Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 12

March 5, 2015

"Traditionalist" Social Critic Kevin Tierney's Second Lie About Catholic Answers (That it Supposedly Ignores Catholic Social Teaching)

I have already critiqued his statement:

. . . Catholic Answers, . . . Whatever good they do is far outweighed by the bad they do, . . .

He also wrote:

They don’t exist to win converts, they exist to play to their bases and shore up support.

These ridiculous (almost self-evidently false) observations occurred in his article, The Hijacking of the Catholic Mind, posted at Catholic Lane, on 24 February 2015. I wrote about it on my Facebook page; cross-posted to my blog, with much additional discussion there.

Kevin showed up in the combox, with his usual "attitude" and the obligatory chip on his shoulder, wherever I am concerned (i.e., if I dare to disagree with him). As of writing, in nine days he has steadfastly refused to retract the statement or even properly explain or clarify it. But here is the second dumb statement he made in the comments of my blog article about him (2-25-15):

Oh yeah, and it wouldn't hurt CA to talk about Catholic Social teaching that isn't pro-life related. But that would be in the best interests of most American Catholics.

Okay! It's simple enough to verify such things. Has Kevin ever heard of a site search? Catholic Answers has one, which makes it easy to determine what they address or do not write about. Kevin either didn't know that (which is inconceivable) or didn't care enough to do a search, in order to back up his bogus charge. If the latter, then what does that say about his journalistic ethics and the solidity of his research therein? He thinks he can just throw any undocumented, mindless accusation, as if no one would or could be able to check it out?

This is part and parcel of what I have criticized about him. He writes many good things, and has a lot valuable insights. But alongside those are (even if relatively rarely) these sorts of prejudiced, non-factual whoppers. I contend (based on long observation) that this sort of junk flows from his "love-hate" relationship to apologetics. At one point he wanted to be an apologist himself. I think that has something to do with his present oft-expressed animus towards it. What we ourselves have failed at, we tend to be a bit negative towards. It's human nature. Not always (I wanted to be a baseball player as a kid, but I don't resent major league baseball because I didn't make it), but many times this is the case. But of course I could be wrong in Kevin's own case, as it is mere speculation.

He also seems concerned with spreading the thought that apologists (including Catholic Answers) are far more divisive and contentious than the large group that includes mainstream "traditionalists" and the extreme, fringe radical Catholic reactionaries. He's in the former group, and it appears quite likely to me that he is attempting to create a narrative over against the widespread perception (and I would say, reality) that both "traditionalists" and the reactionary extremists tend to be too much on the "negative" end of the spectrum: naysayers, doom-and-gloom pessimists; always criticizing and complaining about the Church. This is all the more true today, with the ever-present bashing of and calumnies and disrespect towards Pope Francis (and not just from the reactionaries, by a long shot).

Kevin tries very hard to counteract that perception, whereas other "traditionalists" (David Alexander immediately comes to mind) freely admit that it is an internal problem of the movement, but try to be different themselves, and don't regard it as a deal-breaker (after all, sin and shortcomings are universal, and present in every social group). Kevin, on the other hand, seeks (it seems to me) to convey the idea that it's the apologists en masse, -- not the "traditionalists" -- who are the negative folks: the ones with the unsavory attitudes and approach to life and Internet discourse.

But anyway, I did a search at Catholic Answers. It was tough to initiate, but after I thought a long time about it, I came up with "social teaching." The following articles and radio shows came up in the search (with a few that I found associated with others from this primary search, and additional searches such as "Rerum Novarum" and "subsidiarity," etc.):

Illegal Immigration and Catholic Social Teaching [video by Tim Staples]

Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching [Anthony Esolen on Catholic Answers Live, 11-26-14]

Seven Principles of Catholic Social Teaching [Christopher Kaczor, This Rock, April 2007]

Who's Afraid of Catholic Social Teaching? [Mark Brumley on Catholic Answers Live, 4-22-09; "Encore" on 7-6-09]

Social Justice Isn’t Left or Right; It’s Catholic [Leon J. Suprenant, This Rock, May 2011]

Did the Church Change Its Teaching on the Death Penalty? [Christopher Kaczor, This Rock, July 2010]

The U.S. Bishops, Health Care, and Public Policy [Jeffrey A. Mirus, This Rock, November 2009]

If You Want Justice, Work for Chastity [Gregory R. Beabout, This Rock, July 2008]

Pope of the Worker [Matthew E. Bunson, This Rock, December 2007]

Catholic Charity: Something New Under the Sun [Thomas E. Woods Jr., This Rock, July 2007]

Is the death penalty permissible for criminals who are violent in prison? [Jim Blackburn, Quick Questions]

Religious Liberty [Tim Staples, Catholic Answers Blog, 9 January 2015]

What About Waterboarding? [Todd Aglialoro, Catholic Answers Blog, 1 May 2014]

Waterboarding Reconsidered [Michelle Arnold, Catholic Answers Blog, 3 May 2014]

Hasn't the Church destroyed an entire continent by preaching against condoms for protection from AIDS? [Catholic Answers Staff, Quick Questions]

The Care and Feeding of Poor Souls [Michelle Arnold, Catholic Answers Blog, 26 January 2015]

When Is It Okay to Disobey? Catholics and Civil Disobedience [Fr. Frank Pavone, This Rock, March 2010]

Interview with a Besieged Bishop [from Nigeria] [Patrick Coffin, Catholic Answers Blog, 13 February 2015]

Jesus is Not the Property of Liberal Commentators [Trent Horn, Catholic Answers Blog, 6 November 2014]

How to Argue Against Women in Combat? [ Karl Keating, Catholic Answers Blog, 29 January 2013]

Women in Combat: Contra Naturum [Christopher Check, Catholic Answers Blog, 4 February 2013]

Should Catholics Be Environmentalists? [Ron Rychlak, This Rock, October 2008]

The Alliance of Narcissus and Leviathan [Anthony Esolen, This Rock, March 2011]

A Fair Account? The Golden Rule in Catholic Journalism [Russell Shaw, This Rock, April 2009]

The Church and the Native Americans: The Real Story [Margaret Bunson, This Rock, April 2009]

There and Back Again: A Catholic Homesteader's Tale [Devin Rose, Catholic Answers Blog, 1 October 2014]

Islam and Sex Slavery [Robert Spencer, Catholic Answers Blog, 2 June 2014]

Defusing the Population Bomb [Steven Mosher, Catholic Answers Live, 4 December 2009]

Population: Explosion or Implosion? [Steven Mosher, Catholic Answers Live, 12 October 2011]

--- Note: This Rock is the former name for what is now known as Catholic Answers Magazine ---

And of course, this list is nowhere near exhaustive. It is from what is now available online. There is still also a huge backlog of articles and radio shows no longer available for free on their sites.

I guess all this, too, is part of the miniscule (?) portion of "good" that Catholic Answers does, that is, of course (sez Judge Kevin) "far outweighed by the bad they do" (my italics). When you're out to tar a person or group with a false stereotype, what you do is ignore everything that doesn't fit into the caricature: pretend that it doesn't exist at all.

We apologists supposedly do nothing but [hyper-]"rational" analysis and we don't care about things like prayer, social justice, care for the poor, etc. (i.e., anything in the faith not directly related to reason and logic). For Kevin and those who cynically categorize as he does, it has to be an either/or analysis. Catholic Answers represents the apologetics world, therefore (in Kevin's mind) it doesn't deal with Catholic social teaching, because, well, apologists don't do that!

See how the "reasoning" works? It's preconceived ideology and putting folks into a box before even examining them to see if the facts line up with the mythmaking. And (don't forget!), Catholic Answers also must not care for the poor, either, since it raises money and offers cruises peopled by mostly well-to-do folks. So Kevin would have it (or so it seems, from his rhetoric).

The stereotype doesn't apply to me, either (using my case as a second illustrative example, since I am also a full-time Catholic apologist). From the beginning of my website in 1997 I have had four large "social" web pages:

1) Life Issues

2) Sexuality, Gender, Feminism, and Divorce

3) Political, Ethical, and Moral Issues

4) War and Peace

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

--- John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770

See also the cross-posting on my Facebook page and further discussion there.

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 05, 2015 11:12

February 24, 2015

Loudmouthed "Traditionalist" Kevin Tierney Again Exemplifies in His Article That Which He Condemns (e.g., Catholic Answers supposedly does "far" more bad than good)

See my Facebook article (open to the public).

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 24, 2015 15:04

Pope Francis Defended: Helpful Resources for Confused, Troubled, and Frustrated Folks

By Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong

[see also my book, Pope Francis Explained: Survey of Myths, Legends, and Catholic Defenses in Harmony with Tradition ]
I wrote on 9-20-13:

For all of you out there worried about the pope. Relax; chill. All is well. We have a pope who says the unexpected: a lot like Jesus. And, like Jesus, those who don't get it and are outside looking in, will misunderstand, and those who are in the fold will grasp what is being said, in the context of historic Catholic teaching, if they look closely enough and don't get hoodwinked by silly media wishful thinking.

Those who are outside often hear only what they want to hear (God loves everyone, even sinners!!!) and not what they need to hear (stop sinning; stop this sin . . .).

I wrote in a letter to a friend:

It's the same old dumb misunderstandings: media misreports what the pope said; never understand what he means in context, and in context with past teachings. Don't fall into their trap! Pope Francis is a good Catholic; nothing to be alarmed about at all. The world wants Christians to renounce their teachings. We're the guys who have never done so. We keep the same moral teaching that the Church had from the beginning: no abortion, no divorce, no contraception, no same-sex "marriages," etc. Virtually no one else has done so! So the attack is against us to change traditional morality, and we will never do that.

