The late\u00a0<\/span>Steve Hays<\/a> (1959-2020) was a Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) apologist, who was very active on his blog, called<\/span> Triablogue<\/em>\u00a0<\/a>(now continued by Jason Engwer). His 695-page self-published book,<\/span>\u00a0Catholicism<\/em><\/a> \u2014 a collection of articles from his site \u2014 has graciously been made available for free. On 9 September 2006, knowing full well my history of being condemned and vilified by other anti-Catholics (and his buddies) like James White, Eric Svendsen, and James Swan, Hays was quite \u2014 almost extraordinarily \u2014 charitable towards me.<\/span> He wrote then<\/a>:<\/p>\n I don\u2019t think I\u2019ve 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\u2019t dislike him. . . . I don\u2019t think there\u2019s anything malicious about Armstrong\u2014unlike some people who come to mind. In addition, I don\u2019t think I\u2019ve ever said he was unintelligent. For the record, it\u2019s obvious that Armstrong has a quick, nimble mind. . . . The term \u201capostasy\u201d carries with it a heavy presumption that the apostate is a hell-bound reprobate. I think it\u2019s unwarranted to assume that all Catholics or converts to Catholicism are damned.<\/span><\/p>\n 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 \u201can evil character,\u201d<\/span> am<\/span> \u201cactually evil,\u201d <\/span>\u201cego-maniac, narcissist,\u201d \u201cidolater,\u201d<\/span> \u201cself-idolater,\u201d \u201chack who pretends to be a professional apologist,\u201d<\/span>\u00a0given to <\/span>\u201cchicanery,\u201d<\/span> one who doesn\u2019t<\/span> \u201cdo any real research,\u201d \u201ca stalwart enemy of the faith . . .\u00a0 no better than [the atheists]<\/span> Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens,\u201d<\/span> with an intent to<\/span> \u201cdestroy faith in God\u2019s word,\u201d \u201cschizophrenic,\u201d \u201cemotionally unhinged,\u201d<\/span> one who<\/span> \u201cdoesn\u2019t trust in the merit of Christ alone for salvation,\u201d<\/span> \u201chas no peace of mind,\u201d \u201ca bipolar solipsist,\u201d \u201csplit-personality,\u201d<\/span> and a<\/span> \u201cbad\u201d<\/span> man. He wasn\u2019t one to mince words! See<\/span> more gory details<\/a>.<\/p>\n I feel no need whatsoever to reciprocate these silly and sinful insults. I just wanted the record to be known. I\u2019ve always maintained that Hays was a very intelligent man, but habitually a sophist<\/a> in methodology; sincere and well-meaning, but tragically and systematically wrong and misguided regarding Catholicism. That\u2019s what I\u2019m addressing, not the state of his heart and soul (let alone his eternal destiny). It\u2019s a theological discussion. This is one of many<\/em> planned critiques of his book (see<\/span> my reasons why<\/a> I decided to do this). Rather than list them all here, interested readers are directed to the \u201cSteve Hays\u201d section of my<\/span> Anti-Catholicism web page<\/a>, where they will all be listed. My Bible citations are from the RSV. Steve\u2019s words will be in\u00a0<\/span>blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n *****<\/p>\n [Chapter 1: Miracles<\/strong>]<\/span><\/p>\n Parsing Catholic miracles<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n [T]e Martyrdom of Polycarp says he was fireproof when the Romans tried to burn him alive. Assuming that\u2019s true, should that be classified as a Catholic miracle? [p. 16]<\/span><\/p>\n Yes.<\/p>\n Was Polycarp Roman Catholic? [p. 16]<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, of course.<\/p>\n Or is that an anachronistic designation? [p. 16]<\/span><\/p>\n Not at all. He was a member of the one true Church begun by Jesus, under the initial human leadership of St. Peter, and then under his successors to the papal office. That Church is demonstrably historically continuous to this day. Polycarp rejected sola Scriptura<\/em><\/a> and sola fide<\/em><\/a> (faith alone): the two \u201cpillars\u201d of the Protestant Revolution. He regarded Tobit, the Didache, and Ecclesiasticus as Holy Scripture. That\u2019s either being simply a \u201cCatholic\u201d (as I would contend) or (as it seems anyone<\/em> is obliged to hold) at the very least more Catholic than proto-\u201cProtestant\u201d, since he denied the two pillars which supposedly sum up the main tenets and distinctives of the Protestant revolt, which had to wait until 1362 years after his death.<\/p>\n He wasn\u2019t Catholic in the sense that Ignatius Loyola was Catholic, or Matthias Joseph Scheeben\u2013much less Joseph Ratzinger. [p. 16]<\/span><\/p>\n Of course he wasn\u2019t. He lived in the first and second centuries. I could turn it around and say that \u201cHays wasn\u2019t a Calvinist in the sense that John Calvin was a Calvinist.