(6-2-10)
***
This post has been re-uploaded under the title, Martin Luther Condemned Masturbation (“Secret Sin”).
***
. . . Striking Talmudic Parallels
***
Although it is often of use to confess our sins to a spiritual guide, yet [for Catholics] to make confessing to a priest necessary to forgiveness and salvation is “teaching for doctrines the commandment of men.” And to make it necessary in all cases is to lay a dangerous snare both for the confessor and the confessed. (Popery Calmly Considered; in Coll. iii, 482; 1779)
John 20:22-23 . . . he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. [23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
1 Corinthians 5:1-5 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. [2] And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. [3] For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment [4] in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, [5] you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
2 Corinthians 2:6-10 For such a one this punishment by the majority is enough; [7] so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. [8] So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. [9] For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. [10] Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ,
1 John 5:16-17 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. [17] All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal. [KJV for 5:16: “There is a sin unto death”; many translations have “death”; sometimes, “eternal death”]*1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, [10] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.*Galatians 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, [20] idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, [21] envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.*Revelation 21:27 But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, . . .
Lay Catholic Apologists; Orthodoxy Defined; Rule of Faith; Canon Redux; Protestantism’s Magisterium of Scholars & Ever-Changing Sexual Morality; Comparative Exegesis
The late Steve Hays (1959-2020) was a Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) apologist, who was very active on his blog, called Triablogue (now continued by Jason Engwer). His 695-page self-published book, Catholicism — a collection of articles from his site — has graciously been made available for free. On 9 September 2006, Hays was quite — almost extraordinarily — charitable towards me. He wrote then:
I don’t think I’ve ever accused him of being a traitor or apostate or infidel. . . . I have nothing to say, one way or the other, regarding his state of grace. But his sincerity is unquestionable. I also don’t dislike him. . . . I don’t think there’s anything malicious about Armstrong—unlike some people who come to mind. In addition, I don’t think I’ve ever said he was unintelligent. For the record, it’s obvious that Armstrong has a quick, nimble mind.
Two-and-a-half years later, starting in April 2009 and up through December 2011 (in the following quotations) his opinion radically changed, and he claimed that I have “an evil character,” am “actually evil,” “ego-maniac, narcissist,” “idolater,” “self-idolater,” “hack who pretends to be a professional apologist,” given to “chicanery,” one who doesn’t “do any real research,” “a stalwart enemy of the faith . . . no better than [the atheists] Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens,” with an intent to “destroy faith in God’s word,” “schizophrenic,” “emotionally unhinged,” one who “doesn’t trust in the merit of Christ alone for salvation,” “has no peace of mind,” “a bipolar solipsist,” “split-personality,” and a “bad” man. He wasn’t one to mince words! See more gory details.
I feel no need whatsoever to reciprocate these silly and sinful insults. I just wanted the record to be known. I’ve always maintained that Hays was a very intelligent man, but habitually a sophist in methodology; sincere and well-meaning, but tragically and systematically wrong and misguided regarding Catholicism. That’s what I’m addressing, not the state of his heart and soul (let alone his eternal destiny). It’s a theological discussion. This is one of many planned critiques of his book (see my reasons why I decided to do this). Rather than list them all here, interested readers are directed to the “Steve Hays” section of my Anti-Catholicism web page, where they will all be listed. My Bible citations are from the RSV. Steve’s words will be in blue.
*****
[Chapter 8: Canonics]
The gates of hell shall not prevail
Like so many Catholic apologists, Williams is a layman. Not a Catholic theologian like Karl Rahner or Gerhard Ludwig Müller. Not a graduate of a Catholic seminary. [p. 403]
Like so many Catholic apologists, G. K. Chesterton was a layman. Not a Catholic theologian like Karl Rahner or Gerhard Ludwig Müller. Not a graduate of a Catholic seminary or even of any college. Like so many Catholic apologists, Peter Kreeft is a layman. Not a Catholic theologian like Karl Rahner or Gerhard Ludwig Müller. Not a graduate of a Catholic seminary, but a philosopher.
Like so many Catholic apologists, Malcom Muggeridge, Frank Sheed, and Thomas Howard were laymen. Not graduates from Catholic seminary, but a journalist, a lawyer, and an English professor. Etc., etc. ad infinitum. Like so many Protestant apologists (among whom he is widely considered to have been the best), C. S. Lewis was a layman. Not a graduate of a Protestant seminary or Bible college, but a professor of literature. Etc., etc.
What we’re getting from him is the usual version of Catholicism presented by lay Catholic apologists. An idealized, retro version of Catholicism. [p. 403]
In other words, they present and defend Catholic orthodoxy: the actual teaching of the Church, not the dishonest pseudo-version presented by theological liberals and dissidents, whom Hays ridiculously and quixotically pretends are the magisterium and gold standard of Catholicism. It’s a constant theme of his, but the endless repeating of a lie makes it no less of a lie or no stronger an argument.
A version of Catholicism that’s well to the right of mainstream Catholic scholarship (e.g. Bible scholars, church historians). [p. 403]
Of course it is, because these scholars Hays has in mind are to the left of the norm and the standard: the “radical center” of orthodoxy. But almost all reputable Catholic apologists are in the center of the spectrum: orthodox.
Well to the right of the contemporary hierarchy. [p. 403]
Since no infallible doctrine has been changed, this is untrue as well. They are orthodox as a group. Individuals may be, and are, heterodox on this or that issue, but as individuals they have no magisterial authority, anymore than scholars do, as persons or as a group.
From a Protestant perspective, “Scripture” (or the Bible) is the inspired record of God’s public, propositional revelation. By “public”, I mean a revelation that’s normative at every time and place–unlike a topical private revelation to provide guidance to a particular individual in a particular situation. [p. 403]
From a Catholic perspective, “Scripture” (or the Bible) is the inspired record of God’s public, propositional revelation. By “public”, I mean a revelation that’s normative at every time and place–unlike a topical private revelation to provide guidance to a particular individual in a particular situation.
If there is no viable or comparable alternative to Scripture (as defined), then by process of elimination, sola Scriptura is the only remaining option. [p. 403]
But of course there is, because that same inspired revelation teaches that authoritative tradition and a Church exist, and are infallible under certain defined conditions. The Bible itself teaches a “three-legged stool” rule of faith, not sola Scriptura.
In that respect, the sufficiency of Scripture is defined by contrast to the alternatives. They are insufficient. Indeed, they are false alternatives. You don’t have to prove sola Scriptura or the sufficiency of Scripture directly; rather, you only have to disprove rival paradigms. [p. 403]
The formal sufficiency of Scripture is defined by contrast to the alternative, sola Scriptura. It is insufficient. Indeed, it’s a false and unbiblical alternative. We can not only disprove sola Scriptura from Scripture, but also prove our rival paradigm from the Bible.
If Scripture is the only source of God’s public, propositional revelation, then it naturally enjoys a certain primacy in relation to other sources of information or belief. Divine revelation is normative in a way that nonrevelatory sources or putative candidates are not. [p. 403]
In terms of being inspired yes, but in terms of infallible authority, the norms of faith, and the rule of faith, no. Sacred Tradition and the Catholic Church are also infallible and interpretive norms. Scripture can be primary in one sense and equal in others, to tradition and the Church, and works in tandem with them, just as God the Father has “monarchical primacy” in one sense, and is equal in others, to God the Son, Jesus Christ, and God the Holy Spirit, and works in tandem with them.
[T]he sufficiency of Scripture doesn’t rule out the necessity of extrabiblical evidence to identify Scripture and interpret Scripture. [p. 404]
That’s correct. But if the latter sources are used, they are merely fallible, so the standard of authority and the certainty are considerably less. And that is a real epistemological problem for Protestants (in terms of canonicity), whether they realize it or not. R. C. Sproul did, to his credit. Hays did not, and continued to play games and pretend that there was no inherent difficulty in such a scenario.
Feser fizzles
Catholic apologists typically ignore the internal evidence for the canon. It’s important to draw attention to that line of evidence. [p. 415]
That disregards the amount of internal evidence for the inspiration of Scripture and the canon of Scripture. [p. 418]
I don’t. In my article, “Are All the Biblical Books Self-Evidently Canonical?” (6-22-06), I wrote at the end:
The Bible can’t be used to produce an argument based on what individual biblical books supposedly claim, when they don’t in fact claim it. . . . I don’t deny any “self-attestation”; I only deny that this alone was sufficient to establish a known canon with definite boundaries, or that it is as sweeping a characteristic of “all” the biblical books as some Protestants make out.
Likewise, in my article, “Are All Bible Books Self-Evidently Inspired?” (6-19-06), the first draft of what later appeared in my book, The One-Minute Apologist (2007), I observed:
There are indeed several internal biblical evidences of inspiration and canonicity, yet (despite this fact), there were many differences in the early Church regarding biblical books. . . . nothing illustrates the falsity of the claim of “self-attesting” books better than the history of the process of canonization itself. . . . If everything were so obvious, how could there be so many differences? . . . Believers in the early Church (such as St. Athanasius or St. Augustine) were just as zealous for the Bible and Christian truth as Christians today. Yet they often disagreed on this score. . . .
