One Catholic troll I’ve been responding to tries to deflect attention away from official malfeasance in the church of Rome by claiming that if I condemn the church of Rome on that score, then I should be prepared to condemn a Protestant denomination or some other organization (e.g. the BSA) if it is guilty of the same corruption.
What is odd about this argument is the assumption that I’m unwilling to call his bluff. But as a Protestant I have no hesitation to condemn or shun a Protestant denomination which I think is hopelessly corrupt or compromised. Indeed, to cite a few examples: CRC, PCUSA, ECUSA, ELCA.
I, as a Protestant, don’t regard any one denomination as the one true church. As such, no denomination claims my unconditional allegiance. As such, I can disassociate myself from corrupt ecclesiastical institutions–assuming I was ever associated with them in the first place.
Hence, it’s quite shortsighted for a Catholic epologist to try this tactic. For it will ricochet on contact.
By contrast, Catholics do regard their own denomination as the one true church. They do swear their unconditional fealty to the church of Rome. As such, no matter how vile their denomination may become (or has become), they must show it their unswerving loyalty.
By the same token, it won’t do for Catholics to drive a segregate the institutional church from a few rotten apples. For even if the rotten apples were few, they fall from the only true apple tree. The rotten fruit of a rotten tree. So Catholics can’t go from tree to tree and pick the good apples while leaving the rotten apples. For it all comes from the same tree.
A) The Catholic Church is not a denomination...it didn't denominate from anything.
ReplyDeleteB) The Catholic Church consists of many people. You can claim that certain members have violated Church teaching, but this is as far as it can go.
C) Since you do not believe in a one true Church, your opinion on this topic is too biased for any intelligent observer to consider...your conclusion has been predetermined from the get-go (besides this fact, your evidence hardly supports your claim--that the entire Church is corrupt due to a few of her members violating her own teachings).
D) As evidenced in the back and forth between us regarding your disordered views on human sexuality, your ignorance on both the law and broad approaches to "conservative jurisprudence," and your inability to form a cogent argument to substantiate your accusations of defamation...I doubt that someone of your mental caliber and/or intellectual dishonesty will ever find any argument convincing other than your own misguided feelings.
Only a dishonest scumbag like you would insist that someone like me, who favors going after the very people who are complicit in criminal activity, as being unswervingly loyal. I am loyal to truth and the teachings of the Church...I am not loyal to those who violate those teachings, whomever they are. Therein lies the difference. I don't know how much more simple I could state it. Perhaps you need me to write it for you in crayon???
Cases like the one below, if indeed are true, then those responsible must follow Canon Law and/or reform as necessary. Those actually complicit in criminal activity must have legal action taken against them. However, only an ignorant anti-Catholic pseudo-Christian like Steve would make the leap that the entire Church is corrupt. A sane and logical person would conclude that those involved were corrupt. Again, therein lies the difference.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html?hp
Alexander said...
ReplyDelete"A) The Catholic Church is not a denomination...it didn't denominate from anything."
It apostatized from the NT church.
"B) The Catholic Church consists of many people. You can claim that certain members have violated Church teaching, but this is as far as it can go."
Which doesn't begin to interact with the argument of this post.
"C) Since you do not believe in a one true Church."
Another example of your illiteracy. Did I say I don't believe in a one true church? No. Rather, I said no single denomination is conterminous with the one true church.
"your opinion on this topic is too biased"
As if you're unbiased.
"for any intelligent observer to consider"
You're in no position to speak on behalf of intelligent observers in general. You only speak for yourself. And you haven't shown yourself to be either observant or intelligent.
"your conclusion has been predetermined from the get-go"
As if your slavish commitment to Catholicism doesn't predetermine your own conclusions from the get-go.
"your evidence hardly supports your claim--that the entire Church is corrupt due to a few of her members violating her own teachings)."
I'm judging a hierarchical institution by the conduct of the hierarchy. And this misconduct is systematic.
"D) As evidenced in the back and forth between us regarding your disordered views on human sexuality"
A question-begging assertion, which I've refuted.
"your ignorance on both the law and broad approaches to 'conservative jurisprudence'"
Another question-begging assertion, which I've refuted.
"and your inability to form a cogent argument to substantiate your accusations of defamation"
Yet another question-begging assertion, which I've refuted.
"I doubt that someone of your mental caliber and/or intellectual dishonesty will ever find any argument convincing other than your own misguided feelings."
Of course, that's not an argument.
"Only a dishonest scumbag like you would insist that someone like me, who favors going after the very people who are complicit in criminal activity, as being unswervingly loyal."
That's just a throwaway line. You've shown absolutely no inclination to see the hierarchy prosecuted.
To the contrary, you are a classic enabler and bootlicker of the of the evil institution you bow before.
"I am not loyal to those who violate those teachings, whomever they are. Therein lies the difference. I don't know how much more simple I could state it. Perhaps you need me to write it for you in crayon???"
You're a loyalist to an evil institution. You affect disapproval of the abominable symptoms, but not the abominable disease.
"However, only an ignorant anti-Catholic pseudo-Christian like Steve would make the leap that the entire Church is corrupt. A sane and logical person would conclude that those involved were corrupt. Again, therein lies the difference."
In a hierarchical institution, the superiors are responsible for the conduct of their subordinates. And it's not as if the hierarchy was kept in the dark. To the contrary, it was so cognizant that it took elaborate measures to limit its liability.
Steve, all you will ever be is an armchair ______. Never any sort of professional. This is quite evident.
ReplyDeleteYet, who do we have responsible for the cover-up? The "Vicar of Christ" - "more than man, yet less than God..."
ReplyDeleteRight Alexander? A pity you didn't read the prior posts - all about the centrality to the Roman bishop to this repugnant saga. You read blogs like you read church history, it seems.
Alexander, you will never be able to offer a substantive argument. This is quite evident.
ReplyDeleteAlex,
ReplyDeleteBecause you have no rational arguments, you fall back on trying to shame your opponent into submission by raising your brow or affecting a tone of disapproval. Only an egotist would think that's effective...but then, we've already established your egotism.
"I, as a Protestant, don’t regard any one denomination as the one true church".
ReplyDeleteOf course not; you are used to swimming in muddy waters. This hint however only provides a certain explanation regarding your aversion to authority and your vociferous attempt to level the playing ground as you struggle to place the Catholic Church in the same category as your “church” experience, or lack thereof, has been.
"Only a dishonest scumbag like you..."
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Alexander knows that "scumbag" is slang for "condom?"
Seems fitting in the context of this discussion. And so One-True-Churchy.
Alexander, you will never be able to offer a substantive argument. This is quite evident.
ReplyDeleteI would take this comment into consideration if you can produce any Catholic who would agree with you.
DOZIE SAID:
ReplyDelete"Of course not; you are used to swimming in muddy waters."
I'm used to swimming in the word of God.
"This hint however only provides a certain explanation regarding your aversion to authority"
I submit to the authority of God in his word.
"and your vociferous attempt to level the playing ground as you struggle to place the Catholic Church in the same category as your 'church' experience, or lack thereof, has been."
Uh...no. The church of Rome is in a very different category than experiencing the church which Jesus founded.
"I would take this comment into consideration if you can produce any Catholic who would agree with you."
ReplyDeleteSince your denomination is a viper's nest of heresy, I don't think that would be a desireable thing.