![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/03\/BugayCaricatureofBlog-640.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
[see a larger version<\/a> of this image]<\/p>\n [The following controversy with one of the most vocal online anti-Catholics occurred in November 2011. John Bugay\u2019s words will be in blue<\/span>]<\/p>\n John Bugay\u00a0posted the caricature above, of my blog, at\u00a0Tribalblogue<\/i><\/a> [eventually minus the original Hitler mustache and bangs], complete with additional middle school toilet humor. It\u2019s an instant classic (in terms of documentation of anti-Catholic vitriol, contempt, and bigotry) and apparently considered funny as all get-out in these troglodyte circles. Notice how they leave Protestant C. S. Lewis unscathed (too bad he couldn\u2019t be changed into Mao or Stalin, or maybe Jerry Lewis or Jerry Lee Lewis: to follow the juvenile \u201chumor\u201d). Nice touch there . . .<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n Bugay has now tried to justify his \u201csatire\u201d:<\/p>\n I am amazed at the\u00a0feigned outrage in the response\u00a0to these images, for what is absolutely a minimal amount of photo enhancement, certainly in response to some not-so-good-natured ribbing, richly enhanced with exaggerations and enhancements of its own.<\/span> (11-29-11<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Not only was there nothing excessive or wrong whatsoever in what he did \u2014 so he claimed \u2013, but he also has to pretend that our responses are \u201cfeigned.\u201d Then he went on (in my combox) to explain the complex ethical\u00a0 rationale behind his garbage:<\/p>\n [B]e sure you understand the symbolic meaning of the artwork in question. . . . official Rome distances itself from Roman Catholic policy toward the Jews over the centuries. And my point simply is, so long as Roman Catholics make excuses and dismiss official Roman Catholic behavior over the centuries, every single Roman Catholic \u2014 from the least to the greatest \u2014 is tainted by this \u201cexcused\u201d and unconfessed official Roman sin.<\/span> (11-30-11<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Asked why St. Th\u00e9r\u00e8se in particular should be held up for ridicule and ludicrously portrayed as Hitler, Bugay wrote:<\/p>\n Merely that she is tainted by Roman escapism, the same way the rest of you are.<\/span> (11-30-11<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He later watered this down (slightly):<\/p>\n I am not attributing any guilt to her \u2014 but when the organization is sullied, it reflects badly on all the members.<\/span> (11-30-11<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And later, in the combox:<\/p>\n I suggest, in a visual way, that she, as a Roman Catholic, is tainted by (a) Rome\u2019s policy toward the Jews in the 19th century, and (b) by Rome\u2019s continuing failure to take any official responsibility at all \u2014 shifting the blame to \u201cher children\u201d.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I see. So \u201cguilt by association\u201d justifies drawing a Hitler mustache on a godly woman and a saint: implying that she has anything to do with a murderer of millions of people: one of the most wicked men to have ever lived.<\/p>\n I guess, then, that every Protestant today is \u201ctainted\u201d by the \u201cexcused\u201d outrages and tortures and many thousands of murders \/ executions that have occurred under Protestant auspices: especially in England, where the Calvinists and Puritans in John\u2019s heritage flourished: producing, for example, The Westminster Confession that he and all Calvinists are so fond of. I have documented these horrors in great detail on my web page:\u00a0Protestantism: Historic Persecution and Intolerance<\/a>.<\/p>\n England, under Butcher King Henry VIII, Good Queen Bess and other monarchs was a place where a person could have his heart cut out while alive, his intestines slowly drawn out, other outrages not fit to describe in mixed company, done to him, and then arms and legs and heads cut off, simply for the \u201ctreasonous\u201d crime of being a Catholic (remember the final scene in\u00a0Braveheart<\/i>?). Most folks familiar with European history know what the English did to the Irish for several centuries (I have Irish blood myself). See the gory details on the page above. Isn\u2019t it wonderful to hear\u00a0both<\/i>\u00a0sides of the story for a change?