It’s very easy to make such (somewhat logically circular) claims, and “hindsight is 20-20”; however, there is no way to test or disprove (or, for that matter, prove) them other than by looking at what actually happened in history. . . . The fact remains that there were disagreements because some books were not all that clearly inspired (and other non-biblical books seemed to be).
I also cited F. F. Bruce in agreement:
[O]nly one book of the New Testament explicitly claims prophetic inspiration. (The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988, 280-281)
I think Bruce was referring to Revelation: “the words of the prophecy of this book” (22:18) and “the book of this prophecy” (22:19). 2 Timothy 3:16 states that “All scripture is inspired” but of course Paul in that letter doesn’t identify which books these are. I cited another opinion of Bruce’s, too:
It is unlikely, for example, that the Spirit’s witness would enable a reader to discern that Ecclesiastes is the word of God while Ecclesiasticus is not . . . (Ibid., 281-282)
None of this is in line with Hays’ fanciful view that every single book is self-evidently inspired, thus precluding any need for authoritative Church pronouncements. Had Hays been around in, say, AD 200, surely he would have (so it would seem from his confident rhetoric) correctly identified (167 years before Athanasius) every single biblical book in both Testaments, and would have (as an extra bonus) declared that anyone who didn’t agree with him either: 1) couldn’t comprehend what was so plain in the Bible (i.e., was stupid), 2) had a judgment clouded by sin, 3) was deliberately dishonest, and/or 4) had a nefarious “Catholic agenda” complete with the obligatory circular reasoning and “infallibility regress.”
Actually, there are contemporary Catholic commentators who often admit that traditional Catholic exegesis was wrong, and Protestants were right. [p. 417]
DUH! No kidding! Seeing that the Church has only required one definitive interpretation of a mere 7-9 Bible passages, then all the other thousands could be interpreted differently, and many times (as in all fields of knowledge ands scholarship) a Protestant exegete may have been right, and one or many Catholics wrong. None of this adversely affects infallibility in the least, because it is overwhelmingly not in play. Protestant polemicists (at least anti-Catholic ones) seem constitutionally unable to comprehend how “free” Catholic exegetes are. I’ll keep telling them the truth about that. Maybe over decades it’ll eventually sink into their thick skulls.
Moreover, sometimes Protestant exegetes massively support positions regarded as “Catholic distinctives” in a way that Steve would vehemently disagree with, such as, for example, the thirty I have documented who agree that Peter was the “Rock.” Truth is truth, wherever it comes from.
Sola scriptura . . . denies the infallibility of the church. [p. 418]
Thank you, and of sacred tradition, too. Protestants, defending this false doctrine, often overlook what it denies, over against what it asserts. What it denies (and what it contradicts in the Bible) is what Catholic apologists usually focus upon.
[T]he Catholic formulation of the Trinity isn’t all that rigorous. Consider Karl Rahner’s reformulations. [p. 419]
First of all (I reiterate for the umpteenth time) one man doesn’t definitively speak for the Church (unless it’s the pope, and even then under very specific conditions). Hays seems to perpetually project onto us the “magisterium of head counts of scholars” that in effect, functions as the Protestant authority structure. It’s a “sociological magisterium,” if you will. If lots of good ol’ evangelical and Calvinist scholars say one thing (a form of both the ad populum and genetic fallacies), then it becomes gospel truth (at least for a time). We don’t function that way, and it would be nice if Hays (not an unintelligent man) could have figured this out.
Secondly, I don’t know if Rahner “reformulated” the Trinity in heretical terms or not. I’d have to see what he wrote and thought about it. Chances are it was a legitimate development. But I certainly wouldn’t take Hays’ bald assertion of this, rather than actually examining it. If he wants to make such a claim, then he needs to present the evidence. But that was habitually too laborious for him to do. He wants to make the potshots and then retreat and laugh about people’s reactions, rather than seriously discuss the topic with an open mind.
Protestant scholars — in a burst of “inspiration” no doubt — figured out after 1930 that contraception was fine and dandy, even though no Christian group had ever held the position before that time. “Everyone” eventually started believing it in Protestant circles (especially after 1960 and the Pill), and so it then became okay! Then killjoy Pope St. Paul VI expressed the traditional Christian teaching in 1968: that it was not okay, and continued to be grave sin, since moral truths don’t change.
Recently, by the way, Pope Francis (supposedly a flaming liberal dissident, according to Hays and even many deluded or misinformed Catholics these days) upheld and reaffirmed unchanging Catholic teaching on contraception. And it’s been like this with one moral (especially sexual) teaching after another in Protestant circles. Lots of Protestant denominations now think abortion is fine, and sodomy, and “gay marriage” and cohabitation and masturbation and divorce and euthanasia and self-mutilating sterilization procedures. You name it. I replied to arguments from Steve Hays regarding masturbation in 2007 (and — rarity of rarities! — he actually directly interacted with me a bit, before he decided I was “evil”). He claimed he wasn’t for or agin’ it, but then talked about it as a “sexual safety valve” and wrote that “the morality of masturbation is debatable”.
[A]llegorical exegesis is contrary to how later Bible writers interpret earlier Bible writers. [p. 419]
Really? Not always. St. Paul in Galatians 4:21-31 explicitly states about aspects of the story of Hagar and Sarah, “Now this is an allegory” (4:24). In 1 Corinthians 9:9-10 Paul provides an allegorical interpretation of the injunction to not muzzle an ox when it is plowing corn, comparing that to the obligation to pay Christian workers. In Romans 5:14 he refers to “Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.” Elijah was a type of John the Baptist, etc. There are many such examples.
Can we be sure?
[Y]ou offer no counterargument. Rather, you simply push the rewind button and replay your prerecorded message. . . . All you have is slogans. You have nothing to back up the slogans. . . . Do you think it’s clever for you to offer these snappy, unintelligent comebacks? Don’t try to
be clever at the expense of intellectual honesty or comprehension. . . . I notice that when your claims are challenged, you have nothing in reserve. So you just repeat the original claim. You don’t rebut the counterargument. [pp. 449-451]
These are remarkably accurate descriptions of Steve’s own frequent methodology. He can see and object to it in others but not in his own rhetoric and polemics.
Modern Catholicism treats Scripture as eminently fallible. [p. 449]
This is a lie. Catholicism treats Holy Scripture as it always has: as inerrant inspired revelation. See: “Vatican II and the Inerrancy of the Bible,” by Jeffrey Pinyan (10-10-10), “Vatican II Upheld Biblical Inerrancy (vs. David Palm)” [4-23-20], and “The Inerrancy of Scripture and the Second Vatican Council,” by Mark Joseph Zia, Faith & Reason, 2006.
***
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,300+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one 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: The Whore of Babylon (workshop of Lucas Cranach): colorized illustration from Martin Luther’s 1534 translation of the Bible [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
***
Summary: The late Steve Hays was a Calvinist and anti-Catholic writer and apologist. This is one of my many critiques of Hays’ “Catholicism”: a 695-page self-published volume.
Atheist and anti-theist Bob Seidensticker runs the influential Cross Examined blog. He asked me there, on 8-11-18: “I’ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I’ve ignored on one or two of those posts?” He added in June 2017 in a combox: “If I’ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I’ve mischaracterized them.”
For over three years, we have had (shall we say) rather difficult relations, with mutual bannings (while I have replied to his posts 79 times: all as of yet unanswered), but when Bob moved to his new location online at the OnlySky super-site, he (surprisingly to me) decided to allow me to comment. As a conciliatory gesture in return, I removed his ban on my blog. He even stated on 1-21-22 in the same combox thread, replying to me: “There are a few new posts here. (Or, if you haven’t been to my blog for a while, lots of new posts here.) Have at ’em. Let me know what you think.”
Delighted to oblige his wishes . . . Bob’s words will be in blue. To find these posts, follow this link: “Seidensticker Folly #” or see all of them linked under his own section on my Atheism page.
*****
The following “exchanges” (shall we call them?) took place in the combox of Bob’s article, “Christians weaponizing scholars’ quotes: Jastrow, Darwin, and Dawkins” (2-9-22). This is what passes in Bob’s mind as “discussion” or “conversation.” It’s mockery and condescending dismissal all the way.
***
“ORAXX”: No discovery of science has ever pointed to the truth of ANY religious doctrine.
No discovery of science has ever proven that atheism is the true state of affairs.
True. And irrelevant. Someone is confused about who has the burden of proof. When you’ve proven that God exists, let us know.
No proof is ever sufficient to overcome a will that refuses to believe. It’s quite sufficient for us.
That you keep using “proof” is hilarious. And tragic. I’m sure it’s all been explained to you, so I won’t waste my time.
