The Problem With Placing One’s Faith On a Pseudonymous Blogger Rather Than In a Visible Church (Interlude:Paralypsis vs. Poisoning the Well)

Mr. Steve Hays, one of the denizens who lurk about on Triablogue, “The Black Hole of Christian
Blogs” as my friend David Waltz calls it, attacked my recent posting pertaining to Turretinfan’s
pseudonymity in an article captioned simply as Paralypsis. I found it to be an interesting read as
I am sure my readers will find, too. Mr. Hays’ words will be in green, my original statements
from my article will be in blue and my additional personal commentary in red.

Dave Armstrong hosted a guest post by hatchet man Paul Hoffer. The Problem With
Placing One’s Faith On a Pseudonymous Blogger Rather Than In a Visible Church (Part
I) (by Paul Hoffer)

I am honored to be lumped in with Dave Armstrong, who has been my friend since 1997, and I am not ashamed to admit it either.

As for the characterization of me as a hatchet man, there are a number of possibilities here. He could be comparing me to a particular kind of soldier who served in the Revolutionary War-doubtful. I suppose it’s possible that he could be comparing me with Edward G. Robinson who was the title character in a great movie called The Hatchet Man (That movie also starred Lorretta Young, one of my favorite actresses)-again doubtful. Or perhaps he is thinking that I fire people for a living-sorry I have never fired a person in my life.

More possibilities-maybe he thinks I am a member of a clandestine Tong clan using my Kung Fu skills to assassinate rival gang members-nope, I am not Chinese nor Dr. No’s alter ego. I have never killed anyone neither. Or maybe he has me confused with Charles Colson or H.R. Haldeman who carried out orders at the behest of President Nixon against political opponents-sorry, too young then. Or maybe in some sort of paranoid delusion he bought into the rhetoric of James White and believes me to operating on orders of Mother Rome sent to my handler, Dave Armstrong, and on this occasion, I have been tasked with destroying Turretinfan’s reputation. Frankly, out of the above possibilities, it is more likely that I am working for the Tong.
    

i) TFan doesn’t ask readers to put their faith in him. Rather, he argues for his positions,
using reason, evidence, and Scripture.

This is of course an assertion made by Mr. Hays. Mr. Fan does ask his reader to place their faith in him that he will articulate accurately what Catholics believe when he is attacking Church teachings. Yet, as I have pointed out on my blog and elsewhere, Mr. Fan often gets the evidence wrong when it comes to the doctrines of Catholicism usually by misstating or omitting important aspects of Catholic doctrine when he is addressing a particular apologetic point. Thus, I would submit that placing one’s trust in Mr. Fan is a misplaced trust.

ii) By the same token, it would be a mistake to put your faith in bloggers who are not
anonymous or pseudonymous, like Paul Hoffer and Dave Armstrong.

This is a bald assertion, backed up by Mr. Hays’ emotional outburst as opposed to any evidence.

iii) The Mormon church is a visible church. Should we put our faith in the Mormon
church because it’s visible?

Unfortunately Mr. Hays, the Mormon “Church” is not a church, properly speaking using the Catholic vernacular. The Catholic Church does not even recognize the Church of Latter Day Saints as even truly Christian since it denies the Holy Trinity and the remission of original sin through baptism.

            …and on an article posted by my friend, David Waltz...

It’s ironic that a Catholic epologist like Hoffer would elicit the support of an
anti-Trinitarian lapsed Catholic like Waltz.

I was not aware that the Catholic Church in the present day bars devout Catholics from being friends with lapsed Catholics. Moreover, what David happens to believe right now is not relevant to our discussions since I was referring there to what some had written in the comm box to his article, not to David himself. Throwing red herrings does not make for a great refutation.

            …to the identity of Turretinfan, a pseudonymous blogger in the service of James White…

TFan works with White, not for White. TFan had already established himself in the
blogosphere before White invited him to join Alpha & Omega Ministries. Indeed, it’s
because TFan had distinguished himself apart from that ministry that he was invited to
join.