\u201d But he was still a Calvinist! All those hundreds of years since Polycarp saw much development of doctrine and practice. That\u2019s why he is different from the later figures, but it\u2019s not an essential<\/em> difference. It\u2019s the difference between an acorn and an oak tree: the former develops inexorably into the latter, and the DNA was the same all along. The acorn is an oak tree in the making, or a \u201cvery young\u201d oak tree, as it were.<\/p>\n Consider the cult of Padre Pio. There\u2019s evidence that he used carbonic acid. If so, his stigmata might be the result of self-mutilation. [p. 17]<\/span><\/p>\n Prove it<\/em>, then! Put your money where your mouth is! This is the constant unethical method of anti-Catholic polemicists: to throw out a serious charge but not to take enough time to document it and make the case on the grounds of factuality and plausibility: just as in any other form of honest research. Failing that, it\u2019s simply gossip and rumormongering, which is clearly unethical. Some people will read something like this and never forget it, and never look into it to verify or disprove it. And if<\/em> it\u2019s false, it was bearing false witness on Hays\u2019 part: a violation of one of the Ten Commandments.<\/p>\n Readers may wish to read a favorable report<\/a> of St. Pio\u2019s stigmata, and when they began. The date was September 20, 1918. The scurrilous claim is that<\/a> St. Pio asked for the acid in the \u201csummer of 1919,\u201d some 9-10 months after<\/em> his stigmata began. The acid could hardly have caused<\/em> [what would then merely mimic] the stigmata, let alone promulgate a complete fakery. False accusations against St. Padre Pio (like those against Jesus and Paul) are nothing new<\/a>.<\/p>\n Saints are often persecuted not only by anti-Catholics, but (sadly) by those in the Church. The Holy See in 1931 ordered St. Padre Pio to cease public ministry and offering Mass in public, cease hearing confessions, and to not make any public appearances. He was also accused by some of insanity and fraud. In 1960, the Vatican again restricted his public ministry based on the notion that his popularity had gotten out of control. In that year, one Fr. Carlo Maccari accused the 73-year-old Padre Pio of having sex with female penitents \u201ctwice a week.\u201d Fr. Maccari later admitted that he had lied and asked for forgiveness in a public recantation on his deathbed in 1961. St. Pio\u2019s stigmata wounds completely vanished three days before he died.<\/p>\n In principle, some eucharistic miracles might be staged. A homemade communion wafer with ingredients designed to have a chemical reaction that simulates blood when immersed in wine. Or actual human blood could be one of the ingredients. [p. 17]<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, maybe so. But this proves absolutely nothing with regard to purported miracles of this sort that produced verified human blood and had strict controls against manipulation by unscrupulous folks. The presence of a counterfeit dollar bill doesn\u2019t disprove all genuine dollar bills. This is not an argument. It\u2019s simply a statement of the obvious truism that there are people out there who may try to fake miracles for a thrill or money or anti-Catholic motives; on a dare, whatever!<\/p>\n The miracles attributed to St. Joseph Copertino include levitation, psychokinesis, poltergeist activity, and materialization of objects. Even if genuine, there\u2019s nothing specifically Christian about that phenomena. . . . there\u2019s nothing specifically divine about such phenomena. If genuine, <\/span>it\u2019s more like a supernatural stunt. They fail to exhibit divine wisdom, justice, mercy, holiness, and truth. We\u2019d expect a divine miracle to have a certain dignity or fittingness. Not just be something weird or frivolous. From what I\u2019ve read, there\u2019s a connection between possession and levitation. [pp. 17-18]<\/span><\/p>\n This is a rather bizarre argument. How is \u201cmaterialization of objects\u201d<\/span> different in essence from Jesus multiplying the loaves and the fish? Did not Jesus materialize those two things, in abundance? Was that miracle not<\/span> \u201cspecifically Christian\u201d<\/span>? Was it not<\/span> \u201cdivine\u201d<\/span>: having been done by the express will of Jesus, Who is God? Should it be properly described as a<\/span> \u201csupernatural stunt\u201d<\/span>? What in the world was Hays thinking<\/em> here? Or was he not<\/em> thinking at all when he made the charges, in his ever-present prejudice against Catholicism? Did the feeding of the five and four thousand not<\/em> <\/span>\u201cexhibit divine wisdom, justice, mercy, holiness, and truth\u201d?