Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

To Give a Defense

Home
Catholic
We Must Offend, and Other Quick Takes: 7QT XIX Seriatim

We Must Offend, and Other Quick Takes: 7QT XIX Seriatim

Last updated on: April 7, 2018 at 12:11 am by Scott Eric Alt

We Must Offend, and Other Quick Takes: 7QT XIX Seriatim 2018-04-07T00:11:33-04:00 Scott Eric Alt

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Traditionalist social media critic Kevin M. Tierney, in a public Facebook post (here) is attacking Catholic apologists again. This time, he claims that they are “worthless hacks.” How nice. Such salvos are not new with him; Dave Armstrong took him to task in June when he said that apologists do nothing other than rehash tired old “talking points”—as though the defense of the Church and its teachings amounts to nothing more than a political campaign. How silly.

As near as I can tell, whenever Mr. Tierney is not railing against apologists in this way, or defending the Tridentine Mass (I have no problem with the latter), he seems to spend a large part of his day policing blogs and Facebook pages for deficiencies of “tone.” He even gave up blogging, in grand style, over a (long-since deleted) Facebook post that used the word “bullshit” to describe a story in Life Site News insinuating that Pope Francis has a pro-gay agenda. The article itself did not seem to bother Mr. Tierney; but the word “bullshit” to describe it so unsettled him that he said, “I quit!”

So it strikes me as ironic that he would describe “most” Catholic apologists (what does “most” mean here? 51%? 75%? 99%?) as “worthless hacks.” I mean, my goodness, the tone! Now, this remark was in the comment section of a post that was meant to defend Mark Shea against some criticism he has received from Frank Beckwith, Edward Feser, and Dave Armstrong. [See here and here.] Mr. Armstrong and the others accused Mr. Shea of using “sophistical polemics” in his discussion of waterboarding. I have no interest in entering that debate, or taking sides, here. I mention it only because it happens to be the context of Mr. Tierney’s remarks: When that judicious man said that Catholic apologists are “worthless hacks,” the specific apologists under discussion were Messrs. B., F., and A.

Worthless hacks? Frank Beckwith? Dave Armstrong? Seriously? This strikes me as the kind of comment that can only be made by someone who is deeply ignorant of Catholic apologetics. Dave Armstrong does not need me to defend him. Edward Feser does not need me to defend him. Nor do the many apologists whose work is its own defense. I speak of Bryan Cross, Joe Heschmeyer, David Waltz, Jason Stellman, Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid, Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, Scott Hahn, Brant Pitre, Marcus Grodi, Peter Kreeft, “Catholic Nick,” Andrew Preslar, Taylor Marshall, Jeremy Tate, Joshua Lim, and yes, Mark Shea too. You may not agree with everything they say or the way they say it; you don’t have to. But hacks? Worthless? I’m sorry, but that’s an inexcusably dumb and ignorant thing to say.

Perhaps Mr. Tierney should show Karl Keating and Jimmy Akin how it’s really done.

No. Anyone who makes such comments has no credibility when he tries to tells us why words such as “liars or moral idiots” and “grotesque mission creep” are defensible when used to rebuke those who defend waterboarding, but the word “bullshit” to describe an article implying that Pope Francis has a pro-gay agenda is a sign of how mean and nasty bloggers are.

***2***

I will pick up on this theme below, but for now a few side remarks regarding the blog.

You might see a few (very minor) additions and changes over the next few weeks. I am adding a bunch of links and resource material to the sidebar, which will take some time and is a work in progress.

Also, if you try to make a comment and notice anything amiss, send me an e-mail to let me know. An anti-spam plugin I was using was interfering with users’ ability to submit comments last week, so I replaced it and made some other modifications. I hope that all will be well now.

One quirk to keep in mind: If you try to submit a comment, and nothing shows up after the page refreshes, your comment has not been lost; it has merely gone to moderation. I will find it and get it approved. Comment moderation is off (even, as I cross myself, on this post), so your comment should appear right away. WordPress, however, can be temperamental for reasons of its own. Be patient if you do not see your comment right away.

***3***

Over the next week or two, I need to spend some time clearing book reviews off my desk for Catholic Fiction. There will be a brief lag in my posting here until those are written and off my conscience. Then I will return and pick up where I left off.

Among the things that I plan to work on this year are these.