I was kinda hoping that you’d respond by saying, “OK, you’re right–the burden of proof is mine. It was a slip of the pen to insist that the atheist has the burden of proof to show that God doesn’t exist.” Silly me.
Kidding! All you know how to do is double down.
I was referring to epistemology. Science neither proves nor disproves God. But it is the atheist’s religion, so they often absurdly act as if the study of matter rules out an immaterial Being.
I defend Christianity and the Bible against your attacks (78 times as of this writing). I give both sides and let readers decide which case is more plausible. You ignore all my critiques (which you have actually challenged me to do). Which approach do you think suggests more intellectual confidence in one’s own belief?
“atheist’s religion”? Fascinating. You’ll have to share with us how religion without belief in the supernatural works.
In the 20th and 21st centuries, members of Humanist organizations have disagreed as to whether Humanism is a religion. They categorize themselves in one of three ways. Religious (or ethical) humanism, in the tradition of the earliest humanist organizations in the UK and US, attempts to fulfil the traditional social role of religion. . . .
Greg M. Epstein states that, ‘modern, organized Humanism began, in the minds of its founders, as nothing more nor less than a religion without a God’. (Wikipedia, “Secular Humanism”)
Some Buddhists would say that Buddhism can be construed and/or practiced without supernatural elements.
Humanism starts with an H, and atheism with an A. That’s how I keep them apart in my mind.
Non sequitur. I was responding to your statement: “You’ll have to share with us how religion without belief in the supernatural works.” My counter-examples were humanism and some forms of Buddhism, as construed by the followers of same.
Not the point. Every involved conversation with you turns out to be a waste of time. I’ve had WLC [William Lane Craig], Koukl, Jim Wallace, and probably others respond to my articles, and I’ve usually responded.
Of course, your view of William Lane Craig is scarcely different from your view of me. In one article, you wrote about him [on 7-21-14; updated on 3-23-18]:
[He has an] unhealthy relationship with facts and evidence.
dark and tangled recesses of the thinking
. . . Craig’s bizarre reply
Craig once again vomits onto thoughtful discourse. He ignores the problem, assumes that he is right, and then shapes the facts to fit.
The mental masturbation continues.
Yes, he really said that. It’d be a pain to have to, y’know, do all that research and stuff. I mean, who’s got the time? Using reason would be inconvenient, so let’s not.
Follow the drunken reasoning . . .
Craig tells us that relying on reason would be inconvenient, so let’s not.
So much for apologetics to raise the intellectual content of the conversation.
You’re the only one I ignore.
It must be a new definition of “ignore” that I am unaware of, seeing that eight of your last nine comments [i.e., on his OnlySky blog, as can be verified by clicking on his name in the combox] were replies to me. What is this: doublethink?
In the last fifteen days on this (or any OnlySky) blog, as anyone can see, looking at your profile on OnlySky, you have made nine comments. Eight of those were responding to me. So in fifteen days, you have responded exactly once to someone other than me.
But now you are saying that you completely ignore me. Right. I do agree that you never make a sustained rational, thoughtful, non-mocking response . . .
Good point. I’ll try to ignore you better in the future.
If the above is the level of your “argumentation”, please do!
***
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty 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: William Kentridge, In Mockery of Progress. Image courtesy of the artist and Marian Goodman Gallery, New York. [Flickr / CC BY-NC-SA 2.o license]
***
Summary: Bob Seidensticker again provides a textbook / playbook demonstration of the mentality & folly of anti-theist polemicists, in a ridiculous non-“conversation” with me.
I have written about the issue of Onan and contraception five times:
Why Did God Kill Onan? (Bible and Contraception) [2-9-04]
Dialogue: Why Did God Kill Onan? (Contraception) [2-13-04]
Onan, Contraception, & Two Protestant Bible Dictionaries [2-21-04]
Biblical Data Against Contraception: Onan’s Sin and Punishment: a Concise “Catholic” Argument [3-7-14]
Bible vs. Contraception: Onan’s Sin and Punishment [National Catholic Register, 5-30-17]
It was brought up again today on my blog that the late Steve Hays, a Reformed anti-Catholic apologist, made a “response” to me regarding this issue in a post dated 1-10-07. It depends on what one means by “response.” He utterly ignored my extensive exegesis of the passage, and cited one Jewish commentary with a contrary opinion. In my book that is not a proper reply or rebuttal at all, because it ignored my argumentation. And in no way, shape, or form, is that either a dialogue or a debate. It’s “ships passing in the night.”
If a middle school debating club had tried that tactic, the participants would have gotten a failing mark in the debating class. It’s elementary. The true and effective debater is supposed to know the opponent’s position better than he knows it himself, and to take that knowledge and thoroughly refute it. But Hays exhibits no knowledge at all of what I argued.
It appears that I did reply underneath this post from Steve Hays. Now, it indicates a “blocked post.” But then Steve commented and interacted a bit with my own comments, which appear to have been made on his blog (likely — judging from past experience — not citing all of my words). His words will be in blue:
Big wow. I’m on record repeatedly saying the text had to do with both the levirate law and contraception.”
This is a throwaway argument. He admits what he cannot deny—that the text is dealing with levirate law—but then attempts to disarm this factor as key to the penalty, which he reassigns to contraception, per se.
But after his tentative admission above, he seems to contradict himself…First it isn’t clear, then it is. Which is it, then?
No, Sarna doesn’t contradict himself. Dave is quoting Sarna out of context. V10, considered in isolation, is unclear, but when considered in relation to levirate marriage in extrabiblical sources as well as the Mosaic law, we can clearly rule out contraception, per se, as the capital offense.
He does not interpret v10 in a vacuum. What is unclear in isolation is clearer “in the development of the narrative” along with the “unusual emphasis given to the particular socio-legal background,” &c.
I have the history of both Christian and Jewish moral teaching and exegesis of the Onan passage on my side; he does not.
This is irrelevant to original intent when exegeting a text from the Bronze Age.
Also, Sarna does appeal to Jewish tradition: Genesis Rabba.
I think this is significant, but ahistorical types don’t care about it.
False dichotomy. Dave is guilty of imposing an ahistorical interpretation on the text by ripping it out of its historical setting.
It’s anachronistic to interpret a text from the ANE era in light of post-Biblical developments.
I happen to believe that the Holy Spirit has been active during all the centuries of the Church, not just presently, or from 1517 onwards.
Irrelevant. The Holy Spirit was active in the inspiration of Gen 38. Moses wrote to be understood by his target audience.
Based on what you cited, the influence of ‘contemporary Jewish scholars’ will almost certainly involve a liberal bias.
What it will involve, in what I quoted, is an interaction between “over twenty centuries of traditional Jewish exegesis” and contemporary Biblical archeology, comparative Semitics, &c.
We all extrapolate and deduce according to our worldview when it isn’t possible to not do so, given the inconclusive vagueness of a biblical text.
Which, once again, is not what Sarna said about the passage. There’s a distinction and interrelation between text (e.g. Gen 38:10 or 38:6-11), cotext (e.g. Lev 18; 20; Deut 25), and context (ANE custom of levirate marriage).
***
Steve again “responded” on this issue to myself and fellow Catholic apologist Scott Windsor, on 2-28-14. I replied on Facebook on the same day. I will now transfer that reply here to my blog:
***
He has ignored me for quite a while. But now he is making the same stupid, false statements again (his stock-in-trade):
Evangelical converts to Catholicism like [Scott] Windsor and Dave Armstrong resort to traditional prooftexting. A more sophisticated Catholic apologist would skip the fanciful prooftexting and justify his denomination’s teaching by appealing to the theory of development as well as attempting to mount a natural law argument. As is typical of evangelical converts to Rome, Windsor is out of touch with Catholic scholarship on his locus classicus. This, again, betrays the fact that apologists like Windsor and Armstrong remain outsiders to their adopted denomination.
Now, it has been fashionable among twentieth-century exegetes to maintain that in these verses the Bible condemns Onan’s coitus interruptus only insofar as it in effect violated the so-called levirate marriage custom endorsed by the law of Moses at a time when polygamy was not forbidden. According to this ancient oriental practice, a man – whether he was already married or not – was expected to marry his deceased brother’s wife if she was still childless at her husband’s death; and the first-born son of this union was then regarded as a legal descendant of the dead man. In other words, according to those exegetes who focus their attention exclusively on this custom in their reading of Genesis 38, Onan’s sin is presented here as consisting only in his selfish intent to deny offspring to his brother’s widow Tamar, and not even partly in the unnatural method he employed in doing so. . . .
*The classical Jewish commentators – who can scarcely be accused of ignorance regarding Hebrew language, customs, law, and biblical literary genres – certainly saw in this passage of Scripture a condemnation of both unnatural intercourse and masturbation as such. A typical traditional Jewish commentary puts it thus: “[Onan] misused the organs God gave him for propagating the race to unnaturally satisfy his own lust, and he was therefore deserving of death.” And this is undoubtedly in accord with the natural impression which most unprejudiced readers will draw from the text of Genesis 38. . . .
