A comment on the Lofton affair

For anyreaders of myrecent reply to Michael Lofton who have not been following events atTwitter and YouTube, Lofton has, over the course of the last few days, posted aseries of tweets at the former and a series of videos at the latter stronglytaking exception to my article.  I haveto say that I am mystified at the number and vehemence of these responses.  But Lofton seems especially angry about mycharacterization of his initial video as “defamatory” and “libel.”  What follows are some brief remarks that Ihope will put his mind at ease and allow us to move on from this affair.

First, Loftonappears to think that I was accusing him of “libel” in the legal sense.  I would have thought it obvious to theaverage reader that that is not the case. Words like “libel” and “defamation” have narrow and technical legal meanings,but also broader meanings in moral theology and everyday life.  “Libel” and “defamation” in the legal sensehave to do with matters of provable fact.  They do nothave to do with matters of opinion,not even opinions that are reasonable, well-founded, etc.

Hence,suppose someone said “Feser is incompetent as a philosopher.”  Naturally, I think this is not only false,but (I also like to think!) easily shown to be false by (say) perusing some ofmy better academic articles.  Moreover,if someone got lots of people to believe this false proposition, he couldplausibly be said to be “defaming” me. However, it would be ridiculous to suggest that this imaginary critichad committed “libel” or “defamation” against me in the legal sense.  Judgementsabout a person’s competence are too controversial and complicated a matter tofall into the category of provable fact in the legal sense.  By contrast, if someone had claimed that Ihad once been convicted of drunk driving, the falsity of such a defamatoryclaim would be a matter of provablefact.  For it can crisply and clearly beestablished that such an event never happened.

When I saidthat Lofton’s remarks about me were “defamatory” and “libel,” what I(obviously) meant is that in myopinion, his opinions about what Ihad written were defamatory in the broader, moral sense.  I was not claiming that he had committed libelin the legal sense.

Second, Iexplained the reasons for my judgment in my previous article, but let me say alittle more here.  As manuals of moraltheology note, someone can be morallyguilty of defamation or libel (even if not legallyguilty) by damaging someone’s reputation not only directly and explicitly butalso either “implicitly,” or by way of “half-truths that convey the impressionof what is untrue,” or in an otherwise “indirect” way.  (I take these phrases from McHugh andCallan’s Moral Theology, Volume II,pp. 221-22.)  It was in this sort of waythat Lofton’s remarks about me in his original video seemed to me to bedefamatory and libelous.  As I noted inmy article responding to that video, the video gave the impression that I wasdefending the claim that with the appointment of Archbishop Fernandez, theMagisterium of the Church would be entirely suspended.  He describes the things I say in my articleas “weird,” “odd,” and “serv[ing] an agenda” in such a way that he is “leftscratching [his] head” about what I might be up to.  But he also suggests that some people advancesuch views in order “to prepare people to reject papal teaching authority… touse it as an excuse to ignore the papal magisterium.”  All of this makes it seem as if this islikely my intention but that I’m notbeing up front about it.

I explicitlyacknowledged that Lofton goes on to state that he “[doesn’t] know what[Feser’s] intentions are, specifically.” But the innuendo and insinuation seemed, in my view, so obvious from theoverall video that I judged this remark to be nothing more than a way to avoidbeing accused of stating directlywhat I took him to be obviously implying.  Viewers of the original British version ofthe series House of Cards will befamiliar with the lead character’s signature line “You might very well thinkthat; I couldn't possibly comment,” uttered when scandalous suggestions aboutanother party were put to him.  It wasfamously a way for him to spread defamatory claims in a manner that on the surface pretended to be doingotherwise.  It seemed to me that that isthe sort of thing Lofton was doing in his original video.

Lofton hassince explained that I have misunderstood him. I’ll come back to that in a moment. But it is important to note that many of Lofton’s own viewers seemed toderive from his video exactly the message that I claimed it was sending.  For example, in the chat and comments sectionsof the video, one reader judged my view to be “sedevacantism with extra steps”;another took it to be “an essentially Protestant view of teaching authority”; athird said “I believe Feser is proposing/defending this theory because itallows him to dissent from the Magisterium”; another regarded my view as “veryobviously an ad hoc hypothesis made up to justify dissent from the Magisterium”;yet another averred that I was trying to “prove… a suspended Magisterium” andthat this “makes me question whether Edward Feser deserves his teaching licenseafter making such terrible claims”; yet another said “Please tell me Ed Feserisn’t going the Pseudo-Trad Protestant route.” Then there were viewers who also thought that Lofton was alleging suchthings, but judged it “slander” for him to do so (as one viewer put it).

I submitthat it was hardly unreasonable for me to judge that Lofton was guilty ofdefamatory innuendo and insinuation, when many of his own viewers took him tobe saying exactly what I claimed he was saying.

However –and to come to the final point – Lofton insists that, despite how thingsappeared to me and others, in fact he intended no such thing.  And the number and vehemence of his comments overthe last few days indicate that he feels very strongly about this.  I certainly understand why someone would beupset if he believes he is being misunderstood, since it happens to me quitefrequently, and I believe Lofton in his original video badly misunderstood myarticle.

But again,he insists that he did not mean to do this. I am willing, then, to take Lofton at his word, and I accept hisexplanation that he did not intend to defame or libel me.  Online exchanges often produce more heat thanlight and lead to mutual misunderstanding. Charity requires that parties to a dispute try to clear up such misunderstandings.  Having already explained in my previousarticle what I actually meant, I am happy to accept Lofton’s explanation of hisown intentions and to leave the matter there. I wish Lofton well and hope that this will close this matter so that wecan both move on to other, more edifying things.