Of course, Mr. Fan is in the service of James White. He is pictured (in caricature) as a member of Mr. White’s team and even after only a cursory glance of the Alpha & Omega Ministries website reveals that White is the top dog, the big cheese, the grand poohbah of that outfit. Since Mr. Fan’s maintenance of pseudonymity prevents any sort of transparency there, there is only one conclusion, that Mr. Fan is offering διακονία there even if he is not an employee or underling of that ministry.

Since some of those who commented on the above sites suggested that Mr. Fan is an
Ohio attorney, and since some the accusations leveled against Mr. Fan implied that he
may have violated some of the canons of the Ohio’s Code of Professional
Responsibility…

            Have they publicly recanted their scurrilous accusations?

I am not 100% sure which accusations he is referring to, the one that he is an attorney, that he is an attorney working for the Cleveland, Ohio law firm of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP, or that his conduct with respect to others was unethical. However, one of the reasons that I wrote the article was to make it clear that he is not an Ohio attorney and that his conduct did not violate any provision of our Code of Professional Responsibility. The reader can take from that what they want to take from it. As to whether the individuals on the websites of Peter Lumpkins or David Waltz recanted their statements, I would suggest that Mr. Hays take it up with them. It is my understanding that those individuals are either Protestant or Muslim, not Catholic.

…to see if I could learn the name of the individual who has caused scandal and
consternation for so many, especially fellow Christians who do not share his
blinkered-version of Calvinism.

i) A classic example of straining gnats while swallowing dromedaries in one gulp. Hoffer
belongs to a denomination with a spiraling scandal of clerical pederasty, yet he fixates on
the trumped up “scandal” of anonymous blogging.

Here is where Mr. Hays’ irrational hatred of all things Catholicism blinds him to what I had written. If he had actually read my article, he would have seen that I made it clear that Mr. Fan has the legal right to write and to blog anonymously (actually in his case-pseudonymously). Further, I made it clear that there are morally licit grounds for him to do so from a Christian standpoint. I specifically noted that the proper thing to do was to interact with his writings rather than make a judgment about his character due to his blogging pseudonymously.

Moreover as a tactic that he is noted for, Mr. Hays often raises the issue of clerical pederasty when treating with Catholic antagonists. He ignores or apparently doesn’t care that this is an issue that plagues Protestant denominations as well the Catholic Church and that statistics show that the percentages of those engaged in Protestant ministry who sexually offend against youth are around the same as those offend who are Catholic. The news media happens to focus on the scandal in the Catholic Church as opposed to that in various Protestant denominations because it is more salacious to report on Catholics sinning than on Protestants.

(I offer this explanation before I go any further lest someone wishes to suggest that I was
motivated from ill-will, malice or a desire for “pay-back” which typifies the modus
operandi of so many of the modern-day disciples of the dead lawyer from Geneva.)

i) Needless to say, if Hoffer were motivated by ill-will, malice or a desire for “pay-back,”
we’d expect him to issue this preemptive disclaimer. Since when does someone
motivated ill-will, malice or a desire for “pay-back” openly admit that he’s motivated by
ill-will, malice or a desire for “pay-back”? So this calculated, self-serving disclaimer is
worthless.

Of course, knowing how many Calvinists, like Mr. Hays, nurse a hatred of all Catholics would prevent them from accepting my motivations as honorable- hence the disclaimer. The fact he attributes dishonor and worthlessness to even that action demonstrates that my statements were downright prophetic.

ii) Notice, moreover, the blanket smear regarding the modus operandi of so many
Calvinists.

Since Mr. Hays, a Calvinist in outlook, engages here in that modus operandi by doubting my motivations demonstrates that my concerns had merit and not a smear at all. Please note, too, the qualifier of “many”.
  

Further, I will state unequivocally no confidences have been betrayed nor have I used any
secret legal resource in any manner to ferret out Mr. Fan’s mild-mannered alter ego.

Once again, if he had betrayed a confidence or resorted to secret legal resources, wouldn’t
we expect him to issue a preemptive disclaimer to the contrary? He calls himself to the
stand as a character witness for himself. The exercise is transparently and viciously
circular.

I guess that if Mr. Hays can show that I have violated a confidence or resorted to accessing a secret legal resource, then his accusation would have legs. However, he does not. Instead, he makes an emotional appeal based on his bigoted outlook. In his eyes, because I am Catholic, I am presumed guilty unless I prove otherwise.

Now before I discuss Mr. Fan’s real identity, I wanted to touch upon the whole premise of
his choice of blogging pseudonymously. Personally, unless one is writing
pseudonymously out of humility or out of obedience to the directives of a superior, I
believe that one must be prepared to own one’s words. If I am not willing to sign my
name to an opinion, then it is not worth publicizing. In order to own your words, you have
to have the courage to stand behind them, to be accountable for what you say. As poor as
my writing may be, I have never been afraid of putting my name to it or being held
accountable for what I write.

Is he accountable? I notice the conspicuous absence of contact information, either at the
end of his post, or over at his own blog, which would enable readers to report him to his
parish priest or diocesan bishop in case of misconduct.

Well Mr. Hays, your assertion is a false one as I do give my name, I make no secret of my occupation, and I list where I live at on my blog. Under my “Important Links” section, I list both my parish and the diocese where I live. (After it was pointed out in a comment he made in the comm box following his article that I did not specifically tell the world that the only church and the only diocese listed on my blog did not specifically state that they were my home parish and diocese, I did edit them to make it clear enough for even Mr. Hays.) BTW, I have green eyes, am 5'7", and sport no tatoos. My favorite dish is Cincinnati style Chili and I sing baritone.

One wonders, too, of the hypocrisy in all of this. Mr. Hays does not hold the pseudonymous Mr. Fan to the standard he sets for me. Nowhere on Mr. Fan’s blog will anyone find his real name, his occupation, where he lives at, his actual denominational preference, the church he attends, or a link to his pastor in case of misconduct. For that matter, Mr. Hays does not hold himself to that standard either as he does not list his actual denominational preference, where he goes to church, a link to his pastor or even occupation or his address, unless the Klingon version of the afterlife is an actual address in the United States.

By the same token, I notice that Armstrong hasn’t made that information publicly available either.  Yet Armstrong is hosting a post about personal accountability. Hoffer and Armstrong pay lip-service to the accountability-system of the Roman church while they shield themselves from direct accountability to their religious superiors. If they have the courage to stand behind their words, why don’t they provide the contact information for their religious superiors in case a reader has a grievance to lodge with superiors over their conduct?

Well Mr. Hays is 0 for 2 as Dave Armstrong does list his parish information as well on his blog.  Look under the link captioned “About Me”. BTW, this ridiculous argument is brilliantly answered by Dave Armstrong himself over at his blog. Read it if you want to double your pleasure, double your fun.

Mr. Fan so long as I am not doing so out of malicious intent, have not breached
confidences, and used legal means to ascertain his identity.

Isn’t there something self-incriminating about the steady repetition of the same
tendentious disclaimer? Why does he feel the need to keep assuring us of his stainless
motives? It’s like a man who shows up at the police station, waving a newspaper in the
face of the desk officer as he angrily proclaims his innocence, even though he was never
named in the article as a suspect. Constant protestations of innocence before anyone even
accused them of wrongdoing are not the way truly innocent men ordinarily conduct
themselves.

What Mr. Hays here is complaining about is the fact that I write like an attorney, which by happenstance I am. He also forgets that I know how many Calvinist apologists treat Catholics these days. The fact that I feel I have to post prophylactic statements when dealing with people who hold themselves out as Christian is a sad commentary about folks like Mr. Hays who treat Catholics and others when engaging in apologetic endeavors so poorly. It is to his shame, not mine.

…he has no expectation of privacy especially when he engages in speech that some
consider to be abusive and un-Christian.

Actually, Hoffer’s post, which is laced with mock solicitude, the better to sugarcoat
malicious intent, is arguably abusive and unchristian.

Mr. Hays’ statement here is long on accusation but suffers from an acute paucity of evidence.

Now if anyone has a reason to “out” him, I would have a good reason to do so. In 2007, I
wrote an article stating my reasons for critiquing Professor White’s misuse of
cross-examination after he made the scurrilous (and frankly actionable) claim that I had
engaged in a form of taqiyya in service of the Catholic Church. Rather than seriously
engaging the points I made, Mr. Fan chose to attack the article and myself by directing the
reader to my suspension from the practice of law for several months in 1999 for failing to
appropriately deal with a health condition that was seriously impacting my practice.

            Hoffer has just given us a good reason to suspect that he’s motivated by a personal vendetta. Indeed, Hoffer’s whole post is an extended exercise in the rhetorical ad
hominem device known as paralypsis. The speaker loftily denies that he will mention
something, as if that would be beneath him, yet he incorporates what he’s not going to
mention in the denial itself. “Far be it from me to point out that my esteemed colleague
reportedly had sexual congress with a syphilic cow. I refuse to stoop to such
ungentlemanly expedients.”

In rhetoric, another word for paralypsis is irony. An example of irony is Mr.Hays' own statement above. It’s ironic that Mr. Hays accuses me of paralypsis but ignores the fact that I do not mention the subject of my alleged paralyptic statements-Mr. Fan’s real name. Of course, in the eyes of Mr. Hays, the fact that I do not “out” Mr. Fan is besides the point. Further, Mr. Hays, himself, fails to mention to his reader that he exercising his own rhetorical strategem , the ad hominem device known as “poisoning the well.” He tells the reader how bad I am, then asks the reader to judge my conduct. In short, Mr. Hays dropped his “irony” on his own foot.

Despite what he and his fellow contra-Catholic bloggers may think of us, we Catholic
apologists are a far more honorable, a far more charitable, and dare I say it, a far more
Christian breed than he and they would credit us. If anyone is going to reveal Mr. Fan’s
name, let it be either himself or one of his Protestant brethren to do so.

If, on the other hand, Hoffer’s motives were less than honorable, then we’d expect him to
sugarcoat his dishonorable motives in a show of faux gallant oratory.

Mr. Hays has yet to demonstrate that I have acted dishonorably towards Mr. Fan. It almost seems that Mr. Hays is disappointed I didn’t reveal Mr. Fan’s real name to the world. Since he can’t accuse me of doing that, he makes up something else to accuse me of-acting dishonorably by not revealing Turretinfan’s name. Mr. Hays does not engage in argument, but paranoia.

No, I do not intend to “out” Mr. Fan. Returning unkindness with unkindness is not my
way. Our Lord taught us a different way to return such conduct.

Except that if he did intend to return unkindness for unkindness, we’d expect him to
preface his vindictive agenda with preemptive disclaimers about his kindly motives.

More of the same paranoia. Yawn...

No one should infer nefarious intent by not revealing his name. I am not withholding his
name to coerce him or extract from him a promise not to attack the teachings of the
Catholic Church.

            Except that if he were issuing a veiled threat, we’d expect him to deny his true intentions.

Because of the stumbling block of pseudonymity that Mr. Fan has placed in the path of
fellow Christians, witness the many unkind words that some have uttered against his
pseudonymity, more so than over the subject matter conveyed by his words themselves.

            As if Hoffer isn’t using the unkind words that “some” have uttered against TFan has a pretext to do the very same thing without acknowledgment.

I would ask the reader to re-read my article again to see if Mr. Hays has any validity. Search the article for veiled threats. You will find none. All you will find, if you had bother to actually read it with an unjaundiced eye, is an appeal for Christians to act charitably with each other when we engage in our apologetic exercises. Deal with the content of what one writes, not personally attack the writer, whether they be pseudonymous, anonymous or otherwise. It is a lesson, Mr. Hays, you need to start to adopt if you want to be taken seriously.

In fact, Mr. Hays, ask Mr. Fan yourself if I have made any threats against him or sought to coerce him in any way. Moreover, read any of the comments I have made in the 14 years I have participated in apologetical discussions across the internet. The record is there in black and white. The record will show that I have been respectful in my dealings with others and have strived to “play fair” in my dealings with others when blogging. When I have erred or lost my temper, I have always apologized to the offended party-always. When Mr. White accused me of engaging in taqqiya when I questioned the manner in which he used cross-examination in debates, did I not offer an apology for judging his motives and them offered my reasons to counter his accusation of engaging in taqqiya? Yet, I have not seen nor heard any apology from Mr. White for judging my heart. Ask Mr. Swan how I conducted myself when discussing a the Catholic usage of a specific quote from Luther’s works, and if I did not share my findings both good and bad with him. I was more interested in uncovering the truth than defending a particular position.

Prejudge me if you wish Mr. Hays, but know this-you will be reversed on appeal.

            Hoffer’s entire post is a study in the psychological dynamics of self-deception.

Mr. Hays’ entire post is a study in paranoid anti-Catholic bigotry and illustrates how such bigotry is a pernicious stumbling block that hinders discussion of genuine issues that still separate us as Christian brethren.

In light of the comments Mr Hays made above, I would ask the reader to consider saying a prayer
or two for him. Here is one that I often say before commenting on other bloggers’ posts:

Keep us, O God, from all pettiness;
let us be large in thought, in word, in deed.
Let us be done with fault-finding
and leave off all self-seeking.
May we put away all pretense and meet each other
face-to-face without self-pity and without prejudice.
May we never be hasty in judgment
and always generous.

Let us take time for all things,
and make us to grow calm, serene, and gentle.
Teach us to put into action our better impulses,
straightforward and unafraid.

Grant that we may realize that it is
the little things of life that create differences,
that in the big things of life, we are as one.

And, O Lord, God, let us not forget to be kind!

By Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, 1542-1587

God bless!

The Problem With Placing One’s Faith On a Pseudonymous Blogger Rather Than In a Visible Church (Part I).

✝ O My God, I firmly believe that You art one God in three Divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; I believe that Your Divine Son became man, and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church believes and teaches, because You, the Infallible Truth, has revealed them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

And in this holy faith I wish and pray to live and to die. Amen  (A Version of the Traditional Catholic Act of Faith which I pray daily.)

This past February, a number of folks commenting on an article captioned Does James White and Alpha & Omega Ministries Embrace Misogyny? posted on a blog called SBC Tomorrow maintained by the Reverend Peter Lumpkins, a Baptist Minister, and on an article posted by my friend, David Waltz, entitled The secretive “Turretinfan” continues his censorship tactics on his blog, Articuli Fidei, left clues as to the identity of Turretinfan, a pseudonymous blogger in the service of James White, an anti-Catholic controversialist who is the principal behind the Reformed apologetics ministry called Alpha & Omega Ministries. Since some of those who commented on the above sites suggested that Mr. Fan is an Ohio attorney, and since some the accusations leveled against Mr. Fan implied that he may have violated some of the canons of the Ohio’s Code of Professional Responsibility to which I likewise am bound to follow, and since I am bound by an oath to report violations of that Code of Professional Conduct, I decided that I was obligated to make further inquiry and sought to use the clues left on these websites as well as other information garnered over the years of interacting with Mr. Fan to see if I could learn the name of the individual who has caused scandal and consternation for so many, especially fellow Christians who do not share his blinkered-version of Calvinism. (I offer this explanation before I go any further lest someone wishes to suggest that I was motivated from ill-will, malice or a desire for “pay-back” which typifies the modus operandi of so many of the modern-day disciples of the dead lawyer from Geneva.)

Sure enough, using the aforementioned information as well as other documentation publically available on the internet, I was soon able to determine to a quantum of proof what practitioners of the legal arts would call “clear and convincing” the true identity of the man known as Turretinfan.

In doing so, I will state unequivocally that the information I used can be found on publically accessible databases on the internet if one knows where to look and how to research. Further, I will state unequivocally no confidences have been betrayed nor have I used any secret legal resource in any manner to ferret out Mr. Fan’s mild-mannered alter ego. That said, I would note that some of the most invaluable corroboration in regards to Turretinfan’s real world name comes from comments strewn about the internet written by John Bugay, a lapsed Catholic cum Presbyterian polemicist, and Reverend David T. King, an Orthodox Presbyterian minister and pastor located in Elkton, Md., which “sealed the deal” so-to-speak (a triple-crowned tiara ht to you both).

As of this date, I could tell the reader the real name of the person hiding behind the nom de guerre “Turretinfan”, his employer, the schools he went to and the degrees he earned, the church he attends and where he lives at. Based on the available evidence and the inferences that can drawn therefrom, I can safely tell the reader that Mr. Fan is not an Ohio attorney nor does he work in Cleveland, Ohio. Thus, as far as I am concerned, I believe I have satisfied my ethical responsibilities in regards to my chosen profession.

Now before I discuss Mr. Fan’s real identity, I wanted to touch upon the whole premise of his choice of blogging pseudonymously. Personally, unless one is writing pseudonymously out of humility or out of obedience to the directives of a superior, I believe that one must be prepared to own one’s words. If I am not willing to sign my name to an opinion, then it is not worth publicizing. In order to own your words, you have to have the courage to stand behind them, to be accountable for what you say. As poor as my writing may be, I have never been afraid of putting my name to it or being held accountable for what I write. However, that is my personal preference.

The fact is that although many look upon anonymity as the last refuge of scoundrels, throughout our shared American history we have respected and protected the right to speak anonymously, a right firmly rooted in the guarantee of freedom of speech provided in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, to wit:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of their grievances.

The famous jurist, Benjamin Cardozo, once said, freedom of speech and thought is “the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.” An inherent aspect of that freedom is the right to anonymity which is also a function of freedom of association. While anonymity may help one to avoid responsibility or accountability for the content of one’s speech, it also reduces the possibility of identification and fear of reprisal for those engaging in legitimate, but unpopular speech. Anonymity also provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge his message simply because they do not like its proponent.

For example, Charles Carroll, a Catholic and one of our country’s founding fathers and a signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote under the pseudonym “First Citizen” to lend a powerful voice for the cause of independence from Great Britain and to challenge oppression of Catholics in Maryland because prior to the American Revolution, both Maryland and British law prohibited Catholics from entering the legal profession or engaging in politics. Thomas Paine and Samuel Adams also wrote using pseudonyms to advance the cause of independence. After the war, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, under the collective pseudonym, "Publius," wrote a series of essays, known as "The Federalist Papers", in their successful campaign to obtain the ratification of the American Constitution. During the Civil War, several individuals known as “Copperheads” used pseudonyms in the North to advocate against Abraham Lincoln’s policies and his suspension of habeas corpus. Later, in the past century, American courts have recognized the right to engage in anonymous speech has been extended to members of unions, radical political groups, as well as civil rights activists. As noted by the Supreme Court in the case of Talley vs. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960):

Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures, and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all.

Despite occasional dissent, anonymous communication in our society has been traditionally regarded as sacrosanct. So much so that even when the anonymous writer publishes or otherwise disseminates perceived untruths, such is not a ground for violating this aspect of the right of free speech unless such constitutes either criminal or tortious conduct. Thus, no matter how distasteful one may find their speech, the members of the Klu Klux Klan have the right to wear hoods to protect their anonymity. Similarly, as long as he operates within the boundaries of the law, no matter how distasteful one may find the content of Mr. Fan’s writing, he has the right to use a pseudonym to do so. (N.B. I am not comparing the two for the record.)

