Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Olson’s Nitpicking, Persnickety Guide to Gaudete et Exsultate

Olson’s Nitpicking, Persnickety Guide to Gaudete et Exsultate

Last updated on: June 6, 2026 at 12:35 am by Dave Armstrong

Olson’s Nitpicking, Persnickety Guide to Gaudete et Exsultate 2026-06-06T00:35:07-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Carl E. Olson is the editor of The Catholic World Report and Ignatius Insight. I like his writing a lot. He’s written several great books. And he seems to have liked my work as well (e.g., a glowing review of my One-Minute Apologist). But I’m not very fond of this effort of Carl’s. Nothing personal . . .

Today we are blessed with both pope bashers (the usual suspect reactionaries and also non-reactionaries like Phil Lawler and Ross Douthat), and non-reactionary “papal nitpickers.” Carl is in the latter category. He’ll say that this, that, and the other in the document is good and helpful, but then proceeds to pick it apart, as if he were writing a mere (negative) film or musical album review. I don’t question the sincerity of the compliments, but I have grave doubts about both the propriety and accuracy of the criticisms (not that no one can ever criticize a pope, ever: that is not my position).

The amazing thing to me is that we can even be in a sad place like this today: with papal documents routinely being treated in such a fashion. This is the lamentable sea change that has come about in the last five years. Of course, Pope Francis is blamed for that. But it’s not as if his endless critics have a perfect record in either conduct or logical acumen in argument. I’m in a position to know a bit about that, since I have defended Pope Francis for five years, and have seen the types of (very often) shoddy, inane, insipid, illogical criticisms utilized.

There used to be an automatic sublime level of respect and deference given by Catholics to papal documents, and even to General Audiences, etc. No more. Those days are gone with the wind (at least among the bashers and the nitpickers). Never mind the rather elementary (heretofore, casually assumed) scriptural admonitions about showing respect for leaders. We’re far beyond that, I’m afraid. The pope is accorded no more respect (if even as much) than is, say, the Speaker of the House.

Thus we are informed in the title of Carl’s article in Catholic World Report that Pope Francis “misses” with his Apostolic Exhortation, Gaudete et Exsultate. Maybe we shouldn’t even read it then, huh? Why waste our time? Isn’t that the purpose of a book or film review? If a review pans something, many won’t bother reading or watching or listening to it. If Carl had panned my book that he reviewed, many would simply bypass it on his word. And that would be fine. This is why we have book reviews. Lots of books exist, and there are only so many hours in a day, and we have to make choices. I’ve written negative reviews myself (of Phil Lawler’s book).

But should we approach a papal document in the same way? That’s the question. It would be interesting to see if Catholic World Report even publishes scathing reviews of this sort of Carl’s own books.

The subtitle reads: “The many good qualities and substantive passages in Gaudete et Exsultate are often overshadowed, or even undermined, by straw men, dubious arguments, and cheap shots.” It’s Carl’s “word” against the pope’s: which one should we heed?

Carl opines: “Unfortunately, the document also contains more than a few remarks or suggestions that are either puzzling or disconcerting—and not, I think, for the right reasons.” I hate to be so crass and blunt, but it is duly noted that Carl thinks he knows better than the pope. We papal defenders are routinely accused (and usually falsely) of being ultramontanists or “papolaters.” But the opposite excess, I submit, actually occurs far more often: the glaring flaw of being “more Catholic than the pope.”

If we think it is dangerous to hang on the pope’s every word (making his choice of socks or Vatican decor infallible), it is, I think, far more spiritually poisonous to relentlessly nitpick and second-guess the pope’s words (and even interior dispositions: as is increasingly going on now). In the one error, the pope is placed too high in the scheme of things; in the other, we are placing ourselves way, way too high in the overall picture, and becoming in effect, “mini-popes.” This is also, of course, the Protestant “rebellious” error and the theologically liberal Catholic’s “pick and choose” / “cafeteria Catholic” shortcoming.

Carl criticizes another portion of the document and then reaches the extraordinary conclusion: “the overall impression is that rules, boundaries, limits, dogma, and tradition are almost always impediments.” That’s a classic example of second-guessing: attributing to Pope Francis things that he has not directly asserted. Rather, it’s merely assumed that he thinks certain things. This approach is absolutely rampant now among the bashers and the nitpicking naysayers. And of course it’s wrong.

