Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 17

Books by Dave Armstrong: Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: 80 Short Essays in Defense of the Catholic Faith

  [to be published on 30 August 2014, unless it is under contract with an "official" publisher]

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

Dedication I. Bible and Tradition (Authority) 
1.Tradition is Not Always a Bad Word in Scripture +2. The Catholic “Three-Legged Stool” vs. Sola Scriptura 3. Tradition: Short Reflection & Basic Explanation4. The Bereans & “Searching the Scriptures” 5. Ten Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament  II. Doctrine of the Church (Ecclesiology)
6. The Catholic Church: Why we Accept Her Claims7. Catholic Ecclesiology & the Jerusalem Council8. Three Biblical Arguments for an Authoritative Church +9. “Call No Man Father” & Calling Catholic Priests Father * 10. We Believe All that the Catholic Church Teaches11. On the Scandal of the Outrageous Claim to be a Church 12. On Whether God Would Protect His Church from Error 13. Are Church Councils More Authoritative than Popes?
III. Priestly Celibacy
14. Short Exposition on Catholic Priestly Celibacy 15. The Celibate Priesthood as a Higher Calling 16. A New (?) Argument for Mandatory Priestly Celibacy
IV.Theology of Salvation (Soteriology)
17. Works Can be Good or Bad, Just as Traditions Are 18. Faith & Works (But Not Justification) in Isaiah Ch. 1 19. Catholic Soteriology in John 3:36 (“Disobey the Son”) 20. Hebrews 3:14 (Lots of Catholic Theology on Salvation) 21. Unanswered Prayers of Jesus as a Counter-Reply to Limited Atonement 22. John 12:32 vs. John Calvin & Limited Atonement 23. God Doesn't Predestine the Damned (2 Thess 2:10-12)
V. Purgatory and Penance
24. Prayer, Penance, & the Eternal Destiny of Others 25. The Abundant Biblical Support for Lent *26. Divine Chastisement (or, Purgatory in ThisLife) *
VI. The Holy Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass
27. Mystery is No Basis for Rejecting Transubstantiation *28. On the Nature of Idolatry 29. “The Apostle Paul Says He is a 'Priest'?! Where?!”
VII. Sacramentals, Devotions, and Worship
30. Sacramentalism & the Bible +31. Biblical Support for Ritualistic & Formal Worship +32. Is the Rosary “Vain Repetition”? *
VIII. The Communion of Saints and Angels
33. Asking Saints to Intercede is a Teaching of Jesus *34. Praying to Angels & Angelic Intercession *35. Worshiping God Through Images in Holy Scripture36. Martin Luther's Belief in the Invocation & Intercession of Mary & the Saints, as Late as 1521 37. The False Doctrine of “Soul Sleep”38. New (?) Biblical Argument for the Veneration of Saints: God “In” & “Through” St. Paul
IX. The Blessed Virgin Mary (Mariology)
39. Biblical Arguments for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary *40. Holy Ground & the Perpetual Virginity of Mary *41. Rationalist Objection to the In Partu Virginity of Mary42. Martin Luther & the Immaculate Purification of Mary*43. Mary's Immaculate Conception & the Bible*44. Quick Biblical Proof that Mary is the Mother of God 45. The Bible & the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary *46. Mary the “Queen Mother” & “Queen of Heaven”47. Mary as the Woman in Revelation 1248. Biblical Analogies for Marian Apparitions
X. Papal Infallibility
49. Protestant Difficulties Regarding Papal Infallibility50. The So-Called “Infallibility Regress” Objection
XI. Christology and Trinitarianism
51. The Bible “Never Says that Jesus is God”? Wrong! +52. The Holy Trinity Proven from Scripture + 53. Is Trinitarianism Demonstrable from Scripture Alone? 54. Trinitarian Baptismal Formula & “Jesus Only” Baptism 55. Should God the Father be Visually Depicted in Paintings? 56. Satan's Tempting of Jesus as a Proof of His Divinity57. Jesus' Divinity & Matthew 21:16 (cf. Psalms 8:2) 58. Jesus is Explicitly, Directly Called “God” (Romans 9:5)59. Jesus' Agony in the Garden vs. “Be Not Anxious”
XII. Marriage and Sexuality
60. Annulment is Not Catholic Divorce 61. Contraception: “Be Fruitful and Multiply” * 62. Contraception: God Blesses Parents with Children * 63. Contraception: Onan's Sin & Punishment64. Reply to an Attack Against NFP & Spacing of Children65. Contraception, Murder, & the Contralife Will66. Does the Bible Condemn Homosexual Acts?67. St. Paul's Argument from Nature Against Homosexual Acts (Romans 1) 68. The Prohibition of Premarital Sex in the New Testament 69. Does 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 Sanction Premarital Sex? 70. Thoughts on Women's Ordination
XIII. Hell, the Devil, and Demons
71. Philosophical Defense of the Necessity of Hell 72. The Stupidity of the Devil 73. Demon Possession & Modern Bible Translation Bias 74. The “Conditional” Possibility of Universalism Refuted
XIV. Philosophy, History, and Apologetics
75. Thoughts on a Perfect God Creating an Imperfect World 76. Can God be Blamed for the Nazi Holocaust? 77. The Inevitability of Development of Doctrine 78. New Testament Proofs of Noah's Historical Existence * 79. Jesus' Use of Socratic Method in His Teaching80. Apologetics Isn't Saying You're Sorry for Your Faith! +
* * * * *
* = originally published in Seton Magazine : The Premier Online Magazine for Catholic Homeschoolers (from March to July 2014). See my author page with links to all the articles.

+ = originally published in The Michigan Catholic : the official newspaper for the Archdiocese of Detroit (from May to August 2014). See my author page with links to all the articles.

INTRODUCTION

 This is a collection of writing that is precisely described in the book title: essays that are 1) short (usually two or three pages), 2) characterized by lots of biblical argumentation, and 3) in defense of Catholicism (apologetics). Most of them came about as a result of my ongoing efforts to comment on issues that regularly come up in “worlds” of Catholic apologetics and theology online.The relative brevity of the chapters are indications of the trend in my apologetic writing for many years now: precise, “quick” answers to apologetics questions. For better or ill, this is the world that we live in, and the apologist must make efforts (as St. Paul did, and as Vatican II stressed) to “meet people where they are at.” I don't deny the continuing utility and necessity of longer treatments (my “corpus” still contains plenty of those!), but most people prefer shorter essays, and their interest in theology and apologetics generally doesn't extend to treatise-length expositions. This is all the more true for beginners in theology.Many of these essays were written as columns for Seton Magazine, which is devoted to Catholic homeschoolers. Those were all around 800 words. Others (1000 words in length) came from my regular column in The Michigan Catholic: the official newspaper for my archdiocese of Detroit. Additionally, some were originally posted as part of my work in the Internet forum of The Coming Home Network from 2007-2010 (I was the head moderator during that period), and several were initiated on Facebook as well.What all have in common is the desire to answer the questions that people ask, and to make the Catholic faith more understandable, leading to a confident belief, and the ability to “make a defense” (1 Peter 3:15) for this faith as opportunities arise. By God's grace I hope I have accomplished these goals.Thanks so much for reading, and God bless you!
PURCHASE
***

Has Joshua's Altar on Mt. Ebal Been Discovered and Verified by Archaeology?

