Some fool who goes by “LB236” [description: “Traditionalist Catholic and amateur liturgist, navigating the TLM rubrics so you don’t have to”] decided to attack yours truly, almost the “entire staff” of Catholic Answers, and George Weigel on Twitter:
*****
Dear George Weigel, Dave Armstrong, and pretty much the entire staff of Catholic Answers:
*
I hope you’re proud of yourselves. You’ve created thousands of “conservative” Catholics who have no idea how to respond to what Francis is doing, thanks to your collective “JP2 beat the liberals forever” narrative. You convinced them that all they had to do was follow what the pope said. They are incapable of critical thought and acknowledgement of harsh realities.
*
Please do us a favor and put on sackcloth and ashes for the remainder of this pontificate.
*
[I post below the entire “discussion” we had, with his words in blue. Additional comments will be added as they appear]
*
[I post below the entire “discussion” we had, with his words in blue. Additional comments will be added as they appear]
*
Where has Pope Francis supposedly espoused heresy? Even harsh critics of his like Phil Lawler deny that.
*
*
Read my tweet again, Dave, and point out where I even used the word “heresy.” I await with bated breath your explanation of how, say, his hand-picked delegates to the October synod are “no big deal.” Or how (soon to be Cardinal) Fernandez as prefect of the DDF is a “good thing.” Et cetera. This wasn’t supposed to happen, as Catholic apologists used to lecture us in the 90s and 2000s. And yet it is, and people have no idea how to cope with it.
*
I just wrote on Facebook, two minutes ago: “There are always lousy bishops. I don’t know anyone who would deny that. The mystery is why popes let them do mischief.”
*
It’s good you don’t accuse him of heresy. It shows that you 1) have a brain, and are 2) not a mindless clone and parrot of reactionaries, sedevacantists, etc.
*
*
What I have helped to “create” are thinking orthodox Catholics who have the wits to consult one or more of my 217 defenses of Pope Francis if they are confused about him, or 296 more articles collected from others (rather than bitch and moan).
*
*
Again, Dave, this wasn’t supposed to happen. Don’t believe me? Go look up Catholic Answers articles, Weigel’s delusional Americanist neocon drivel, and countless other pieces from 1995 to 2010 or so and tell me the tenor being pushed out on the masses wasn’t that JP2 had bested all the terrible liberals, and that B16 would finish the job. I was there. I remember. And now, countless “conservative” Catholics are freaking out big time because everything they were told a post-JP2 pope would never do, Francis is doing.
*
I never argued in such a way, and unless you can document it, I highly doubt that anyone at CA would have, either. Prove it by documenting it! You may be right [about someone else saying something like this at some time], but why should I simply take your word without proof? IN any event, I have never made such a dumb claim.
*
What I actually believe and teach (from April 2016):
*
Bishops and priests have failed in their duty to teach… But the causes of ignorance, laxity, and immorality go far beyond just them, and each individual has responsibility to get off their butts and learn the faith. If folks remain spiritual babes (as St. Paul talks about) then they will simply nod at priests and bishops and be spoon-fed and bottle-fed rather than actually break open a theology book, just as they learn anything else in college or at work or the school of hard knocks.
*
Then why do we need clergy or even a pope, Dave? The pope’s one job is to pass on and protect the deposit of Faith. And when the present pontiff appoints a man like Fernandez who, setting aside his problematic handling of clerical sex abuse in his archdiocese (which strips him of any moral authority he as head of the DDF should possess to deal with that problem, as that is now part of the DDF’s purview), is on the record expressing problematic at best statements on doctrine, then we have a problem. You don’t seem to have ever truly abandoned your Protestant notion of individualism, so perhaps that’s clouding your judgment, but for people who have been Catholic their entire lives and have been taught that the hierarchy have the obligation to pass on the Faith, this is a very big problem.
*
Do any of your 217 articles defend the men he’s appointed to high office? If so, you’re part of the problem, Dave.
*
I don’t follow that sort of thing. That’s the task of Catholic journalists, not apologists. I am analyzing his ideas, that are supposedly so objectionable (if not heretical). I’m part of no problem. I defend Holy Mother Church and the Bible.
*
You’re seriously admitting you pay little to no attention to the administrative decisions of the pope, as if they can be separated from his doctrinal teachings? Have you not heard the phrase “personnel is policy” before? You can’t be serious.
