Sunday, March 27, 2011

Paralypsis

Dave Armstrong hosted a guest post by hatchet man Paul Hoffer.

The Problem With Placing One’s Faith On a Pseudonymous Blogger Rather Than In a Visible Church (Part I) (by Paul Hoffer)

i) TFan doesn’t ask readers to put their faith in him. Rather, he argues for his positions, using reason, evidence, and Scripture.

ii) By the same token, it would be a mistake to put your faith in bloggers who are not anonymous or pseudonymous, like Paul Hoffer and Dave Armstrong.

iii) The Mormon church is a visible church. Should we put our faith in the Mormon church because it’s visible?

…and on an article posted by my friend, David Waltz...

It’s ironic that a Catholic epologist like Hoffer would elicit the support of an anti-Trinitarian lapsed Catholic like Waltz.

…to the identity of Turretinfan, a pseudonymous blogger in the service of James White…

TFan works with White, not for White. TFan had already established himself in the blogosphere before White invited him to join Alpha & Omega Ministries. Indeed, it’s because TFan had distinguished himself apart from that ministry that he was invited to join.

Since some of those who commented on the above sites suggested that Mr. Fan is an Ohio attorney, and since some the accusations leveled against Mr. Fan implied that he may have violated some of the canons of the Ohio’s Code of Professional Responsibility…

Have they publicly recanted their scurrilous accusations?

…to see if I could learn the name of the individual who has caused scandal and consternation for so many, especially fellow Christians who do not share his blinkered-version of Calvinism.

i) A classic example of straining gnats while swallowing dromedaries in one gulp. Hoffer belongs to a denomination with a spiraling scandal of clerical pederasty, yet he fixates on the trumped up “scandal” of anonymous blogging. 

(I offer this explanation before I go any further lest someone wishes to suggest that I was motivated from ill-will, malice or a desire for “pay-back” which typifies the modus operandi of so many of the modern-day disciples of the dead lawyer from Geneva.)

i) Needless to say, if Hoffer were motivated by ill-will, malice or a desire for “pay-back,” we’d expect him to issue this preemptive disclaimer. Since when does someone motivated ill-will, malice or a desire for “pay-back” openly admit that he’s motivated by ill-will, malice or a desire for “pay-back”? So this calculated, self-serving disclaimer is worthless.

ii) Notice, moreover, the blanket smear regarding the modus operandi of so many Calvinists. 

Further, I will state unequivocally no confidences have been betrayed nor have I used any secret legal resource in any manner to ferret out Mr. Fan’s mild-mannered alter ego.

Once again, if he had betrayed a confidence or resorted to secret legal resources, wouldn’t we expect him to issue a preemptive disclaimer to the contrary? He calls himself to the stand as a character witness for himself. The exercise is transparently and viciously circular.

Now before I discuss Mr. Fan’s real identity, I wanted to touch upon the whole premise of his choice of blogging pseudonymously. Personally, unless one is writing pseudonymously out of humility or out of obedience to the directives of a superior, I believe that one must be prepared to own one’s words. If I am not willing to sign my name to an opinion, then it is not worth publicizing. In order to own your words, you have to have the courage to stand behind them, to be accountable for what you say. As poor as my writing may be, I have never been afraid of putting my name to it or being held accountable for what I write.

Is he accountable? I notice the conspicuous absence of contact information, either at the end of his post, or over at his own blog, which would enable readers to report him to his parish priest or diocesan bishop in case of misconduct. By the same token, I notice that Armstrong hasn’t made that information publicly available either. Yet Armstrong is hosting a post about personal accountability. Hoffer and Armstrong pay lip-service to the accountability-system of the Roman church while they shield themselves from direct accountability to their religious superiors. If they have the courage to stand behind their words, why don’t they provide the contact information for their religious superiors in case a reader has a grievance to lodge with superiors over their conduct?

Mr. Fan so long as I am not doing so out of malicious intent, have not breached confidences, and used legal means to ascertain his identity.

Isn’t there something self-incriminating about the steady repetition of the same tendentious disclaimer? Why does he feel the need to keep assuring us of his stainless motives?

It’s like a man who shows up at the police station, waving a newspaper in the face of the desk officer as he angrily proclaims his innocence, even though he was never named in the article as a suspect. Constant protestations of innocence before anyone even accused them of wrongdoing are not the way truly innocent men ordinarily conduct themselves.

…he has no expectation of privacy especially when he engages in speech that some consider to be abusive and un-Christian.

Actually, Hoffer’s post, which is laced with mock solicitude, the better to sugarcoat malicious intent, is arguably abusive and unchristian.