Here are the relevant biblical texts, before we begin our survey of the history of the excavations on Mt. Ebal:
Exodus 20:24-26 (RSV) An altar of earth you shall make for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen; in every place where I cause my name to be remembered I will come to you and bless you. [25] And if you make me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stones; for if you wield your tool upon it you profane it. [26] And you shall not go up by steps to my altar, that your nakedness be not exposed on it.'
Deuteronomy 27:1-13Now Moses and the elders of Israel commanded the people, saying, "Keep all the commandment which I command you this day. [2] And on the day you pass over the Jordan to the land which the LORD your God gives you, you shall set up large stones, and plaster them with plaster; [3] and you shall write upon them all the words of this law, when you pass over to enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, a land flowing with milk and honey, as the LORD, the God of your fathers, has promised you. [4] And when you have passed over the Jordan, you shall set up these stones, concerning which I command you this day, on Mount Ebal, and you shall plaster them with plaster. [5] And there you shall build an altar to the LORD your God, an altar of stones; you shall lift up no iron tool upon them. [6] You shall build an altar to the LORD your God of unhewn stones; and you shall offer burnt offerings on it to the LORD your God; [7] and you shall sacrifice peace offerings, and shall eat there; and you shall rejoice before the LORD your God. [8] And you shall write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly." [9] And Moses and the Levitical priests said to all Israel, "Keep silence and hear, O Israel: this day you have become the people of the LORD your God. [10] You shall therefore obey the voice of the LORD your God, keeping his commandments and his statutes, which I command you this day." [11] And Moses charged the people the same day, saying, [12] "When you have passed over the Jordan, these shall stand upon Mount Ger'izim to bless the people: Simeon, Levi, Judah, Is'sachar, Joseph, and Benjamin. [13] And these shall stand upon Mount Ebal for the curse: Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zeb'ulun, Dan, and Naph'tali. (cf. 11:26-29)
Joshua 8:30-35 Then Joshua built an altar in Mount Ebal to the LORD, the God of Israel, [31] as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded the people of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, "an altar of unhewn stones, upon which no man has lifted an iron tool"; and they offered on it burnt offerings to the LORD, and sacrificed peace offerings. [32] And there, in the presence of the people of Israel, he wrote upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he had written. [33] And all Israel, sojourner as well as homeborn, with their elders and officers and their judges, stood on opposite sides of the ark before the Levitical priests who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, half of them in front of Mount Ger'izim and half of them in front of Mount Ebal, as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded at the first, that they should bless the people of Israel. [34] And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the book of the law. [35] There was not a word of all that Moses commanded which Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the sojourners who lived among them.
The central figurein our story isDr. Adam Zertal, Professor, Dept. of Archaeology at the University of Haifa (and its chairman from 1996-1999). He received his Ph.D. from Tel Aviv University in 1988. His dissertation was entitled, “The Israelite Settlement in the Hill Country of Manasseh”.He is also the author of the entries on Mt. Ebal in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land(edited by Ephraim Stern, Jerusalem: 1993; see pp. 375-377), and The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East(edited by Eric M. Meyers, Oxford Univ. Press, 1996; see pp. 179-180).
Additionally, Zertalhas written five books in Hebrew about the hill country of Manasseh, from 1988 to 1999. Zertal described his earlier positions in a 2010 interview:
Zertal certainly knows the geographical area that he specializes in very well. The same article notes that:
When he made his discovery in April 1980, he was not inclined to support biblical texts at all. He stated later:
At that time I never dreamt that we were dealing with the altar, because I was taught in Tel Aviv University - the center of anti-Biblical tendencies, where I learned that Biblical theories are untrue, and that Biblical accounts were written later, and the like. I didn't even know of the story of the Joshua's altar. But we surveyed every meter of the site, and in the course of nine years of excavation, we discovered a very old structure with no parallels to anything we had seen before. Dr. Zertal published his initial findings and conclusions along these lines in his article, “Has Joshua’s Altar been Found on Mount Ebal?”, Biblical Archaeology ReviewXI (1985), pp. 26-44. I shall both cite and summarize this striking piece (it can be read on Steve Rudd's web page: see footnote 3):
On a cool spring afternoon in April-April 6, 1980, to be exact-when we had nearly completed our survey of the mountain, we came upon a large heap of stones that was not very different from the thousands of stone heaps we had already found, collected by farmers as they cleared their fields for planting. True, the stone heap was somewhat larger than the typical one, but what really distinguished it was the great quantity of pottery sherds lying around it.  We were immediately able to date these sherds to the early part of the period archaeologists call Iron Age 1 (1220-1000 B.C.), the period during which the Israelites entered Canaan and settled there. Iron Age 1 also includes the period of the Judges.
. . . It took us two years to raise funds to excavate the heap of stones, and to organize our expedition. But I must confess we did not rush, for we never dreamed that the site would prove to be the earliest and most complete Israelite cultic center ever discovered and the prototype of all later ones. It took us another two years and three seasons of digging to find out what we were really excavating.
What he found was a nearly square structure, almost nine feet high, and about 25 by 30 feet in width and length. Zertal's first theory was that it was perhaps a “watchtower” or a “farmhouse.” But it was not like any other farmhouse in the area that he was familiar with. It had no entrance. He also ruled out the watchtower theory, since he saw no reason for one to be there. No Iron Age settlement was nearby. Evidence then started surfacing as to its function as an altar:
. . . the bones, which were found in such large quantities in the filling, were sent for analysis to the zoology department of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The bones proved to be from young male bulls, sheep, goats and fallow deer. . . . The first chapter of Leviticus describes the animals that may be offered as sacrifices. A burnt offering must be a male without blemish (Leviticus 1:3). It may be a bull (Leviticus 1:5) or a sheep or a goat (Leviticus 1:10). The close match of the bones we found in the fill with this description in Leviticus 1 was a strong hint as to the nature of the structure we were excavating.
. . . 942 bones were examined, representing 50-100 specimens. These were attributed to four kinds of animals: goats, sheep, cattle, and fallow deer. The latter is a light-spotted animal which inhabited the woodlands of our country in antiquity. Examination of the sex and age of the animals revealed that all those that could be diagnosed were young males, approximately one year old. This correlates remarkably with the laws of sacrifice in the book of Leviticus:
And the Lord called unto Moses, and spoke unto him out of the tent of meeting, saying: Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: When any man of you bringeth an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd or of the flock. If his offering be a burnt-offering of the herd, he shall offer it a male without blemish" (Leviticus 1:1-3).
A great part of the bones, as we mentioned, had been burned over a fire and were cut near the joints. Being scorched in this way attests that the flesh was not intended for eating but was burned over an open fire (i.e. not in an oven). Thus the high correlation with the biblical laws of sacrifice, together with the great architectural resemblance to Israelite altars, confirmed the view that we were dealing with a cultic site and altar from the beginning of the Israelite settlement.
The Hebrews were allowed to eat deer:
Deuteronomy 14:4-5 These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, [5] the hart, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain-sheep.
It was also discovered that underneath the center of the structure was an older circular stone formation of about 6.5 feet in diameter. Some have speculated that this was Joshua's altar, over which a later altar was built.  Moreover, the structure consisted of several courts. In these were found bones of animals that had not been burned, and where the animals were eaten. This lined up with Deuteronomy 27:7 (see above). The ramp up to the top also corresponds to Exodus 20:26 (above). Zertal describes it:
A ramp of unhewn stones, 4 feet wide by 23 feet long, rises to the top of the platform from the southwest. The gentle incline, easily climbed . . . the ramp on our Mt Ebal altar indicates a strict adherence to the law in Exodus 20:26, which requires a ramp rather than steps: . . .
Zertal then goes into a detailed description of altars as described in the Bible, and comparisons to those of other non-Hebrew ancient near Eastern altars. Everything fits nicely into the theory that the structure on Mt. Ebal is, in fact, an early Hebrew altar. He makes note of another factor suggesting an early Israelite date:
Every other ancient altar that has been discovered thus far, however, was connected with a temple, or as at Beer-Sheva, was in a city where we may suppose a temple existed in connection with the altar (2 Kings 23:8). Our altar alone seems to have been an independent altar in the country side, not associated with a temple or a settlement. This is probably because the Mt. Ebal altar and its associated cult site were built at a very early period in the development of Israelite cult and religion; at that time, there was no temple. Moreover, the Mt. Ebal cult center lasted for only a relatively short time. It is unlikely that a temple could develop in such a short time. Even at Shiloh, which was the site of the successor to the Mt. Ebal cult center, no temple was built.
Zertal concludes:
With respect to the Mt. Ebal altar, . . . all the scientific evidence fits very well with the Biblical description. The three main factors that correlate precisely are the period, the nature of the site, and the location. True, no inscriptions have been found as yet. But apart from that one point, it may be said with all scientific restraint that there must be a connection between the strong, important and authentic Biblical tradition that identifies Mt. Ebal as a central Israelite cultic center and the gathering place of the Israelite tribes, on the one hand, and the site unearthed by us, on the other. . . . We have on Mt. Ebal not only the complete prototype of an Israelite altar, but moreover, a site that might prove to be directly related to the Biblical traditions concerning Joshua's building of an altar on Mt. Ebal.
Other evidences of corresponding dates were also found: an “Egyptian-style scarab” which is determined through five other known parallels to date from the 13th-12th century B. C. Other distinctive forms of pottery found, belong to the same period. Most remarkably, this scarab and others found at the location “date to the time of the great Egyptian pharaoh, Ramses II, who is considered the pharaoh of the exodus from Egypt.”
In November 2004, Dr. Zertal made additional comments and conclusions about the Mt. Ebal excavations, updating his earlier ones. He notes the consensus that has been established in archaeology and continuing skepticism in considerable sectors of that community:
No scholar challenges the fact that this is an extremely important and authentic tradition dealing with a central event in the life of the people. All agree that this event took place on Mt. 'Ebal. As to the date of the event and the date it was recorded, however, views vary. . . . The central altar was erected on Mt. 'Ebal, and there Israel became "a people unto the Lord thy God" (Deuteronomy 27:9); . . . Reputable scholars have suggested that the entire story of the conquest is nothing more than a later, etiological tradition which sets out to account for various manifestations in the light of mythological traditions and folklore. Recent extensive archaeological surveys of the central hill country, however, reveal clearly the process of Israelite settlement as a major settlement movement of the era (1250-1100 b.c.e.). Hundreds of newly-founded, small settlements were established within a short period throughout the hilly allotments of the tribes of Manasseh, Ephraim and Benjamin. The settlers used a characteristic type of pottery and their houses were generally built on a three- or four-room plan.
. . . The cultic site on Mt. Ebal satisfies the three criteria necessary to identify a biblical site: chronological (beginning of the Israelite settlement), geographical, and the nature of the site (a cultic center with a burnt-offering altar). In view of this analysis, the identity of the biblical story and this site as the first inter-tribal center of the Israelite tribes can hardly be doubted. This is the first time a complete Israelite cultic center, including an altar for burnt offerings, is available for study. . . . The altar on Mt. 'Ebal is not only the most ancient and complete altar, but also the prototype of the Israelite burnt offering altar of the First and Second Temple periods. The Mesopotamian architectural influence on the structure of the altar is also very interesting, both in its stepped construction and in the orientation of its corners to the north, south, east, and west.
. . . The varieties of animal bones discovered are evidence that the laws of sacrifice were followed from the very beginnings of the Israelite religion. Despite the presence of wild boars in the region, not a single bone of this animal, not fit for sacrifice, was found on Mt. 'Ebal.Smithsonian Magazine took note of Dr. Zertal's claims in May 2006.In this search, the Old Testament has quite literally been his guide. This approach was once common for archaeologists in Israel, but in recent years it has come to define an extreme position in a debate over whether the Bible should be read as historical fact or metaphorical fiction.
Those in Zertal’s camp say that all, or nearly all, the events in the early books of the Old Testament not only actually happened but are supported by material evidence on the ground. On the other side are the so-called biblical minimalists, who argue that the Old Testament is literary rather than historical—the work of ideologues who wrote it between the fifth and second centuries b.c.—and that Moses, Joshua, David and Solomon never even existed. A third group accepts the Bible as folk memory transmuted into myth—a mixture of fact and fiction. They argue over the balance between the two.
. . . For the literalists, the stones at Mount Ebal are crucial. “If this corroborates exactly what is written in that very old part of the Bible,” says Zertal, “it means that probably other parts are historically correct. The impact is tremendous.”
Bible scholar and commentator Pekka Pitkänen (whose doctoral work was devoted to very similar areas of study) defends in several respects the findings of Dr. Zertal:[W]hen scholars object to the possibility of interpreting the site as Joshua's altar based on a reading of the book of Joshua, they are not proceeding on an archaeological basis, but replacing one literary reading of the biblical text with another . . .
. . . if we think that the exodus/early settlement happened in the thirteenth century, it should rather be this altar [the round one lower in the strata] that should be associated with Joshua, if anything. Zertal himself thinks that the older altar was part of a foundation ceremony before the building of the actual altar (A. Zertal, personal communication, December 1999).
. . . What about the plastered stones? . . . one has to stress the fact that finding plaster at the site is extraordinary. [see Dt 27:2, 4 above]
. . . the uniqueness of the main structure with its surrounding wall complex and its possible connections with Joshua make the question of the nature of the site at Mount Ebal nothing less than intriguing. Also the fact that no structure has been found at Mount Ebal from Iron Age II rather speaks of the antiquity of the Joshua tradition, as there is no evidence of a cultic centre at Mount Ebal during the time of the monarchy from which to draw the tradition.Richard S. Hess, Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Denver Seminary (Ph.D. from Hebrew Union College), and author of over 100 scholarly articles, claims in his commentary on Joshua:
[A]fter reading the excavator's report and conducting a visual tour of the site, it certainly looks like an early Israelite altar such as is described in this text in Joshua. Despite strong opposition by others, there remains no better explanation than that this represents an anomalous Early Iron Age cultic site that has no clear cultural antecedents anywhere in the region.Dr. Hess's extraordinary academic achievements in Old Testament study[W]hen the full body of evidence is considered, the conclusion that the site seems more like a cult installation than like anything described by competing theories is hard to deny. . . . on balance, Zertal's cultic theory may well prevail.
Kenneth A. KitchenHe doesn't take a final position on Zertal's opinion, and writes, “There is no final proof or disproof for either a watchtower or an altar complex (of Joshua or otherwise).” But he strongly critiques the closed-mindedness of Zertal's vocal critics:
It is noteworthy that the fiercest opposition to the specter of Joshua's altar has come from minds not open to such revolutionary possibilities. Thus, all that Kempinski could finally offer against the concept was the old views about the theoretical late (Deuteronomic) date for the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua in the seventh century which are not fact, merely dogma. . . . To Rainey's charge that only the gullible would believe Zertal's claim, one may observe that such people as Coogan and Mazar (who both grant a cultic possibility) could hardly be thus dismissed. Colorful language is not the answer either. In short, Zertal's views is feasible, but absolute certainty eludes us.We see, then, that prior hostile bias and academic egos are in full display within biblical and Palestinian archaeology (as we would fully expect). In my “non-scholarly” opinion, for whatever it's worth, I think a good deal of confirming evidence is in play, consistent with the related biblical texts to an extraordinary degree. I agree that it's not absolutely “proven” to be Joshua's altar, but few things admit of absolute proof, so that doesn't concern me, and I am most impressed by the cumulative archaeological evidence.

Footnotes
Gilgal Education Center: Professor Adam Zertal; University of Haifa (http://www.gilgalvisitorcenter.org/wp/professor-adam-zertal-2/) “Christian in Israel: Long time archaeological riddle solved,” by Judy Siegel-Itzkovich, The Jerusalem Post, 2 July 2010. “Joshua's Altar on Mt. Ebal, Israel”; extensive web page by archaeology buff Steve Rudd (http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-altar-of-joshua.htm)“Shechem and mount 'ebal in the bible: is this indeed Joshua's altar?” (http://ebal.haifa.ac.il/ebal06.html) “Shifting Ground in the Holy Land Archaeology is casting new light on the Old Testament,” by Jennifer Wallace (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/shifting-ground-in-the-holy-land-114897288/?page=1) Joshua [Apollos Old Testament Commentary], (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2010): “Excursus 7: The Archaeology of Mt. Ebal,” pp. 192-214. The author drew heavily from his earlier work, Central Sanctuary and Centralization of Worship in Ancient Israel: From The Settlement To The Building Of Solomons Temple (Piscataway, New Jersey : Gorgias Press, 2004): his doctoral dissertation for the University of Gloucestershire. Ibid., pp. 200, 202-204. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, John H. Walton, general editor (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2009), p. 39. See his Curriculum Vitae: (http://www.denverseminary.edu/about/faculty/member/13474/); also his comments in his book, Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007), pp. 216-219 [including two great close-up photographs]; available to read online at Google Books. Iain Provan, V. Philips Long, Tremper Longman III, (Lousiville: Westminster John Know Press, 2003), p. 186. See Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Kitchen). On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003), pp. 233-234.