*
Apologists deal with doctrines and competing ideas, not the internal politics of churches. I have 4,300 articles and 53 books as it is. I’m not bound to what you (an anonymous stranger) think I ought to do with my time. Go jump in the lake!
*
More and more, I’m convinced that “conservative” Catholics formed during the JP2 era (as a cohort) are some of the least intellectually-rigorous and honest people I’ve encountered. Their “solution” to what Pope Francis is doing is to stick their fingers in their ears, make up excuses, and hurl the word “Protestant” at anyone who dares to burst the carefully-constructed bubble of what a pope can and cannot do.
*
[After citing some of my words above] Dave Armstrong, self-proclaimed author of 217 articles defending the orthodoxy of Pope Francis, admits he doesn’t “follow” Francis’s administrative decisions in the slightest. In what world does this make sense?
*
Again, much ado about nothing. You made an accusation towards me, and I asked you to document it. The fact that I don’t analyze the pope’s appointments (didn’t with the previous two popes, either) has nothing to do with what you brought up.
*
It astounds me that someone who can go through the Bible and quote random verses to make a point is incapable of recognizing that in the Catholic Church, personnel matters at a practical level more than doctrine. You can keep saying “Francis hasn’t formally changed any doctrine” all you want, but to do so misses the point that his modus operandi is to operate ambiguously and send messages not so much by what he says, but by whom he appoints to positions of power. This is the pope who hand selected Fernandez with all his baggage to be the chief defender of doctrine in the Church. This is the pope who personally appoints homosexual-supporter James Martin to his upcoming synod and sends him letters of encouragement. But yes, sure, stay within your comfortable box of “No teaching has changed” while the Germans run roughshod over doctrine with nary a peep or discipline from this pontiff. You can keep trying to pretend it’s still 1995, but to do so simply demonstrates how out of touch you are.
*
I wrote a Facebook article, “On the Last Three Popes’ Appointments of Cardinals” (7-18-22), replying to my friend, traditionalist David Palm, in which I stated:
*
*
I would, however, largely agree with the criticisms of many appointments: of this pope and the two previous. I don’t follow those things (being too busy defending Holy Mother Church), but [many] have been questionable. It’s a mystery to me. In my own opinion, only rock-solid, faithful, 100% orthodox men should be appointed. In many ways I am just as traditional as you are.
I conceded a few years ago now that the traditionalist point about soft treatment of liberals was valid. I’ve always been against that, but I knew from Fr. Hardon that the reason it was done was fear of schism. A while back I came to the position that this was not a good enough reason anymore and must be seen to be a tragic error. The Church must be much more firm and strict with the errors of liberals and dissidents. So on this point I quite resonate with your view, I think.
*
Well, good for you. One Facebook article in comparison to hundreds upon hundreds of blog posts and multiple books in which you simply ignored the problem. Where was you “criticism” of papal appointments back in the 90s when, say, JP2 was being soft on the progressives of his day? Or when B16 was doing the same? You’re quite a bit late to the party, Dave, so maybe just sit this one out.
*
Again, I did not “ignore the problem.” To the contrary, I acknowledge it, but simply choose not to write about it, since it is not apologetics proper. You again lie about my positions (as I just proved). Does that give you a big charge or something?
*
Well, that sure is intellectually dishonest of you, Dave. “I don’t have to write about this because that’s not my job.” Well, Dave, when the Church is burning all around us due to catastrophic papal appointments and decisions, and you’re trying to convince people to join said Church-on-fire, maybe, just maybe, that should be something you address.
*
I addressed bum-rap, slanderous criticisms of Pope Francis, 217 times: precisely the task of a Catholic apologist when the supreme head of the Catholic Church is being unjustly attacked and lied about. That’s the first order of business. No one would become a Catholic if they believed the countless damnable lies spread about the pope by the likes of you, over the last ten years.
*
*
I addressed bum-rap, slanderous criticisms of Pope Francis, 217 times: precisely the task of a Catholic apologist when the supreme head of the Catholic Church is being unjustly attacked and lied about. That’s the first order of business. No one would become a Catholic if they believed the countless damnable lies spread about the pope by the likes of you, over the last ten years.
*
I’m curious: do you think I have written any helpful articles or books at all (if so, which ones?), or is it all just garbage and worthless? You are as critical of me as anti-Catholic Protestants are. The devil is having a laughing fit over these divisions.
