If you’re ever in doubt over whether someone who insists that he is not anti-Catholic really is anti-Catholic, drop in on his blog when a story that highlights the foibles of some Catholic is making the rounds of the blogosphere. Does he carefully note that such a story may be silly but reflects poorly only on the Catholic in question and not the Church as a whole? Or does he snatch up this handy stick and start using it to beat the Church while ignoring those Catholic bloggers who are decrying the silliness?
Case in point: When a Polish Dominican friar, not a monk as the press claimed, sought a recording of John Paul II’s heartbeat for playback at a Christmas Mass, Catholic bloggers rolled their eyes and duly noted that this was a Bad Idea. It wouldn’t have taken an Evangelical blogger much research to find the posts by Mark Shea, Amy Welborn, and JimmyAkin.org (written by yours truly). You would expect an Evangelical apologist who vigorously denies charges of anti-Catholicism to report on such posts in his coverage of the subject. At the very least you would expect him to refrain from giving the impression that all Catholics or the Church as an institution approve of such goings-on.
In the case of Evangelical apologist James White that just ain’t the case.
White not only reaches for the stick and starts swinging; but, in his eagerness to make the Church look bad, he repeats a basic error in the media report:
"Monk [sic] Seeks Recording of JPII’s Heartbeat: OK, this is just plain creepy, but then again, the listing of what Frederick had at the castle church at Wittenberg is just as creepy, just not high-tech. There is something so very non-Christian about this kind of thing you wonder how anyone with a scintilla of respect for biblical teaching could possibly find it attractive."
GET THE POST. (The quote is current as of my visit on 12/20 at 12:40 PM Pacific Time.)
Had White bothered poke around some of the major Catholic blogs, of which he has demonstrated in the past that he is a reader, he would have found out that Dominicans are friars, not monks. (Yes, Mr. White, there is a difference.) But then he would have seen that this particular news story was of an anomaly in the Catholic world, not representative of Catholicism in general, and wouldn’t have had nearly as much fun giving his own readers the impression that Catholics do not have "a scintilla of respect for biblical teaching."
Although the particular "relic" in this case — JPII’s heartbeat — is of questionable taste, authentic relics are not "creepy." Catholics appreciate them because they have much more than "a scintilla of respect for biblical teaching."
Meanwhile, I’ll just sit back and smile as Bishop White alienates himself from yet more of his own inner circle. The exodus began a year or two ago, with Tim Enloe, did it not?
Well, not to mention his sister!
I think it may be a stretch to say that White’s claim that “anyone with a scintilla of respect” is a denouncement of all Catholics in general. The Catholic church has not declared an “attraction” to it, and White didn’t say so. He said that he wonders how anyone who respects biblical teaching could.
As for calling him a monk, well he’s not Catholic, how is he supposed to know? I’m Catholic, and I don’t even know the difference. (Maybe it’s a good blog post topic, Jimmy.)
I love the Catholic church and appreciate it when good apologists stand up against our bashers, but seriously, I think you’re reading a little more into this than really exists. Perhaps you’re basing this more on your past experience of White than on this one post, which you seem to be viewing through tinted glasses.
Mr. White’s book “The Roman Catholic Controversy” was actually key to my conversion to the Catholic faith. His arguments are so easily destroyed by Catholic apologists. When you read passages like 2 Kings 13:20-21 and Acts 19:11-12 you discover that it is the Catholics who respect Biblical teaching.
As for calling him a monk, well he’s not Catholic, how is he supposed to know? I’m Catholic, and I don’t even know the difference.
A friar is “a member of one of the mendicant orders.”
A monk “A monk may be conveniently defined as a member of a community of men, leading a more or less contemplative life apart from the world, under the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, according to a rule characteristic of the particular order to which he belongs.”
Given the amount of time White has spent debating Catholic apologists, does he really have an excuse for not even browsing the Catholic Encyclopedia?
I think what Michelle is driving at is that if Mr. White is really interested in arguing against Catholicism, he should argue against actual Catholic doctrines and traditions, rather than highlighting the activities of Catholic kooks.
It would be like Jimmy or Michelle posting on Robert Tilton or Rod Parsley. It just wouldn’t advance the discussion at all. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
Joy, one reason I decided to write this post is because for many years now I have been trying to give White the benefit of the doubt when he states that he is not anti-Catholic, just a Christian standing up for what he believes to be truth.
But this post of his on the relics issue finally convinced me that he is anti-Catholic and the major thesis of the post (demonstrated in the title) was to point out a means of determining the difference between a confused but sincere Evangelical apologist and an anti-Catholic who is pursuing an agenda against the Church.
Just an ironic note. Here at Franciscan University. Our friary has “Holy Spirit Monastery” in big letters along the side of it. Just in front of the friary is a sign that says “Holy Spirit Friary”.
Dave Armstrong has certainly had enough of James White. The ‘blogmaster of Cor Ad Cor Loquitor has had more than his share of run-ins with White. Search Dave’s blog on posts about White and you will see what is the epitome of Catholic bashing by him.
The smarmy git doesn’t even understand satispassio in Purgatory. Are we then suprised he doesn’t know the difference between a friar & a monk?
I’m sorry to disagree a bit with some of you.
I find the idea of being able to listen to JPII’s heartbeat something that might be intensely meditative, listening to the heartbeat of a heart that loved God so much, listening to it slow down, slow down, until the final beat and the ultimate peace that signals the fulfillment of his desire – to be with the Father in His House. It’s the story of our lives.
