Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 55

"Thank God We Are Not Like Dave Armstrong": Frank Turk's Critique of Protestant Apologist Behavior and Blindness to James White's Manifest Outrages

Frank Turk (he did the "aura" folks, not I)
I ran across this interesting article: Open Letter to Dr. James White (3 of 3), by Baptist writer / apologist / blogmaster Frank Turk (aka "centuri0n") in Google blog search. As always, I am interested in any self-analysis of apologetics, since that is my field: even if it comes from our Protestant brethren: and even from the tiny anti-Catholic wing that Turk is part of. Ironies abound in this piece (above all his glowing opinion of Bishop White: one of the nastiest, most uncharitable personages who claims the Christian name, ever observed online).

But it has a good deal of truth as well. Truth is truth, wherever it is found, and whether or not it is mixed with glaring error and astonishing blind spots, as presently. I am presented in a passing potshot as Exhibit #1 of All That is Wrong With Internet Apologetics. This appears, I think, because of my past (shall we say, being as restrained as possible, "difficult") history with Turk himself. I first ran across him on the CARM forum in 2002, where he desperately, repeatedly, tried to engage me in "debate" -- and harmonious relations do not typify my interactions with White, Svendsen, Hays, Doe, TAO et al: the whole cornucopia of active online anti-Catholic Protestant polemicists. Turk wrote the following on his site, on 11 January 2007:

For example, some day God is going to lay it on me that I have to make nice with Dave Armstrong. In theory, that day is here already -- because in principle, you should love your enemies and do good to those who do evil to you. But I'm not even remotely convicted by that. God has far more immediate matters for me to attend to, and those are even more scary than trying to find a way to make peace with DA.

Alas, that day has not come yet, and I don't expect it to arrive anytime soon. Anyone interested in those past "exchanges" can look up the names on my Anti-Catholicism page. I no longer debate theology with these guys, because it is a complete waste of time and as futile as anything in this life can be: this has been my policy for four years, and very likely indefinitely into the future. Many past exchanges remain online, if anyone wants to see how I used to interact with them. Occasionally, however, I observe and comment on their concerns and polemics, as I am doing now: far more sociological observation than theological analysis. 

For the most part, they ignore me as well, which is fine with me (I'm absolutely delighted): I go on doing the work I have always done, essentially unopposed (a best-case scenario), and I continue to hear from a steady stream of folks who claim that my work has played some role, entirely by God's grace, in the deepening of their faith, or conversion to Catholicism. Let the anti-Catholics ignore me, then. But despite themselves, still occasionally, we see the potshots against me. I'm beyond all argument now, so they think. Mere mention of my name is enough to elicit horrified, "knowing" shrieks of abject horror. I am Attila the Hun; Vlad the Impaler. Yawn. What else is new? . . . If nothing else, such attacks provide some belly laughs and entertainment. We all need humor: makes the days go by faster.

I shall now note some parts of Frank's piece that I agree with, and others that I don't agree with, or that exhibit a pronounced blind spot, or tunnel vision, or inability to see the beam in one's own eye (what one might accurately describe as hypocrisy). His words will be in blue.

. . . you and I both know I do not hate apologists or apologetics. But here's the thing: there is nothing worse that [sic] bad apologetics, except maybe strident, careless, glib, misguided, overconfident, under-informed, or worst of all self-righteous so-called "apologists".

Absolutely correct. As one who has engaged in apologetics full-time for almost ten years now, believe me, I constantly have to be confronted with the baggage of such bad apologists. They reflect on my field: they exhibit a certain negative image or stereotype that legitimate apologists have to fight against and overcome all the time. They give us a bad name. There is a lot of animus against apologetics: some of it is because of terrible examples of it, and some comes from a misunderstanding or lack of comprehension of what apologetics is: the goal and purpose of it. In a largely relativistic and subjective world, many folks detest being told that some ideas and doctrines or moral beliefs are wrong, and can even lead one down the road to hell. That doesn't go over too well . . . These two things are the one-two punch, leading many people to take a negative view of the entire apologetics endeavor.

We reviewed some examples last week of this, right? The anti-calvinists, and the post-theological/post-biblical philosophers? It's easy to point at them and to voice our concerns because let's face it: they are not like us. They will be pleased to say so, in fact: they are nothing like us.

I'm curious to go find the examples, since this is "Part 3."  This is high comedy, insofar as Turk is writing to James White and patting himself on the back that all the bad examples are "not like us." White has produced some of the most vile, personal, insult-filled rhetoric to be found anywhere. I won't spend time giving countless examples, but trust me, I have them documented, lest anyone doubt what I am saying. The spectacle, then, of Turk noting bad apologetic behavior, and then ridiculously contrasting himself and White (his proclaimed hero) starkly against them, is almost too much to bear without fainting in disbelief or throwing up, for those of us who have observed their pitiable antics through the years (I've followed White's apologetics since 1995).

A highlight of the humor here is the mention of "anti-calvinists." Both Turk and White use this term, while at the same time habitually decrying (in no uncertain, passionate  terms) the use of "anti-Catholic" -- which is a scholarly term that has been in use many years in the academic community (as I have shown many times, with heavy documentation) See a prime example of the illogical double standard in a 2005 Turk article.

We are not like Ergun Caner, for example. We are not like Dave Hunt. Thank God we are not like Dave Armstrong. Listing the ways we are not like them frankly is a kind of apologetic in and of itself, and it can be educational for the apologetic n00b or the "normal" christian to see the differences and realize that just because someone has a radio show, published a book, or professional alphabet soup after their name, what they put out isn't necessarily good spiritual food.
How fascinating that, in an article essentially directed towards the errors of non-Calvinist Protestant apologetics, I am mentioned. Hunt and Caner are both Arminian Protestants.

But what happens, James, when there's someone in our own camp who is off the ranch? And in this case, I don't mean rank doctrinal heterodoxy. How could they be "Reformed" after all and be heterodox? I'm talking about people who are heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. You know: that list strikes pretty close to home in our camp. We get accused of it often because there are many like that in our camp, and I grant the critics that it can be hard to see the difference between careful rebuke and reckless and brutal drive-bys when all one has witnessed is the latter rather than former because the former is really so rare.
Again, Turk is dead-on correct, that all these things are wrong, and too prevalent. The problem is that he completely exempts himself and White from such criticisms, when in fact, their work so often represents prime examples of this very conduct. The blind spot is breathtaking.  Turk (to give credit where it is due) seems to have toned down his harsh rhetoric quite a bit since 2002, when I first encountered him, but White is every bit as harsh, defaming, slanderous, ad hominem, relentlessly insulting and grossly unfair and uncharitable to his opponents as ever. From where I sit, the Reformed anti-Catholic apologists are precisely the worst offenders, whether it is John Q. Doe, Steve Hays, "Turretinfan" (The Anonymous One, or TAO), or White and Turk themselves, or David T. King (absolutely the most poorly-behaved Christian, bar none, that I have ever "met" online). They are the very worst examples of "apologetics" that I have observed in my 15 years online. Yet Turk is blind to all that, and can only see the speck in his Arminian Protestant brother's eye (and in my own).

In my view, we should take the warning of James the brother of Jesus seriously: Not many of us should become teachers, for we know that those who teach will be judged with greater strictness. Apologetics is a teaching ministry, part of the office of being an elder. And while one does not have to be an elder to be an apologist, one ought to be able to own the pastoral duties of apologetics to do give a proper defense of the faith. 
Absolutely correct. I couldn't agree more.

Now with the internet, the proliferation of self-appointed theological sentries looks like a toll road where every household has a booth to collect its own duty. It is now far less likely to find people who think that to defend and contend for the sake of Christ, and therefore for the sake of His people, one needs to be in and among His people -- it is in fact a badge of honor to be churchless. 

Indeed. For example, I tried in vain to find out where Steve Hays goes to church: after he blasted me for being supposedly unaccountable to my own priest. I pointed out to him, that with two clicks of a mouse, he could easily get to my church's website from my blog. But no matter. He simply blathered some sophistry to dismiss that. Bishop White, to his credit, has been accountable: he is an elder at Phoenix Reformed Baptist church. Whether he has ever been rebuked by his fellow elder / bishops for his frequent outrageous and uncharitable behavior, though, is another question (there may be no one above him at his own church). If he has, it has had no discernible effect whatever on his continuing abominable and unethical rhetoric against any and all theological opponents.

The idea that there is spiritual authority apart from the words one can self-publish is categorically lacking in the so-called apologetics blogosphere
Absolutely true. This is why one of my books has the approval of my own bishop; another has an Imprimatur from another bishop. I'm accountable to my parish and my priest. I was accountable as a staff employee of the Coming Home Network for three years, and am in close working association with Catholic Answers presently (a book of mine is to be published by them soon), and with big Catholic publishers (OSV, Sophia). Plenty of accountability: and not simply to one dinky local church, like Turk and White (since Baptists by nature are congregational). It's easy to get cronies and fans in a small congregation like that; easy as pie. If someone is against you, for the right reasons, you can simply pack up and go somewhere else, or even start your own new denomination. This is Protestantism. But to have the approval of a bishop, who has oversight over millions in some cases, and of national apostolates with boards comprised of many priests, bishops, academics, and prominent laypeople, is another story.  I am accountable in this way; why, then, was my name brought up as such a supposedly pitiable example?

Turk is the one (far as I know) who is "self-published." I have six books published by real publishers, and several magazine articles in real Catholic magazines, with oversight and flesh-and-blood editors. But Frank can write whatever he likes on his blog or on Pyromaniacs. Where has he ever been published apart from the Internet, which anyone can do? Who has ever supervised or censured his writings when they got out of hand? Yet here he is writing his "self-published" words, critiquing others who are merely "self-published" as he himself is.

I recently noted this high irony in the case of John Q. Doe, and pointed out that David T. King's and William Webster's three-volume series on the Church fathers regarding the Bible and Tradition issue (highly touted by Doe in many many posts), is itself self-published.

Not that I am opposed in principle to blogs or self-published books at all (I have many of my own on Lulu, and 2600 papers posted on my own blog); I'm simply noting the irony of a self-published person blasting others of the same status, as if it is a fundamentally suspect status, and not seeing anything whatever wrong in his own rhetoric.

the idea that we can be both humble and certain, have both Truth and Love, both gentleness and reverence, both Scripture and reason, all heart, mind and soul, and above all having both freedom and responsibility when we are militant for truth and the right faith of others cannot be found.
I think it can be found (especially in Catholic circles, but among many Protestant apologists as well: the ones who aren't anti-Catholic like Turk and White). Occasionally, an anti-Catholic apologist can be located (like a needle in a haystack) who doesn't specialize in ad hominem attack, and who deliberately avoids it; sticking to the issues. Jason Engwer is a prime example; but it is a very rare species. The anti-Catholic position is so fundamentally hostile in theology, before we even get to behavior and demeanor, that it is almost inevitable. But then, Jason is not Reformed. :-)

The Calvinist / Reformed anti-Catholics: the majority of the group, and certainly the most active and vocal against Catholicism, are also notoriously hostile against Arminian Protestants (as we see in this very article by Turk). It's just as it was when the "Reformation" began. Martin Luther was even more vicious (verbally and behaviorally) towards the Swiss Reformed (Zwingli, Oecolampadius), radicalized Lutherans (Carlstadt), and Anabaptists than he was against the Catholics. He even called for the death penalty against Anabaptists (i.e., the ones who believed in adult baptism, like Turk and White do), but not against Catholics.

Turk's and White's lives might very well be in danger if the original, earliest Lutherans or Calvinists were around (even, alas, from Old Man Calvin himself), but not my own. They might very well have ended up on the bottom of Lake Geneva (the Anabaptists were usually drowned, as a mockery of their baptismal beliefs). How ironic, huh? Calvin in turn despised the Lutherans (notwithstanding his friendship with Melanchthon). The Protestant leopard has the same spots that it has always had. They will always be burdened  with endless and biblically ridiculous in-fighting because of their flawed rule of faith (sola Scriptura and unbridled private judgment).

We can see this clearly in those who are not like us: the real pelagians and semi-pelagians beget social gospel followers either on the left or the right; the softie arminians beget invitation junkies, and the hard arminians beget anti-intellectual zen Christians who think programs are the thing -- opportunities mean more than actual discipleship.