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 24, 2015 06:42

February 19, 2015

Books by Dave Armstrong: Cardinal Newman: Q & A in Theology, Apologetics, and Church History

[in progress]

Introduction

Facebook Excerpts

On the "Argument from Longing" [10 May 1828]

On the "Rule of Secrecy" ("Disciplina Arcani") and Development of Doctrine [26 Jan. 1834]

On How the Indwelling Holy Spirit Works in Us [29 Jan. 1835]

Prayer for the Dead is as Well-Attested in the Early Church as the Canon of Scripture [16 May 1838]

No Fundamental Difference Between Written and Oral Tradition [23 May 1838]

Table of Contents[tentative and in progress; the following is from 2-19-15, with the book 65 pages long]

Dedication
Introduction
Bibliographical Sources
I. Apologetics (p. 15)
Does Proclaiming Theological Truth Offend Some People?Does the “Argument from Longing” Suggest that Heaven Exists?How is Faith Related to Apologetic Inquiry?Is Apologetics the Same as Proselytyzing?
II. Philosophy of Religion
What is “Philosophical Theology”?Does Certainty Derive from Demonstration or Probabilities?Is the Epistemology of Religion Primarily Subjective?Must Christianity Necessarily be Proven, to be Rationally Held?What is Rationalism and its Fundamental Deficiency?
III. Church History
IV. Development of Doctrine
What is the Rule of Secrecy, or “Disciplina Arcani”?Does Development of Doctrine Tend to Lead One to Rome?
V. Anglicanism
Do Anglicans Regard Themselves as a Species of Protestantism?Are the 39 Articles “Protestant” in Nature?What Was the State of Anglicanism in 1835?Has Anglicanism Unnecessarily Discarded Catholic Elements?
VI. Ecumenism
Can a Person Have Faith Without Having Heard the Gospel?Can a Good Man in Another Religion Espouse Christianity?
VII. Lay Participation
VIII. Bible, Tradition, and Authority
How Fundamental is Revelation to Religious Truth?Does Revelation Tend to be Unpredictable By its Very Nature?What is the Relationship Between Revelation and Faith?Does Revelation Have Rational Evidences in its Favor?How Do We Come to Best Understand Scripture?Are Church and Tradition Necessary to Understand the Bible?Is the Canon of Scripture Based on Tradition Only?Is Sola Scriptura(“Scripture Alone”) a True Principle?Does Prior Bias Influence Scriptural Interpretation?Should we Memorize Scripture?In What Sense is the Authority of Scripture Supreme?Is the Bible Materially Sufficient for Salvation?Is the Bible Formally Sufficient for Salvation?Does the New Testament Preclude Oral Tradition?Is Oral Tradition Superior to Written Tradition?Are Oral and Written Tradition Fundamentally Different?How Should we Regard Extrabiblical Tradition?What are Creeds?Did the Jews Pass Down the Notion of Tradition to Christians?Were the Apostles Ignorant of Tradition Until Pentecost?Can One Possibly be Saved by Conscience Without Revelation?Is Conscience an Autonomous Authority?
IX. Doctrine of the Church (Ecclesiology)
Is There Such a Thing as a Visible, Institutional Church?Is the Church Infallible in Her Dogmas?Is the Church Indefectible?How Did Church Government Originate? What are the Shortfalls of Contradictory Religious Opinions?Who Tends to Jettison Orthodoxy in Order to Foster “Unity”?How Shall we Regard Denominationalism and Sectarianism?Should the Presence of Sinners in the Church Alarm Us?Does the Bible Teach the Concept of Excommunication?Is Excommunication a “Spiritual” Thing?
Is Christianity Difficult and a “Narrow Way”?What is the Principle of Unity in the Church?Must Bishops Always be Obeyed?
X. Theology of Salvation (Soteriology)
Are we Saved by Verbal or Creedal Professions Only? How Do we Prove that we Have a Genuine Faith?What are the Fruits and Objects of Faith?What is “Fiducial Faith” or “Faith in Faith”?Can we Obtain Absolute Assurance of Salvation?How Can we Discern Another Man's Spiritual State?How Important are Good Works According to Scripture?How Close Is Anglican Justification to St. Robert Bellarmine's?How Should Evangelists Approach Dying Persons?What is Antinomianism, or “Cheap Grace”?Is Preaching a Primary Instrument of Saving Faith?What is the Goal of Preaching?
XI. Jesus Christ (Christology)
How Central is “Christ Crucified” in Christianity?
XII. God the Father (Theology Proper)
How Shall we Regard God's “Superintendence”?
XIII. The Holy Spirit (Pneumatology) and Trinitarianism
How Does the Indwelling Holy Spirit Work in Us?How Does the Holy Spirit Interact with Christians?
XIV. The Blessed Virgin Mary (Mariology)
XV. Angels and the Communion of Saints
How Eminent is Rome as a Place of Saints and Martyrs?Was Prayer for the Dead an Apostolic Practice?Was Prayer for the Dead Well-Attested in the Early Church? Is Prayer for the Dead a Biblical Teaching?
XVI. Purgatory
Are There Experiences in This Life Analogous to Purgatory?
XVII. Penance and Asceticism
Should All Clergymen be Celibate?Is Celibacy a “Higher” Calling?
XVIII. The Holy Eucharist
Is the Holy Eucharist Necessary for Salvation?What Did Newman Believe About the Real Presence in 1834?
XIX. The Sacrifice of the Mass
What Does it Mean to Say That the Mass is a Sacrifice?
XX. Devotions, Liturgy, and Worship
What is the Relation of Faith and Emotions?How Shall we Prevent Formal Prayers from Becoming Trite?Are Shorter Form Prayers Preferable to Longer Ones?What Makes The Lord's Prayer so Unique and Special?How Relatively Important are Sermons for the Clergyman?How Does Kneeling Help Us to Receive Christian Truths?How Much Does Scripture Teach About Public Worship?
XXI. The Sacrament of Baptism
What is the Relation of Baptism to the Church?How is Baptism Related to the Holy Spirit and Justification?
XXII. Sacraments and Sacramentals
How Do We Define a “Sacrament”?What is the Relationship of Preaching to Sacraments?What is the Sacrament of Confirmation?Is the Sign of the Cross Permissible?
XXIII. Heaven and Hell
XXIV. Marriage, Divorce, and Annulment
Should Unbaptized Persons be Married by Christian Clergymen?What Did the First Protestants Think of Polygamy?
XXV. Education
XXVI. Atheism, Agnosticism, Liberalism, and Secularism
What is Philosophical and Theological Liberalism?How Should We Regard Theological Liberalism?Are There Jewish Analogies to Christian Theological Liberals?What is the Result of Resisting Theological Liberalism? Where Does Accommodation to the “Spirit of the Age” Lead? Is Atheism Fundamentally Bigoted Against Christianity?Do Skeptics Assume Certain Premises Hostile to Christianity?Will Atheism Satisfy the Deepest Longings of the Soul?
XXVII. Conversion (to Catholicism)
What Was Newman's View of the Catholic Church in 1834?How Far Was Newman from the Catholic Church in 1837?
XXVIII. Science
XXIX. Miscellaneous
How Should Christians Regard Great Riches?
Is Exorcism a Legitimate Christian Practice?

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 19, 2015 08:48

February 17, 2015

The James Swan Insultapalooza Post

See my latest Facebook post about the outrageous double standards of Anti-Catholic James Swan, when it comes to insults of others.

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 17, 2015 16:34

February 4, 2015

Anti-Catholic Polemicist James Swan Bolsters His Reputation as a Dense Amateur Church Historian and Hypocritical Nitpicker Yet Again

See my Facebook post describing the latest follies of the notorious James "John Q. Doe" Swan.

*****

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 04, 2015 10:44

January 31, 2015

Reply to Kevin Tierney's Self-Described "Rant" About Lay Apologetics and Apologists

Kevin is a writer for the Catholic Lane and Catholic Exchange websites, and a "traditionalist." He posted this on his Facebook page on 1-27-15. I will cite his words in their entirety, in blue., and provide my $00.02 worth. I am one of these "professional lay apologists" that Kevin refers to (have been since December 2001). All "professional" means is that it is my "profession." I make my living by means of it. In my case, probably two-thirds to three-quarters of my (thus far, very meager) income is derived from book and article royalties, the rest from generous donations. Most of those who contribute to my work, I believe, credit it with having a direct influence in their own conversion or reversion to Catholicism.

I do "have a job," pay all my bills, have good credit, have been paying a mortgage for 15 years, support a wife and four children (who have all been home-schooled), don't use credit cards, and take a nice family vacation every year. We live in a typical lower middle class bungalow in the suburbs (though I just inherited a higher-grade house in even nicer suburbs). I mention this stuff only because criticisms of apologists who make their living at it are so prevalent and usually wrongheaded (I'm not referring to Kevin here; I am talking generally). I'm paying my bills and being perfectly responsible, and no one has any "right" to blast me for my chosen profession than they do to blast anyone else in any profession.
* * * * *
One of the more distinctly American developments in American Catholicism of the last 25 years has been the explosion of lay apologetics as not just an aspect of one's ministry/apostolate, but a ministry and apostolate unto its own. Bloggers style themselves "professional apologists"

Yes they do. As I noted in the introduction, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with that. In fact, it is perfectly understandable since there are so many amateur apologists (anyone can call themselves one; what's to stop them?), it is sensible to let readers know that the person in question has studied more than the amateurs and does the work full-time. Most who are "professionals" do far more than just blogging. So Kevin is already setting up a bit of a straw man there.

and individuals like Dr. Taylor Marshall even will certify you an "expert" apologist if you attend his classes.

I think a guy with a PhD can make such a claim, and that it is not unreasonable. Is this somehow objectionable, too?

For various reasons, you mostly see this in America, or the very least, in developed countries. Starting with Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism a cottage industry has grown out of apologetics, some even becoming millionaires off of "defending the faith." (Another distinctly American phenomena)

I don't make much money, yet I see double standards in how the more "well-off" apologists are criticized for having the money that they do. They have not taken a vow of poverty. Others in various professions are not also lambasted for making lots of money. Why center on Catholic apologists as if this is somehow inherently questionable? The assumption seems to be that they are doing something wrong simply by making good money, as if they haven't earned it or somehow should be faulted, by that fact alone. Riches are not condemned in the Bible; only the idolatry of riches.

While this movement had sustained growth, it has run into a bit of decline lately. For many, apologetics isn't as profitable as it once was. Working as an editor for a small Catholic website (and one who writes for a much larger one as well) I also know the market for strict apologetics is also down.

This is true. I live with that reality every day.

When I have pointed this out in the past, I have been accused of "hating apologetics" and having some sort of disdain towards apologists.

I don't know why. It's a simple fact. Now, if it is said that I should somehow stop doing what I do and have been called to because "the market is down," then I would object to it as irrelevant -- as long as I can pay my bills, doing what I've been doing.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I have had apologists write for me. Having originally made my bones in apologetics, I carry a deep respect for it. I still to this day have a working relationship with several apologists, and they often serve as idea men for my columns. Whenever I begin a new series, I ask them to be my critic.

I have described Kevin's views about apologetics and apologists in the past as a "love-hate relationship."

The critically acclaimed (ironically by several prominent apologists) Bad Evangelist Club came about because of discussions I had with a pretty well known apologist blogger who suggested I use my writers to explore the subject of common errors apologists make or have seen, as told by those apologists.
It is not apologetics that I have opposed. Rather, it is a certain commercializing of apologetics that has helped divorce it from its original purpose.

Fair enough. But that is a very complex topic: not given to simplistic treatment. People have to make a living, and there is a business aspect to things, just as with anything else; as with every parish. If a person is qualified and called to it (determined by others in authority over them), they should make their living doing apologetics.

I also oppose the polarization of apologetics that is practicing apologetics from ideological factions, rather than for the service of the Church as a whole.

So do I.

In place of this I support and advocate those who are beginning to return to the proper roots of apologetics, who I'll mention more of. I'll just briefly touch on all of these topics. I don't want to hear "well I don't do such and such." That's good. Want a cookie? You're not getting a donation, a cookie will have to suffice. Nobody cares what you are doing. Seriously, they don't. You being innocent has no bearing on the fact it's a real issue, and something that needs to be considered.

There is some of the "anti-apologetics" (and rather silly and frivolous) strain in Kevin's thought: "Nobody cares what you are doing."

I also hope my words can help put into context recent statements by Pope Francis opposing the "apologetics approach" when dealing with non-Catholics. A lot of Catholics are worried or troubled by these statements, but they really shouldn't be. While I'm not sure his "ecumenism of encounter" is the right idea, or that people are actually doing what he calls for, I really think there's something to what he says that, even if we end up disagreeing, we shouldn't dismiss it right away.