*
*
No, nothing you’ve written is useful in dealing with the reality of the Church as it actually functions. You consistently operate from a proof-text approach that is utterly useless in dealing with the practical realities of how the Church is administered, and your refusal to hold clergy and bishops accountable for their failure to transmit the Faith because “it’s the responsibility of the laity to learn the faith themselves” or however you want to phrase it utterly undermines the purpose of a hierarchical Church.
*
And for the record, I’m not the one sowing division, nor are any of my Catholic confreres who recognize that something has gone seriously wrong over the past half century. When bishops openly spew heresy and nothing is done to them by the reigning pontiff, yet bishops (e.g., Strickland) who dare point out the problems in the Church are rewarded with apostolic visitations or even removed from office entirely (as in the case of Bishop Torres of Arecibo, Puerto Rico), then yes, it’s the popes themselves who are causing divisions, thank you very much.
*
And for the record, I’m not the one sowing division, nor are any of my Catholic confreres who recognize that something has gone seriously wrong over the past half century. When bishops openly spew heresy and nothing is done to them by the reigning pontiff, yet bishops (e.g., Strickland) who dare point out the problems in the Church are rewarded with apostolic visitations or even removed from office entirely (as in the case of Bishop Torres of Arecibo, Puerto Rico), then yes, it’s the popes themselves who are causing divisions, thank you very much.
*
Again, like a good sophist and propagandist, you direct the discussion where you want it to go, rather than actually honestly interact with another viewpoint. I asked you: “do you think I have written any helpful articles or books at all . . . or is it all just garbage?”
*
*
Don’t lecture me on “honesty,” Dave, when you accused me of accusing Francis of “heresy” in my OP when I did no such thing, thank you very much.
*
*
I did no such thing. I simply asked a question, and then commended you when you answered in the negative. Now answer my question. Thank you. If you think all of my 4,300+ articles and 53 books are absolutely worthless, just be open and frank and honest enough to say so.
*
Cat got your tongue? Amazing what happens to a big, slanderous mouth when asked a simple, direct question. First you use sophistry and then a long pause . . .
*
I already answered your question: Your writings may have been useful at some point—in the 90s, perhaps, when the “JP2 beat the liberals forever” narrative was all the rage—but in 2023, no, they are utterly passé.
*
You continue to lie. I never ever claimed that “JP2 beat the liberals forever”. If you pretend that I ever did that, then you are lying about a fellow Catholic. You brought up my name in your OP, after all, but I don’t know you from Adam. You don’t even give your real name.
*
So all 4,300 articles and 53 books are worthless garbage: shouldn’t have been written at all? So if I defend, for example, the Holy Trinity or the inerrancy of Holy Scripture, as in my current book, The Word Set in Stone: “Volume Two”: More Evidence of Archaeology, Science, and History Backing Up the Bible, that’s all garbage and passé, huh? As an apologist, I must only write about Pope Francis . . .
*
For a public figure, Dave, you sure don’t seem to have much of a thick skin when it comes to criticism.
*
Nothing to do with thin skin, and everything to do with Proverbs 26:5 (RSV): “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” I don’t put up with lies and crap about the pope or the faith or my apologetics apostolate. If you lie, I will vigorously respond.
*
*
If an anon account like mine that’s existed for less time than your own has nearly as many followers as you, perhaps your influence isn’t as important as you seem to think it is, Dave. I’m struggling to see how you think one more book on the Trinity, for example, makes a difference in 2023 when thousands of Catholics who converted during the JP2 era are openly expressing on Twitter and other forms of social media how the pope could be doing what he’s doing, but if you want to pretend everything is just sunshine and lollipops, well, good for you. The rest of us will deal with reality as it is, thank you kindly.
*
Your stubborn refusal to address the present pontiff’s prudential and administrative decisions does little to convince people to convert to Catholicism, I’m sorry to say. I won’t defend him, but this tone deafness from the mainstream apologetics crowd and the insistence of continuing to promote the 1995 narrative while ignoring very real problems are part of the reason [Steve] Skojec left the Church. And he’s not alone.
*
Your non-answer constitutes your answer and true opinion (i.e., all of my writing is worthless). You just don’t have the guts to say it: knowing down deep that it’s utterly ridiculous — not to mention the mortal sin of bearing false witness — to condemn my writings en masse.
*
Skojec left the Church because he lacked supernatural faith and was consumed by anger and his demons, as I’ve been pointing out for years: correctly identifying the heart of his problem, especially when he denied the indefectibility of both the Church and the pope. I showed him love, by stating and defending Church doctrine.