<\/p>\n Bugay is fixated on the scandalous historic treatment of the Jews (which was quite as prevalent in Protestant countries: hence mostly Lutheran Germany hosted the Holocaust). I don\u2019t know anyone who would deny it. Yet why is it that he would dwell on sins of many hundreds of years ago, while there was tremendous heroism during the Nazi Holocaust within the last seventy years? It is estimated that Pope Pius XII saved some 800,000 Jews: more than any other organization. Many articles have been written about this:<\/p>\n 800,000 Saved by Pius XII\u2019s \u201cSilence\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(Donald DeMarco)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Bugay carps in the revised version of his outrageous post:<\/p>\n But Roman Apologists will make every excuse to maintain Roman infallibility, while excusing \u2018the Church\u2019 for any and every one of its officially egregious behaviors over the centuries. Roman Catholic evasiveness is truly staggering.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Just as he lied about me recently, implying that I had never dealt with Orthodox arguments against the papacy (what a joke!); now he is doing it again (insofar as I am an apologist, and his present target): insinuating that I have never dealt with\u00a0this<\/i>. But I have, long since (more than three years ago):<\/p>\n Anti-Semitism in the Church Fathers and Catholic History: Resources and Recent Catholic Repentance\u00a0<\/a>[7-7-08]<\/p>\n So much for my own \u201cevasiveness\u201d. Does this mean I am spared from having a Hitler mustache now, because I freely admit that Catholics (like every other group of sinful human beings) have sinned terribly in the past?<\/p>\n Bugay also\u00a0seemed<\/i>\u00a0at first to be ridiculously denying that in this \u201csatire\u201d St. Th\u00e9r\u00e8se\u00a0 was supposed to look like Hitler (though it was always possible that he was just playing around, as he is prone to do, and as he now has confirmed):<\/p>\n [P]lease note that it is C.S. Lewis, a famous teacher, who is threatening to crack Dave\u2019s knuckles with a ruler\u201d. Lewis is the one with the open mouth. St. Therese\u2019s mouth is obviously closed. You certainly don\u2019t know how to interpret satire.<\/span><\/p>\n And Paul Hoffer, how dare you accuse me of such a truly blasphemous and abominable behavior as to \u201cdraw a Hitler moustache\u201d. That\u2019s a ridiculous assertion. All that I did was to darken the shadow under her nose \u2014 which naturally exists in the existing photo!<\/span> (11-30-11<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n One \u201cMr. Fosi\u201d appeared to agree with the denial:<\/p>\n John has denied that charge, so I don\u2019t grant that he did draw a Hitler mustache on the pic. (11-30-11<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But Bugay then freely admitted it was supposed to look like Hitler. Brian wrote in the combox below:<\/p>\n It\u2019s bad form to draw a Hitler mustache on St. Therese.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Bugay replied:<\/p>\n Brian, I agree. It\u2019s bad form. I am \u201cusing an absurd example to communicate something that is absurd\u201d.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Later Bugay explained on my blog:<\/p>\n This was obviously a \u201ctongue in cheek\u201d comment: . . . There is a scholastic difference between \u201cdrawing\u201d and using the burn tool in photoshop. But you\u2019ll just trumpet it, to be able to trumpet something. Doesn\u2019t matter if you\u2019re accurate about it.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n And later at Tribalb<\/em>logue<\/i>:<\/p>\n It was an attempt at humor in the midst of this discussion, an attempt to trade on the amphiboly between \u201cdrawing a moustache\u201d and \u201cdarkening a shadow\u201d which naturally exists using a photoshop tool.<\/span>\u00a0(11-30-11<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And again in my combox below:<\/p>\n It wasn\u2019t a \u201cdenial that it was a Hitler mustache\u201d It was a denial of the method \u2014 which I thought to be a trade on words which I thought could possibly lighten the mood. It was a trade on the methods \u201cdrawing\u201d vs \u201cusing a photoshop tool\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, the intention in both cases was to put a Hitler mustache there. No, I do not think anyone is a moron. Yes, it is in bad taste. No it is not blasphemy. Yes, the bad taste was intended to illustrate bad taste in other contexts, specifically those perpetrated here and in official Rome.