|
Posted by Art
Sippo (artsippo) on February 11, 2002
at 13:24:08:
In Reply to: Dr. White
responds to his sister and Steve Ray
posted by Frank Ramirez
(Pope St Pe on February 09, 2002 at:
Dear James,
I have had the pleasure of
corresponding with your sister over the last 2 years and have
welcomed her as my own sister in the Lord.
She is an intelligent, sensitive, and articulate woman who
shows not a hint of the emotionalism or lack of reasoning
faculties of which you accuse her. In fact she and I share one
gift from God that surprised me when she first told me about
it: a deep and profound sense of God's special presence in the
reserved Eucharist in the tabernacle.
Many of us in the Catholic apologetic community knew of her
conversion, but out of respect for her wishes, we did not
publicize it. Out of respect for you and your family, James,
she had asked that her identity be kept secret. She did not
want you in particular to be humilitated in public. In
speaking with her, though, it became apparent that she was no
ordinary convert.
Patty is quite articulate and her witness to Christ shines
through the things she writes. Your family is blessed with a
surfeit of literary talent, James. Many of us encouraged her
to write about the faith and what it means to her. She chose
to tell her conversion story as a help to others. She now
assists new converts in coming into the Catholic Church. She
has a sweet and loving personality which makes her an ideal
travelling companion for other pilgrims "on the way."
In the process of doing so, she ran afoul of you. Unlike
Patty, you are not bound by scruples, mercy, or respect for
the dignity of others. Many people such as myself have been
victimized by your arrogance, condescension, and cruelty. You
do not care whom you insult or embarrass. This is one sign to
a true follower of Jesus of your real status, James. Our Lord
and Savior told us that the world would know we were his
disciples by the love we would have for one another (John
13:35). He did not say that we would be known by following the
opinion of some apostate theologians as if they were the
"truth."
Patty is a child of her Father in Heaven and a sibling to
Christ in a way that I believe you are not. I can see the
piety in her and the conversion of heart. She is a kindred
spirit to us Catholics who is obviously moved by the Gospel of
God's love for men. From you, all we have ever gotten is
insults and lies. Nolo contendere.
Your fear of "emotionalism" is really, I believe, a fear of
the Gospel itself, for it is "foolishness to the Greeks and a
stumbling block to the Jews." You want "truth" based on
schoalrship and so you affect phony degrees to make your
opinions more plausible. This is a Theological Pelagianism
which is typical for Protestants. You deny that "good works"
can in any way assist one to gain access to heaven, but you
think that "good studies" can earn one access to absolute
religious truth. You strain at a gnat but swallow a camel.
In your harping on the notion of "truth" as the ground of
the Christian religion, you betray your elitist and gnostic
prejudices. St. Paul replies best to your error:
1Cr 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who
are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power
of God.
1Cr 1:19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the
wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart."
1Cr 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is
the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom
of the world?
1Cr 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not
know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of
what we preach to save those who believe.
1Cr 1:22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
1Cr 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to
Jews and folly to Gentiles,
1Cr 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks,
Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
1Cr 1:25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the
weakness of God is stronger than men.
1Cr 1:26 For consider your call, brethren; not many of you
were wise according to worldly standards, not many were
powerful, not many were of noble birth;
1Cr 1:27 but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame
the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the
strong,
1Cr 1:28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even
things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are,
1Cr 1:29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of
God.
1Cr 1:30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom
God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and
redemption;
1Cr 1:31 therefore, as it is written, "Let him who boasts,
boast of the Lord."
1Cr 12:1 Now concerning spiritual [gifts], brethren, I
would not have you ignorant...
1Cr 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet I will
show you a more excellent way.
1Cr 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but
have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
1Cr 13:2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all
mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to
remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
1Cr 13:3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body
to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
1Cr 13:4 Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or
boastful;
1Cr 13:5 it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on
its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;
1Cr 13:6 it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the
right.
1Cr 13:7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all
things, endures all things.
1Cr 13:8 Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass
away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it
will pass away.
1Cr 13:9 For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is
imperfect;
1Cr 13:10 but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass
away.
1Cr 13:11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought
like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I
gave up childish ways.
1Cr 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to
face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even
as I have been fully understood.
1Cr 13:13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the
greatest of these is love."
St.Paul exalted love above faith and in fact taught that a man
with faith who lacked love was "nothing." It was precisely a
faith "unformed by charity" which was what the Protestant
deformers -- especially Luther -- meant by their heresy of
Faith Alone. In doing so they ran afoul of St, James 2:24, but
more importantly, they also contradicted St. Paul:
Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another;
for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
Rom 13:9 The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You
shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and
any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, "You
shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Rom 13:10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is
the fulfilling of the law.
You play the typical Protestant game of equivocating on the
word of God when it suits your systematic theological
prejudices, for your allegiance to the Bible is a sham. What
you really seek are out-of-context proof texts for heretical
and unbiblical notions.
On the other hand, we Catholics take what Our Lord and
Savior said seriously. With regard to the Real Presence of
Christ in the Eucharist, we follow the teaching of Jesus, not
the skepticism of apostate men from 15 Centuries later:
Jhn 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has
eternal life.
Jhn 6:48 I am the bread of life.
Jhn 6:49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and
they died.
Jhn 6:50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that
a man may eat of it and not die.
Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if
any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the
bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my
flesh."
Jhn 6:52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How
can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
Jhn 6:53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you,
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you;
Jhn 6:54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal
life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink
indeed.
Jhn 6:56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in
me, and I in him.
Jhn 6:57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of
the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
Jhn 6:58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not
such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will
live for ever."