*Indeed, a further problem faces this conventional modern reading of the passage. If simple refusal to give legal offspring to his deceased brother were, according to Genesis 38, Onan’s only offence, it seems extremely unlikely that the text would have spelt out the crass physical details of his contraceptive act (cf. v. 9). The delicacy and modesty of devout ancient Hebrews in referring to morally upright sexual activity helps us to see this. As is well-known, Scripture always refers to licit (married) intercourse only in an oblique way: “going in to” one’s wife, (i.e., entering her tent or bedchamber, cf. vv. 8 and 9 in the Genesis text cited above, as well as Gen. 6:4; II Sam. 16:22; I Chron. 23:7) or “knowing” one’s spouse (e.g., Gen. 4:17; Luke 1:34). When the language becomes somewhat more explicit – “lying with” someone, or “uncovering [his/her] nakedness” – the reference is without exception to sinful, shameful sexual acts. And apart from the verse we are considering, the Bible’s only fully explicit mention of a genital act (the voluntary emission of seed) is in a prophetical and allegorical context wherein Israel’s infidelity to Yahweh is being denounced scathingly in terms of the shameless lust of a harlot (Ez. 23:20). . . .*Our commentary on this passage can now be summarized. The cumulative weight of the evidence – the structure and sexual explicitness of the text itself and the much greater severity of Onan’s punishment than that prescribed for levirate marriage infringements in Deuteronomy 25:5-6 – leads us to conclude that while Genesis 38:9-10 very probably includes disapproval of Onan’s lack of piety toward his deceased brother, it is nonetheless the unnatural sex act in itself which is presented as the most gravely sinful aspect of this man’s treatment of Tamar – the aspect for which God cut short his life. (“The Sin of Onan Revisited,” Nov. 1996)
***
Summary: The late Reformed anti-Catholic apologist Steve Hays made a pretense of “responding” to my lengthy exegetical arguments about Onan, but did no such thing.
***
[from my comments on Steve Hays’ blog on 1-11-07 and a revision of my Facebook post from 2-28-14]
Does it Entail a Denial of Church Teaching on Gravely Disordered Homosexual Sex?
First of all, if we are seeking to be objective and honest (as well as charitable) we have to interpret this incident in light of past pronouncements. Pope Francis has made it very clear that he accepts all of Church teaching on this matter. See my recent paper: Pope Francis vs. Same-Sex “Marriage”: The Record [3-25-21]. About ten days before that, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had answered “Negative” to the question: “Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?” This was done with the pope’s approval. The Catechism is also clear on the topic.
These all involve very clear, unambiguous affirmations of traditional Catholic teaching on sexuality and the intrinsic nature of (sacramental) marriage as between a man and a woman. Sodomy (a word we scarcely hear anymore) remains a grave mortal sin. So does non-procreative and “contraceptive” sexuality: whether between a man and a woman or two men or two women.
With that background, let’s now take a look at what the pope wrote with regard to Fr. James Martin (well-known for his outreach to the LGBTQ community). Crux (6-27-21) reports his words in a personal letter to Fr. Martin (words not from the pope bracketed):
I want to thank you for your pastoral zeal and your capacity to be close to people, with that closeness that Jesus had and which reflects the closeness of God. Our Father from Heaven becomes close with love to each of his children, each and every one of them. His heart is open for everyone one. He’s Father. The ‘style’ of God has three characteristics: closeness, compassion and tenderness. This is how he comes close to each one of us.
[Francis also told Martin that, thinking of his pastoral style, the pope sees he’s constantly] trying to imitate this style of God. You’re a priest for everyone. I pray for you so that you continue this way, being close, compassionate and with a lot of tenderness.
[Lastly, Pope Francis said that he prayed for Martin’s] parishioners [whom God] has placed within your care [for you] to protect them, and to make them grow in the love of our Lord Jesus Christ.
My friend Joe Garcia translates the same letter as follows:
June 21, 2021
Rev. Fr. James Martin, S.J.
Dear brother, Thanks for your mail and the photos. Thank your nephew for his kindness to me and for having chosen the name Francis…and congratulate him for the socks…they made me laugh. Tell him I pray for him and for him to, please, do the same for me. Regarding your P.S., I want to thank you for your pastoral zeal, and for your capacity for being near to [these] persons, with that nearness Jesus had and which reflects the nearness of God. Our Father in Heaven approaches [“gets near”] with love each one of His children, each and every one. God’s “style” has three marks: nearness, compassion, and tenderness.
In this manner He gets close to each one of us. Thinking of your pastoral work, I see that you continually seek to imitate this style of God’s. You are a priest for all [men and all women], just as God is Father for all [men and all women]. I pray for you, that you may stay that way, being near, compassionate and with much tenderness.
I also pray for your faithful, your “parishioners,” all those whom the Lord places [on you] for you to care for them, to protect them, and for you to make them grow in the love for our Lord Jesus Christ. Please, do not forget to pray for me. May Jesus bless you and the Holy Virgin protect you. Fraternally, Francis
Now, is there any denial of Church teaching in that letter? No; we can’t possibly say that there is. The argument at this point (particularly among vocal papal critics) concentrates on Fr. Martin’s teaching, which is said to contradict Church teaching. Therefore, if the pope praises him, by implication, he must be praising the dissenting, heterodox views as well. That’s not only illogical, but reading in-between the lines, and this is often a problem among those who are quick to judge the pope and place him in a theologically liberal / dissident / heterodox category.
As an apologist and well-known defender of Pope Francis (for whatever it’s worth), I have never found that he denies any Church dogma or doctrine, and I have defended him now 194 times (including this present instance). No one has ever accused me (i.e., with any solid, objective evidence) of not being theologically orthodox. I accept all that the Church obligates and binds Catholics to believe (all dogmas and doctrines that are required). I utterly detest theological liberalism and dissent and have a web page about that, too.
So, what are our choices in how to interpret what the pope has done? Roughly the following, in my opinion:
1) The pope knows full well that Fr. Martin denies Church teaching on sexuality (assuming for a moment that he does), and wholly endorses his departures by implication, in praising him. He’s sending a message (wink wink) to people in “his camp.” This would amount to him equivocating and lying through his teeth in all those instances where he clearly affirms traditional Church teaching. And his reactionary critics (e.g., Abp. Vigano, Taylor Marshall, Steve Skojec, Peter Kwasniewski) and many non-reactionary ones as well (e.g., Phil Lawler) think precisely that about him, as I have documented many times. This is the “Pope Francis as a conscious subversive agent of Satan” interpretation.
2) The pope is aware that Fr. Martin denies Church teaching (assuming he does), and in blessing him, is being “diplomatic”: i.e., praising the things he does which are good and simply not commenting on the bad, dissenting things, which he himself disagrees with. If this were the case, I would say that the pope — with all due respect and reverence — was being negligent, in not addressing sin and dissent where it needs to be addressed.
3) The pope is unaware that Fr. Martin denies Church teaching (assuming he does), and so blesses him in ignorance and naivete.
4) The pope believes (rightly or wrongly, as to the actual facts to be ascertained) that Fr. Martin adheres to Church teaching, and is blessing his compassionate outreach efforts, which don’t entail such a denial, and are in line with the Catechism’s call for compassion and acknowledgment that a homosexual condition (as opposed to sexual acts) is not itself a sin.
Personally, though I haven’t followed Fr. Martin’s ministry and public statements at all, my guess is that #4 describes best what happened.
I can picture many people wondering how I can think that, and perhaps thinking that I am myself naive and out of the loop; a special pleader (I’ve been called all these things and many more). Well, let me explain (for those who think enough of my work and integrity to continue reading). I have seen one instance where Fr. Martin flat-out asserted that the Bible was wrong or in error about homosexuality. In a tweet on 10-23-19, he wrote:
Interesting: “Where the Bible mentions [same-sex sexual] behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether the biblical judgment is correct. The Bible sanctioned slavery as well and nowhere attacked it as unjust.
Note that he is referring to sexual activity, not just orientation. As for the Bible’s view of slavery is an extremely complex issue. As an apologist, I have written at length about it twice:
Seidensticker Folly #10: Slavery in the Old Testament [8-20-18]
Seidensticker Folly #11: Slavery & the New Testament [8-20-18]
In short, the issue of slavery is not analogous to the nature of permissible sexuality. Of course Fr. Martin’s casual dismissal of the inspired revelation of Scripture doesn’t sit well with me, as one who defends the inspiration and infallibility on a weekly basis. That’s the arbitrary theologically liberal / pick-and-choose cafeteria mentality that I despise. And it’s arguably the root of the problem with dissent.