Here is the hostility I was just talking about . . . Some of this does occur, surely, but he paints with far too broad and prejudicial of a brush.


. . . we have to re-evaluate what we think we are doing in the playing field of apologetics.
Yes, they sure do. Now if Turk would be bold and honest enough to include his own antics as well as White's and the other men I have named above, then some real progress could be made that we could all rejoice in. But there is almost no chance of this ever happening. The ones who insult, continue to do so, unchecked by anyone. The ones who don't (like Jason Engwer) continue to behave as they do. There is a model that Turk could follow and note, but like I said, Engwer isn't (unfortunately for Turk's point) Reformed, so he doesn't fit into the mold that Turk is constructing, where the Arminians are the bad guys and jerks. But they do have the anti-Catholicism in common.

Doesn't judgment start in the house of the Lord?

Yes! It's a start to at least acknowledge the true principle; to apply it fairly and honestly (in the anti-Catholic apologetics world) is another matter entirely.
But it seems to me that if we have the time to refute anti-Calvinism -- which is usually a kind of commitment to ignorance -- we can find the time to refute heterodox behavior -- which is usually just a commitment to being awful.
Great point!

In the end, these letters I have written to you are not about indicting you for anything because I think there's nothing to indict you for. We agree on so much, and I am proud to call you a father in the faith and a brother and fellow (if senior) workman in God's field.
Yes, Bishop White (who could doubt it?) has been an exemplary, heroic figure of the utmost charity to all opponents. If you are able to bring yourself to believe that, I have some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you (please, by all means, contact me). This characterization is as far from the truth as east is from west or black from white.  But this sort of blindness is exactly the reason why the anti-Catholic crowd never reforms its abominable behavior and sub-Christian ethics. Personally, I don't think it can or will, because the theology and premises of the group (in terms of its view of Catholicism) are so dead-wrong and inherently hostile, that the behavior inevitably (with rare exceptions like Engwer) follows the rotgut theological / ecclesiological position. That is human nature. If we detest someone's theology and define it out of Christianity altogether (on utterly erroneous, wrongheaded grounds) we will likely detest the person who holds it, too.

Thus, we have the basis for the unending personal attacks and vitriol (we see the same exact dynamic in politics today). If anyone doubts that White has incessantly lied about me (as just one example of a person he disagrees with, and personally despises), just go to his site and do a search of my name, or, for that matter, of fellow Protestants Dave Hunt, Ergun Caner, Norman Geisler, Paul Owen, or William Lane Craig. Don't just take my word for it. I could easily compile a compilation of White's insults and uncharitable rhetoric that would be (at a bare minimum) fifty times longer than this post.

But this is a call to consider the state of Christian apologetics inside our own camp. Is there really nothing to be done to remedy the rampant unchristian approach so many take to Christian apologetics?
I commend this call; it's great. But it will never get off the ground if Turk is so blinded by his abject fandom of White, to see that White himself is the worst offender, almost bar none. Only David T. King has behaved in a more unChristian fashion than White, at least according to what I have observed these past 15 years (but he is infinitely less active online, fortunately for anti-Catholicism and its already atrocious image). But Turk can find nothing at all wrong about White's demeanor (or his own). Therefore, his call for reform will never amount to anything, until he rectifies those huge blind spots. If you're calling for the removal of elephants from the room, and can't see the elephant sitting in the middle of the very room you are in, then obviously it is a quixotic enterprise, doomed from the get-go.

* * * 
I was curious to see the first two parts. Here is Part One, with some replies of mine:
So in this first of three letters, I wanted to say plainly: there are three people in this world to whom I owe a splendiferous spiritual debt. The first is the pastor who baptized me and made me more than someone with just a hollow confession of Christ as savior; the second is my wife who has been spectacularly-loving and patient with me as I have gone from spiritual infant to christian husband and father in our home; and the last, quite plainly, is you.
More hero-worship. It's a classic case study of being literally unable (or unwilling) to see the evident faults in our heroes, nor being able to see how we, too, often copy the same faults in our heroes, as Frank has done.

I found myself, in the late 90's, sort of embroiled in an accidental stew of amateur apologetics. I had a column in a short-lived webzine called "IM-UR", and was a regular contributor at what was then MSNBC.com's religion & faith forum/BBS. I was also in the middle of many forums at the theological Sargasso Sea which was CARM.org. And I was both under-informed and overwhelmed.
I can certainly vouch for the "under-informed" part . . . 

. . . you personally are among the best-in-class when it comes to internet apologetics . . . 
Gag me with a spoon . . . This is truly pathetic.

I found that you also had a live chat channel in which, when you were available, you would talk to anybody.
Really? I didn't notice that. I've been kicked out of his live chat forum (simply for being a Catholic) so many times I have lost count . . . 

And now on to Part Two:
. . . you framed something which, let's face it, has been going around about me for about two years now: Turk hates apologists.
Ah, now I get it: it's the familiar old theme of the person who has failed at something, now being against the thing altogether, because he failed at it. If I've seen this dynamic once, I've seen it a hundred times. I'm not saying that it is the entire motivation of Turk's post (I can't read his heart in the first place, to determine that), but it seems to be a significant reason. If Turk was truly called to apologetics and believed in the core of his being that it was important and crucial, he would have never stopped doing it, let alone gotten a reputation as a hater of same.

But let's think about something here: you wisely do not spend all of your time cataloging the vagrants wearing tin-foil hats and the newspaper tuxedoes who think they are fully equipped with the full armor of God. You could: they are legion.

Yes; this is why I no longer debate theology with anti-Catholics.

And look: it's extremely easy to find you personally modeling the right kind of apologetics.
I don't deny that White ever does anything good: he does: he argues for and defends several things that are true and right, and I have happily noted that on many occasions. But he also does a great deal of abominable apologetics: fighting for falsehood, and being an atrocious model of Christian behavior and exactly how not to act as an apologist defending Christianity. Turk is blind to all that, simply because he agrees with the end and the goal.Therefore, his analysis is fundamentally flawed (in terms of ever succeeding in real life) because it denies that a=a, right in front of his nose.

Martin Luther in His Pseudo-Prophetic, Hyper-Infallible, "Super-Pope" Mode (Shocking Examples)

 Here is a prime example of this motif in Luther's thinking. Citations indented below are drawn from Luther's own words, in different translations.
Many thanks to anti-Catholic John Q. Doe for some of this info.

* * * * *

. . . whoever teaches differently from what I have taught herein, or condemns me for it, he condemns God, and must be a child of Hell.


(Henry O'Connor, Luther's Own Statements, New York: Benziger Bros., 3rd ed., 1884, p. 20 / from Against Henry VIII, King of England, 1522)


. . . whoever teaches differently from what I have laid down here, or condemns me for any part of my doctrine, condemns God and is branded as a child of hell. 

(Johannes Janssen, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 vols., translated by A. M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910; originally 1891, vol. 3, p. 265)


. . . whoever teaches otherwise than I have taught, or condemns me, condemns God and must remain a child of hell.

(Hartmann Grisar, Luther, six volumes, translated by E. M. Lamond, edited by Luigi Cappadelta, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., 1913, vol. 5, p. 393)

 . . . whoever teaches differently and anathematizes me (damns me) because of them, anathematizes God and must remain a child of hell; because I know that this teaching is not my teaching. This is to spite all devils and men who might turn this around.

(translation by Brigitte, a German-Canadian Lutheran)

. . . Whoever teaches differently on these points than I have taught, or who condemns me in these things, he condemns God, and must remain a child of hell; for I know that these doctrines are not my doctrines. Defiance to all devils and men who attempt to subvert them!


(The Life of Martin Luther: Related from Original Authorities, Moritz Meurer, H. Ludwig: 1848, p. 266)

The original polemical piece was written by Luther in Latin and entitled Contra Henricum Regem Angliae. Luther later composed a German version which differed in some respects from his original Latin; entitled Antwort auf Konig Hetirich's Yon Engelland Buck, wider seineu Tractat von der Babylonischen Gefangmss. It is from this version that the translations above are derived. Readers may consult the German primary source on page 229-230 of  the standard Weimar collection (WA) 10(2) and also in the Erlangen edition, 28:346-347. It is a reply to the butcher-tyrant Henry VIII's book Assertio Septum Sacramentorum ("Defence of the Seven Sacraments").
This (paraphrased) "super-pope" / "I know everything" / "whoever disagrees with me is obviously damned" / "I don't claim to be a prophet but you better fear that I am"  motif is found often in Luther. It doesn't flow merely from coarse and boorish style or loss of temper. He actually believes these things. I've documented many of the utterances in the following papers:

1) Martin Luther's Dogmatic Self-Proclaimed Super-Duper Infallibility and Virtual Inspiration
2) Martin Luther the "Super-Pope" and de facto Infallibility: With Extensive Documentation From Luther's Own Words
3) Martin Luther's Humility, Expressed in His Statements About Himself and His Mission (Hartmann Grisar)

4) Martin Luther the "Super-Pope" and de facto Infallibility: Extensive Documentation From Luther's Own Words and a Discussion of Protestant Charges Concerning Alleged Widespread Dishonesty of Catholic Apologists in Dealing With Luther (vs. "BJ Bear")
5) Heretic Popes and Pope as "God on Earth" vs. Luther as God's Man of the Hour and Quasi-Prophet (vs. Tim Enloe)
6) Choice Tidbits From Luther's Blast Against Henry VIII (1522): Luther's Delusions of Grandeur and Self-Importance

 Here are some highlights of Luther's colorful, sadly self-deluded, megalomaniacal language (numbers refer to the papers above, where further documentation can be found): 

. . . I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you - or even an angel from heaven - to judge my teaching or to examine it. . . . I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels' judge through this teaching . . . so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved - for it is God's and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God's. (1) [July 1522]
I am certain that I have my dogmas from heaven, . . . (2) [1522]
I say not that I am a prophet, but I do say that the more they despise me and esteem themselves, the more reason they have to fear that I may be a prophet . . . If I am not a prophet, yet for my own self I am certain that the Word of God is with me and not with them, for I have the Scriptures on my side, and they have only their own doctrine. (2) [1521] But I will allow no one to assail my teaching with impunity, since I know that it is not mine, but God's. (2) [1521] All who shun us and attack us secretly have departed from the faith . . . Just like Zwingli . . . It pains me that Zwingli and his followers take offence at my saying that 'what I write must be true.' (2) We must needs decry the fanatics as damned . . . They actually dare to pick holes in our doctrine; . . . (2) . . . I wrote so usefully and splendidly concerning the secular authorities as no teacher has ever done since Apostolic times, save perhaps St. Augustine; of this I may boast with a good conscience, relying on the testimony of the whole world. (3) Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He has on me . . . (3)

Chrysostom was a mere gossip. Jerome, the good Father, and lauder of nuns, understood precious little of Christianity. (3)

But who knows whether God has not raised me up and called me to this, and whether they have not cause to fear that they are condemning God in me? Do we not read in the Old Testament that God, as a rule, raised up only one prophet at a time? (3)

 ***   

Documentation of My Pre-Evangelical, Pre-Catholic Pagan, "Practical Atheist," Occultic, and Nature-Mystic Period (1967-1977)

 Yours truly: c. March 1976: senior in high school, about a year before my evangelical conversion (and the longest hair ever seen in any of my photos!)
Thank heavens for Google Search. I have almost 2600 papers on my blog. After thoroughly searching, I found all there is to find about my early life, on my website. To summarize, my life can be divided into four quite distinct periods:

1) Very nominal, ignorant, lax Methodist (United Methodist Church): 1958-1967 (up to age 9).

2) Pagan, Occult-Influenced, Nature-Worshiping, Textbook Secularized Liberal, Unchurched, "Practical Atheist": 1967-1977 (ages 10-18).

3) Evangelical Protestant period: 1977-1990 (ages 18-32).

4) Catholic period: 1990 to the present (ages 32-53).

This paper is a documentation of what I have written about (mostly) the second period above: 1967 or so to 1977 and my conversion to Christ as His disciple, and to evangelical Protestantism.
* * * * *
1) Romanticism, Wagner, C. S. Lewis, Christianity, and Me (my most extensive treatment of this period of my life and my nature mysticism and pagan / occultic influences or affinities; written in 1997)

2) My published (Catholic) conversion story (in the book, Surprised by Truth ) includes a section describing my pre-evangelical childhood. On my site is my original draft, before it was edited (with some material added that I didn't even write). See the second through the tenth paragraphs. I wrote this in December 1990 and revised it slightly in July 1992.

