“Republicans should fight aggressively for a piece of the minority electorate”

I found this little bit of post-election mop-up the other day and wanted to pass it along to you:

Even as Republicans have engaged in some agonizing over their candidate and agenda, many have sought comfort in the notion that a big part of the loss came down to simple mechanics. President Obama had a stunning Election Day operation, which turned out his base. Mitt Romney's shop, by contrast, failed to get people to the polls. That explanation is soothing because it suggests that, in the future, all the GOP needs is a slicker piece of get-out-the-vote software.

It's also broadly wrong.

The turnout myth comes from a statistic that has been endlessly repeated: Mitt Romney got fewer votes than John McCain in 2008. This isn't quite true (Mr. Romney this week eked past the McCain totals), and in any event it is somewhat irrelevant. The Romney vote count reflects a nationwide voter turnout that was down nearly five percentage points from 2008. What matters is how the GOP did in the battleground states.

And there? Mr. Romney beat Mr. McCain's numbers in every single battleground, save Ohio. In some cases, his improvement was significant. In Virginia, 65,000 more votes than in 2008. In Florida, 117,000 more votes. In Colorado, 52,000. In Wisconsin, 146,000. Moreover, in key states like Florida, North Carolina, Colorado and Virginia, Mr. Romney turned out even more voters than George W. Bush did in his successful re-election in 2004.

By contrast, Mr. Obama's turnout was down from 2008 in nearly every battleground. He lost 54,000 votes in Virginia, 46,000 votes in Florida, 50,000 votes in Colorado, 63,000 votes in Wisconsin. Ditto Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio. The only state where Mr. Obama increased his votes (by 36,000) was North Carolina, and he was still beaten by a Romney campaign that raised its own turnout by a whopping 147,000.

The temptation here is to conclude that Mr. Romney did better than Mr. McCain, just not well enough, while Mr. Obama did worse, just not badly enough. Yes, there is no question the GOP turnout effort could have been improved. Project ORCA, developed and run by the Romney campaign to refine its turnout efforts, was a dismal failure. And the GOP lagged behind the Obama campaign's sophisticated use of technology, in particular social media.

Could better use of these tools have added enough to the Romney totals to eke out victories in key states? Maybe. In the end, it was 334,000 votes—in Florida, Virginia, Ohio and New Hampshire—that separated Mr. Romney from the presidency. Then again, had Mr. Romney succeeded in grinding out a narrow victory, it might also have masked the party's bigger problems.

Because what ought to scare the GOP is this: Even with higher GOP turnout in key states, even with Mr. Obama shedding voters, Democrats still won. Mr. Obama accomplished this by tapping new minority voters in numbers that beat even Mr. Romney's better turnout.

In Florida, 238,000 more Hispanics voted than in 2008, and Mr. Obama got 60% of Hispanic voters. His total margin of victory in Florida was 78,000 votes, so that demographic alone won it for him. Or consider Ohio, where Mr. Romney won independents by 10 points. The lead mattered little, though, given that black turnout increased by 178,000 votes, and the president won 96% of the black vote. Mr. Obama's margin of victory there was 103,000.

This is the demographic argument that is getting so much attention, and properly so. The Republican Party can hope that a future Democratic candidate won't equal Mr. Obama's magnetism for minority voters. But the GOP would do far better by fighting aggressively for a piece of the minority electorate.

And that, for the record, was the GOP's real 2012 turnout disaster.

Martin Luther’s Understanding of Baptism

Since most of our readers are Reformed, and since the Lutheran concept of baptism has been brought up, I thought it would be helpful to share what Bernhard Lohse, a Lutheran Professor of Church History and Historical Theology, has written about Luther’s view of the sacraments in general and of baptism in particular:

Formation of a new, Reformation theology of baptism went hand in hand with Luther’s entire theological development, particularly during his first lectures on the Psalms and Romans. In dealing with the sacraments, concentration on questions such as judgment and gospel, righteousness and faith, or on the divine promise and human confidence, led to a new impulse and important consequences: the criterion under which Luther dealt with baptism and baptismal usage. In other words, the relation of baptism to life from the perspective of the acceptance of the divine judgment promised in baptism took center stage. Since Luther’s understanding of the nature of sin was more radical than the theology of late scholasticism, he could no longer share the view that baptism purges inherited sin, of which a mere “tinder” (fomes) remains, and against the seductions of which the baptized can successfully resist.