He was not opposing apologetics. The remark was made in a homily on 25 January 2015. The context was "past controversies between Christians": where apologetics is not appropriate, but rather, ecumenical striving after unity ought to be front and center.

The woman of Sychar asks Jesus about the place where God is truly worshiped. Jesus does not side with the mountain or the temple, but goes deeper. He goes to the heart of the matter, breaking down every wall of division. He speaks instead of the meaning of true worship: “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (Jn 4:24). So many past controversies between Christians can be overcome when we put aside all polemical or apologetic approaches, and seek instead to grasp more fully what unites us, namely, our call to share in the mystery of the Father’s love revealed to us by the Son through the Holy Spirit. Christian unity – we are convinced – will not be the fruit of subtle theoretical discussions in which each party tries to convince the other of the soundness of their opinions. When the Son of Man comes, he will find us still discussing! We need to realize that, to plumb the depths of the mystery of God, we need one another, we need to encounter one another and to challenge one another under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who harmonizes diversities, overcomes conflicts, reconciles differences.

Pope Francis hasn't "dissed" apologetics, as Jimmy Akin shows.

1.) Apologetics is a reasoned case for "the hope that lies within" that must always be conducted with charity, so says the Apostle Peter.

Yep. 1 Peter 3:15.

This is different from evangelization (pronouncing the message) and catechesis (showing how that message can lead to a better life as a Christian), but it cannot be truly separated.

That's correct. They all go together.

Indeed, to separate them is to present apologetics in a vacuum. It is something all Christians are called to, not a few, not the experts, everyone.

Yes. But it doesn't follow that some should not devote their lives to it, as a profession. Because I have hours and hours of time, doing this all day, I can develop work that folks who are employed elsewhere would never have the time to do.

All should be able to give an accounting for why they have hope in Christ, and to understand the basic doctrines of the Gospel. This is why calling yourself an apologist does not make you one, nor does receiving a certificate from some university make you an expert at said apologetics. Some are obviously better at it than others, but that does not make them apologists as say one may call themselves a licensed catechist or a licensed theologian.

It depends on how one defines it. Was G. K. Chesterton an apologist? Most would think so. He had no "license." He had no formal theological education. He had hardly any college education at all (a few art classes for part of a year and no degree). Frank Sheed was a lawyer (so was Karl Keating originally). Malcolm Muggeridge was a journalist. Thomas Howard was an English professor and Peter Kreeft is a philosophy professor.

2.) In today's apologetics subculture, apologetics is turned into a specialized discipline where little attention is paid to catechesis or evangelization. Or, even worse, they equate apologetics with evangelization, so when they engage in an internet forum war, they are really doing the work of evangelization.

I see nothing inherently wrong in specialization, as long as the importance of these other aspects is not denied.

3.) Another danger in apologetics is it presents the Catholic Faith primarily as a set of ideas and doctrines to be defended.

Again, since apologetics deals largely with the rational component of religion, this is to be expected. In that respect it is similar to systematic theology. It doesn't follow that the apologist is therefore minimizing other aspects of the faith, anymore than a monk who concentrates on prayer is against theology or apologetics.

As Fulton Sheen famously said, Catholics do not worship a dogma, we worship a person. That person is Jesus Christ. All of our missionary outreach, whether apologetics, catechesis or evangelization must be firmly grounded in two persons: Jesus Christ, and the individual we are speaking to. Apologetics is a manner of relating to the spiritual needs of an individual, not combating or defending a set of intellectual propositions against this or that group.

Absolutely. This is why St. Paul said, "I have become all things to all men, that I may by any means save some of them."

How much of internet apologetics is based off of this relational approach? When we do apologetics, how often are we friends with the person we are explaining the faith to? I do not believe I am exaggerating when I say that this relational approach has almost evaporated from apologetics, just like it has evaporated from so many other facets of our "self-referential Church", to use the words of Pope Francis.

I think that is true many times, but not of those who know how to do apologetics well. Facebook, for all its faults, does cultivate a lot of personal relationships. I certainly feel that that is true on my page. I talk to my friends every day and interact with their concerns. I try to be friends with those I am dialoguing with, because Plato and Socrates stated that friendship and mutual respect were required in any constructive dialogue.

4.) Since it is often done without this relational approach, it often loses its ability to speak to who needs to hear that message. While the apologetics subculture boomed, did conversions follow?

Yes. Anyone can verify this by asking any Catholic (especially converts) who influenced them on their journey. I myself can produce multiple hundreds of reports that my work helped people become Catholics or more confident, educated Catholics.

Did relationships improve between Christians because of the apologetics movement?

I don't know. It's tough to judge that. I hope so!

How often did Protestants come away with a better understanding of apologetics because of the work of Catholic apologists?

I think the ones who are not hostile have learned a ton of things in this way.

Sure, it reached a wide audience, but how much change occurred? This isn't to say it did nothing. Just that its a discussion worth having.

I believe it has had a wide influence, and for good. It's easy to sit on the sidelines as an "armchair quarterback" and simply take shots. Kevin is out there writing articles and trying to influence people, just as we are. What sense would it make for me to sit here and say, "what impact do Kevin's articles have? How much did they change people?" That's in God's hands. His job is to write about Catholic truth as well as possible, according to the gifts that God gave him. The true and the good have their own inherent power and will produce good fruit.

While many profited, did the Church always benefit as a result?

Yes.

The shrinking of Catholicism in the modern era cannot be blamed on apologetics, but it does tell us that there needs to be more.

Of course. There are a host of problems in the Church. But where people know their apologetics, their faith is usually thriving and vibrant.

Apologists shouldn't get so defensive whenever this is pointed out.

I'm not defensive at all.

5.) There are ultimately limits to apologetics. In order for apologetics to work, there needs to be crystal clear truth, and crystal clear error. While this might happen with those outside the Church, adopting an apologetics approach with those inside the Church is a lot trickier. One cannot adopt an apologetics approach when discussing the Latin Mass and traditionalists (or charismatics and others for that matter) because the debate is often not between truth and error, but (provided it is done properly) between positions that Holy Mother Church has deemed acceptable to hold.

I agree.

6.) Applying this approach to other matters leads to apologists setting themselves up as a sort of mini-magesterium, or a "magesterium of the magesterium" if you will. Recently, the subject of waterboarding and torture appeared. Most of the debate was focused on what lay apologists said about torture, rather than what trained theologians, and ultimately what the Magesterium said.

I was involved in that dispute as one of the supposedly "controversial" persons, and this is a caricature. In my own studies on the topic, I appealed to Fr. Brian Harrison, who is a moral theologian. The magisterium has stated that torture is intrinsically evil. No one disagrees with that. The debate is over the line between torture and permissible interrogation. Since the Church has not made clear every iota of specificity in that discussion, Catholics are free to discuss it and have different opinions.

I was accused (repeatedly) of setting myself up as a "magisterium": which is absolutely ludicrous. I made it crystal clear again and again that I was not any sort of authority on this issue, and was simply rendering my personal opinion (which at that time was agnostic as to waterboarding, and fully in support of the Church's view that torture is intrinsically evil). Hence, in a "clarification" post on 12-30-15 I wrote:

It's the Church's job to fully clarify vexed issues. I then go out and defend what Holy Mother Church has definitively taught. Until then, there is room for different opinions (except in the mind of legalistic, obsessed fanatics). I think actual moral theologians in the Church ought to clarify it, not me. I'm not qualified. This is a very complex issue. If Fr. Harrison isn't good enough for the ranting fanatics going on and on about this (or Jimmy Akin, if we want to cite a lay apologist), sure as Hades whatever I decided wouldn't be sufficient for anyone. It doesn't MATTER in the end what opinion I have on this if the Church hasn't made it clear. What is crystal clear is that laymen who are not the magisterium are not the magisterium. That's the first rule of logic: a = a.

Lay apologists are not trained to make such decisions.

Which is precisely what I stated above . . . neither are lay writers like Kevin. The ones who were dogmatic about this did not come from the apologetics camp at all. Ross Earl Hoffman started reading everyone and their uncle's third cousin out of orthodox Catholicism because they didn't agree with him on waterboarding. He has no credentials. He's been a Catholic for six years. He's no apologist at all. When he has tried it, he has done a lousy job (and I and many others tried to encourage him not to attempt apologetics). Consequently, during this whole fracas he alienated literally all of his closest friends before the mess started: most of whom actually agreed with him that waterboarding is torture.

Another dogmatic anti-waterboarding figure who wanted to read many people out of orthodox Catholicism was Pete Vere, JCL. He's a canon lawyer and chaplain, not an apologist. A third (and the major one) was Mark Shea, who is an apologist, yet doesn't want to even call himself one anymore (I saw him state that somewhere recently).

A famous example of this well known amongst apologists is when one started holding some extreme positions, and many apologists started speculating if there was a mental breakdown or something behind it. Dr. Arthur Sippo, a lay apologist but also a trained medical doctor, rebuked them by pointing out they were lay apologists who had no qualification or insight to offer those conclusions, so they shouldn't even try.

That's great, except that I have seen Art (a friend) countless times psychoanalyzing Protestants (i.e., ones who were not his patients), including historic ones like Martin Luther. So he may "preach" that but many times he doesn't follow his own advice.

The only job an apologist has in the torture debate is to explain in a general sense why torture is immoral, point out who says it is immoral, and leave anything further (such as if certain acts constitute torture) to moral theologians and the magesterium.

That's precisely what I did, and what I found was that the data was clear as to torture in general; not so clear as to whether waterboarding is torture. And that is what I reported to my readers. Recently I moved to a position where I regard waterboarding as abuse that should never be done, but not torture. Kevin and his friends liked that and called it a "victory" but then, of course, they are interpreting the magisterium as well, just as we apologists are. Goose and gander . . .

Or you should, to the extent possible make clear you are taking off your apologist hat, if you insist on referring to yourself as a "professional apologist" when you discuss whether or not certain things are torture.

I agree. I was massively lied about and misrepresented. I did everything Kevin is calling for here. It didn't matter. The fanatical "more Catholic than thou" zealots were on their crusade and mere facts and accuracy were the very last thing that concerned them.

7.) During that debate, we got another example of the nastiest part of the current apologetics subculture: it is heavily based around cults of personality. They style themselves more as warlords with who has the biggest following based on website hits, facebook likes, cash reserves, etc. Often, these apologists clash in a hoss fight, and said hoss fight is presented as apologetics, two guys (typically men yes) with big egos shouting at each other or thinking of who can devise the most creative insult and verbally shred their foe. It is the language of combat and war, not of the Gospel. As an avid fan of professional wrestling, this kind of approach makes for great entertainment in the squared circle, where muscle bound meatheads cut promos and dazzle the crowds with their combat prowess. Is apologetics best served by the WWE approach?

Once again, it was not apologists who led this tendency, but non-apologists like Ross Earl Hoffman or apologists who deliberately decide not to act like apologists (Mark Shea). If Kevin wants to dispute that, let him name names, as I have done. The ones I have named have been engaging in character assassination for two months now at least. Jimmy Akin hasn't entered the arena at all. He is the apologist who has written the most (and I think most thoughtfully and provocatively) about it. I entered into it but have spent time clarifying my position and defending myself against rank calumnies, not calling people names, saying they are lousy Catholics, lying about what they believe, and acting like a pompous ass.

