I see from his “updates” that poor ol’ Dave has clean forgotten the nature of a dilemma. Even if he succeeds in extricating himself from one horn of the dilemma, he will only impale himself on the other horn in the process. Either way he pays a price.
The smart thing to do would be to cut his losses. He should admit that D’Souza is a high-profile defector from Rome. By admitting that, Catholic apologetics would still take a hit, but it wouldn’t be a mortal wound. Pop Catholic epologists would have to drop the Home-Sweet-Rome, Surprised-by-Truth biopics since our converts cancel out their converts. I’ll call your Francis Beckwith and raise you Dinesh D’Souza.
But, instead, he shortsightedly defends the fatal alternative by throwing D’Souza over the back of the sled. And the problem with that strategy is that by making D’Souza wolf chow, he also makes the papacy wolf chow. If D’Souza wasn’t pious enough to be a bona fide Catholic, then several popes weren’t real Catholics either. And we’re not talking about antipopes, either.
He discounts D’Souza because D’Souza was never a pious Catholic, which–according to Armstrong–made him a merely “nominal” Catholic “at best.” In name only.
But what does that make some of the popes, who were positively impious (by Catholics standards)?
If even the pope doesn’t have to be Catholic to be pope, why should anyone else be Catholic?
Yet I do wish to thank poor ol’ Dave for doing the kind of damage to Catholicism that only a blinkered zealous can inflict.