Satan v. Olson

    Satan

    Pandemonium

    Attorney for: Melvin Belli

    

    SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

    COUNTY OF MCLENNAN

    

    Satan                                         

    Plaintiff,

    

    v.

    

    Roger Olson

    Defendant

    

    

    CASE NO: 666

    

    COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    (Defamation of Character)

    Plaintiff complains and for causes of action alleges as follows:

1. Plaintiff is an individual and is now, and at all times mentioned in this complaint was, a resident of Pandemonium. Plaintiff has worked as the Archfiend. Plaintiff has during all this time enjoyed a reputation for unrivaled perfidy, infamy, and iniquity, both generally and in his official occupation.

2. Defendant Roger Olson, is an individual and is now, and at all time mentioned in this complaint was, a resident of McLennan County, Texas.

3. On or about 2011, defendant published Against Calvinism, stating that God was even worse than the Devil.

4. The entire statement “The Calvinist God is worse than the Devil!” is false as it pertains to plaintiff. Plaintiff is a being than which no wickeder can be conceived. Plaintiff prides himself on his unspeakable evil.

5. The invidious comparison is defamatory on its face. It clearly exposes plaintiff to diminished contempt, ill-will, and obloquy.

6. As a proximate result of the above-described publication, plaintiff has suffered irreparable loss of professional ill-repute, and injury to his self-esteem. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages to the tune of hourly disemboweling defendant in ninth circle of hell.

    WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendant,

    and each of them, for:

    1. Compensatory damages according to proof;

    2. Punitive damages;

    3. Interest as allowed by law;

    4. Costs of suit; and

    5. Such other and further relief as this court may deem

    cruel and unusual.

Vallicella reviews Nagel

Bill Vallicella has apparently competed his serial review of Nagel's recent book:

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/nagel-thomas/

An Important Christmas Resource

Tom Schmidt’s Chronicon site has a lot of valuable material on issues related to Christmas, especially the origins of the December 25 date for the holiday. He argues that the date was used by Christians to mark Jesus’ birth long before the fourth century and without the sort of pagan influence often suggested.

Nothing can I boast in

At God’s perfect timing,
Christ died for fallen man.
He wore a crown of thorns,
Nails driven through his hands.
Christ willingly endured it,
To death he chose to go.
He broke his body for us,
Shed blood to make us whole.

Nothing can I boast in,
My life is scarred with sin.
My works are filthy rags,
No merit can I bring.
Yet mercy filled Christ’s heart,
Love took him to the tree.
It’s grace alone which saves me;
Christ’s blood that sets me free.

So if I am boasting,
I’ll speak of my disgrace.
For my weak self displays
The power of God’s grace.
Christ’s Spirit works within me,
In weakness he is strong.
So I look to my Saviour
To safely bring me home.

Cut-flower ethics

Many years ago, Will Herberg spoke of “cut-flower ethics.” He argued that, once unmoored from the religious soil that nurtured them, ethical principles would endure for a while, but would ultimately wither. To assume otherwise is to mistakenly dismiss the catalyzing effect that the idea of God has had on ethical motivation throughout the centuries.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/articles/atheist-book_663515.html

When was Joel fulfilled?

Peter’s citation of Joel 2:28–32 in Acts 2:16–21 is a significant text for our attempts to define the relationship between Israel and the Church and to understand God’s eschatological program. Pivotal questions concerning the Joel text include how wide its application is, how to interpret its apocalyptic imagery, and whether it was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost when Peter cited it.

Characteristic of the multiple-fulfillment approach is Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.:

All interpreters know that Pentecost took care of only the first two verses in that prophecy, and that only to an initial degree. Where were the “wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and billows of smoke”? “The sun will be turned to darkness,” promised Joel, “and the moon to blood.” These events yet await the consummation of history.