Now if anyone has a reason to “out” him, I would have a good reason to do so. In 2007, I wrote an article stating my reasons for critiquing Professor White’s misuse of cross-examination after he made the scurrilous (and frankly actionable) claim that I had engaged in a form of taqiyya in service of the Catholic Church. Rather than seriously engaging the points I made, Mr. Fan chose to attack the article and myself by directing the reader to my suspension from the practice of law for several months in 1999 for failing to appropriately deal with a health condition that was seriously impacting my practice.

Hoffer has just given us a good reason to suspect that he’s motivated by a personal vendetta.

Indeed, Hoffer’s whole post is an extended exercise in the rhetorical ad hominem device known as paralypsis. The speaker loftily denies that he will mention something, as if that would be beneath him, yet he incorporates what he’s not going to mention in the denial itself. “Far be it from me to point out that my esteemed colleague reportedly had sexual congress with a syphilic cow. I refuse to stoop to such ungentlemanly expedients.”

Despite what he and his fellow contra-Catholic bloggers may think of us, we Catholic apologists are a far more honorable, a far more charitable, and dare I say it, a far more Christian breed than he and they would credit us. If anyone is going to reveal Mr. Fan’s name, let it be either himself or one of his Protestant brethren to do so.

If, on the other hand, Hoffer’s motives were less than honorable, then we’d expect him to sugarcoat his dishonorable motives in a show of faux gallant oratory.

No, I do not intend to “out” Mr. Fan. Returning unkindness with unkindness is not my way. Our Lord taught us a different way to return such conduct.

Except that if he did intend to return unkindness for unkindness, we’d expect him to preface his vindictive agenda with preemptive disclaimers about his kindly motives.

No one should infer nefarious intent by not revealing his name. I am not withholding his name to coerce him or extract from him a promise not to attack the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Except that if he were issuing a veiled threat, we’d expect him to deny his true intentions.

Because of the stumbling block of pseudonymity that Mr. Fan has placed in the path of fellow Christians, witness the many unkind words that some have uttered against his pseudonymity, more so than over the subject matter conveyed by his words themselves.

As if Hoffer isn’t using the unkind words that “some” have uttered against TFan has a pretext to do the very same thing without acknowledgement.

Hoffer’s entire post is a study in the psychological dynamics of self-deception. 

30 comments:

  1. I am rather stupid gullible. When someone came in and commented in TF's combox one day a few years back that TurretinFan was a woman, I jumped on it like white is to white rice. I said he/she, it was one very smart person whatever gender.

    I had to hold my head low a bit afterwards, especially when I heard TF speak and then it became painfully obvious what a gullible stupid jumper I am!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello Mr. Hays:

    I will offer a Christian response to your post on my own blog, but I just wanted to point out one slight error here. In regards to accountability, I offer a disclaimer that if I post anything contrary to the Catholic faith, I will make correction. I give my hometown on website, too. I also list links to both my bishop and my pastor on my website in the Important Links section. Thus, if you or any of your readers have a problem with anything I write that you think my bishop or my pastor should be aware, you may click on those links to where their addresses can be easily be found. I would also hope that you or they contact me so I could offer a response or provide correction if I do say anything offensive. I am sure that you will provide a correction to your article so no one would think you are bearing false witness against me. I will post your article and its correction on my blog so no one on my side of the Tiber could accuse of the same either.

    I must say that if accountability is an issue for you perhaps you and Mr. Fan should provide links to your pastors on your websites as well lest one labels you and he hypocrites.

    God bless you and yours!

    ReplyDelete
  3. PAUL HOFFER SAID:

    "I must say that if accountability is an issue for you perhaps you and Mr. Fan should provide links to your pastors on your websites as well lest one labels you and he hypocrites."

    I was simply answering you on your own terms. You made accountability and issue, not my. Therefore, even if I didn't provide such links, that would hardly be hypocritical.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Paul Hoffer said...

    "I also list links to both my bishop and my pastor on my website in the Important Links section."

    And does Armstrong's failure to heed your example indicate a lack of accountability on his part?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Of course, you'd have to identify the link as the church you attend.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hello Mr. Hays, I am sure that DA can answer for himself, but I would note that he does not conceal that he is Catholic-neither you nor Mr. Fan indicate your particular denominational flavor. He has a link to his parish under the "About Me" link and has posted articles about his particular parish on several occasions(which btw undercuts your beef here). Mr. Armstrong has put a number of personal links on his website including a number of radio interviews. The closest thing one can find on either yours or Mr. Fan's website is a reference to Klingon hell, which must make your wife, if you have one, real happy. If I hadn't ascertained Mr. Fan's identity for myself, one would not know from his hundreds of articles and comments what country he lives in (and no, I do not even intend to reveal that). Again, why should your remarks in regards to accountability not be considered hypocritical? I do hope you will swallow your pride and retract your false witness here.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mr. Hays so there is no doubt, I will edit my links to make it abundantly clear that St. Augustine Church in Barberton, Ohio is my home parish.