3) A transcript of a radio interview from 8 September 1997 contains some comments on my early life in the first part.

4) An interview with Spanish journalist Itxu Diaz (March 2011) has a lot of information about my early days.

5) I wrote several paragraphs about this time in March 2008, in a paper about my evangelical background. I will paste it below for your convenience:

I sarcastically refer to [this] as the "Great Depression" period of my life (March-October 1977). . . .

God sometimes gives a person up to their sin (and to Satan) for a time, with the ultimate goal of causing them to repent by hitting bottom and waking up (rather than being lost).

I dare say that this happened in my own life. Being content, at age 18 (back in 1977), to live without God and pay Him very little notice at all, all of a sudden I found myself in a deep (very serious, clinical) depression and utter despair, that lasted six months. God knew what it would take in my case to wake me up. It worked. I soon cried out to Him (having nowhere else to go, and no hope). God in His tender mercy, accepts even this "default" / last resort discipleship. So I devoted my life to Him, as an evangelical Protestant. The depression didn't go away immediately, but the black despair did, and once the depression left after six months, it never returned (thank heavens).

I've always interpreted this as God, in effect, saying, "okay, Dave. You want to live without Me? Do you truly want to see what it would be like to live a life of no hope and meaning; a world without God? Alright; I'll let you do that." And I saw what a truly Godless, nihilistic universe would be like and wanted no part of that!

There are also times that a person rejects God utterly and so God "gives him up" because God honors the free will of man and will force no one to follow Him by compulsion. It's more a semi-sarcastic or ironic manner of biblical speech. Man chooses to rebel, but to phrase it as "God giving him up" conveys the sense of God's control of everything, or relinquishing control (of human free will) as the case may be.

In my case, obviously God knew (being omniscient) that I would soon cry out, so it was literally an act of mercy to give me totally over to my own corrupt desire of living a life of "practical atheism". Many atheists can play games and pretend as if a world without God still has meaning, but I was allowed the privilege of seeing what a consistent atheism leads and reduces to: black despair and meaninglessness.

6) Dialogue on Romanticism and Christianity, from 15 February 2004, has a great amount of reflection about the topic in the title, and my own specific romantic / mystical experiences, including a poem I wrote around April or May 1977, called The Dream, that is very important in my life story and initial conversion to fairly zealous discipleship as a follower of Jesus Christ.

7) Portion of Harry Potter Series: Literary Magic or Magical Mystery Sewer? (7-19-05):

Watching the films didn't harm my Christian faith in the slightest. On the other hand, at an earlier point in my life, when my faith was not yet strong or fully-formed (to put it mildly), the movies quite possibly could have helped lead me astray, since I did, in fact, get involved to a considerable degree in occultic pursuits. The supernatural held a strong fascination for me (thankfully channeled later on into Christian supernaturalism). C. S. Lewis himself was also seriously involved in the occult in the period just before his encounter with the music and romanticism of Richard Wagner and a mythological sort of contemplation which he described as "Northernness":

Now, for the first time, there burst upon me the idea that there might be real marvels all about us, that the visible world might only be a curtain to conceal huge realms uncharted by my very simple theology. And that started in me something with which, on and off, I have had plenty of trouble since -- the desire for the preternatural, simply as such, the passion for the Occult. Not everyone has this disease; those who have will know what I mean [I do, very well] . . . It is a spiritual lust; and like the lust of the body it has the fatal power of making everything else in the world seem uninteresting while it lasts.

(Surprised by Joy, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1955, 60)

At times as I watched these movies, I must admit that for fleeting moments I felt precisely this "desire" that Lewis refers to. It's very difficult to describe without getting very heavy and mystical and philosophical, but it is a definite kind of coercion. I'm able to push it down because of strong Christian faith, but short of that, I can easily imagine (given my own background) someone with a similar bent being drawn into things which are harmful to their souls: true sorcery, witchcraft, Wicca, etc.: things which are definitely wrong and condemned in the Bible.

8) Portion of More Thoughts on the Morality of the Harry Potter Series (10-28-10):

Without the Christian grounding . . . it could quite possibly be spiritually dangerous for some kids with troubled backgrounds and lack of education in Christianity.

I did this myself (so I know, firsthand): without anywhere near proper knowledge of Christianity up to age 18, or commitment to Christ, I became involved in the occult and various questionable practices (telepathy, Ouija board, etc.). I had the spiritual imagination and curiosity and yearning, but because of lack of knowledge, it went in a wrong direction. Eventually, thank God, and by His grace, I channeled it towards the God of the Bible.

Since my kids do have that grounding, I have no worries whatever about Harry Potter or any of the other fantasies they watch (or now write about).
9) Portion of Dialogue With an Atheist on the Relationship of Christianity and Metaphysics to the Scientific Method (vs. Sue Strandberg) (3-18-05):

I used to try to do telepathy, ESP, the Ouiji Board, astral projection, all sorts of weird occultic stuff, back in the 70s. I was very serious about it. In a way, I see this in retrospect as an openness to possible supernatural realities, a form of open-mindedness, rather than pure gullibility (though it was partially that, too). I simply needed more information, upon which to make rational choices about what I would consider "spiritual realities."  But I would contend that it was post-Christian secular culture which influenced me to pursue these things in the first place. TV shows like The Outer Limits and One Step Beyond and The Twilight Zone - arguably - were means of propagating non-Christian supernaturalist worldviews among the populace. In a truly Christian society, much of this material would be frowned-upon, if not outright forbidden; considered harmful to souls.
10) Beautiful Irish Songs and the Longing of Sehnsucht (3-20-04) (expresses my personal feelings and opinions along these lines).

Non-Autobiographical but Thematically Relevant Materials
C. S. Lewis and the Romantic Poets on Longing, Sehnsucht, and Joy (the excerpts describe the experience or sense of Lewis' "Joy" that I and many others have experienced)

Myth-as-Truth, J. R. R. Tolkien, and the Conversion of C. S. Lewis (descriptions of the romantic paganism-to-Christianity spiritual journey)

The Relationship of Romanticism to Christianity and Catholicism in Particular

Brief Presentation of the Theistic Argument from Longing or Beauty

Romantic and Imaginative Theology: Inklings of the World Beyond (my extensive links web page)

Albert Einstein's "Cosmic Religion"

The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Deo-Atomism ("The Atom-as-God") (my sarcastic, but ultimately dead-serious treatment of atheist "worship" of matter almost as if it were God)

The Argument from Desire (Peter Kreeft)

A Baptism of Imagination: Conversation with Peter Kreeft (Ellen Haroutunian)

Aesthetic Arguments for the Existence of God (Peter Williams; Quodlibet Journal)

More on Romantic Theology (Keith Rickert, Jr.)

Anti-Catholic John Q. Doe's Glaring Double Standards Regarding "Self-Published" Books (Such as Those by Anti-Catholic Cronies William Webster and David T. King)

John Q. "Deadhead" Doe is a Reformed Protestant anti-Catholic polemicist, who runs a website called (well, at least affectionately by myself and some of my readers) Boors All . I won't tax the patience of readers with our past history (see Doe-related papers: one / two / three / four / five / six / seven / eight / nine / ten). Suffice it to say that the man despises me. He plays games with my papers and books; e.g., writing "book reviews" without mentioning that I am the author of the book.

His goal is always to put me down as someone not to be taken seriously, and as an utterly incompetent researcher (and he has also often classified me as mentally ill, just for the record). It's all personal attack. I long ago tired of documenting in any systematic way his 1001 lies about myself personally or my research, but in this paper I would like to simply document one particular double standard that often occurs on his blog. Double standards often typify anti-Catholic treatments of Catholics.

In a recent paper Doe noted one of my books, without mentioning my name as the author (pretty odd stuff):

As far as I can tell, the quote was taken from the self-published Lulu book, Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise, page 44. . . . If the person using this quote actually checked the documentation given in this self-published book, he would've realized "Ibid., from: O'Connor, 15" was barely helpful as a reference. Even the "O'Connor, 15" part was wrong.

Well, folks, I must confess to an outrageous error that Doe managed to identify: I incorrectly listed a page 15 in my source, when in fact, the material in question was actually on page 20 (as in my original 1991 handwritten research notes: I just checked). I repent in dust and ashes and renounce my entire corpus of apologetics books, since this horrific, inexcusable error has destroyed my competence. It was a nice run, but it's over now . . .

Seriously, though, I want to concentrate on Doe's cynical practice of identifying my books as "self-published." Never mind that I have six books "officially" published by three different Catholic publishers, with a fourth (150 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura) to be published soon by a fourth major Catholic publisher: Catholic Answers. Several of my books, for that matter, are also carried in important theological and municipal libraries (including many Protestant ones). None of that matters in Doe's mind. He only wants to note others of my books that I put out on my own, and never misses a chance to describe them as "self-published."

He makes a big deal about that, as an indication that my work is of no significance whatever, because it is merely "self-published." He also fails to see the highly amusing hyper-irony that every time he states this, it is on his own "self-published" and non-supervised blog. The man couldn't get anything officially published to save his life, yet he mocks me as "self-published" when he knows full well that I have several books (six) published by real live publishers, with real live, breathing editors, managing boards of real people, etc. Here is a second example:

On page 122 of a self-published book, Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise (2008), a Catholic apologist documents the quote as: . . . In the Catholic apologist's case, his book on Luther is self-published, . . . (10-12-08)

He does the same to other authors: several of them Protestant, but not Calvinist, and so subject to his belittling (examples: one / two / three / four / five). Oddly enough, however, Doe has an extremely high opinion of a three-volume work by anti-Catholic comrades William Webster and David T. King:

Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume I: A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura (King)
 
Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume II: An Historical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura (Webster)


Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume III: The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura (Webster and King)

I say "oddly enough" because these were put out by "Christian Resources, Inc." Ever heard of that outfit? I didn't think so. I demonstrated in a a paper over two years ago: Self-Publishing and "Podunk Publishing" Efforts of Some of the Leading Anti-Catholic Authors (King, Webster, White, Svendsen) -- that this "publisher" was run by Webster himself. It's self-publishing, folks. Anyone can print their own book if they like and put it out. It's easy to do today.

Knowing this, why is it, then, that when Doe extolls these works (as he often has and continues to do) he never ever ever (far as I can tell from searching his site) mentions that they are "self-published"? Why in the world would that be? Maybe you can write to him and ask. I can't, because he has told me he blocks my e-mails, and I'm banned from his blog as well. Here are examples:

As a token of appreciation for your comments on this blog, i'd like to send you David King's book: Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith (Volume I) (9-7-06)


I cited this quote from David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground And Pillar Of Our Faith Volume 1 (WA: Christian Resources Inc, 2001), 224]. (10-23-06)


[two citations] (10-24-06)


As David King points out in his book Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, . . . (7-26-07)


For a detailed look at this argument see: David King, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith (WA: Christian Resources inc, 2001) p.130-136. (7-31-07)


For an extended treatment of this quote by Basil, see William Webster, Holy Scripture, the Ground and Pillar of Our Faith (Battle Ground: Christian Resources, 2001), Vol. 2, pp. 142ff. (8-10-07)


For an excellent compilation of quotes of the Church fathers teaching on the primacy, sufficiency and ultimate authority of Scripture, get a copy of Holy Scripture:The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol III- The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura.(12-30-07)


I would also be interested in knowing if you've read Dr. White's Roman Catholic Controvery [sic], Webster/King's Holy Scripture: The ground and Pillar of Our Faith (3 vols), and Svendsen's Who is My Mother? If not, you really should get some of these books before making your final decision. (1-19-09)


For an excellent compilation of quotes of the Church fathers teaching on the primacy, sufficiency and ultimate authority of Scripture, get a copy of Holy Scripture:The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol III- The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura. (7-7-09)


Here's reason number #986 why I keep the book Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Volume One on my desk. (4-5-10)


[three citations] (7-31-10)

You get the idea. Never a word about these volumes being self-published. They're right up there next to the Bible in importance and near-inspired nature. The original page of the publisher, "Christian Resources" -- where I documented that Webster was the director and founder is no longer online. But a current "Contact Info." page leads right to Webster's e-mail address. If there is any doubt that this is not a traditional publisher, but a glorified, slickly disguised self-publishing operation, the Book Printing page outlines how anyone can pay to get a book printed:

The price depends on the size of the book. As an example, the price for producing a paperback book, 80 pages in length, 5 1/2" x 8 1/2" in size would be approximately $4.50 per book. The customer would be responsible for shipping costs.