D. Treier, “The Fulfillment Of Joel 2:28–32: A Multiple-Lens Approach,” JETS 40/1 (March 1997), 13-14.

In Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost he quotes Joel 2:28-32 in support of what God is doing on that day. It is both interesting and instructive to observe the debate between Classical Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology over Peter’s citation of this text. Dispensationalists have typically tried to avoid Joel’s fulfillment in Acts 2:16-21, most likely because they see the OT prophecy addressed to Israel and because a NT fulfillment to the church threatens the distinction between the two.

Classical covenant theologians took a different approach. They accepted Peter’s citation as proof that Joel 2:28-32 has been fulfilled. Moreover, on the basis of this text and others, they concluded that there would not be fulfillment to the nation of Israel qua nation. It is interesting to observe the two extremes. Dispensationalism, to maintain what they saw as the sense of the OT prediction, refused to allow the prophecy to be fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost, while Covenant Theology, having granted the fulfillment of Joel in Acts, assumed that OT prophecies given to Israel are now to be fulfilled in the church.

…Acts 2:16-21 is not the complete referent (fulfillment) of Joel 2:28-32. This can be seen from the sense of the OT prediction and from the fact that section two of the prophecy was not fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost.

P. Feinberg, “Hermeneutics of Discontinuity,” J. Feinberg, ed. Continuity and Discontinuity (CB 1988), 126.

I’d like to question one aspect of this argument: the way in which premils like Kaiser and Feinberg bifurcate the prophecy, so that only the first part was fulfilled (or partially fulfilled) at Pentecost, while the second part remains to be fulfilled at the end of the church age, with a 2000+ year gap between the two.

I happen to think Feinberg’s overall interpretation is reasonable (which doesn’t necessarily mean it’s correct). And I agree with him that we must respect Joel’s prophecy on its own terms, as well as the NT appropriation of that text. So my challenge, even if valid, won’t disprove the premil and/or dispensational interpretation.

But it does take issue with one of the supporting arguments. For it seems to me that in the context of Luke-Acts, the cosmic signs may well be fulfilled by the time of Pentecost.

i) Keep in mind that apocalyptic language is fairly generic. It reuses stock imagery. So it’s unreasonable to assume the fulfillment must exactly match the imagery. The language is more suggestive or evocative e than strictly descriptive. Indeed, commentators have noted allusions to the Sinai theophany.

ii) Jesus’ ministry was characterized by signs and wonders (Acts 2:22). Nature miracles, healing miracles, and exorcism–not to mention the Resurrection.

You also had the darkening of the sun during the crucifixion, as well as the torn curtain (Lk 23:44-45).

Then you have the Ascension (Acts 1:9-11), with Jesus levitating in mid-air. Several commentators think the “cloud” is the Shekinah. This corresponds to the pillar of fire and smoke in Exodus. And you had “tongues of fire” (2:3)–as well as the theophanic “wind” (2:2) at Pentecost.

(If we add Matthew, we have the earthquake on Good Friday, and the angelic descent on Easter Sunday.)

So, if we interpret Acts 2 on its own terms, taking Acts 1 and Luke’s Gospel into account, I think Joel’s prophecy could be fulfilled at that point. Fulfillment would begin with the recent past (i.e. life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ), and be capped in the present (i.e. the speaker’s present) by the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost.

Of course, even within the chronological framework of Acts, the “Day of the Lord” retains a future aspect. After all, history didn’t come to a sudden end at Pentecost. Luke continues the narrative for another three decades. And the rather abrupt conclusion to the narrative hardly marks the end of the world. In modern parlance, we’d say that’s an instance of inaugurated eschatology.

Still, I don’t see any textual or contextual justification for driving a wedge between one part of Joel’s prophecy and another part. That seems to be imposing on Acts 2 an extraneous preconception of how it ought to be fulfilled, rather than taking its cue from Acts 2 (and related background material).

I also don’t see why Kaiser thinks the sun darkening and the moon turning to blood is a uniquely end-time event. Doesn’t that imagery refer to solar and lunar eclipses? And aren’t these periodic phenomena?

Does baptism save?