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n But despite all, Mr. Fosi was\u00a0still\u00a0<\/i>giving the line that John had no intention to make it look like Hitler (replying to Paul):<\/p>\n You are still saying there is one. It looks pretty similar to the way it looks on Dave\u2019s blog header. It may be sketchy but I\u2019m going with John\u2019s denial on this one.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Fellow anti-Catholic Mr. Fosi thought it was a denial (since he reiterated this twice); yet if we do the same thing, we don\u2019t care about truth or accuracy. Fosi can make the mistake and that\u2019s fine, because he\u2019s an anti-Catholic. But if we do (and who knows when Bugay is serious or not? His so-called \u201cserious\u201d work is as ridiculous as his farce), we are morons. In any event, if we take John at his present word that it is what we all thought it was (a Hitler mustache), then above he is joking around about his blasphemy, thinking it is the most lighthearted thing in the world (and Fosi was quite serious and misinterpreted what Bugay says was \u201cobvious\u201d<\/span>). It\u2019s yet another instance of Bugay calling good evil. This is becoming a big theme with him.<\/p>\n Paul Hoffer has described the defamation as \u201cblasphemous.\u201d Steve Hays (webmaster of the site where this appeared) objected, stating:<\/p>\n His satire would only be blasphemous if it were directed at God (specifically, the one true God). It isn\u2019t possible to blaspheme mere men and women. Your complaint reflects Catholic idolatry. (11-30-11<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n [I then delved into the range of applications of \u201cblasphemy\u201d which I dealt with at length in another article<\/a>. The original lengthy discussion \/ debate from this post in November 2011 can be seen in the archived version of this article<\/a>]. Eventually, as I was arguing the point at Tribalblogue,<\/em> Bugay decided to start deleting my comments, and turning off the comments altogether.\u00a0These are the heights and absurdity that these anti-Catholics will scale, in order to avoid admitting that they were dead-wrong about the meaning and range of \u201cblasphemy\u201d in Holy Scripture.]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n [IMPORTANT NOTE<\/b>\u00a0(REMOVAL)<\/b>:\u00a0as of 8:20 PM<\/a>, 11-30-11, after an entire day defending vociferously this outrage, Bugay removed the Hitler mustache (though nothing else in his satire), under pressure from his pastor and others. Blog regular Paul Hoffer had\u00a0contacted his pastor<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0provided contact info.<\/a>\u00a0for others to do so. Bugay\u2019s explanation appears\u00a0on his blog post<\/a>\u00a0near the top, in all italics. It does\u00a0not<\/i>, however, contain any direct\u00a0apology<\/i>\u00a0to Catholics: neither for the outlandish Hitler portrayal, nor absurd defenses of it all day long on his blog and mine, nor for the numerous other mockeries and insults remaining in the post, in his combox, and my combox. It\u2019s one thing to do something (the right thing) in obedience to authorities, but begrudgingly or under protest; quite another to sincerely change one\u2019s mind and heart, with a desire to make amends. I have objected to this\u00a0in my combox<\/a>:<\/p>\n How about an apology and a retraction, and explanation, after defending it all day, putting Catholics down\u00a0en masse<\/i>, as if it were the strangest thing in the world that we would have the slightest objection, and all your cronies doing the same? . . . show the true fruits of repentance . . . If you had a true change of heart, and now think it was wrong and never should have been done, then by all means let us know. We would respect that.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Nevertheless, this is a big step, and a positive development, even if a reluctant one by John, and I am happy to commend and thank him for it.\u00a0 [second link<\/a>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Bugay had even mocked our\u00a0outrage<\/i>, saying it was fake: \u201cI am amazed at the feigned outrage in the response to these images, for what is absolutely a minimal amount of photo enhancement . . .