Deceptive Apologetics Tactics - An Open Letter

[Randy_Carson]

The following email was sent to someone from this forum who has been emailing me privately. I think the message is beneficial to all, so I am posting it here for Catholics and Protestants to read and consider.

+++

Dear xxxxx,

You seem intent upon forcing me into YOUR understanding of Catholicism.

As I have stated several times, we simply don’t believe what you think we believe. I know it must be disappointing to have the rug pulled out from under your favorite argument for “saving Catholics”.

However, you’ve been advised of the correct teaching of the Church from the Catechism, and I’ve provided some scripture verses supporting our position (which you have not responded to). At this point, I think you need to let it go.

Moreover, now that you know that Catholics understand the sacrifice of the mass to be ONE sacrifice (which is in harmony with the verses from Hebrews you keep sending), you need to discontinue this line of questioning not only with me but with ALL Catholics you ever come into contact with.

Why? If you persist in using a straw man argument that you have been shown to be false, you are no longer “speaking the TRUTH in love.” You may have a genuine desire to get me or other Catholics “saved” out of love for us (which is great – good for you), but you are not speaking the TRUTH when you continue to press the false charge of our mass being a sacrifice offered over and over as you quote from Hebrews. The mass re-presents the one sacrifice that was done once for all. God is not bound by space or time, and He chooses to be present in our Eucharist and our liturgy. I have explained this to you more than once.

Continuing to use a straw man to confuse less knowledgeable Catholics than myself and lead them out of the Church is deceitful, deceptive and disingenuous. This is not the way a godly man acts. You can’t use ungodly tactics to lead someone to God and still hear Him say, “Well done, good and faithful servant.”

Food for thought.

 

[rr1213]

Not sure if you are looking for comments or not, but I’ve several thoughts.

I agree that to persist in an argument that you know is false is not a good Christian witness. However, likewise, attempting to “chill” disagreements in the manner suggested by your letter may not always be good either. For example, you cannot simply say “this is what the Church teaches and if you say otherwise you are dishonest” if there are nuances to that teaching or areas of interpretation where reasonable men could disagree. There are certainly theological teachings of the Church on which, judging just by the comments I’ve seen here, Catholics themselves disagree. Moreover, even if you limit the disagreement to the topic of “what does the Church teach on this issue”, reasonable people can sometimes come to different conclusions based on different Church documents.

Finally, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Catholics should be willing to apply the same principle to their own beloved assertions…if these are shown to be urban legends themselves. For example, if it is shown that the Methodist Church actually does not teach “x” or that Luther actually didn’t do “y”, then Catholics likewise should refrain from repeatedly raising arguments or “facts” which are demonstrated not to be true.

 

[Atreyu]

Words of wisdom from rr1213 as always. Especially this:

if it is shown that… Luther actually didn’t do “y”, then Catholics likewise should refrain from repeatedly raising arguments or “facts” which are demonstrated not to be true.

I have seen this done many times.

 

[Mike_Brick]

Not sure if you are looking for comments or not, but I’ve several thoughts.

I agree that to persist in an argument that you know is false is not a good Christian witness. However, likewise, attempting to “chill” disagreements in the manner suggested by your letter may not always be good either. For example, you cannot simply say “this is what the Church teaches and if you say otherwise you are dishonest” if there are nuances to that teaching or areas of interpretation where reasonable men could disagree. There are certainly theological teachings of the Church on which, judging just by the comments I’ve seen here, Catholics themselves disagree. Moreover, even if you limit the disagreement to the topic of “what does the Church teach on this issue”, reasonable people can sometimes come to different conclusions based on different Church documents.

Finally, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Catholics should be willing to apply the same principle to their own beloved assertions…if these are shown to be urban legends themselves. For example, if it is shown that the Methodist Church actually does not teach “x” or that Luther actually didn’t do “y”, then Catholics likewise should refrain from repeatedly raising arguments or “facts” which are demonstrated not to be true.

Randy’s colleague said it very clearly in the message s/he shared with Randy, who forwarded it to us. Regardless what individual Catholics choose to believe and choose to refuse to believe of the Church’s teaching, the teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is set, and well known. Our’s is not a democracy where the local church votes on it’s doctrine, as some denominations seem to do, but being composed of sinners, you will find people in the Church who have disagreement, and that’s not new. After all it was St. Augustine who used to say about the Church, “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, diversity; and in all things charity”.

And finally, I agree completely with you, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”, (but don’t know to whom to attribute that quote).

Peace to All

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not sure if you are looking for comments or not, but I’ve several thoughts.

I agree that to persist in an argument that you know is false is not a good Christian witness. However, likewise, attempting to “chill” disagreements in the manner suggested by your letter may not always be good either. For example, you cannot simply say “this is what the Church teaches and if you say otherwise you are dishonest” if there are nuances to that teaching or areas of interpretation where reasonable men could disagree. There are certainly theological teachings of the Church on which, judging just by the comments I’ve seen here, Catholics themselves disagree. Moreover, even if you limit the disagreement to the topic of “what does the Church teach on this issue”, reasonable people can sometimes come to different conclusions based on different Church documents.

Finally, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Catholics should be willing to apply the same principle to their own beloved assertions…if these are shown to be urban legends themselves. For example, if it is shown that the Methodist Church actually does not teach “x” or that Luther actually didn’t do “y”, then Catholics likewise should refrain from repeatedly raising arguments or “facts” which are demonstrated not to be true.

Agreed.

If someone says, but this is not what I believe or not what our church teaches, then that should be accepted at face value - unless there is clear evidence from the Catechism or another confessional statement to the contrary. Of course, arguing against that position is still fair game!

OTOH, if someone says, “this is what the verse means” or “this doctrine means”, then by all means, have at it.

Just my $.02.

 

[John_Hiner]

I sometimes find apologists to be “dishonest” in the sense of being “politic.” There are certain conciliatory phrases that are used which are unreasonable in a strict sense, but which are designed to keep the discussion going. For example, a speaker might say, “Now I am not saying that people who believe [insert idea] are wrong; I am not talking about who is wrong. . .” The speaker will then go on to lay out an argument along the lines of “A implies B. B implies C. C implies not-[whatever idea was inserted above]” The speaker then just stops talking, leaving the audience to either ignore the direct implication that the people who believe the [inserted idea] are wrong, or to realize that the argument amounts to that – though he did not “say” it (at least not in so many words).

In many ways, this seems like a cheap trick in rhetoric, rather than an honest engagement. It is done because people in current American society are often more dedicated to their own opinions than to reason or truth. Some tactic has to be used to keep the audience from closing their ears or just walking out of the hall before the conclusion is reached.

This is a fault of public discourse, which tempts apologists (like politicians) into double-talk. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to keep from losing one’s way, once language is used for any purpose other than to seek and share the truth – even if the purpose is as friendly as conciliation.

Pax nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[rr1213]

This is a fault of public discourse, which tempts apologists (like politicians) into double-talk.

Unfortunately, when you are talking about double-talk the beast is inherent within politicians. The aim of a politician is to please his constituency and to pander to his constituency so that he will remain in office. Hence the double-talk, the raw side of being all things to all men. (In contrast to the example of Paul who became all things to all men so that some might be saved).

 

[Verbum]

Hi Randy,

No matter how mild or kind, an accusation is never an effective way to dialogue.

Apologists should remember that winning the argument is immaterial. As a matter of fact, in the words of Dale Carnegie, you can shut someone up, but you can never win an argument.

It is God who does the converting, and he brings someone to the truth using means that we might often consider ridiculous. Once he has touched the heart, just about any argument will “convince” a person. The French philosopher Bergson came to the Church because he studied Catholic mystics. For him the existence of mystics was a convincing argument. For me it would not be, but there you are.

So don’t worry too much about your arguments or the way people react to them. The way you approach people, what people sense from you as a witness for Christ is much more important.

And, what do you know, sometimes, it is not God’s will that a certain person should become Catholic…