Nicholas Leone

I was a Baptist, but after a study of the Scriptures, I became a Lutheran. The Lutheran position on Holy Baptism is the only Biblical one. Most people are offended at the idea that Baptism can save! . . . Baptism in the Holy Spirit cannot be separated from water Baptism. They happen simultaneously."

1 Peter 3:21-22

21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

http://www.extremetheology.com/2006/09/baptism_saves.html

I don’t usually criticize Lutheran theology. Since, however, a Lutheran commenter has thrown down the gauntlet, I’ll respond. Lutherans are, of course, welcome to criticize my Calvinism. I’m just pointing out that I didn’t initiate this debate.

Before discussing specific prooftexts, let’s make a few general observations:

i) This appeal reflects a naïve understanding of symbolism. I realize some Christians instinctively flinch at the word “symbolism,” as if that’s a weasel word. But this is a principled distinction.

For instance, Paul talks about how we are saved by the cross. Needless to say, he doesn’t mean we’re literally saved by a piece of wood. Rather, he’s using the cross as a symbol for Christ’s redemptive death at Calvary. It’s not the wooden cross that actually saves anyone, but what that stands for.

You can quote NT passages about the gracious efficacy of baptism, but that’s perfectly consistent with a purely symbolic understanding of baptism.

ii) In Acts, you can’t assume that the gift of the Spirit is equivalent to regeneration. Rather, it’s generally used in connection with the charismata. It’s a mistake to filter Acts through the lens of John’s Gospel or Paul’s epistles. 

iii) Lutherans subscribe to infant baptism. But in Acts, the specific baptismal candidates are believers or converts. Promises are made to them if they repent of their sins and believe in Jesus. And they submit to baptism in obedience to the apostolic kerygma. You can’t simply rip that out of its missionary setting and transfer it to babies, as if these are interchangeable parties. 

Keep in mind that I don’t object to infant baptism. But you can’t wrest these passages out of their embedded context and make them refer to something they don’t.

iv) In Scripture, water has three symbolic meanings: (a) a cleansing agent; (b) a destructive agent (e.g. flood waters), and (c) a source of life (e.g. drinking water).

Baptism trades on the natural, varied symbolism of water.

v) What Scripture sometimes attributes to the effect of water baptism, it elsewhere attributes to the effect of faith in Christ. Therefore, it’s logical to view the rhetorical effect of baptism as a picturesque metaphor for the actual effect of faith.

vi) Although it’s customary for Lutherans to prooftext baptism regeneration by citing Jn 3:5 and Tit 3:5, the baptismal referent isn’t a given. Mere aqueous imagery doesn’t single out baptism, for aqueous imagery is commonplace in Scripture.

vii) In Acts, there’s no normative sequence for water baptism and the gift of the Spirit.

viii) They are inherently separable. The Holy Spirit isn’t chained to a ritual. The Holy Spirit is a sovereign agent, free to act at his own discretion (Jn 3:8; 1 Cor 12:11).

To insist that the Holy Spirit must regenerate the baptismal candidate reflects a classically magical outlook. In pagan witchcraft, you can manipulate supernatural forces to do your bidding by saying the right words in the right order, or by doing the right things in the right order.

ix) To use 1 Pet 3:21 as a Lutheran prooftext for baptismal regeneration proves too much. For that would mean whoever is baptized is guaranteed salvation. Yet Lutheranism deems it possible for a born-again Christian to lose his salvation.

x) It’s important not to overload the word “save” in 1 Pet 3:21. This is not a technical term for salvation in the soteriological sense. Peter is punning. There’s wordplay between “salvation” from drowning (v20) and “salvation” by baptism. But “salvation” from drowning means physical deliverance. God rescued Noah and his family from watery death by means of the ark. The word itself doesn’t mean spiritual salvation. That turns on the larger context.

xi) Peter explicitly plays on the symbolic imagery of baptism. Where dirt represents sin, and washing represents forgiveness. In analogy with the flood, he also trades on the destructive symbolism of water. So the rite is emblematic.

xii) As his further qualifications indicate, baptism is a token (“pledge, appeal”) of faith in Christ, and the resultant effects of saving faith. 

xiii) Apropos (xii), Peter is clearly referring to believers or converts who submit to baptism, as an expression of their newfound allegiance in Christ. It doesn’t refer to babies.