\u201d<\/span> This still remains in the post, right at the top. It\u2019s clearly an insult and shot at our honest reactions: hardly a loving attitude. I think he needs to go the whole way: not just the minimal amount to get the heat off of himself. The post\u00a0continues\u00a0<\/i>to mock Catholics all over the place, and St. John Henry Cardinal Newman, and St. Pope John XXIII as well. I would contend that these things also violate the spirit of the Scripture and Francis Schaeffer quotes that he deemed sufficient to require removal of the Hitler garbage.<\/p>\n Second Note<\/b>\u00a0(12-6-11; one addition on 12-7-11):\u00a0 I have been informed that now I am being blasted for keeping the image up. My policy is that I document error and derogatory bigotry, etc. unless there is a\u00a0full retraction and renunciation<\/i>: in which case I am happy to remove the documentation. As I explained in my note above, it is not clear to me (at all) that this is an instance of full repentance, because the fruits of that are not apparent.<\/p>\n I think there was probably\u00a0some<\/i>\u00a0change of mind (per Bugay\u2019s disclaimer), though, if so, it was nowhere near adequate or sufficient, in accordance with the outrageousness of the act. We can only go by what we see, since we can\u2019t read hearts. That is what the \u201cfruits of repentance\u201d is about (Matt 3:8; 7:16-20; 12:33; 21:43; Lk 3:8-9; 6:43-44; 8:14-15; Gal 5:22; Heb 12:11). This is Christianity 0101.<\/p>\n It looks like Bugay simply removed it because he was told to by his pastor and others, not because it was inherently (rather self-evidently) outrageous and uncharitable. He had been vigorously defending it for days. He hasn\u2019t renounced anything else about it: all the accusations towards us, including supposed \u201cfeigned\u201d<\/span> outrage, or the mocking of Cardinal Newman or Pope John XXIII, or the prior refusal of charitable donations for his ailing wife, and wholesale mockery and insulting of those who would do so. He continued insulting my readers afterwards; calling us, e.g., \u201cswine\u201d<\/span> and (again) a \u201crogue\u2019s gallery.\u201d<\/span> He even has made a ridiculous, outlandish argument that he got the idea for the mustache from the shadow in the photo as it is on my blog.<\/p>\n Therefore, since his \u201cremoval\u201d is not the same as a complete repentance and change of heart (since it shows no outward proof of those things), I keep it up, so as to document the anti-Catholic mentality. In order to remove the image and all the talk surrounding it, I would have to see a complete renunciation and fruits of a genuine change of heart. I don\u2019t see that at all. I see nothing except his doing what his pastor told him to do: the very bare minimum of charity extended towards us. It seems to me like he was \u201csorry that he got\u00a0caught<\/i>,\u201d and is covering his rear end: but little more. I made the plea above for him to go the whole way, but it was roundly ignored.<\/p>\n It is self-evidently ludicrous, furthermore, to make out (as another anti-Catholic \u2014 James Swan \u2014\u00a0is currently doing<\/a>) that\u00a0we<\/i>\u00a0are now mocking St. Therese because we didn\u2019t remove the mocking image. Swan thinks (in some goofy alt-\u201clogical\u201d schema) that we (whom he calls \u201cvipers\u201d) have expressed \u201cbogus outrage\u201d and that \u201cNo one who made a stink about it was really offended,\u201d and referred to \u201cthe entire episode you guys\u00a0pretended\u00a0<\/i>to be upset about\u201d (my italics). At the same time (a mere\u00a0six sentences<\/i>\u00a0later!) he made the following utterly contradictory remark to blog regular Paul Hoffer: \u201cI would agree with you and your friends that the picture was offensive.\u201d Which\u00a0is<\/i>\u00a0it?\u00a0 I guess it depends on whether it is an odd-numbered date or not, and on the barometric pressure (between sunrise and noon) and humidity (after midnight, but before the owls come out). But it\u2019s high comedy, whatever the view\/anti-view\/view of this singularly insightful heart- and mind-reading luminary is at any given time.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, targets of relentless bigotry and smear campaigns have to document what happens, lest people refuse to believe that such outrages occur at all (or don\u2019t learn from them). Hence, African-Americans have documented the sad history of racist stereotyping. Jews have shown how they were caricatured and mocked in Nazi Germany, to arouse hatred towards them (I\u2019ve been to museums in the Detroit area that do both things).