RadCathR Elliot Bougis and a Combox Buddy Comically Lash Out at Straw Men of their Own Making (Supposedly Something that I Argued)

Elliot Bougis runs the FideCogitActio web page, where virtually every waking hour is devoted to bashing Pope Francis. Today I ran across comments made at my expense in my occasional Google Search, which locates such things (since virtually never am I informed of such public criticisms, so that I may give my side, or defend meself a bit). This one is an absolute classic and keeper: one for the archives, for sure. "Murray's" words will be in blue; Elliot Bougis' in red.

One "Murray (mgl) made the following comment [I cite all of it] on 18 July 2014:

While we’re sharing random links, I came across this Facebook post by Dave Armstrong (via the RadTrad on Twitter): "Radical Catholic Reactionaryism is a more serious and harmful error than even Modernism/Liberalism/Heterodoxy."

[the link he made to my post didn't work for me, but it may for others. Here is a working link to it]

It struck me because a young priest of my acquaintance posted last week on Facebook that Michael Voris should be condemned for heresy. When I (and others) asked in what sense Voris had obstinately denied some truth defined by the Church, the reply was that a) Voris “loves (what he believes to be Church teaching) more than Jesus,” and b) that he had denied the Church’s indefectibility. Under closer examination, both claims fall apart, but it seems very close to what Armstrong is arguing here. (The same priest later posted a more general criticism of Catholics who want greater “orthodoxy” that was even more similar to Armstrong’s article linked above.)

Long story short, “reactionaryist” Catholics are embittered, think they know better than everyone else, and should be quarantined lest they spread a “quasi-schismatic poison and cancer.” They try to “change the Church into [their] image, which is a far greater sin than what the liberal does.”

I think these things are genuine spiritual risks for traditional Catholics, but this really seems like straining gnats. The Church is populated from top to bottom with modernists (actual or de facto), most lay Catholics disagree with fundamental Church teaching on pelvic issues and the Real presence, baptisms are down sharply from 2001 (let alone 1960) Confessionals are empty, confusion is rampant, nuns are spreading heresy … but those guys who actually try to live their Catholic faith to the best of their abilities, they’re the real problem!

Elliot then chimed in:

Armstrong blocked me a while back on Facebook, so I can’t see the linked page. (Quick, somebody tell Pope Francis that I’m being marginalized! I’ll even send him an honorary jersey for the high altar!) Without putting too fine a point on it, Armstrong is an idiot–provided he genuinely believes that his confabulated Catholic category is more dangerous than what has been denounced by a string of popes for centuries.

[later he added:  [19 July 2014 -- I've updated this comment to emphasize the crucial qualifier .] ]

But unlike him where my papers are concerned, I am quite capable of reading and comprehending, and I was completely aware of the qualifier. If anyone is an "idiot" here (and I say this only rhetorically, mind you), it would be Elliot Bougis, because he applies the epithet based on his mistaken comprehension of what I argued in the first place. I pity the man and the utter waste of brain matter involved in much of his writing.

Murray wrote again:

Yeah, I’ve never read Armstrong before to my knowledge–though I’d heard of him as a well-regarded apologist–but I was shocked at how sloppy and poorly argued his post was, and even more so that this young priest was offering an even more muddled version of Armstrong’s argument to his flock on Facebook. Yes guys, orthodox Catholics are the biggest problem we face. Sheesh.

And Elliot (note the usual "bash Bush"-like obsession with the Holy Father as the source of all that is evil and irritating):

Everybody is rattled, and it shows in sloppy rebuttals. Thank you, Pope Francis.

I then replied [I'll report back whether the comment was allowed through or not]:

Well, it is "shock[ingly] sloppy and poorly argued" if it isn't properly understood in the first place or presented in a gross caricature, as you have done here. Rather than actually dealing with my argument (I know, that is more and more a novelty these days: dialogue rather than caricature, ire, and the quick, derisive dismissal), you quote a priest who says that Michael Voris is a heretic and believes in defectibility and then say "it seems very close to what Armstrong is arguing here" -- thus clearly proving that you did not grasp my post (to put it mildly), since I neither asserted nor argued either thing in it, nor anywhere else, and in fact deny both assertions.

Nor was I arguing against "orthodoxy": which would be ridiculous since I fancy myself rather solidly orthodox. I stated again and again that radical Catholic reactionaries were orthodox. That is not the problem I was addressing, but rather, the danger they pose because they are orthodox and should know better, and can cause more harm in the sense that they move among the orthodox in a way that the modernists / dissidents do not. I wrote: "I am arguing based on the premise of 'to whom much is given, much is required.'"

This is most of the misunderstanding. I explained my reasoning in the combox:

Much of my comparison of the RadCathR and the modernist, I should note, hinges on the subjective / objective distinction. Objectively, the modernists are much worse, due to incomparably greater numbers and influence. Subjectively, the RadCathR is (as argued). This was the perspective of my piece. Since it is two different things being discussed, from two different angles, they don't contradict each other, and both are true.

I utterly detest both errors, and have written and condemned both many times (though more so the errors of the "right" for the reasons explained in the post). Anyone who thinks it is odd that orthodox folks could be roundly criticized for hypocrisy and other "rigorist"-type errors more so than liberals being raked over the coals (in terms of relative time spent) ought to examine Jesus' differential treatment of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

The former were orthodox (so much so that Paul called himself one, and Jesus even told His followers to abide by their teaching, but not to do what they do).  He criticized them for legalistic excess, misplaced priorities, and hypocrisy, which is almost exactly how I approach RadCathRs. But with the Sadducees (sort of the liberals of that time) He merely engaged in a few minor squabbles about the resurrection of the dead (which they denied).

Also, I changed the title a bit upon reflection and some good criticisms in the combox, to make it less harsh, and more qualified. It is now (and has been for over five days): "Radical Catholic Reactionaryism is at Least As Serious an Error as Modernism / Liberalism / Heterodoxy (from one particular perspective, anyway)"

I still wanted to leave an impression that it is very serious error. Since the RadCathR detests the errors of modernism, it is meant to give them a jolt and to realize that from where we sit their errors are quite serious, too.

Armstrong blocked me a while back on Facebook

Well, I was basically kicked off this [i.e., Elliot's] page (or, rudely asked to leave, if there is a difference) a while back after I proved that Elliot was lying about the pope, by citing what turned out to be imaginary words (after which he begrudgingly retracted his argument). This post may not even be allowed as a result. Gotta love that selective presentation: mention one thing and not the other. I have a policy of not allowing RadCathRs on my Facebook page, but they are free as ever to comment on my blog.

Thus, Elliot is quite "free" to comment there (and we'll see if this post is allowed through). If not, in any event, this whole exchange will be posted on my blog (and linked to Facebook), so both sides can be fully aired and readers can be allowed to determine where the truth lies, and either of you can reply if you wish.

Without putting too fine a point on it, Armstrong is an idiot . . . [then he repeats more of the straw man accusations, upon which he came to his conclusion: if they are true]

May God bless you with all good things!

Here is the link to my blog article regarding all this: [linked to this paper]

I'll update any further comments made on the other site.

A sensible blogger (TonyJokin) commented:


In your facebook post, you describe the “reactionary rad-trad” as someone trying to shape the Church in their image. So they like the rigorist heretics (Donatists & Montanists) of old, are a plague in the Church that should be isolated and removed before they do damage.

But this is where we run in to a problem.



The Donatists and Montanists were not appealing to some traditional praxis from before. They did not have the backing of a decision made by the Church on the matter to appeal to. They were simply saying “this is what we believe on the matter and we disagree with what the Church has decided on this particular issue”.


Contrary to that, the “rad-trad” is merely someone who is obstinately holding on to decisions and practices by the Church that were held for 2000 years. These decisions and practices of the Church were always looked with negativity from the outside world and there were those inside the Church who questioned the Church on such positions numerous times using arguments like the ones used today. The Church had clarified why she defended those decisions and practices and valued them. The faithful Catholic grew up learning to think like the Church and the defense of her decisions and practices came to them naturally. Many suffered persecutions and ridicule from their liberal family members as they defended the Church.


But now the Church has not only gotten rid of some of those decisions and practices but also adopted the very things that were warned against. The Catholic faithful who had learned to defend the Church of old, remember the reasons why these things were there before. They can see that the reasons still apply today and notice that the Church is acting like they were arbitrary decisions. To make matters worse, they see young generations being lost by the droves to indifferentism. It is hard to find a young Catholic today who realizes what a grave heresy Protestantism actually is. In very recent times, it is becoming harder to find a young Catholic who understands that sodomy is a grave sin. All of these are clearly fruits that were warned would transpire if the Church changed her positions.


So rad-trads aren’t looking to shape the Church in their image. Neither do they think they know better. They simply want to see the Church go back to the image she was shaped in to by the saints (who did know better) for 2000 years. They want to see the wisdom of the saints that they defended so passionately be respected and adhered to rather than described as “men of their times (but we know better)”.


Instead they see many like you who consider themselves orthodox and treat traditionalists as some rigorist heretics in the Church. Today, there is reason to think that even the Pope may suspect traditionalists as you do. All of this persecution comes for adhering to the tried and tested Catholic wisdom from countless saints (who did know better) which had been accumulated over 2000 years.
Surely, even you must at least see that the situation is not as simple as you make it to be.

I replied, but it didn't post (presumably was deleted). Here is my reply:

Just to clarify; I don't use the term "radtrad" any longer. I coined "radical Catholic reactionary" myself because many legitimate "traditionalists" resented being lumped in with them (and they had a certain point that I granted, though I continue to think that a gradual spectrum exists). Secondly, as stated, I don't call them heretics. I made it a point to include "Catholic" in my coined term. This is sin that goes towards schism (traditionally called rigorism).

I could quibble with many characterizations or assumed premises or conclusions of your post, but all in all, I'd say that what you describe is mostly within the purview of legitimate "traditionalism," which I am in agreement with most of the time.

I don't think the situation is "simple" at all, as an observer of these movements for now 17 years and author of two books on this issue and many scores of papers. The post in question was a "jeremiad": which is screaming from the rooftops that something is wrong and unbalanced. That genre is not known for being subtle and nuanced, but rather, as shocking and graphic, with sweeping language understood to be such. I even quoted Jeremiah's prophecies to illustrate my point in the thread.

Apparently, I'm no longer allowed to post there (nor was I allowed to post the link to this paper), but Bougis did permit my initial long reply (good for him; kudos, bravo, etc.). Then Bougis got in more shots (my replies are intertwined with his shots below):

Remember, Tony:

It’s okay for anti-radtrads to shape a Church to their liking (i.e. devoid of annoying “radtrads”), 

As noted, I don't use the term radtrad any longer, and have removed it from all my papers and books. Nor do I advocate kicking out RadCathRs. I want them to see the error of their ways and cease and desist.

but it’s wrong for committed Catholics to heed long-standing papal guidance by opposing creeping Modernism wherever it is. 