8.) Thankfully, not all apologists are like this. Some of the old timers try (though not always succeed) to stick to this form of apologetics. Others try to do their best to help the audience see which hat they are wearing. While this is good, my hope mostly rests in a lot of the newer apologists who are making a name for themselves on the "independent" circuit if you will. They aren't professional apologists, nor are they certified expert apologists, but they are doing innovative apologetics nonetheless.

Good for them.

There are those like Joseph Heschmeyer, an apologetics blogger who is also a seminarian. He will always be a good apologist, but it will be one tool in the arsenal of a Catholic priest. There is David Gray, whom apologetics is based on only one part of his ministry. I see those like Shaun McAfee, who use apologetics as one only one arrow in his quiver of various social media promotions to help people understand the faith and become better Christians. I look at Facebook superevangelists like Delali Godwin Adadzie, who do apologetics, but also spend time managing a billion facebook devotional groups helping people to improve their prayer life. It is my hope over the next decade more apologists begin to incorporate with greater frequency the relational approach these individuals are using, which views apologetics as but one tool to deepen relationships with others and with Christ.

I think that is an excellent trend. I see no reason to oppose those who do apologetics full-time, because these guys (most of them friends of mine) do a great job at it, part-time. I did it part-time, too, for eleven years.

Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Kevin Tierney, and what I have described is not only possible but inevitable. It's not a preview of the future of apologetics, is a spoiler. If apologetics is to thrive, this is the only way.

It's not the only way. Kevin has given us zero reasons for thinking that full-time "professional" apologists somehow have to be ashamed of what they do, or that they are on the way out. Every field has those who devote themselves entirely to it. Since all are called to do apologetics, there will obviously be a lot of part-time and amateur apologists, too. We need not play the either/or game.

* * * * *

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on January 31, 2015 17:38

January 29, 2015

"Live Chat" Exchange with Mark Shea on Waterboarding

I tried, folks. I mightily tried. I summoned (only by God's grace, believe me) every last fiber and nerve in me of patience, and was willing to be a punching bag for two hours, in order to achieve rational dialogue with Mark. You be the judge. This took place in the wee hours of 1-30-15 and was about 75 minutes in duration. Mark's words will be in blue.

* * * * *
The huge irony in all this insofar as I have been attacked is that I am agnostic on waterboarding (as to whether it is torture or not), not an advocate of it, let alone for torture. I have moved closer to thinking that waterboarding may be torture, based on an excellent article I read on the Unam Sanctam Catholicam website, and by dialoguing with a certain person who is able to talk about the issue minus the gratuitous and juvenile epithets. I sure ain't gonna change my mind through the tactics of being compared to Holocaust deniers, Nazis, and Americanists. As always, I change my mind by rational persuasion and being shown either compelling biblical or magisterial data.

I don't enjoy being an agnostic about anything. It's not my nature. But I'd rather be that than intellectually dishonest. So here I am. Insult away, or else try to use reason, that I am altogether willing to hear and interact with.

Mark Shea said that anyone holding my position [agnostic on whether waterboarding is torture and intrinsically evil] is "insane". . .]

Moi aussi. I've had almost no conversation with you, Dave, but somehow you've decided to apply stuff I've said in other contexts to yourself. If the shoe fits wear it, I guess. But I have no idea if the shoe fits you. You decided that for yourself. So I don't even know what I'm supposed to apologize for.

You said that anyone who held this position was "insane" during the short time you visited my Facebook page (which is quite in "my context"). It's a simple logical deduction:

1. "Anyone who believes y is insane."

2. x believes y.

3, Therefore, x must be insane.

Surely you can grasp this logic. It has nothing to do with whether I decided if the shoe fit or not. I have never believed that I was insane. You decided that all of us who disagree wear this "shoe" of "insanity" (and a host of other things). Then when called on it, this is the lame response you invariably make, as if we are paranoid and illogically applying what you said yourself.

I didn't ask you to apologize. I merely mentioned you in connection with my observation that those of your position have come up with "a very colorful collection of epithets."

Another prime example of the ridiculous sophistry that you regularly bring to this topic is to say that folks are advocating "drowning" when they think waterboarding is permissible. Newsflash: it ain't drowning: which results in a dead person. It's not even attempted drowning. But that doesn't stop you from your sophistry.

And the weirdest thing about it is your assumption that your readers are too stupid to not know that waterboarding is not drowning . . . It sounds great as a magnificent insult, I guess, so it is used repeatedly, no matter how inane and vacuous it is.

Waterboarding is an attempt to make a person in his fright and fear (and based on the normal reaction of the instinctual portions of the brain) think he may be drowning.

But as I have said, if soldiers are routinely trained in it, then they know going in that they ain't gonna drown, and that seems significant to me, though I grant that it likely wouldn't make the experience much less frightening than it is. The person would simply know in their mind, "they are not gonna kill me by drowning."

Mark doesn't "respond." He preaches and polemicizes on these sorts of issues, and I'm not interested in that. "Dialogue" (ha ha) with him is nonexistent after he gets on his soapbox.

Mkay. Whatever.

Yes, whatever. The usual . . .

Dave: What do you want? I offered to discuss it. You come back with the stuff above, so I drop it. . . . Sheesh.

I don't want anything from you. You don't discuss this issue.

What issue? What are you talking about?

I am sick and tired of sophistry and hyper-polemics. Period. It's not personal. It's not being sensitive or being hurt. It is a principled objection to your warping of discussion when waterboarding comes up.

Dave; The only sophistry comes from people who have labored for ten years to pretend that torture is compatible with Catholic teaching, that waterboarding (for which we hanged Japanese) is not torture, that torture is so mysterious and impossible to define that we have to just go ahead and approve of whatever it is the CIA did to prisoners. Beyond this, my point to you, if memory serves, is that it is the height of folly, after the disclosure of the horrors of the Senate Report, for Catholics above all to continue to try to split hairs over waterboarding. It's like abortion defenders deploying millions of word to argue over whether Kermit Gosnell washed his hands or only wiped them off on his smock. Like that matters.
And yeah, that is insane.

As to the exhausted, futile, and deeply stupid question "Is waterboarding really and truly torture?" I totally concur with and always recommend this exhaustive look at the question: Posts About Waterboarding on Zippy Catholic. But at this late date, the whole stupid attempt by Catholics to justify this filth is like a defense attorney at Nuremburg throwing all his energies into trying to show that Goering was not guilty of jaywalking. The gnat/camel inversion ratio would be comically crazy if it were not such a humiliating stain on "faithful conservative prolife" Catholic honor.

Is any physical interrogation permissible at all? This is what bothers me and what hardly anyone seems to want to work through. I suspect that if someone could give me a clear principle on that, that I could resolve my own agnosticism on this.

Dave: Tolle, lege: [link to the book, How to Break a Terrorist ] The guy is a professional interrogator. We had long-standing rules for ethical interrogation before Bush/Cheney authorized torture. Instead of trying to figure out how brutal we can be, why not ask "How do we treat prisoners humanely and get the intel we need?" Turns out those two projects are not in opposition.

Sure. How do we do that? That is my question. Is anything physical whatever permissible towards that end? Can, e.g., a cop can kill a child abuser holding a sexual slave (i.e., in the classic hostage scenario), but he can't slap him on the wrist to find out about said slave's whereabouts?

I repeat: Why is it so urgent for you to find out how much abuse you can heap on a prisoner instead of asking "How can we treat prisoners humanely and get the intel we need?" It's like its more important to find a rationale for abuse than to get the intel. Read the book. it's about the answer to your question.

That book talks about non-physical methods (which are great: more power to him). I am asking whether we can ever lay a hand on anyone at any time (because the Church has certainly sanctioned some version of that for centuries). You say no to that, too?

I'm not trying to abuse anyone. I'm trying to find out the underlying ethical principles that can guide us in this stuff, just as just war theory guides wars.

I will read the book. But I need to have other questions plausibly answered, too, in order to become persuaded of your position.

You apparently missed my question: So a cop can kill a child abuser holding a sexual slave (i.e., in the classic hostage scenario), but he can't slap him on the wrist to find out about said slave's whereabouts?

I am a Socratic.

There is no Catholic document delineating every species of torture just as there is not document delineating every conceivable form of sexual perversion. The Church does not proceed by saying "See how close you can get to mortal sin but don't quite do it." It starts with the good. In this case, the good of human dignity. The Church gives a positive command, not a list legalistic prohibition attached to the words "Simon Peter says." There. is. no. definitive. list.of. torture, Dave. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. There is the command to treat prisoners humanely. Do that and you will not accidentally torture them or waste time trying to figure out how hard and often you can punch or drown them before it's torture. Why is it so important to want to know that you can beat up a prisoner?

Are any physical methods of interrogation permissible, in your view? Simple yes or no answer. You don't have to psychoanalyze me, engage in psycho-babble, polemicize, spin, use wonderful turns of phrase. Just Yes.Or.No.

I don't want to do anything. I want guidelines and I want to understand and work through the premises involved in this.

So we are left with the expertise of people who do this work, Matthew Alexander is an expert in interrogation. Bishops are not. They give the guideline and good interrogators give us tips on how that guideline has been met without torture and abuse.

Why are you asking people with zero experience in interrogation? Why not read Alexander and find out how humane interrogation is done?

I assume you mean by "physical" "inflicting pain or terror"? Why do you want to do that so badly when it is not necessary?

You do get that just war and human interrogation are not opposites but the same thing, right?

The guideline is "treat prisoners humanely".

AKA "Do what the Army Field Manual said to do before Bush/Cheney broke with decades of practice and started torturing people. Not complicated.

What did that manual say? Could POWs be physically dealt with?

The premise is "man is made in the image and likeness of God". Therefore do not torture him.

No one is advocating torture.

It's like pulling teeth to get answers out of you. If people want to hide things, they avoid simple questions, as you have been doing again and again.

Why do you keep saying "physically dealt with" when you mean "subjected to physical pain or terror in order to break his will". That is what you mean, right?

No, Dave. Prisoners are to be treated humanely.

Can the person who has sexual slaves who are starving be slapped in order to find out where they are?

So prisoners can't be touched at all?

Of course they can be touched. But you can't beat them up, as you clearly long to do. Because the goal is to get intel, not torture them. I'm saying they cannot be slapped. That's abuse.

So the touching is stroking their hair? I get it.

I'm also saying that is sick and weird to hear a Catholic apologist laboring with intensity to try to figure out when a defenseless prisoner can be beaten.

Do you understand what a socratic discussion is, Mark?

And now we get the old "It's torture or kisses on the nose" lie.

Oh, brother.

Maybe not. Probably not, by the looks of it.

Dude, go read the Alexander book. At present, your obvious goal is to figure out a way to rationalize beating prisoners, since you assume that is necessary in the fantasy scenarios you are constructing to rationalize beating prisoners. I'm saying get out of your fantasy world and go read something by somebody who has done the work without torturing anybody.

Right, Mark. Gotcha.

Shea out. Too much surreality for me.

Too much sophistry for me.