BTW, I don’t object to infant baptism. But you must respect the context of your prooftexts. 

xiv) Like Jews who put their faith in the efficacy of circumcision or their physical lineage (e.g. Mt 3), there’s a constant temptation to substitute external rites for faith in Christ. That’s false assurance. There’s no substitute for trusting in Christ from start to finish.

Breaking Bad

James White and Turretinfan have taken on Jason Stellman in a two-part audio series that I’d highly recommend.

Jason Stellman (right side of image) of course is all over the place at the Called to Communion site these days – he’s the equivalent of a Roman Catholic Convert anti-hero. And the good guys, James White and Turretinfan take on this Jason Stellman interview in a two-part (and more-to-follow) series of their own:

Part 1 (approx. 30 minutes).

Part 2 (approx. 90 minutes).

About the image: My wife and I have been watching through the “Breaking Bad” series. To “break bad” evidently is to turn and start being evil instead of good. The anti-hero of that series is a man named Walter White (left side of image), and the main character is someone who certainly becomes evil over the course of time.

When I had the CTC site up on my monitor this morning, Beth noticed the resemblance immediately. [And how do we know that Stellman isn’t purposely trying to look like this character?]

Breaking Bad is about a chemistry teacher who, on finding that he has lung cancer, seizes upon the side job of “cooking” crystal methamphetamine – known as “meth”. So the connections seem obvious to me. Stellman, in his own way, has been “breaking bad”, in his case selling something called “cath”.

On the word “catholic”, as it was used in the early church, meant that the church was “universal”, that is, encompassing those who professed faith in Christ throughout the world. Rome, of course, has twisted that meaning with its oxymoronic usage, making the “provincial” “Roman” to be the sum and center of “the church that Christ founded”, when really, it is, well, quite provincial. Calling the Roman church “catholic” is as much a misnomer as saying “crystal methamphetamine makes you feel good”.

Interestingly, the crystal methamphetamine wiki site notes that long term usage of “crystal meth” “develop a long-lasting psychosis resembling schizophrenia after stopping methamphetamine. The condition persists for longer than 6 months and is often treatment resistant”. It will be interesting to see where these guys are in a few years. Andrew Preslar is already on record saying that “Catholicism is like a marriage, in which romance does not reduce to sentimentalism, nor prescind from difficulty and pain, but rather flows from the realities of a life shared together, come what may”.

To be sure, there will be difficulties.

At any rate, if you’re interested in following the Jason Stellman saga from a safe distance, James White and Turretinfan provide an excellent analysis of the things Stellman is saying, and it seems as if more is to follow.

Christmas Apologetics

Each Christmas season over the past few years, I’ve put up a post linking to Triablogue’s material related to Christmas:

The true Israel

1) It’s common for some Reformed amils to make the following two claims:

i) The church is the new Israel

ii) Christ is the true Israel

But if you combine both claims, that will yield a third claim:

iii) Christ is the true church

Clearly, though, that shows the need to qualify our usage. It doesn’t make much sense to say that Jesus takes the place of the church.

1) There’s a serious exegetical argument to be made for (i). However, that’s somewhat ambiguous, depending on how we define the key terms.

2) Concerning (ii), this only makes sense if we use it as a shorthand expression for corporate solidarity or federal headship. Christ is the true Israel in the sense that Christ represents Israel, not that Christ is identical with Israel.

By the same token, Christ acts on behalf of his people (“the church”). To some degree he acts in their stead, as their redeemer (i.e. vicarious atonement, penal substitution).

However, it’s not an antithetical relationship, as if Jesus supplants the church.

God, man, and miracles

Since it is God who causes miracles to happen, not the apostles or Paul as “miracle workers,” it is a moot point whether miracles should always, or at least ideally, accompany the proclamation of the gospel. It is God, not the missionary, evangelist, or the local church, who determines whether miracles happen. Christians believe God can work through miracles today, and they pray for the sick to be healed, as the risen and exalted Jesus Christ continues to have the power to heal the sick and to drive out demons. At the same time, Jesus’ power did not prevent Peter from being thrown into prison (4:1; 5:18; 12:3), Stephen and James from being killed (7:58-60; 12:2), and Paul from being shipwrecked (27:13-44).

E. Schnabel, Acts (Zondervan 2012), 1098.

How are forgiveness and baptism linked?

Peter said to them, “Repent, and be immersed, everyone of you, in the name of Jesus the Messiah, on the basis of the forgiveness of sins…” (Acts 2:38).

The preposition “for” (eis) in the expression “for the forgiveness of sins” raises the question of the relationship between immersion in water (baptism) and the forgiveness of sins. Some interpret the preposition as expressing purpose (the purpose of baptism is the forgiveness of sins), some as expressing result (baptism results in forgiveness).

A contextually more plausible interpretation assumes a causal meaning (forgiveness of sins is the cause of baptism); the Jews who had heard Peter explain that Jesus was the crucified, risen, and exalted Messiah and Lord who saves Israel in the “last days” had repented of their sins and come to faith in Jesus. Otherwise, they would not have been willing to be immersed in water for purification “in the name of Jesus the Messiah”; they were immersed in water for purification “on the basis of the forgiveness of sins,” which they had received from Jesus.

E. Schnabel, Acts (Zondervan 2012), 164-65.

Obama and Rubio on Genesis

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/rubio_and_obama066631.html

How Many Adams?

http://bylogos.blogspot.com/2012/11/how-many-adams.html

The Dolly-Llama

Reuters

At 77, there is heightened speculation about who will succeed the Dalai Lama. Historically, succession battles over the next Dalai Lama can be vicious. And as Eddie Murphy can attest, protecting a golden child is fraught with peril.

To ease the transition, Tibetan officials consulted scientists about creating a Lama in the laboratory. By crossbreeding a cloned sheep with a llama, scientists successfully produced a Dolly-Llama.

The Dolly-Llama held a news conference, flanked by Richard Gere and Harrison Ford. Steven Seagal boycotted the conference.

This:

Plus this: 

 

Equals this:

Visiting an invisible church near you

Church attendance poses logistical challenges for pious Protestants. That’s because, as any good Catholic apologist will tell you, we don’t have a visible church. Only the Roman church is the visible church, founded by Jesus.

When I first got saved, I had a dickens of a time trying to find an evangelical church to attend. I looked in the yellow pages under the church section, but the names and addresses of the Protestant churches were all printed in invisible ink.

I drove around town, but I could never see a Protestant church. Just empty lots.

I finally asked a nice blind evangelical to take me to his church. Everything was invisible to him, so locating a Protestant church posed no special problem for him.

However, I got off to a bumpy start. I tripped over the steps leading up to the entrance because I couldn’t see them. I accidentally stepped on the toes of the invisible usher at the door. Once inside, I accidentally sat on three invisible parishioners before I found an empty seat.

This has also posed a serious technical challenge to televangelists when they broadcast a church service. You don’t see an actual church sanctuary, since that’s invisible. What you see is chroma key compositing. The sanctuary is really (if “really” is the operative word) a postproduction simulation.

Ecclesiastical invisibility has some fringe benefits, however. For instance, the collection plate was invisible, so I couldn’t put any money in the plate when the invisible ushers passed it around.

Next week I got one of those white folding canes the blind use, so that I could feel my way around a bit better.

When you think it about it, it’s remarkable how well Protestants manage to navigate the hurdles of invisible church attendance.

And on second thought, it’s certainly no worse than consuming an invisible, miniaturized Jesus in the communion wafer.

Justice denied

http://calvindude.com/dude/2012/11/18/is-this-justice/

This also illustrates why you can't trust a life sentence to be...a life sentence. Liberals offer the life sentence as a more humane alternative to the death penalty, but liberals can't be trusted to keep their word. The bleeding-hearts who release killers should be locked up with the killers overnight. See what we find in the morning.