<\/p>\n Likewise, we Catholics (at least apologists like myself) must demonstrate at times (in the worst cases, at least) how our religion is contemptuously treated. If there were genuine repentance, then sure, I would take it down. I always do that if someone changes their mind. Failing that, there is little choice but to leave it up. Bugay continues to refuse to exhibit the genuine and obvious fruits of repentance: the most elementary exercises of the Christian faith after committing a serious sin.<\/p>\n There is no evidence whatever that Bugay feels any differently about the whole incident than he ever did. Otherwise, he would cease calling us \u201cswine\u201d<\/span> and so forth. It is all of a piece: how he has behaved and talked. The same attitudes that produced the blasphemous \u201csatire\u201d are still evident. The tree is known by its fruits. If we start seeing radically different fruits from Bugay, then we\u2019ll talk seriously about complete removal. Thus far, he has spoken out of both sides of his mouth; at one point making a sweeping \u201capology,\u201d then when asked to clarify exactly what he was apologizing for, stating that he was retracting nothing.\u00a0On 12-7-11<\/a>, he reiterated his refusal to acknowledge that he has done anything wrong, in this entire sad sequence of events: \u201cI have not been unkind to anyone through this. My conscience is clear.\u201d<\/span> A person\u2019s behavior is interpreted in the context of, and in light of, his or her behavior in the immediate past.<\/p>\n Third \u201cUpdate\u201d Note (12-6-11):<\/b>\u00a0The latest charge coming from the usual suspects is that looking for genuine repentance and its fruits is retrograde \u201ceye for an eye and tooth for a tooth\u201d ethics. I say that it is our opponents who are being proponents of \u201ccheap grace\u201d (many Calvinists have decried this tendency in Protestantism today) and contending (if not by word then by action) that (biblical) repentance need not show any fruits or change of behavior. St. Paul taught quite otherwise:<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 5:4-5<\/b>\u00a0in 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n After the person\u00a0repented<\/i>, then Paul counseled that \u201cyou should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him\u201d (2 Cor 2:7-8).\u00a0 Elsewhere Paul connects outward deeds as the fruit of true repentance: \u201c. . . perform deeds worthy of their repentance\u201d (Acts 26:20). Our Lord Jesus said, \u201cBear fruit that befits repentance\u201d (Matt 3:8). And again: \u201crepent and do the works you did at first\u201d (Rev 2:5). Bugay has not, sadly, exhibited these fruits. He continues to act as before.]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n [see also the 186-comment vigorous discussion in my combox, preserved in the archived version of this post<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n See also my Anti-Catholicism web page<\/a> and James White web page<\/a>.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" John Bugay Tries to Justify it Based on Historic Anti-Semitism [see a larger version of this image] [The following controversy with one of the most vocal online anti-Catholics occurred in November 2011. John Bugay\u2019s words will be in blue] John Bugay\u00a0posted the caricature above, of my blog, at\u00a0Tribalblogue [eventually minus the original Hitler mustache and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":45281,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[231],"tags":[3081,855,2361,2573,3085,2778,3086,997,190,3084,4518,306,880,729,3083,2607,1070,691,2606,3082,1071,928,2119,385,10422,2608,2599,3087],"class_list":["post-45279","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-anti-catholicism","tag-3081","tag-anti-catholic","tag-anti-catholicism","tag-antichrist","tag-boettner","tag-christian-sects","tag-christianity","tag-cults","tag-idolatry","tag-jack-chick","tag-john-bugay","tag-john-henry-cardinal-newman","tag-mass","tag-paganism","tag-papism","tag-papists","tag-pelagianism","tag-reformation","tag-romanism","tag-rome","tag-semi-pelagianism","tag-st-therese-of-lisieux","tag-steve-hays","tag-transubstantiation","tag-triablogue","tag-unregenerate","tag-whore-of-babylon","tag-works-salvation"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n