* * * * *

[the next day]

Dave: When your entire approach is to seek a rationale for slapping a defenseless person and to spend tremendous intellectual energy on trying to figure how hard you can slap him, how many times, and how to do that without being nailed for torture and abuse--all in the name of Catholic apologetics, don't be surprised when somebody says, "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."The real Catholic approach is not to try to figure out how much abuse you can get away with, but to ask "How do we treat prisoners humanely and get the intel we need?" The witness of reality is that these two projects are harmonious, not opposed.My entire approach is to seek truth by means of the socratic method, as I have always done (well, at least since Philosophy 0101 in 1977). You obviously understand neither socratic method, nor elementary Christian ethics, because you are lightning-quick to accuse and mind-rape. This is serious sin.

Dave; With respect, your quest to find a rationale for slapping defenseless people is as socratic as "when did you stop beating your wife?" Begin with the wrong question, arrive at the wrong conclusion.

Your bullying tactics don't work with me, Mark. I'm not scared of you and never have been. You don't and won't shut me up by your ranting and raving and chest-puffing and "orthodoxy cop" schtick (that you condemned for years and now do yourself). You can whine and squawk and use sophistry all you like. It doesn't work. I see right through it. I know what is in my own head and in my heart. You do not, and never will, as long as you use your considerable intellectual abilities and energies to lie about others and slander and caricature.

Ranting and raving and chest-puffing? What are you talking about? I'm stating facts. The Church begins with "treat prisoners humanely", not "Try to figure out a rationale for slapping and drowning them".

I don't think you're lying and neither said nor implied that. I think you are proceeding from a set of unconscious assumptions and therefore beginning with the wrong question, Dave.

To the contrary, if I repeatedly clarify, "I am not thinking x at all," and you come back repeatedly with "why are you thinking and asserting x??!!" then you have assumed that I am lying about my own internal state, whether you actually say that outright or not. It follows from inexorable logic. It's neither logical nor charitable thought. I'm the world's biggest expert (among human beings, anyway) on what goes on in my own head and heart.

When you repeatedly press for a rationale for slapping and drowning people, don't be surprised if people hear you pressing for a rationale for slapping and drowning people and respond accordingly, Dave. You may not realize that is what you are doing, but that is what you are doing.

Right. You're incapable of true philosophical discussion: at least if it is a topic that you preach and rant and rave about (as this one is). You don't know how to do it. Actual philosophers (Feser and Beckwith) noted this years ago (on this topic).

You don't get it. So because you don't get what I am doing, and can't grasp it (because it is a different view from your own), you feel compelled to caricature it and come up with this pompous bilge of "You may not realize that is what you are doing, but that is what you are doing."

Mostly it comes from hostility, which confuses clear thinking every time. A non-hostile Christian would never in a million years treat a fellow Catholic the way I have been treated here. It's disgraceful. The hostility poisons personal relations and logical thought alike.

There's the "drowning" thing again, which is a fallacy from the get-go. No one is drowning. No one is advocating it. Nothing is drowning (except for the idiotic pseudo-"thinking" that resides between your ears when you engage in such sophistry). You are drowning in sophistry and stupid rhetoric. That's the only "drowning" here.

In short, Dave, I am not your enemy. You have repeatedly pressed me for my views on torture and the sundry apologetics for waterboarding (aka torture). I've given them. I've also made clear that, since the release of the Senate Report, Catholic attempts to rationalize waterboarding are like attempts to show that Goering was not guilty of jaywalking. Folly, and a source of scandal. Beyond that, I have little to add. if you approach the question as the Church does, asking "How do we treat prisoners humanely and get the intel we need?" you will get reasonable answers to reasonable questions. If you start by trying to figure out how much slapping and drowning you can inflict on a defenseless prisoner, you will end in confusion and anger, because you are starting wrong. You can tell me I'm incapable of a truly philosophical discussion all you like, but them's the facts and pretty much all I've ever had to say. God bless you, Dave. I hope you come to peace, truth, and light about this.

Thank you and God bless you too. I hope you stop grossly caricaturing and lying about others' views and motivations, minus which you can't possibly have peace of soul and heart, because it is serious sin.

God bless you, Dave.

* * * * *

[see also the accompanying Facebook discussion about this]

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on January 29, 2015 23:58

January 26, 2015

Condemnation of the Slanderous Lies About My Position Regarding Torture and Waterboarding + Removal of My Post Dealing With Matthew 18:34

I have removed a blog post of mine (and two related Facebook discussion posts) that deal with Matthew 18:34, as related to the vexed "waterboarding / torture" issue. I have done so because in the present hysterical, fanatical, anti-rational, "us vs. them" climate that prevails online when it comes to discussion of this issue, my reasoning cannot possibly be grasped (i.e., by those people who are acting hysterically and judgmentally).

I love the Bible; love to engage in amateur exegesis and to discuss (like all lovers of the Bible) what various passages mean. This has been ridiculously distorted to mean (in this instance, given the atrocious mentality that prevails) that I am supposedly equating my thoughts with dogma or the magisterium.

My actual position has been incredibly distorted in certain quarters. This is my position:

1. Torture is intrinsically wrong. The church has made this very clear.

2. I am agnostic as to whether the practice of waterboarding is a species of torture.

My true position has been distorted and caricatured by my critics as the following:

1. I [supposedly] am "pro-torture" and defend torture and am a "torture apologist."

2. I [supposedly] claim (in this paper) that Jesus was "pro-torture" [in the sense that the Church has condemned] and defend torture and am a "torture apologist."

Woe unto me, that I dared to look at a Scripture passage that mentioned "torment" or "torture" (defined as interrogatory practices). It wasn't my initial argument or speculation. I first saw it in the context of a very elaborate presentation of the scriptural data concerning corporal punishment by Australian moral theologian Fr. Brian Harrison.

It's important to note that Fr. Harrison is Australian because it is charged that any doubt whatsoever as to the status of waterboarding as torture is strictly an "American" and "Neo-conservative" position, and inevitably drawn therefrom. Likewise, it is important to note that he is a moral theologian, because I am being accused of setting myself up (as an apologist) as some sort of pseudo-magisterium. Fr. Harrison wrote in his paper:

Jesus clearly builds on this Old Testament foundation of a nascent, minimal recognition of the need for moderation in chastising one’s fellow men made in God’s image. The New Testament data furnishing some kind of basis for a moral evaluation of such penal practices are not abundant, but significant. On the one hand, we find no direct or outright condemnation of the aforesaid Mosaic punishments as being intrinsically unjust or evil. It would be implausible to try reading any ethical censure into Jesus’ mention of temporal torture in the parable of the unforgiving debtor (Mt 18: 34), in view of his immediate comparison of this treatment with that to be meted out in eternity by "my heavenly Father" (cf. B2 above). The same can be said of the floggings referred to in the parable of the wicked servant (Lk 12: 47-48, cf. B3), particularly in the light of our Lord’s own action narrated in Jn 2: 15 (cf. B6). It seems plain from the text that his "whip" was used to strike the money changers themselves, not only the animals – and with considerable force.

Fr. Harrison, since the time of this paper (July 2005) has clarified that he fully accepts the Church definition of torture as intrinsically immoral (on 11 March 2010). He and others have also noted that there must sensibly be more than one meaning of "torture" insofar as historically, the Church (and folks like St. Thomas Aquinas) have without question sanctioned various forms of corporal punishment (such as in the various Inquisitions). Of course, any such fine distinctions are lost upon the fanatics and hysterical polemicists out there discussing this issue on a daily basis. Fr. Harrison, like myself, was never "pro-torture." In his clarification he stated:

As a matter of fact, I never have expressed any positive personal approval of torture for that last-mentioned purpose (and much less for any other purpose).

Fr. Harrison also reiterated at the same time that he remains agnostic as to whether waterboarding is torture (in the sense that it is condemned by the Church):

Nobody disputes that the CIA-approved waterboarding was a thoroughly nasty and frightening experience. However, I submit that whether or not it reached the point of torture does remain a seriously disputed question among reasonable and well-informed people.

He also condemned the usual hysterical discussions online (such as the ones now leading to false accusations coming my way):

. . . I certainly intend to devote more study to this and related issues. However this will be my only statement on the matter in this forum. Indeed, I do not normally read this (or any other) blog, mainly because I think disputes in the blogosphere tend to generate more heat than light – especially since they so often involve intemperate, unsubstantiated, anonymous – and therefore cowardly – attacks on persons and reputations. Also, heat is often accompanied by smoke; so I hope that this present clarification of my own position at least clears the air somewhat.

Fr. Harrison is not alone in his assessment concerning waterboarding. Catholic Answers published an article of his on the overall topic ("The Church and Torture") in December 2006. On 1 May and 3 May 2014, competing article appeared on the Catholic Answers blog: Todd Aglialoro arguing that waterboarding my not be torture, and Michelle Arnold arguing that it is. Obviously, then, Catholic Answers (the largest and most influential lay Catholic apologetics organization) has not taken a dogmatic stand that the Church is definitely against waterboarding as torture (as all the hysterical fanatics writing on the topic think is self-evident). Michelle wrote in her article:

Todd emphasized in his blog post that "All my musings are mine alone and do not purport to be the final interpretation of Church teaching or the official opinion of Catholic Answers" (emphasis in original). Please keep in mind that Todd's disclaimer is also my own. Neither of us purports to define the matter for the Church or to give the official opinion of Catholic Answers. And please note that these are personal blog posts; they are not in the same category of Catholic Answers' publications as books, tracts, or magazine articles.

Moreover, CA staffer Jimmy Akin has staked out an agnostic position as well, in numerous thoughtful articles, collected with many others in my list of links of "Calm, Reasoned (Rather Than Hyper-Polemical) Orthodox Catholic Resources". Likewise, prominent orthodox Catholic philosophers Francis Beckwith and Edward Feser . . . My own position is laid out clearly there, and we have had civil discussions on my Facebook page about it (one combox had over 1000 comments).

Now we shall examine the present nonsense being spewed about my alleged opinions and arguments in particular. It seems that I am the object of a witch hunt. Ross Earl Hoffman has been the leading purveyor in recent months of the hysterical, fanatical "torture" polemic. He is inspired by Mark Shea, who has been writing hyper-polemically on the issue for literally almost ten years now. Lately they have been joined by canon lawyer Pete Vere. The latest "round" in a long string of attacks came on Ross Earl Hoffman's Facebook page (posted on 1-26-15) and cross-posted on his Roaming Romans page (same date). He cited the recent Facebook words of Pete Vere (who goes by "Torquemada Tequila"):

From the wall of a VERY concerned Catholic Torquemada Tequila:

Note to my Canadian friends, as well as my non-Catholic friends, who may have come across the following [one of my Facebook cross-posting of my blog article, mentioned above] and found yourselves scandalized by it. Especially my friends from the veteran community:

This is NOT the teaching of the Catholic Church. This is NOT Catholicism.

This is, as they say in professional wrestling when one of the performers fails to follow script, a certain apologist "going into business for himself."

I find this unfortunate given that he has produced much quality apologetics material in the past. However, I know of no post-conciliar pope or bishop who would sanction such a (mis)interpretation of the Gospel. For that reason, after going back and forth in my mind for the past week, I am making the difficult decision to withdraw any and all past endorsements of Mr Armstrong's apologetics material.

Please keep us both in prayer. Dave, that he realizes the division and scandal this is causing the Body of Christ universally. Myself, that I can remain focused upon the truth and resist the temptation to reply out of vengeance.

