinistic, Anglican, Baptist, and Wesleyan traditions. Nowadays, people who defend these views in public are liable to cancellation in the liberal branches of any of these denominations and their associated educational institutions. You are in good company, Ed. I also want to echo Vini's comments; EXE is completely out of line here. Comments by Norm, Tony, and Miguel are also spot on. Modernists are dying out and there is a pre-modern revival happening that crosses denominational bounds. The truth will prevail, Ed. Be of good courage.

      Delete
    11. Edward FeserFebruary 15, 2026 at 10:32 AM

      Thanks, Tim

      Delete
    12. AnonymousFebruary 15, 2026 at 12:58 PM


      “It is easy for the extreme leftists to say that we conservatives (simply labeled as "Trumpists") are vengeful, ignorant, and all, but what is really hard for them to see is that we are people who want to be left alone, grow our own families, and share the ideas that made us the people we are. It is hard for them to see the harm they actually cause because they are so virulent and slaves of an anti-human ideology that the mere fact of disagreeing with them just turns us into their dearest enemies. They bring the noise, they bring the violence, and the diabolical division of nowadays political views (people like Trump are just an effect of this).”



      Laughable. It is a denial of reality to constantly-no matter what - assert leftism as THE cause of violence in this country. It is not true, empirically, factually, historically. The greatest terrorist threat in the US remains domestic, right wing white supremacists. *Every* other marginalized group wants this power structure to leave them alone. Stop using the government to invade their lives, inspect their genitals, and tell them who they can marry or how they present themselves to the world. Stop destroying public education because you want to install Christian indoctrination schools. Stop destroying public health and reintroducing diseases to vulnerable people because you don’t believe in the science and think this justifies YOU endangering everyone else. Stop having work places where it’s okay to harass people for any reason. They want YOU to stop creating roadblocks for their advancement. You don’t actually leave anyone alone. Are you serious?!? Look at this government. A veritable paradise of heritage zealots and other fundamentalists - decades in the making, wreaking havoc across the entire country. When do facts ever enter into these theories of lefty oppression?

      Delete
    13. Vini TadeoFebruary 15, 2026 at 8:32 PM

      Nice fanfic, anon. It really says much about the lore you guys fabricate for the real world.

      Btw, "Stop using the government to invade their lives, inspect their genitals" is just gross. You guys think about this subject way more than we do lol.

      Delete
  10. NormFebruary 13, 2026 at 3:04 PM

    Well, whoever would disinvite Prof, it's their loss. Don't worry Prof, you are great!

    ReplyDelete
  11. AnonymousFebruary 13, 2026 at 3:59 PM

    The professor complained that the "controversial" Rev.James Martin, S.J. will be speaking at the seminary. What the professor doesn't say is that on September 1, 2025, Pope Leo met with Fr Martin at the Vatican, and according to Martin, encouraged him to continue his LGBTQ ministry. The professor's opposition to that kind of ministry probably got him disinvited.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Great Thurible of DarknessFebruary 13, 2026 at 6:09 PM

      Fr. Martin is also giving a talk at an education workshop—one of twelve that attendees can choose from in that slot—not giving a keynote address on a theological topic. Many of the other speakers are lay people; one is even a Jewish rabbi. The situations are not really comparable at all.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousFebruary 13, 2026 at 8:09 PM

      Thurible, Feser obviously pissed off someone at that seminary. Yes, it's all speculative. DP, LGBTQ, his Republican politics, a little bit of each? Maybe it will come out eventually.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousFebruary 15, 2026 at 12:09 AM

      Pope Leo and Fr. James Martin are instruments of Divine Providence calling the faithful to repentance and works of reparation.

      Delete
  12. TonyFebruary 13, 2026 at 4:28 PM

    I gotta laugh at this: Fada jeeemmy Martin is going to be welcomed to talk that the "3 Days of Darkness" conference! Well, that's going true to form. Of course, if Feser had been asked to speak there, nobody would have objected: they're so far out in space that they don't even know who Feser is or how teaching the immortality of the soul would contradict anything they believe. Ya know: the world-soul is everlasting, man.

    But you get invited to speak at the seminary on The Soul, and someone in the power chain nixes it because ... wait for it...controversy? Total BS. Oh, I don't mean that he (whatever power-monger got a stick up his ...nose) won't like what you teach - he will. But the reason given is BS. What they really don't like is that Feser teaches as if the Church's doctrines from before Vatican II still carry weight, and are authoritative. That's the unforgivable sin here. That you could pull out the popes and the Fathers, cite from Denzinger, and state DEFINITIVE teaching that all must hold. Nobody gives a nit about "controversy" in the old sense any more, that's just hogwash.

    Feser, you musta done something very right to get this kind of treatment!

    ReplyDelete
  13. NormFebruary 13, 2026 at 8:12 PM

    "Well, they did invite me. I believe the pressure came from outside. All I can say at the moment."