How to defend your cult

Ready:

But on to your claims: to accuse the Roman Catholic hierarchy in general of facilitating the abuse of children is overblown, and thus does nothing to help your argument or to correct the problems that actually did occur.

That the Roman Catholic hierarchy in general has facilitated the abuse of children can be backed up with reams of documentation. For instance:

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/AbuseTracker/

Certainly, there were many priests and some bishops who sinned grievously, and in doing so, failed to live up to the teachings of the Catholic Church. But it is a big stretch to then accuse the hierarchy in general of the devious motive of teaching a high view of human sexuality for the express purpose of protecting or legitimizing their own deviant behaviors.

i) I didn’t say “teaching a high view of human sexuality for the express purpose of protecting or legitimizing their own deviant behaviors.” Historically, the church of Rome has taught a low view of human sexuality.

ii) However, to play along with your argument, it’s not unusual for hypocrites to say all the right things. That provides cover for what they do in private. That deflects suspicion away from them.

Let's not forget that while the media went into a frenzy over the sins of bishops and priests, planting these sins deeply in our minds (while doing nothing to point out the documented false accusations being made by liars and thieves), the fact is, the general frequency of abuse was very low, and not much higher--if higher at all--than the rates of abuse found in other non-Catholic communities.

i) I don’t know how you’d be in a position to judge that. As one expert noted:

Authors such as Philip Jenkins feel that the incident rate is definitely not higher among priests than among clergy in other denominations. I respectfully disagree, especially when we consider that so many of the abuse allegations led to secret settlements. So it's hard for us to know how many credible allegations have been brought against priests, especially when the church until recently has been unwilling to make the numbers known. If the bishops wanted to, they could easily find out if the incident rates are lower, the same, or higher compared with other clergy or helping professionals.

http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2010/05/how-build-healthier-church-interview-donald-b-cozzens

As another expert noted:

...based on the available data, there has been around six times as much child sexual abuse by clergy and religious in the Catholic Church as there is by ministers of religion in all the other churches in Australia combined - and I would regard that as a conservative figure. Admittedly, the Catholic Church is the largest denomination in Australia, and it is also one in which priests and religious have been involved in schools and orphanages, unlike ministers of other churches. Even still, the reality is that the levels of abuse in the Catholic Church are strikingly out of proportion with any other church - and, from what I have seen, this is an international pattern.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/11/15/3633611.htm

ii) You’re also overlooking the correlation between priestly abuse and homosexuality. The source of the abuse scandal is the fact that homosexuals are overrepresented in the priesthood.

Your own denomination classifies homosexual activity as “intrinsically disordered.” By contrast, heterosexual activity is not intrinsically disordered.

Therefore, wouldn’t we expect homosexuals to behave immorally? And if homosexuals are overrepresented in the priesthood, wouldn’t we expect Catholic clergy to have higher rates of sexual predation?

To turn the tables a bit, I feel much safer spiritually in a church who has not compromised its moral teachings (even if some of her members fail to live up to them) than in a church that no longer teaches that some sinful behaviors (contraception, divorce and remarriage, etc.) are in fact sinful.

Of course, that’s the classic circular reasoning of a cult-member. You appeal to your sectarian standards to validate your sect. But that begs the question. Unless you already know that your denomination is legit, you can’t take your sectarian standards for granted.

I have no idea what you believe or practice in regard to these issues, but I think in general it is far better to find sin in one church than a denial (and normalization) of sin in another.

Which assumes what you need to prove.

And for the record, you'll be happy to know that the Catholic Church has addressed the problems of abuse and is now very likely the safest institution (religious or secular) you could leave your kids.

From news reports I’ve read about Austria, Australia, Poland, Ireland, &c., I have no reason to think the Catholic church has put that problem behind it. Let’s just take one significant counterexample:

http://losangeles.legalexaminer.com/miscellaneous/cardinal-mahony-claims-the-archdiocese-today-is-safe-for-children.aspx?googleid=257712

Regarding your second claim, that Catholics think that only the Church can interpret the Bible, could I kindly ask you to cite an official document of the Catholic Church where that claim is asserted?