    I apologize for any vagueness there. When may we expect you to put up a link to your church?

    ReplyDelete
  8. PAUL HOFFER SAID:

    "He has a link to his parish under the 'About Me' link."

    I see no email address for his priest.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hello Mt. Hays, I didn't have any problem finding Fr. Czarnota's e-mail there. Perhaps your internet is broke.

    And when you will be providing your pastor's email?

    ReplyDelete
  10. In case you missed it since your internet is apparently broken, here's Dave's: http://saint-joseph-detroit.org/Contact.html

    And here's my pastor's: augustine1898@rrbiznet.com

    God bless!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Paul Hoffer said...

    "Hello Mr. Hays, I am sure that DA can answer for himself, but I would note that he does not conceal that he is Catholic-neither you nor Mr. Fan indicate your particular denominational flavor."

    I assume TFan is an old school, jure divino Presbyterian. Given his strict adherence to the 1646 Westminster Confession and the Westminster Directory of Worship, it isn't difficult to narrow down his denominational sympathies.

    However, your comparison is equivocation. Since you believe the Roman church is the only true church, your denominational affiliation automatically selects for your theological identity.

    Since, by contrast, I don't think any particular denomination is conterminous with "the church," my theological identity can't be inferred from the church I happen to attend.

    In any case, my theological commitments are hardly shrouded in mystery. I have a very long, very public paper trail.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I find an email address for his deacon, not his priest.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hello Mr. Hays, while it is true that Mr. Fan has acknowledged in writings that he is some sort of Presbyterian, there are as many flavors of those as there are ice cream at Baskin Robbins. Given the multiplicity of Presbyterian-leaning denominations out there, there must be some reason that they are different. As for yours, your profile show that you are Reformed in temperment but like some ritual with that. Thus, you could be anything from a Lutheran to a UCC man. That really narrows it down for me.

    It speaks volumes that you would hold me and Dave to a standard that you yourself are not willing to hold yourself to or Mr. Fan. Chew on that for awhile.

    ReplyDelete
  14. In addition, to judge by the church blog, Fr. Darell Roman seems to be his new parish priest. So where is his contact info?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Paul Hoffer said...

    "It speaks volumes that you would hold me and Dave to a standard that you yourself are not willing to hold yourself to or Mr. Fan. Chew on that for awhile."

    There's no inconsistency in my holding you to your own standards while not holding myself to your own standards, since your standards aren't my standards. That's a pretty elementary distinction.

    Denominational allegiance was never my standard. Moreover, the fact that you and Armstrong are Catholic was never in doubt. That's a red herring.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mr. Hays,

    As to the e-mail address for Mr. Armstrong's pastor, that's a red herring too since the parish phone number and email is listed. There are yet some people in the world who do not have a specific email.

    As for your comment on standards, I guess you dropped your irony (literary paralypsis) on your foot. Get that tended to.

    I will leave you alone now so you can rail against me in peace and respond to your article in detail later.

    God bless you and yours!

    ReplyDelete
  17. It's not a red herring if the email goes to the church secretary rather than the priest. Is Armstrong accountable to the church secretary?

    "As for your comment on standards, I guess you dropped your irony (literary paralypsis) on your foot."

    That's an assertion, not an argument.

    "As for yours, your profile show that you are Reformed in temperment but like some ritual with that. Thus, you could be anything from a Lutheran to a UCC man. That really narrows it down for me."

    You keep imposing your Catholic reference frame on me. My church doesn't select for my theology; rather, my theology selects for my church.

    As a matter of fact, I attended a Lutheran church (WELS) for a time, although I was, and still am, a staunch Calvinist.

    I usually attend an 18C Episcopal church down the street for major holidays because I prefer the way they celebrate major holidays on the church calendar. But I generally attend a PCA church.

    Conversely, being a member of the Roman church tells you zilch about a person's theology. Church-going Catholics range from devout Catholics to nominal Catholics.

    Indeed, in the past, infidel noblemen were awarded episcopal preferments. Even though they were Roman bishops, they made no pretense of faith.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The fact that TFan's favorite theologian is Francis Turretin already pinpoints his theological commitments.

