The discussion of Cardinal Levada's homily continues. I write:

"In so far as someone is criticizing a product which first exists in the intellect or soul of the author, then one can be said to be criticizing the author. But usually when we say we are cticizing someone, as opposed to a product, we are attributing to them moral failings, character flaws, and bad actions. Now, some have criticized certain popes and bishops for what they judge to be imprudent actions. But I think this is not equivalent to the first, although one may go from the latter to the former -- i.e. the cardinal was imprudent, etc. in giving a homily such as this. But it doesn't necessitate it."

Personally I think the homily had some good points but could have been reworded for the sake of pastoral sensitivity. But as it has been said, Cardinal Levada does not seem to be a "people person." Maybe that's an erroneous judgment, but there are a lot of people with long memories.

Are historians the only ones who can make a judgment about the pontificate of Pope Pius VI, for example? Or are traditionalists justified in judging him to be a rather weak pope, in his handling of the new missal and what transpired afterward, along with the various dissenters in the Church?

Fr. Z: A few musings about Card. Levada’s homily in Nebraska

I can see why some traditionalists might be offended by the homily -- by lecturing the seminarians and priests of the FSSP, it seems to question their fidelity and charity. An occasion for humility and respect of authority? What does the cardinal think of his office as the head of the PCED?

Edit. Some reactions by readers of NLM. Would reactions have been different if he had said things differently, more as a warm shepherd or spiritual father, rather than as a [Roman] bureaucrat "enforcing the line"? Cardinal Levada isn't known for his pastoral or personal qualities -- I have heard that as a bishop he was less than successful in those respects. People criticize Pius XII for being aloof, distant, and cold, but I think photographs do not convey his personality. Such criticisms might be warranted though for certain bishops, especially certain American bishops. American bishops seem to range from one extreme to another, cold and impersonal to soft and "nice." If Cardinal Levada had rewritten the homily and delivered it (not necessarily with an "all smiles" approach) as a geniunely concerned pastor, reaffirming the Fraternity's charism and mission and exhorting them to be good priests working for the Lord, how differently it would have been received!