Taylor Marshall “Refutes” My Criticism (Filthy Lucre Explains All)

From his Facebook page:

Daniel Harrigan: Dr. Taylor Marshall, what about those who say you reject Vatican II and the last few Popes?? Dave Armstrong thinks you are doing that and he wrote about it in an opinion piece online. I admire you greatly and want your take on it. God bless you and your family.

I just want to know what Dr. Marshall has to say to Dave. He’s been writing a lot about it the last week and want to see what the truth is? I have all Dr. Marshall’s books and love his videos and would like to see pushback and concise answers. It would help truck drivers like me.

*

Taylor Marshall: He’s exaggerating things and creating a controversy so he can create click bate [sic]. He’s paid by the click. [6-2-19, in the thread above: in case he deletes it; since he has already blocked me from his Twitter; maybe someone can make a screen shot and send it to me; my present bolding]

Dave: This takes the cake for chutzpah and ad hominem. Here he is with this book storming up the Amazon charts, with 912 reviews (as of this writing) posted: all or almost all from folks he has enlisted to write them in exchange for a free book.

He’ll be making many thousands of dollars with a book that trashes Vatican II, popes all the way back to Ven. Pius XII (including insinuations that Pope St. Paul VI was in an ongoing homosexual relationship with an Italian actor); one that is filled with largely unsubstantiated conspiratorial hogwash (which fact is being highlighted by several critical reviews this very moment: Dr. Jeff Mirus, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, JD Flynn).

So he’s undeniably raking in dough from all that. Now, I don’t have any objection at all — generally speaking — to making good royalties from a book (I’m an author, after all, and have made my living full-time this way since 2001, and have had four bestsellers in the field, myself). Nor have I denied Taylor’s perfect sincerity. He obviously deeply believes what he is saying.

But I object to the recycling of wholesale lies about Holy Fathers (three of whom are saints) and Holy Mother Church (an ecumenical council) in order to do that, and to this same person turning around and claiming that I am solely motivated by filthy lucre (!!!), in my equally sincere and concerned critiques of what he is contending.

He’s sincere; so am I. Goose and gander. If I am supposedly motivated solely by financial gain to write what I’m writing, then clearly, the same thing would even more plausibly rebound back to him, given that he has this fantastically popular book on Amazon.

But I’M the one who is operating purely for financial profit, you see. In order to “prove” that, Taylor pitifully whips out the old, tired, saw about Patheos writers making (strongly implied) all kinds of money by the click. Yes, we do (it’s a paid-per-page view system). I work my tail off (as anyone who knows me at all, knows: I’ve been called one of the hardest-working apologists by many, including Karl Keating). I make very little money at all, but that’s fine. God has fully provided our needs. We’re paying all our bills and have excellent credit; don’t even use credit cards.

But let’s get this straight: no one is getting rich at Patheos. I’m often listed as one of the top three most-visited blogs in the Catholic Channel (and there are several well-known Catholic writers blogging there). So would you like to know how much cash I’m making? It has to be brought in by truck, it’s so much. We’re starting a second Fort Knox in our garage, and I have now entered the Fortune 500 (thanks to all who made it possible, couldn’t have done it withoutcha, etc., etc.).

All kidding aside, let’s see: in the month of May my pay from Patheos was the whopping amount of $133.45. In April it was $118.00, and in March, $105.23. And that is for, usually, two posts a day all month. Thus, it’s probably 55-60 articles in a month, to get those huge paychecks. Using the lower estimate, that would average $2.43 per article, which is roughly the minimum wage I used to make as a dishwasher at Big Boy back in 1976 (my first “real job”: used to love those French fries every day for dinner!). It’s a really lucrative enterprise, isn’t it? You get the picture . . . And I can photocopy the records of those payments if need be.

Meanwhile, Taylor Marshall is making a very good income from his work: seemingly mostly sitting and making videos bashing the Church, popes, ecumenical councils, etc. A friend of mine estimated that he could very well be raking in more than $250,000 a year. But I’m the money-grubbing opportunist. Note that I don’t even make that claim about him. I once defended Karl Keating’s former Catholic Answers salary of $250,000 a year against the charges of Michael Voris (in print and even in person). I’m simply pointing out the manifest hypocrisy and humorous irony.

I was accused of this same idiotic thing by an atheist a while back. I quickly produced Google Analytics data that showed that, of my top 20 most-read posts in recent months, only two or three were about atheism. He shut up quick, and offered a rare qualified retraction. Of all the endless insults I have received in the course of my work as an apologist since 1991 as a Catholic, and since 1981 including my evangelical Protestant days, surely this is the most idiotic one, by far.

If there is anything at all that virtually anyone can agree with regarding myself (among those who have even the slightest acquaintance with my actual living situation), it’s that I have financially sacrificed and have made far less money than I could have made doing almost anything else with my life.

But this is the best that Taylor Marshall can come up with, in “reply” to my critiques. I predicted that he wouldn’t provide any substantive response. I was a prophet. The filthy lucre charge does, I confess, surprise me a little bit, but not much. So his “replies” so far are this bilge and blocking me from his Twitter. Mighty impressive, ain’t it?

Now we have a fellow Catholic making the same dumb, stupid accusation, from the person who in the past offered (unsolicited) the following warm endorsement of my work:

Dave Armstrong’s book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything ranging from sacraments to sedevacantists. Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.

That “endorsement” is posted on my “Literary Resume” right now and has been there for some time (it goes back at least as far as 18 August 2015, according to Internet Archive). Also, Dr. Marshall thanked me (among many others), for my “friendship and encouragement along the way” in the Acknowledgments of his 2009 book, The Crucified Rabbi.

So he goes from that to accusations now that my entire motivation in my critique of his book, is filthy lucre.

Let this be a rude awakening for all of you out there who are so enthralled with him and his book right now: folks who think he is so utterly unanswerable. He can’t defend his views and hasn’t even tried to do so with anyone thus far (as far as I can tell). And (again) I predicted that it was almost certain that he would either ignore my critiques or lob insults. He has now done both.

I continue to await even one person who is willing to wrangle with the actual arguments against the book that I gave in my long critique of it. It certainly ain’t gonna be Taylor Marshall (a guy with a doctorate in philosophy, no less). How pathetic.

***