*
*
Do enlighten me as to how a non-Catholic is supposed to be persuaded to join the Church when Fernandez the pedo protector and promoter of contraception in certain circumstances just was named head of doctrine. What good are dozens of books on the Trinity, the Virgin, or what have you when anyone with eyes to see can observe that the Catholic Church is in a crisis? Just for once, try stepping outside your carefully-constructed bubble and face reality.
*
1 Peter 3:15 (RSV) Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you*
Jude 3 . . . contend for the faith . . .*
Acts 17:2 for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures, The first two are commands.
*
Paul followed that instruction.
*
*
I wrote on Jan. 12, 2016 (to Phil Blosser):
What I object to is this notion that I must do all this sort of “airing dirty laundry” and sociological / muckraking journalistic-type analysis of Church problems, just because traditionalists do. I’m under no such obligation. I have a plate more than full enough, with all the doctrines and dogmas and misunderstandings that apologists routinely deal with. I’m also a big believer in not spreading oneself too thin. As it is, I have more than [4,300] papers ; but I can’t do everything.
*
1 Corinthians 7:17 Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.
*
Out of context, that verse implies there’s no need for a hierarchy or a pope at all. I really wish you’d make up your mind as to whether or not we actually need bishops and popes or not. When they do something you like, the answer seems to be “yes”; when they don’t, you ignore their behavior and insist it’s up to the laity to fend for themselves.
*
There’s “not spreading oneself too thin”, and then there’s publicly ignoring decisions and appointments of pope and bishops that are direct impediments to conversion. I don’t know how many people I’ve encountered both online and in person who have admitted they probably wouldn’t have converted were Francis pope when they joined the Church.
*
You exhibit the classic reactionary unCatholic, unbiblical mindset. I wrote in my 2012 book, Mass Movements: Radical Catholic Reactionaries, the New Mass, and Ecumenism”:
*
All reactionaries have time to do is run down the Church and popes and Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass. Reactionaries don’t have much time left to defend Holy Mother Church against her enemies or learn the worldview of non-Catholics so as to dialogue with them and attempt to persuade them to become Catholic. This is a great victory for the devil. He takes out many potential apologists and evangelists and turns them into grumblers and complainers and eternal pessimists.*Where are all the converts in the reactionary or even (to a lesser extent) in the “traditionalist” movement? Where is their equivalent of Catholic Answers or The Coming Home Network? They’re concerned about bringing people into the Church? One has to talk to folks to do so, and take time away from the constant bickering and repressed rage and vicious attacks against “neoCatholics”.*What is the appeal in (at least by most appearances) angry, disenchanted, grumbling people who can say very little good about the Church or popes? Why would anyone want to convert to that, pray tell? If they want to rail against Church and popes they can stay Protestant. Why would they opt for “Protestant Private Judgment Lite”? Most Protestants, in fact, have far more respect for popes than reactionaries do. So it amounts to a situation where reactionaries sit around talking about converts and how we should have a lot more, while doing little or nothing to help being this about: neither laboring in the vineyard, for the harvest, nor assisting others to do so. But we “neo-conservatives” are doing this work and seeing them come in by the hundreds and thousands.*One stays on the sidelines and talks, and moans and groans about how rotten and terrible the Church is; the other has the fruit to show for what they’ve been doing (and believing). Which activity do you think would be more pleasing to God? Is there some law against defending the Church rather than always tearing her down? Is there some unspoken rule in that would forbid reactionaries from interacting with atheists, as I do (with dozens of debates posted)? How about all the heretical sects out there, or the Muslims? How about in-depth debates with Lutherans and Calvinists, as I’ve been doing for many years (I have the most extensive critique of Luther and Lutheranism online), in the attempt to show them the weakness of their positions, leading to conversions?*What about dealing with the hundreds of myths and falsehoods of virulent anti-Catholics (I have many scores of articles along those lines)? I have to look far and wide to find much of this at all in reactionary (and too often, also “traditionalist”) environments. Yet I’ll find plenty of apologetics-bashing. What sense does this make? Reactionaries praise something out of one side of their mouths, but refuse to do it themselves, and trash most of its major, known proponents out of the other side.
*
Are you capable of addressing points without quoting yourself, Dave? I asked you a specific question regarding how recent papal actions strengthen or undermine the Faith, and you’re simply ignoring them.