I completely agree, which is why I both detest modernism (as I stated) and oppose it (the distortions and stupefying noncomprehensions continue unabated). But I do lots of things, and there are only so many hours in a day. The biggest way I oppose modernism is by presenting and defending orthodoxy. You defeat darkness not by merely yelling against it or cursing it, but rather, by bringing more light into it, to wipe it out. Thus, every day I am opposing modernism by doing my apologetics which reveal orthodoxy to be true.

Once you internalize that precept, everything will make sense.

Maybe so, but it's not my concept, and so has nothing to do with me. Yet another straw man (see the photo at the top).

As for Mr. Armstrong’s claim that I was “lying,” well that’s a typically sensationalistic claim coming from him. 

He has made it a fine and continually practiced art on his website, where the Holy Father is concerned. But (as I have noted many times), if one looks in the dictionary, "lie" doesn't always have to mean "deliberate falsehood." It can also be a synonym of falsehood. And Bougis clearly did that, since he retracted it. Hence, Dictionary.com for "lie" offers this second meaning for the word used as both a noun ("an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.") and as a verb ("to express what is false; convey a false impression.").

When I became convinced of the inaccuracy of the translations I had cited, I retracted my post. 

No kidding. I already noted that in my reply above ("he begrudgingly retracted his argument"). At first it looked like he would retract with class, but soon an edgy acrimony prevailed and I was hounded off the site.

But that didn’t generate enough shaming and bloodlust for his monthly chest-pounding circuit, so I require the additional smear of being called a liar.

Yet he claims I am characterized by sensationalism? LOL

(Meanwhile, Armstrong never could explain why he at first defended the statements under dispute, but then jettisoned them as erroneous once a bad translation could be cited. I shall have more to say about the “Pope Icarus” saga, believe it or not, God willing, once I find the time.)

All was dealt with at length at the time. In charity, I offered to not mention his name in my resulting blog paper where I defended the pope. That made no difference. He still decided to act like an ass and hound me off of his page when I disagreed too much. So I did a Facebook post where his name was mentioned. The comments of Bougis and others recorded there make for quite fascinating (but sad) reading. At first, in his original paper, he had mocked:

Just wait for it–”It’s the translation.” It’s the standard defense. Of everything. Unless Pope Francis is reported saying something unambiguously Catholic. In which case reporters and translators are suddenly returned their faculties.  

Six days later he retracted his claim after I proved that it was a translation problem. He sounded "nice" in the retraction, but how he acted towards me after that was quite a different story. That's when the fangs came out:

Dave, run along now. I’ve complied with your ultimatum (though I was never clear if the threat was that you’d take me over your right or over your left knee to learn me whatfer). Your services are needed elsewhere. Pope Francis has just jumped the shark–AGAIN:

I wrote at the time:

What he calls my "ultimatum" was an offer in charity that if he would retract the false charge against Pope Francis, I wouldn't mention his name or site in the paper I did about it. I kept to my promise (even though he still charges the pope with heresy in the paper; just without the discredited words that he never said).

And so we see the old biblical adage fulfilled (in full or in part) again:

Proverbs 9:7-8 He who corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse, . . . [8] Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you.

He then kicked me out (and now he is disallowing further comments of mine on his present thread, while others can write about me: just as it was last time). Meanwhile he is free to comment here on my blog. Here's what he wrote:

Do not comment on this thread again, nor on some other thread just to continue the conversation. At some other juncture we may resume this thread, and there are other topics that can be discussed, but for now, you’ve earned yourself a break from me. Thank you, and congratulations.

And later:

Oh good grief, Dave, you really are a prima donna. If you didn’t notice, you blew the O-ring on this thread with your usual water cannon of jabs and special pleading, so if anyone needed moderating, it’s you. The reason I asked you to say no more is because you were getting repetitive all over again. I didn’t say “shut up” and I haven’t “banned” you (you have a real knack for loaded rhetorical framing). I have simply asked you to be the bigger man and respect silence as a guest at my blog. The only reason I have not deleted your comment here is because I agree, you have a right to respond to direct comments, though I would ask other readers not to summon you anymore on this thread. You have your own blog. Enjoy it. 

Pretty entertaining (albeit ridiculous) stuff.

Readers get both sides here, and the full, non-censored debate, whereas on Bougis' site, he cynically deletes whatever of mine that he doesn't care for (leaving only my first reply) -- including the link to this paper -- , while others are free to talk about me or ask me questions in a normal fashion (as Tony did) that I can't reply to there. So I do so here.

* * * * *

On Catholic Answers Cruises and the Inevitability of Capitalistic "Business Models" in Catholic Non-Profit Lay Apostolates (and Apologetics)

This is a follow-up discussion to my previous blog post, entitled, Traditionalist Social Critic Kevin Tierney's Seeming Love-Hate Relationship with Catholic Apologetics. That was my response to Kevin Tierney's rant against Catholic Answer cruises and his put-downs of Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid, and Fr. Brian Harrison as "irrelevant" for the last ten years. 
That was all public Facebook material. But the current discussion taking place is on a friends-only Facebook thread; therefore I can't cite or name the other participants. But I can cite my own words. I will briefly paraphrase comments from three different people, that I was responding to (in brackets and blue color).

* * * * *
I don't oppose in principle the idea of a cruise, for reasons I have given. The reasons given in the latest bashing surely are inadequate to sink a cruise (pun intended). I'd like to see someone respond to Karl Keating's defense of their cruises. That's what a real discussion would look like.

I find the whole discussion rather silly and simple-minded: along the lines of the old saw about "why do you Catholics build these expensive cathedrals when all that money could go to the poor?" Now the answer that any apologist would give to that is a similar apologia that could be given for these cruises (and has been given, by Karl Keating himself).

[Karl's argument there bears too much troubling similarity to the snake-oil salesman televangelist tactics. Lay apologists can't claim that they deserve to be paid based on "the laborer is worth his hire." 99% of Catholic Answers followers can't afford this cruise they are offering. "Business models" of this sort and catering to upper middle class markets are antithetical to Catholicism altogether.]

That's silly. If you are working there, you're qualified for that job, and it deserves remuneration like any other skilled job: just as every DRE or youth minister gets paid by a parish. If they are qualified, they get hired and get paid. Where's the beef?

I was qualified enough to have my books published nine times by five different publishers. So I get paid by 'em (though not much, since it is a 12% cut). Why are these things knocked all the time (by folks who should know better)?

CA begs; so does public TV and Catholic radio and a host of non-profit entities. So why do we have to hear all the moaning and groaning and complaining about CA, as if they are supposed to be ashamed about raising money for a good cause?

For heaven's sake: St. Paul Street Evangelization, that you are involved with (and I am an advisor and edited most of the tracts) solicits fund, too. Are they supposed to be ashamed of that because they are involved with filthy lucre? 

Every non-profit uses a business model to some extent. I probably do less than almost anyone (though I sell books and have a site devoted to that), yet I still don't buy it that all this stuff is somehow intrinsically evil and ought to be bashed in public posts.

[selling products to a Catholic market seems insufficiently "Catholic".  Marketing should play no role in Catholic apostolates. A lot of this mentality comes from evangelical Protestantism. Organizations like CA are a new thing we haven't really seen before.]

So you think Sheed & Ward in the good ol' days did no marketing to sell their books? How stupid would a publisher be not to do so? And what is wrong with it? Every diocese makes "business" and administrative decisions. They have appeals for missions and social services. They have to decide if a parish is losing money, up to possible closure.

You can't escape it. I happen to be personally very uncomfortable with many of the things you observe, myself, yet I don't see how a coherent argument can be made to remove all business and marketing altogether from a publisher who sells books or even an apologetics apostolate.

I cam tell you from firsthand experience (12 1/2 years of full-time apologetics) that selling books or other products is not enough to get by. The market is too small, so any Catholic apostolate has to also solicit funds, just as, e.g., public TV does or charitable endeavors do (like the Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon for medical purposes).

[Dave, you ought to make much more money than you do for all your hard work, but you are only getting scraps from the Catholic market, while others (with fewer children than you have) are making much more money for far less work. And it's distressing to me that you have to be on your best behavior in front of these guys, lest the Catholic fatcats blacklist you, as they have done to others.]  

I appreciate your concern, and I agree that I deserve a higher income for the work that I do. But now you're talking business, ain't you? "Market"? I need to sell books. My booksite is out there, but sales are slow. That has nothing to do with Keating or Madrid or Hahn or any of the others. It has a lot to do with the fact that thinking Catholics who want to read and grow are a small number of people.

But God has provided my family's needs for over a dozen years, and will continue to do so. I'm not worried, and I'm not unhappy. One is always happy if he follows the call that God has for him or her.

You don't know how much another man works, or the dues he has paid.

I don't have to "do" anything. I'm beholden (i.e., in the sense you claim) to no one (one of the few perks I do have, being self-employed). I argue what I do here because it's what I believe, as always. I can't be bought because having lots of money is not a goal of mine.

I have argued against Kevin Tierney's related comments [i.e., the previous blog post linked at the top] and yours because they make no sense, or else have an implicit double standard in them, because the same standards are not applied in other areas. Yet you guys wanna bash the Catholic cruises, and now go after Keating personally?

People will work in secular jobs and help make companies many millions of dollars of profits and they see nothing wrong with that. That's fine and dandy, and I see no posts on Facebook decrying those jobs. All the vitriol is reserved for a wonderful Catholic apostolate like Catholic Answers because it offers cruises.

And if someone dares to defend the idea (as I do), now I am in bed with them and can't speak freely lest I will supposedly be blacklisted? I had this whole discussion with Michael Voris in person. It's sheer nonsense.

If you want to see someone kissing up and brown-nosing shamelessly, watch the two Michael Voris "Mic'D Up" interviews with geocentrist and anti-Semite Robert Sungenis and his sidekick Rick  DeLano.

[this sort of work used to be done mainly by priests and nuns. Now we see married laypeople doing it. The only laypeople who did stuff like this in the past were (pretty much) academics. But groups like CA and others today do their work independent of parishes, dioceses, or schools. And they do marketing techniques. It's not all bad, but it is a legitimate concern to address.]

It's not new at all. I've written about this myth. Ever heard of G. K. Chesterton (married layperson) or Frank Sheed? Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote:

In the first age laymen were most commonly the Apologists. Such were Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Aristides, Hermias, Minucius Felix, Arnobius, and Lactantius. In like manner in this age some of the most prominent defences of the Church are from laymen: as De Maistre, Chateaubriand, Nicolas, Montalembert, and others.

(The Idea of a University, Part II, ch. 4, sec. 4: “General Religious Knowledge,” 1856)

Some other examples of prominent lay apologists are Antoine-Frédéric Ozanam (1813-1853), Guy Lefèvre de la Boderie (1541-1598), and Justus Baronius Calvinus (1570- after 1606), as well as, more recently, Arnold Lunn (1888-1974), Evelyn Waugh (1903-1966), and Catholic historian / apologists, such as Christopher Dawson (1889-1970) and Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953).

See my paper:  Catholic Lay Apologetics: a Long and Noble "Magisterially Approved" History Despite the Fantastically Ignorant and Ubiquitous Charges of Anti-Catholic Critics.

As for being supposedly "independent of parishes, dioceses, or schools," this is untrue. For example, in my case, I write for The Michigan Catholic , the official paper of the archdiocese of Detroit. I have received an Imprimatur from my own bishop. I had the express recommendation of Fr. Hardon, whose residence was in Detroit. I'm connected with several Catholic organizations: all of which are supported by many priests and bishops.

The Catholic Church is all for lay apostolates. It's nothing new and it is encouraged and sanctioned by Holy Mother Church. Those are the facts. And we will not be made to feel ashamed for what we do, as if we are doing some terrible thing.

Now, both of you qualified your remarks somewhat, but many others who argue similarly, do not do so, and I've heard these complaints over and over (and have refuted them many times as well).