If you have interest in having a book printed please contact Bill Webster for an estimate

How Christian and democratic of William: anyone can get a book published at good ol' Christian Resources. Even Doe could put out a book if he likes, filled with his relentlessly profound pearls of wisdom! Well, anyone but a Catholic, of course . . .

Through the marvel of Internet Archive, it was easy enough to establish that Webster runs this outfit:

Christian Resources is a non-profit teaching, apologetics and publishing ministry dealing with issues related to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, the Gospel, Church history and the Christian life. The ministry is dedicated to the teaching and proclamation of the Gospel, a biblical and historical defense of the teachings of the Reformation and the discipling of believers in their Christian walk.

The Director and Founder of Christian Resources is William Webster

(home page, scanned on 9 February 2005)

Clicking on the category, "Books" on the same page above, we find the "hit" of this self-publishing juggernaut of Christian truth, the three-volume series I have been mentioning above.

Gotta love those incessant anti-Catholic ethical double standards . . .

Setlist for Paul McCartney Concert: Comerica Park, Detroit (24 July 2011) / Video Links

 [ source ]

[found at setlist.fm]
38 total songs:
Beatles: 25Wings: 8Solo: 4Cover: 1
Band:
Rusty Anderson (guitar, backing vocals)Brian Ray (bass, guitar, backing vocals)Abe Laboriel, Jr. (drums, percussion, backing vocals)Paul Wickens (keyboards, backing vocals)


1. Hello, Goodbye (from Magical Mystery Tour , 1967)
[video from Yankee Stadium, 7-15-11]

2. Junior's Farm ( [Wings] single, 1974; Wingspan: Hits and History , 2001)
[video from Yankee Stadium, 7-15-11] [video of original single]

3. All My Loving (from With the Beatles , 1963)
[live video from São Paulo, Brazil, 11-21-10]  
[video from Comerica Park]:



4. Jet ( [Wings] from Band on the Run , 1973)
[video from Yankee Stadium, 7-15-11] [live video from 1976 "Wings Over America" tour]


5. Drive My Car (from Rubber Soul , 1965)
[video from Comerica Park]


6. Sing the Changes ( [solo] from Electric Arguments , 2008)
[video from CD/DVD "Good Evening New York City", 2009] [video from Rio de Janeiro, 5-22-11]


7. Hitch Hike (Marvin Gaye cover [1962], especially for the Detroit crowd)
[video from Comerica Park] [video from Apollo Theater, NYC, 12-13-10]

8. The Night Before (from Help! , 1965)
[video from Yankee Stadium, 7-15-11]

9. Let Me Roll It + Foxy Lady jamming excerpt (Jimi Hendrix) ( [Wings] from Band on the Run , 1973)
[video from Rome, 2003] [video from Rio de Janeiro, 5-22-11]

10. Paperback Writer (single, 1966; Past Masters , 2009)
[video from Rio de Janeiro, 5-22-11] [live video from Halifax, Nova Scotia, 7-11-09]

11. The Long and Winding Road (from Let it Be , 1969)
[video from Yankee Stadium, 7-15-11] [video from Rio de Janeiro, 5-22-11]

12. Nineteen Hundred and Eighty Five ( [Wings] from Band on the Run , 1973)
[video from Yankee Stadium, 7-15-11]

13. Let 'em In ( [Wings] from Wings at the Speed of Sound , 1976)
[video from Yankee Stadium, 7-15-11]

14. Maybe I'm Amazed ( [solo] from McCartney , 1970)
[video from Yankee Stadium, 7-15-11]

15. I've Just Seen a Face (from Help! , 1965)
[video from Yankee Stadium, 7-15-11]

16. I Will (from The Beatles ["White Album"], 1968)
[video from Yankee Stadium, 7-15-11] [video with original song]

17. Blackbird (from The Beatles ["White Album"], 1968)

[live video from São Paulo, Brazil, 11-21-10] 
[video from Comerica Park]:




18. Here Today ( [solo] from Tug of War , 1982)
[video from Comerica Park]:



On You Tube many commenters said they cried during this song, and that many in the audience were. I sure did. This one always gets to me, anyway, because it is an extremely moving tribute to John Lennon (and I always think of my brother Gerry, too (who died of leukemia in 1998). In concert it was simply overwhelming. The cheering at the beginning was for John Lennon, after Paul mentioned his name.

19. Dance Tonight ( [solo] from Memory Almost Full , 2007)
[live video from São Paulo, Brazil, 11-21-10]

20. Mrs. Vandebilt ( [Wings] from Band on the Run , 1973)
[video from Rio de Janeiro, 5-22-11] [video with original song]

21. Eleanor Rigby (from Revolver , 1966)
[video from Yankee Stadium, 7-15-11]

22. Something (with ukulele intro) (from Abbey Road , 1969)
[video from Yankee Stadium, 7-15-11] [video from Rio de Janeiro, 5-22-11]

23. Band on the Run ( [Wings] from Band on the Run , 1973)
[video from Comerica Park] [video from Yankee Stadium, 7-15-11]
[live video from São Paulo, Brazil, 11-21-10]

24. Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da (from The Beatles ["White Album"], 1968)
[video from Yankee Stadium, 7-15-11] [live video from São Paulo, Brazil, 11-21-10] 

25. Back In The USSR (from The Beatles ["White Album"], 1968)
[video from Comerica Park]

26. I've Got a Feeling (with "heavy" jamming ending) (from Let it Be , 1969)
[video from Rio de Janeiro, 5-22-11] [live from Hyde Park, London, 6-27-10]

27. A Day in the Life + chorus of  Give Peace a Chance (John Lennon) (from Sgt. Pepper , 1967)
[video from Yankee Stadium, 7-15-11] [video from Rio de Janeiro, 5-22-11]

28. Let It Be (from Let it Be , 1969)
[video from Rio de Janeiro, 5-22-11] [live video, Liverpool, 1 June 2008]

29. Live and Let Die ( [Wings] single, 1973; Wingspan: Hits and History , 2001)
[video from Comerica Park] [video from Yankee Stadium, 7-15-11]

30. Hey Jude (single, 1968; Past Masters , 2009)
[video from Yankee Stadium, 7-15-11]

Encore One:

31. Lady Madonna (single, 1968; Past Masters , 2009)
[video from Comerica Park]

32. Day Tripper (single, 1965; Past Masters , 2009)
[video from Comerica Park]

33. Get Back (from Let it Be , 1969)
[video from Comerica Park]

Encore Two:

34. Yesterday (from Help! , 1965)
[live video from São Paulo, Brazil, 11-21-10] [live video from 1965]

35. Helter Skelter (from The Beatles ["White Album"], 1968)
[video from Comerica Park] [video from Yankee Stadium, 7-15-11]
[live video from São Paulo, Brazil, 11-21-10]   

36. Golden Slumbers (from Abbey Road , 1969)
[video from Yankee Stadium, 7-15-11]

37. Carry That Weight (from Abbey Road , 1969)
[video from Yankee Stadium, 7-15-11]

38. The End (from Abbey Road , 1969)
[video from Yankee Stadium, 7-15-11]

*  *  *
I was curious what songs Paul did in his previous show, that he didn't do at this concert. They are as follows:

July 16: Yankee Stadium, New York City:

Magical Mystery Tour
I'm Looking Through You
I Saw Her Standing There

My Favorite Classical Music Pieces (Judging by Multiple Recordings Owned)

Richard Wagner (1813-1883), c. 1868
As you can see, I'm very partial to 19th century orchestral, Romantic, and Germanic music (with lots of brass: I used to play trombone in a band and orchestra). I love the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra the most, and Decca / London recordings; also vinyl LPs from the late 50s and early 60s (and up through the early 80s). I first bought those ("bargain bin") in 1975 when I started collecting: from the legendary Hudson's store in downtown Detroit. Today I bought nine vinyl records of classical music at a sale (25% off used) and the total was $11.83 (!!). Thus, I paid less per record today ($1.31) than I did back in 1975 ($3.00-4.00), and even though they are used, they are in great shape (maybe played only a few times).
[R = vinyl record; all others are CDs; dates are for actual recording and album release, respectively]
1. Richard Wagner, Die Meistersinger, Prelude to Act I [16]
CLE/Szell R COL/Walter R
PHI/Ormandy RPSO/Steinberg R VPO/Stein (1974) RBPO/Kubelik (1963) / 1976 R
PHO/Boult 1972 R
CLE/Szell (1962) / 1992
VPO/Bohm (1979) / 1993 
VPO/Solti (1976) / 1994
CSO/Solti (9-95) / 1997
PHO/Klemperer (1960) / 1998 + R
CSO/Solti (1972) / 1999
PAR/Barenboim (1983) / 2001
NYP/Sinopoli (1986) / 2003
BPO/Karajan (1974) / 2005
LSO/Stokowski (1972) / 2005
2.  Richard Wagner, Tristan und Isolde, Prelude to Act I [14]  
CLE/Szell RPHI/Ormandy R VPO/Stein (1974) R BPO/Kubelik (1963) / 1976 R PHO/Boult 1972 R CLE/Szell (1962) / 1992 BAY/Bohm (1966) / 1993 VPO/Kempe (1958) / 1995 PHO/Klemperer (1960) / 1998 VPO/Solti (1961) / 1998 PHO/Furtwangler (6-52) / 2001 [mono] CSO/Solti (1978) / 2003  RPO/Stokowski (1974) / 2004 BPO/Karajan (1974) / 2005 BOU/Serebrier (6-06) / 2007 [arr. Stokowski]   3.  Richard Wagner, Tristan und Isolde, Love-Death (Liebestod) [14]
CLE/Szell RPHI/Ormandy R VPO/Stein (1974) R BPO/Kubelik (1963) / 1976 R CLE/Szell (1962) / 1992 VPO/Bohm (1981) / 1993 VPO/Kempe (1958) / 1995 BPO/Karajan (1984) / 1996 VPO/Solti (1960) / 1998 PHO/Klemperer (1960) / 1998 PHO/Furtwangler (6-52) / 2001 CSO/Solti (1978) / 2003 RPO/Stokowski (1974) / 2004 BPO/Karajan 2005 BOU/Serebrier (6-06) / 2007 [arr. Stokowski]  4. Gustav Mahler, Symphony No. 1 [13] 
LPO/Boult (10-58) R  LSO/Horenstein (9-69) RRPO/Leinsdorf (4-71) / 1972 R CSO/Abbado (2-81) R COL/Walter (2-61) / 1994 + R IPO/Mehta (12-74) / 1994 [w "Blumine" original 2nd movement] BAV/Kubelik (10-67) / 1997 LPO/Tennstedt (10-77) / 1998 ATL/Levi 9-99 1999 [w "Blumine" original 2nd movement] CSO/Boulez (5-98) / 1999 LSO/Solti (2-64) / 2001 NYP/Bernstein (10-66) / 2001 CON/Bernstein (10-87) / 2005  5.  Richard Wagner, Die Walkure, Ride of the Valkyries [13]
PHI/Ormandy R
CLE/Szell R
LSO/Stokowski (1966) / 1974 R
NSO/Dorati 1976 R
CLE/Szell (1968) / 1992
BPO/Karajan (1967) / 1993
PHO/Klemperer (1963) / 1998
VPO/Solti (1965) / 1998
VPO/Solti (1982) / 1998 + R
BPO/Tennstedt (1983) / 2001
MET/Levine (1997) / 2003
SOA/Stokowski (1974) / 2004
LSO/Stokowski (1966) / 2005  BOU/Serebrier (6-06) / 2007 [arr. Stokowski] RPO/Handley (1998) / 2009 
6.  Richard Wagner, The Flying Dutchman Overture [13]  CLE/Szell R COL/Walter R VPO/Solti 1962 R VPO/Stein (1974) R LCP/Norrington ["original version"] 1990 BAY/Bohm (1971) / 1993 PHO/Klemperer (1960) / 1998 + R VPO/Solti (1961) / 1998 CSO/Solti (1977) / 1999 PHO/Klemperer (1968) / 2000 RPO/Beecham (4-16-54) / 2002 [mono] CSO/Solti (1962) / 2003 BPO/Karajan (1974) / 2005RPO/Handley (1998) / 2009
7.  Richard Wagner, Tannhauser Overture [12]
VPO/Solti 1962 R CLE/Szell R
PHI/Ormandy R
PHO/Boult 1972 R
BOO/Gerdes (1969) / 1993
VPO/Solti (1962) / 1994 
PHO/Boult (1972) / 1995
PHO/Klemperer (1960) / 1998 + R
CSO/Solti (1977) / 1998
BPO/Tennstedt (1983) / 2001
VPO/Solti (1970) / 2002
BPO/Karajan (1974) / 2005 RPO/Handley (1998) / 2009
8.  Igor Stravinsky, The Rite of Spring [11] 