So what exactly does Fr. Martin believe? And can he be trusted in his report? That’s the $64,000 question. Todd Aglialoro, who edited three of my four bestselling books, and is now an editor and writer at Catholic Answers (CA wanted to hire me in 2011, and published my book on sola Scriptura), wrote the article, “What Does Fr. James Martin Really Believe?: Four questions in search of clear answers from the celebrated pro-LGBT priest” (9-19-19). What he rhetorically asks in this article is what I would ask, too (and I wish Fr. Martin would reply):
Assuming people’s sincerity is a good and noble thing. But Fr. Martin makes it hard sometimes, and this latest tweet, in which he refers approvingly to a same-sex “marriage” and parenting arrangement, is just another example to throw on the pile. This leaves many observers with a massive disconnect between his assertions.
But maybe some simple followup will fix that. Maybe we can get to the bottom of all this by engaging Fr. Martin’s own interest in… Catholic questions. In that spirit, I respectfully pose to Fr. Martin these four questions, along with an open invitation to make public his answers on Catholic.com or Catholic Answers Live.
1. Does God positively will that some people possess and act upon homosexual desires as their natural, correctly ordered sexuality?
Father, when you tweeted “Pride Month” greetings to your “LGBTQ friends,” urging them to be “proud” of their “God-given dignity” and “gifts” and their “place in the world,” did you mean to insinuate that homosexuality is a gift from God and thus something to embrace? Has God given them a gay nature? (You don’t say it in so many words, but it’s hard to think you’re ignorant of the subtext of the words you chose.) And you seem to suggest just that when you claim that such people are “born that way,” as you did this past June.
If this is the case, homosexual acts cannot be said to be immoral. In fact, prohibiting homosexual acts (as the Church does) would be immoral, because it would prevent people from being who God made them to be and doing what God wants them to do. Then it would make sense to advocate for the de-stigmatization of homosexuality and to encourage those with SSA to fully actualize their attractions as a lifestyle. This could explain your consistentsupport for Catholic gay ministries that affirm homosexual activity while ignoring or throwing shade on those that don’t. It would also provide context for your reference to homosexuality as “a loving act, a form of love… that I have to reverence.”
Do you believe this?
2. If you don’t believe this, aren’t you doing gay people a disservice?
If you think that homosexuality is not a nature given by God, does not have a sexual expression that is moral and ordered to a person’s happiness, then the only other option is that it is unnatural, that its sexual expressions are immoral, and that, however mixed with real friendship or real virtues it may be in any given situation, it’s ultimately ordered away from happiness.
In which case, doesn’t saying that gay people are born that way, and insisting on using the gay-affirmative language that people with SSA “use for themselves,” have the effect of affirming people in what will make them unhappy? To say nothing of leading them away from eternal life? . . .
3. Do you think it is possible for two persons of the same sex to be married?
. . . when you refer to a man and “his husband” and their child; when you are chronically silent on the legal movements to redefine marriage and family despite your influential Catholic profile on the issue; when we do the math and realize that endorsing same-sex marriage is the only logical end point of endorsing homosexuality as God-given and natural—it’s only fair to wonder whether you assent to this teaching. . . .
4. When you say that you assent to Catholic teaching on homosexuality, which propositions do you have in mind?
Same basic question, only broader: Fr. Martin, when you claim that you assent to Catholic teaching on homosexuality, what are you specifically thinking of? Is it the full package: condemnation of homosexual acts as disordered and intrinsically immoral, affirmation that our sexual faculties are ordered toward marital love between a man and a woman, a basic biblical anthropology of sexual difference and complementarity, and so on?
Or do you have in mind a minimalist or cloudy Catholic sexual morality in which very little is actually unchangeable “Church teaching,” which would make assent pretty meaningless? This would make sense of your claim that “for a teaching to be really authoritative it is expected that it will be received by the people of God,” but that Catholic teaching on homosexuality hasn’t been “received” by the “LGBT community.” Is that it? . . .
Here’s a chance to put the suspicion to rest (or confirm it). A chance to tell your many fans and foes alike what it is that you do believe and are trying to accomplish, and put an end to all the speculation and the strife. “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’” (Matt. 5:37).
To read this, it sure seems — at least prima facie – as if Fr. Martin is deliberately equivocating; talking out of both sides of his mouth, saying one thing at one time, and another at another time (depending on the audience), and might possibly be (at worst) an outright deceiver. And this is what Pope Francis himself is accused of.
Yet Todd also mentions another very curious thing:
[D]espite repeatedly seeming to approach or even transgress the limits of Catholic moral teaching on sexual matters, he has steadfastly maintained that he does not challenge that teaching. None other than Robert George, with whom he struck up an unlikely friendship in 2017, has gone to bat for him publicly, stating that when Fr. Martin says he’s faithful, we should take him at his word.
American legal scholar and political philosopher (and Thomist) Robert P. George is a widely respected orthodox Catholic and political conservative. This is well worth looking into, and may provide a key in how to interpret Pope Francis’ letter to Fr. Martin. Dr. George is convinced that Fr. Martin accepts Church teaching on homosexuality:
Fr. James Martin, S.J. is a friend of mine—someone I admire for his impressive gifts and talents, and especially for his uncompromising pro-life witness and the great heart he has for people of all faiths (and none) who suffer, struggle, or are victims of misfortune or injustice. My friendship with Fr. Martin, who is best known for his efforts to shape Catholic ministry to our brothers and sisters who experience same-sex attractions or gender dysphoria, and my willingness to engage him in dialogue and commend him when I believe he is right, have upset some Catholics who fear that he works to undermine the Church’s teachings on sexual morality and marriage. They seem to want me to withdraw my friendship which, some have suggested, “gives him cover.” I must decline.
To be sure, there have been legitimate grounds for concern that Fr. Martin rejects some of the Church’s teachings on sex and marriage. Comments of his in various venues have invited the inference that he does not count these as Church teachings after all. So in an essay here at Public Discourse last October, I asked him to clarify his views. He has since done just that in an America magazine essay clearly, accurately, and quite beautifully setting forth the Church’s teachings on marriage as the conjugal union of a man and woman, on the intrinsic immorality of non-marital (including same-sex) sexual relations, and on same-sex sexual desires as objectively disordered.
Fr. Martin’s explicit recognition of these principles as genuine Church teachings—together with his repeated insistence that he does not reject any of the Church’s teachings—removes doubt (at least for those of us who take Fr. Martin at his word and do not suppose him to be lying about what he actually believes): Fr. Martin accepts the Church’s teachings, including those on sexual morality and the nature of marriage. Whatever ambiguity or perhaps error there may have been before his recent piece in America, Fr. Martin has left no room for detractors (or, for that matter, supporters) to suppose that he believes marriage can be between persons of the same sex or that homosexual conduct can be morally good—propositions that are clearly in defiance of Catholic teaching.
In particular, it would now be unfair for his opponents—and dishonest and disloyal for his friends—to suggest that he considers same-sex sexual relationships morally licit, much less capable of forming a marriage. For this would be to accuse Fr. Martin of lying either (a) in his recent America article spelling out the Church’s teachings on these issues, or (b) in his frequent and consistent denials that he rejects any Church teaching.
If Fr. Martin is lying, which I resolutely do not believe he is, then he, of course, is answerable for that to God. But please note that by the same token, anyone who falsely accuses him of lying is also answerable to God.
For my part, I will keep pursuing friendship with Fr. Martin, and truth-seeking, mutually respectful dialogue on points of disagreement—points that aren’t, then, matters of definitive, settled Catholic teaching. In that spirit, I want to highlight and again thank him for his recent articulation of Catholic teachings pertaining to marriage and homosexuality, and clarify the closely related pastoral questions on which we do disagree. (“Fr. James Martin, Friendship and Dialogue, and the Truth about Human Sexuality”, Public Discourse, 6-17-18)
Dr. George cites at length Fr. Martin’s answers to his questions, from his article, “What is the official church teaching on homosexuality? Responding to a commonly asked question” (America, 4-6-18). I cite a good portion of it:
Homosexual acts are, according to the catechism, “intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to natural law.” (The bulk of the catechism’s attention to homosexuality is contained in Nos. 2357-59.) Consequently, the homosexual orientation (and by extension, any orientation other than heterosexuality) is regarded as “objectively disordered.” . . .
In terms of sexuality, all sex is “ordered” toward what are called the “affective” (love) and “generative” (having children) ends, within the context of a marriage.
Consequently, according to the traditional interpretation of natural law, homosexual acts are not ordered toward those specific ends and so they are deemed “disordered.” Thus, “under no circumstances can they be approved,” as the catechism states. Consequent to that, the homosexual orientation itself is viewed as an “objective disorder” since it can lead to “disordered” acts. . . .
Since homosexual activity is not approved, the person may not engage in any sort of sexual activity: “Homosexual persons are called to chastity.” Here the catechism means celibate chastity, since every person is called to the chaste expression of love—even married couples. (Broadly speaking, chastity, in Catholic teaching, is the proper use of our sexuality.)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church also states that gays and lesbians can and should approach “Christian perfection” through chastity, with such supports as “the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace.” In other words, gays and lesbians, the catechism states, can live holy lives.