Pete has lost almost all restraint, even of common decency, in his comments over the last month about this (though he did issue a qualified apology for language in his recent post: not, of course, to me personally). He's literally compared me (or anyone who holds my agnostic position on waterboarding) to Nazis, Holocaust deniers, geocentrist fanatics; he made out that I was a mere shill for the Republican Party and "pro-torture" and am letting supposed "Americanism" prevail over against my Catholicism. Then he started an attack on apologetics itself.

He is guilty of much hypocrisy on all these points. He co-wrote a book with me just a few months ago, about Orthodoxy. In that book he wrote:

Allow me to open by thanking Dave Armstrong for inviting me to be part of this dialogue. I first met Dave online during the rise of the Catholic apologetics movement in the 1990s. Dave’s work was instrumental in drawing me back to full communion with Rome; first as a Pentecostal, and second as an adherent to reactionary and schismatic Latin traditionalism.
To this end, I am forever grateful to Dave for helping me understand the beauty and necessity of full communion with the Roman Catholic Church: especially as a Catholic who, for the past ten years as of this writing, has belonged to what historically was founded as an Eastern Orthodox Church (i.e., prior to restoring full communion with Rome at the Union of Brest).

Pete and I have been friends for over fifteen years. Way back on 12 November 2001, Pete conducted an interview with me, in which he wrote:

The best kept secret of the Catholic Apologetics (defense of the Faith) movement is Dave Armstrong. How do I know? From experience. Some time ago, while struggling with the Catholicity of the Church after the Second Vatican Council, I encountered Dave on an email discussion group and immediately challenged him to a debate. Rather than accept my challenge, Dave invited me to converse with him on the subjects of the Roman Papacy and the role of Tradition in the Church. During our conversation, I found Dave's honesty and sincerity refreshing. With regards to the authentic expression of Catholicism, he was both gentle and firm. At the time, I did not know these were hallmarks of Dave's Catholic evangelism, and this is why Dave was instrumental in bringing me back to the Catholic Church. Rather than refute any of the objections I raised against the Catholic Church, Dave held my hand and encouraged me to confront them. Afterwards we parted ways as friends, my confidence in the Church restored.

. . . you were one of the first individuals to engage in active apologetics against modern day integrism. In fact, you were instrumental in my return to the Catholic Church from the SSPX schism for this very reason.

Pete also (far as I know) remains on friendly terms with Karl Keating, as a frequent visitor to his Facebook page. Yet, as I have shown, Catholic Answers has not made a statement that waterboarding is definitely torture, and in their magazine and blog they have hosted "agnostic" articles by Fr. Harrison and Todd Aglialoro. So why hasn't Pete dissed Catholic Answers and Karl Keating and engaged in melodramatic denunciations and withdrawal of support? I'm just a small fish in the apologetics world. Catholic Answers are the "big boys." Perhaps that is the reason Pete is reluctant. But he's willing to take me on.

Moreover, he remains friends with Catholic writer and former blogger Shawn McElhinney, as far as I know. Yet Shawn has written (some years ago now) a lengthy three-part treatment on the torture issue with a view similar if not identical to my own (one / two / three). I don't see Pete ruining their friendship or writing articles condemning him as a Nazi or Holocaust denier, etc. Perhaps Shawn has retracted his position since. If so, these papers still remain online; they have not been removed.

Shawn also has defended the nuclear bombing of Japan in 1945, in a couple dozen posts on his old blog (see some of them; some of which attack yours truly), which Pete thinks is a detestable position. I know; I vigorously debated him on the issue in 2005, and our friendship was wrecked because of it. So Pete thinks it's fine to maintain a friendship with a person who passionately defends the incineration of 100,000 civilians, while dissing another "friend" who is agnostic on waterboarding: a practice that has been done on (I believe) all of three terrorist prisoners.

Here is the exchange I had with Pete Vere (12-31-14) on my long 1000+ comments thread on Facebook (his words in green):

Outside of certain segments of American Catholicism, the Church at present is pretty broad and unanimous in rejecting waterboarding as a form of torture. So theologians won't be debating this for decades to come. In fact,over on my facebook page, friend and fellow canonist Fr Philip Lee Erickson provided a short summary of the Church's condemnation of this practice.

For me, the big discomfort is with the fact some folks claiming to be Catholic apologists defend this practice. Between this and the geocentrism controversy, I am seriously starting to question whether the Church ought to license Catholic apologists as it does canonists and theologians.

Speaking for myself, as an apologist, I'm not defending the practice. I am thus far agnostic as to waterboarding, and definitely against torture.

I specifically said in the post at the top that I am not qualified to even give a definite opinion on the topic.

I don't have a "license" but I do have Fr. John A. Hardon's strong recommendation of my first book. And I have an article right in the middle of our archdiocese newspaper, every two weeks (also an Imprimatur from my own bishop).

I don't believe G. K. Chesterton had a "license." He didn't even have a college degree.

Fr. Brian Harrison is Australian, not American.

Fr Brian Harrison might as well be American.

And I might as well be Canadian, since my dad was born there. It's neither here nor there.

No, you definitely are not Canadian.

You wrote on your page:

"Sorry Dave, but waterboarding is torture. Period. The only Catholics that I have come across who doubt this or who argue otherwise, happen to be both: 1) American, and 2) Republican."

Since Fr. Harrison is Australian, this statement is now shown to be false. And your comeback is the rather weak: "Fr Brian Harrison might as well be American."

Well, you did say, the only ones YOU have come across.

I don't see the need for this streak of nastiness and the anti-American motif and the low blow against apologists.

I recant nothing. I find it extremely creepy that some Catholics on your side of the border even think this is debatable.

Great. So the next step now is to define me as a lousy, disobedient Catholic (perhaps a "deceiver" too, as one illustrious Catholic puts it), simply because I am agnostic and still working through the issue?

Not really. If it is one of the many issues that I feel St Augustine would deem non-essential, I just ignore it or agree to disagree. But for something like this that I deem essential -- put another way, I rank defence of waterboarding by Catholics on par with certain reactionary trads who deny the Holocaust - I usually decide to go my seperate way.

As for geocentrism, you know full well that [Robert] Sungenis became a pariah within the apologetics community very quickly upon assuming that position. So it is a stupid analysis to tar the whole community with THAT error, in light of that.

Dave, I think it might be time to go our separate ways for while...

You do what you have to do, Pete. If you want to let the devil create more division, that's your free choice. I think it's disgraceful. We've been civil this entire thread, and here my friend, who says I helped him out of the radical reactionary movement, and with whom I co-wrote a book about Orthodoxy, wants to insult me and get away from me, simply because I don't yet have an absolute opinion on waterboarding.

That's the trend lately. So go jump on that fashionable bandwagon if you must.

It's not just you, Dave. I have blocked about a third of the people in this conversation - namely those who are hardcore apologists for waterboarding. Not saying you are, but this issue is one that I find deeply troubling whenever Catholics claiming to be faithful take up its defence. I feel the same way about this as I do Traditionalists who deny the Holocaust. I cannot stand to be near it as it horrifies me and robs my soul of peace.

I find it deeply troubling that Catholics will defend the incineration of 100,000 Japanese civilians with an atomic bomb. You have a good friend [Shawn McElhinney] who did so. Did you want to separate from him, too, as a result, and find THAT creepy? I defended what I believe is the Church's position (way back in 2005) and received some of the worst insults I've ever gotten from anyone.

Who?
You know who it is. You certainly couldn't have missed that.

In fact, I have always defended Fr Feeney when it came to the atom bomb. For those unfamiliar with the history of the Feeneyite controversy, Fr Leonard Feeney was actually quite liberal for a Jesuit priest in his day prior to the bomb being dropped on Japan. However, he went into a deep depression after the bomb was dropped, contemplating the 100,000 killed. When he emerged from this depression he became the Fr Feeney who took the hardline stand on the doctrine "Outside the Church no salvation."Remember I took an extended break from apologetics. Who defends the dropping to the atom bomb?

[I gave his initials]

He certainly knows to keep the issue away from me.

I guess so.

The combox at Ross's page devoted to lying about my position (posted today) is also as fascinating as it is pathetic (excerpts):

Jacoba Jaques . . . It's like he did what he accuses Protestants of doing. Manipulating the scriptures to fit his belief. . . .

Ross Earl Hoffman . . . its some of the worst Apologetics I have ever seen. I actually scolded him in private for stuff like this...and all hell broke lose [sic] ...

Jacoba Jaques . . . I don't see why anyone would try to justify torture. The magistrate [sic] hasn't changed the teaching. . . .

Anna Dawson Jesus: "I was tortured to death, and you guys are supposed to follow me, so obviously torture is fine. To the rack, haha!" This shouldn't be that hard, you know? C'mon, folks. Love thy neighbor.

Ross Earl Hoffman . . . it's one thing to struggle with trying to figure out exactly what the Church's stand on torture is but to actually go so far as to try to twist scripture to put Jesus in line with torture is probably some of the poorest apologetics I've ever seen in my life! I'm really glad Torquemada Tequila actually stepped in and made a public statement like this and I know the man, he's not trying to hurt Dave or anybody else it's pretty obvious from his post that he wrestled with this but something this big does not need to be stinking up Facebook and Catholics like the carcasse [sic] of some dead animal just slowly rotting in our backyard....

Ross Earl Hoffman [citing Pete Vere] ". . . apologetics for torture is not Catholicism. . . . Apologetics is not an alternative magisterium of the Church."

John Breslin Dave erred badly on this one, and I hope he retracts it. . . . Instead of hiding behind a pretense of ambiguity (or 'nuance' as some of them are calling it), Catholics in favor of waterboarding (or 'agnostic' about it) need to get honest and come out and say they disagree with the Church, or thatthey simply cannot live up to Church teaching on this point.

Ross Earl Hoffman . . . This is how desperate these people are to justify torture.

William Casidy This is what happens when one loses sight of the distinction between one's partisan political views and the teaching of the Church, to which those views are to be subjected, and in light of which they are to be modified. The Magisterium isn't the doctrinal arm of the RNC; and Catholic doctrine doesn't exist for the purpose of being twisted to provide a veneer of righteousness for one's side in a debate on politics.

I happen to be aware of extreme hypocrisy on Ross's part as well, because I know what he wrote to me in private PMs on Facebook (i.e., before he blocked me for the fifth and last time). Since he insists on attacking me and lying about me in public, for the express purpose of harming my reputation and apostolate, I will now reveal some of those (his word in blue; mine in regular black; enlarged-font emphases are my own). I think my readers will find them extremely interesting. Note that Ross paid for my way to go on a wonderful trip to Israel last October (and notice what he and I said about that):

December 20, 2014
You guys actually deserve to get serious heat from Catholics like me for making us look like total morons!

December 21, 2014
[the day my mother died: at about 9:40 AM ET. Ross knew we were going through a living hell -- the worst month in my entire life -- with my mother dying, and said he got his group to pray for her and I thanked him for that. Yet he persisted with his nonsense . . . ]
I also want to make sure you understand I don't want your Holy Land trip and what we did there be affected in any way so I don't really want to talk about this torture thing anymore and I apologize for even bringing it up because I don't want your trip ruined on my account. So I apologize for being a little snotty and I hope you forgive me and I'd like to be friends with you again.

