This article lacks the Christian charity it accuses others of failing to show.
You set up the vaguely-defined straw man of ‘right wing’ bloggers. You then proceed to lump in together anyone and everyone who raises any kind of critical questions about the teaching of Pope Francis, failing to make any adequate distinction between those who criticize from a standpoint of loving obedience to the Pope, and those who treat the Pope as an enemy (there is a chasm of difference between these positions).
Your accusation is that anyone who is not enthusiastically behind every word out of the Pope’s mouth is that they are not “good Catholics” (because “Good Catholics everywhere cheered the words of the Holy Father”, so implicitly those who did not cheer are not really Catholic). These pseudo-Catholics, you contend, have a bitter, angry hostility toward the the successor of Peter; they have sinned by lacking charity.
But your response consists entirely in bitter, angry invective, and very clearly lacks charity (the “let us pray for them” at the end of the article is not charity, but drips with condescension).
The whole article engages in self-righteousness. Taking myself as an example: I have filial obedience to Pope Francis and pray for him, and I recognize most of the things he says as orthodox and often challenging the status quo in a good way; yet I am very concerned about his teaching on marriage, based on AL and various other statements of his. So I’m not a “good Catholic” because I am concerned, because I don’t cheer every word that comes from his mouth?
You make the ridiculous claim that those who are critical of Pope Francis “eschew the heavy-lifting of theology.” That must be why so many theologians who are faithful to the Pope have raised concerns.
Are you more of a theologian than E. Christian Brugger, professor of moral theology at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary? (http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/4740/five_serious_problems_with_chapter_8_of_iamoris_laetitiai.aspx)
Do you know Catholic moral doctrine better than Robert Spaemann? (http://de.catholicnewsagency.com/story/exklusiv-ein-bruch-mit-der-lehrtradition-robert-spaemann-uber-amoris-laetitia-0730#.VyHYj1wnfUM.twitter)
These are just two among many examples of Catholic theologians and philosophers raising serious questions, not on the basis of “political drama” but on the basis of the theological foundations of the Church’s teaching on marriage, on the Eucharist, on the relationship between object and intentions in moral action. There are certainly people saying very angry, bitter things on the internet; but not everyone who is critical of Francis’ words can be lumped in together as a monolithic faction.
I was excited about the election of Pope Francis. I spent 2013 and 2014 defending him by interpreting away various confusing statements. But his words and actions at the two synods, and the text of AL, do not yield a good interpretation and have given rise to serious concerns. I remain obedient to him, and I love him as Peter; but when his words about marriage conflict with the explicit words of Christ, this is an objective problem that must be faced and not ignored.
I would suggest that you give some further thought to the difference between a healthy filial trust in the Pope, and ultramontanism. I would also suggest further theological research on Petrine infallibility, which is far more limited in scope that is generally recognized.
St. Paul was not wrong to challenge Peter to his face (Gal 2:11) when he knew that Peter was in danger of going the wrong way. God used Paul’s challenge not to undermine Peter, but to protect the office that he had entrusted to Peter. There is a huge difference between raising critical questions about the Pope’s words because you love the office, and raising critical questions because you think you can replace the office with your own wisdom.