[The issue isn't profit or fundraising per se,  but mixing business with Catholic outreach, and trying to reach markets, just like any other business. The problem is with priorities and proper proportion. It's like a big club, and you, Dave, have worked very hard, yet make a pittance, compared to what others are making.]

Ah, but that is itself thinking according to a business model. I don't care if I have all that money. It's not my goal. That may be hard for folks to believe in America, but that is the truth. I'm a radical and advocate of simple living, and a distributist. So if I'm perfectly content, living the life I wanna live, why should you care, as if I am somehow being shorted?

God is providing my needs. What more is needed? Sure, I'd like to sell more books, but as long as I can pay my bills, I'm doin' fine.

[again, the problem is not solicitation of donations, but access for rich people only to intimately interact with Catholic speakers and to go on fabulous cruises, whereas most folks cannot. This is an unacceptable partiality.] 

So how does that work? CA is supposed to say that "if you make above a certain amount of money, we can't accept your donations (insofar as they receive money from the profit of a cruise) because that would be unfair to the people who make less money than you do"?

Businesses (even non-profit ones) have always catered to the wealthy, because that is how they can really fund their work. It's the same in any line of work. I love music as much as anyone on the planet. But I can't get those backstage passes for concerts where you meet the band or the singer. It's only the rich people who can do that (or family members, etc.). One time I was blessed that a friend of mine with basketball connections got us 4th row seats for the Pistons (the tickets each said it would have cost $750). Got to meet Pistons Hall-of-Famer Joe Dumars, too. I could never have done that. But the person with connections made it possible.

I got to go on a very nice large sailboat (twice) that friends of ours own. I could have never dreamt of having any such thing, etc. There are a host of examples. The Coming Home Network paid for a nice hotel for my wife and I, and wonderful food at a conference (way above my pay grade) because I was a staff member. We got to stay in the Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island as guests, and were treated like a king and queen, because my wife's mother sent them a picture and told a story that moved the owner. That room would have cost $700 a night. So we were "rich for a day" in all these instances.

It's fine to have all this "righteous indignation" and liberal-type feelings of about the more well-to-do folks getting to do stuff we can't, but I don't see how a solid argument can be made against it, given the reality of how capitalism works, and how we are all tied up in that one way or another (whether we like it or not).

I'll guarantee that wherever you and [Name] work (if it is a business, which it's always gonna be), there are the big shots that have all kinds of luxuries and conveniences because of the labor of you and the others who work there. You allow that to be possible by your participation. It's how corporate capitalism works.

In my profession, I am the direct cause of publishers making tons of money off of my own work, while I get a pittance (usually 12-14%), or in one notorious case, no ongoing royalties at all, while the publisher makes multiple thousands of dollars for decades off of the work that I did.

What am I supposed to do?: say that that is so unfair that I will stop writing my books (or trying to get them published in a way other than self-publishing, which I also do)? That would be negligent of my calling before God.

Class envy is a Marxist / liberal concept. Me, I don't envy the money that people make or the privileges attached thereto because I don't seek that level of income in the first place. Therefore, I can write fairly objectively about business issues of this sort without any personal stake in the matter.

[how come when issues like this are brought up, folks always wanna channel it into  "class warfare"? If CA would simply provide equal access to all, this would cease to be an issue at all.]

Why don't you or [Name] answer all the various arguments I made? That would be quite the novelty, wouldn't it?

I am saying that this is always the way it is, and that it is absurd to argue as you guys are doing: to say that "CA can't do a cruise unless they allow the janitor and waitress as well as the bank executive to have all the fun that such cruises provide. If they don't, it's unethical, and they are idolizing filthy lucre."

Of course, Kevin Tierney's original point wasn't so much all this "high" bleeding-heart concern for the poor and how they miss out on all the goodies and perks that upper middle class America enjoys, but rather, a rant that Keating and Madrid have done nothing of relevance for ten years, and have been merely spouting talking-points for 20 (insinuation: they don't deserve to be listened to by anyone, on a cruise or anywhere else, cuz they are washed-up and irrelevant).

So let's see: if Keating and Madrid go on a nationwide tour that is free admission, and sit all day and do a meet-and-greet and personally converse with people of all classes, then your concerns are adequately met and it's okay that they do a cruise, since now the "unfairness" that you see has been rectified?

[you haven't dealt with what I am saying at all; hence, I have nothing to respond to. The price of these cruises is absurdly high and excludes most people from being able to go on them. Comments being made on the CA Facebook page  concerning the cruise make that clear.  Talks are given by people [Keating and Madrid] who haven't done much lately, which makes it a farce, like all those 60s and 70s band reunions. No need for a big free tour: just show that poor people can have access just like the rich folks. We can't accept the capitalistic status quo; we're called to a much higher standard than that.]

Right. Well, at least you haven't blown your top or fled to the hills as you usually do, and give some semblance of a "reply" with your usual preaching rants -- but it isn't rational interaction with what I have written, and certainly no refutation of same.

[why should I do a rebuttal to a treatise on unicorns? Sorry; that's a waste of my time.] 

If you want to engage in mere shallow, sloganistic-type rhetoric and polemics (tying into the familiar themes of Marxist and class envy), and ignore (and mockingly dismiss) opposing arguments, you can do so, but no one who tries to examine issues in depth will be impressed by that.

Reference was made to discussion on the CA Facebook page. Catholic Answers replied as follows to one such complaint:

Most of what we do is for free. Our radio program, handing out booklets at events like World Youth Day, magazines for seminarians and prisoners, producing free apologetics articles on our web site, etc. We put on events like this to raise money to facilitate all these outreach efforts.

That's true for me, too. I have over 2,550 posts on my blog available for free. I have 15 radio interviews available to download for free. Then I have my books, which cost something.

We get criticized for whatever we do. I get blasted because I am supposedly self-published only (I'm not: I have nine "official" books out, and I do many more on my own). I get blasted for making money with my "official" books, as if I am not supposed to make any money at all, with a family of six. I get criticized because not all my books have an Imprimatur (but some indeed do). If an apologist makes good money (however that is defined) he is obviously in the work only for filthy lucre and ill-gotten gain. If we make relatively little (more my category!), then we get accused of being negligent of our families and forcing spouses to live like paupers, as we indulge our unethical and obsessive fantasies of being an apologist.

We can't please everyone, no matter what we do. And why would anyone expect that, anyway? Jesus was accused of being filled with demons and being a blasphemer. Why would His laborers today expect any better treatment? He said that His followers would be hated by all, because they hated Him first.

It doesn't matter. There is always someone who will bash outreach efforts in some fashion, while they (mostly) sit on their butts and do nothing.
 
* * * 

Traditionalist Social Critic Kevin Tierney's Seeming Love-Hate Relationship with Catholic Apologetics

 Patrick Madrid. Has he been -- along with Karl Keating and Fr. Brian Harrison --, irrelevant for "almost a decade"?

This struck me today when looking over a (public) post (6-20-14) from Kevin's Facebook page, in which he severely criticized Catholic Answers for providing a cruise. The line that particularly struck me was the following:

. . . to hear people [speak on the cruise] who haven't done anything relevant in almost a decade speak the same talking points they have been using the past two decades!

That seemed pretty harsh to me, and so I was curious to see who the speakers were. They included Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid, and Fr. Brian Harrison.



Imagine anyone who is at all familiar with the modern apologetics revival and Catholic Answers, saying that Karl Keating hasn't "done anything relevant in almost a decade"?! Same thing for Pat Madrid? These are two of the best and most influential apologists of our time, and I consider Keating literally the "father" of the current Catholic apologetics movement. Certainly Catholic Answers (love 'em or not) has the single largest influence in terms of Catholic apologetics (and very much for good).

Yet Kevin not only thinks neither man has done anything relevant for "almost a decade" (I wonder why he says "almost" there? So in 2004 they were relevant, but not in 2005?), but also that what they have done for the last "two decades" was merely "talking points." I guess that is how Kevin describes apologetics: talking points: as if it were mere political rhetoric or something rambled off that is of little lasting or intrinsic importance. If Madrid defends and explains Sacred Tradition or if Keating explains how sola Scriptura is illogical and unworkable (or any of a host of other topics they write or talk about), this helps no one; does little good, since it is merely "talking points."

Fr. Brian Harrison, too, is a highly respected priest among "traditionalists."

I became further curious to see what Kevin has stated about apologetics in general on his now defunct website, Common Sense Catholicism. Here he is writing on 25 January 2011:

I have never been an “anti-apologist.” I think the apologetics movement within Catholicism in the last 35 years is one of the most important trends in the Church in the 20th century. The apologetics movement has provided a valuable frontline defense against those who seek to attack the Church.

Good; yet somehow Keating and Madrid (two of the biggest names in the movement, by any reckoning) have been irrelevant for the past decade and merely have regurgitated tired "talking points" for the last twenty years? Nuh-uh. That's beyond ridiculous.

There is some considerable irony here, too, insofar as Kevin has recently been doing quite a bit of analysis of how bad communication and ethics are online (see, e.g., his last blog post after he decided to forsake blogging).

Kevin contends that there are too many feuds and wars going on among Catholics online, and that this is scandalous and pathetic. One person puts another down, and perhaps the other responds, and it goes on and on.

Now, how is this trashing of the work of Keating, Madrid, and Fr. Harrison at all edifying, or a counter-example to what Kevin has rightly (for the most part) been decrying? Perhaps he can explain the difference of principle to us.

It's one thing to make a critique of a cruise as too materialistic or whatever. That seems to me to be fair game and a legitimate discussion. But saying that seminally influential full-time Catholic apologists have done nothing of relevance for "almost a decade" is clearly over the top and out of line.

Kevin dramatically (with a big bang) gave up on blogging as a hopeless cause, and then writes this garbage on Facebook three weeks later? I guess he thinks anything goes there . . . Very curious reasoning . . . I condemn untrue personal insults, period, wherever they occur: Facebook, the blog world, the Internet in general,  the paper or broadcast media, on the phone, talking on a bus or in a coffee shop; wherever.

* * *

The Biblical, Pauline Rationale for Separation from Fellow Christians in Serious Sin, or Ones Who are Relentlessly Divisive or Contentious

  The following exchange occurred on a Facebook page where I cross-posted my article, Radical Catholic Reactionary Hilary White's Incorrect Claim About the Origin of the Inane Epithet, Neo-Catholic. One "Binks Webelf" (a non-Catholic who says he is considering becoming a Catholic) took it upon himself to take issue with my argument in the paper, and some of my comments in the thread.  His words will be in blue. He ends with the obligatory personal attacks against me, precisely as ended the previous exchange three days ago with a radical Catholic reactionary who classified me as a Neo-Catholic.

* * * * *
[to a friend] I don't allow radical Catholic reactionaries on my FB page (which is why it has a consistently congenial atmosphere), so such "interaction" would have to occur on others' pages. You can argue with these guys. I don't waste my time with unserious thinkers.

That's my policy on Facebook [to block]! I'm more lenient on my blog, but they have to make an actual argument, not just insult or troll . . .

Shooting the messenger and name-calling again? Must be a "neo-Catholic" thing.

Is that supposed to be a rational "argument" Binks? I merely pointed out an inaccuracy and made an observation about how Kooky Terms often derive from folks with Kooky Ideas.  [referring to Matatics and the paper above; he now believes there are no valid Masses anywhere]

Mr. Armstrong: me no brain good, but I do note that the people doing the most name-calling, online yelling, job-threatening, and refusing any "rational argument" about the irregularities of your current Pope 

I haven't yet found any; wrote a book about it . . . 

are also the people who are still spending time hating on Hilary [White]. 

I don't hate anyone. Disagreeing with a false position that one has is not the same as hate, unless one presupposes a silly subjectivist secularism, where no one can disagree with anything, because all is relative; therefore, to do so is, ipso facto, to be intolerant and "hateful." Don't fall into that. It's not a Christian outlook. I don't hate you, either (since you are included in the category of "anyone").