It’s probably too macabre to listen to it by itself, but as a background pulse to some glorious music, I think it wouldn’t sound as bad as it sounds.
I guess some Evangelicals will always find relics to be in bad taste, just as some Catholics will always find ‘guest entertainers’ at worship services to be appaling.
Look, I’m fine with somebody wanting to hear JPII’s heartbeat. If they think something straight out of ER will be meditative, fine. If they want to do a meditative prelude to Mass, even, that’d be copacetic.
But not at Mass. And sure as heck, not during the “Lamb of God”. All of Mass is focussed on Christ, but by the time we get to the Lamb of God, we are only moments away from Communion with Our Lord. Our hearts and minds should be zeroed in on Him.
There are plenty of perfectly good, healthy, spiritually useful activities and prayer techniques that we don’t use during Mass.
“It would be like Jimmy or Michelle posting on Robert Tilton or Rod Parsley. It just wouldn’t advance the discussion at all. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.”
…sort of like Michelle Arnold posting on James White?
But this post of his on the relics issue finally convinced me that he is anti-Catholic
Funny, I was convinced he was anti-Catholic by listening to his DL program and reading his apologetics material. Reading the post in question doesn’t make me think he’s anti-Catholic. I could see my wife’s family (all Protestant) making similar comments, and they aren’t anti-Catholic. Its just a weird concept. Relics are. I still think they’re weird. I accept them and can somewhat understand them, but I think they’re weird.
D.J., I could give him the benefit of the doubt after reading his books (I have only listened to his program a few times) that he was simply a sincere but confused Evangelical apologist. Those books were supposed to be systematic studies of Catholicism for the education of non-Catholic Christians. It is in his idle commentary meant as online conversation with his constituents that his true colors were shown.
Joy, in looking back through old posts, I see I haven’t posted on James White since August 30. Before that it was June 24. I haven’t given him a lot of coverage here. In this case, I did so for the reasons explained in my previous comment.
Joy, if you want to see an example of James White’s anti-Catholicism, google the debate between him and Br. Thomas Mary. He was so rattled by his opponent, that he left the debate half-way through, and refused to finish. Then on top of it all, he had the gall to declare victory on his website! To me, that shows a lot about James White’s character, and convictions.
I have been doing a lot of reading on historical anti-Catholicism from the Reformation onward and there is something I noticed.
Catholicism is the source of all other Christian denominations. This is not an exaggeration nor is it a boast. It is just a statement of plain fact.
Protestants deny this in various ways, of course. Some concoct stories of “trails of blood” of mythical proto-Protestants martryed by the Church. Others point to the community of Christians as a “spiritual” whole and make a point to ignore the One True Church established by God Made Man for the salvation of all mankind.
But lies do not change reality and changing the definition of “duck” does not change what is in actuality a duck. The fact is, when a Protestant engages in or propagates anti-Catholicism. That person undercuts their own religion. This is not readily apparent and sometimes take generations to see the true fruit of the deed but that does not mean there aren’t tons of examples:
It was the anti-Catholic and former KKK member Justice Hugo Black of the Supreme Court in the 1920’s who led the SC to start interpreting the Establishment Clause as a lever to be used to purge all form of religious expression from the government. Now, something as innocent as a display of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is a hotly-contested constitutional issue. The very existence of such a debate can be considered a major defeat for a supposedly Christian society.
In the late 19th century, accusations started flying from anti-Catholics that the mass is nothing more than a thinly disguised pagan ritual and that Catholicism as a whole was a brand of Christianity perverted by pagan doctrines. This has naturally bolstered the claims by neo-pagans today that Christianity is false and opportunist faith built on deception and misogynist lies.
When Luther introduced the concept of Sola Scriptura, he did the most anti-Catholic thing imaginable: he fragmented the unity of the Catholic Church. And Judging from Christ’s final prayer in Jn 17 unity was meant to be God’s defining charism for His Church.
The result? True Christianity gets lost in the sea of ever more numerous sub-sects and, at time when the Church should be basking in the unmitigated glow of the civilization She created and the many spiritual, academic, and material gifts She has granted the whole world, the Church of the True Faith is seen as just another religion. The debt society owes Christian theology has been plowed under by confusion, doubt, worldly cynicism, and relativism. In the end, Secularism has taken the place of Christianity in our halls of learning and government as our new master.
I think it would be interesting for someone to write a book about the boomerang effect of anti-Catholicism and how it ultimately infects all of Christianity. Call Catholicism superstitious, and in a generation faith seems silly. Call it backward and in a generation Christianity is indeed bending over backwards to keep up with the times.
StubbleSpark,
It wasn’t Luther who wrote Exurge Domine. Leo the Simoniac split the Church. Luther was just too willing to go along with that, by that point.
The other patriarchies of the Church were in existance nearly as long to longer than Rome, and I think they would have a different take on the idea that all Christian manifestations split from Rome, which you posit as original.
–an Evangelical Catholic of the Augsburg Confession
Puzzled provides historical revisionism at its finest.
Those who need a Pope to tell them what to believe do not deserve eternal salvation and will not get it either. Repent and come out of Babylon.
“Those who need a Pope to tell them what to believe do not deserve eternal salvation”
Well, I’m glad to hear that you deserve eternal salvation.
We sinners, on the other hand, need forgiveness and justification through the shed blood of Christ at Calvary. That’s what the Pope says, anyhow.