    Conversely, the fact that John Kerry is Roman Catholic tells you nothing about his theological commitments, or lack thereof.

    So why are you fixated on one's denominational affiliation?

    For that matter, an evangelical can attend an independent church. Many do.

    ReplyDelete
  19. PAUL HOFFER SAID:

    "Hello Mr. Hays, while it is true that Mr. Fan has acknowledged in writings that he is some sort of Presbyterian, there are as many flavors of those as there are ice cream at Baskin Robbins. Given the multiplicity of Presbyterian-leaning denominations out there, there must be some reason that they are different."

    The fact that you put it that way shows you don't know enough to know what you reject.

    They are generally differentiated by degrees of adherence to the Westminster Standards. To take some major examples, the PCUSA is a traditionally, but now nominally Presbyterian denomination that went liberal years ago. Clearly TFan doesn't belong to the PCUSA.

    Far to the right of the PCUSA are the OPC and PCA. They basically adhere to the Westminster Confession, but with some caveats. They adhere to the 18C American revisions, and they don't enforce the Confession on the days of creation. Likewise, they don't adhere to the Westminster Directory of Worship.

    Given TFan's Puritan view of worship, it's clear that he couldn't in good conscience join the OPC or PCA.

    Then you have very traditional Presbyterian denominations like the PRC. That's the sort of church TFan would probably attend.

    You also have the EPC, which adheres to the Westminster Confession, but is also open to charismatic theology and the ordination of women.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You have to appreciate how the Romanists, like the Pharisees, love to proclaim their own righteousness. It's about about how gracious and kind they are while they insist that their opponents are wicked and uncharitable. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  21. PAUL HOFFER SAID:

    "The closest thing one can find on either yours or Mr. Fan's website is a reference to Klingon hell, which must make your wife, if you have one, real happy."

    Um, no, that's a reference to Klingon heaven. And I'll have you know that my beloved wife Vixis is more than happy with our accommodations in Sto-vo-Kor.

    ReplyDelete
  22. A classic example of straining gnats while swallowing dromedaries in one gulp. Hoffer belongs to a denomination with a spiraling scandal of clerical pederasty, yet he fixates on the trumped up “scandal” of anonymous blogging.

    That is commonplace among Romanists. Just for instance, I had dinner with a man recently who expressed to me earlier in the day that the media has unfairly treated the Roman communion on the matter of sexual scandals. He was all the more troubled that day because Hank Groover, a priest at this man’s parish in Hammond, LA, was probably going to be placed on leave, which is now a matter of recent history.

    Groover was busted for soliciting homosexual favors from an undercover cop in Savannah, GA, in 2003, so the diocese decided to ship him to Hammond. The parishioner thought that Groover should not and would not have been the focus of attention had he not been the brother-in-law of cooking star Paul Deen. This man was doubly troubled because “Groover was so great with the kids”. Great with the kids? It’s remarkable how naïve people can be.

    ReplyDelete
  23. It's about about how gracious and kind they are while they insist that their opponents are wicked and uncharitable. LOL

    You, of course, being the very model and quintessence of both Christian charity and the Southern gentleman.

    ReplyDelete
  24. So is there a theological point being made or is this just another flame war?

    ReplyDelete
  25. It never ceases to amaze me how sickeningly sanctimonious Romanists are and the fact that they take great pride in it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "The parishioner thought that Groover should not and would not have been the focus of attention had he not been the brother-in-law of cooking star Paul Deen."

    I think you meant Paula Deen.

    ReplyDelete
  27. One day, a minister, a priest and a rabbi went for a hike. It was very hot.

    They were sweating and exhausted when they came upon a small lake. Since it was fairly secluded, they took off all their clothes and jumped in the water. Feeling refreshed, the trio decided to pick a few berries while enjoying their "freedom." As they were crossing an open area, who should come along but a group of ladies from town. Unable to get to their clothes in time, the minister and the priest covered their privates and the rabbi covered his face while they ran for cover.

    After the ladies had left and the men got their clothes back on, the minister and the priest asked the rabbi why he covered his face rather than his privates. The rabbi replied, "I don't know about you, but in MY congregation, it's my face they would recognize.

    ReplyDelete
  28. RANDALL VAN DER STERREN SAID:

    "So is there a theological point being made or is this just another flame war?"

    I'm defending the honor of a man who's been wronged. TFan has been a friend to me, and I'm returning the favor. I consider that an aspect of Christian ethics.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Pinoy,

    LOL!!! Never heard that one but I'm laughing here. Nice.

    ReplyDelete