Fair enough. You're forgiven.

Like I said my biggest concern is I don't want your Holy Land trip ruined in any way. My attitude is real simple and I was quite upset at myself for potentially ruining your trip in any way. I know that trip meant a lot to you and the last thing I want to do is be the one who affects it in a negative way so I'm kind of pissed off at myself for that reason alone.

The trip will never be ruined and I'll be eternally grateful to you for it. But a few more messages like I got (if they are in public) and it could do great damage to my reputation. And of course the devil loves division.

Yes I know that and I agree with that nobody is out to destroy your reputation that's for sure.

We both go on what could be a once in a lifetime trip and here I am screwing up things over something as stupid as torture even though it's an important subject it still shouldn't affect our friendship.

Well it's much easier to reconcile with you simply because we spent some time together and I got to know your character and you're one heck of a nice guy so goodness gracious I know you don't need a bunch of grief from another Catholic like me.

But I'm glad you really enjoyed the trip . . .

I didn't want to bring your trip down ....that is why I contacted you.

December 22, 2014
Dave can I ask you a question my friend?

Sure.

What happened to your great review on Roaming Romans?

It was no longer true, after the disgrace of the torture discussion, so I had to take it down. I couldn't recommend Roaming Romans for positive, nonsense-free discussion after that. I'm not making a public fuss, like you did, or attacking you in public. I simply silently removed what I no longer think is true.

So you're actually telling me that the pilgrimage that I took you on became a disgrace for you after all. Ok Dave here I take you and your wife on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land for absolutely free and you do this to me you have to be kidding me.

[at this point he blocked me before I could even answer]

No. Your discussion / witch hunt on torture was a disgrace; has nothing to do with the pilgrimage.

[he later unblocked me. This has been a process that has been ongoing; with a total of five or six blocks, then unblocking me again. Remember that the following discussion took place on the day after my mother died.]

So Dave the only torture witch hunt that's really going on is Catholics rejecting the clear teaching on the Church and going after us for defending the clear Teaching! I'm certainly not alone in my camp by any means but it's pretty obvious not a lot is being accomplished so as you can see I'm hoping that we can all just move on from this I think that's the best thing to do! Pax

So now I am unblocked again, for the fourth time, is it?

Well Dave I don't have a problem being persecuted by Catholics for a torture witch hunt and that's what's going on and I can overlook the fact many of you have twisted this around on me but my point is I think it's time to move on that's why I contacted you one last time! Apparently Dave you weren't interested in honoring that apology I had yesterday otherwise you wouldn't have removed that review of yours and by the way I have absolutely no interest in your review I don't need it it was just underhanded in my view simply after our talk yesterday.

Unfortunately Dave there seems to be a real problem with Catholics NOT wanting to move on from an issue that's obviously a stalemate that's what I thought we accomplished with our apology but obviously I was wrong.

You have no business pontificating to anyone. You've been a Catholic for only, what, six years? You're not the magisterium.

I thought the idea of Roaming Romans was to get away from apologetics and debate because you were burned out and fit to be tied. Now you're going right back to that endeavor and dissing people like Toni Aceto and Margie [Prox Sindelar], telling them they are lousy Catholics?

You don't do very well at debate. It's a skilled and learned art. It takes many years to learn and do properly. I have put in those years (33 and running). You don't have the skill. This is why it has been a fiasco, as you are now entering back into that arena. And it'll only get worse. Mark my words. . . .

This is not good, Ross. You need to look at yourself, not everyone else.

You're not resolving anything. A real apology discusses and resolves the issue, rather than simply mouth words. The issue is your attacking many people personally, including me, on stupid, wrongheaded grounds.

If Jimmy Akin or me, with our combined 45 years or so of published apologetics, disagrees with you, you send us packing, with insults, thinking absurdly that you are an expert on fine points of Catholic moral theology.

Not only that, you continued the insults and stupidity literally when my mother was dying (and she did die yesterday). Makes no difference to you. You continue right on. You attacked Margie after her house burnt. So you gave $500 to try to make up for your abuse of her? That won't do. You can't "buy" every interpersonal problem away. You think everyone is at fault here except yourself.

You went off in a huff without hearing me out, blocking me for the third time. All I said was that I can't recommend Roaming Romans because you claim it is a place for "positive Catholicism" and it is NOT that anymore, given the way you have been behaving. I could even have written another review with different words. I still have a "like" up for the page, after all. [I removed it only a few days ago: about a month after I wrote this]

But for you everything is black and white. I took down a review in good conscience so now I am Attila the Hun and I'm blocked in a one-second decision (and here I am back again!). We disagreed on that, so now you pretend that I think the trip stunk (when in fact I just said that had nothing to do with that and that I am eternally grateful for it,and that it was fabulous. You were still acting normally then). This is how your "logic" works, I guess.

You decided to attack and disparage me and many others publicly. . . . You are making the devil dance with glee with all this absurd, pathetic infighting. He loves it, so do the atheists and Protestants, who mock us when we claim that the Church offers unity that they don't have.

You're the one sitting there judging people and their Catholicism and the states of their soul. You're doing exactly what you have said you despised when the radical Catholic reactionaries do it or when Michael Voris starts attacking folks. This is rank hypocrisy.

You continue to lie about and distort what I and others have said. I DO NOT defend torture. I think it is intrinsically evil, just as the Church says. So do Jimmy Akin and Fr. Harrison. The disagreement is whether all interrogation is torture. Toni noted this, so did Margie, so did I. If you say it all is torture, down to nuns slapping wrists, then you will have to argue with St. Thomas Aquinas and many others in Church history who upheld some forms of coercion.

Your tactics with those who disagree with you on anything don't work with me. I don't take kindly to you attacking me and savaging my character, talking about topics that are way over your head, with the living hell I have been through in the last six weeks: some of the worst days of my entire life.

If you want to sit there in your forum and attack others and lose friends left and right, you do that Ross, but it won't make you happy or fulfilled, or be an example of your vaunted "positive Catholicism."

We don't attack others on my page. We get along. We have constructive discussions.Many Protestants regularly visit; also many "traditionalists." I haven't been losing friends, or tossing them overboard. We had a perfectly reasonable discussion about the torture issue. You were the only one who didn't know how to discuss it properly, with your repeated questions and stupefied non-comprehension of answers given to them (the anti-Catholics and RadCathRs use those same tactics all the time). You're better than that.

That's fine my friend but I'll stick with the Church and Jesus . . . you can do whatever you want you guys are bound in pride! All of you owe me an apology but I'll tell you what.... I'm not going to wait for it but I will say this I forgive you Dave and so does Jesus!

Right; anything but face the issues and their root causes: why you keep getting into conflicts, dissing and offending people, savaging "friends" even when they are intensely suffering. It's always our fault. You have the Church and Jesus and we are wicked evil morons . . .

Sorry Dave if you can't see the truth . . . then there's nothing I can do for you like I said you're steeped in pride.

Right. God bless you Ross.

But thank God Dave, that the persecution that I'm dealing with is actually bearing some amazing fruit you can keep everybody deceived if you want Dave but we all know the truth Jesus isn't a torturer, now Dave if I was you I would just move on, that's all I'm asking!

[I did "move on," on 6 January 2015, with my Facebook post, Sick and Tired of Controversy. But here we are twenty days later because Ross: who claimed a month ago that he wanted to stop discussing the issue, still is (along with Pete Vere and no doubt, Mark Shea, making it front and center on his pages, and now attacking and lying about me anew.]

You can block me again if you like for the 4th or 5th time. Feel free.

December 24, 2014
Dave I'm not going to block you again but there's a growing number of Catholics that are just going to avoid Pro torture Catholics it's really that simple the Church has clearly defined torture and how we should deal with it! Unfortunately you have decided to contest- the Church's clear teaching so in essence your pro torture! It's nothing personal! Mark Shea has it right! Guys like you are simply weakening the Church's absolute stand on torture!

I'm not pro-torture in the first place. It doesn't help you or anyone else to keep lying about my position. Get it right.

Whoever wants to avoid me is welcome to do so. God bless 'em. It's all part of apologetics.

If I am so wicked and incorrigible, hit that block button and be done with me forever, Ross.

The "logic" you are using here is like the anti-Catholic who says to us, "you are guilty of gross idolatry because you actually worship bread at every Mass." We point out that this is fundamentally wrongheaded: that we are not doing that at all. Whether transubstantiation is true or not, WE believe that we are worshiping Jesus, not mere bread (since we believe the bread is no longer present after consecration). Therefore, since idolatry is a matter of the heart, it's not possible to accuse us of it in that instance.

That's what you're doing. We say, "we're not in favor of torture at all, and believe that some forms of interrogation are not torture." This isn't good enough for you and you define what we think and do in your terms, anyway, just as anti-Catholics do with the Eucharist.

Even if we turn out to be wrong, we were not advocating "torture," because we don't believe that what we advocate is that at all.

Dave! No actually my friend I'm simply following Church teaching that torture is an intrinsic evil. And it can't be justified for any reason; even if our government thinks waterboarding a detainee would save all of North America it still can't be done because it's an intrinsic evil according to the Catholic Church this is a totally black and white issue!

The only reason you're going to resist this Dave is pride because now you would have to admit you were wrong to Ross we both know that! Merry Christmas.

Dave all you've done is allow every Catholic that I know to continue to believe they can water board or do whatever they want because the Church is unclear on Torture which is an intrinsic evil that can't be justified in any way it's astonishing to me that you don't see that especially as serious as a Catholic as you are!

Yes, torture is intrinsically wrong. ZZzzzz (-_-) Next question?

I'm sorry Dave but I'm not going to really dialogue about this subject with somebody who's not going to take it seriously I think this is a perfect opportunity to just move on! Like I said if I were you I would take a serious look at what Mark Shea is stating! . . . At this point Dave considering we're not getting anywhere I simply want to look back on a wonderful trip and a great book that you wrote I'm passing copies out to people in my parish, and we can just go our separate ways and live happily ever after!

Hopefully one of these days you'll realize the difference between a statement like torture is intrinsically wrong and that's where you drop it and what the Church is really stating!

But I highly doubt that's going to happen anytime soon Dave but maybe after some serious prayer who knows you might come around God bless and Merry Christmas!

And Dave just watch; all my page is going to do, is grow and meet the needs of excited Catholics who want to see pilgrimage sites all over the world! The best part of all of this I got a bunch of pro torture Catholics out of my life!

The last message I received from Ross came in an e-mail of 5 January 2014. Before that time I had commented on his site and he deleted my words and blocked me for the final time. Since then I posted again on the Roaming Romans Facebook page. Those comments were removed, too. Here is his last letter:

Dave my old friend. I have no idea why you seem so bitter against Ross? Things are absolutely LOVELY in Boise. My wonderful Deacon Bill Burn's just completely demolished you in his blog. Here you are posting scripture TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT on your wall, trying to claim Jesus is advocating Torture, and you have missed the mark by a million miles. Your the paid apologist not me! LOL. I would love to see you guys send my Bishop stuff I have said on facebook (As if that is going to matter, I am not representing the Church officially, I am not a paid Apologist, this would be a perfect opportunity to show my Bishop YOUR blogs and what your posting on your wall, and we can get your Bishop in involved. I'm not the one directly contradicting the Catholic Church.) As for my friends. My friend count is just under 5000. Of course I am picking up REALLY strong Catholics from Mark Shea's friend pool, that aren't practicing this bizarre Caffeteria Catholicism that is so popular these days. Any way my friend. God blessAnd I am sure strong Catholics like Nicole [DeMille] will keep you blocked, simply because your a near occasion for sin. And so will I. Pax Ross

*****

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on January 26, 2015 13:32

January 23, 2015

Was Pope Francis Correct in Publicly Rebuking as "Irresponsible" a Woman Who Had Had Seven C-Sections?

