Public Service Announcement:

It has become common on #CatholicTwitter for people to tweet about the Holy Father contemptuously, disparaging his person or his personal ministry. These are sins, probably grave.

Why?

First off, the point is not whether or not the Holy Father has done something worthy of correction or admonition. The point is whether or not honor and piety is owed to him regardless. Next: who then should give the Holy Father correction, and when & how?

These are moral matters of justice. Honor is the manifestation of the respect due to another on account of their superiority. Fame (reputation) is the recognition another deserves publicly. Piety is the reverence we owe to our parents.

And correction is the admonishment by one who is bound by knowledge and power to do so, given to one whom he is bound to correct, whether privately, or in some cases, even publicly. Opposed to these duties are these sins: Contumely is unjust dishonor communicated to another...

...Defamation is the unjust blackening of the reputation of another, not to his face, by untrue words (slander) or true words (detraction). Impiety is the failure to render the respect due to parent or country, whether by thoughts, words, or actions...

Lastly, fraternal correction is an act of charity and mercy, and a duty; but it is not good, and possibly a sin, when it has no reasonable hope of success, when it is done out of anger or out of ignorance, or when it is done by someone in a way that impedes with its right end.

Whom must one correct? Any fellow Christian, but especially subjects to whom one is bound as superior. One ought to correct superiors as well, but only under more narrow conditions: when one’s correction can be actually be respectfully and successfully communicated…

…and when correction would not cause more harm to the superior, particularly by imperiling his due authority, thereby harming the common good. Any correction must proceed from moral certainty, about a matter of serious sin, and done from and with charity, not pride or anger.

But moral certainty is often rare with knowledge about another’s actions. Therefore, one must proceed with caution, and prefer to interpret another’s actions charitably (CCC 2478), so to avoid rash judgment. Correction should not be about hearsay, gossip, or reasonable debate.

Finally, correction of a superior must be done from charitable motives, with kindness and respect. Are such conditions satisfied with Pope Francis? First, it may not be morally certain that he has done anything worthy of correction. Debated questions are not reason enough.

But for the sake of argument, let’s say he is in need of correction. Who should correct him? Only someone who can speak to him and be heard by him, by a peer (like a cardinal or bishop) or even an inferior (you and me). This communication must be as direct as possible.

Twitter may be the worst vehicle for this. There's no reason to think the Holy Father reads thousands of twitter accounts, or even a few. And it is impersonal, akin to taking out an advertisement or writing a public article. Such acts risk defamation, if not contumely.

One could always submit concerns privately to one who could communicate with the Holy Father personally. But tweeting is not that. Finally, the way some speak about the Holy Father, using disparaging or disrespectful language, is clearly against charity, always evil.

But let’s say that such communication has been given by those who can communicate it to Pope Francis, but it has habitually not been received by him. Then on this condition—that correction should only be given when it has hope of success—further reason to do so is lacking.

But shouldn't the gravest sins (whatever they may be) be corrected, especially for one with such authority and stature of office? Perhaps. But the necessary recourse should be a public response by the college of bishops or an ecumenical council, not by private individuals.

A pope teaching heresy or some such thing would be of such grave magnitude that only such a commensurate response would be just. Are other moral failings reason enough for such public denunciation? Probably not. Why? Their existence would likely be private, if not dubious.

The need to preserve respect due the office, as well as the piety the pope deserves on account of his spiritual fatherhood, should only be imperiled for gravest reasons: otherwise, only a saint could be pope. But the dignity of his office doesn't depend on his moral rectitude.

Since the need for public correction is quite rare, and besides not licitly attainable through the means of tweets or impetuous op-ed articles, how are we obligated to talk (or tweet) about the Holy Father anyways? Answer: we should ALWAYS do so with respect and piety.

The Holy Father deserves even greater respect on account of his superior office. Any contumely (insults or derision directed AT him) or defamation of his reputation or good name is not only gravely sinful on account of what Jorge Bergoglio deserves…

…but especially because it risks compromising the dignity of the papal office. Lastly, he remains our spiritual father, until he's no longer pope. So he must be treated with the reverence a parent is due, since he is the vicar of Christ, entrusted with the care of the Church.

Suffice it to say, many tweets on #catholictwitter fail to meet these requirements of justice. Many need to examine their consciences, confess these serious sins, and make necessary (even public) reparation. Pope Francis remains our Holy Father, deserving of charity and respect.

But you may still say, I am genuinely aggrieved by the words or actions of the Holy Father. I have not spoken uncharitably, but can I do nothing? No, if you must, you may speak or write to your bishop, or the Nuncio, or even the Holy Father himself. And you may fast and pray.

But you may ask, should I not organize, raising awareness and building an opposition movement? IMO, I think the revolutionary ethos is never helpful. There ARE helpful ways to organize in the Church, but I don’t think an opposition party to the Holy Father is one of them.

Look to the saints: many of them suffered under poor leadership in the Church. Few, if any, responded by revolution, or even popular opposition. They responded by attending to their own holiness, their own vocation, and building up the local Church in their midst.

Nor is this is to say that journalists do not have a role: they do, as for instance they have certainly done with the abuse crisis. But I think their task is fraught with the same moral responsibility and need for caution, as contumely and defamation are common in that industry.

Good reform or accountability do not justify evil means to bring them about: for such ends will eventually be undermined by those offenses against truth and against justice. There is never an excuse for injustice, or for uncharitable acts against a brother and a father.