Assertions must be documented and proven: not merely insinuated. Even an otherwise good and thoughtful writer like Carl Olson can (in the current toxic atmosphere) casually toss out the accusation that Pope Francis wishes to convey in his new Exhortation, the notion that “rules, boundaries, limits, dogma, and tradition are almost always impediments.” One can only shake one’s head in perplexity and move on to the next charge being made . . .

Carl then cites a paragraph and records papal critic Sandro Magister’s judgment upon it: that it “seems to wipe out two millennia of contemplative monasticism, male and female.” I hardly think that is likely. It’s yet another hysterical, extreme conclusion (made in the service of opposing alleged extremity) rendered about something or other in the Holy Father’s writing, that is misunderstood and misinterpreted. But of course, the problem must be in the alleged heterodoxy and lack of clarity (and increasingly now, good ol’ “deliberate ambiguity”) in the pope’s writing; never ever in the wrong assumptions and hostile presuppositions that the nitpicking or bashing interpreter of the writing brings to the table.

Carl informs us that “these sort of personal jabs are very much in keeping with Pope Francis’ personality and style.” That may be. Pope Francis is not perfect, and we are not promised impeccability in popes. He certainly has any number of faults, even glaring ones (though it is a separate and quite arguable issue whether we should be carping on and on about them in public). But it’s also true that the same shortcomings are seen (in my opinion, far more) in the papal bashers and nitpickers. After all, Carl has accused the pope in this article of caring little about dogma and tradition, or “two millennia of contemplative monasticism”.

Those are not “personal jabs”? They are certainly personal, and I contend that they are untrue, which (if I am correct) would make them instances of bearing false witness. And bearing false witness (in this instance, against a pope!) is a particularly heinous form of “personal jab.” These methodologies are very common among the papal bashers and nitpickers, but we’re not supposed to notice that, you see. The critics are above reproach, because (so we are always told if we dare criticize them) their hearts are in the right place. Only the pope is screwing up. He’s the scapegoat for anything and everything these days, or so it would seem. It’s open season. Carl opines, near the end:

My point, in conclusion, is that while I certainly have benefited in some ways from reading Gaudete et Exsultate, the good qualities and substantive passages in documents and texts such as this are increasingly overshadowed, or even undermined, by the grave tensions and growing conflicts within the Church.

He then concludes with the following edifying words:

Especially since, sadly, Pope Francis and his closest collaborators have not only failed to address those tensions and conflicts, they have played a significant role in exacerbating and deepening them. They do appear to be take pleasure in “taking aim” at Catholics they deem to be too dogmatic, rigid, and focused on liturgy. It is a shame that this has continued in this apostolic exhortation on holiness but it is not, I’m sorry to say, too much of a surprise.

How could we get through the day without having Carl E. Olson nitpicking to death and picking away at an Apostolic Exhortation from a pope? In one corner we have the Holy Father: the supreme leader of the Catholic Church: Pope Francis. In the other we have opposing opinions of Carl: good writer and good man and good Catholic, but, alas, not the pope, and possessing exactly zero authority in the Church (in technical terms, he ain’t the magisterium). As the old saying goes, “ya pays yer money and ya makes yer choice.” And there is another saying I’m quite fond of: “we are what we eat.”

If someone wants to think and act (in terms of this criticism of the pope; not all respects) like 1) a Protestant opposer of Catholic ecclesiology and the rule of faith, and/or 2) a cafeteria Catholic: picking and choosing arbitrarily what to like and dislike, I can’t stop them. But I can sure inform them — and my readers — that this is indeed the way they are acting, and that these tendencies and mentalities and mindsets did not come from nowhere. They have a long, unfortunate pedigree.

***

Addendum: Responses and My Counter-Replies (words of others in blue)

Carl Olson replied in the combox for this post:

“Thus we are informed in the title of Carl’s article in Catholic World Report that Pope Francis “misses” with his Apostolic Exhortation, Gaudete et Exsultate. Maybe we shouldn’t even read it then, huh? Why waste our time?”

