I hadn\u2019t visited Swan\u2019s Boors All<\/em> blog<\/a> in some time, having moved on to other things: specifically my YouTube channel. I was bored today and decided to take a look over there. Looking over my Anti-Catholicism web page<\/a> (where he takes up a large section), I see that I hadn\u2019t made a reply directed solely towards him, since 11-22-24. But lo and behold, on his blog Swan was taking swipes at me less than three weeks ago \u2014 as usual without ever naming<\/em>\u00a0me: a silly game he has now played for many years<\/a>. This is a man who was obsessed with me for about seven years. Then in 2009 he decided, along with several anti-Catholic cronies: (James White, Jason Engwer, Steve Hays, and \u201cTurretinfan\u201d) to pretend that I didn\u2019t exist, and (in 1984<\/em>-style) that I had never<\/em> existed.<\/p>\n But here we are at this \u201clate\u201d date: some 24 years after he first started critiquing my work and then increasingly launching ludicrous personal attacks against me, and he\u2019s still<\/em> at it. He simply hides<\/em> it by not mentioning my name. And he\u2019s still \u2014 quite comically \u2014 falling into the traps that he sets for others, and making a total fool of himself, in his irrational rage against this ridiculous caricature of me and the work that I do, that he has constructed.<\/p>\n It\u2019s really funny to observe, but at bottom, it\u2019s tragic, to see someone engulfed by the soul-destroying sin of bearing false witness. It was in his article, \u201cBogus Roman Catholic Memes #2 \u201cProtestantism didn\u2019t get rid of the Papacy. It made every man his own Pope\u201d<\/a> (1-19-26). His words will be in blue<\/span>. He starts out with his general thesis:<\/p>\n One of Rome\u2019s defenders posted this picture of Martin Luther pointing to a passage of Scripture attached with the typical Roman Catholic argument:\u00a0\u201cProtestantism didn\u2019t get rid of the Papacy. It made every man his own Pope<\/i>.\u201d . . . This meme is a demonstration that Rome\u2019s defenders have no idea how inconsistent they are with this argument. Let\u2019s poke around a little at the origins of this catchline and then demonstrate Rome\u2019s defenders using this argument refute themselves.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n He notes the obvious fact that Luther never said this. It\u2019s not remotely like anything he would say. It didn\u2019t take him long to get around to lying about and bashing yours truly:<\/p>\n This Roman Catholic fallible uncertainty also extends to their favorite doctrinal distinctives.<\/span>\u00a0Here\u2019s an example I came across back in 2007<\/a>. I purchased\u00a0The New Catholic Answer Bible<\/i>. This Bible . . . includes 88 pages of insert apologetic material placed throughout this Bible. These are to equip Roman Catholics to \u201cb<\/em>etter respond when challenged about the Catholic Church and its teachings<\/i>.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The inserts are, of course, the work of myself and Paul Thigpen (see how he never mentioned that?). But in the original Catholic Answer Bible<\/em> (2002) \u2014 which was my first officially published book, the notes were entirely my own<\/em> (though not \u2014 maddeningly! \u2014 credited in the Bible). Then Swan gets down to the nitty gritty later on in the article, and starts setting the trap that he will himself tumble into (once I get through with him):<\/p>\n The bare truth is that Rome\u2019s online defenders cannot escape themselves. They are privately interpreting Roman Catholicism without having any meaningful authority granted to them by the Vatican. I highly doubt many of their webpages, Facebook posts and tweets, etc., have the<\/span>\u00a0Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur<\/a>. Even many of those that publish books don\u2019t always have the\u00a0Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur<\/i>. They are themselves..\u00a0their own pope<\/i>.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n First of all, Swan, like many anti-Catholics and the much larger group of Protestants, generally speaking, vastly overestimates the worth and necessity of the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. I wrote about this 18 years ago<\/a>, and won\u2019t belabor the point here. Secondly, though I readily agree that individual Catholic blogs and even apologists can vary widely in quality, accountability, and orthodoxy, the Church does broadly and enthusiastically endorse lay Catholic apologetics and evangelism, as I have documented many times, and in fact, this was a strong emphasis of Vatican II:<\/p>\n Internet Evangelism and Apologetics: Catholic Church Approval<\/a>\u00a0(edited by Dave Armstrong) [12-26-05]<\/p>\n Apologetics & Lay Apostolates: Strong Approval from Popes<\/a>\u00a0[6-28-06; expanded 6-7-18]<\/p>\n Catholic Lay Apologetics: Long \u201cMagisterially Approved\u201d History<\/a>\u00a0[8-2-11]<\/p>\n Moreover if he wants to attack me as some \u201cloose cannon\u201d or