Of course, if we correct someone who is manifestly in error, that is the opposite of hate; it's an act of love, because all lies are of the devil; therefore, we have led the person to a much better place with regard to the false thing he or she used to believe, before being corrected in love.

As I've said . . . via FaceBook in light of this recent episode, I genuinely believe this reveals a failure of Christian charity, Catholic inclusiveness (the real kind), and open-heartedness. 

I agree. To classify orthodox Catholics who disbelieve nothing that the magisterium teaches, as liberals, modernists, Neo-Catholics is the height of uncharity and divisiveness. I just had this happen to me a few days ago. Challenged to come up with something, anything that I supposedly believed, against the Church, my critic could not come up with one thing, and instead resorted to insult, saying all I cared about was filthy lucre.

Oh, and that old Book, too: "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden." . . . where, exactly, is it written (say, in the NT, or Gregory The Great, Liber regulae pastoralis) that the best way to confront, convince, or convert erring people is by name-calling, hounding, and suchlike? In this, are you following Francis' snarky and unfatherly example.

Equally, for you, Dave, where can you show me that your policy "I don't waste my time with unserious thinkers" is Biblical, Patristic, or pastoral? I can't find Jesus saying that anywhere, as he preached and taught. (1) You only talk to people who think and talk like you? (2) Or, is it that people who don't think and talk like you are "unserious" and unworthy of your rational arguments?  

You haven't read your Bible very closely, I'm afraid, if you don't know these rather elementary things. That's okay; we all are learning all the time. But after reading what I will give you, below, you will then be responsible for knowing it. Glad to oblige with nine relevant Bible passages:

A) 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 (RSV, as are all) I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; [10] not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. [11] But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber -- not even to eat with such a one. [12] For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? [13] God judges those outside. "Drive out the wicked person from among you."

B) Romans 16:17-18 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. [18] For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded.

C) 1 Timothy 6:3-5, 20 If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, [4] he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, [5] and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. . . . [20] O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge,

D) 2 Timothy 2:14-17 Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. [15] Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. [16] 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,

E) 2 Timothy 3:2-9 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, [3] inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, [4] treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, [5] holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people. [6] For among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses, [7] who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth. [8] As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith; [9] but they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.

F) Titus 3:9-11 But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile. [10] As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, [11] knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

G) Matthew 7:6 Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you.

H) Matthew 18:15-17 If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. [16] But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. [17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

I) Lastly, Paul recommends community shunning for the purpose of repentance and restoration:

1 Corinthians 5:3-5 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 relaxed the temporal punishment for this particular person and urged that the man be welcomed back into fellowship (which is the equivalent of an indulgence, and the Church's practice of excommunication is based on this and other related passages):

2 Corinthians 2:6-11 For such a one this punishment by the majority is enough; [7] so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. [8] So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. [9] For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. [10] Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, [11] to keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us; for we are not ignorant of his designs.

Is that enough Scripture for you, or do you wish to fight against inspired Holy Scripture as well as against Pope Francis and apologists like myself, and those who have a deep concern for Christian unity and truth, and so necessarily have to oppose those who clearly don't, since they wish to name-call and be divisive? St. Paul roundly condemned that; so do we. Jesus and Paul recommended separating in extreme cases, so do we.

I follow them, and the Church, not the (secularized) false traditions of men, such as those you are currently spouting. 

(3) Or is it only "radtrads" (i.e., your brothers and sisters in Christ, Roman Catholics who don't think and talk like you)? This is all puzzling, sad, and does no credit to the church you say you love and belong to (and to which I ponder conversion). There you are, and there you go.

I don't use the term radtrads. I coined radical Catholic reactionaries precisely in order to separate these more radical Catholics from legitimate "traditionalists": with whom I have much in common.

Note that the word "Catholic" was specifically included in that so as to avoid the silly insinuation that you make: that I think such folks aren't Catholics.

Wow. Very winsome and inviting and humble, that. So: I'm silly. Plus Biblically ignorant... also, fighting against the Pope and you, and I spout secularized false traditions of men, and silly insinuations. No doubt I also foment coprophagia, too. "I wrote a book about Francis, so who ya gonna trust, me or your lying eyes"? Seriously: I don't know what your books may be like, but your poor online manners and seeming presumptuousness really leave something to be desired, dude. Don't bother responding-- I'll just keep chatting with those of my RC friends and clergy who don't see fit to be so combative, bilious, unpleasant, and puffed up. With welcomers like you at the door of the Church....

I figured you wouldn't deal with the relevant Scripture. Par for the course. Others can read and figure out what's going on here and what the Bible says about such issues.

So, in warring against what you wrongly characterize as hatred, and extolling the advantages and rightness of charity, you employ all the following insults against me:

1) Very winsome (sarcastic use)
2) inviting (sarcastic use)
3) humble (sarcastic use)
4) poor online manners
5) seeming presumptuousness
6) combative
7) bilious
8) unpleasant
9) puffed up
10) With welcomers like you at the door of the Church.... (sarcastic use)

Superb display of hypocrisy! Thanks for the classic, textbook example . . .

Unless this was a deliberate joke: a humorous caricature of a person being a hypocrite . . . That is a distinct possibility. 
* * * * *

Radical Catholic Reactionary Hilary White's Incorrect Claim About the Origin of the Inane Epithet, Neo-Catholic

Lately there has been a big stink about an article by radical Catholic reactionary Hilary White, at LifeSiteNews.com, in which she ran down the pope (which is what radical Catholic reactionaries do, by nature). It has been noted that her affinities and biases were made clear in her article for the notorious RadCathR rag, The Remnant, entitled, "Revenge of the Neo-Cats" (23 Nov. 2011).

Origins of terms (particularly ones meant to be denigrating) are important. They tell a lot about what is in the head of those using them. They also often reveal things that even those using the terms are seemingly unaware of.

I found it interesting that in perusing the above article, Hilary White couldn't even do her research and correctly identify who it was who coined the ridiculous term, Neo-Catholic. She states: 

It was first coined in a 2002 book called The Great Façade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty, by Christopher Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods Jr.

Now, she must have some basis for believing this, one presumes. It can't be from the book itself, since it states clearly in its footnote 6 on p. 10:

This term was first suggested by the renowned Presbyterian convert Gerald Christian Matatics, who is now a Catholic traditionalist. Mr. Matatics, while still a Protestant, was a careful observer of the phenomenon of "neo-evangelicalism," by which the more traditional Protestants underwent a process of liberalization that he was aghast to see in the Catholic Church after his conversion.

Thus, it is ironic that my copy of this book was given to me by Matatics himself, when we met and talked for a good hour one day, after I attended one of his lectures, given to literally about seven people.

In passing, it's fascinating to note that the book employs a far more radical usage of Neo-Catholic than White does in her article: much closer to being simply a thoroughgoing theological modernist, or liberal, or progressive. To illustrate with just one example, drawn from the same page as the footnote above:

. . . willingness of this group to accept the introduction of novelties affecting virtually every aspect of the Faith as it is lived and practiced by Catholics in the pews, even if those novelties patently lack any continuity with ecclesiastical tradition and are palpably offensive to the sensus catholicus.

The other thing to note about the book is that co-author Thomas Woods, Jr. now distances himself from it, and from Ferrara. He wants to be taken seriously as a serious historian, so to be associated with the relentless patent nonsense in that book is rather contrary to that worthy goal. He eventually woke up to that reality, whereas Ferrara, undaunted, continues dishing out foolishness in this regard, just as he has, lo these many years.

But I'd like to go back to the actual originator of Neo-Catholic, Gerry Matatics. As Catholic apologist Karl Keating recently noted, this illustrious person, whom Ferrara described in 2002 as "a Catholic traditionalist" became, a few years after that, a sedevacantist (literally, "the seat is vacant"), meaning, a person who thinks that there is no pope at the present time. Sadly, his descent into Theological Kookiness didn't even end there. Keating noted a report by Matatics from May 2014, detailing what he now believes. In Matatics' own words:

. . . the inconsistencies of even "traditionalist" forms of counterfeit Catholicism . . . do not completely adhere to the perennial principles of the Catholic Faith. (That of course resulted in my coming to see, by God's grace, that in fidelity to such Catholic principles I could no longer morally attend, not only such FSSP "Masses," but as well the Masses offered by the SSPX or similar clergy, or even those offered by unauthorized "sedevacantist" clergy of the SSPV, CMRI, et al).

See the trajectory there? He started out by doubting Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass, and being a champion of the Tridentine Mass, but in due course came to believe that there is no pope at all. At length, he decided that no priestly ordinations whatever are valid, so that there is no Mass at all, anywhere. That's an odd conclusion to arrive at, from one who was originally part of a movement that strongly advocated the Tridentine Mass. Now he is perpetually in mortal sin and can scarcely be described as a Catholic at all, let alone a "traditionalist" one. Perhaps "Neo-Atheism" will be his next step (with the obligatory halfway house of ultra-liberal Anglicanism). And this is the guy who coined Neo-Catholic (and who helped his friend Scott Hahn become a Catholic in the mid-80s). How the mighty have fallen . . .

This is what can happen when one adopts false premises. Matatics is simply more internally consistent than many other radical Catholic reactionaries. He followed the line of faith-challenged skepticism to its logical diabolical end: no Mass at all anywhere in the world (or if there was one somewhere, one would hardly be able to identify it).

I thought my readers might be interested in knowing a bit about the spiritual journey of Gerry Matatics: the person who actually coined Neo-Catholic, contrary to Hilary White's false claims as to where the term originated.

* * *

Related reading:

The "Traditionalist" Pet Term Neo-Catholic: Where Does it Come From? What Does it Mean? [21 April 2005]

Objections to the Title, "Neo-Catholic" [9 March 2007]

The Catholic "Traditionalist" Derisive Term Neo-Conservative (Catholic) [17 May 2008]  

Definitions: Radical Catholic Reactionaries, Mainstream "Traditionalists," and Supposed "Neo-Catholics" [revised 6 August 2013]

Rationales for the Newly-Adopted (and Self-Coined) Term, Radical Catholic Reactionaries (aka "RadCathRs") [6 August 2013]  

Debate on Whether I am a Neo-Catholic (Defined as Theological Liberal / Progressive / Enabler of Modernism) [vs. Mr. X] [10 June 2014]

Critique of Radical Catholic Reactionary Group, The Remnant, with Copious Documentation (vs. John Vennari, Michael J. Matt, etc.) [2000] 

Dialogue on the Radical Catholic Reactionary Group, The Remnant (vs. Mark Cameron) [24 Jan. 2000] 



* * * * *

Preface to the Revised 2014 Edition of My Book, Orthodoxy and Catholicism: A Comparison