Furthermore, in doing so we share the faith of the early
Church:
St. Ignatius of Antioch, EPISTLE TO THE SMYRAEANS (@107 AD)
Chapter 7: "They [i.e., heretics] abstain from the
Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the
Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which
suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness,
raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift
of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it
were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also
might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should
keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either
in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and
above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has
been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully
proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils."
This is one of the earliest statements of the Church Fathers
on this matter but it sums up Catholic belief rather succintly.
It is only one in a line of thousands of similar testimonies
written by Historic (i.e., Catholic and Orthodox) Christians
from the 1st Centruy onwards. It clearly opposes virtually
everything that you stand for, James. Your man-made religion
-- descended as it is from a mixture of 16th Century apostasy
and skepticism -- presents a dissenting voice that has no
foundation in either Scripture or Tradition. When you deny the
Real Presence and the sacrifical nature of the Eucharist, you
do so by DENYING the faith of the early Church, not
"reforming" it.
The Calvinoid 'god' you worship capriciously created some
men to be eternally (and irrevocably) damned and other men to
be undeservedly "saved" for no greater purpose than his own
self aggrandisement. He is a selfish monster lacking in any
love or concern for the plight of men. You and your
co-religionists worship him not because of his goodness or
moral authority, but because of his sovereign power.
Basically, your 'god' is the biggest bully on the block and
you want to be on his side so you can cheer him on while he
picks on others who are helpless to be anything other than
what he allows them to be. This is the portrait of an abusive
and sadistic pagan demiurge, not the God and Father of Our
Lord Jesus Christ. Your advocacy of this horrible religion
helps to explain the way you treat people.
I have debated the issues with you many times, James, and I
fear that it is you who have failed to respond convincingly on
contested matters of faith. You seem to think that merely
stating your personal opinion while misrepresenting the views
of your opponents (and abusing them) is sufficient refutation.
It is not.
I have refuted your errors using the Scriptures alone in
the past as other Catholic apologists have. Yet you continue
to perpetuate lies such as the claim that the Church of teh
Council of Nicea did not believe in baptismal regeneration,
the Real SUBSTANTIAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic
species, the Sacrifical nature of the Mass, purgation after
death, the imposition (and pardon) of penances for
post-baptismal sin, the Spiritual Motherhood of Mary, or Papal
Primacy. Indeed, the terminology of later ages was not present
in the 4th Century, but the concepts were in nascent form.
Meanwhile what is conspicuously ABSENT is any notion of Sola
Fide, Sola Scriptura, double predestination, total depravity,
or other distinctive Protestant errors. Frankly, you know
this, but you have tried to misrepresent the facts in order to
present a false picture of Christian history that is more to
your liking.
You compound your dishonesty by pretending to have earned
graduate degrees when in fact you have no such degrees from
any accredited institution of higher learning. Frankly, you
have not done the work that earns you the right to use any
academic title. But as Oscar Wilde put it, "Hypocrisy is the
compliment that vice pays to virtue." You want a legitimacy
for your views that you think an ersatz doctorate will give
you.
Those of us who have graduate degrees know how hard you
have to work to earn them and how broad your knowledge base
must be. The nonsense you proclaim to be "truth" would not be
tolerated in any institution of higher learning where graduate
students are expected to know their chosen field.
Frankly, your published work is amateurish, selective, and
-- in places -- deliberately deceptive. Unfortunately, it is
presented in a style that can lead simple people astray. For
this reason it is necessary to refute your lies with extensive
documentation. This is not an easy task and takes quite a bit
of exposition.
For this reason protecting people from your erros is a full
time job and it takes the strength and faith of the Catholic
Community to do so. No man is an island, James, and neither
faith nor the faithful are ever alone. As the Niceo-Constantinopolitan
Creed begins, "WE believe" as a unitied worldwide Church and
as a single family. As a Catholic, I do not profess my own
opinion. I profess the faith of the Church along with my
brothers and sisters in Christ.
Refuting your errors is a necessary apostolate because of
the souls you are leading astray and making them more distant
from Christ. The ancient Church has preserved its faith and
subsists in the Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church. The
several thousand Protestant splinter groups that have arisen
over the last 490 years represent a continuum of degeneration
and pandemonium all in opposition not only to the witness of
the contemporary Catholic Church, but also to the faith "which
was delivered unto the saints."
It very sad that after you are abusive to those folks who
have the temerity to disagree with you, you are then surprised
and hurt that they do not like or respect you. The merely
formal nature of "righteousness" in your religion makes it
impossible for you to have any meaningful or constructive
introspection. You are already "saved" and so you have no need
of personal repentence or reform. For you, being a Protestant
means never having to say you are sorry.
Well, I think I speak for all Catholic apologists when I
say that I am sorry for any unjust or inappropriate words I
have ever said to you. It is not our intention to offend, but
it is our intention to tell the truth in love. I have said
some harsh things to you in the past in order to convict you
of your sins and errors. I do not repent of telling you the
truth. I do repent of any unjust offense I may have caused you
in trying to do so. You are very easy to dislike James, but
for Christ's sake I love you as an errant brother. I ask your
pardon for any such offenses and sincerely continue to pray
for your conversion.
I call on you once again to reflect on what has happened
between you and people of other faiths. Can you honestly say
that you have always acted kindly towards them? If you cannot,
then I abjure you in Christ's name to repent of your behavior
and seek forgiveness from those you have hurt.
Patty has found her way home to us, James. As I have told
you on numerous occasions, you too are called to repent and
believe the Gospel as well. Faith in Luther and Calvin cannot
save you. You must have faith in Christ and in the Church HE
founded, not the parodies that trace their origins to the
opinions of mere men. The time is getting short. You must
decide. Please come home. We are waiting for you.
