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

17 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
  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
  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
  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

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)