jump to navigation

The difference between hypocrisy and Catholic fidelity August 24, 2006

Posted by Administrator in Blogging, Catholicism, Mechanistic Relativism.
trackback

I have been struggling -for the longest time- with atheist and relativist magpies who holler in the most strident terms that Christianity (particularly Catholicism) is the ne plus ultra of hypocrisy.  People who read this blog know this as I am constantly reporting back on my (usually failed) battles with these people and their sycophants in their cramped scho chambers.

And I kept stretching for a proper means of rebutting their arguments.

Well, I’ve finally found it, courtesy of a fellow named Dr. Philip Blosser commenting on a post by Dreadnought back in January:

There are two kinds of inconsistency that need to be sharply distinguished  . . .

First, there is the inconsistency of the Catholic life of obedient struggle against sin, which admittedly is not always a smooth and steady progress in sanctification but an advance in fits and starts and slips backward into sin that sometimes leaves one wondering whether it is an advance at all. The important thing, however, is that the faithful Catholic never compromises what he professes to be true. He never calls vice virtue. He never says that what the Church calls sinful or disordered is a “beautiful gift from God.” He never says “F__k the Church.” His is an inconsistency of sin and weakness, not an inconsistency of principle.

Second, there is the inconsistency of professing to be Catholic while rejecting what the Catholic Church teaches. This is refusing to agree with the Church that sin is sin, that what is gravely disordered is so, and insisting that it’s something else, something good, simply because one wishes it were so. This is not an inconsistency of sin or weakness, but an inconsistency of dishonesty, an inconsistency of conscious heresy concerning the moral teaching of the Church while still insisting that one is a bona fide Catholic.

Boom.

And again.

KA-Boom.

Perfect.  Dr. Blosser (and Dreadnought, more on whom another time) Go Directly to Good Guy’s Links.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. GH - September 19, 2006

The reason you can’t rebut there arguments is you find this type of rebuttal remotely convincing despite being riddled with bad thinking.

‘Second, there is the inconsistency of professing to be Catholic while rejecting what the Catholic Church teaches.’

In that case there are few Catholics. If you are lock step with every dogma the church espouses you are no longer a thinking individual but a hapless follower. Not of God but what men say you should think about God.

‘This is refusing to agree with the Church that sin is sin, that what is gravely disordered is so, and insisting that it’s something else, something good, simply because one wishes it were so.’

No this is refusing to agree that the church is correct about what it calls sin or that sin even exists. This argument presumes information that simply isn’t there.

‘ This is not an inconsistency of sin or weakness, but an inconsistency of dishonesty, an inconsistency of conscious heresy concerning the moral teaching of the Church while still insisting that one is a bona fide Catholic.’

No. One can think a church teaching genuinely wrong headed. And many do on a variety of items such as birth control, divorce, priests marrying etc. These all have a large body of dissenting positions who think the churches stance is wrong and even unbiblical. All you are disagreeing with is what men say. To silence voices that may be correct is simply a form of fascism.

2. demolition65 - September 20, 2006

In that case there are few Catholics. If you are lock step with every dogma the church espouses you are no longer a thinking individual but a hapless follower.

Ah. I’ve been reaching for the source of your animus. Now I see it. “Catholics are blind followers.” Whatever. You fit quite neatly into Bishop Sheen’s admonition: “There are millions who hate what they think is Catholicism, but less than a thousand who hate what it really is.”

Count yourself amongst the millions, GH. You haven’t a clue.

or that sin even exists. Of course not. Why else would you dare to accept the existence of something that might challenge your ability to do whatever you see fit?

To silence voices that may be correct is simply a form of fascism. Who said anything about silencing? And like so many, you have no clue about the proper definition of fascism. I had it wrong myself recently. . .


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: