Tuesday, June 24, 2014

On Catholic Answers Cruises and the Inevitability of Capitalistic "Business Models" in Catholic Non-Profit Lay Apostolates (and Apologetics)


By Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong

This is a follow-up discussion to my previous blog post, entitled, Traditionalist Social Critic Kevin Tierney's Seeming Love-Hate Relationship with Catholic Apologetics. That was my response to Kevin Tierney's rant against Catholic Answer cruises and his put-downs of Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid, and Fr. Brian Harrison as "irrelevant" for the last ten years. 

That was all public Facebook material. But the current discussion taking place is on a friends-only Facebook thread; therefore I can't cite or name the other participants. But I can cite my own words. I will briefly paraphrase comments from three different people, that I was responding to (in brackets and blue color).

* * * * *

I don't oppose in principle the idea of a cruise, for reasons I have given. The reasons given in the latest bashing surely are inadequate to sink a cruise (pun intended). I'd like to see someone respond to Karl Keating's defense of their cruises. That's what a real discussion would look like.

I find the whole discussion rather silly and simple-minded: along the lines of the old saw about "why do you Catholics build these expensive cathedrals when all that money could go to the poor?" Now the answer that any apologist would give to that is a similar apologia that could be given for these cruises (and has been given, by Karl Keating himself).

[Karl's argument there bears too much troubling similarity to the snake-oil salesman televangelist tactics. Lay apologists can't claim that they deserve to be paid based on "the laborer is worth his hire." 99% of Catholic Answers followers can't afford this cruise they are offering. "Business models" of this sort and catering to upper middle class markets are antithetical to Catholicism altogether.]

That's silly. If you are working there, you're qualified for that job, and it deserves remuneration like any other skilled job: just as every DRE or youth minister gets paid by a parish. If they are qualified, they get hired and get paid. Where's the beef?

I was qualified enough to have my books published nine times by five different publishers. So I get paid by 'em (though not much, since it is a 12% cut). Why are these things knocked all the time (by folks who should know better)?

CA begs; so does public TV and Catholic radio and a host of non-profit entities. So why do we have to hear all the moaning and groaning and complaining about CA, as if they are supposed to be ashamed about raising money for a good cause?


For heaven's sake: St. Paul Street Evangelization, that you are involved with (and I am an advisor and edited most of the tracts) solicits fund, too. Are they supposed to be ashamed of that because they are involved with filthy lucre? 

Every non-profit uses a business model to some extent. I probably do less than almost anyone (though I sell books and have a site devoted to that), yet I still don't buy it that all this stuff is somehow intrinsically evil and ought to be bashed in public posts.

[selling products to a Catholic market seems insufficiently "Catholic".  Marketing should play no role in Catholic apostolates. A lot of this mentality comes from evangelical Protestantism. Organizations like CA are a new thing we haven't really seen before.]

So you think Sheed & Ward in the good ol' days did no marketing to sell their books? How stupid would a publisher be not to do so? And what is wrong with it? Every diocese makes "business" and administrative decisions. They have appeals for missions and social services. They have to decide if a parish is losing money, up to possible closure.

You can't escape it. I happen to be personally very uncomfortable with many of the things you observe, myself, yet I don't see how a coherent argument can be made to remove all business and marketing altogether from a publisher who sells books or even an apologetics apostolate.

I cam tell you from firsthand experience (12 1/2 years of full-time apologetics) that selling books or other products is not enough to get by. The market is too small, so any Catholic apostolate has to also solicit funds, just as, e.g., public TV does or charitable endeavors do (like the Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon for medical purposes).


[Dave, you ought to make much more money than you do for all your hard work, but you are only getting scraps from the Catholic market, while others (with fewer children than you have) are making much more money for far less work. And it's distressing to me that you have to be on your best behavior in front of these guys, lest the Catholic fatcats blacklist you, as they have done to others.]  

I appreciate your concern, and I agree that I deserve a higher income for the work that I do. But now you're talking business, ain't you? "Market"? I need to sell books. My booksite is out there, but sales are slow. That has nothing to do with Keating or Madrid or Hahn or any of the others. It has a lot to do with the fact that thinking Catholics who want to read and grow are a small number of people.

But God has provided my family's needs for over a dozen years, and will continue to do so. I'm not worried, and I'm not unhappy. One is always happy if he follows the call that God has for him or her.

You don't know how much another man works, or the dues he has paid.

I don't have to "do" anything. I'm beholden (i.e., in the sense you claim) to no one (one of the few perks I do have, being self-employed). I argue what I do here because it's what I believe, as always. I can't be bought because having lots of money is not a goal of mine.

I have argued against Kevin Tierney's related comments [i.e., the previous blog post linked at the top] and yours because they make no sense, or else have an implicit double standard in them, because the same standards are not applied in other areas. Yet you guys wanna bash the Catholic cruises, and now go after Keating personally?

People will work in secular jobs and help make companies many millions of dollars of profits and they see nothing wrong with that. That's fine and dandy, and I see no posts on Facebook decrying those jobs. All the vitriol is reserved for a wonderful Catholic apostolate like Catholic Answers because it offers cruises.

And if someone dares to defend the idea (as I do), now I am in bed with them and can't speak freely lest I will supposedly be blacklisted? I had this whole discussion with Michael Voris in person. It's sheer nonsense.

If you want to see someone kissing up and brown-nosing shamelessly, watch the two Michael Voris "Mic'D Up" interviews with geocentrist and anti-Semite Robert Sungenis and his sidekick Rick  DeLano.

[this sort of work used to be done mainly by priests and nuns. Now we see married laypeople doing it. The only laypeople who did stuff like this in the past were (pretty much) academics. But groups like CA and others today do their work independent of parishes, dioceses, or schools. And they do marketing techniques. It's not all bad, but it is a legitimate concern to address.]


It's not new at all. I've written about this myth. Ever heard of G. K. Chesterton (married layperson) or Frank Sheed? Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote:
In the first age laymen were most commonly the Apologists. Such were Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Aristides, Hermias, Minucius Felix, Arnobius, and Lactantius. In like manner in this age some of the most prominent defences of the Church are from laymen: as De Maistre, Chateaubriand, Nicolas, Montalembert, and others.

(The Idea of a University, Part II, ch. 4, sec. 4: “General Religious Knowledge,” 1856)

Some other examples of prominent lay apologists are Antoine-Frédéric Ozanam (1813-1853), Guy Lefèvre de la Boderie (1541-1598), and Justus Baronius Calvinus (1570- after 1606), as well as, more recently, Arnold Lunn (1888-1974), Evelyn Waugh (1903-1966), and Catholic historian / apologists, such as Christopher Dawson (1889-1970) and Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953).


See my paper:  Catholic Lay Apologetics: a Long and Noble "Magisterially Approved" History Despite the Fantastically Ignorant and Ubiquitous Charges of Anti-Catholic Critics.

As for being supposedly "independent of parishes, dioceses, or schools," this is untrue. For example, in my case, I write for The Michigan Catholic, the official paper of the archdiocese of Detroit. I have received an Imprimatur from my own bishop. I had the express recommendation of Fr. Hardon, whose residence was in Detroit. I'm connected with several Catholic organizations: all of which are supported by many priests and bishops.

The Catholic Church is all for lay apostolates. It's nothing new and it is encouraged and sanctioned by Holy Mother Church. Those are the facts. And we will not be made to feel ashamed for what we do, as if we are doing some terrible thing.


Now, both of you qualified your remarks somewhat, but many others who argue similarly, do not do so, and I've heard these complaints over and over (and have refuted them many times as well).

[The issue isn't profit or fundraising per se,  but mixing business with Catholic outreach, and trying to reach markets, just like any other business. The problem is with priorities and proper proportion. It's like a big club, and you, Dave, have worked very hard, yet make a pittance, compared to what others are making.]

Ah, but that is itself thinking according to a business model. I don't care if I have all that money. It's not my goal. That may be hard for folks to believe in America, but that is the truth. I'm a radical and advocate of simple living, and a distributist. So if I'm perfectly content, living the life I wanna live, why should you care, as if I am somehow being shorted?

God is providing my needs. What more is needed? Sure, I'd like to sell more books, but as long as I can pay my bills, I'm doin' fine.


[again, the problem is not solicitation of donations, but access for rich people only to intimately interact with Catholic speakers and to go on fabulous cruises, whereas most folks cannot. This is an unacceptable partiality.] 

So how does that work? CA is supposed to say that "if you make above a certain amount of money, we can't accept your donations (insofar as they receive money from the profit of a cruise) because that would be unfair to the people who make less money than you do"?

Businesses (even non-profit ones) have always catered to the wealthy, because that is how they can really fund their work. It's the same in any line of work. I love music as much as anyone on the planet. But I can't get those backstage passes for concerts where you meet the band or the singer. It's only the rich people who can do that (or family members, etc.). One time I was blessed that a friend of mine with basketball connections got us 4th row seats for the Pistons (the tickets each said it would have cost $750). Got to meet Pistons Hall-of-Famer Joe Dumars, too. I could never have done that. But the person with connections made it possible.

I got to go on a very nice large sailboat (twice) that friends of ours own. I could have never dreamt of having any such thing, etc. There are a host of examples. The Coming Home Network paid for a nice hotel for my wife and I, and wonderful food at a conference (way above my pay grade) because I was a staff member. We got to stay in the Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island as guests, and were treated like a king and queen, because my wife's mother sent them a picture and told a story that moved the owner. That room would have cost $700 a night. So we were "rich for a day" in all these instances.

It's fine to have all this "righteous indignation" and liberal-type feelings of about the more well-to-do folks getting to do stuff we can't, but I don't see how a solid argument can be made against it, given the reality of how capitalism works, and how we are all tied up in that one way or another (whether we like it or not).

I'll guarantee that wherever you and [Name] work (if it is a business, which it's always gonna be), there are the big shots that have all kinds of luxuries and conveniences because of the labor of you and the others who work there. You allow that to be possible by your participation. It's how corporate capitalism works.

In my profession, I am the direct cause of publishers making tons of money off of my own work, while I get a pittance (usually 12-14%), or in one notorious case, no ongoing royalties at all, while the publisher makes multiple thousands of dollars for decades off of the work that I did.

What am I supposed to do?: say that that is so unfair that I will stop writing my books (or trying to get them published in a way other than self-publishing, which I also do)? That would be negligent of my calling before God.

Class envy is a Marxist / liberal concept. Me, I don't envy the money that people make or the privileges attached thereto because I don't seek that level of income in the first place. Therefore, I can write fairly objectively about business issues of this sort without any personal stake in the matter.


[how come when issues like this are brought up, folks always wanna channel it into  "class warfare"? If CA would simply provide equal access to all, this would cease to be an issue at all.]

Why don't you or [Name] answer all the various arguments I made? That would be quite the novelty, wouldn't it?

I am saying that this is always the way it is, and that it is absurd to argue as you guys are doing: to say that "CA can't do a cruise unless
they allow the janitor and waitress as well as the bank executive to have all the fun that such cruises provide. If they don't, it's unethical, and they are idolizing filthy lucre."


Of course, Kevin Tierney's original point wasn't so much all this "high" bleeding-heart concern for the poor and how they miss out on all the goodies and perks that upper middle class America enjoys, but rather, a rant that Keating and Madrid have done nothing of relevance for ten years, and have been merely spouting talking-points for 20 (insinuation: they don't deserve to be listened to by anyone, on a cruise or anywhere else, cuz they are washed-up and irrelevant).

So let's see: if Keating and Madrid go on a nationwide tour that is free admission, and sit all day and do a meet-and-greet and personally converse with people of all classes, then your concerns are adequately met and it's okay that they do a cruise, since now the "unfairness" that you see has been rectified?

[you haven't dealt with what I am saying at all; hence, I have nothing to respond to. The price of these cruises is absurdly high and excludes most people from being able to go on them. Comments being made on the CA Facebook page  concerning the cruise make that clear.  Talks are given by people [Keating and Madrid] who haven't done much lately, which makes it a farce, like all those 60s and 70s band reunions. No need for a big free tour: just show that poor people can have access just like the rich folks. We can't accept the capitalistic status quo; we're called to a much higher standard than that.]

Right. Well, at least you haven't blown your top or fled to the hills as you usually do, and give some semblance of a "reply" with your usual preaching rants -- but it isn't rational interaction with what I have written, and certainly no refutation of same.

[why should I do a rebuttal to a treatise on unicorns? Sorry; that's a waste of my time.] 

If you want to engage in mere shallow, sloganistic-type rhetoric and polemics (tying into the familiar themes of Marxist and class envy), and ignore (and mockingly dismiss) opposing arguments, you can do so, but no one who tries to examine issues in depth will be impressed by that.

Reference was made to discussion on the CA Facebook page. Catholic Answers replied as follows to one such complaint:

Most of what we do is for free. Our radio program, handing out booklets at events like World Youth Day, magazines for seminarians and prisoners, producing free apologetics articles on our web site, etc. We put on events like this to raise money to facilitate all these outreach efforts.

That's true for me, too. I have over 2,550 posts on my blog available for free. I have 15 radio interviews available to download for free. Then I have my books, which cost something.

We get criticized for whatever we do. I get blasted because I am supposedly self-published only (I'm not: I have nine "official" books out, and I do many more on my own). I get blasted for making money with my "official" books, as if I am not supposed to make any money at all, with a family of six. I get criticized because not all my books have an Imprimatur (but some indeed do). If an apologist makes good money (however that is defined) he is obviously in the work only for filthy lucre and ill-gotten gain. If we make relatively little (more my category!), then we get accused of being negligent of our families and forcing spouses to live like paupers, as we indulge our unethical and obsessive fantasies of being an apologist.

We can't please everyone, no matter what we do. And why would anyone expect that, anyway? Jesus was accused of being filled with demons and being a blasphemer. Why would His laborers today expect any better treatment? He said that His followers would be hated by all, because they hated Him first.

It doesn't matter. There is always someone who will bash outreach efforts in some fashion, while they (mostly) sit on their butts and do nothing.

 
* * * 

Sunday, June 22, 2014

Traditionalist Social Critic Kevin Tierney's Seeming Love-Hate Relationship with Catholic Apologetics

 Patrick Madrid. Has he been -- along with Karl Keating and Fr. Brian Harrison --, irrelevant for "almost a decade"?

By Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong

This struck me today when looking over a (public) post (6-20-14) from Kevin's Facebook page, in which he severely criticized Catholic Answers for providing a cruise. The line that particularly struck me was the following:

. . . to hear people [speak on the cruise] who haven't done anything relevant in almost a decade speak the same talking points they have been using the past two decades!


That seemed pretty harsh to me, and so I was curious to see who the speakers were. They included Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid, and Fr. Brian Harrison.



Imagine anyone who is at all familiar with the modern apologetics revival and Catholic Answers, saying that Karl Keating hasn't "done anything relevant in almost a decade"?! Same thing for Pat Madrid? These are two of the best and most influential apologists of our time, and I consider Keating literally the "father" of the current Catholic apologetics movement. Certainly Catholic Answers (love 'em or not) has the single largest influence in terms of Catholic apologetics (and very much for good).

Yet Kevin not only thinks neither man has done anything relevant for "almost a decade" (I wonder why he says "almost" there? So in 2004 they were relevant, but not in 2005?), but also that what they have done for the last "two decades" was merely "talking points." I guess that is how Kevin describes apologetics: talking points: as if it were mere political rhetoric or something rambled off that is of little lasting or intrinsic importance. If Madrid defends and explains Sacred Tradition or if Keating explains how sola Scriptura is illogical and unworkable (or any of a host of other topics they write or talk about), this helps no one; does little good, since it is merely "talking points."

Fr. Brian Harrison, too, is a highly respected priest among "traditionalists."

I became further curious to see what Kevin has stated about apologetics in general on his now defunct website, Common Sense Catholicism. Here he is writing on 25 January 2011:

I have never been an “anti-apologist.” I think the apologetics movement within Catholicism in the last 35 years is one of the most important trends in the Church in the 20th century. The apologetics movement has provided a valuable frontline defense against those who seek to attack the Church.

Good; yet somehow Keating and Madrid (two of the biggest names in the movement, by any reckoning) have been irrelevant for the past decade and merely have regurgitated tired "talking points" for the last twenty years? Nuh-uh. That's beyond ridiculous.

There is some considerable irony here, too, insofar as Kevin has recently been doing quite a bit of analysis of how bad communication and ethics are online (see, e.g., his last blog post after he decided to forsake blogging).