supposedly \u201cself-appointed\u201d or \u201cself-proclaimed\u201d apologist (a charge has has made scores of times against me through the years, and did again in his linked articles below), that\u2019s utter nonsense. My first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism<\/em>, was enthusiastically endorsed (in a Foreword) by Servant of God Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ<\/a>: one of the most respected and orthodox theologians and catechists in the second half of the 20th century, and close advisor to St. Pope Paul VI and St. Teresa of Calcutta (Mother Teresa): now being considered for possible future canonization. He was my mentor. I had studied with him and had known him for seven years before I ever had a website, and six years before I finished that book.<\/p>\n Anyone can check out my credentials<\/a> if they want to do so. I had published articles in several Catholic magazines for four years before I had a website, and was featured in the bestselling book of Catholic conversion testimonies, Surprised by Truth<\/em> (edited by Patrick Madrid) in 1994. Swan certainly is aware of all this (not that he seems to particularly concern himself over mere facts or rudimentary fairness to another person of different beliefs).<\/p>\n Now, the real<\/em> fun and self-destruction begins in his section, \u201cAddendum: Making Up an Answer Bible?\u201d<\/p>\n I hadn\u2019t thought about\u00a0The New Catholic Answer Bible<\/i> in many years. It was only recently on social media in which I saw a post from a person saying it was their \u201cfavorite Bible<\/i>.\u201d Back in 2007 I had the privilege of submitting articles to\u00a0aomin.org. [Bishop \u201cDr.\u201d (???) James White\u2019s page] I did two entries on The New Catholic Answer Bible<\/i>:<\/span><\/p>\n Is that so<\/em>? I guess this is the closest to an \u201capology\u201d that I will ever receive from Swan for his avalanche of asinine personal insults<\/a> up to and including (my favorite) his contention that I was \u201cpsychotic.\u201d Note that he does it without mentioning my name, and buried in the article. Any Christian person with integrity would \u201cfess up\u201d openly and directly to the person that he lied about. He was trying to be on his best behavior in these articles, and so they would be nowhere near what he was capable<\/em> of. Then he fell into this own \u201cgotcha!\u201d trap:<\/p>\n The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n Note that he referred to his \u201c2005 copy\u201d<\/span>. There were two publishers who put this book out in 2005: Fireside Publishing, and Our Sunday Visitor. The first version didn\u2019t<\/em> list our names (just as the 2002 Catholic Answer Bible<\/em> didn\u2019t list mine<\/em>, as the sole author of the inserts), but the second prominently did<\/em>. Swan nevertheless figured out who wrote the inserts, from Amazon. But we know that he<\/em> had the Fireside<\/em> 2005 edition, because he mentioned that in the first sentence of his first \u201creview.\u201d<\/a> \u00a0In those days he would actually still mention my name, and he did.<\/p>\n He tried \u2014 it\u2019s classic Swan \u201ccynical methodology\u201d \u2014 to make a false dichotomy by contending that the translation and notes<\/em> of NCAB had the Nihil Obstat\u00a0and\u00a0Imprimatur, but that the apologetics inserts supposedly did not<\/strong><\/em>. Well, that\u2019s fascinating, since I found an Amazon listing for the 2005 Fireside edition<\/a>. If one selects \u201cRead Sample\u201d underneath the book image, this verifies that it is Fireside, 2005 (exactly what James noted that he had in his own library). The second page of the sample has the listing of the Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs, for the Old Testament, Revised Psalms, Revised New Testament, Reference Material (i.e., the commentary notes), and \u2014 whaddya know<\/em>!! \u2014 \u201cThe New Catholic Answer Bible Inserts<\/strong>\u201c:<\/p>\n Nihil Obstat: Douglas K. Clark, S. T. L.<\/a>, Censor Librorum<\/em><\/p>\n Imprimatur:\u00a0 J. Kevin Boland, D.D.<\/a>, Bishop of Savannah<\/p>\n January 15, 2005.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As Swan himself helpfully quoted, this means that the apologetics inserts were deemed by a bishop and Catholic academic censor to be \u201cfree of doctrinal or moral error.\u201d These are the same two men listed in the same manner in my own 2005 copy of my own work, by Our Sunday Visitor (OSV: the largest Catholic publisher), where my name and Paul Thigpen\u2019s are prominently listed on the title page as the author of the \u201cInserts\u201d (see a photograph of it<\/a>).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Moreover the 2002 Catholic Answer Bible by OSV (in my possession, as my first \u201cofficially\u201d published book), also has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur for \u201cThe Catholic Answer Inserts\u201d (exclusively my own<\/em>) from different people<\/strong>:<\/p>\n Nihil Obstat: Gary Applegate, J.C.L<\/a>. Censor\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Imprimatur: James P. Keleher, S.T.D.