Needless to say, all these considerations rule out same-sex marriage. Indeed, official church teaching rules out any sort of sexual activity outside the marriage of a man and a woman—thus the church’s prohibitions on activities like premarital sex, adultery and masturbation.
Fr. Martin ends his article by stating:
[I]t is important for the institutional church to understand the lived experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Catholics. It is also important for this group of Catholics to understand what the church believes and teaches.
Dr. George in his article above then notes his disagreements with Fr. Martin:
So where do we disagree?
Mainly, I think, on whether same-sex attraction (or other forms of feeling related to sexuality, such as the dysphoria or dysmorphia people have in mind when they use the term “transgender”) is a valid basis for establishing one’s identity, and whether we ought to recognize and affirm identity built around same-sex attraction (or those other forms of feeling). Fr. Martin believes we should. I believe we shouldn’t. . . .
On the question whether we ought to affirm “LBGT identity” and speak in terms that signal that affirmation, I strongly believe my position against doing so is more consistent both with the overall teaching of the Church pertaining to marriage and sexuality and with the values that teaching upholds. But I have no doubt that Fr. Martin would contest that point. Since, however, I cannot say that the magisterium of the Church has definitively adopted the position I affirm—I’ve had to draw some inferences, and I’m certainly not infallible—it is incumbent on me to listen carefully to Fr. Martin’s counterarguments and to be willing to give them fair, open-minded consideration. . . .
Having said these things, I would appeal to Fr. Martin to reconsider his support, which has been enthusiastic and vocal, for organizations such as New Ways Ministry and Out at St. Paul’s—organizations that unambiguously contradict and seek to undermine the Church’s teachings on marriage and sexual morality. His support for these organizations—motivated by his laudable desire to reach out in a welcoming spirit to those whom they purport to serve—leads people to wonder whether he is being honest in saying that he does not himself reject the Church’s teachings. New Ways Ministry has twice been severely rebuked by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Out at St. Paul’s has explicitly claimed that Pope Francis is “wrong” to reaffirm the Church’s teaching on marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. Fr. Martin stands with the Pope and the Church, as I do. But that cannot be done consistently with an endorsement of Out at St. Paul’s.
So there it stands. One can have various opinions as to Fr. Martin’s overall views on these matters (I confess to being skeptical, myself). In those areas where they disagree, Dr. George notes that they are not yet defined by the Church, and so diverse opinions are able to be held (though he thinks his opinion — and I fully agree — is “more consistent both with the overall teaching of the Church pertaining to marriage and sexuality”).
As regards Pope Francis’ opinion of Fr. Martin and his ministry work, then, why could it not be along the same lines of Robert George’s opinion: i.e., an orthodox Catholic accepting at face value a proclamation of Fr. Martin that he, too, accepts Church teaching on the wrongness of homosexual acts, and an endorsement of his outreach efforts only in ways that are perfectly consistent with the teaching of the Church and the Catechism?:
2358 . . . They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. . . .
That seems plausible to me, and it remains true, that — in light of other very clear statements of Pope Francis on the grave sinfulness of homosexual acts and same-sex “marriage” –, we have no reasonable, objective grounds to believe that he thinks any differently in his remarks to Fr. Martin. Dr. Robert George added (which will be a good conclusion):
[W]hich of us is not a sinner who falls short and is constantly in need of love, mercy, and compassion? I would add that it is deeply un-Christian to vilify those who experience same-sex attraction or to regard those who yield to the temptation to engage in homosexual acts as somehow more depraved than those who commit other sexual sins—or sins of, say, dishonesty, pride, greed, or envy.
On all of this, I’m on the same page with Fr. Martin, as I understand him in light of the America article. We stand with the Church. It is not merely that we “reject the sin, but love the sinner,” though we do that; we reject the sin because we love the sinner—radically love him, willing his good for his own sake, affirming the teaching of the Church in all its richness because we recognize that it is liberating and life-affirming.
***
Photo credit: Kerry Weber (6-19-12). Fr. James Martin, SJ [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]
***
Summary: I offer an explanation & interpretation of Pope Francis’ glowing statements to Fr. James Martin (with an analogy to Dr. Robert George), which doesn’t entail the pope 1) denying any Church teaching on homosexuality, or 2) lying.
This came about when radical Catholic reactionary Steven O’Reilly (who thinks the pope is a heretic) made a reply to me, in an effort to press me to comment further on Amoris Laetitia: Pope Francis’ encyclical from 3-19-16. Previously, yucking it up with fellow pope-basher and advocate of ecclesial defectibility Steve Skojec (who opined that I was “intentionally stupid”) on Twitter, O’Reilly had referred to me as a purveyor of “crazy labels” and “in denial” and an “apologist” only in quotation marks (that is, not at all) and (my favorite) a member of the club of “Francis toadies”. Can I be a “Jesus toady” too? Sounds about right to me!
Merriam-Webster online defines “toady” as “one who flatters in the hope of gaining favors.” The synonym provided is “sycophant”: defined as “a servile self-seeking flatterer.” The obvious problem with this is that I have gotten back only misery and no end of problems, by defending Pope Francis (in everyday terms, I have “caught hell”), because the fashionable and chic myth and fairy tale today is this false notion that he is a flaming liberal, subversive against the Church, enemy of Catholic moral and theological tradition, and indeed, a heretic.
So by opposing all these lies (and they assuredly, undoubtedly are lies, and I can back my assertions up), I somehow gain “favors” or have any remote “hope” of gaining same? My advocacy of what is the plain dogmatic teaching of Vatican I — not II — (that the pope can never even fall into heresy, let alone promulgate it) has certainly harmed my apostolate, in terms of followers, contributors, online visibility, etc. I clearly gain nothing by this. I’ve paid a big price. But that’s fine with me. I’m happy to do so. It’s my duty and privilege to do it.
If anyone is gaining favors and self-seeking (and I don’t assert this; only rhetorically state it), it is the legion of reactionary pope-bashers like Taylor Marshall, Steve Skojec and One Peter Five, The Remnant, Lifesite, Rorate Caeli, Peter Kwasniewski et al, ad nauseam, who get tons of attention (hits, shares, book sales), and sometimes, tons of money as well (book royalties), for their despicable and harmful efforts. I am simply defending the Holy Father and the institution of the papacy, which I have always thought — in my 30 + years of Catholic apologetics –, was part and parcel of my field; in fact, obligatory.
I defended Pope St. John Paul II when he was attacked and bashed (and he assuredly was), Pope Benedict XVI when he was also trashed (reactionaries now detest him or at least his resignation: feeling a bit like jilted lovers), and I defend Pope Francis when he is lied about and slandered as well. And I will defend the next pope who will also (mark my words) be lied about. The devil is very active in this respect. He knows who to go after.
But now all of a sudden doing that is a “controversial” thing. I’ve been told in a gossipy, cowardly fashion that “many” people (of course not mentioned by name) have a “lower” opinion of me because I defend the Holy Father and the papacy. That’s how low we have sunk in our pathetic time. So insult away! We’ll see in the end (including on Judgment Day itself) who was on the right side of this. I’m happy to let God be my judge, rather than hundreds of thousands of fawning “fans.” Mere filthy lucre or fame and accolades have never been my motivation, and never will be.
Thanks, dear reader, for indulging me and letting me get that off of my chest! Despite these rank insults, a few days ago O’Reilly decided he would become serious and try to engage in actual dialogue (albeit of an obsessive and “one-note tune” nature) with me. The problem was that I had already reiterated over and over (in my counter-reply) that:
I leave those fine-tuned questions mostly to theologians. . . . Fine points are for moral theologians, and neither you nor I are that. . . . I stand by everything he [Dr. Fastiggi] argues. He’s a personal friend of mine, and of unimpeachable orthodoxy. . . . Dr. Fastiggi is editor of the revised Denzinger and Ott both. He’s the man for systematic theology, in my opinion.
In other words, he picked the wrong topic to engage with me. I then linked Dr. Robert Fastiggi’s articles defending the theological and moral orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia: (one / two / three / four). Undaunted, O’Reilly kept trying to goad me all the more in his combox underneath it:
[Y]our ‘go read Dr. Fastiggi’ is not a sufficient answer. Anyone with common sense can see that. After all, if one were to ask you, a professional apologist, about your opinion of the Petrine Office and the views opposed to it, I assume (and hope) your answer would go beyond simply telling one to ‘go read Karl Keating’ or ‘go look at Matthew 16:18, that is all I need to say.’ If that is your approach to honest, good-faith, apologetical questions; my surprise is not that you have written “2,800 papers and 50 books,” it is that you have written any.
These juvenile tactics don’t work with me. I gave my answer: deferring to a respected theologian. It wasn’t good enough for O’Reilly. That’s his problem, not mine. I have no qualms in expressing that I am not sufficiently qualified to delve into the depths of a particular controversial and complex issue, and that it is best left to the expertise of theologians, canonists, and bishops gathered in synod, as it were. But Amoris Laetitia happens to be a virtual obsession with O’Reilly, by his own report:
I contented myself with wearing out my local archbishop, pastor, friends and family with my screeds over developments in the Church, especially during these past few years following the issuance of Amoris Laetitia. (his “About” page)
Note how he even wore out his own “family.” This is the mark of a fanatic, for sure. But apart from his own overly aggressive shortcomings, we understand that there are a lot of folks out there like O’Reilly who think that Amoris Laetitia is a terrible, heretical document, that sought to overthrow constant Catholic moral and theological tradition. They’re confused and disheartened, yet they need not be at all. We totally disagree with their assessment. There is plenty of clarifying material out there.
In my own effort to soothe fears and hysteria, I have collected many substantive articles from others, who defend the orthodoxy of the document. A search of my collection of 266 pro-Francis articles yields fifteen with “Amoris” in their titles. And there are others in the same collection that deal with the same topic (without “Amoris” in their titles), such as:
Pope Francis’s New Document on Marriage: 12 Things to Know and Share (Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register, 4-8-16)
Pope Francis Shatters Reformers’ Dreams with ‘Modern Family’ Document (Thomas D. Williams, Breitbart, 4-8-16)
Pope Affirms Traditional Marriage (Bill Donohue, Newsmax, 4-8-16)
Pope Francis’s revolution has been cancelled (Damian Thompson, The Spectator, 4-8-16)
Pope Francis on love in the family (Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, CatholicPhilly.com, 4-14-16)
Pope Francis is a social conservative (Tim Stanley, The Telegraph, 4-18-16)
Pope okays Argentine doc on Communion for divorced and remarried (Inés San Martín, Crux, 9-12-16)
What Pope Francis said about Communion for the divorced-and-remarried (Catholic News Agency, 9-13-16)
Not heretical: Pope Francis’ approval of the Argentine bishops’ policy on invalid marriages (Dr. Jeff Mirus, Catholic Culture, 9-15-16)
Cardinal Schönborn: Pope Francis follows John Paul II’s teaching on communion (Catholic Herald, 4-8-16)
Recent Comments of Pope Francis Should Help to Quiet Papal Critics (Robert Fastiggi, La Stampa / Vatican Insider, 11-28-17)
Pastoral Charity is the Key to Pope Francis’s Endorsement of the Buenos Aires Bishops’ Document (Robert Fastiggi, La Stampa / Vatican Insider, 11-28-17)
So that is at least 27 in-depth articles regarding Amoris Laetitia and closely related issues, that I have provided for my readers. But it’s not good enough for Steven O’Reilly. All he appears to care about is my opinion. Well, just because I appealed to others more knowledgeable than myself on the issue (which is what I always do as an apologist if I feel that others have points to make that are above my pay grade), it doesn’t mean I have completely ignored it, either. A perusal of my own collection of my own 184 defenses of Pope Francis yields eight relevant articles:
Amoris Laetitia: Pope Francis’ “1968 Moment” [4-8-16]
Defenses of Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia [4-9-16]
More Defenses of Amoris Laetitia & Pope Francis [4-26-16]
Satan Loves Divisions Re Amoris Laetitia [5-2-16]
Dialogue: Amoris Laetitia: Confusing or No? [5-3-16]
Amoris Laetitia, “Trads” & Reactionaries [5-4-16]
Buzzing, Mosquito-Like Trashers of Amoris Laetitia [5-6-16]
Amoris Laetitia Has Already Been Clarified Many Times, Including by High-Ranking Cardinals [11-16-16]
So now we’re up to 35 articles about Amoris Laetitia, hosted or prominently linked on my site, including eight of my own, and Steven O’Reilly is still trying to figure out what I believe on the issue, and why? It is a very odd thing. But this is what people do when they are obsessed. Nevertheless, in a sincere and charitable attempt to deliver Mr. O’Reilly from his existential misery (and others, too, who are of the same opinion, and read this article), I did contact my good friend, Dr. Robert Fastiggi, and he was kind enough to clarify his opinions (and the pope’s as an extra bonus). What follows are his letter to me last night, and accompanying material from then-Cardinal Ratzinger that he sent with it.
*****
1). From Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1998 essay, “CONCERNING SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE CHURCH’S TEACHING ON THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION BY DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL”
3 c. Admittedly, it cannot be excluded that mistakes occur in marriage cases. In some parts of the Church, well-functioning marriage tribunals still do not exist. Occasionally, such cases last an excessive amount of time. Once in a while they conclude with questionable decisions. Here it seems that the application of epikeia in the internal forum is not automatically excluded from the outset. This is implied in the 1994 letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in which it was stated that new canonical ways of demonstrating nullity should exclude “as far as possible” every divergence from the truth verifiable in the judicial process (cf. No. 9). Some theologians are of the opinion that the faithful ought to adhere strictly even in the internal forum to juridical decisions which they believe to be false. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law.
This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions
This essay is found in the third part of Cardinal Ratzinger’s Introduction to Volume 17 of the series produced by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, entitled “Documenti e Studi”, On the Pastoral Care of the Divorced and Remarried, LEV, Vatican City 1998, pp. 20-29. It’s posted on the Vatican website after the 1994 letter of the CDF on this matter.
2). This same difficult case is mentioned by Cardinal Gerhard Müller in his introductory essay (Saggio introduttivo) to Rocco Buttiglione’s book, Risposte amichevoli ai critici di Amoris Laetitia (Milano: Edizioni Ares, 2017), 23–25. With respect to cases in which the nullity of the prior bond is impossible to prove, Cardinal Müller writes:
If the second bond were valid before God, the marital relations of the two partners would not constitute a grave sin but instead a transgression against the public ecclesiastical order for having irresponsibly violated the canonical rules and therefore a light sin. This does not obscure the truth that relations more uxorio with a person of the other sex, who is not the legitimate spouse before God, constitute a grave fault against chastity and against the justice owed to the proper spouse.
3). Cardinal Agostino Vallini, the former Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura under St. John Paul II and the Vicar of the Archdiocese of Rome, issued some guidelines on Amoris Laetitia on Sept. 19. 2016, as the Vicar of Pope Francis for the Archdiocese of Rome. These guidelines were by means of a relazione (relation or report) entitled “La letizia dell’amore”: il cammino delle famiglie a Roma” (“The joy of love”: the way of families in Rome”). In his guidelines, Cardinal Vallini refers to footnote 351, and he notes that the footnote (in Italian) uses the conditional and reads: “In certain cases there could (potrebbe) also be the help of the sacraments.”
The use of the conditional shows that Pope Francis is not saying that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics must be admitted to the sacraments. The Holy Father is only noting that they are not excluded from the sacraments in some cases and under certain conditions. What are these conditions? Cardinal Vallini mentions the case in which there is moral certitude that the first marriage was null but there are no proofs to demonstrate this in a judicial setting. In such a case, the only opening to the sacraments would be with a confessor who, at a certain point—in his conscience and after much reflection and prayer—must assume responsibility before God and to the penitent and request that access to the sacraments take place in a reserved manner (in maniera riservata).
4).The philosopher, Rocco Buttiglione, in his 2017 book, Risposte amichevoli ai critici di Amoris Laetitia [Friendly responses to the critics of Amoris Laetitia], notes that Pope Francis is not admitting the divorced and remarried to communion but to confession (p. 68). The confessor must use discernment to decide whether to give absolution, which allows the penitent to receive communion.
Buttiglione—who was a friend of St. John Paul II and an expert on the late Pontiff’s thought—recognizes that absolution can only be given when there a resolve not to commit a sin that is materially grave (pp. 180–181). The confessor, though, must be aware of mitigating factors that might limit the responsibility of the penitent for committing acts that are gravely sinful. Buttiglione gives the example of a woman who is in a condition of total economic and psychological dependence on her civil partner, and this man imposes sexual relations on her against her will (p. 171).
Here it’s not a matter of judging a sinful act not to be sinful but of discerning whether the penitent is fully culpable for the sin. Buttiglione notes: “This does not imply that the unmarried can legitimately engage in sexual acts. The acts are illegitimate, but persons (in some cases)—through the absence of full awareness and deliberate consent—can be free from incurring mortal sin” (p. 172). For absolution to be given there must be the resolve to leave the situation of sin even if the penitent (in the case mentioned) cannot promise to avoid immediately the objective act of sin because she’s living in a situation that exposes her to the irresistible temptation to commit the act (p. 172).
Atheist and anti-theist Bob Seidensticker runs the influential Cross Examined blog. He asked me there, on 8-11-18: “I’ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I’ve ignored on one or two of those posts?” He added in June 2017 in a combox: “If I’ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I’ve mischaracterized them.” Delighted to oblige his wishes . . .