Kevin contends that there are too many feuds and wars going on among Catholics online, and that this is scandalous and pathetic. One person puts another down, and perhaps the other responds, and it goes on and on.

Now, how is this trashing of the work of Keating, Madrid, and Fr. Harrison at all edifying, or a counter-example to what Kevin has rightly (for the most part) been decrying? Perhaps he can explain the difference of principle to us.

It's one thing to make a critique of a cruise as too materialistic or whatever. That seems to me to be fair game and a legitimate discussion. But saying that seminally influential full-time Catholic apologists have done nothing of relevance for "almost a decade" is clearly over the top and out of line.

Kevin dramatically (with a big bang) gave up on blogging as a hopeless cause, and then writes this garbage on Facebook three weeks later? I guess he thinks anything goes there . . . Very curious reasoning . . . I condemn untrue personal insults, period, wherever they occur: Facebook, the blog world, the Internet in general,  the paper or broadcast media, on the phone, talking on a bus or in a coffee shop; wherever.

* * *

Friday, June 13, 2014

The Biblical, Pauline Rationale for Separation from Fellow Christians in Serious Sin, or Ones Who are Relentlessly Divisive or Contentious



By Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong 
The following exchange occurred on a Facebook page where I cross-posted my article, Radical Catholic Reactionary Hilary White's Incorrect Claim About the Origin of the Inane Epithet, Neo-Catholic. One "Binks Webelf" (a non-Catholic who says he is considering becoming a Catholic) took it upon himself to take issue with my argument in the paper, and some of my comments in the thread.  His words will be in blue. He ends with the obligatory personal attacks against me, precisely as ended the previous exchange three days ago with a radical Catholic reactionary who classified me as a Neo-Catholic.

* * * * *

[to a friend] I don't allow radical Catholic reactionaries on my FB page (which is why it has a consistently congenial atmosphere), so such "interaction" would have to occur on others' pages. You can argue with these guys. I don't waste my time with unserious thinkers.

That's my policy on Facebook [to block]! I'm more lenient on my blog, but they have to make an actual argument, not just insult or troll . . .

Shooting the messenger and name-calling again? Must be a "neo-Catholic" thing.

Is that supposed to be a rational "argument" Binks? I merely pointed out an inaccuracy and made an observation about how Kooky Terms often derive from folks with Kooky Ideas.  [referring to Matatics and the paper above; he now believes there are no valid Masses anywhere]

Mr. Armstrong: me no brain good, but I do note that the people doing the most name-calling, online yelling, job-threatening, and refusing any "rational argument" about the irregularities of your current Pope 

I haven't yet found any; wrote a book about it . . . 

are also the people who are still spending time hating on Hilary [White]. 

I don't hate anyone. Disagreeing with a false position that one has is not the same as hate, unless one presupposes a silly subjectivist secularism, where no one can disagree with anything, because all is relative; therefore, to do so is, ipso facto, to be intolerant and "hateful." Don't fall into that. It's not a Christian outlook. I don't hate you, either (since you are included in the category of "anyone").

Of course, if we correct someone who is manifestly in error, that is the opposite of hate; it's an act of love, because all lies are of the devil; therefore, we have led the person to a much better place with regard to the false thing he or she used to believe, before being corrected in love.

As I've said . . . via FaceBook in light of this recent episode, I genuinely believe this reveals a failure of Christian charity, Catholic inclusiveness (the real kind), and open-heartedness. 

I agree. To classify orthodox Catholics who disbelieve nothing that the magisterium teaches, as liberals, modernists, Neo-Catholics is the height of uncharity and divisiveness. I just had this happen to me a few days ago. Challenged to come up with something, anything that I supposedly believed, against the Church, my critic could not come up with one thing, and instead resorted to insult, saying all I cared about was filthy lucre.

Oh, and that old Book, too: "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden." . . . where, exactly, is it written (say, in the NT, or Gregory The Great, Liber regulae pastoralis) that the best way to confront, convince, or convert erring people is by name-calling, hounding, and suchlike? In this, are you following Francis' snarky and unfatherly example.