The original edition of this volume was completed in July 2004, and was drawn largely from writings, including debates, from the previous seven years online. It has been one of the few books (at least on a lay level or among the apologetics community) to examine Orthodoxy from a Catholic perspective, and has had some degree of influence as such. The Coming Home Network has purchased two large bulk orders and Logos Bible Software included it in its large collection of theological works (with nine other books of mine, as of this writing).
Most notably, in June 2011, I received a letter from His Excellency, Ladislav Hučko: Bishop - Apostolic Exarch of the Greek-Catholic Church, in Prague (Byzantine Rite). He asked for permission to reprint up to 200 copies of my book (already translated into Czech) for his priests and fellow Czech bishops.
There are eight Bohemian bishops in the Czech Republic and five Moravian bishops. The country has eight dioceses and an Apostolic Exarchate. In the Archdiocese of Prague alone there were (in 2011) 378 parishes with 216 priests, serving 370,000 Catholics. It wasn't clear exactly who was to receive copies of my book, but it appeared to be all the bishops in the Czech Republic and many priests as well. I received no remuneration, but that was rather beside the point.
But to return to the reasons for this revision: in 2004, though I sought to be ecumenical scarcely any less than I do now, I seemed to mostly run across Orthodox online who were of an “anti-Catholic” or “anti-western” nature, and the book reflected that.
I have become concerned that readers do not come away from this book with a mistaken perception that I am “anti-Orthodox” or that I thinkmost, or the majority of Orthodox Christians are anti-Catholic or anti-western. I know (from much personal experience) that some – likely, many -- of them are. What percentageof the whole falls under that mindset, I have no idea. But I know that there are also ecumenical Orthodox.
It has been my strong desire for some time now to revise my book in order to emphasize ecumenism and unity proportionately a lot more than in the first edition. I basically stopped debating theology with the Orthodox around 2001 or so. I only debated on rare occasion when someone strongly challenged some aspect of Catholicism, or when I felt Catholic views were being distorted and had to be defended, as part of my duty as an apologist.
I was much more interested in finding common ground, and that desire and passion has grown in the ensuing years. I've also learned a thing or two about Orthodoxy over the past decade. I want my book to reflect that, and to be able to read by Orthodox and also Eastern Catholics, without having seizures or going into apoplectic fits (caused by either my ignorance, or overly polemical or biased writing). Please excuse my humorous exaggeration . . .
Toward that end I have enlisted three very qualified persons (and friends) to participate in the revised edition: two of them (FrDeacon Daniel Dozier and Pete Vere) Eastern Catholic, and one, Tim Carl, Orthodox. Their more specific descriptions are found in an earlier section.
The revision is not merelya debate book, with equal time for all. Nor is it exclusively “ecumenical.” It's still an apologetic for Catholicism and respectful critique of Orthodoxy, but now it also includes friendly ecumenical discussion and dialogue: feedback and input from both Eastern Catholics and Orthodox. The overall tone and tenor is considerably different.  I first revised it on my own, according to my expressed goals. I remain the final editor, but only after very serious, close consultation with my three friends. When they all agreed (or even two agreed), that “this statement x is untrue / is offensive / excessively polemical or insulting,” etc., I removed or greatly modified the passage.
All three had to agree that the book is fair and a true ecumenical effort and that “dissenting” views from my own (in cases where we – inevitably – have honest disagreements) were allowed a fair shake in the comments sections and the text itself.
After the initial “review” of my own “unilateral” revision, my three friends commented at the end of each chapter, with a limit of 500 words for each entry. I then counter-replied (or agreed or conceded one or more points, as the case may be), and they got the last word with a second counter-response. Each party had two “rounds” so to speak.
Obviously, since I wrote the chapters, they are weighted towards my views. Be that as it may, readers nevertheless will have an opportunity to hear from Eastern Catholics and Orthodox, so that we can attempt a “meeting of the minds” between East and West. I want readers to be able to observe and “resonate with” a genuine, friendly, mutually respectful dialogue. I still believein it (ever the hopeful idealist).
The three contributors also wrote new chapters at the end of the book, where they discussed whatever is close to their hearts and of concern or importance to them. I participated in discussions at the end of those chapters, with the other two non-authors of the chapter: the reverse of the procedure in the chapters before the last three.
The book will still be in part a defense of Catholic views, where there are differences. It will not be devoid of apologetics; it'll just have more ecumenical elements and the discussions added to it; a different overall spirit and goal: to foster unity as well as to defend Catholic views when they are strongly critiqued by the Orthodox (and vice versa).
Eastern Catholicism is fully incorporated, through the contributions and input of FrDeacon Daniel Dozier and Pete Vere, so that the book deals with all of Catholicism, not just Western / Latin (my own category). I learned many things myself, expanded my horizons in the dialogues, and thoroughly enjoyed both the fellowship and the amiable theological challenges.
My deep hope and prayer is that readers will be educated and edified by the final product of our combined efforts. I'm particularly gratified to be able to combine in one book two aspects that are very dear to my heart: respectful dialogue, and a blending of apologetics and ecumenism in such a way that it is clearly seen that the two endeavors are complimentary and not contradictory.
May God greatly bless you, the reader, and I'd like to express my deep, profound thanks and appreciation to FrDeacon Daniel Dozier, Pete Vere, and Tim Carl, for their participation.

***

 

Debate on Whether I am a "Neo-Catholic" (Defined as Theological Liberal / Progressive / Enabler of Modernism) [vs. Mr. X]

This exchange occurred on Mr. X's Facebook page (he was a Facebook friend till now), on 10 June 2014. I would classify X as a radical Catholic reactionary (basically, one who bashes popes, Vatican II, and the Novus Ordo Mass).  He is also a self-professed Feenyite. Michael McKinney is a "traditionalist."

I asked permission to post this because it was a "friends only" thread. I received no answer twice, so I am going ahead and posting it, because my beliefs are being publicly misrepresented.

Mr. X's words will be in blue; Michael's in green.

Three asterisks (***) denote a break in the text, because in such exchanges, sub-topics develop (and I try to keep them together). Thus, the next sentence may be a total break in subject matter. I indicate that with the asterisks.

Mr. X said that my naming him in a blog post would affect his job (even though he gives his name on Facebook).  The following exchange about that occurred on my Facebook page:

I think You are guilty of slander of me but hey it is your soul not mine. And if this makes me lose my job so be it huh? Just as long as you get your donations. Nice. Who am I that you would have to do this? Am I really the biggest problem in the Church ?

How does your job come into it?

Well you don't know what I do for a living do you? 

If you say it affects your job, I will remove your name.

But you don't care just as long as you make your money! [I make no money at all for a blog post]

I will remove your name. You keep up the personal insults. I actually try to exercise charity towards others.



Thank I would appreciate if you removed my name.

* * * * *


The Neo-Catholics and their ilk never tire to speak of how evil trads are but not a word of criticism of a pope who celebrate mass with a pro-gay activist. This shows they have traded their Faith for an ideology.

Please define Neo-Catholic. Am I one?

Neo Catholic means a conservative catholic who converted from protestantism or converted from being a liberal catholic. They generally adhere to catholic teaching on divorce, birth control, abortion, and homosexuality. They want to see the Novus Ordo Mass done with reverence and obeying the rubrics (written directions in red on what only to do). They would like once in a while some latin parts sung in the mass like the Gloria and Sanctus. They are big on apologetics defending the catholic understanding of the Bible and the Holy Eucharist.

Michael,

I don't see how that is "new" or "neo". Why the need to attach that prefix to it? And why would it have to be just a convert? Karl Keating and Patrick Madrid are often labeled in this way, but they ain't converts.

Yes you are. Neo-Catholicism denotes the current of Catholicism that in the form of liturgical (Neo-Ordo), theological, philosophical, and ecclesial progressivism that would not have been viewed favorably by Rome before Vatican II.

Neo-Catholicism is analogous to neoconservatism in the political sphere as distinguished from paleoconservatism,

Catholic traditionalism, which can be likened to political. paleoconservatism. Neo-Catholicism, like neoconservatism in politics, is not simply traditional conservativism, but rather a combination of conservative and liberal elements representing a progressive tendency overall. They are not usually the cause of liberalism but enablers of the liberalism in the Church.

I don't attach a negative to the term Neo-Catholic. I'm just more Traditionally minded. I didn't call you a neo Catholic! [Mr. X] did, I just posted my understanding of the definition.

But you have helped [, Michael] clarify how his definition is incoherent.

Mr. X's definition (going back to Gerry Matatics [who now doesn't even attend Mass], who coined the term, and Ferrara, who popularized it in The Great Facade ) is clearly negative:

. . . a combination of conservative and liberal elements representing a progressive tendency overall. They are not usually the cause of liberalism but enablers of the liberalism in the Church, . . .

This is wholesale lying about what I believe, and is serious calumny. I don't have any progressive or liberal tendencies at all. You can't prove that I have any. You have argued [in the past] that development of doctrine is "liberal"; yet Pope St. Pius X expressly defended Cardinal Newman's orthodoxy. I had my conversion story highlighting Newman published in The Latin Mass magazine.

*** 

Was Fr. [John A.] Hardon [S. J.] a neo-Catholic?

I don't know enough about him.

No, Father Hardon, who was also my mentor, was not neo Catholic.

I would guess Fr. Hardon would have been a Neo-Catholic because he was a Jesuit if I remember correctly. I don't think it would be possible to be a Jesuit Trad.

He wrote the preface to my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism and said my writings were "very Catholic." How, then, can I be a neo-Catholic?

Fr. Hardon was the catechist for Blessed Mother Teresa and her sisters. Are they neo-Catholics, too? 

***

Dave do you really want to get into the Newman thing? You usually run away angry.

I don't get [emotionally] angry; I get disgusted at lies about folks like Newman. Huge difference . . .  

You did last time get angry.

I want to see someone actually rationally defend this neo-Catholic nonsense. Can I get permission to cross-post this exchange?  

***

I don't agree.

Don't agree with what? Why?  
 
You can't name one thing I believe or teach that is liberal or against what the magisterium teaches. If you think you can, do it. If you can't, retract the calumny and misrepresentation of what I believe.

Do I have your permission to cross-post this exchange? Have to ask cuz this is friends only.

***

I accept V II as a legitimate council, I just prefer to worship in the Trad liturgy. this labeling crap is a waste of time! You either accept Vatican II and the current Pope or you don't.

You are simply a "traditionalist." I have no problem with that. I've attended Latin Mass for 23 years. 

When you say Latin Mass is it the Novus Ordo or the Traditional Latin Mass?

Novus Ordo.

So you were imply you were a trad but you are not.

I have many affinities with "traditionalists." I made no false implication. I said I attend Latin Mass, which is true. I take communion on the tongue at an altar rail. We have no EMHCs; no altar girls. It's a very traditional parish. Our parish cluster offers the Tridentine Mass as well, which I have attended. We just had a new priest ordained. He did his first Mass in my parish building on Sunday (EF).

***

It's Mr. X's definition that is calumnious and incoherent, which is why he isn't defending it, and I submit, cannot do so rationally.

You have never taken issue with the reforms after Vatican II to my knowledge. 

I have written much about liturgical abuses and liberalism in general: i.e., the pseudo-reforms of the so-called "spirit of the Council": not it itself, which Pope Benedict XVI strongly supported.

The reforms were wrong not just the psuedo. 

You have attacked Trads on a regular basis 

I don't attack "traditionalists"; I attack the false opinions of radical Catholic reactionaries.

. . . and now in a slightly underhanded way try to link Matatics, a Sede, to Ferrara, who is a Catholic in good standing. 

I simply noted the etymology of the term, Neo-Catholic. It is what it is. Ferrara, in his 2002 book, noted that Matatics coined the term, that he used throughout the book. It goes no further back in time than that. Since then it has become radical Catholic reactionary boilerplate.

I can't change the fact of the origin of the term. It was begun by a guy who is no longer even a sedevacantist (he thinks all Masses whatever are invalid), and was picked up by the classical radical Catholic reactionary, Chris Ferrara.

Plus I don't think Matatics coined the term. I think it came as a term from Anglicanism. [provides a link along these lines]

Ok I apologize. But the term was used in Anglicanism before Matatics used it.

Thank you.

Whether it was used in Anglicanism has no bearing on whether it is a legitimate Catholic term. It's not. It has no pedigree. If you want to say someone is a theological liberal or modernist, simply say that. Those terms have a pedigree.

***

Your problem is that you want to lie about what I believe, but then, when asked to prove your assertions, you give us nothing. So it's a lie based on nothing, and you can provide no substantiation for it. That's mortal sin!

You cannot say I am in mortal sin, that is beyond your competence. You can say whether it is a serious matter. To be a lie one would have to have the intention to mislead. This is not my intention. I would have thought a well trained apologist would know this.  :-)

The well trained apologist does, of course, know this. I would have thought that two adult Catholics need not discuss the ABCs and that an educated Catholic like yourself knows it is objectively a mortal sin and breaking the Ten Commandments to bear false witness against a brother in Christ, in the Church.

