Monday, March 28, 2011

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!

39 comments:

Jamie Donald said...

A fellow baritone. Cool!

Blogahon said...

Steve Hays: 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.


Paul Hoffer: 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.

Pretty funny.

Rhology said...

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.

??? That would be hypocritical if Hays accepted that standard and then didn't live by it.
You DO accept the standard and you're backpedaling now so your hypocrisy won't be as obvious, but Hays objects to your standard. Where's the hypocrisy in that?

Do you understand what an internal critique is?

Paul Hoffer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Hoffer said...

Hello Mr.Rhology:

Please compare my original article with Mr.Hays assault on it. My definition of accountability was that the author needs to own his words. It was Mr. Hays that imposed the additional requirement upon a writer of posting a listing of one's pastor and hierarchical authority. Mr. Hays did not object to my standard, he added to it. Thereafter, when I pointed out his double standard in my comments on his blog, he danced around like a chicken with his head cut off to try to validate it. Thus, my critique of his view as hypocritical is still valid.

Your argument amounts to a revision of the record.

Thank you for expressing your opinion. However, given the thrust of your remarks, it may be more appropriate for you to present something that is more akin to an actual argument.

God bless!

Rhology said...

My definition of accountability was that the author needs to own his words.

Yes, your definition. Not Hays' or TF's.


It was Mr. Hays that imposed the additional requirement upon a writer or posting a listing of one's pastor and hierarchical authority.

B/c that's what you were asking for w.r.t. TF.
What other kind of acctability are you looking for? To whom else could TF be acctable? Certainly not you, so obviously his church's elders. Hays is taking your position to its logical conclusion and showing that you yourself don't fulfill it. Hypocrisy.

I'm not sure that you who apparently are having trouble with the concept of internal critique are in the best position to judge whether I'm making sthg akin to an actual argument.

Peace,
Rhology

Alexander Greco said...

I don't really understand what Hay's beef actually is. How exactly have you wronged TFan? It is not like you did to TFan what TFan did to Ergun Caner.

Rhology said...

Greco, you really are a tool sometimes. Destroy the enemies of your church at all costs!!!!! is apparently your modus operandi.


If you're saying TF did sthg wrong to Caner, I guess by that logic conscience-driven Roman Catholics wronged pedophile priests by exposing and insisting on defrocking them.

Not that Caner is a pedophile, but he has most certainly lied and covered up misdeeds.

Alexander Greco said...

Rhology why don't you go take a five minute walk and cool down.

When you return, please answer this:

Lets say one of your fellow bloggers engages in some behavior which could require church discipline. If I were to ask them for their names and the names of their elders would they be acting righteously in refusing to give this information to me?

Paul, I realize that this isn't even the point you are making, but in light of Rhology's refusal to consider what you are actually saying, I find this question interesting.

Alexander Greco said...

Whatever Rhology. The extent to which TFan went to uncover every small aspect of Caner's personal life after both he and White adequately demonstrated that Caner was indeed a liar was simply obsessive.

Rhology said...

"Every small aspect"? How does reckless hyperbole help your cause?
And when a man constantly lies about his past, why is digging into his past to some extent to find the truth about it unjustified?


The answer is that they would not be acting unrighteously. They're not accountable to you.
Further, it's rich for a RC to talk about church discipline when RCC can barely bring itself to discipline those who are richly deserving of it. Clean your own house before you worry about Presbyterians, especially when you so loudly trumpet that one of the advantages of RC ecclesiology over that of Protestants is that one is never left alone, that one always has accountability to one's sacramental hierarchy.

Alexander Greco said...

I never said that they would be accountable just to me. Are you saying that justice is a relevant concept which would only apply to you and your fellow Reformed. Let's use pedophilia as the example since you're discussing it. If one of your fellow Reformed sexually abused a minor outside of your Reformed communion, would that not require church discipline because they do not have to be held accountable to a Catholic, for instance?

Rhology said...

Yes, they would need to be church-disciplined.
How is this relevant to TF?

Alexander Greco said...

So they would need to be church disciplined in the realm of sexual abuse, what about theft?

Rhology said...

I'll bite and say sure.

Is it your intention to name every sin you can think of and ask me whether such should be church-disciplinable offenses?
The way you've diverted attention from RCC and pedophilia is remarkable and noted, BTW.

And how is this relevant to TF?

Jamie Donald said...

