An indicatively rash (and therefore disthomist) reading by Doc Angelic of feserismisnotthomism infamy

The disthomist critic of Dr. Feser mentioned above once again demonstrated the uncharitable modus operandi concerning Dr. Feser's positions.

In a recent update, he writes:

On 18/8/18 in the comments section on his blog article An Open Appeal to the Cardinals of the Church, Dr. Feser made a statement which was quickly deleted. Denying the claim by a reader that his position on the death penalty was inconsistent with his lack of position on Dignitatis Humanae and religious liberty he said that he merely did not have time to deal with the question and referred readers to authors like Pink, Stork and Fr. Harrison. However none of these authors argue that there is a fundamental problem with the position at Vatican II. Therefore his stance has nothing to do with “not having enough time”; his position on the two issues is indeed fundamentally different.

Let's try to separate the probable facts from the assertions.

The reader mentioned above apparently asserted an inconsistency between Dr. Feser's position on the recent changes introduced into the CCC and "his lack of position on Dignitatis Humanae and religious liberty". In response, Dr. Feser cited his lack of time and referenced the work of Dr. Pink, Mr. Stork and Fr. Harrison. 

But these authors do not "argue that there is a fundamental problem with the position at Vatican II". Hence, Doc concludes, Dr. Feser made a false statement concerning his position, as in reality, the latter's "position on the two issues is indeed fundamentally different". In what does this fundamental difference consist, according to Doc? 

As what follows on this blog indicates, he takes Dr. Feser to have no problem with religious liberty as taught in DH, whereas there's a problem with the changes in the CCC. Doc makes rather clear that he thinks a Thomist should be just as equally concerned with religious liberty as with the death penalty, and the reason Dr. Feser isn't is because of his non-Thomism and Anglo-Conservatism. 

Please remember, kind reader, that Dr. Feser did two things only: 1) cited the lack of time; 2) referenced the authors mentioned above. 

Is the inference by Doc reasonable?

It emphatically isn't. If he were to take Dr. Feser's advice seriously and familiarise himself with Dr. Pink's argument (I'm only familiar with it, but given the collective reference I assume that the position is the same), he'd be bound to conclude that the difference is not due to inconsistent adherence to Catholicism or Thomism as such, but rather because Dr. Pink's argument that there was no change of doctrine in the DH, not even a properly apparent one: according to Dr. Pink, DH merely affirms the traditional teaching that, given the existence of the Church as the exclusive and divine, rather than merely human, authority in matters of religion, the state as such - that is, with no commission from the Church - has no coercive authority in these matters, and hence the individual can be said to possess a right not to be interfered with by an illegitimate authority. Dr. Pink also thinks that it is by no means an idiosyncratic reading of the declaration, but rather the reasonable one.

So, whatever the merits of this position, the acceptance of it precludes the possibility of considering DH not just a change Catholic doctrine, but even an apparent attempt at this (if charitably read, something Dr. Feser does not deny the Pope's recent change of the text of the CCC).

It's fair to conclude that Dr. Feser does view the two cases as different. But he never, AFAIK, stated anything to the contrary. He merely informed the reader that he does not have time and referenced a position argued at length by other authors, with which he agrees.