It’s not an attack on his character. It’s an evaluation of his apologetics. They are weak. Very weak.
Read the English carefully. Character is only one attribute. You did not address the substance of his argument and tried to dismiss them based on his name.
I find the protesting argument weak because it continually strays from two millennia of Church tradition, and not just in one area. Everyone sits under one's own fig tree and interprets for oneself, and do not agree. The Messiah's words testify against this case. He said he would build His church on Peter, that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, that He would give Peter the keys of the kingdom, that whatever Peter bound on earth would be bound in heaven and whatever was loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. One either believes the Messiah or does not, and looks for excuses not to believe Him, excuses that will be examined in the judgment. Love covers a multitude of sins.