This is the latest complaint of Pope Francis' endless, relentless (and, I've found, usually wrongheaded) critics. It's the second aspect of the infamous "rabbits" controversy that I wrote about two days ago.

Here are the pope's related remarks, as recorded in America magazine:

This does not mean that the Christian must make children in series. I rebuked a woman some months ago in a parish who was pregnant eight times, with seven C-sections (cesareans). “But do you want to leave seven orphans? That is to tempt God! (Paul VI) speaks of responsible parenthood.

[. . . ]

. . . the key word is the one the Church always uses all the time and even I use it: it is responsible parenthood. how do we do this? With dialogue. Each person with his pastor seeks how to do that responsible parenthood.

That example I mentioned shortly before about that woman who was expecting her eighth (child) and already had seven who were born with caesareans. That is an irresponsibility (That woman might say) 'no but I trust in God' But God gives you methods to be responsible. Some think that, excuse me if I use that word, that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood!

A woman who is a semi-regular visitor to my Facebook page, wrote in a public post there:

I don't trust the liberal media and I do try to check original sources. And I love Pope Francis -- I really do. But I think the choice of wording was poor and I also think he threw the pregnant lady waiting for her 8th surgical delivery under the bus. I'm sorry Dave but every time I read that I wince. And what is this "tempting God" theology as it relates to being open to new life? I don't recall ever seeing that in the Theology of the Body, and I'm pretty sure this lady wasn't trying to test God's goodness or absolute power! I think Pope Francis needs to find a way to be pastoral in his evangelizing attempts -- a way that won't hurt and sadden the rest of the flock!

I replied:

It's being an irresponsible parent, is what. The pope was exactly right. Now people are going after him for attacking this woman, while ignoring his point: that she ignored grave reasons for not conceiving another child, and put her children at risk of losing their mother (as he stated).

Grave reasons for not having further children, or spacing them, is every bit a part of Humanae Vitae as being open to life is. The two are not contradictory.

She counter-replied:

Where is the evidence that the pregnant woman and her husband " ignored" grave reasons. Perhaps they factored them in. I'm really surprised at you David -- and not in a good way.

This led me to make a lengthy and detailed response:

* * * * *
I don't see that it is even arguable. First of all, the pope was himself familiar with the woman's case (having rebuked her in person); therefore he would have known (most likely) more factors than the ones he mentioned in his interview. As usual, he is not being given the benefit of the doubt by his critics. In an article in Vatican Insider it's stated:

It is clear that he scolded this woman not because she had fallen pregnant with her eighth child but because she was going to have her eighth child having given birth by cesarian seven times before that meaning that she was putting herself seriously at risk.

So now the argument (if kept up) would be over whether C-sections entail a greater risk. Yes, they do. Here is what the Wikipedia article on the topic states:

Risks to the mother

In those who are low risk the risk of death for Caesarian sections is 13 per 100,000 and for vaginal birth 3.5 per 100,000 in the developed world.[4] The UK National Health Service gives the risk of death for the mother as three times that of a vaginal birth.[11]

In Canada the difference in bad outcome in the mother (e.g. cardiac arrest, wound hematoma, or hysterectomy) was 1.8 additional cases per 100 or three times the risk.[12]

. . . As with all types of abdominal surgeries, a Caesarean section is associated with risks of postoperative adhesions, incisional hernias (which may require surgical correction) and wound infections.[13] If a Caesarean is performed under emergency situations, the risk of the surgery may be increased due to a number of factors. The patient's stomach may not be empty, increasing the anaesthesia risk.[14] Other risks include severe blood loss (which may require a blood transfusion) and postdural-puncture spinal headaches.[13]

Women who had Caesarean sections were more likely to have problems with later pregnancies, and it is recommended that women who want larger families should not seek an elective Caesarean. The risk of placenta accreta, a potentially life-threatening condition, is 0.13% after two Caesarean sections, but increases to 2.13% after four and then to 6.74% after six or more. Along with this is a similar rise in the risk of emergency hysterectomies at delivery.[15]

Mothers can experience increased incidence of postnatal depression, and can experience significant psychological birth trauma and ongoing birth-related post-traumatic stress disorder after obstetric intervention during the birthing process.[16] Factors like pain in first stage of labor, feelings of powerlessness, intrusive emergency obstetric intervention are important in the development of birth trauma.[16]

Subsequent pregnancies

Further information: Delivery after previous Caesarean section

Women who have had a Caesarean for any reason are somewhat less likely to become pregnant or give birth again as compared to women who have previously only delivered vaginally.[17]

Women who had just one previous Caesarean section are more likely to have problems with their second birth.[4] Delivery after previous Caesarean section is by either of two main options:

Vaginal birth after Caesarean section (VBAC)

Elective repeat Caesarean section (ERCS)

Both have higher risks than a vaginal birth with no previous Caesarean section. Criteria for making VBAC include that the previous Caesarean section should be a low transverse one. VBAC (compared to ERCS) confers a higher risk for mainly uterine rupture and perinatal death of the child.[18] Furthermore, opting for VBAC results in 20-40% of times in that Caesarean section is performed eventually anyway, with greater risks of complications in an emergent repeat Caesarean section than in an ERCS.[19][20] On the other hand, VBAC confers less maternal morbidity and a decreased risk of complications in future pregnancies than ERCS.[21]

There were also additional risks to the baby that were described in the article.

Wikipedia also has an entire article entitled: "Delivery after previous Caesarean section" which details a host of risks involved.

Fellow Catholic apologist Scott Eric Alt stated in his excellent paper on this topic:

[N]othing at all is “bad about a C-section,” . . . the pope was speaking of a woman who had already had seven of them and was going out of her way to get pregnant again. A Facebook friend and fellow Catholic blogger, JoAnna Wahlund, explains why the pope was right to be concerned. (This was in a Facebook thread on my own page.)
All pregnancies have the potential to be risky. But seven C-sections drastically increases the risk of placenta accreta, which can cause the uterus to rupture (killing both mom and baby). If a woman has had seven C-sections, her uterus is paper thin, and doctors tell her, “Another pregnancy could very well kill you and your child,” then yes, it is risky and irresponsible to deliberately seek to achieve pregnancy in that situation.
Now, what the pope says, in effect . . ., is not, Don’t have a C-section but, If you’ve had seven of them, maybe going out of your way to get pregnant again isn’t the best thing. Don’t tempt God. There are licit ways for you to avoid pregnancy, which you should use. If you do otherwise, you risk that you will die, your baby will die, and your other children will be left without a mother. Responsible parenthood.

Therefore, the pope's reasoning is perfectly in accord with medical knowledge (as well as Catholic ethical teaching and thinking on reproduction and childbirth). C-sections entail not insignificant risk; multiple ones entail that much more risk. It is (generally speaking) irresponsible to deliberately have eight c-sections.

For further information about the risks of multiple c-sections, see:

Multiple C-Section Complications (Sandi Busch, Livestrong, 10-24-13)

Multiple C-Sections: How Many Is Too Many? (Elizabeth McGee, C-Section Birth & Recovery, March 2009)

Placenta Accreta: Multiple C-Sections Can Kill Mother (Susan Donaldson James, ABC News, 4-18-11, with accompanying video)

How many C-sections can a woman safely have? (Roger W. Harms, M.D., Mayo Clinic, 6-12-12)

Maternal Morbidity Associated With Multiple Repeat Cesarean Deliveries (Robert Silver, MD et al, Obstetrics & Gynecology: June 2006 - Volume 107 - Issue 6 - pp 1226-1232; with a host of further related articles listed)

Multiple C-Sections Linked to Raised Complication Risks: Study Women who had 5 or more cesarean-section deliveries had more bleeding, preterm births (US News and World Report: Health, 11-1-12)

Intra-operative complications increase with successive number of cesarean sections: Myth or fact? (Shumaila Zia and Muhammad Rafique, Obstetrics and Gynecology Science, May 2014; 57(3): 187–192)

Once again, his rebuke was a loving and wise one, and he deserves no scolding or withering criticism for making it.

People want to criticize him, moreover, because he mentioned a real person. He didn't mention her name. In the Bible, St. Paul mentions actual names of people whom he was rebuking:

2 Timothy 2:16-18 (RSV) Avoid such godless chatter, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, [17] and their talk will eat its way like gangrene. Among them are Hymenae'us and Phile'tus, [18] who have swerved from the truth by holding that the resurrection is past already. They are upsetting the faith of some.

2 Timothy 4:14-15 Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will requite him for his deeds. [15] Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message.

Others, like Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8:9-24), had their names mentioned in Scripture, to be known for posterity as a bad example. St. Paul wrote at length about a person in the Corinthian church (though not by name this time; just like the pope's statement) whom he recommended as a recipient of social stigmatization until he repented:

1 Corinthians 5:1-5 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father's wife. [2] And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. [3] For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment [4] in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, [5] you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Later, Paul told them to receive the man back into the fold after he repented (2 Cor 2:6-11). It was intended to help this person and to provide an example of how we should not act (in terms of sin), and how the community should react to the sinner, for the purpose of his repentance and restoration.

Likewise, the pope in rebuking this woman (the first time, in person), was trying to help her to better follow Catholic teaching. And by bringing it up again, he was trying to illustrate by bad example, how women should apply the responsibilities of parenthood, according to the Church. This helps people, too.

The problem is that all this is lost in today's society. Rebukes are widely regarded as terrible, "judgmental" or "intolerant" things and "personal insults" and we mustn't ever do that (unless, of course, the pope is the target). The notion of the loving rebuke for pastoral purposes is almost totally lost, even within the Church. This is what happens when people think more like the surrounding culture than according to a Catholic or otherwise Christian worldview. St. Paul also warned us:

Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

I don't see that the pope has done anything wrong here, according to either the Bible or Catholic teaching. On the contrary, he issued a loving (though admittedly very stern) rebuke (in essence, an act of love): the example of which will help other women to avoid the same mistaken perspective. But because of our current cultural mindset, many cannot or will not receive it as such , and realize that it is entirely within a biblical worldview to do such a thing. He acted very much as St. Paul would (judging by the above examples), and Paul urged us to imitate him (1 Cor 4:16; Phil 3:17; 2 Thess 3:7, 9) as he in turn imitated Christ (1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thess 1:6). The Vicar of Christ should certainly imitate Christ and also the great Apostle Paul, who imitated our Lord.

* * * * *

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on January 23, 2015 10:05

← Previous 1 2 … 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 … 66 67 Next →

Dave Armstrong's Blog

Dave Armstrong's profile
20 followers

Dave Armstrong isn't a Goodreads Author (yet), but they do have a blog, so here are some recent posts imported from their feed.