<\/a>, Archbishop of Kansas City in Kansas<\/p>\n July 1, 2002.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So I had two Imprimaturs and two Nihil Obstats (for the same writing) from two bishops and two Catholic scholars, by 2005.<\/p>\n I received (in effect) a third for my contribution to What Catholics Really Believe<\/em><\/a>, which is the written version of the television series with Dr. Ray Guarendi and the late Fr. Kevin Fete. I wrote an\u00a0answer guide for the DVD, which is\u00a0 incorporated in the book, edited by Dr. Stanley Williams. The latter observed in his announcement:<\/p>\n The terms \u201cNihil Obstat\u201d and \u201cImprimatur\u201d [are] old school\u2026at least the words are, according to a 2004 USCCB guideline. The fancy new phrase used by American bishops is now: \u201cPermission to Publish.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The letter I received from my own bishop at the time: the Most Reverend Allen H. Vigneron<\/a>, Archbishop of Detroit, dated 20 May 2009, contained the language (also in the book itself), \u201cEcclesiastical approval for publication . . . in accord with canon 827.3 of the Code of Canon Law.\u201d See a photograph of that letter<\/a>. It included my name. I happen to know that the censor who looked over the book was Dr. Robert Fastiggi<\/a> of Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, who is the editor and translator of the latest (2012) version of Denzinger\u2019s Enchiridion symbolorum<\/em><\/a>: the standard compendium of Catholic dogmas. It sits right next to my desk at all times. And I know from the editor, Stan Williams, that Dr. Fastiggi said that he didn\u2019t have to make a single correction<\/em> to my portion.<\/p>\n I wrote in 2009<\/a>:<\/p>\n Some anti-Catholic Protestant bloggers a while back were carping on about how (supposedly) none of my books had an Imprimatur, thus definitively proving (so they were firmly convinced) that I was an unapproved loose cannon at odds with my own Church. I informed them that\u00a0The New Catholic Answer Bible\u00a0<\/em>had one. Without missing a beat, one of them shot back with (paraphrasing), \u201cwell, you only have\u00a0one<\/em>\u00a0. . . \u201d So what will they say\u00a0now<\/em>?: \u201cwell, you only have\u00a0two<\/em>\u00a0. . . \u201c?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But I had three by 2009. In 2013-2014 I would receive sixteen<\/strong> more, as the editor of that many apologetics pamphlets for St. Paul Street Evangelization<\/a>,\u00a0on the topics of\u00a0returning to the Catholic Church,<\/a>\u00a0common objections,<\/a>\u00a0God\u2019s existence,<\/a>\u00a0the Trinity,<\/a>\u00a0Divinity of Christ,<\/a>\u00a0salvation,<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>the<\/a>\u00a0papacy,<\/a>\u00a0intercession of the saints,<\/a>\u00a0the problem of evil,<\/a>\u00a0Marian doctrines,<\/a>\u00a0last things,\u00a0<\/a>sexual purity,<\/a>\u00a0contraception,\u00a0<\/a>homosexuality,\u00a0<\/a>abortion,<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0the Rosary.<\/a><\/p>\n Fifteen were \u201cprinted with ecclesiastical permission\u201d by the Most Reverend Earl Boyea<\/a> (currently my bishop in the Archdiocese of Lansing) in August 2013. The one on the Holy Trinity was authorized by the Most Reverend Allen H. Vigneron in July 2014.<\/p>\n So much for \u201cRome\u2019s defenders\u201d<\/span> (in this case, yours truly) being \u201cauthorities unto themselves\u201d <\/span>. . . I now have 19 Imprimaturs or the more recent equivalent approval from four different bishops, including my own bishops when I lived in metro Detroit and now in rural southeast Michigan.<\/p>\n I wonder who, by the way, James Swan<\/em> is accountable, to, for his endless lies about Catholics and what we believe? His local pastor<\/em>? Like that<\/em> (even if so) is supposed to impress anyone?: one denomination out of the several hundred competing Protestant denominations? Who is<\/em> it? I have never seen him mention that on his blog. Maybe<\/em> it\u2019s there somewhere<\/em>. He\u2019s been slanderously calling me<\/em> a \u201cself-appointed\u201d blogger supposedly typing away in an attic and not making a proper living and supporting my family for over twenty years. Protestants are accountable, too, within their own structures, even though its endlessly chaotic in the end, because they can always go to another denomination if they are censured.<\/p>\n No accountability tat I can see (though I may have missed it). It turns out he<\/em> is what he falsely categorizes his theological opponents as being. He\u2019s self-appointed, and expects all of us to take his<\/em> words as gospel truth. It stinks to high heaven and reeks of the deepest, most pathetic hypocrisy. But it\u2019s very common, folks. Lots of projection going on out there.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2026\/02\/SwanJames.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n