Art Sippo MD, MPH
Below we produce the material provided by Gregory Krehbiel
after he deleted this thread from his board. Only the
first page of posts was saved: all my replies were deleted and
lost. Mark Shea's posting name is "chezami." His
starting subject title was "It makes my flesh creep."
|
Greg's
Discussion Board > God
talk >
It makes my flesh creep |
|
Page 1 2 3
|
<<
Prev Topic | Next
Topic >> |
| Subject |
Author |
| It makes my flesh creep |
chezami
|
I am not, I hope, the only one
who thinks that James White is redefining pathology and
bad taste with this weird, cold screed against his own
sister, calling her "Mrs. Bonds" and, alternating
between boasts about his debating prowess and his
various stuff on sale, while throwing in everything but
a claim that she needs to be sedated in order to "win"
yet another "debate".
The truly pathetic thing
here is that I am perfectly confident James feels he
has, once again, triumphed and that he has no idea how
unutterably creepy and appalling the essay makes him
look. There's a disturbing quality of psychological
disintegration about it that invites both pity (for a
man so invested in his ego that he is compelled to call
his own sister "Mrs. Bonds") and revulsion (for a man so
invested in his ego that he is compelled to call his own
sister "Mrs. Bonds").
The only thing more
pathetic is that, in my experience, I know of no devotee
or acolyte of James who is willing to challenge the
growing menace to his psychological and spiritual
well-being that is now being made evident by such
behavior. Defences to the death of his "integrity"
("Why, he hates even his sister, just as Lord said to
do!")? You bet. There will be tons of this stuff from
his fans and co-combatants. Anything rather than admit
that there's a real problem here. Why, an *argument*
could be lost if it's admitted there's a problem. But a
serious effort of taking James to the side and saying,
"This is waaaay over the top". I highly doubt it. And
it's a pity since *only* James' friends can do this. The
man will not, of course, listen to his traditional
critics.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope *somebody* has
the integrity to dare to suggest to the Great Man that
he is way out of line and acting pitiably and
appallingly. But I doubt it. And that, in the final
analysis, is what I think is going to doom the sort of
"ministries" that James typifies. There's remarkably
little room for self-policing when you see yourself as a
tiny elite engaged in a battle against
Evil.
Mark
|
Registered User 2/12/02
10:49:23 am 63.36.217.239 Reply
| Edit
| Del
All |
| Let's have some perspective here |
Jon
Curry |
I think when you think about the
situation a little more, White's attitude is quite
reasonable. Think about this Mark, and let me know if
you think what I'm about to say is way off. I'm curious
if you recognize some things about RC apologists and
James White. RC apologists live and breathe James White.
It is all many of them think about. Seriously. I've had
many conversations with RC apologists, and I have such
difficulty getting them to even interact with me. All
they can think about is James White. They say in
response to my argument "Here is something that I sent
to James what that he NEVER RESPONDED TO" or "James
White disagrees with you on this point." Many times I've
had to simply say, look, I just checked my letterhead,
and my name is not James White. Why don't you respond to
me?
So James White is a man that is always
between the crosshairs of every RC apologist. And here
is another fact. Many of these apologists (and I would
say the vast majority) spend WAY too much time
criticizing James White the man, rather than the
arguments. I've been criticized personally only a few
times, and it of course ticks me off pretty badly. James
White gets this EVERY DAY. So even if it were the case
that he responded poorly, he certainly should be granted
some grace. Mark, your own work is some of the worst in
terms of the personal attacks. All one need do is look
at your own opening statement here. I don't even need to
list the words. How many times did you use the word
"pathetic" anyway?
So now these very RC
apologists that spend way too much time ignoring
arguments and criticizing White personally are going to
continue with the fallacious reasoning by using his own
sister as if this was in any way relevant to the
Protestant/RC discussion. This would be infuriating to
me.
Now that RC's are using White's sister in
this way, White thinks it is important to emphasize that
they are not close, that she refuses to even discuss the
issues with him, and that she is in no way informed
about the issues. One way to convey this is to refer to
her as "Mrs. Bonds." Now, I happen to have a great
relationship with all six of my siblings. If any of them
were to convert I would still refer to them by their
first name. But the fact is, White is not and has not
been close to his sister for some time. I'm sure this is
not the way he would like it to be. I'm sure he would
love to be close to her. But it would be wrong to speak
of her as if they were close when in fact they are not.
White probably thinks that referring to her in that way
would give that false impression. This is his business.
I might go ahead and refer to my sister by her first
name even if I weren't close to her, but if I didn't I
don't think it would be unreasonable, nor would it
"redefine pathology."
You know, even on this
discussion board I've found myself defending James White
a lot. It's not that he is my hero. I think he's great,
but I'm certainly not an "acolyte." But I just get so
sick of seeing people go after him with such
irrelevancies. Do you have a substantive criticism? I'm
sure you do. Post it and let's have a productive
discussion. Why don't we all just assume that
Protestants are all "desperate, pathological, angry,
anti-Catholics"? We'll just assume it and you can leave
it unstated. Because even if I'm anti-Catholic, angry,
and weird, this doesn't make me wrong. Even if my sister
converted I'm not wrong. Let's assume that the only
reason I'm a Christian is because I need a father
figure, and I'm prejudiced because of my upbringing, and
I'd probably be a Hindu if I was born in India. I have a
pro-supernatural bias, etc, etc, etc. I'll grant all of
that. What would that have to do with whether my
arguments were sound or not?
|
Registered User 2/12/02
12:08:20 pm 205.175.225.5 Reply
| Edit
| Del
|
| And your screed does the same to mines
... |
Romans45
|
Quote:
I am not, I hope, the only one who thinks that
James White is redefining pathology and bad taste with
this weird, cold screed against his own sister,
calling her "Mrs. Bonds" and, alternating between
boasts about his debating prowess and his various
stuff on sale, while throwing in everything but a
claim that she needs to be sedated in order to "win"
yet another "debate".
I know you are
not the only one, but I don’t agree with you or your
present screed against what you call a screed. As far as
you comments about stuff on sale and debates you know
this is typical when apologists are writing articles.
The often reference previous articles or debates so that
the readers can get more information on a point they are
trying to make.
Quote:
The truly pathetic thing here is that I am
perfectly confident James feels he has, once again,
triumphed and that he has no idea how unutterably
creepy and appalling the essay makes him look.
There is nothing
in the article that comes close to Catholics talking
about getting information on other family members of
Protestant apologist? Where is your outcry? Would Patty
Bonds even be known if it was not for the fact that
James White is her brother? What is so unique or
interesting about her story that she gets to have
personal meetings with Steve Ray, personal
correspondence with Scott Hahn and family, appear on
EWTN, and I’m sure others that I have not heard of? Is
it just because James White is her brother? This seems
to contradict the NT teaching on favoritism don’t ya
think?
Quote:
There's a disturbing quality of psychological
disintegration about it that invites both pity (for a
man so invested in his ego that he is compelled to
call his own sister "Mrs. Bonds"
and revulsion (for a man so invested in his ego that
he is compelled to call his own sister "Mrs. Bonds"
.
So is your
complaint primarily over the fact that he called his
sister “Mrs. Bonds”? And based on that you make all
those psychoanalysis about Dr. White’s ego and
intent?
Quote:
The only thing more pathetic is that, in my
experience, I know of no devotee or acolyte of James
who is willing to challenge the growing menace to his
psychological and spiritual well-being that is now
being made evident by such behavior.
You are doing
nothing but pontificating and grandstanding. Please
provide some substance to your charges if you want
anyone to take you serious. I sense that you have an axe
to grind.
Quote:
Defences to the death of his "integrity" ("Why,
he hates even his sister, just as Lord said to do!"
?
Where does he
say he hates his sister? Dr. White makes the following
comment:
So it seems
to me that you use a thoroughly worldly definition of
love and hatred: the Bible tells us that we are to love
God supremely. That means true spirituality does not
compromise on His truth, His glory, His holiness, His
revelation in His Word. It takes precedence over all
human relationships, including familial ones. And when a
member of one’s family engages in behavior that is
directly condemned in Scripture (in this case, open and
knowing apostasy) one is faced with a choice: honor God,
or compromise and place relationship before one’s
service to Christ. The early Christians knew this
situation well. And you condemn me as hateful for
following the biblical path. What does that tell you,
Mr. Ray?
Do you
disagree with his statements? If so show where is
biblical out of line, otherwise you are just whistling
into the wind with your rhetoric about hate.
Quote:
You bet. There will be tons of this stuff from
his fans and co-combatants. Anything rather than admit
that there's a real problem here.
Nice. Silence
the other side before they speak so when they speak you
can triumphantly say, “I told you so.”, right?
Quote:
Why, an *argument* could be lost if it's admitted
there's a problem. But a serious effort of taking
James to the side and saying, "This is waaaay over the
top". I highly doubt it. And it's a pity since *only*
James' friends can do this. The man will not, of
course, listen to his traditional critics.
Mr Shea you have
not prove a thing. All you are doing is giving you
extremely biased opinion and you want everyone to accept
it as if it the unbiased Gospel truth.
Quote:
I hope I'm wrong. I hope *somebody* has the
integrity to dare to suggest to the Great Man that he
is way out of line and acting pitiably and
appallingly.
Actually, I hope
you would heed your own suggestion. Furthermore, you
should correct you cohorts who were plotting about
getting information on the family members of others.
Finally, you should probably make sure apologetic is
based on something else besides your dislike for Dr.
White.
Quote:
But I doubt it. And that, in the final analysis,
is what I think is going to doom the sort of
"ministries" that James typifies. There's remarkably
little room for self-policing when you see yourself as
a tiny elite engaged in a battle against Evil.
Someone used a
phrase that comes to mind about your entire post,
“purple flourish”.
Romans45
------------------------------------
(Ambrosiaster
366-384 on Romans 4:5) : How then can the Jews
think that they have been justified by the works of the
law in the same way as Abraham, when they see that
Abraham was not justified by the works of the law but by
faith alone? Therefore there is no need of the law
when the ungodly is justified before God by faith
alone.
|
Registered User 2/12/02
12:12:36 pm 199.250.207.9 Reply
| Edit
| Del
|
| It's unfortunate that anybody is using this
woman... |
moronikos
|
to further their agenda.
I
might deem it poor taste, but I don't see the point of
another James White thread. I've seen base motives
imputed to him and noble motives imputed to him. Neither
of these is appropriate since we can't read his
mind--and I don't want to. We should leave it alone.
|
Registered User 2/12/02
12:22:38 pm 208.145.197.6 Reply
| Edit
| Del
|
| This is the one point I'm inclined to agree
with |
chezami
|
The other posts above are just
excuse-making for James grotesque essay.
Apropos
your point, I don't know the woman from Eve, and am not
familiar with her history. My impression, however, is
that she has not been Catholic very long and I think she
should be given her anonymity, not used as a counter in
some game against James. My urging to Catholics would be
to resist mightily the temptation to turn her into some
sort of exhibit.
However, none of this seems to
me to really mitigate James' atrocious behavior here. I
should not be terribly surprised if, when I called my
brother "Mr. Shea", my brother got the distinct
impression that my "Christian love" for him was simply a
grotesque self-delusion. The fact that James' devotees
and acolytes cannot bring themselves to squarely face
that and tell James so is, as I say, the death knell for
any serious self-criticism or internal policing in that
rarified sector of Christian world. Among their own,
folks like James have de facto powers of infallibility
and even impeccability that the Pope can only dream
of.
Well, gotta get back to publicly screaming
for Cardinal Law to resign in my impregnable Fortress
Church that brooks no room for ordinary people to
criticize their leaders.
Mark
Edited by: chezami
at: 2/12/02 12:48:45 pm
|
Registered User 2/12/02
12:40:57 pm 63.36.217.239 Reply
| Edit
| Del
|
| George Stephanapoulous call your
office |
chezami
|
I'm sorry, but this whole
apologia for James' revolting treatment of his own
sister reminds me of the sort of stuff from the Clinton
White House. "Don't talk about his personal behavior.
The only thing that matters is his ideas."
FWIW,
I've had one go-around with James on
bit.listserv.catholic in March 1997 (if you are a real
glutton for punishment, you can still find the whole
exchange on Google). I'm aware of his ideas. It was the
same old presuppositional schtick. How, apart from
Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Church, do you
know what Scripture is?
Two weeks of dancing,
followed by the basic "It's a presuppositional thing and
you wouldn't understand" line. As I pointed out here
yesterday, I think this is lame. So I've dealt with
James' "ideas".
I quite agree that there are
Catholic apologists who seem to live and breathe for
arguments with James. I think this is a foolish waste of
time and is, much as it is with James, a way of doing
therapy on some sort of imperiled sense of manhood. I
wish they would stop. Those rare occasions when I have
discussed James or his "ideas" publicly have been to my
mind, threefold. First, when he decided to come after me
on bit.listserv.catholic. Second, when he came up in a
conversation with Tim Enloe back on Steve Ray's board a
year or so ago and I gave my honest opinion of what sort
of person I take James to be and third, today, when I
was appalled and disgusted by his egocentric and cold
treatment of his own sister.
If you go to my
website, you will find that I have no essays on James,
no "challenges", no essays, rebuttals, articles about
and basically no interest in James. And the collection
in "Sheavings" is, believe me, a very thorough
representation of my past work. It's true that Tim has
formed the notion (no doubt caused by his tendency to
roll me into the Catholic Apologist Borg Collective)
that I am constantly attacking James. But the reality is
I seldom interact with him--and for a very simple
reason: I frankly dislike James as much as he dislikes
me and I think that too much exposure to each other is
probably bad for our souls.
Defensive whines
about how much criticism he gets are just that:
defensive whines. In this case, the simple fact is the
criticism is just and those who love him and can speak
to him (as distinct from those idolize and do not dare
criticize the Great Man) should do their Christian duty
and, for his sake, rebuke his egregious treatment of his
sister. Since he will certainly not listen to me or any
other Catholic, it is up to those who claim to care
about him to shoulder the burden. You can make excuses
for him all day, but the reality is that he's wronged
his sister and made a public spectacle of himself in the
process.
Mark
|
Registered User 2/12/02
1:13:17 pm 63.36.217.239 Reply
| Edit
| Del
|
| Does this "make your flesh creep" as
well? |
Cyclonus2185
|
| Is it "Christian love" to attack
your opponents via their family members? I'm curious if
you are as outraged by the alleged interested in
investigating the family members of Eric Svendsen and
William Webster (in addition to James White) in order to
attack them as you are about the use of "Mrs. Bonds"
instead of Pat?
|
Registered User 2/12/02
1:34:40 pm 209.98.50.161 Reply
| Edit
| Del
|
| Since you questioned |
Cyclonus2185
|
"How, apart from Sacred Tradition
and the authority of the Church, do you know what
Scripture is?" I thought I would ask: 1.) How,
apart from the authority of the Church do you know what
Sacred Tradition is? and 2.) How, apart from the
authority of the Scriptures do you know that the Church
is authoritative?
|
Registered User 2/12/02
1:39:15 pm 209.98.50.161 Reply
| Edit
| Del
|
| How would they have known that the Church is
authoritative? |
The
Squalid Wanderer |
| Before the writing of the New
Testament? I suppose they believed the Apostles.
|
Registered User 2/12/02
1:41:34 pm 64.157.124.119 Reply
| Edit
| Del
|
| O.K. let me rephrase... |
Cyclonus2185
|
| How do
YOU
know that the Church is authoritative apart from the
Scriptures?
Edited by: Cyclonus2185
at: 2/12/02 1:48:37 pm
|
Registered User 2/12/02
1:45:06 pm 209.98.50.161 Reply
| Edit
| Del
|
| Excuses, excuses |
chezami
|
Contrarian that I am, I've told
Steve Ray's board my problems
with thrusting a new convert into the limelight. I am
indeed wary of it and agree with Moronikos that
Catholics should be wary of the temptation to "use"
Patty Bonds. Why?
Pretty much from watching the
example of people who (as you do in this protracted bit
of tergiversation) attempt overlook the debilitating
effects of complete lack of accountability and to say
"Our guy is never wrong, can't be wrong, and if you say
he is then you must be opposed at all costs".
Is
it *really* so hard to simply face the fact that James'
inexcusable screed against his sister displays James'
pathologies at their ugliest and least justifiable? Is
it really so hard to contemplate finding *any* fault
with the Great Man or challenging that? Fortress
Catholics on the Catholic Convert might well be ticked
at me for rocking the boat of "Yay! Patty Bonds is
ours!" Too bad. It needs to be said anyway. But is there
*anybody* in James sphere who can say, "James, your
weird, cold, self-serving and creepy essay against your
sister was out of line?" So far, I see no evidence of
that.
Is there nobody close to him who can hold
him accountable for his actions? Is it really as bad as
that?
Mark
|
Registered User 2/12/02
1:45:08 pm 63.36.217.239 Reply
| Edit
| Del
|
| More pathological excuse making |
chezami
|
Is it "Christian love" to attack
your opponents via their family members?
With
the exception of Art Sippo's letter (which I thought was
out of line) I've seen nobody "attacking James". I've
seen various people support Patty Bonds (from what
little I know, I've not been involved in any
conversations with her and only knew vaguely that James'
sister had converted).
:I'm curious if you are as
outraged by the alleged interested in investigating the
family members of Eric Svendsen and William Webster (in
addition to James White) in order to attack them as you
are about the use of "Mrs. Bonds" instead of
Pat?
I've heard nothing to this effect. If you
have some documentation that somebody out there is
"investigating family members of Svendsen or webster in
order to attack them" I'd appreciate seeing it.
Obviously, that would be wrong. But in White's case,
I've seen little evidence of that. Only an unseemly
interest in focusing the light of public attention on
her conversion (which I dislike).
Now, returning
from vague and unsubstaniated charged calculated to
divert attention from the subject, I ask you: do *you*
have the testicular fortitude to challenge the Great Man
on his atrocious behavior to his sister or does he
indeed pretty much live in the vacuum of moral
responsibility that sycophants too often create for
their idols?
Mark
|
Registered User 2/12/02
1:53:43 pm 63.36.217.239 Reply
| Edit
| Del
|
| Re: More pathological excuse making
|
Cyclonus2185
|
From the post on James White's
website that you have been refering to:
Quote:
I note in the following e-mail the personal attacks
and insults that were posted at me: but what is not
mentioned in the e-mail was the discussion of how they
might be able to contact other family members of other
leading apologists. Eric Svendsen's name was
mentioned, and his wife in particular; I believe Bill
Webster was mentioned as well.
Now, of course,
it could be argued that the interest in their family
members wasn't to use them against Svendsen and Webster,
but to compliment them on the successful ministries of
both, but I doubt it. Nonetheless, I said alleged in my
post. I do not know for sure if this is true. My
question was more of a hypothetical to you.
To
answer your question: If James White refered to his
sister directly (i.e. in a face-to-face, telephone, or
email conversation) as Mrs. Bonds, I would say that he
would be wrong in doing so, but to refer to her in a
webpage for mass viewing, whose point is to explain that
her proximity to him has no relevance to the truth of
his arguments, as Mrs. Bonds is not "pathological"
although I probably would not do it.
|
Registered User 2/12/02
2:07:00 pm 209.98.50.161 Reply
| Edit
| Del
|
| Not "know": believe |
chezami
|
The Church is, recall, an article
of faith: "We *believe* in one, holy, catholic, and
apostolic Church"
Just as no other article of
supernatural revelation can be proven from reason, so
this can't be. However, all arguments against it can be
rebutted.
If you want the full story, my best
suggestion (since I haven't got round to publishing it
yet) is to get the story of my conversion ("How I Got
this Way") in the _Making Senses Out of Scripture_ set
of tapes I made for St. Joseph Communications.
I
don't have time to go into it all here, but the basic
story is not that this thing or that thing points me to
the Church, but that virtually everything
does.
"AHA! So *you* make the judgment about the
Church being authoritative! HA! Private judgment!
Triumph!"
Yes. Quite. I do make that judgement.
As John Paul himself says, the task of the Church is to
propose the faith in its integrity. The task of the
human person is to make a judgement about the truth of
that Faith. I (who else is going to do it for me?) judge
the Faith to be that which Christ handed to the
apostles. Otherwise, I would not be Catholic. When I
make that judgement I am also trusting the Church to
have the authority Christ gave it to, among other
things, know which of its books are inspired and
authoritative, based on its tradition and praxis. This
frees me from the pretzel logic of the
Presuppositionalist who has to say to somebody who want
to know why certain books are inspired, "Shut up! You're
talking like Satan. I don't have to dignify your
devil-inspired question with an answer."
But
could we perhaps move this particular discussion to a
different thread and not get distracted from the subject
at hand: namely, James' atrocious essay the apparent
inability of his acolytes an devotees to muster the
gumption to challenge this or any other egregious
behavior by their Heroes.
Mark
|
Registered User 2/12/02
2:08:01 pm 63.36.217.239 Reply
| Edit
| Del
|
| I take the scriptures like I take ALL of
history FIRST |
electron1 |
How
do YOU know that the Church is authoritative apart from
the Scriptures?
I first read the
scriptures ONLY as historical books. They are NOT yet
"Scriptures". I read all other books as historical books
as well. So I take ALL writtings of the early Church
equally. From this(all of this ONLY looked at as
history) I conclude,
1. Jesus made statements
that implied his Church was infallible(I will be with
you always, I will guide you into ALL truth, Gates of
hades shall not prevail, he who hears you hears me, if
he refuses to listen even to the Church etc..)
2.
Jesus is who he claims to be(rose from the
dead)
3. The early Church ALSO clearly saw the
PHYSICAL Church as infallible(Them being so close to
Jesus, it makes my understanding of Jesus even more
probable as true) -----
From here I conclude
that this Church is infallible. Only two groups today
fit the category as infallible Churches(trace there
roots to the Apostoles) Catholic and Orthodox. Both of
these groups now point back in history and tell me that
only a certain number of the historical books are
inspired. The others are only infallible
collectively(else I would not have been able to conclude
the Church is
infallible
)
So again, how do I know the Scriptures are
inspired? The Church tells me so. How do I know the
Church is infallible? Jesus and the early Church(ONLY
seen as history) verifies this.
"My position is that atheism is false for several
reasons: It is philosophically absurd, scientifically
erroneous, morally bankrupt, socially destructive,
aesthetically impotent, and humanly degrading." --Robert
Morey in a debate with an atheist
Edited by: electron1 at: 2/12/02 4:52:15 pm
|
Registered User 2/12/02
2:08:40 pm 129.46.207.152 Reply
| Edit
| Del
|
| Re: Let's have some perspective here
|
Tim
Enloe |
Jon, all I can say to this, is
AMEN. It is obvious that the "sister of James White"
connection is only relevant because a certain faction of
ultra conservative RC epologists are eager to discredit
Dr. White in any way they can. I'm sure Mr. Shea
remembers a particular post of his to the Catholic
Message Board that I remind him of whenever he gets into
this little self-righteous mode of his--a post where he
used the most vicious, unChristian like language
imaginable against Dr. White, basically calling him
every name under the sun and making the most outlandish
accusations about his mental and emotional processes
that I have EVER seen anyone say about anyone on the
Internet. Yet this same Mr. Shea doesn't waste any
opportunities to portray himself as the very spirit of
lovingkindness and reasonable dialogue, complaining
constantly about the rhetoric of others against him.
There's a word for this sort of thing, and it begins
with "h". And no, I won't apologize for that remark or
retract it. These ultra conservative RC epologists
simply MUST be made to see the constancy with which they
substitute insults for arguments, the deep, deep
irrelevance of their shameless personal attacks on
people who don't share their views. I truly believe it's
one of those "If you can't stop the message, stop the
messenger" things.
Perspective is indeed very
much needed here. Whatever complaints one has about Dr.
White's descriptions of his sister, there is really only
one issue of apologetic importance here: By her own admissions,
Patty Bonds does not know the issues involved in RC /
Protestant disagreements, and she is only being held up
by these ultra-conservative epologists *because* she is
the sister of the Great Thorn in Their Flesh, the Evil,
Anti-Catholic Pseudo-Doctor James White. This is nothing more
than one more personal attack, and it is utterly
reprehensible for that reason.
To state it
baldly: The significance of
the conversion of Patty Bonds to Romanism is precisely
ZERO. Like most of these
converts, she was just one more ungrounded wanderer on
the sea of ecclesiastical possibilities. She did not and
does not understand the issues. One wonders how many
"ordinary", "no-name" converts suddenly find themselves
with Scott Hahn's private number, having lunch with
Steve Ray, receiving glowing letters of defense from Art
Sippo, and so on. It will be interesting to see if any
of the "big name" RC apologists choose to take the high
ground here and not even mention the affair--or perhaps
if they do, mention it only to chide their colleagues
for making useless polemic hay out of
it.
Tim
|
Registered User 2/12/02
2:10:18 pm 205.188.201.191 Reply
| Edit
| Del
|
| Re: George Stephanapoulous call your
office |
Jon
Curry |
Didn't I just ask you to assume
whatever you want about my character and leave it
unstated? Fine. I'm a Clinton apologist. Am I
wrong?
My point regarding those that focus on
White and those that bash his character was not so much
to make excuses for his behavior, but to provide
background as to why he would want to make sure that
everyone knew that he was not close to his sister. The
very people that do all of the insulting and personal
attacks are the very ones that are using his sister as a
tool to get their digs in. Their digs would be all the
more deeper if they can convince people that she became
an RC in spite of a close relationship with James White.
With this background, I think his attitude is very
reasonable, though like I said, I don't know that I
would take the same approach. Pathological? I don't
think so.
I didn't suggest that you have offered
nothing by way of interaction with White. My whole point
is it is only interaction that I am interested in. I am
less interested in the personal stuff. Except I think it
is important to point out that it is often substituted
for meaningful discussion. Especially with regards to
James White as I hope even you would agree. He's
outnumbered. And we both know that a lot of apologists
on both sides of the fence are unreasonable. What this
means is that White is the focus of a lot of
unreasonable RC apologists and hence he is the focus of
a lot of bad argumentation. This whole Mrs Bonds thing
is another example of it.
|
Registered User 2/12/02
2:13:04 pm 205.175.225.5 Reply
| Edit
| Del
|
| Re: Not "know": believe |
Cyclonus2185
|
"But could we perhaps move this
particular discussion to a different thread and not get
distracted from the subject at hand"
Absolutely.
Perhaps you could post a very short summary of your
conversion to get the ball rolling.
|
Registered User 2/12/02
2:18:31 pm 209.98.50.161 Reply
| Edit
| Del
|
| Re: More pathological excuse making
|
chezami
|
Now, of course, it could be
argued that the interest in their family members wasn't
to use them against Svendsen and Webster, but to
compliment them on the successful ministries of both,
but I doubt it. Nonetheless, I said alleged in my post.
I do not know for sure if this is true. My question was
more of a hypothetical to you.
And, of course,
the answer is no, it would be dead wrong for those guys
in the chat room to do this. That's a no-brainer. And
the reason this excuses James grotesque essay against
his sister is...?
:To answer your question: If
James White refered to his sister directly (i.e. in a
face-to-face, telephone, or email conversation) as Mrs.
Bonds, I would say that he would be wrong in doing so,
but to refer to her in a webpage for mass viewing, whose
point is to explain that her proximity to him has no
relevance to the truth of his arguments, as Mrs. Bonds
is not "pathological" although I probably would not do
it.
Yep. The man seems to have nobody around him
who will challenge a thing he does. With friends like
you, he will not need enemies, Cyclonus. Such deference
and obsequious defensiveness of his worst and most
self-destructive impulses will harm him far more than a
million emails from stupid Catholics in a chat
room.
Mark
|
Registered User 2/12/02
2:18:54 pm 63.36.217.239 Reply
| Edit
| Del
|
| Re: Let's have some perspective here
|
chezami
|
Jon, all I can say to this, is
AMEN. It is obvious that the "sister of James White"
connection is only relevant because a certain faction of
ultra conservative RC epologists are eager to discredit
Dr. White in any way they can.
Of course it
*could* also be that Catholics, being remarkable like
human beings, have mixed motives and that some of them
take an interest in Patty because she's a convert in a
particularly tough spot. But that would, of course,
humanized Catholics and not suit your argument at all.
No. It must be simply and solely that Catholics are
interested in her only to attack James.
: I'm
sure Mr. Shea remembers a particular post of his to the
Catholic Message Board that I remind him of whenever he
gets into this little self-righteous mode of his--a post
where he used the most vicious, unChristian like
language imaginable against Dr. White, basically calling
him every name under the sun and making the most
outlandish accusations about his mental and emotional
processes that I have EVER seen anyone say about anyone
on the Internet.
Boy! You must not get out on the
web much! It's true that I gave my honest assessment of
James. I said as much to Jon. I don't pretend to like
the man.
: Yet this same Mr. Shea doesn't waste
any opportunities to portray himself as the very spirit
of lovingkindness and reasonable dialogue, complaining
constantly about the rhetoric of others against him.
There's a word for this sort of thing, and it begins
with "h".
Oh brother. Tim, this reminds me of
nothing so much as those wonderful old movies with the
town biddies who say, "As a Christian woman, I won't
speak ill of others, but that awful new woman in town is
rich with a capital B!" As I said, I gave my honest
assessment of James' character in that post. I have not
spent much time interacting with or talking about James
and his acolytes and devotees since. I do, in general,
try to conduct my conversations without the ranting
hysteria that so often seems to affect you, and I know
that ticks you off. But what do you prefer? That
*everything* I write be like that long ago post about
James? At least then I wouldn't be a hypocrite, right?
:And no, I won't apologize for that remark or
retract it. These ultra conservative RC epologists
simply MUST be made to see the constancy with which they
substitute insults for
arguments,
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! As a lazy-minded,
hypocritical, etc. I will have to closely study your
rhetorical strategies in this regard. Keep that eagle
eye out for violations of the niceties, Tim.
:
the deep, deep irrelevance of their shameless personal
attacks on people who don't share their views. I truly
believe it's one of those "If you can't stop the
message, stop the messenger" things.
Tim, as I've
already pointed out, I virtually never interact with
James and I think it's dumb for Catholics to do so. He's
written vast oceans of his gaseous prose with no peep
from me. I don't think his "message" is particularly
interesting or important and I don't think it's worth
"stopping" or bothering with. I feel the same way about
Webster and Svendsen. You guys write about my work, I
don't write about yours for a simple reason: its boring
and irrelevant to the lives of everybody but a few
popinjays on the internet.
:Perspective is indeed
very much needed here. Whatever complaints one has about
Dr. White's descriptions of his sister, there is really
only one issue of apologetic importance here: By her own
admissions, Patty Bonds does not know the issues
involved in RC / Protestant disagreements, and she is
only being held up by these ultra-conservative
epologists *because* she is the sister of the Great
Thorn in Their Flesh, the Evil, Anti-Catholic
Pseudo-Doctor James White. This is nothing more than one
more personal attack, and it is utterly reprehensible
for that reason.
As I told moronikos, I quite
agree that Catholics should not be taking a new Catholic
and making a big deal of her. My one qualification on
this (since I don't know Patty Bonds and I don't know
the substance of what she's got to say) is that it's
*possible* she simply an interesting and articulate
convert. My tendency is to doubt this, but I suspend
judgement there till I've heard her speak. There is the
possibility that she shares her brother's obvious verbal
talents and is just a plain interesting guest for some
show like "Journey Home". But, as I say, I am
skeptical.
However, none of that justifies James
atrocious treatment of her. And your loud and protracted
scream of avoidance of that fact does not speak well of
you.
:To state it baldly: The significance of the
conversion of Patty Bonds to Romanism is precisely
ZERO.
Ah! Then it's even more mysterious that
James seems to think otherwise. Admittedly James can
generate ASCII by the ton with the slightest
provocation, but one does get the impression he thinks
her conversion means a bit more than zero.
One
wonders how many "ordinary", "no-name" converts suddenly
find themselves with Scott Hahn's private
number,
probably the same way I got it in 1993,
by using this cool thing called "directory assistance".
You may not know this but Scott and Kimberly have
mid-wifed a huge number of totally unknown people into
the Church.
: having lunch with Steve
Ray,
Send an email? Make a phone call? These
people do not live in Trump Tower.
: receiving
glowing letters of defense from Art Sippo,
How
many people need them? Again, email is not that hard to
use. (By the way, I dislike Art's letter.)
: and
so on. It will be interesting to see if any of the "big
name" RC apologists choose to take the high ground here
and not even mention the affair--or perhaps if they do,
mention it only to chide their colleagues for making
useless polemic hay out of it.
I've already
written a letter of concern about it to Steve's board.
Do *you*--does any of James's acolytes and
devotees--have the gumption to even *slightly* criticize
his embarrassing and creepy abuse of his sister? Has
James ever been criticized by his sycophants for
anything he's ever said or done? I'm beginning to
wonder.
Mark
|
Registered User 2/12/02
2:46:26 pm 63.36.217.239 Reply
| Edit
| Del
|
| I already did |
chezami
|
The short summary is in the post
to which you responded.
Mark
|
Registered User 2/12/02
2:48:39 pm 63.36.217.239 Reply
| Edit
| Del
|
| Page 1 2 3
|
<<
Prev Topic | Next
Topic >>
|
|
| |
|
|