1. A review of John Calvin’s chapter about the Mass in Institutes of the Christian Religion. This series is now in progress.

2. A review of a new anti-Catholic book that was just published last year. By Gregg R. Allison, the book is entitled Roman Catholic Theology and Practice, and it comes highly recommended by our old pal Kevin Failoni from the combox of Out of His Mind. If Mr. Failoni recommends it, one anticipates that it will be a real whopper. We’ll see what Mr. Allison has to say.

3. I started a series last year which was intended to review some of Dr.* James White’s debates with Catholic apologists. The series is meant to walk through the debates from start to finish and evaluate the arguments on each side. I only managed to get one post in the series written (a debate on sola scriptura with Gerry Matatics), so look for me to pick up where I left off there.

4. I promise, promise, promise that I will finally begin still another series of posts on books that explore what it means to be human. I mentioned that last year around this time, and it ended up being one of my failed resolutions.

Lastly, you might notice that some of my old posts end up disappearing and then coming back. This is because I am reading through them and making some extensive changes. Whether anyone will ever read the updated versions, I cannot say; but my OCD perfectionism does not allow me to let them rest in peace.

***4***

Not all arguments are of equal merit. People don’t like to be told this, but it’s true.

There are (allow me to be frank) a great number of stupid and shallow arguments out there. We shall never be able to distinguish the good from the bad if we are not permitted to call bullshit, bullshit. If that offends, so be it. To tell the truth, I’m offended by lazy thinking, by illogic, and by unreason, and by fearmongering, and irresponsible insinuations.

But if you’re going to call dumb arguments dumb, just make sure your own have merit. There is a difference between saying, “You shouldn’t use that tone” and saying “This is sophistry” or “Don’t attribute ill motives to people because they disagree with you.”

One must make distinctions.

***5***

John Irving has it right. (I’m paraphrasing here.) “If you’re going to be a writer, in this or any society, you’re going to have to decide very quickly which principles you’re willing to stand by, and which you will allow others to talk you out of. And it doesn’t hurt to develop a rather thick skin.”

It is easy to demand a thick skin of others, when you are taking them to task, when you think that their ideas are just plain silly and wrong, and damn it, you’re going to be the one to tell them so. It is much more difficult to have a thick skin yourself, when the shoe is on the other foot.

***6***

In Canto 28 of Dante’s Inferno, the poet shows us Mohammed in the eighth circle of Hell.

A cask by losing centre-piece or cant
Was never shattered so, as I saw one
Rent from the chin to where one breaketh wind.
Between his legs were hanging down his entrails;
His heart was visible, and the dismal sack
That maketh excrement of what is eaten.
While I was all absorbed in seeing him,
He looked at me, and opened with his hands
His bosom, saying: “See now how I rend me;
How mutilated, see, is Mahomet;
In front of me doth Ali weeping go,
Cleft in the face from forelock unto chin;
And all the others whom thou here beholdest,
Disseminators of scandal and of schism
While living were, and therefore are cleft thus.
A devil is behind here, who doth cleave us
Thus cruelly, unto the falchion’s edge
Putting again each one of all this ream,
When we have gone around the doleful road;
By reason that our wounds are closed again
Ere any one in front of him repass.

“How mutilated, see, is Mahomet.” Well, yes, what goes around comes around. Those who try to rend others will in the end rend themselves.

I also find it fascinating that, in the same circle of Hell as Mohammed, Dante places schismatics. Dante wrote the Commedia several hundred years before Luther and Calvin. I think I know where he would have put them. I think that this is one form that poetic license can take.

***7***

Does this offend? Perhaps, before we say how badly we have been offended, we should consider how badly God has been offended by us. Every day I offend the righteousness of God.

Ours is a culture of offense, full of gentle violets who love to take offense—or of bullies who love to pretend to have taken offense. Satire—or direct, harsh words of any kind—can get one lectured on Facebook. Or unfriended and blocked! Or it can get you killed. Let us have a a sense of proportion here.

What should we do? Give in to cowardice, or self-censorship, in order not to offend—to retain peace in your life, or to retain your life altogether? Tom McDonald of God and the Machine reflects on these questions in a recent blog post. Journalists, he says, are “notorious cowards.” He continues.

I don’t care much when people offend my beliefs, but I do judge them and hold them in low regard, and Muslims are invited to do so with me. The anti-Catholic and anti-Christian cartoons of Charlie Hebdo say something about the cartoonists who drew them, but nothing at all about my faith.

That is right. We must be willing to give offense, and be a sign of offense. This is particularly true in a culture that is all wrought up about relativism and “being nice” at the same time it is hell-bent on imposing what George Orwell called “smelly little orthodoxies.” Not all opinions, not all actions, should be treated with equal respect. Some deserve our scorn. For example, I have deep contempt for anti-Catholicism, and I have not suffered anti-Catholic fools well on this blog. I shouldn’t. I have deep contempt for poor argumentation and faulty logic, because I believe that it is our God-given reason that leads us to truth, and truth matters. And I have deep contempt—this is much more serious—for those who go around sawing heads off because someone practices another faith. If we are not willing to give offense, and in some contexts lose our lives for it, then we may as well abandon the pursuit of truth—and freedom—altogether.

If, in this age, our words do not bite and slap and kick, then we are doing it wrong. Flannery O’Connor said it: “You have to push as hard as the age that pushes against you.” A world that wants to be lulled to sleep needs to be shouted awake. And it’s okay to be outraged by error and write with passion. I’d rather read a writer who’s angry than a writer who’s in a coma. I like curmudgeons. Jerome has his place.

Of course there is no excuse for deliberate, or gratuitous, rudeness. There is no excuse to offend for its own sake. Nor is there an excuse for lumping people into categories because they disagree with you. There is a place for civility. But there is also a place for shouting from the rooftops and saying, “Damn it, this is madness, and I will not take it, and I will do everything I can to call it out.” Even if you’re killed for it. Jesus called the Pharisees a “brood of vipers.” Jesus overturned the tables of the moneychangers and asked, “How can you escape the damnation of Hell?” Was that nice? Christ is a model for how to give offense.

So I feel no need to apologize for how I write. Nor should Mark Shea, nor should Simcha Fisher, nor should Dave Armstrong. I could not care less about “tone.” I care about reason and about truth. The only thing we should be called to defend is our logic, and whether what we say is so.

In the service of reason and truth, as Tom McDonald says, “I choose to offend.”

***

Read more of this week’s quick takes at This Ain’t the Lyceum.

***

If you like the content on this blog, your generous gift to the author helps to keep it active. I remember all my supporters in my Mass intentions each week.

Previous Post

January 1, 2015

Do Priests Rob Christ of His High Priesthood? Part 2 of a Series on Calvin's Institutes IV.18

Next Post

January 16, 2015 Josh Alcorn Bans the Vagina Monologues

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion About Me Answers for Calvinists Answers to Media Fictions Answers to Objections Anti-Catholicism Apologetics Apostolic Succession Atonement Authority of the Church Baptism Benedictines Biblical Exegesis Blogging Book Reviews Books & Writing &c. Calvin's Institutes Capital Punishment Catholic Church Chastity Christology Church Fathers Church Social Doctrine Confession Contraception Conversion Stories Crusades Debates Depression & Suicide Deuterocanon Development of Doctrine Ecumenism English Language Eucharistic Adoration Exorcism Extra Ecclesiam Fisks & Rebuttals Freedom of Religion Freedom of Speech Fundamentalism Gender Politics Gender Theory Good Works Homosexuality Humor Idolatry Immaculate Conception In the News Inquisition ISIS Islam Just for Fun Just War Justification LCWR Limbo Liturgical Abuse Liturgical Year Magisterium Marriage and Family Mary Mortal Sin New Evangelization NFP Papacy Papal Documents Papal Infallibility Personal Narrative Politics Pope Francis Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome Population Control Praying to the "Dead" Priesthood Primacy of Peter Protestant Denominations Purgatory Radical Islam Radical Traditionalists Real Presence Right to Conscience RIght to Life Saints Same-Sex "Marriage" Seven Quick Takes Social Justice Social Media Sola Scriptura Spirit of Vatican II SSPX The Eucharist The Mass The Resurrection Traditionalism Vatican II Year of Mercy

Select a Month August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 November 2018 October 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 April 2018 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 May 2013 April 2013 February 2013 January 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: The Corinthians were told that love is patient and kind.

Select your answer to see how you score.

TRUE FALSE