Bob (for the record) virtually begged and pleaded with me to dialogue with him in May 2018, via email. But by 10-3-18, following massive, childish name-calling attacks against me, encouraged by Bob on his blog, he banned me from commenting there. I also banned him for violation of my rules for discussion, but (unlike him) provided detailed reasons for why it was justified.
Bob’s cowardly hypocrisy knows no bounds. On 6-30-19, he was chiding someone for something very much like his own behavior: “Spoken like a true weasel trying to run away from a previous argument. You know, you could just say, ‘Let me retract my previous statement of X’ or something like that.” Yeah, Bob could! He still hasn’t yet uttered one peep in reply to — now — 62 of my critiques of his atrocious reasoning.
Bible-Basher Bob reiterated and rationalized his intellectual cowardice yet again on 10-17-20: “Every engagement with him [yours truly] devolves into pointlessness. I don’t believe I’ve ever learned anything from him. But if you find a compelling argument of his, summarize it for us.” And again the next day: “He has certainly not earned a spot in my heart, so I will pass on funding his evidence-free project. Like you, I also find that he’s frustrating to talk with. Again, I evaluate such conversations as useful if I can learn something–find a mistake in my argument, uncover an error I made in Christians’ worldview, and so on. Dave is good at bluster, and that’s about it.”
Bible-Basher Bob’s words will be in blue. To find these posts, follow this link: “Seidensticker Folly #” or see all of them linked under his own section on my Atheism page.
*****
I have noted Bob’s bizarre and irrational intellectual cowardice when dealing with my critiques on at least four occasions:
Atheist Bob Seidensticker Ain’t Afraid to Debate, and I Am? Really?! [10-3-18]
Atheist Bob Seidensticker: Intellectual Coward (My 32 Critiques) [7-20-19]
Seidensticker Folly #43: Intellectual Cowardice & Hypocrisy [8-28-20]
Today I was struck by his absurd double standards, in repeatedly addressing a Christian apologist that he appears to have an equally low opinion of, compared to yours truly. Yet he replies to him and has utterly ignored my 62 refutations as of this date. There are only so many ways to explain such a discrepancy. I think many readers would conclude the same thing I do.
His four-part series in response to the New Zealand minister and evangelist Ray Comfort was originally posted in July 2016 and has now been posted in installments in November 2020 (one / two / three / four). Note how even the titles immediately express Bob’s opinion that Comfort is flat-out not “honest”: “Fat Chance: Pigs Will Fly Before Ray Comfort Writes an Honest Critique of Atheists.”
So let’s do a quick run-down of Bob’s opinion of Comfort’s intellectual prowess (right or wrong — I’m not addressing that, and it’s not my topic –; I’m merely recording Bob’s view for the record):
In the third installment, he calls Comfort “an obnoxious moron” and refers to “how little he understands the issues he talks about.” He gets more and more scathingly insulting as the article proceeds:
Ray keeps using his simple platitudes, . . . He’s been corrected by the best—Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and other biologists have pointed out his errors. And yet he pops back up like a Weeble with the same stupid arguments. . . .
Ray, what do you call someone who makes a mistake, has it corrected by a reliable authority, and then deliberately repeats that mistake? You [call] him a liar. . . .
Does it worry you that you lie? Or maybe you have some rationalization like it’s okay to lie for Jesus or you can lie as long as you ask for forgiveness afterwards.
Bob continues his ranting in part 4, with this preface: “I’ll wrap up with a few more claims from the book that I can’t let stand without rebuttal.” Oh, the pathetic irony! And:
I can understand Ray’s motivation, though—it’s a lot easier to simply make statements like this and ignore that whole evidence-and-good-arguments thing. What a hassle that is. . . .
As for Ray’s pig book, I’m amazed that he can consider this mindless and insulting tract to be an evangelistic tool.
Okay! Now, the obvious question is: if Ray Comfort’s book is so “mindless and insulting” and he is an “obnoxious moron” who understands “little” regarding what he is writing about, with “stupid arguments” that amount to him being a relentless “liar” and having a leading characteristic of ignoring “evidence-and-good-arguments”, then why does Bob bother responding to him at all: let alone with four lengthy screeds?
And if he responds to a person he has such a rock-bottom opinion of: why does he utterly refuse to reply to my critiques: which now number 62? He seems to hold Ray Comfort in even less regard than he does me. He wrote about me on October 17 and 18, 2020:
Every engagement with him devolves into pointlessness. I don’t believe I’ve ever learned anything from him. . . . I will pass on funding his evidence-free project. Like you, I also find that he’s frustrating to talk with. . . . Dave is good at bluster, and that’s about it.
That’s not too bad, all things considered. You would think, since Bob literally pleaded with me in emails to engage in May 2018 and later specifically challenged me, almost months later, on 8-11-18:
I’ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I’ve ignored on one or two of those posts?
. . . that he would be delighted to have a golden opportunity to refute my critiques and counter-arguments. He wasn’t forced at gunpoint to say that. He voluntarily did. I started my “Seidensticker Folly” series the very next day: which is a systematic refutation of Bob’s anti-theist and anti-Christian / anti-Bible arguments. The series now numbers 62 installments, and as of this date (after two years and three months), not one peep in reply has been heard from Bob. It’s crickets and ZZZZzzzzz all-around (except for the obligatory personal insults if anyone brings up my name). Yet he will write and repost a four-part response to a guy he thinks is “moron” and “liar” and obviously a clueless idiot on many fronts, who habitually makes (so Bob sez) “stupid arguments.”
I think there is only one reasonable and quite plausible explanation for this. He thinks he can provide a good and convincing reply to Comfort but he must not think so as regards my critiques: or else he would respond to me, too. We can’t be too careful in debate about whom we choose to wrangle with.
I’m in very good company, as to being a recipient of insults from Bob. Dr. William Lane Craig is widely considered (by theists and atheists alike) one of the very best philosophical defenders of theism. But that doesn’t stop Bob from trashing and bashing him in all sorts of ridiculous ways:
unhealthy relationship with facts and evidence . . . sloppy thinking [in the title] . . . dark and tangled recesses of the thinking . . . bizarre reply . . . He ignores the problem, assumes that he is right, and then shapes the facts to fit. . . . The mental masturbation continues. . . . It’d be a pain to have to, y’know, do all that research and stuff. I mean, who’s got the time? Using reason would be inconvenient, so let’s not. . . . drunken reasoning . . . So much for apologetics to raise the intellectual content of the conversation. (7-21-14 / reposted on 3-23-18)
His potshots sent my way are veritable high praise compared to this! When you discover this masterpiece on Google (I did by simply searching “Craig is” on his site), the little blurb (first one up) reads: “William Lane Craig is the insane gift that keeps on giving, a cornucopia of crazy. Let’s look at more of the nutty thinking . . .” The description for another post dated 7-29-14 is: “World famous Christian apologist William Lane Craig is well known for his hilariously inept defense of the savage excesses of his God . . .” On 5-7-19 he said of Dr. Craig: “ I suppose if Craig is smart he knows what he is peddling is false. It’s a living for him.”
You get the point. Filthy lucre . . . (which certainly can’t explain away my 39 years of apologetics: the last 19, full-time, as a profession). Yet Bob replies to Dr. Craig over and over and over. Granted, he should, because of Dr. Craig’s academic stature. But we see what he thinks of him. Yet that doesn’t stop him from repeatedly replying to his arguments. I should be short work next to Dr. Craig, right? One would think so. I’m a nobody in the overall scheme of things . . . But Bob has chosen to utterly ignore me. One might say, “well — completely aside from the disputes — , he obviously dislikes you personally.” Yes, I’m sure that’s true. I’m not overly fond of him, either. But doesn’t it seem obvious that he also greatly dislikes likes Ray Comfort and William Lane Craig on a personal level? So that won’t fly (like the pigs), either.
If you, dear reader, have a better explanation of his Utter Silence as regards Yours Truly, please do let me know. I think it’s because I systematically dismantle his arguments in a way that opponents usually don’t do (influenced by my socratic leanings and literally 39 years of debates and apologetics). I believe he simply doesn’t know how to process that, let alone attempt a reply. After all, Christians are never supposed to get the better of atheists in any argument, so he concludes that in fact it hasn’t happened in my case because it’s impossible.
See how the [circular reasoning] mentality works? Thus, he chooses to make out that I have absolutely nothing to say — no arguments whatsoever –, leading to him fleeing for the hills and acting like he has no time at all for someone so supposedly stupid and content-less as I am. Bishop “Dr.” [???] James White: the anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist apologist, has also used precisely this tactic for about ten years with me (as have several other anti-Catholics). It only makes him look like a pompous ass and a coward: just as in Bob’s case. They’re not doing themselves any favors. But Bob wants to lecture others about supposedly lying to themselves and being intellectually dishonest? Spare me.
***
Photo credit: [public domain / Creazilla]
***
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In