Now one may interpose an objection at this juncture and point out that Mr. Fan’s apologetical endeavors do not constitute political or social activism. I would respond that religious speech is still speech entitled to constitutional protection. Witness the recent Supreme Court decision of Snyder vs Phelps, 562 U.S. ____ (2011).

Despite America’ history of respecting anonymous speech, nothing that I have referenced suggests that Mr. Fan’s secret identity must remain secret. Legally speaking, I too have free speech rights and that right includes the right to “out” Mr. Fan so long as I am not doing so out of malicious intent, have not breached confidences, and used legal means to ascertain his identity. Since Mr. Fan operates in the marketplace of ideas and since he chooses to engage in public discourse, he has no expectation of privacy especially when he engages in speech that some consider to be abusive and un-Christian.

Now if anyone has a reason to “out” him, I would have a good reason to do so. In 2007, I wrote an article stating my reasons for critiquing Professor White’s misuse of cross-examination after he made the scurrilous (and frankly actionable) claim that I had engaged in a form of taqiyya in service of the Catholic Church. Rather than seriously engaging the points I made, Mr. Fan chose to attack the article and myself by directing the reader to my suspension from the practice of law for several months in 1999 for failing to appropriately deal with a health condition that was seriously impacting my practice. Hardly cricket in anyone’s book.

Yet, for reasons that I shall make clear shortly, I do not intend to “out” Mr. Fan. His real name, known to myself and to a few select friends whom I choose not to disclose, will remain a secret for another day. Despite what he and his fellow contra-Catholic bloggers may think of us, we Catholic apologists are a far more honorable, a far more charitable, and dare I say it, a far more Christian breed than he and they would credit us. If anyone is going to reveal Mr. Fan’s name, let it be either himself or one of his Protestant brethren to do so.

No, I do not intend to “out” Mr. Fan. Returning unkindness with unkindness is not my way. Our Lord taught us a different way to return such conduct. The faith I place in the teachings of my Church requires that I offer a Catholic response, not the Calvinist one. As Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior taught us:

“But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless
those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.” (Luke 6:27-28)

St. Paul furthers teaches us in 1 Cor. 3:12-13:

“Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, heartfelt compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if one has a grievance against another; as the Lord has forgiven you, so must you also do.”

And here:

“See that no one returns evil for evil; rather, always seek what is good (both) for each other and for all.” (1 Thess. 5:15)

And here:

“Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, on your part, live at peace with all. Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."  Rather, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good.” (Rom. 12:17-21)

And as St. Peter writes:

“Do not return evil for evil, or insult for insult; but, on the contrary, a blessing, because to this you were called, that you might inherit a blessing.” (1 Peter 3:9)

I would ask the reader to take note that the above Scripture passages do not make exception of pseudonymous bloggers who may have wronged me in the past.

Let me be clear: I do not intend to provide the reader with Mr. Fan’s real name. I choose not to do so out of Christian charity and out of faith and obedience to the teachings of the Church I live and have faith in which Mr. Fan is so wont to daily denigrate. No one should infer nefarious intent by not revealing his name. I am not withholding his name to coerce him or extract from him a promise not to attack the teachings of the Catholic Church. He is not beholden to me in any way whatsoever. Whether he or any of his cohort choose to attack me for writing this article or reveal any of my “secrets” out of retaliation or to embarrass me, this is to their shame, not mine. My faults, my failings, my weaknesses (which are many to be sure) are well-known to me, My Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, my friends and my loved ones. Airing them in public would only cheapen and coarsen rather than enhance discourse and give proof to the assertions that some make against Mr. Fan and his companions in arms.

Now the reader may interpose here one more objection: just because Mr. Fan can blog anonymously doesn’t mean he should or as Gilbert Keith Chesterton, the great Catholic lay apologist wrote, “To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.” Just because one has the right to be anonymous or pseudonymous when exercising one’s free speech rights does not make it righteous to do so. Perhaps the best reason why it is not righteous for someone to opine on matters involving apologetics anonymously is the tendency to treat others unkindly or cruelly. Since the advent of the internet, the psychological phenomena of disinhibition has been increasingly been observed among anonymous or pseudonymous bloggers. When a person exercises the freedom of writing anonymously without accountability or the fear of public pressure or negative feedback, it tends to dispose one to acting irresponsibly and uncharitably towards one’s neighbors and saying things that one would not otherwise say to someone’s face.

In light of that potential to give offense to one’s neighbors, one must constantly reflect on why they are choosing to write under pseudonymously. Aside from laws against defamation, there are virtually no laws, regulations or covenants that regulate and restrain the content of a blogger’s website. The only restraint practically speaking is one’s own personal ethical standards. If one’s ethical standard is not the “golden rule” or if one does not constantly refer to that standard in dealing with others, let alone adhere to it, then one invariably begins to put stumblingblocks or hindrances in the path of others that cause them to sin. (cf. Luke 17:1-2; Romans 14:13) Because of the stumblingblock of pseudonymity that Mr. Fan has placed in the path of fellow Christians, witness the many unkind words that some have uttered against his pseudonymity, more so than over the subject matter conveyed by his words themselves.

Furthermore, while one could construct a large number of rationales why one is choosing to be pseudonymous in their dealings with others, the validity of such rationales rests with the individual. Only the anonymous one (TAO for short) knows in their heart for what purpose he or she is hiding beneath the cloak of anonymity. Is TAO acting out humility or out of selfishness? Is TAO using anonymity as a shield to avoid the limelight forcing the reader to focus on the message as opposed to the messenger or as a sword to attack others personally and avoid accountability? Is TAO protecting his family or loved ones from possible retribution or merely protecting his own personal economic interests? Only Turretinfan knows whether his decision to blog using a pseudonym is righteous or not.

In this particular case, we do not have the ability to read what is in Mr. Fan’s heart. We can only speculate as to whether he is acting licitly or illicitly. And to echo the Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, I would rather err out of kindness than work miracles in unkindness and give Mr. Fan the benefit of the doubt as to the legitimacy of his choosing to write pseudonymously in his apologetic dealings with those who do not agree with his flavor of Calvinism.

That said, “outing” a pseudonymous blogger who often gets it wrong on what the Catholic Church teaches is not the answer. The remedy for correcting such errors or to respond to such objectionable speech is not to damage such an opponent personally. Rather, the Christian remedy is to oppose such speech by offering the reason for our hope, to provide correction, and to offer as cogent and coherent refutation of the offending notions as well as one is able to do.

In the second part of this article which will be posted in the next day or two, I shall endeavor to bring my poor talents to bear and attempt to refute some erroneous things that Mr. Fan wrote an article entitled, I Can't Do it Perfectly, So I Won't Even Try! against the Catholic Church, particularly his misuse of the term “implicit faith” in describing the sort of faith that Catholics place in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
In the meantime, I would ask the reader to pray for Turretinfan, for myself and all Christian apologists, whether they be Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox, that we all continue to receive the graces of wisdom and eloquence to defend our shared faith in the Holy Trinity-Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

God bless!

O ineffable Creator, Who, out of the treasure of Thy wisdom, hast ordained three hierarchies of Angels, and placed them in wonderful order above the heavens, and hast most wisely distributed the parts of the world; Thou, Who are called the true fountain of light and wisdom, and the highest beginning, vouchsafe to pour upon the darkness of my understanding, in which I was born, the double beam of Thy brightness, removing from me all darkness of sin and ignorance. Thou, Who makest eloquent the tongue of the dumb, instruct my tongue, and pour on my lips the grace of Thy blessing. Give me quickness of understanding, capacity of retaining, subtlety of interpreting, facility in learning, and copious grace of speaking. Guide my going in, direct my going forward, accomplish my going forth; through Christ our Lord. Amen. A Prayer composed by St. Thomas Aquinas.