For starters:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/bible_can_only_be_understood_with_the_church_pope_tells_scholars/

Perhaps what you take issue with is the authority that the Catholic Church claims for herself, but surely you realize that the Church doesn't wield authority in such a way that it would demand that Catholics shut down the natural function of their brains when reading a text, which is to interpret it.

Sure it does. Take the utterly fanciful way in which Pius XII tries to prooftext the Assumption of Mary:

Often there are theologians and preachers who, following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers,(20) have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption. Thus, to mention only a few of the texts rather frequently cited in this fashion, some have employed the words of the psalmist: "Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified"(21); and have looked upon the Ark of the Covenant, built of incorruptible wood and placed in the Lord's temple, as a type of the most pure body of the Virgin Mary, preserved and exempt from all the corruption of the tomb and raised up to such glory in heaven. Treating of this subject, they also describe her as the Queen entering triumphantly into the royal halls of heaven and sitting at the right hand of the divine Redeemer.(22) Likewise they mention the Spouse of the Canticles "that goes up by the desert, as a pillar of smoke of aromatical spices, of myrrh and frankincense" to be crowned.(23) These are proposed as depicting that heavenly Queen and heavenly Spouse who has been lifted up to the courts of heaven with the divine Bridegroom.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

Or the equally fanciful way in which Pius IX tries to prooftext the Immaculate Conception:

This sublime and singular privilege of the Blessed Virgin, together with her most excellent innocence, purity, holiness and freedom from every stain of sin, as well as the unspeakable abundance and greatness of all heavenly graces, virtues and privileges -- these the Fathers beheld in that ark of Noah, which was built by divine command and escaped entirely safe and sound from the common shipwreck of the whole world;[15] in the ladder which Jacob saw reaching from the earth to heaven, by whose rungs the angels of God ascended and descended, and on whose top the Lord himself leaned'[16] in that bush which Moses saw in the holy place burning on all sides, which was not consumed or injured in any way but grew green and blossomed beautifully;[17] in that impregnable tower before the enemy, from which hung a thousand bucklers and all the armor of the strong;[18] in that garden enclosed on all sides, which cannot be violated or corrupted by any deceitful plots;[19] as in that resplendent city of God, which has its foundations on the holy mountains;[20] in that most august temple of God, which, radiant with divine splendors, is full of the glory of God;[21] and in very many other biblical types of this kind. In such allusions the Fathers taught that the exalted dignity of the Mother of God, her spotless innocence and her sanctity unstained by any fault, had been prophesied in a wonderful manner.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

It is quite possible that you haven't ever experienced the interpretive freedom to which I refer…

Oh, I see lots of interpretive freedom among Catholic Bible scholars like Ray Brown, John Meier, Joseph Fitzmyer, Luke Timothy Johnson, Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, &c. The freedom to deny the historicity of Biblical events.

Regarding the factual test, you know very well that Rome doesn't claim to be an infallible teacher on geocentrism or evolution, and thus, it doesn't make a dent if she learns a thing or two from science every once in a while.

Of course, that belated realization conveniently comes centuries after the fact.

Might I suggest strengthening your argument by pointing to a change in her teachings in an area that she does claim to speak infallibly?

Once again, that’s the classic circular reasoning of a cult-member. By definition, your sect can never be wrong when it counts. If it’s found to be wrong, then, by definition, it wasn’t speaking infallibly. So you render your sect unfalsifiable even in principle. Thanks for proving my point.

That would be of interest to me, and perhaps your other readers as well. Also, you suggest that the Popes' teachings contradict the Bible, but doesn't that assertion contain a presumption that you hold the very type of authority that you think makes the Pope into a cult leader? Are you trying to rob the Pope of the freedom to interpret the Bible as he wills? Would you rather he follow your own interpretation, yielding in obedience to your presumed hermeneutical authority? And if so, how have you avoided styling yourself as a cult leader in the same stroke that you paint the Pope as one?

It doesn’t require authority to interpret a document. It only requires authority to misinterpret a document. Since Rome can’t justify its dogmas through sound exegesis, it must resort to an argument from authority to leverage the illicit interpretation.