<\/span> Did it lack<\/span> \u201cdignity\u201d and<\/span> \u201cfittingness\u201d? Was it<\/span> \u201cweird or frivolous\u201d?<\/span> Talk about rhetorical overkill! We\u2019re gonna see it a lot<\/em>, believe me, folks, as I go through this book. All of these terms, by direct analogy, would apply to the two feeding miracle-events. Thus, Hay\u2019s argument collapses in a spectacular reductio ad absurdum<\/em>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The same reductio<\/em> amply applies to his bashing of \u201clevitation\u201d<\/span> as well (which he associates \u2014 obviously \u201cpoisoning the well\u201d \u2014 with \u201cpossession\u201d<\/span>: a nice touch there). That involves a person going up into the air in a supernatural fashion. Elijah did that<\/em> (with the extra spectacle of a chariot and fire). Our Lord Jesus ascended (I visited the spot in 2014). At the Second Coming, millions of the elect will be \u201ccaught up . . . in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air\u201d (1 Thess 4:17). The \u201ctwo witnesses\u201d of Revelation (11:3) were dead, but then \u201c<\/span>a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood up on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them. Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, \u2018Come up hither!\u2019 And in the sight of their foes they went up to heaven in a cloud\u201d (Revelation 11:11-12).<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s four scriptural instances of \u201cascensions\u201d of one sort or another. Certainly these events were more<\/span> lacking in<\/span> \u201cdignity\u201d and<\/span> \u201cfittingness\u201d<\/span> and <\/span>\u201cweird or frivolous\u201d than mere levitation, which is a very small analogy to an ascension. Therefore, if instances of levitation are regarded in this hostile fashion, how is it that the four biblical ascensions are not<\/em>? What is the big difference<\/em>? Well, the only one that is worth mentioning is that the one thing is said to be specifically \u201cCatholic\u201d and the others aren\u2019t. Therefore, the scorn and derision is heaped on the Catholic miracle, with complete hypocrisy and a double standard (certainly not utilizing reason). When severe bias is always in the picture, this is the sort of incoherent \u201creasoning\u201d we see. It\u2019s equal parts pitiful and pathetic.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Moreover, \u201cpsychokinesis\u201d<\/span> is the moving of objects by mental activity alone. We have no problem finding many biblical parallels to this, too: Jesus calming the waves and the storm, and causing Lazarus to be raised and to walk out of his tomb, and legs suddenly being able to walk, the stone in front of Jesus\u2019 tomb moving away from the entrance, etc. This means that all the name-calling that Hays made about this and the other \u201cCatholic\u201d miracles should consistently be applied to the analogous biblical events that are even more<\/em> dramatic and unusual.<\/span><\/p>\n As for<\/span> \u201cpoltergeist activity\u201d<\/span> (noisy or frivolous ghosts), Scripture is filled with that<\/em>, too, or at least things highly akin or similar. We have Samuel the prophet (not an impersonating demon!, as some claim) appearing to Saul, Moses and Elijah appearing and talking to Jesus at His transfiguration, the two witnesses of Revelation 11, \u201cmany bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep\u201d who \u201cwere raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many\u201d (Mt 27:52-53). We have Jesus in effect walking through a wall to appear to His disciples after His resurrection. He eats fish with them. He closes the eyes of witnesses Mary Magdalene and the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, then reveals to them His identity. We have an angel wrestling with Jacob. Are all these phenomena<\/span> \u201cweird or frivolous\u201d and all the other nonsense that Hays spews about Catholic miracles? <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n I have provided biblical analogies for all four things he brought up. His rather weak and insubstantial \u201cargument\u201d has now been utterly demolished and pulverized, if I do say so.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty-one books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n 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\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>,\u00a0and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n ***<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/05\/WhoreOfBabylon2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n