Equally, for you, Dave, where can you show me that your policy "I don't waste my time with unserious thinkers" is Biblical, Patristic, or pastoral? I can't find Jesus saying that anywhere, as he preached and taught. (1) You only talk to people who think and talk like you? (2) Or, is it that people who don't think and talk like you are "unserious" and unworthy of your rational arguments?  

You haven't read your Bible very closely, I'm afraid, if you don't know these rather elementary things. That's okay; we all are learning all the time. But after reading what I will give you, below, you will then be responsible for knowing it. Glad to oblige with nine relevant Bible passages:

A) 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 (RSV, as are all) I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; [10] not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. [11] But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber -- not even to eat with such a one. [12] For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? [13] God judges those outside. "Drive out the wicked person from among you."

B) Romans 16:17-18 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. [18] For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded.

C) 1 Timothy 6:3-5, 20 If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, [4] he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, [5] and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. . . . [20] O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge,

D) 2 Timothy 2:14-17 Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. [15] Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. [16] Avoid such godless chatter, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, [17] and their talk will eat its way like gangrene. Among them are Hymenae'us and Phile'tus,

E) 2 Timothy 3:2-9 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, [3] inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, [4] treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, [5] holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people. [6] For among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses, [7] who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth. [8] As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith; [9] but they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.

F) Titus 3:9-11 But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile. [10] As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, [11] knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

G) Matthew 7:6 Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you.

H) Matthew 18:15-17 If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. [16] But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. [17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

I) Lastly, Paul recommends community shunning for the purpose of repentance and restoration:

1 Corinthians 5:3-5 For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment [4] in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, [5] you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Later, Paul relaxed the temporal punishment for this particular person and urged that the man be welcomed back into fellowship (which is the equivalent of an indulgence, and the Church's practice of excommunication is based on this and other related passages):

2 Corinthians 2:6-11 For such a one this punishment by the majority is enough; [7] so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. [8] So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. [9] For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. [10] Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, [11] to keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us; for we are not ignorant of his designs.

Is that enough Scripture for you, or do you wish to fight against inspired Holy Scripture as well as against Pope Francis and apologists like myself, and those who have a deep concern for Christian unity and truth, and so necessarily have to oppose those who clearly don't, since they wish to name-call and be divisive? St. Paul roundly condemned that; so do we. Jesus and Paul recommended separating in extreme cases, so do we.

I follow them, and the Church, not the (secularized) false traditions of men, such as those you are currently spouting.
 


(3) Or is it only "radtrads" (i.e., your brothers and sisters in Christ, Roman Catholics who don't think and talk like you)? This is all puzzling, sad, and does no credit to the church you say you love and belong to (and to which I ponder conversion). There you are, and there you go.

I don't use the term radtrads. I coined radical Catholic reactionaries precisely in order to separate these more radical Catholics from legitimate "traditionalists": with whom I have much in common.

Note that the word "Catholic" was specifically included in that so as to avoid the silly insinuation that you make: that I think such folks aren't Catholics.


Wow. Very winsome and inviting and humble, that. So: I'm silly. Plus Biblically ignorant... also, fighting against the Pope and you, and I spout secularized false traditions of men, and silly insinuations. No doubt I also foment coprophagia, too. "I wrote a book about Francis, so who ya gonna trust, me or your lying eyes"? Seriously: I don't know what your books may be like, but your poor online manners and seeming presumptuousness really leave something to be desired, dude. Don't bother responding-- I'll just keep chatting with those of my RC friends and clergy who don't see fit to be so combative, bilious, unpleasant, and puffed up. With welcomers like you at the door of the Church....

I figured you wouldn't deal with the relevant Scripture. Par for the course. Others can read and figure out what's going on here and what the Bible says about such issues.

So, in warring against what you wrongly characterize as hatred, and extolling the advantages and rightness of charity, you employ all the following insults against me:
1) Very winsome (sarcastic use)
2) inviting (sarcastic use)
3) humble (sarcastic use)
4) poor online manners
5) seeming presumptuousness
6) combative
7) bilious
8) unpleasant
9) puffed up
10) With welcomers like you at the door of the Church.... (sarcastic use)
Superb display of hypocrisy! Thanks for the classic, textbook example . . .

Unless this was a deliberate joke: a humorous caricature of a person being a hypocrite . . . That is a distinct possibility.
 
* * * * *