I'm curious as to how one concludes that Paul sees the only possible form of accountability is to church leadership when Paul was sufficiently vague in the original post. Rather than leap to a conclusion, which is unsupported by the article, why not ask him what he means by "the author needs to own his own words."

I can think of more than one means of "owning his own words" which does not involve church leadership. However, I do not want to put words into Paul's mouth, so I will not list them here. And after re-reading the original article, I still am unable to see where Paul identifies "owning" one's own words as accountability to some form of church leadership.

This form of accountability was raised by Steve Hays in his response to Paul. If Steve, as he states in comboxes, does not hold to this standard; then why does he assert that Paul does hold to it - especially when Paul's article mentioned nothing of the sort?

Again, I urge caution against reading too much into something.

Perhaps a probing question would provide better clarification than jumping to conclusions.

Paul Hoffer said...

My goodness, what a prompt response Rhology!

Let us talk about ownership of words. When one takes ownership of his thoughts, his words, his actions, he is accepting responsibility for his thoughts, words, his actions. There are a variety of ways of accepting responsibility. One can be accountable by posting under one's own name which allows the readers to offer feedback directly. It is an outgrowth of the relationship created between writer and reader. There is nothing said about the imposition of a hierarchical authority to review and censor the remarks in my comments.

There are of course other sorts of accountability which is what Mr. Hays is talking about. Since Mr. Fan does not reveal the nature of his relationships with those who have authority over him, one could not bring those sorts of accountability to bear against him.

The difference is that I advocated the former, Mr. Hays the latter. Further, given my defense of TF's right to blog pseudonymously so long as he is doing it for morally licit reasons, Mr. Hays' argument does not logically follow. The point of my argument is that one should ignore the writer altogether and respond only to the argument the writer makes. As I wrote,

"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."

Accordingly my argument does not suffer from any internal inconsistency as your suggestion of internal critique implies.

Speaking of internal criticism, how is resorting to tu quoque in responding to Alex's comments helpful to making your case? I thought Our Lord wants us to be proactive, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Thank you for further engaging my position and giving me an opportunity to answer your implied charge of internal inconsistency.

God bless!

Paul Hoffer said...

BTW, I did not see Mr. Donald's statements while I was writing. Please take them and append them them to my response is if fully incorporated therein.

Thank you my friend!

Rhology said...

one could not bring those sorts of accountability to bear against him.

Indeed, b/c he's not acctable to you.
I know you clearly, badly want to achieve some power over him. I know it's burning a hole in your soul. But you have to learn to let go, man. Not everyone is answerable to you.
You're not even part of a valid church of Jesus, and you want to lecture TF about whether his elders are apprised of every Internet post of his?


how is resorting to tu quoque in responding to Alex's comments helpful to making your case?

Please quote me doing so and I'll be happy to reply to that charge.



Jamie,
Rather than leap to a conclusion, which is unsupported by the article, why not ask him what he means by "the author needs to own his own words."


I just did that, when I said "What other kind of acctability are you looking for? To whom else could TF be acctable? Certainly not you, so obviously his church's elders. Hays is taking your position to its logical conclusion and showing that you yourself don't fulfill it. Hypocrisy."

Alexander Greco said...

Then why did you protest my point that church discipline in your congregation would be used to address injustices towards whomever the offended party is? In order for church discipline to be executed to redress a wrongful act, the offending party's identity and church fellowship needs to be known. Therefore, if such discipline is warranted, then why again would a Reformed believer be acting righteously in refusing to supply that information when requested after someone feels that they have been wronged? Certainly you would agree that there are more sins and injustices than pedophilia and theft which likewise would entail some sort of church discipline.

What is it that you want to hear me say regarding the pedophilia scandals in the Catholic Church? I have already told you that I agree with the moral teachings of my Church and with them condemn the actions of those who have abused others. I would also like to see those who are found guilty in committing these heinous acts be brought to justice. I would like to see those who aided the abuses by knowingly giving known abusers access to abuse again, and preventing them from being punished, also be severely punished themselves. Furthermore, as someone who holds to Thomistic Natural Law Theory, and believes that punishment serves a retributive function to restore moral order, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to swift application of the death penalty to condemned pedophiles. What more do you want me to say?

Alexander Greco said...

You're not even part of a valid church of Jesus, and you want to lecture TF about whether his elders are apprised of every Internet post of his?

Rhology, are you seriously not understanding what Paul has been saying? Given the comment above, I don't think you do.

Rhology said...

In order for church discipline to be executed to redress a wrongful act, the offending party's identity and church fellowship needs to be known.

Quite, but not by you and not by anyone else on teh Interw3bz.


after someone feels that they have been wronged?

That happens sometimes on teh Interw3bz. Have you considered withdrawing from your online presence (not to mention your often irrational rants) to work on your patience with Jesus? In personal devotion time and silence? I'm being serious. Get over yourself.


What more do you want me to say?

Well, if you want to talk about it, if you're bringing it up, I'd like you to recognise the deep roots of the coverup within RCC's hierarchy. It's not just a few priests who did it and not just a few bishops who covered it up. The coverup and shuffling goes deep. Fix it and then turn your gunsights on Presbyerian bloggers.


Given the comment above, I don't think you do.

I'm of course very sad to hear that.

Alexander Greco said...

Okay, I can see that this is leading nowhere. Thanks for the responses though, they have been enlightening.

Oh, you're the one who brought up pedophilia, not me. As far as me doing the legwork to uncover the abuse scandals, I do not have the resources to do such a thing. Therefore, just take what you know to be my opinion and apply it to those cases where the competent authority has condemned the abuser.

Alexander Greco said...

Me: In order for church discipline to be executed to redress a wrongful act, the offending party's identity and church fellowship needs to be known.

Rhology: Quite, but not by you and not by anyone else on teh Interw3bz.

Except of course when it comes to TFan and Caner, right? Exactly!

Rhology said...

Caner is a public figure and has preached to many, many people. I'm surprised the obvious difference between him and TF is lost on you.

Paul Hoffer said...

Hi Rhology,

You wrote:

Indeed, b/c he's not acctable to you.

I know you clearly, badly want to achieve some power over him. I know it's burning a hole in your soul. But you have to learn to let go, man. Not everyone is answerable to you.

You're not even part of a valid church of Jesus, and you want to lecture TF about whether his elders are apprised of every Internet post of his?

My response: Not at all Rhology, As I pointed out in my original posting, I do know where TF goes to church and who his pastor. And yet, I NEVER advocated that sort of accountability. As for your accusation about what is in my heart or my soul, I do not desire to acquire power over anyone. I believe that I am not on this earth to be served, but to serve others. My apologetics apostolate is an outgrowth of my attitude of diakonia. Being a servant to others is a ministry I take seriously and hope and pray that if it is God's will, that I might be allowed to sacramentalize it and become a deacon in my Church someday.

As for the tu quoque, You wrote" Further, it's rich for a RC to talk about church discipline when RCC can barely bring itself to discipline those who are richly deserving of it. Clean your own house before you worry about Presbyterians, especially when you so loudly trumpet that one of the advantages of RC ecclesiology over that of Protestants is that one is never left alone, that one always has accountability to one's sacramental hierarchy." If it squawks like a chicken, walk like a chicken...

In response to your remarks as to whom TF would be accountable for, the Trueman lecture that your friend Matt Schultz commented on over at your Blog suggests the answer (I suppose you listened to it by now as I have as I said I would after Mr. Schultz clarified what it was about). First, one is accountable to God, then to himself and then to one's readership. I believe that is what I was suggesting when I said that one should have the courage to stand behind what one writes. Mr. Hays wished to impose a whole new layer of accountability-one which I did not advocate SINCE I AFFIRM TF'S RIGHT TO BLOG PSEUDONYMOUSLY. Besides, for all we know, Mr. Fan is subject to the elders of his church and does run his postings by them.

God bless!

Dave Armstrong said...

I know you clearly, badly want to achieve some power over him. I know it's burning a hole in your soul. But you have to learn to let go, man. Not everyone is answerable to you.

Right. You know the inner workings of Paul's heart and soul. Who made you God? In fact, if you are God, I will surely choose to go to hell. You deny that a saint in heaven could ever possibly hear an intercessory prayer request, yet you, a mere mortal on earth, know all of the ins and outs of what occurs in another person's heart and brain.

Paul has chosen to act in a Christian manner by not revealing this information, and protesting that TAO's anonymity is used as a cloak to hide behind while trashing others.

He is acting in a Christian manner that was utterly foreign to TAO when the latter chose to reveal previously private information about Paul, that arguably could have damaged his reputation. But of course he only came off looking petty, small, and vindictive.

So if you are correct that Paul is motivated by nefarious urges of power and control, then why in the world did he not simply reveal who TAO is? Instead, he didn't do that, and has no plans to. You can't have it both ways: criticize him as being manipulative and unscrupulously power-hungry and then turn around and bash his motives because he doesn't reveal who TAO is.

But since when have anti-Catholics ever thought logically or sensibly about anything remotely having to do with Catholicism? I was foolish to even consider that logical consistency might actually be a desired goal of yours.

We know that for the anti-Catholic, the Catholic must always be wrong, and his motivations always suspect, whenever he disagrees with the anti-Catholic. And so it is that Paul MUST have ill will and devilish motivations, because he chose NOT to out TAO. Man, imagine if he had OUTED him? What would have been said then?

Rhology said...

Ah, thanks PH.
Thing is, that's not a tu quoque. A tu quoque would be if I'd made "yeah but you too!" my only defense, thus granting the wrong on my own side. Which I don't grant, not at all. Rather, I'm identifying y'alls' hypocrisy as well as your bad priorities.


Mr. Hays wished to impose a whole new layer of accountability-one which I did not advocate SINCE I AFFIRM TF'S RIGHT TO BLOG PSEUDONYMOUSLY.

Glad to hear it. But b/c of what I said above, you're now merely proving you can't be consistent with your previously-stated standards.

Alexander Greco said...

Rhology, go back and read Paul's initial post. Maybe you didn't actually read it before?

Alexander Greco said...

Paul: 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...However, that is my personal preference.

...throughout our shared American history we have respected and protected the right to speak anonymously...

...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...

Rhology, while you are here, do you have any comment for TFan's behavior as described here:

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.

Rhology said...

Rather than seriously engaging the points I made

That I doubt seriously. But I'm open to evidence of this assertion.

Paul Hoffer said...

Hello Rhology, You apparently do not know that there are several forms of the tu quoque fallacy,only the pot calling the kettle black version. In legal circles, tu quo que is also the label for arguments premised on "unclean hands" or to be more precise that one acts inconsistent with prior actions. You stated that Catholics have no right to talk about church discipline when their own church fails to exercise discipline against its priests. That is a form of the tu quoque fallacy. what you would need to do to rehabilitate your argument is prove that Mr. Greco has in the past condoned or endorsed such unp-priestly behavior in the past.

Now that this side issue is out of the way, using my first article, kindly show me how I am being inconsistent with my previously-stated standards. 1) I personally do not practice anonymous or pseudonymous posting because I believe in owning my words. 2) I affirm Mr. Fan's right to blog pseudonymously because a)he has a legal right to to do so and b) there are morally licit reasons that he may do so. 3) Bloggers should interact with a person's arguments rather than attacking a writer personally.

I look forward to seeing your answer here.

God bless!

Parker said...

Gotta feel bad for Rho "king of Bad Arguments" logy.

1. Mind & motive reading - check
2. Soul Status readings - check
3. Church classification - check
4. Logical Fallacy - Check

The only thing he has not done yet is tell you that you're "question begging", even when he's the one doing the "question begging"

Parker said...

btw Paul you've got to stop wasting your time with Steve Hays and Beggars all. Its not worth you time honestly.

Peter Porcellato said...

No way.

It has been guys like Paul, Dave A, Dave W., Adomnan and Crimson Catholic, to name a few, who have greatly assisted me in strengthening my faith. When I first stumbled across the Boors All Gang a bunch of years ago, I was startled at what I thought were solid arguments they put forth to refute Catholicism. The above mentioned men were priceless as they pointed the serious flaws in the BAG’s argumentation.

Now, when I read these discussions (almost never comment) it is easy for me to see the myriad of logical inconsistencies these Prots labour under.

Although it comes at a cost of much mental and spiritual discomfort, guys like Paul need to post for all the readers. If I am the normal Joe that I think I am, then hundreds of other people like me are now able to easily identify the logical inconsistencies, double standards, and poor biblical exigesis of the BAG).

It is partially because of the BAG, that my wife and I have enrolled our children in logic classes in order for them to think rightly and to defend themselves against sophistry.

Don’t stop refuting Paul etal, no matter how distasteful it can get.

Peter Porcellato

Rhology said...

PH,
I think my last comment got caught in the spam filter. I would appreciate it if you could publish it.

Thanks!

Paul Hoffer said...

Hi Rhology: I am not quite sure how to do that other than by copying it and pasting it here.

Rhology wrote on Monday 3/28/2011 at 3:37 p.m.

PH,

Yes, the POT calling the kettle black. I do not grant that TF is a pot. That's what I was saying.


You stated that Catholics have no right to talk about church discipline when their own church fails to exercise discipline against its priests.

I didn't say "you have no right".
Maybe if you were to quote me correctly, we could continue to discuss this in a meaningful way.


You said in your original article:
In order to own your words, you have to have the courage to stand behind them, to be accountable for what you say.

And acctable to whom? You don't say whom.


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

The link displays an argument. He attacked the article for poor reasoning. Ironically, the same poor reasoning you're falsely accusing me of here. Irony can be ironic sometimes.
But if you'd like, I'll say this - I disagree with TF's posting that link. I do not believe it to be germane to the topic under discussion in his article, so I do not support him linking to it in that way.


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.

I've noticed plenty of that, anonymous or not, on teh Interw3bz. I know I have too much of a temper myself on that count. It's not just a symptom of anonymity. And no, it's not right, anonymous or not.


to offer as cogent and coherent refutation of the offending notions as well as one is able to do.

Sadly, that's where you and yours fail the most obviously.
So why even discuss the man's anonymity? Your very writing this post is suspect. If you want to discuss issues, then discuss issues. Who TF is is completely unimportant.


But what I've mostly been discussing is this quote from this part 2 article:
Mr. Hays does not hold the pseudonymous Mr. Fan to the standard he sets for me.

So if you're really interested in #3 - Bloggers should interact with a person's arguments rather than attacking a writer personally - then get on it. I'll expect that, given your #3 point here, you'll no longer be posting comments here, nor more posts on the topic of the identity of TF. Let's see if you can be consistent on THIS point at least.

Peace,
Rhology

Rhology said...

Many thanks.
For future reference, you log in to your blog, go to Comments, then the Spam section. There's a button that says "Not Spam".

David Waltz said...

Hi Paul,

I see that you have ventured into dark, skewed world of Steve Hays. As you know, I have had a few encounters with Steve, and after every encounter, I felt a need to take a long, hot shower...

I would like to address yet one more lie from Steve's perverse pen:

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

For the record, I am not an "anti-Trinitarian". A careful reading of my posts on Trinitarianism reveals that I do not believe that Trinitarianism is an explicit teaching of the Biblical record, but rather, that it is a development of doctrine. I agree with Dr. Raymond Brown's following assessment:

“Three different figures, Father, Son, and Spirit, are brought into conjunction in the NT. Some NT formulas join the three; other references unite the Father and the Son; and still other references relate the Spirit to the Father and/or Son. Nevertheless, in no NT passage, not even in Matt. 28:19, is there precision about three divine Persons, co-equal but distinct, and one divine Nature—the core of the dogma of the Trintiy. Greek philosophy, sharpened by continuing theological disputes in the church from the 2nd to the 5th centuries, contributed to the classical formulation of the dogma. On the one hand one may say, the, that the precise Trinitarian dogma is not detectable in the literal sense of the NT, i.e., was not observably understood by first-century authors and audiences. On the other hand, reflection on NT texts played a crucial role in leading the church to the dogma to the dogma of three divine Persons and one divine Nature, a dogma that employed new terminology and embodied new insights as a response to new questions. There is no need to posit new revelation to account for the truth ultimately phrased in the trinitarian dogma, since that truth was already revealed when God sent Jesus Christ and when the risen Christ communicated his Spirit. Yet the development was not simply a matter of logic. In faith, one can claim that the Spirit guided the church as it moved from the NT triadic passages to perceiving and proclaiming the trinitarian dogma. Christians should not be embarrassed to affirm that they depend upon the Spirit’s guidance in such an essential dogma., for that guidance is really an application of Christ’s promise to be with his community and to send the Paraclete to guide them along the way of all truth…If ‘tradition’ implies that first-century Christianity already understood three coequal but distinct divine Persons and one divine Nature but had not developed the precise terminology, I would dissent. Neither the terminology nor the basic ideas had reached clarity in the first century; problems and disputes were required before the clarity came…Precisely because the ‘trinitarian’ line of development was not the only line of thought detectable in the NT, one must posit the guidance of the Spirit and intuition of faith as the church came to its decision.” (Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Exegesis & Church Doctrine, 1985, pp. 31-33.)


Grace and peace,

David