Non-debate Debating

[Lil Red]

[url="http://www.trosch.org/for/keene-7e.htm"]http://www.trosch.org/for/keene-7e.htm[/url]

DIALOGUE AMERICAN STYLE: NON-DEBATE DEBATING

A priest friend of mine, who attended seminary in the northeast several years ago, recently shared with me how he had been trained by a modernist instructor on the most effective way to debate the traditionalist view of Catholicism.

Certain members of the class were to lay out strong orthodox theological positions, while others were to represent the modernist view. The class would decide the winner. The first student would strongly state his case using forceful traditional arguments. But the student who represented the modernist viewpoint would not respond at all to the substance of the first student's arguments, but rather would speak softly about how unfortunate the first student's negative attitude was. How it was obvious he was struggling in his own spiritual life. That he should be careful to avoid being mean spirited, as well as realizing these matters were far too complicated for pat answers. Surely in his misguided zeal he was exaggerating matters and being judgmental.

The class agreed that the modernist position won.

Over the years, and in numerous confrontations and discussions about theology, I have often encountered similar strategy. Last month's letter concerning Cardinal Bernardin, Holy Devil? sparked several such responses. One person told me how they couldn't believe I had written such things, but then turned away, ending any discussion. Another told me how disappointed in me they were that I would denigrate the Cardinal, implying some malicious motive on my part. I asked him to please point out one statement that I had made that was not true. He walked away.

Several years ago at a pro-life gathering I forcefully stated that the Catholic laity would never mobilize against abortion until the clergy provided proper leadership, which at that point, and even now is almost non existent. No one stepped forward to dispute me with evidence of clerical leadership in the battle for the unborn. No, they simply accused me of "priest bashing." Bill Clinton used the strategy against Bob Dole. Dole forcefully pointed out Clinton's habitual lying and political opportunism. Clinton didn't (couldn't) even attempt a rebuttal, but piously said "Criticism never fed a child."

We can also see an example of this methodology in the Jackson diocese. The Mississippi Today continues to publish the modernist ranting of Fr. Richard McBrien. Almost weekly a faithful reader will write the editor to take exception with McBrien's heretical neo-paganism. Yet we see no response from the editor or the bishop to explain why McBrien's views are worthy of promulgation, or in the alternative, pointing out the error of his critics. No we simply get silence.

This is Non-Debate debate. [b]When one can't win a debate on the facts, there are several strategies. The best strategy is to put on an air of civility and kindness and make your opponent appear mean and insensitive. The second is to attack your opponent personally, questioning his motives for pursuing his position. Lastly, one simply refuses to respond to any criticism. [/b]

In our ongoing struggle with modernists, we orthodox Catholics appeal to the Popes, Councils of the Church, tradition and Sacred Scripture. [b]Modernists mumble platitudes about our lack of charity and unwillingness to "dialogue."[/b] They charge us with failing to live up to the "spirit of Vatican II" and attack us as rigid extremists who lack compassion and understanding. They say and do anything except debate us on the substance of our arguments. Why? [b]Because they are wrong. They know they cannot win an honest open exchange. Instead they will continue to ignore our arguments and dismiss us as unenlightened tyrants because we won't buy into their nonsense. [/b]

In my last article I did not impugn Bernardin's motives. Only God knows what they were. But I did say he undermined the pro-life movement and allowed heresy and liturgical abuses on a massive scale. His diocese was a hot bed of dissident feminists and homosexual activists. He called Saint John an anti-Semite. He "dialogued" with dissenters while ignoring traditionalists. All of these things are true and documented (see below).

When the Amchurch crowd and modernists are willing to engage in honest debate I am more than willing. But as long as they continue to engage in non-debate debate, ignoring traditional Catholics, and dismissing us in a patronizing tone, I will continue to present Catholic orthodoxy in a forceful manner. We must all pray for God's grace and forgiveness. And though we are called to love and mercy, we are first called to truth. We must also remember that orthodox Catholic theology teaches that it is true mercy to admonish sinners, instruct the uninformed, and counsel the doubtful.

May God help us.

May the Peace of Our God the Lord Jesus Christ and the Prayers of Our dear Blessed Mother Mary be with you always.

/s/

Jack Keene


For the curious, I have included below just a few examples of Bernardin's statements and actions.

1. In an infamous speech given at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Bernardin stated that anti-Semitism began with the Gospel of John, the early Christians, and the Fathers of the Church "especially St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom." He also blamed the Church for the Holocaust: "There is little doubt that classical Christian presentations of Jews and Judaism were a central factor in generating popular support for the Nazi endeavor." May 23,1995.

2. When asked by Fr. Richard McBrien if he would deny communion to someone who is divorced and remarried in accordance with the Vatican mandate he said, "Oh, no, that would be inappropriate to embarrass someone like that." Essays in Theology Jan. 1995. In the same article he again blamed the Church for the Holocaust and said "I am not in awe of the Vatican, I have my own opinions."

3. In Feb.1994 Bernardin allowed Call to Action activist Fr. Michael Crosby (author of the Catholic bashing book Dysfunctional Church ) to speak in his diocese after Archbishop John Roach denied Crosby permission to speak in Minneapolis St. Paul because of his "vicious attacks on Catholicism." Nearly all the modernist Call to Action leaders were affiliated in some way with Bernardin including former Director of Evangelization for Chicago Fr. Patrick Brennan. This group actively opposes the teachings of the Holy Father.

4. In March 1995 the Cardinal pledged one million dollars of Chicago diocesan funds to the socialist Alinsky organization without consulting members of his diocese. This group supports the Democratic Party's social agenda, which includes radical feminism and forced redistribution of wealth. This was done even as old Churches were being shut down due to "lack of funds." Chicago Sun Times, March 1995.

5. In the Chicago daily Southtown Feb. 6,1994 Fr. Michael Place (Cardinal Bernardin's theological consultant) stated that Cardinal Bernardin would soon implement a plan to replace priests with "women parish coordinators'.

6. Pagan theologian Rosemary Reuther was a prominent fixture in Bernardin's diocese. She stated in her 1976 book Journeys: The Impact of Personal Experience on Religious Thought that she believed Baal to be a real god, and that she worshiped Artemis, Athena, and Isis.

[HartfordWhalers]

Couldn't agree more--Liberals always change the subject, avoid the issue, say you hate people, when they can't discuss the topic (which is always)...

[Thy Geekdom Come]

This article is dead on accurate.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

I believe this article speaks the truth. I've seen it in action. Not that my comments are up for debate, I'm simply using them to illustrate... but, I was able to view an old talk show (the name of which has escape me at the moment), where John Kerry and another Vietnam veteran appeared to debate each other. This was after the medal "incident". The other veteran forcefully and with clear terms defined why he was angry with Mr. Kerry's actions and why Mr. Kerry's veterans organization was less preferable than this own gentleman's. He put much thought into his arguement and was quite persuasive, direct and to the point.

Mr. Kerry's rebuttal consisted of softly spoken statements were along the lines of what a shame anyone had to go to war. Mr. Kerry directly employed the tactics discussed in the above article.

I don't want this to turn into a political debate, I was simply using it as an example.

When debating, take care to not look like the bad guy. Especially if you're right. I bet that serpent spoke very kindly to Eve.

[Lil Red]

good point, kilroy.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Sep 13 2004, 04:56 PM'] I believe this article speaks the truth. I've seen it in action. Not that my comments are up for debate, I'm simply using them to illustrate... but, I was able to view an old talk show (the name of which has escape me at the moment), where John Kerry and another Vietnam veteran appeared to debate each other. This was after the medal "incident". The other veteran forcefully and with clear terms defined why he was angry with Mr. Kerry's actions and why Mr. Kerry's veterans organization was less preferable than this own gentleman's. He put much thought into his arguement and was quite persuasive, direct and to the point.

Mr. Kerry's rebuttal consisted of softly spoken statements were along the lines of what a shame anyone had to go to war. Mr. Kerry directly employed the tactics discussed in the above article.

I don't want this to turn into a political debate, I was simply using it as an example.

When debating, take care to not look like the bad guy. Especially if you're right. I bet that serpent spoke very kindly to Eve. [/quote]
I'm not sure, but I believe the man was John O'Neill and it was on the Johnsonville brat Cavett Show.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Sep 13 2004, 05:50 PM'] I'm not sure, but I believe the man was John O'Neill and it was on the Johnsonville brat Cavett Show. [/quote]
You are correct sir. The names of both men failed me earlier today. Thank you.

[DominaNostra]

What do you all mean by that? Arent we suposed to be nice to people. When we are talking to them, shouldnt we encourage them to be good people and not really worry about who is right as much? I thought that we are supposed to have mutual respect for other people, their beliefs, their religions, everything. Arent we supposed to just be kind to others and not worry so much about who knows better and stuff? I know we are supposed to be catholic, but i have been told that anyone can go to Heaven as long as you do what they think is right? Am i wrong? can't people who think they are doing Gods will still go to heaven if they are not doing it right, like if theyre not Catholic?

[MorphRC]

I cant be stuffed reading all that raph.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='DominaNostra' date='Sep 14 2004, 12:32 PM'] What do you all mean by that? Arent we suposed to be nice to people. When we are talking to them, shouldnt we encourage them to be good people and not really worry about who is right as much? I thought that we are supposed to have mutual respect for other people, their beliefs, their religions, everything. Arent we supposed to just be kind to others and not worry so much about who knows better and stuff? I know we are supposed to be catholic, but i have been told that anyone can go to Heaven as long as you do what they think is right? Am i wrong? can't people who think they are doing Gods will still go to heaven if they are not doing it right, like if theyre not Catholic? [/quote]
Domina God didn't call us to be be nice people, but the holy people of God. He said "Go therefore and be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." Being nice does not mean you get to heaven, only being holy. To that end we are to love everyone as Christ loved us: this does not mean to confirm people in their sins to make them feel good.
We respect other people's dignity and the fact they were made by God, this does not mean we have to agree with their beliefs or behavior if they are out of line with the teachings of God.


We are to love the sinner, but hate their sin.

Edited September 14, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Sinner]

A common tactic.......frustrating....... and common. Good to call it a name: "Non Debate Debating".

[Ash Wednesday]

The problem I run into, and the biggest problem because it is the root -- is a modernist understanding or accepting authority of the pope and magisterium in the first place. You could quote all the councils and encyclicals you want, but chances are it will get blown off as "medieval."

So do you start with discussing the "big issue" of authority, or do you start with the "offshoot" issues, i.e. why contraception and abortion is wrong, for example, in hopes of getting a Catholic to understand that there is actually some [b]wisdom[/b] behind the Church's teachings and not just rules for a power trip?

I guess it depends on the direction the discussion goes in...

It sure is a lot easier to convince a Protestant of papal and magesterial authority, than it is a Catholic.

I will say a rosary tonight just for this intention. -_-