*
*
I’ve answered your mindless schtick several times, of course, but one can’t talk to someone who refuses to hear. I just refuted your claim (from Scripture and reason) that evangelism and apologetics are worthless as long as the Church has problems (which it had plenty of in Galatia and Corinth).
*
Do self-published books even really count as books, Dave? I mean, really count? As for your attempted point, I would rather not play ignorant and be the living example of the dog in hell “This is fine” GIF.
*
I have more than twenty “officially” published books, with seven different publishers. What are your credentials? My first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (Sophia Institute Press) had a glowing Foreword by Servant of God Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., whose cause for sainthood is championed by Cardinal Burke.
*
*
You haven’t answered anything. You’ve made it clear you treat the hierarchy as if they exist only when they are doing “good” things, and when they aren’t, well, that’s not your concern and people should just deal with it on their own. You could at least be honest and admit a reason for taking this position is that it would cost you money to not do so. Because who’s going to publish your books, or invite you to speak at the trendy Catholic conferences if you start getting too uppity regarding the problems this pope has directly caused?
*
*
And now I shall take my leave of this idiotic “discussion,” following the sage advice of Solomon: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.” (Prov 26:4). Thanks much, however, for the remarkably revealing new blog post.
*
The “conservative” Catholic apologist narrative seems to be that we need popes and bishops when they do things we like that uphold the faith, but when they do bad things, we don’t talk about it at all and take the position that it’s up to the laity to learn the Faith all on their lonesome. How they don’t see this undermines the necessity for a hierarchical Church baffles me, but then again, my living isn’t dependent on defending the status quo, either.
*
*
FINAL WORD
*
This exchange shows exactly why I ceased (only with some exceptions like this) interacting with reactionaries and pope-bashers in January 2022. There simply is no discussion with them at all. I had been critiquing their errors online for 25 years by that time. I’ve done more than my share of extremely frustrating and seemingly fruitless work.
*
*
Now it’s time to pass the “torch” onto others, and there are indeed very capable folks who are doing that now, like the good people at Where Peter is – There is the Church (Pedro Gabriel, Mike Lewis, and others), and Michael Lofton and others. They feel called to engage in the thankless but very important task, too. I’m happy to see it.
*
As my readers know, I largely wrote about and researched the areas of biblical archaeology and atheism in the last two or three years, and also (as presently) anti-Catholic Protestants, particularly Brazilian ones.
*
As my readers know, I largely wrote about and researched the areas of biblical archaeology and atheism in the last two or three years, and also (as presently) anti-Catholic Protestants, particularly Brazilian ones.
*
I thought this little attempted “discussion” was worthwhile for instruction and illustration, and it needed to be addressed because the original post that slandered my name and almost the entire staff of Catholic Answers, now has 21,500 views (that’s how much activity these naysayers and liars regularly receive; how sad).
*
I think my questioning reduced him to a blithering, bumbling, incoherent idiot, who had to lower himself to claiming that all of my 4,300+ articles and 53 books are utterly worthless, as is the enterprise of apologetics and evangelism itself; that I supposedly think bishops are irrelevant; that there are no problems in the Church; that I am only self-published; that my outlook is responsible for former big-name reactionary Steve Skojec leaving the Church; that I do the work I do dishonestly for a profit motive only (as if I am rolling in dough over here), etc. Lies, lies, and more lies.
*
I think my questioning reduced him to a blithering, bumbling, incoherent idiot, who had to lower himself to claiming that all of my 4,300+ articles and 53 books are utterly worthless, as is the enterprise of apologetics and evangelism itself; that I supposedly think bishops are irrelevant; that there are no problems in the Church; that I am only self-published; that my outlook is responsible for former big-name reactionary Steve Skojec leaving the Church; that I do the work I do dishonestly for a profit motive only (as if I am rolling in dough over here), etc. Lies, lies, and more lies.
*
He has about eight grounds for going to confession for mortal sin (bearing false witness against me and also the Holy Father). Please pray for him and all the misguided fools who follow him and others of this ilk. They are in deep spiritual trouble, and some will end up leaving the Church.
*
*
But this exchange perfectly illustrates the absurd, tragic mindset of the typical reactionary today, which is virtually identical with what I described in my first book about them, over twenty years ago. Read it and weep.
*
*
***
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,300+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
***
Photo credit: [public domain / PxFuel]
***
Summary: The usual runaround with a pope-basher who hates apologetics as much as Pope Francis, & argues that all my writings & evangelistic endeavors are utterly worthless.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In