ORF/Boulez (60s) R
COL (NYP) /Stravinsky R  LAP/Mehta 1970 R CSO/Solti 1974 R PHI/Muti (10-78) / 1985
LPO/Haitink (1-73) / 1993 CLE/Maazel (5-80) / 1993 OSR/Ansermet (1957) / 1994 CLE/Boulez (7-69) / 1994
LSO/Abbado (2-75) / 1997
CSO/Ozawa (7-68) / 1999
9. Franz Schubert, Symphony No. 8 ("Unfinished") [11] 
CLE/Szell (1970) R BPO/Karajan 1978 R VPO/Maazel 1980 R BPO/Wand (3-95) / 1995 DRE/Sawallisch (1967) / 1995 VPO/Solti (1985) / 1996 BPO/Karajan (1978) / 1996 VPO/Muti 1999 BAV/Klemperer 2000 ASM/Marriner (8-83) / 2002 ["Finished" version] LPO/Stokowski (1969) / 2005 BSO/Munch (1955) / 2007 
10. Johannes Brahms, Symphony No. 1 [11] 
CLE/Szell R COL/Walter R PHO/Klemperer (1961) R LSO/Horenstein (1-62) R CLE/Maazel (1976) R CSO/Solti (1-79) / 1991 BPO/Karajan (2-78) / 1998 VPO/Barbirolli (1968) / 2000 PHI/Muti (9-89) / 2002 VPO/Bernstein (1983) / 2004 PHO/Klemperer (1961) / 2005 LSO/Stokowski (1972) / 2005
11. Ludwig van Beethoven, Symphony No. 7 [11]
BPO/Karajan (1962) / 1978 R NYP/Bernstein R CLE/Szell 1970 R BPO/Fricsay (1962) / 1991 VPO/Kleiber (1976) / 1995 CSO/Reiner (10-55) / 1998 VPO/Karajan (1960) / 2001 PHO/Klemperer (1955) / 2002 PHO/Ashkenazy (1984) / 2003 VPO/Bernstein (11-78) / 2004 PHO/Stokowski (1975) / 2005  
12. Ludwig van Beethoven, Symphony No. 9 ("Choral") [10]
CLE/Szell 1963 / (1970) R
VPO/Schmidt-Isserstedt 1966 R
VPO/Bohm (1972) / 1992
CSO/Reiner (1961) / 1994
CSO/Solti (10-86) / 1995
BPO/Karajan (10-62) / 1996
BPO/Fricsay (1958) / 2001
CLE/Szell (1963) / 2002
BPO/Karajan (1-77) / 2003
VPO/Bernstein (9-79) / 2004
LSO/Stokowski (1967) / 2005

13. Franz Schubert, Symphony No. 9 ("Great") [10] 

CLE/Szell R [mono]
COL/Walter R BPO/Wand (3-95) / 1995DRE/Sawallisch (1967) / 1995BPO/Karajan ('75-'78) / 1996VPO/Solti (1981) / 1996
VPO/Gardiner (8-97) / 1998
ASM/Marriner (1-84) / 2002 BPO/Rattle (6-05) / 2006BSO/Munch (1958) / 2007
14. Ludwig van Beethoven, Symphony No. 5 [10]
VPO/Maazel 1980 R
CLE/Szell 1970 R BPO/Fricsay (1960) / 1991
ORR/Gardiner (3-94) / 1994
VPO/Kleiber (1975) / 1995
CSO/Reiner (5-59) / 1998
PHO/Ashkenazy (1982) / 2003
BPO/Karajan (1-77) / 2003
VPO/Bernstein (9-77) / 2004
LPO/Stokowski (1969) / 2005
After this, the following pieces have the most versions in my collection:
15. Richard Wagner, Lohengrin, Prelude to Act I [10]16. Richard Wagner, Lohengrin, Prelude to Act III [10]17. Richard Wagner, Parsifal, Prelude to Act I [10]18. Richard Wagner,  Gotterdammerung, Siegfried's Rhine Journey [9]19. Richard Wagner,  Gotterdammerung, Siegfried's Death and Funeral Music [9]20. Richard Wagner,  Die Walkure, Magic Fire Music [9]21. Richard Wagner,  Das Rheingold, Entry of the Gods Into Valhalla [9]22. Ludwig van Beethoven, Symphony No. 3 ("Eroica") [9]23. Hector Berlioz, Symphonie Fantastique [9]24. Anton Bruckner, Symphony No. 7 [9]25. Anton Bruckner, Symphony No. 9 [9]26. Gustav Mahler, Symphony No. 2 ("Resurrection") [9]27. Johannes Brahms, Symphony No. 4 [9]28. Ludwig van Beethoven, Egmont Overture [9]29. Antonin Dvorak, Symphony No. 9 ("New World") [8]30. Gustav Mahler, Symphony No. 5 [8] 31. Pyotr Tchaikovsky, Symphony No. 5 [8] 32. Johannes Brahms, Symphony No. 2 [8]33. Richard Wagner, Die Meistersinger, Prelude to Act III [8]33. Richard Wagner,  Rienzi Overture [8]

Discussion: Should we Invoke Mary at Our Death, and Does This Minimize or Neglect Our Lord Jesus?

My friend, Mary Kochan, editor of the Catholic Lane website, has recently written an article entitled, Catholics, Please Say Something About Jesus! Even before I read it, my "sociological" curiosity was greatly piqued by her statement introducing the article to me, in an advertising e-mail:

Well this is the first time this has ever happened: I managed to write an article, reaction to which seems to split right along the lines of converts vs cradle Catholics, with the converts saying I'm right and the life-long Catholics saying I'm wrong. So, what do you think?

As so often in my life, and specifically in my apologetics, my own opinion could not be neatly characterized or classified. I (as a convert, myself) came down sort of in the middle, but closer, I think, to the view that Mary says is being expressed by cradle Catholics. I think I understand why there is such a split.

In my opinion, the abiding concern of the converts is to stress the ecumenical aspect of Mariology: we need to use language that Protestants understand, to find common ground. And in this context that means mentioning Jesus more than Mary, and especially trying to do so in the face of death, and in talking about matters having to do with eschatological salvation: that is, the attainment of heaven. Vatican II stresses this, and it is a good thing. I am very big on both Vatican II and ecumenism, as readers of mine are well aware.

On the other hand, I think what cradle Catholics are saying is that Marian devotion and Mariological doctrines are perfectly legitimate and biblical. They simply need to be explained in greater detail to Protestants, who are often quite familiar with them. We mustn't give them up because they are misunderstood and distorted and dimly comprehended.

Mariology is sort of "advanced Christianity." One has to learn and arrive at a place where one resonates with them and comprehends them. As I have said before: you can't understand calculus or trigonometry before first mastering arithmetic and algebra. The spiritual life and theology also have beginner's and advanced stages. And that is why I am mostly "siding" with the "cradle Catholics" on this one, because, as an apologist, my job is to defend orthodox, traditional Catholicism, against all objections. Obviously, Mariology often offers the opportunity to do that. And I love the challenge, just as I have a great devotion to Our Lady myself.

In the article, Mary wrote about a Catholic man who died. For some reason, he had a Protestant funeral:

But back to the story of the Protestant funeral for our old coreligionist. From the time he started attending the Protestant services, one Protestant man in particular befriended him and this man spoke at the funeral of his great concern for his Catholic friend's salvation. "I finally asked him one day, 'If you died and stood before the Lord and He asked you why He should let you into heaven, what would you say?'"

Okay, yes, is it a ludicrous question.  It is silly to think that Jesus is going to ask us anything when we die.  But if you think the question is bad, you should know how our Catholic answered it: "I just ask the Virgin Mary to pray for me."

Now of course, the Protestant found this answer alarming. Fellow Catholics, we should find this answer alarming! . . .

I ponder really whether the man's mind had failed him or whether it was possible to be Catholic for a lifetime and not figure out that Jesus saves.  . . .

Whatever the case, how can Protestants be faulted for their ignorance that Catholics are Christians when Catholics have trouble bringing the name of Christ to their lips when asked to give a reason for their hope?

It is perfectly orthodox and not shocking to me at all (let alone anything remotely approaching "scandalous") that a Catholic should mention Mary's prayers for him, as key, even facing death. We all need grace, and we all need prayers to attain heaven. Mary's are the most powerful of all creature's prayers. And this is a perfectly biblical concept, according to James:

James 5:14-18 (RSV) Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; [15] and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. [16] Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. [17] Eli'jah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. [18] Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit.

Note that in verse 15 it says that "the prayer of faith will save ." If a prayer can save a man, and (as James is arguing), if in general the prayers of righteous people have more power and affect (KJV: "availeth much"), then Mary's prayers can save all the more, since she was without sin and the Immaculate Mother of God. It all makes perfect sense. Protestants will try to deny that Mary was sinless, yet the Bible says she is "full of grace" (Luke 1:28), and since in the Bible grace is the antithesis of sin, then it follows that she was sinless. Or Protestants will argue that the saints in heaven neither hear our prayers nor pray for us. Many biblical indications contradict that; for example, the cloud of witnesses" in Hebrews 12:1 and souls praying for those on the earth in Revelation 6:9-11, and "elders" having the "prayers of the saints" in heaven and presenting them to God (Rev 5:8), among other indications.

This particular person who died (I don't know) may very well have been ignorant of his faith and the relative importance of things (ignorance, unfortunately, should never surprise us), but my point is that merely to mention Mary in that context is not necessarily at all an indication that this is so, or that he is even somehow pitting Mary against Christ or even (heaven forbid) placing her higher than our Lord in the scheme of things. In other words, allowing ignorance, I am contending that an informed Catholic could speak in such a way, and that this would not in the slightest entail any real or implied or even deduced denigration of our Lord Jesus. it can be thoroughly defended, not only from internal Catholic criteria, but from Holy Scripture, as I have done in a nutshell in this very paper.

Catholic communion of saints presupposes the primacy of Jesus, just as historic Mariology does. It was the presupposition that Jesus was Lord and God that was behind the definition of "Mother of God" (Theotokos) at the Council of Ephesus in 431. The whole idea was to protect His divinity: not to over-exalt Mary. For that reason and others Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other Protestant founders had no problem with continuing to call her the Mother of God, or to believe in her perpetual virginity. Antipathy to those things comes from post-Enlightenment, post-liberal Protestantism, not historic "Reformation" Protestantism. Luther believed in a slightly different version of the Immaculate Conception, and Swiss "reformer" Heinrich Bullinger expressed belief in her bodily Assumption. Some historic Lutheran liturgies even held to Mary's Assumption.

Likewise, Catholic devotional materials about the Blessed Virgin Mary presuppose that Jesus is the source of our salvation and our redeemer and Savior; but it goes on to great heights of veneration of Mary, because that is the fullness of our faith. Many Protestants misunderstand this? What else is new? That is not a cue for us to abandon historic Catholic devotional treasures and spiritual richness, or to spiritually "dumb down" our robust apostolic Catholic faith (let Protestants indulge in their "lowest common denominator" type of "mere Christianity" if they wish), but rather, to explain to them why these things are not outrageous and unbiblical, as they are often made out to be.