I’m surprised, Dave, that you didn’t “get” the headline, which is quite obviously playing off the opening section about Fr. Martin’s quote. For what it’s worth.

“How could we get through the day without having Carl E. Olson nitpicking to death and picking away at an Apostolic Exhortation from a pope?”

An example of why it’s hard for me to take these sort of posts seriously.

Yeah, it was playing off of Fr. Martin. But it’s also in the title, and it is unseemly in and of itself.

Ah, so if I dare use a bit of sarcasm (something, of course, you yourself never ever do!), that allows you to dismiss the entire thing and avoid dealing with the many non-sarcastic, “serious” critiques in it. Nice move there.

My approach remains what I wrote a few minutes ago on my Facebook page: “I’d love to have a good, honest, open, civil discussion on these matters with Carl or anyone else who wishes to do that.”

Your reply here makes that goal appear quite a bit less likely, but I still hold out hope.

[the following is from the combox of Carl’s article for The Catholic World Report. I simply left a link for my critique. If Carl hadn’t unfriended me on Facebook, I wouldn’t have even done that. I was just letting him know, out of courtesy]

Fr. Peter Stravinskas: I am afraid to have to disagree with you mightily. Francis missed a golden opportunity to build a bridge with this document: 90% of it is good and solid traditional Catholic spirituality. Then, like Trump, he can’t resist broadsides on his real/perceived enemies and goes on the attack. The Left will have no truck with the traditional spirituality; the Right will dismiss it all because of his dismissive attitude toward them/us.

Hi Fr. Peter,

Always good to hear from you! Hope you are well these days.

I don’t see that he is attacking people; rather, false ideas and tendencies. He’d have a long, long way to go to equal the vehemence in which St. Paul criticized the Galatians and Corinthians, or the fiery sarcastic rebukes of our Lord towards the scribes and Pharisees. So I see it as simply following the biblical model.

Such rebukes were controversial then and remain so today because no one likes to be criticized or told they are wrong. It’s almost the cardinal sin in our current postmodern secular society.

I don’t view the Holy Father as “against” myself or anyone else as people. I see him as on my side: telling me hard truths and timeless truths in a fresh way.

God bless,

Dave

Paul: Your critique of the article is pathetic. What sort of neurotic egomaniac would advertise his infantile tantrum on this web site?

Sol: One relative papal maximalist hasn’t given up yet!

Timothy J. Williams: narcissist… like all the Patheticos “writers”…

Chris C.: I read it. The title says all one needs to know about what to expect. Whereas Carl’s piece is a serious attempt at an objective critique of the Pope’s work, the “review” by Dave is replete with personal barbs and ad hominem and little else. One won’t actually find an accurate and fair portrayal of Carl’s work in it.

The same old same old, when anyone dares to disagree in a combox. Only Fr. Peter (who graciously gave me my first break as a Catholic writer in 1993) disagreed with me without personal attack.

I didn’t “attack” Carl Olson. I disagreed with his position. There is a difference. In fact, I said “I like his writing a lot” and that “He’s written several great books” and that he was a “good and thoughtful writer” and a “good man and good Catholic.” That’s a lot of compliments in a critique!

As usual (and almost always), — apart from Fr. Stravinskas — there is not one single substantive, reasoned interaction with anything I have written. It’s 100% ad hominem attacks.

The combox contains this note:

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.

Thus the above attack-comments all passed muster, and were thought by the moderator to be helpful and civilized, not personal attacks and not combative or inflammatory. This is how things go today. Like I’ve been saying over the past year or so: Dialogue is Dead. It’s certainly deader than a doornail in that combox.

***

Photo credit: Study after Velazquez’s Portrait of Pope Innocent X (1953), by Francis Bacon (1909-1992) [Flickr / CC BY 2.0 license]

***

Papacy & Infallibility

Carl E. Olson

Catholic World Report

criticism of the pope

Previous Post

April 9, 2018

Pope Francis: All Life: Preborn and Born, is "Equally Sacred"

Next Post

April 11, 2018 St. Paul: Far More of an "Insulter" Than Pope Francis

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz