Combox for:
Bishops' Support of Lay Catholic Apologetics: Refutation of Tim Enloe & His Anti-Catholic Cronies' Ridiculously False Contentions
[29 January 2009]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ic-
cronies.html
I wonder if they make such statements just to see your response. It is impossible to wipe off mud faster than your opponent can throw it. I just wonder if ignoring these things is a better strategy. Certainly question need to be answered but once the answers are published then you need to count on people to be fair enough to you to read it. To repeat the response every time the charge is repeated seems like it takes up way to much time and energy.
I thought it was worth it to document the massive approval of bishops with regard to lay Catholic apologetics (especially CA). That part was new, and important to do. The facts are out there now for all to see (or ignore, or rationalize away).
Those whoppers were so outrageous that I deemed it necessary to blow them out of the water once and for all. Not that it'll do any good for those like Tim who devise the lies and spread them around like flatulence. But it's always good to document for the sake of fair-minded folks out there.
Tim (bless his heart) knows better. He always has known better. He is smart enough to know not to make dumb, stupid, ignorant remarks about Catholics and how the Church functions. But he keeps doing it, and someone had to call him on it.
It's a big joke. People need to know the facts, not the latest gossip and calumny that is making the rounds in Willful, Impervious Ignoranceville.
As of 3:30 PM EST on 1-29-09 I have added a lengthy section documenting bishops' approval of lay Catholic apologetics books; also have added a few things here and there: nothing major. But I always announce changes to papers, which are usually made in the first few days, as they take their final shape.
The story of lay catholic apologetics being a loose cannon is spread all over the anti-catholic sites. At least here's one lenghty answer. thanks DA!
BTW: Don't forget that to be Catholic is to check your mind at the door and let the Magisterium do your thinking for you but to be a Catholic apologist is to spout off whatever you think without the benefit of so much as an, "Ok" from the parish priest.
You can't win if your Catholic.
good one Martin!
It takes a lot of intelligence to get to the place where you are rendered "remarkably dumb". It's interesting that the bias shown by Enloe, and many other full-time apologists, is rooted in the need to sell books and keep controversy alive. The ignorance-perpetuating machine runs on the hopes that one day Catholicism will fail. It's like a man in a prison with walls of concrete twenty feet thick. He gets a spoon, and for a measure of time, he has some success scraping at the walls. But in the end, time runs out, and he dies in prison. But the thought of escape energized his efforts, not energy from being free in spirit, or having proof and facts that his scheme will ultimately vindicate him. Sola Scriptura means "left to my own devices, alone with my thoughts about the Bible"...
I posted a link to this as www.bonreport.com
Doug
sorry, meant "at" there on the last line 
Which of the Apostles observed Tim's "five year waiting period" for converts?
Acts 9:20 tells us that even Paul began to preach immediately - though he later spent some time in the desert.
Good point. But in any event, his criticism in that regard doesn't apply to me at all, and I have been the target he has personally hit the most, before he learned that it was counter-productive to keep naming names, because he was refuted every time he did so.
So now he talks in vague generalities. But I know when he is taking veiled potshots at me or myself and the group I am a part of, after ten years of following his verbal diarrhea.
For example, he has often written in terms of "self-appointed" or "self-anointed" apologists, and implied that this was true in my case, but of course it is not at all, since I had the backing of Fr. Hardon from the beginning of my apologetic activities: from before the time I was ever published at all, and years before I was on the Internet. It was the furthest thing from "self-appointed."
But of course Tim's own case is quintessentially "self-anointed" and "self-appointed." He has no credentials. All he has is a big mouth and a penchant for hyper-polemics and extreme exaggeration and caricature of opposing views.
So it is yet more projection . . .
When he becomes a professor of history and actually gets published in peer-reviewed journals, and is hired at some legitimate university, then he will finally have some actual credentials beyond his own exalted self-image. But he's been spouting endlessly for ten years before he has any (beyond a recent BA degree -- something I obtained in 1982). So who is he (of all people) to go after "self-anointed" apologists: as if he is any different??!!
I thought the protestant religion was founded by "self-appointed" ministers.So whats up with Tim and "self-appointed".If he feels self appionted is that bad the he should become either a Catholic christain or an eastern orthodox christain.After all,those two are the only christain religion that have legitimate ministers whose authority derive from Christ Jesus Himself.No Catholic lay apologist claims he is the equivalent of any member of the Catholic clergy so Tim's label of Catholic lay apologists as "self-anointed" or "self-appointed" is unfounded.
Commenting by HaloScan