I have noted the horrified reaction of Protestants to some of the classic Marian devotional expressions, such as those from St. Louis de Montfort and St. Alphonsus Liguori (both treatments are now part of my recent book about Mary); I've also examined the mariology of St. Maximilian Kolbe in the 20th century. I showed at great length that none of these devotional expressions and outlooks denigrated our Lord Jesus' glory and preeminence at all. The problem, however, is that Protestant critics only cite the most expansive, flowery (what they erroneously consider blasphemous and idolatrous) examples of Marian veneration from their writing, while ignoring all the Christocentric references (I acknowledged my readers' intelligence enough to conveniently provide those also).

That gives a thoroughly distorted picture of the overall thought. It's the classic out-of-context citation. In other words, the Protestant critics are giving the impression that these works were exalting Mary almost to Godhood, while ignoring Jesus, whereas the actual truth of the matter is that they render to Jesus adoration, but to Mary high veneration. The books were about the Blessed Virgin Mary, so obviously she was in the foreground in terms of topical subject matter. But it doesn't follow that she is being raised above Jesus.

I agree that we have to explain these things to Protestants and find common ground, as Vatican II urges, but we shouldn't run from our own spirituality or be ashamed of it or try to deliberately minimize it. We should defend it as perfectly understandable and in accordance with the Bible, rightly understood. And that is what I have sought to do in my apologetics.

Moreover, regarding this whole Protestant maxim about "what would you say to Jesus; why He should let you into heaven?": I was asked that in a semi-debate by Calvinist anti-Catholic Matt Slick. What I did was immediately challenge the premise involved: thinking that we have any indication that God talks this way in the first place. Curious, I started looking up passages about judgment. If Protestants truly want Scripture, I am happy to provide it for them. What I found was fascinating, and beyond what I would have expected. Nowhere is faith mentioned as the criteria of entrance to heaven. It is always works: what did we do in our lives. Surely this is the opposite of the Protestant faith alone view. The works presuppose faith as the other side of the same coin (per James and many Pauline utterances), yet in any event, works are always the center. I found no less than 50 examples of this.

If works are so central, then does that not include a "work" such as asking the Blessed Virgin to intercede for our salvation? It assuredly does. Prayer is something we do: hence in that sense it is a work. It's not something that comes from God without anything to do with our free will cooperation. We produce it: it is, therefore, a work coming from us, though enabled by God's grace, as all good things are.

Lastly, it is also worth noting to Protestants that even the Apostle Paul: the one they love to such a great extent (a love I very much share; hence my first son's name is Paul, etc.) did not at all come across as being sure of his salvation, as something already attained (the classic evangelical Protestant view). So our beloved St. Paul says things like the following:

1 Corinthians 9:24-27 (RSV) Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. [25] Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. [26] Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; [27] but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

Philippians 3:8-14 Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ [9] and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith; [10] that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, [11] that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. [12]Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. [13] Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, [14] I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
This is Pauline soteriology. It is very unlike the Protestant faith alone view. I have documented it at length in my post, Biblical Evidence Regarding a Vigilant, Pauline, Catholic Moral Assurance of Faith With Perseverance, in Hope.
 

Again, within this biblical, Pauline paradigm of the organic connection between grace, faith, and works (as opposed to the context of certain unbiblical Protestant soteriological traditions of men), it is perfectly acceptable and spiritually sensible to invoke Mary on behalf of our salvation: to ask her Son to have mercy on us and save us. We know that prayer is a very powerful avenue of grace: God's grace without which we have no hope of salvation. Her prayers are more powerful than any other prayers from fellow creatures. So the wise man will invoke her for something of such paramount importance, seeing that our salvation is not absolutely assured at any time, as St. Paul expressly taught, even with regard to his own salvation.

I think both sides have valid points. I would just say that we can't bend so much to appeal to Protestants in their outlook that we cease to be what we are. This is how the dying man's response case was presented in the article:

I finally asked him one day, 'If you died and stood before the Lord and He asked you why He should let you into heaven, what would you say?'" . . . you should know how our Catholic answered it: "I just ask the Virgin Mary to pray for me."
Now, note that the question is about what the person would say in front of God in heaven. A Catholic is gonna talk like a Catholic in front of God. He's not gonna stand there and think, "now how can I put this so that a Protestant will understand what I'm saying?"

Therefore, it is, by the nature of the case, rather a moot point to expect a Catholic man to reply to God as if he were talking to a Protestant. He can hardly modify his answer in such a case, when a Protestant is asking him what he would say to God. And since all agree that his answer is in accord with orthodox Catholic thought and legitimate Catholic Mariology (that presupposes Christology), I think it is a bum rap: at least considered abstractly, apart from the man's actual state of knowledge of his Catholicism.

I conclude, then, that there is nothing improper in his reporting what he would say, and reporting that he would answer like many a Catholic (and many a saint) would. One could go on to make a general case that Catholics need to stress Jesus more in talking to Protestants (and I readily agree with that). But the article is specifically criticizing the man for his answer ("Now of course, the Protestant found this answer alarming. Fellow Catholics, we should find this answer alarming!"), and I think I have shown that he was under no obligation in that particular instance to "talk in terms a Protestant would understand" since he was asked to reveal what he would say to God at the time of judgment. That makes it quite a different scenario from the usual run-of-the-mill Catholic-Protestant interaction.


I think the real scandal here and what should raise our ire and disturb us, is not the Catholic's answer (however ignorant he might have been), but rather, the essential impropriety of utilizing a funeral service to mock and criticize a dead man's reply, using it as a pretext for the usual Protestant proselytizing, with a captive audience that included at least a few Catholics, who would not be able to reply. That is poor form to the extreme (and complete with the usual Protestant distortion of what we believe in the first place).

No one would begrudge a Protestant talking like a Protestant at such a service (or a Catholic like a Catholic), but to use the occasion to condescendingly belittle those of a different faith, and indeed, the dead man's professed faith, at least for most of his life, is completely unacceptable.

It's another irony, then, that we are discussing how we should bend over backwards to relate to Protestants and "talk like they do," while the very example used to illustrate the point entails a situation where any Catholics in attendance were treated with a great deal of rudeness and condescension: the very opposite and contrary approach to what we are asked to do.

I talk to Protestants in terms they can relate to all the time. I understand that. But there is a line we cannot cross: which would require us to not be what we are: not be Catholics. And being Catholic includes devotional practices that most Protestants don't understand, and that many (sadly) never will comprehend, because they don't make the effort to ever do so.


To close, I'd like to cite Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman (I am presently compiling a book of his quotations and happened to run across this today, in my research). Note that he speaks in terms precisely in a way that (so we hear) Catholic converts are objecting to en masse. Yet Cardinal Newman is one of the most famous converts to Catholicism, and this comes from a mere four years after that event. He first talks about Mary at the hour of our deaths, then at the end, according to Catholic presuppositions, mentions our Lord Jesus, too (Who is never intended by the Church to be excluded by Marian devotion or intercession).

What many Protestant polemical pieces would do here is not cite the final sentence, so as to leave the impression that a catholic relies wholly on Mary for salvation, and not Jesus. But the Catholic outlook is habitually "both/and." Jesus saves (of course); in doing so He also utilizes human beings in order to bring the salvation of souls about: Mary foremost among them.

. . . interest your dear Mother, the Mother of God, in your success; pray to her earnestly for it; she can do more for you than any one else. Pray her by the pain she suffered, when the sharp sword went through her, pray her, by her own perseverance, which was in her the gift of the same God of whom you ask it for yourselves. God will not refuse you, He will not refuse her, if you have recourse to her succour. It will be a blessed thing, in your last hour, when flesh and heart are failing, in the midst of the pain, the weariness, the restlessness, the prostration of strength, and the exhaustion of spirits, which then will be your portion, it will be blessed indeed to have her at your side, more tender than an earthly mother, to nurse you and to whisper peace. It will be most blessed, when the evil one is making his last effort, when he is coming on you in his might to pluck you away from your Father's hand, if he can—it will be blessed indeed if Jesus, if Mary and Joseph are then with you, waiting to shield you from his assaults and to receive your soul.

(Discourses to Mixed Congregations, 1849, Discourse 7: "Perseverance in Grace")

***

Michele Bachmann: Anti-Catholic?

[image error] Apparently, this is a big discussion now online. See, e.g., Michele Bachmann Should Not 'Get a Pass' on Past Membership in Anti-Catholic Church, by Keith A. Fournier; posted on 14 July 2011 at Catholic Online. Here is my initial response:
* * *
I don't see this as any big deal at all. Almost all Protestants have official anti-Catholicism in their background, because it was so central to the so-called "Reformation." It doesn't follow that individuals subscribe to it. I used to fellowship and worship with many anti-Catholics in the churches I used to attend as a Protestant. I never was anti-Catholic, myself, and my association with them didn't prove otherwise.

When I met my wife in a youth group [Assemblies of God] in Nov. 1982, I defended her from aggressive folks in the group who wanted to make an issue out of her being Catholic.

The official Lutheran confessions describe the Mass as "Baal-worship" (as I have noted in the past). Yet very few Lutherans today would hold to that. The large group of Missouri Synod Lutherans didn't sign on to the ecumenical agreements, either. They were signed by the same Lutherans who are officially pro-abortion (which the conservative Lutheran denominations are not).

I'm infinitely more concerned about compromised Catholics like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi than I am about obscure statements in confessions like these. It tells me next to nothing about what Bachmann herself believes. Anyone can look that up . . .

Certainly many Baptists in the South of the US are anti-Catholics. Does it follow that we deem Presidents Carter and Clinton to both be anti-Catholics? It's guilt-by-association. The media is desperate to slander her in any way they can, since she is the Most Hated Person in America now: a great honor, to be sure.

I like what Catholic writer Matt C. Abbot wrote:

I love it when liberals who normally don't care a wit about Catholicism suddenly voice concern about a conservative politician's alleged anti-Catholicism — even if their concern is somewhat tongue-in-cheek or just a political ploy. Never mind all the abortion- and unnatural vice-supporting "Catholic" politicians out there; we practicing Catholics should really be concerned about the likes of Bachmann and Sarah Palin. (I addressed Palin's alleged anti-Catholicism in my Dec. 7, 2010 column.)

Yeah, sure.

Interestingly, Bachmann gave a talk last year at a conference organized by the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation. I didn't attend the conference, but I think it's safe to say that had she said anything even remotely anti-Catholic, the CMF wouldn't have made the audio CD of her talk available for purchase.

I asked William A. Borst, Ph.D., Catholic author and feature editor to the CMF, to comment on the Salon article. Dr. Borst replied in an email (slightly edited):

'Nowhere in the article did I find any substantive quote from Rep. Bachmann. I think it is shoddy journalism to try to create a paper trail of quotes from second-, third- and fourth-hand sources and attribute belief to their target by mere association. What may appear as exhaustive research on the surface often is nothing more than a writer desperately grasping for straws.

'To compare her [associations] to Barack Obama's relationship with the Rev. Wright is specious reasoning at best. Bachmann seems like a 'seeker' who is still searching for the religious truth. Obama spent 20 years listening to Wright's racialist rants and even had his kids baptized by this poor excuse of a minister. There is no comparison, unless apples can be confused with asparagus. So we really know even less about her views than we did before reading the article. If they give Pulitzers for misdirection, obfuscation and innuendo, Alex Pareene would be a strong contender.'

My friend Lisa Graas defended Bachmann as well, and notes a direct disavowal of anti-Catholicism from Rep. Bachmann herself. If this continues, I'll be following it and providing more information as I find it.

Bill Donohue, of  The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, commented in that group's press release:

The Catholic League finds it regrettable that there are still strains of anti-Catholicism in some Protestant circles, but we find no evidence of any bigotry on the part of Rep. Michele Bachmann. Indeed, she has condemned anti-Catholicism. Just as President Barack Obama is not responsible for the views of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Rep. Bachmann must be judged on the basis of her own record. 
However, just as Sen. John McCain had to answer questions about his affiliation with Pastor John Hagee (who quickly cleared his record), and Sen. Barack Obama had to answer questions about his affiliation with Rev. Wright, it is not inappropriate to ask some pointed questions of Rep. Bachmann and her religion's tenets. 

***

Books by Dave Armstrong: 150 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

[I recently signed a book contract with Catholic Answers, dated 7-12-11; probably to be published in Fall 2011. Currently being edited by Todd Aglialoro: editor of The Catholic Verses and The One-Minute Apologist: 122 pages. The outline below is not necessarily the final one; it is my own initial proposed structure, in close consultation with Todd. Even the title of the book could possibly change. The contract reads, "working title."]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication

Introduction


1. The Binding Authority of Tradition


A. Biblical and Apostolic Tradition Contrasted with the False and Corrupt Traditions of Men (1-12)
1. The Basic Biblical Data on Sacred Tradition
2. Good (Apostolic) Tradition vs. Bad Traditions of Men [read very similar excerpt online]
3. St. Peter's Apostolic Authority in Acts 2
4. Unchangeable True, Apostolic Tradition in the Bible
5. Tradition is Inevitable (and a Fact) for All Christians
6. "Biblical," "Unbiblical," "Extra-Biblical," Etc.
7. Covenants and Sacred Tradition are Perpetually Binding
8. Apostolic Tradition is in Harmony with Holy Scripture
9. Authoritative Interpretation of the Law in Ancient Israel
10. Infallible Nature of Pauline Tradition Taken for Granted
11. "Commandment" and "Command" as Synonyms for Tradition
12. Apostolic and Pauline Tradition Binding Even if Unwritten

B. Oral and Deuterocanonical Tradition (13-21)
13. Authoritative New Testament Citations of Traditions Not Present or Spelled Out in the Old Testament
14. Informal Divine and Apostolic Discussions and their Relation to Tradition and Scripture
15. No Biblical Indication that Oral Tradition Was to Cease
16. Massive and Habitual New Testament Quotation of Deuterocanonical Books
17. Competing Schools in Judaism and Denominations in Protestantism
18. Prophetic and Divine Truth Alongside Written Scripture
19. Inscripturation Not the Final Determinant of Binding Truthfulness
20. Oral Tradition is Wider in Scope than Written Scripture
21. Authoritative Oral Tradition in the New Testament

C. Continuing Christian Adherence to Jewish (Pharisaical) Tradition and Mosaic Law (22-35)
22. Jesus Didn't Overturn or Reject the Mosaic Law
23. "Moses' Seat" as an Example of Extrabiblical Tradition Sanctioned by Our Lord Jesus
24. St. Paul's Self-Identification as a Pharisee After His Christian Conversion and its Implication for the Nature of Tradition
25. St. Paul's Continued Worship at Synagogues
26. St. Paul's Acknowledgment of the Authority of the Jewish High Priest Ananias, Even at His Trial
27. Jesus Continued to Participate in the Old Testament Sacrificial System
28. Jesus Followed the Pharisaical Tradition
29. Jews Called "Brethren" and "Fathers" by Christians
30. If the Galatians Were Hypocrites, Why Not Pharisees Also?
31. St. John: Caiaphas the High Priest "Prophesied"
32. Christianity's Adoption of Late Pharisaical Traditions and Doctrines
33. Sadducees: the "Liberals" and "Sola Scriptura Advocates" of Their Time
34. Continuing Christian Temple Worship and Participation in Sacrifices
35. Ancient Judaism is Analogous to, and Was Organically Developed by Catholicism, Not Protestantism

D. Prophecy and Proclamation: "Word of God" and "Word of the Lord" (36-42)
36. Unrecorded Prophecies from Inspired Prophets
37. Oral Prophecies Possessed Divine Authority
38. "Word of the Lord": Not Usually a Reference to Scripture
39. Prophecy as a Continuing New Testament Charism and Phenomenon
40. Tradition and Scripture Both Derive from the Larger Category of "Word of God"
41. St. Paul's Frequent Recourse to Tradition and Relatively Rare Reference to Scripture in his Epistles to the Thessalonians
42. Oral "Word of God" in the New Testament

E. Perspicuity (Clearness) of Scripture and the Necessity of Authoritative Interpretation (43-61)
43. "Desert Island" Minimalistic Christianity Not the Biblical Norm
44. Are Individuals Wiser Bible Interpreters Than the Corporate, Historical Church?
45. Bible Not Utterly Mysterious According to Catholicism
46. False Assumptions Can Lead Biblical Exegetes Astray
47. The Bible Teaches that it Can be Misinterpreted
48. Clear but Unclear?: Perspicuity and Denominationalism are at Odds
49. Conflicting Protestant Ways to Harmonize and Systematize "Plain" Scripture
50. The Bible Teaches that Biblical Interpretation is Inherently Necessary
51. The Church Authoritatively Declares Biblical Doctrine
52. Jesus Reveals Hidden Scriptures to the Disciples at Emmaus
53. Bible Familiarity with False Assumptions Leads to Heresy
54. The Protestant "Ignorance" Rationalization Utilized to Explain Puzzling Doctrinal Diversity
55. The Bible Never Lists its "Essential" Teachings / The Protestant "Sin" Rationalization
56. The Bible Asserts that Not All of its Teachings are Obvious
57. Things Difficult to Understand in John 6 and the Gospels
58. Authoritative Teaching Authority in the Old Covenant
59. Luther's "Scripture and Plain Reason" Turned Back on Him
60. Mere Bible Memorization vs. Understanding in the Light of Context and Historical Interpretation
61. Protestants Have Authority Structures, but Contradicting "Authoritative" Teachings Abound

F. General or Miscellaneous Arguments Relating to Sola Scriptura (62-82)
62. The Bible Never Teaches That Oral Tradition Would Cease and Sola Scriptura Become the New Rule of Faith
63. Apostles Unaware that Their Epistles are Inspired Scripture (Thus the Necessity to Otherwise Determine Canonicity)
64. Material vs. Formal Sufficiency of Holy Scripture
65. Use of Scripture in Argument and Proofs is Not the Equivalent of Sola Scriptura
66. All Catholic Doctrines are Harmonious with Scripture and Present at Least Implicitly or by Deduction
67. The Nature of Sola Scriptura Necessarily Involves Establishing it from the Bible Itself
68. Councils and Constant Tradition Can Err but Luther Cannot When He Opposes Them?
69. Luther's and Calvin's Starting Principle Doesn't Preclude Endless New Denominations
70. Scripture Alone May be Sufficient for Much and Many, but Not for All
71. Trinitarianism is Clear in Scripture, Nevertheless Heretics Don't See It, Divorced from Orthodox Historical Interpretation
72. Luther Arbitrarily Assumed Profound Authority, Rather Than Proving that He Possessed It
73. Protestants are Radically "Unhistorical" When it Suits their Purposes, Yet Appeal to History in Other Instances
74. Sola Scriptura Isn't Dead Wrong, so Much as it is Incomplete and Skeletal
75. Vicious Internal Contradictions Always Present in Protestantism
76. The Church Fathers Reject Sola Scriptura Even if They Differ Somewhat on the Nature of Tradition
77. Anabaptists Simply Followed Luther's Logic and Dissented from Him, Yet Luther and Calvin Persecuted Them
78. Church and Scripture Not a Zero-Sum Game (False Protestant Dichotomies)
79. Protestants are Also Limited in How Far They are Allowed to Stray from Denominational Creeds and Confessions
80. Inconsistencies in the Protestant Revolt Against Catholicism and Previous Christian Tradition
81. St. Paul in Ephesians 4 Shows Little Consciousness of a Supposed Sola Scriptura Rule of Faith
82. St. Paul's Greater Relative Use of Tradition and Church Motifs Over Against Use of "Scripture" and "Word of God," Etc. [read very similar excerpt online]



2 The Binding Authority of the Church


A. New Testament Evidences for a Hierarchical, Visible Church With Strong Authority (83-98)
83. Bishops Have Authority Over Elders (Priests) in the Bible
84. Priestly "Binding and Loosing" in Holy Scripture
85. The Universal, Visible, Hierarchical Church in the Bible
86. Church Authority as Explicated in Holy Scripture
87. Anathema and Excommunication are Biblical Concepts
88. The "Invisible Church" is an Ethereal Pipe Dream
89. "Problems" in Church History are as Non-Fatal as Exegetical "Problems" to be Solved in the Inspired, Infallible Bible
90. Sola Scriptura Needs to be Proven on its Own Terms, Not Merely Asserted as a Default Alternate to Catholicism
91. Bible and Church are Both Infallible, but the Bible is Also Inspired
92. The Church is the Guardian of Apostolic Doctrine, Not its Creator
93. Catholics Don't Believe in "Sola Ecclesia" but Rather, in a "Three-Legged Stool" of Authority
94. What Principle Changed to Make the "Reformation" all of a Sudden Possible and Thinkable?
95. "Sheep and Shepherd" as a Failed Argument for the Invisible Church
96. Authority Has to Have "Teeth" or it Makes Little Sense
97. The Catholic's Faith in the Catholic Church as Guided by God is Not Wholly Unique, and Not a "Blind Faith"
98. Unsuccessful Protestant Attempts to Minimize the Role of the Bishop, as Laid Out in Holy Scripture


B. Biblical Indications of Apostolic Succession (99-103)
99. St. Paul Passed on his Office in Some Sense to Timothy
100. Explicit Biblical Evidence for Apostolic Succession
101. Tradition and Apostolic Succession Neither Ruled Out in Scripture, Nor by Post-Apostolic Church Fathers
102. The Catholic "Epistemology of Authority"
103. Apostolic Doctrine is Simply "There" (Like an Ocean)

C. The Jerusalem Council and its Implications for Subsequent Catholic Ecclesiology (104-107)
104. The Jerusalem Council: Guided by the Holy Spirit, as Jesus Predicted His Followers Would Be, and a Binding Authority
105. Jerusalem Council Makes Binding Decisions with No Great Reliance on Scripture
106. The Relationship of St. Paul's Apostolic Calling to Church Authority and to St. Peter in Particular
107. The Bible Infallibly Teaches About Infallible Conciliar Authority

D. Biblical Analogies for an Infallible Church (108-122)
108. Old Testament Levites Granted the Gift of Special Protection from Error
109. Priests, Levites, and Prophets Exercised Binding Teaching Authority and Possessed Virtual Infallibility
110. Prophets Proclaimed the Inspired "Word of the LORD"
111. An Infallible, Inspired Bible Written by Serious Sinners but Not Possibly an Infallible Church Composed of Sinners?
112. Catholics Don't Place the Church Above God Anymore than Protestants Place the Bible Above God
113. Councils are "Human" Just as Apostles and Prophets are "Human"
114. Catholicism is Not a Philosophical Exercise, Requiring Each Person to be Infallible; it is a Religious Faith
115. We Can Know the Fullness of Truth, with the Aid of the Indwelling Holy Spirit and His Grace, Through the Church
116. Is God Unable to Preserve His Church from Error, Just as He Preserved His Bible from Error?
117. Results of Councils are Guided by God and Preserved from Error, Not the Deliberations
118. Difficulties Do Not Disprove a System, Since Every System Has Them
119. Biblical Truth and Tradition is Not Confined to the Gospel Message
120. Protestants Logically Forced to Choose Between Infallible Bible and Church or Else Cynical Skepticism (No In-Between)
121. A Strong, Virtually Invulnerable Biblical Proof for the Infallibility of the Catholic Church [read very similar excerpt online]
122. The Church is Indefectible Because Jesus is Her Foundation and Because God Dwells Within Us, His "Temple"

E. The Biblical Prohibition of Denominationalism, Theological Relativism, and Indifferentism (123-134)
123. The Ecclesiological Chaos of Endless Protestant Sectarianism
124. Denominationalism is Essentially a Bad, Unbiblical Thing
125. Protestant Institutional Sectarianism is Massively Contradictory to Biblical Requirements of Doctrinal Oneness
126. The Perpetual Protestant Quest for an Unattainable Certainty Within its Premises and Resulting Indifferentism and Liberalism
127. Theological Relativism is Thoroughly Inconsistent with Holy Scripture
128. The Canard of "Triumphalism" Directed Towards Catholics Who Believe in One Christian Truth and the Fullness of Truth
129. The Bible Assumes One Truth, Not a Multi-Level Notion of Central, Secondary, and Disposable Opinions
130. Protestant Skeptical Tendency and Over-Reliance on Secular Epistemological Methods
131. The Protestant Counsel of Despair Regarding Theological Certainty: Can the Holy Spirit Not Infallibly Guide Us?
132. Has God Chosen to Reveal Some Things in Scripture and Keep Other Things Hidden (Deuteronomy 29:29)?
133. Scripture Knows Nothing of Fine-Tuned Distinctions Between Doctrines, with Some Allowed to be Disagreed Upon
134. The Strong Biblical Assertion of One Truth and One Faith

3. Counter-Arguments Against Alleged Sola Scriptura Prooftexts

A. General (135-136)B. Deuteronomy 6:6-9 (137)C. Psalms 119:159-160 (138)D. Proverbs 30:5-6 (139)E. Isaiah 40:8 (140)F. Matthew 24:35 and John 14:23-24 (141)G. John 20:30-31 (142)H. Acts 15:15 (143)I. Galatians 1:8-9 (144)J. 2 Timothy 3:14-17 (145)K. James 1:18 (146)L. 1 Peter 1:23 (147)M. 2 Peter 2:12 and 3:15-16 (148)N. 1 John 2:27 (149)O. Revelation 22:18-19 (150)

***

Sunny Optimism in God's Guidance of Holy Mother Church, Now and Always (Including Liturgical Discussion)

[ source ]
 The following remarks of mine were compiled from a recent fruitful Facebook thread (with a few more from another thread, below the five asterisks). Here are the two paragraphs that kicked off the two threads:

THE GOOD OL' DAYS "Traditionalists" maintain that a Catholic born, say, in 1943, knows all about how wonderful the Church used to be, whereas now it is merely a shell of its former glory. Such a person should be quite grateful that they weren't born in 343 or 943, or 1043 or 1343 or 1743 -- bleak periods all (and not the only ones). I contend that many "traditionalists" suffer from historical tunnel vision.

(From my book, Pensées on Catholic Traditionalism, #136)

Times of great revival and reform can occur even while heterodox liberals and heretics remain a problem. They are merely pawns in God's Grand Scheme, just as the Egyptians or Assyrians or Babylonians or Romans were. They are already irrelevant, and destined for obsolescence in the dustbin of history, like all other heresies and schismatic sects (where are, for example, the Marcionites or Albigensians these days?).

(from my book, Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic)

What happened in those other years?  

Arian crisis (4th-6th centuries), moral decadence, the Great Schism (3 "popes" claiming to be pope at one time), the so-called "Enlightenment."


* * *

The devil is always trying to subvert the Church with false ideas and heresy. This is true at all times in Church history. Those who think doom and gloom now don't seem to have an inkling of what has gone on in the past. The history of the Church itself is the best argument for the indefectibility of the Church, based on God's promises.
 
* * *
Modernism began to infiltrate the Church in the early 1800s, from liberal Protestantism. The "modern modernists" started having influence around 1940. My mentor, Fr. Hardon, used to say that is the date when the "revolution" (modern Catholic liberalism) began.

* * *
The liberals haven't succeeded in changing a single doctrine of the Church. They are wildly successful in places like Anglicanism, though . . .

* * * 

Obviously, if the Novus Ordo / Pauline Mass isn't done according to how it is supposed to be done, then there is a legitimate criticism. But a corruption of a thing is not the thing itself.

* * *
Liturgical mediocrity is a human tendency across the board, and doesn't tell against validity in the slightest. Given a choice between often irreverent Novus Ordo and almost always reverent Tridentine, those who are rightly looking for proper reverence will often choose the latter. I completely understand that.

I don't have to make such a choice, myself, because my parish offers an extremely reverent Novus Ordo Mass (including in Latin). We also have the Tridentine occasionally in my parish and regularly in my parish cluster. I prefer the Novus Ordo. Catholics have that wonderful freedom to worship as they please. 22 Rites . . .

* * *
A lot of that [revision of the Missal] is translation issues, as I understand it, which again is not the thing itself, but how it is presented from one language to another.

Catechesis contnues to be atrocious in many quarters. This is one of my great motivators to do what I do: apologetics being the half-sister of catechesis. The catechist describes WHAT we believe, the apologist WHY we believe it. They go hand in hand.

But the modern lay apologetics movement that I am proud to be part of is a bright spot in modern Catholicism. There are many bright spots, if one will look more closely. Revival always starts slowly and picks up speed and grows, like a snowball rolling down a hill.

* * *
It seems that there is a presumption that a music director will choose wisely and not do stupid things. Obviously that is not the case too often, so then it becomes necessary to have a little more direction and more legalistic rubrics, because of stupidity on the part of some folks who are involved in a Mass. This is the human condition: give an inch and many will take a mile.

* * * 
[Todd Aglialoro] There's a great passage from Chesterton's St. Thomas Aquinas: "The Dumb Ox" : from near the end of part 1:

It is not at all easy for us to feel that distant events were thus disconcerting and even disreputable. Revolutions turn into institutions; revolts that renew the youth of old societies in their turn grow old; and the past, which was full of new things, of splits and innovations and insurrections, seems to us a single texture of tradition.

* * *
I attend a church that was built in 1873: a German Gothic Revival building that I think is the prettiest in Detroit, with some of the best stained glass in North America, and the largest set of bells.

My remark at the top (from my book) was aimed at those who are in despair, and ready to abandon Holy Mother Church (and to deny the indefectibility of the Church) because there are serious problems. The point is that there are always serious problems. There were in the early Church (Galatians, Corinthians) and at every age. The only thing that changes is the particular set of problems that any given age is confronted or burdened with.

Those who have tunnel vision are the ones who think that, somehow, today's situation is the worst ever. That is far from the case.

* * *
Judas was an enemy from within Jesus' own circle: that's a one out of 12 ratio. What else is new? Almost every historical heresy begins with a fallen-away Catholic.

* * *  
My main point was to deny that the Church is "merely a shell of its former glory." The Church is indefectible. It goes through cycles of corruption and decadence, followed by revival. Fr. Hardon always used to say that the worst centuries in the Church are followed by centuries of revival. It's coming. It may take a few more years. I expect to be an old man before it becomes truly manifest and undeniable. 

* * *

Note also that I can agree with the notion that "the modernist crisis is the worst in the history of the Church" (Fr. Hardon used to say that, too) without in the least losing my faith that God will cause His Church to overcome it, just like all the other historical crises. It is that second step of losing faith in God and His provisions that is the mark of rad-trad loss of faith and a sort of cynicism and gloomy pessimism. 
* * *
Here is an observation on the Church in the 16th century:

The eminent German Catholic theologian Karl Adam, in his book The Roots of the Reformation (translated by Cecily Hastings, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1951 [portion of One and Holy, 1948] ), states that "the Renaissance Popes seem to have carried out in their own lives that cult of idolatrous humanism, demonic ambition and unrestrained sensuality" (p. 14). He quotes the words of Pope Adrian VI (1522-23), who in turn cited St. Bernard: "Vice has grown so much a matter of course that those who are stained with it are no longer aware of the stink of sin" (p. 20). 

The majority of this clerical proletariat had neither the intellectual nor the moral capacity to so much as guess the profundity of the questions raised by Luther . . . In this waste of clerical corruption it was impossible for the Spirit of our Lord to penetrate into the people . . . There was no sacramental impulse towards an interiorizing and deepening of religion. So the attention of the faithful was directed towards externals . . . This hideous simoniacal abuse of indulgences corrupted true piety . . . indulgences were perverted to a blasphemous haggling with God. Night fell on the German Church . . . (pp. 22-26)

* * * 
 

Dave, but would you go as far as saying that both forms of the Roman rite are theologically speaking equal and that there is no superiority between one and the other?

Theologically, yes, they are equal. In terms of language and liturgy, reasonable, good men can differ in good faith, as long as there is no talk of invalidity. The Holy Father has made it clear that both are legitimate forms of the Latin Rite. Everyone wants to talk about superiority and run down what they don't prefer. I say, live and let live, as long as abuses aren't involved. Let every man worship according to his conscience, in accord with Church regulations and proper reverence. . . . you prefer one, then you worship at that rite. God is looking at your heart, and your obedience to His truth. Arguments about which is "better" do no good, in my opinion; it causes division, and for what purpose? But we can all unite in condemning abuses of any approved liturgy.

The Tridentine Mass did not "always exist." I showed in one of my papers that many elements of the Pauline Mass preceded the Tridentine by many centuries, and were even the norm in the early Church:

Apologia For the Mass of Pope Paul VI, With Massive Historical Documentation From Catholic Tradition / Summary of Vatican II on Liturgical Reform 
* * *
And the same Fr. Hardon said, as I also noted above, that the worst centuries are followed by centuries of revival; hence, no place for despair. This is what my initial comment above was addressing: pessimism, despair, loss of faith, lack of trust that God remains in control of Holy Mother Church, despite men's sin and error; indefectibility.

None of what I say denies that there is a modernist crisis. Of course there is. I presuppose that. I am saying, "okay, now what? Do we give up, or do we trust that God will correct things in the long run, as He always has throughout Church history?" Fr. Hardon had that firm faith that things would get better. So do I. It takes time. Church history moves at a geological pace. But it does assuredly move, and revival follows corruption and decadence and massive loss of faith and truth.

* * * 

Those of us who are rightly concerned with the state of Catholicism and Catholics, have the motivation to get up off our butts and start doing something, to help change things and make them better. Let's take that energy and zeal and do something constructive, rather than descend into despair or schism (as in the case of the most extreme radtrads). The harvest is ready; the laborers are few. Every person can make some difference. The truth and the gospel and the fullness of the faith are contagious.

* * * 
And one way we can change things in one generation is to have lots of kids and raise them right, to be good, solid Catholics, by teaching them correctly and being proper models of a lived-out, joyous Catholic faith. I have tried my best to live what I am "preaching": four children (my wife Judy, sadly, has also had six miscarriages, but that is six more souls in heaven, I believe): all home-schooled, all solid Catholics with excellent morals. It's all by God's grace: all glory to Him. We simply have to be obedient and accept and apply that grace. But we have to cooperate and be obedient to Him: that's the bottom line.


* * *

Truth is what it is, despite any scandals swirling around it. And it has the power to draw those who seek it.

* * *

Of course the laity should have a voice. Remember, Cardinal Newman is my hero. He is the one who was a big advocate of the laity playing a larger role. Vatican II and recent pronouncements of popes reassert the same thing. Lay apologetics is strongly supported. Do whatever you can to oppose heterodoxy. I think much of the problems we have today in the Church are because of liberal or lax bishops.

* * *

Just bought Pensées on Catholic Traditionalism. You give me so much hope; I was starting to think that everyone around me was losing faith in the Church, even apologists! Eager to buy more :) God bless you. You put into words what I want to say on your blog and back it up with copious facts, history, etc.!

I'm delighted to hear that, and God bless you too. What a sad comment on our times, that you felt that hardly any Catholics around you had faith that God would guide and protect the Church. This is a huge problem. We have lax and nominal liberals on one side who don't believe Church teachings, then we have radtrads on the other side bashing the Church day and night and hardly seeing anything good in it.


* * *

I tend to use "radtrad" more today, to signify an extreme traditionalist, that is what i am opposing. Much of the concern of self-described "traditionalists" I agree with and observe myself (e.g., the very traditional liturgy at my church). I critique tendencies and attitudes, and never name a single name in my book on the topic. My concern is with excess and the schismatic spirit and lack of charity that can too often be observed.


* * * * *

Theological liberals hate nothing more than being ignored and regarded as inane and irrelevant. :-) They think they are in the "progressive" forefront, when in fact, they are in the caboose, and about to be disconnected from the train, to roll down the hill into oblivion . . .

* * *
Don't get me wrong; heresies abound as always. I'm just saying that the big competitors to the Church through the centuries have all become passe in terms of being any real challenge to the unique position of the Catholic Church. Of course there are always errors. That's why I do apologetics: to oppose those and defend the truth.

* * *
Secularization is a huge threat. If we refuse to be salt and light and decide to blend into the world then our souls are in peril, and the Church ceases to be to the culture what it should be, because we her members are so compromised. 

* * *

A group of Catholics in Pittsburgh, who don't accept the teachings of the Church, rallied over the weekend, calling for women Priests and marriage for Priests. Some of the women there are self proclaimed Priests. How sad.

For the life of me, I don't know why people like that don't simply become Anglicans. They have to play games.  


***