Michael Saint vs. Lapey: Anyone Have Time to ``Judge`` this Debate?

[Michael_Saint]

Hi All,

Me, Michael Saint, MA (Theology), had a previous debate with Lapey, a young candidate for the permanent diaconate.

The bulk of our exchange is found here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=449104&page=4.

It begins on page 4, with my responses to Lapey, whose words are in red. You need not read it all - just browse some of my lengthy responses, but pay close attention to line 1 from paragraph 3 of Lapey`s first full response on that page.

Putting aside where you fall on this issue, and pretending this was an official adjudicated debate (picking out fallacies, how directly the issues were responded to, the quality of those responses, etc.), who won? And do you have any comments?

I ask because I was provoked by this recent comment by him: I never heard back from you. Did I back you into a corner in which you couldn't escape? This was found at the end of this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=306348&page=4.

Thank you!

 

[JohnDamian]

I think the fact that you are not sure who won speaks for itself.

In my own opinion however, I think Lapey does not fully understand the charism of the Permenant Diaconate.

 

[Michael_Saint]

I think the fact that you are not sure who won speaks for itself.

In my own opinion however, I think Lapey does not fully understand the charism of the Permenant Diaconate.

Hi John,

Thank you for responding. I am actually completely confident that I “won” - the poll was for his sake rather than mine (I linked to it in my last response to him), because he thinks he is the one who backed me into a corner when in reality he is just responding fallaciously (which makes the person think he is right and has proven his point - which is not true).

In an adjudicated debate, someone responding “I cannot reply to all your points so I will just speak what comes to mind” will receive a failing grade.

In what ways do you think Lapey does not understand the charism of the permanent diaconate? What did he say that made you think that?

 

[NoAvailableName]

Well I read some of the posts but was generally bored with the argument.

Even if you are technically correct about those who go on to get remarried or become priests, I don’t know if this constitutes a major problem. How will any of this prevent Lapey or others from doing much good in their positions?

Matthew 23:23-24 “…you have neglected the more important matters… you strain out a gnat”

If a deacon secretly wants to be a priest, I don’t see how that will prevent him from being a good deacon. The question is not whether Lapey has some desire for the priesthood or will try to get remarried if his wife dies, but rather, “Is it likely he will be a good deacon?” Perfection is not required for the answer to be yes.

If a priest desires to be a pope can he not be a good priest? If I married man who plays recreational softball secretly wants to be a professional baseball player can he not still be good at what he does instead?

Again, I found the whole discussion very boring so perhaps I missed in your arguments where you showed the grave significance of these seemingly minor points.

 

[Betterave]

Michael clearly wins. Lapey just got upset and responded with personal attacks. He seems to have some maturity issues. If he really only cared about God’s will, he wouldn’t respond the way he did. It’s silly and immature to say “I care about God’s will, therefore I don’t care what you say.”

I think the debate topic is interesting, btw, but I don’t know where I stand on the issue, so I consider myself an impartial adjudicator.

 

[Michael_Saint]

Again, I found the whole discussion very boring so perhaps I missed in your arguments where you showed the grave significance of these seemingly minor points.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut and time, but nothing in your post answered the question I asked here.

All of what you said here should be posted on that thread, not here.

 

[Michael_Saint]

Michael clearly wins. Lapey just got upset and responded with personal attacks. He seems to have some maturity issues. If he really only cared about God’s will, he wouldn’t respond the way he did. It’s silly and immature to say “I care about God’s will, therefore I don’t care what you say.”

I think the debate topic is interesting, btw, but I don’t know where I stand on the issue, so I consider myself an impartial adjudicator.

Thanks, Betterave. That is the kind of response I was looking for - scoring a debate, not whether someone agrees with Lapey or Michael.

Yes, I agree with your evaluation, which is why I think I am not wrong to bring this to the attention of his bishop.

 

[NoAvailableName]

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut and time, but nothing in your post answered the question I asked here.

All of what you said here should be posted on that thread, not here.

The point is you shouldn’t be asking the question in the first place. Lapey is probably quite busy with all his responsibilities which include three children. You can’t expect him to engage you in a drawn out debate about minutiae. And since you haven’t provided evidence there are lots of deacons out there who are doing a lousy job, and are so doing because they were ordained at too young an age, this really is minutiae. So go ahead and write your paper but cut this guy some slack. There is no reason to air your personal grievances in a new post and expect a bunch of people to read through all that and mediate. All you are doing is discouraging others from debating you in the first place. How would you like it if some bio-chemist got on here saying that age shouldn’t be a factor at all, and instead you should be testing the person’s libido by means of their testosterone levels, etc. Would you really want to be called out if you refused to follow them down every ally of their reasoning, even if they have valid points? I suspect that you believe your reason for calling him out extends beyond that, but really the thread you linked didn’t have much more than him balking at answering all your points.

I have no idea if Lapey is a great guy or not, but I find this thread to be in rather poor taste and I would be shocked if the silent majority on here didn’t agree.

 

[Betterave]

The point is you shouldn’t be asking the question in the first place. Lapey is probably quite busy with all his responsibilities which include three children. You can’t expect him to engage you in a drawn out debate about minutiae. And since you haven’t provided evidence there are lots of deacons out there who are doing a lousy job, and are so doing because they were ordained at too young an age, this really is minutiae. So go ahead and write your paper but cut this guy some slack. There is no reason to air your personal grievances in a new post and expect a bunch of people to read through all that and mediate. All you are doing is discouraging others from debating you in the first place. How would you like it if some bio-chemist got on here saying that age shouldn’t be a factor at all, and instead you should be testing the person’s libido by means of their testosterone levels, etc. Would you really want to be called out if you refused to follow them down every ally of their reasoning, even if they have valid points? I suspect that you believe your reason for calling him out extends beyond that, but really the thread you linked didn’t have much more than him balking at answering all your points.

I have no idea if Lapey is a great guy or not, but I find this thread to be in rather poor taste and I would be shocked if the silent majority on here didn’t agree.

Whether or not it’s in poor taste, the point remains that Lapey did not respond appropriately. If people don’t like to debate people who try to remain rational, that’s their problem. The correct response to an argument that is too complicated (or concerned with minutiae) for you is to admit that the argument is too complicated (etc.) for you, not to respond with angry distortions of those so-called minutiae. Maybe we should all cut the guy some slack, I don’t know, but not by distorting the truth, and especially not when Lapey comes back later with arrogant and inaccurate references to the argument where he obviously distorted the truth. I don’t see how it makes sense to excuse that on the grounds that he is busy with his three kids.

 

[Lapey]

The point is you shouldn’t be asking the question in the first place. Lapey is probably quite busy with all his responsibilities which include three children. You can’t expect him to engage you in a drawn out debate about minutiae. And since you haven’t provided evidence there are lots of deacons out there who are doing a lousy job, and are so doing because they were ordained at too young an age, this really is minutiae. So go ahead and write your paper but cut this guy some slack. There is no reason to air your personal grievances in a new post and expect a bunch of people to read through all that and mediate. All you are doing is discouraging others from debating you in the first place. How would you like it if some bio-chemist got on here saying that age shouldn’t be a factor at all, and instead you should be testing the person’s libido by means of their testosterone levels, etc. Would you really want to be called out if you refused to follow them down every ally of their reasoning, even if they have valid points? I suspect that you believe your reason for calling him out extends beyond that, but really the thread you linked didn’t have much more than him balking at answering all your points.

I have no idea if Lapey is a great guy or not, but I find this thread to be in rather poor taste and I would be shocked if the silent majority on here didn’t agree.

I would agree this is in poor taste, especially since the subject of the thread wasn’t even aware it existed!

At least one person here realized the OP is disturbed.

This is sad…I shall pray for you little man, that is MS.