    You will reveal more right, Prof ? In time ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserFebruary 14, 2026 at 1:18 PM

      Hopefully!

      Delete
    2. NormFebruary 14, 2026 at 7:25 PM

      Also Prof, despite this slight by your own Archdiocese, for what it's worth, your work resonates with people all around the world ,something I can very much attest to

      I have also been sharing your advice for men, 1 day at a time, coincidentally you had mentioned 7 points, so I framed it as one for each day of the week.

      Thanks for everything.

      Delete
    3. Edward FeserFebruary 14, 2026 at 9:14 PM

      Thanks, Norm!

      Delete
  14. AnonymousFebruary 13, 2026 at 8:59 PM

    Something strange going on here. I'm worried about Prof Feser.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Miguel CervantesFebruary 14, 2026 at 2:02 AM

    Disgusting, but typical of liberals. These people can't stand a "free market" of ideas that doesn't pay lip service to their worldview. Our modernists are getting older and older though. This won't last.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Paul D. Van PeltFebruary 14, 2026 at 9:00 AM

    Am sorry to read this, Professor. When one is viewed as counter-cultural, one is labelled controversial. Those who wield power do not always do that wisely.

    ReplyDelete
  17. AnonymousFebruary 14, 2026 at 1:09 PM

    I’m from the UK so I am not familiar with this seminary, but I wondered if it has been involved in this sort of cancelling before?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Edward FeserFebruary 14, 2026 at 1:31 PM

    In response to several comments, I want to make clear that from what I can tell at the moment, it appears that the pressure to disinvite me came from outside both the seminary and the archbishop's office. They were responding to that pressure - pressure from certain other circles in the Church here in L.A. -- rather than initiating it themselves, as far as I know. That's all I can say at the moment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oktavian ZamoyskiFebruary 14, 2026 at 1:43 PM

      Seems like either cowardice to cave in, or these groups otherwise have power that perhaps they shouldn't, for one reason or another.

      While one may disagree with you on various points, to call you "too controversial" is, frankly, such a bizarre claim. And to find these people in the Church is even weirder.

      Delete
    2. The Great Thurible of DarknessFebruary 14, 2026 at 1:50 PM

      You know, I've already respected you for hashing out your differences with your critics in public—getting to the bottom of things in an open and honest way. No intrigue, no sneaking around, no behind-the-scenes dealing. Sorry they've put you in this situation. It's very unfair.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousFebruary 14, 2026 at 2:38 PM

      I had a feeling it was outside pressure because the seminary seems to be a traditional Catholic seminary. Too bad they gave in to that pressure. Makes no sense. Dr Feser is a world-renowned Thomistic philosopher. He is conservative in his religious and political views, but not radically so.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousFebruary 14, 2026 at 4:43 PM

      And Ed wasn't even going to speak about anything controversial. I mean, what's controversial about the immortality of the soul? Yes, some people don't believe we even have a soul, but It's not exactly a hot button issue like abortion, LGBTQ, etc .

      Delete
    5. Edward FeserFebruary 14, 2026 at 9:17 PM

      Thanks, guys

      Delete
    6. TonyFebruary 15, 2026 at 12:27 PM

      it appears that the pressure to disinvite me came from outside both the seminary and the archbishop's office.

      It may be somewhat of a footless enterprise to speculate on who it was who initiated the disinvite. But not necessarily to consider the characteristics of whomever that was - I'll call him the Initiator. Someone at the seminary had to do the formal DISinvite to Feser, someone had to agree with the initiator that Feser should receive a message disinviting him, and decide to send the disinvitation - I'll call him the Decider. It would seem that the Decider has to be somewhere in the formal lineup of the seminary. If the Initiator were not part of the official chain of command of the Decider, (which chain of command seemingly would have to be in the seminary or in the archdiocesan offices), then they are someone who wields a considerable influence without being in the chain of command. Someone in a political position (like a Trump appointee), would have virtually no capacity to influence the chain of command or the Decider to that extent, so it makes little sense for it to be a political operative. Someone in a national (religious) capacity who could lean on the seminary might make a bit of sense (say, from the Nuncio's office), but frankly there is very little likelihood that would happen without running the pressure through the diocesan offices, i.e. not directly just calling up the seminary rector to complain. Pretty much the same from any other bishop, or anyone from Rome. What makes the most sense is that the pressure came from a major donor, someone who could exert pressure without directly working through the diocese, probably with the implicit capacity to complain to the archbishop and be heard.

      I don't propose the following, I am just pointing it out: a seminary official like Decider who could be pushed to nix Feser because of such pressure could also be moved in the opposite direction due to opposing pressure. If a few wealthy people, or many others, complained to the seminary that they had looked forward to Feser speaking and are upset that he was nixed etc blah blah..., it could make them a little more cautious in the future, or more ready to resist a stupid complaint from an (effective) anti-Catholic heretic. Ultimately, someone who has the bishop's ear needs to make it clear that his seminary is being run by people who either (a) don't really like Catholic doctrine much, or (b) don't have a spine and are willing to cater to people who don't much like Catholic doctrine. But that's a decades-old problem, and the same people who pick bishops effectively also pick seminary authorities, it's all wrapped up together, and Gomez turns 75 (retirement age) this year.

      Delete
  19. NormFebruary 14, 2026 at 10:16 PM

    I have seen some people online comment that it's Prof's views on the Death Penalty that led to this nonsensical decision, if that's true, it has to be one of the stupidest things ever, especially when you have someone like Prof Robert P George himself calling it shameful, despite the fact that he is from the school of thought whose founders (Grisez, Finnis etc) are partly responsible for the shift in the Church's prudential stance.

    Prof George is as anti death penalty as you can get and if he is calling out this cancellation of Prof as shameful, people who are cheering this on for that reason really need to take good hard look at the mirror.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousFebruary 15, 2026 at 5:58 PM

      Where are you seeing online comments about this particular matter?

      Delete
  20. AnonymousFebruary 14, 2026 at 10:31 PM

    Curious on the details. I consider you a decent person with some very unfortunate views. I don’t consider *you* hateful but I also don’t see the value in preaching or defending views that just enable the worst amongst us to justify their bigotries, etc.

    I will say, it is amusing that some of your interlocutors- people who define themselves by their hatreds of other people ( because of their sexual orientation, race, religion, gender, or immigration status ) act outraged at things like this when the regime they overwhelmingly support doesn’t just ‘disinvite’ people but is doing far worst things: defunding and extorting universities, corrupting the entire govt apparatus and actually *murdering* people daring to protest them. “Cancelations,” are always this big deal for conservatives but they’re in no danger of losing their livelihoods or in actual physical danger from the alleged frothing liberals. While, in real life, entire states are under siege from govt thugs, people, children included, are getting rounded up and dumped in warehouses for the crime of being immigrants. Among other escalating atrocities. But what demographics overwhelmingly support all this? The corrupting of the govt? The trampling of ‘constitutional rights’? The people that tell you they’re being canceled, who will be in churches tomorrow, STILL acting as if they’re being oppressed when they’re the biggest and loudest supporters of the boots on everyone else’s neck. It is an absurdity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousFebruary 15, 2026 at 12:00 PM

      Anon. There are sadly a few posters here who define themselves as you stated, but they are on the fringes. Your point about what the Trump Admin.is engaged in is well-taken and I agree with you. But Dr. Feser was only going to speak about the immortality of the human soul, a rather benign and esoteric topic that is far removed from the actions of Trump and his minions. Dr Feser has tweeted about his dislike of some of things that you mentioned. My wish is that he would be more forceful. But he should be allowed to speak. I am writing this has someone who protested the Vietnam War and marched for Civil Rights and I have the scars to show for it.

      Delete
    2. AnymouseFebruary 15, 2026 at 4:11 PM

      Hehehe this is really funny. It would work as parody, if only Anonymous meant it that way.

      “Cancelations,” are always this big deal for conservatives but they’re in no danger of losing their livelihoods

      Haha snort...Conservatives have had to swallow their beliefs and not speak out, for roughly 45 years, to get or keep their jobs in academia, and more than a few have lost their jobs by speaking out. Bakers and others HAVE been put out of business for sticking to their beliefs. And plenty of people who started out being cancelled "merely" on social media went on to lose their jobs through pressure put on their employers. Get the facts.

      corrupting the entire govt apparatus

      Whoooboy, what a laugh. After it came out that for all of the Biden tenure, and most likely for 2 decades before, whole bureaucracies have been funneling money to facades of business - to have those businesses fund Dem campaigns. Or with NGOs, same thing. Or to fund even worse things: MN somali day care, anyone?

      *murdering* people daring to protest them.

      of course, the unborn are unable to protest effectively, their screams being silent as they are ripped apart.

      Delete
    3. Vini TadeoFebruary 15, 2026 at 8:37 PM

      What's funny to me is that your ilk always talk about "people who define themselves by their hatreds of other people," but where are these people you so eagerly talk about on this blog? Where are they hiding? To be honest, this rhetorical behaviour looks like an induced schizophrenia, where you guys wish these kinds of people really exist in abundance for you to point fingers at and say, "Look, I'm not crazy!"

      Delete
  21. AnonymousFebruary 15, 2026 at 1:03 PM

    Do you consider supporting th death penalty to be binding upon the ,church, and nonsupport to be heresy?

    ReplyDelete
  22. EricFebruary 15, 2026 at 3:37 PM

    Take heart. I’m in Calgary, AB, Canada - 2508 km from Pasadena and am presently reading “Immortal Souls”, the 6th of your books that I’ve taken up. 189 pages in and enjoying it. A number of my friends read your books and blog, and even my 19 year old daughter has read your short book on Aquinas. Your influence and appreciation of your contributions extend beyond the precincts of the diocese of LA.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)