I continue to await the hard evidence of your extraordinary charges against me.

***

I'm still waiting for your reply to my query:

You can't name one thing I believe or teach that is liberal or against what the magisterium teaches. If you think you can, do it. If you can't, retract the calumny and misrepresentation of what I believe.

Waiting for hard evidence that I supposedly believe all these liberal, progressive things; therefore deserve the title, neo-Catholic.

***

I attended the NO Latin at St. Michaels Abbey in Lake forrest, Very beautiful. I have been attending the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church for the celebration of Mass according to the “Missal promulgated by John XXIII in 1962″ at St Margaret's of Scotland Oceanside. A slice of Heaven.

Wonderful, Michael! I have been an advocate of freedom to worship at the Tridentine Mass since I became a Catholic in 1990. My position was identical to Pope Benedict's in 2007, 17 years before he made his proclamation.

***

This is gonna be a paper on my blog. I asked permission twice. You didn't reply. I have asked you to prove your assertions against me several times. You refuse. Since you lie about me in this public venue, I have the right to defend myself on my blog.

No you do not have permission. :-)

LOL you call me a liar and I am going to hell and you want a explanation and apology LOL You are a trip dude a real trip...

I didn't "call you a liar"; I said that you lied. A girl who engages in fornication once is not a slut (that's an analogy, in case you missed it). I said nothing about hell. I said that lying and bearing false witness is objectively a mortal sin. I said nothing about an apology; I am asking for explanations, and you are persistently refusing. Yet I am a "real trip."

Dude are smoking something? Yes to lie is to be a liar.
 
I have the right to defend my name against public calumny.  You have 437 friends who could potentially read this, and more in the future if it stays up.

So? Don't worry I am not that popular. But you on the other hand have on other occasions tried to humiliate me publicly. To the point that you had to take down the post. I am sorry, if I question your intentions of taking this thread. 

Exactly. I took down the post (s). That's charity; that is trying to do the right thing by others, and now you mock me for it? Very good!

Now look at your behavior, by contrast: you make this claim about me: that I am compromised with modernism and an enabler of it. I ask you repeatedly to substantiate the claims, and you refuse. Then when I call that lying about me you bristle at that and go off into rabbit trails, including not grasping the elementary moral / ethical distinction between uttering one lie and being a habitual liar, as a character trait or vice.

Meanwhile the lie is still in play and you won't grant me the courtesy of providing evidence for this supposed characteristic of mine.

Now you have descended to the level of mere personal insult.

I never made the claim you asked my opinion and I answered. You asked me my opinion and I answered. It is my opinion. I never attacked you personally but you have sought me out to attack me.

I asked if I was a Neo-Catholic, and for you to define it. After seeing your definition, I flatly, vigorously deny that I fit into any part of that definition whatsoever, and asked for proof that I do. I say it is a lie about my beliefs.

Ok fine but it isn't a lie if I think it is true. Again you need to study more moral theology. It is my opinion.

***

[in a separate post on his Facebook page] Hey I am famous LOL I am the biggest problem in the Catholic Church. That PROFESSIONAL Apologists has to to write an attack article about me LOL


* * * * * 
 

Reply to the Ridiculous Bum Rap that I (and Many Apologists) are "Ultramontanists" Who are Special Pleading and Defending the Pope No Matter What (as if his favorite color or ice cream were infallible, binding decrees)

 Pope St. Pius X
[This was originally part of another paper that had to do with disputes about liturgy. I thought that it needed to be available separately (slightly edited), for clarifying purposes, in light of all the patent nonsense and sheer hogwash that has been spread about Pope Francis for now over a year, from theological liberals, secularists, and radical Catholic reactionaries alike, and given the silly charges levied against the Holy Father's defenders: of whom I am a proud member]
* * * * *

Being classified as an ultramontanist is almost a boilerplate response to anyone who critiques these sorts of things. It's untrue, as I will show. But it's very common to reply to defenses of a pope or papal authority by making out that one supposedly agrees with absolutely everything he says or does, or that his color of socks or what side of bed he gets out are magisterial matters, etc.

This has never been my position, as I've explained many times. But if it is thought that it is, then I can be potentially (or actually) dismissed as a muddled, simplistic irrelevancy, without my arguments being fully engaged. Nice try, but no cigar.

As most know, who read anything of mine, I am a huge devotee of Cardinal Newman. I edited The Quotable Newman (Sophia Institute Press, 2012). His Essay on Development was the key that persuaded me to become a Catholic back in 1990. Now, since the 19th century was brought up in this regard, it was Newman who fought most valiantly against that mindset: opposing those such as Cardinal Manning and William G. Ward (also sometimes known as Neo-Ultramontanists). Cuthbert Butler, the historian of Vatican I, described Ward's view as follows:

He held that the infallible element of bulls, encyclicals, etc., should not be restricted to their formal definitions but ran through the entire doctrinal instructions; the decrees of the Roman Congregation, if adopted by the Pope and published with his authority, thereby were stamped with the mark of infallibility, in short “his every doctrinal pronouncement is infallibly rendered by the Holy Ghost”.

This has never remotely been my view. Before I converted, as a card-carrying evangelical, I opposed the notion of infallibility itself  tooth and nail; despised the view as hopelessly naive and false to history. It was my biggest objection: infinitely more so than Mary or things like tradition or infused justification. I read Dollinger, Kung, and George Salmon in order to try to disprove it. Thus, I was not at all predisposed as a young convert, to ultramontanism. That would be the very last thing likely to happen. In fact, if that were what Catholicism required, I highly doubt that I would have become a Catholic at all. I follow Cardinal Newman (as I invariably do). He wrote (and I totally agree):

To submit to the Church means this, first you will receive as de fide whatever she proposes de fide . . . You are not called on to believe de fide any thing but what has been promulgated as such -- You are not called on to exercise an internal belief of any doctrine which Sacred Congregations, Local Synods, or particular Bishops, or the Pope as a private Doctor, may enunciate. You are not called upon ever to believe or act against the moral law, at the command of any superior.

(The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman [LD], XX, 545 [in 1863], edited by Charles Stephen Dessain (London: 1961-1972), in Ian Ker, John Henry Newman: A Biography, Oxford University Press, 1988 [764 pages], 530-531)

I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope's word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience. (Letter to Lady Simeon, 10 November 1867; my italics)

I wrote in a paper, dated 29 March 2004:

Vatican I wasn't even (technically) "ultramontane" in its conclusions -- truth be told. The ultramontanes (people like Cardinal Manning) wanted an even broader range of papal infallibility, to include virtually everything the pope said. What was passed was quite a moderate form of papal infallibility. The "moderates" won the day, not the radicals. And that was precisely because they took a realistic view of history: the Honorius and Vigilius and Liberius incidents, for example, made a broader definition impossible because it would not be true to the facts of history. . . .

Vatican I was a quite moderate position, given the true ultramontanism of the time. The more radical position lost, and it lost decisively, because once the ex cathedra definition is given, it is irreversible. So what some consider the triumph of this radical papalism was actually its profound defeat. The pope's infallibility was strictly limited.

Apparently some detractors of Pope Francis think I accept every jot and title of everything popes say. This is untrue. Five minutes spent at the search box on my blog (which contains over 2,500 papers, so that none of my views are exactly secrets) would have easily disproven this notion. But we're all busy. Or one could hit "Catholic Apologetics" at the top, select my Papacy page, and see the section there, entitled, "Disagreeing with Popes." Instead, because I accept Summorum Pontificum in what I think is its plain meaning and intent, and say that it is in line with the Mind of the Church, I'm told that I simplistically apply that concept and am an ultramontanist: even of an "extreme and undifferentiating" sort.

Now that one has arrived at this section of my blog, he can see the first paper posted, entitled, "Laymen Advising and Rebuking Popes." This was written in 1997 (the year my website went online). In it, I write things like the following:

Pope John XXII was soundly and successfully rebuked by the masses when he temporarily espoused belief in a false doctrine. St. Catherine of Siena, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and St. Francis of Assisi rebuked popes, and their advice was respected and heeded . . .

The pope does not act in isolation, as some sort of arbitrary dictator. That is a caricature of Catholic doctrine. He works closely with bishops, priests, nuns and monks, synods, Councils, and the laity. . . .

I posted another paper in November 2000, with some additions in 2001: originally in dialogue with Mario Derksen, whom I was trying to dissuade from a radical Catholic reactionary position. He subsequently became a sedevacantist. I tried. This was entitled, "Are All Catholic Laymen & Non-Theologians Qualified to Freely & Frequently Criticize the Pope's Opinions and Prudential Judgment?" I wrote there:

Yes, one can conceivably question the pope -- especially his actions (we are not ultramontanes), yet I think it must be done only with overwhelming evidence that he is doing something completely contrary to Catholic doctrine and prior practice. It is not something that a non-theologian or non-priest should do nonchalantly and as a matter of course . . .

In any event, if you want to take one particular view of what is prudent for a pope to do, that is your perfect right. . . . 

Even Protestants observe the ludicrous exercising of private judgment against a pope, since any moderately informed Protestant knows that a Catholic ought to be obedient to the pope in all but the most extraordinary circumstances (that is surely how I would have perceived your spirit in this, when I was still Protestant. I would have immediately determined that RadCathRs of this sort were liberal or radically inconsistent Catholics).  . . .


My point is not that a pope can never be rebuked, nor that they could never be "bad" (a ludicrous opinion), but that an instance of rebuking them ought to be quite rare, exercised with the greatest prudence, and preferably by one who has some significant credentials, which is why I mentioned saints. Many RadCathRs make their excoriating judgments of popes as if they had no more importance or gravity than reeling off a laundry or grocery list.  Even if they are right about some particulars, they ought to express their opinion with the utmost respect and with fear and trembling, grieved that they are "compelled" to severely reprimand the Vicar of Christ. St. Paul showed more deference even towards the Jewish high priest than such people do to popes (Acts 23:1-5) . . . we have both St. Paul and our Lord Jesus expressing the most vehement criticisms of appointed religious leaders, yet Paul showed quite considerable deference when he found out who he was criticizing, and Jesus commanded obedience to the very same people whose hypocrisy He excoriated [Matt 23:1-3].

I took up the topic again in 2008, this time providing two examples where I actually differed from popes, myself. The paper was called, "Is It Dissent Against the Pope and the Church, and Downright Disobedient For a Catholic to Favor the War in Iraq?" I stated:

To be in favor of this war is not at all a position in dissent against the pope, because in these areas of prudential judgment of nations he is only an advisor: albeit one who should be listened to with the utmost respect. The pope also doesn't have all the secret intelligence that nations have. Pope Benedict XVI, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote on 5-2-03 (exactly five years ago):

The Pope expressed his thought with great clarity, not only as his individual thought but as the thought of a man who is knowledgeable in the highest functions of the Catholic Church. Of course, he did not impose this position as doctrine of the Church but as the appeal of a conscience enlightened by faith.

(Interview with Zenit on the Catechism)

The present Holy Father again wrote in June 2004:

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

("Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion - General Principles" -- L'espresso [link] )

. . . So a "real Catholic" has every right to disagree with even popes' opinions in matters of war, as long as the war is not manifestly opposed to Catholic principles of just war altogether. Pope Benedict XVI said so. . . .

As the pope noted above, Catholics in good standing can differ on the death penalty. I happen to think that it is a wise policy to oppose it, and agree with Pope John Paul II, but on the other hand, we mustn't get legalistic when it is not an absolute requirement to oppose the death penalty. I continue to favor it in instances of mass murderers and terrorists, in the face of overwhelming evidences of guilt.

* * * * *