Follow up to Jean Vanier: Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalism and the CBC media screw things up again ...

[Important Update! 30/06/2013. After composing my posts, I have now found an official statement from L'Arche, as Mr. Vanier and L'Arche community have become aware of the confusion surrounding the CBC interview. See the official statement here: http://www.larchecommons.ca/en/national/news/clarifications_following_cbcs_interview_with_jean_vanier_on_assisted_dying_2016-06-13]

Follow up to Jean Vanier: Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalism and the CBC media screw things up again ... 

They are Highly Wrong at this Point ... Interpreting with the Mind of the Church.

Personally, I shudder at having to criticize or question John Paul Meenan, (herein, JPM) as a faculty member of what is possibly, the only (or first?) established, post secondary institution in Ontario, for orthodox, Catholic studies NOT poisoned by academia or liberalist/secular society, Our Lady Seat of Wisdom in Barry's Bay, Ontario. Might I add that the school is Latin Mass friendly and even has nearby St. Hedwig's Catholic Church that holds the Latin Mass, not to mention the school has a schola for Gregorian Chant and other fine works.

However, an educator and leader in the Church, in a prominent position such as OLSWA, has access to the young minds of our future Church, at their highest peak of philosophical formation. Their formation is CRUCIAL to becoming part of the leadership of the Church, and how they are formed will influence whether that leadership is TRUE evangelization and witness in the world, or just another recycling of lukewarm "c"atholicism, up to and including even becoming the next generation of heretics in the Church who will poison the next generation of minds when they reach power. That poisoning, is usually at the hands of the "liberals," but with their influence being sterile and self-suicidal, the new wave of such poisoning will be at the hands of the "conservatives" or "Traditionalists." This includes the content of the "Information Superhighway" that is the Internet, which my generation and younger are consulting, because they are being spiritually deprived of the TRUTH of their faith by their formators, which should not include, but sadly does: their mis-catechized and ignorant parents, alongside numerous clergy, and certain teachers in the "Catholic" system. 

The youth are not stupid and they know they are being left without truth and answer. I'll share some personal examples to illustrate this. In the ministry I've been involved in recently, some of these youth are telling me they wish that their teachers would explain the Scripture that they read in class, which really means, "What is the TRUTH behind this, not the teacher's version of it, or the answer as they don't have it?" I also recently had a young lady ask me for help to prepare for her Gr. 11 World Religions exam, where her teacher did NOT educate the class on reasons for a Christian (incl. Catholics), or anyone for that matter, to follow the teachings of Christ and the Catholic Church. Regardless, that content was part of a review and would likely be on the final exam. All this in a catholic school classroom nonetheless.

When people like JPM contribute work that becomes part of the Radical Misrepresenting Traditionalist (RMT) media network, which innocent young minds like his students and other youth such as I, are highly likely to access publicly and in environments counter to 'modern practices' in the Church, I must fraternally correct and criticize the work, for the sake of the souls of those searching the web on Mr. Vanier's interview and Catholic Orthodoxy/the Latin Mass. I may not be a post-secondary Catholic studies student, or one who has graduated with a P.hD in some advanced field of philosophy/theology, but I will use what arguments and Church documents I must to prevent other young minds and souls from starting, or going deeper down the path of Hell via Radical Traditionalism, and thinking NOT with the Mind of the Church on such matters.

The Original Source Article: The CBC Interview
First, in order to assess the arguments of Meehan, and whether the RMTs have ANY validity to their claims, I read the interview done by CBC, here. The CBC does admit that "part of their conversation" is posted on the web, so one must either transcribe the aired interview in full from the audio recording, or watch the program for the full scoop.

As for the published internet interview parts on CBC, one can tell that the author Carol Off, is asking numerous leading questions to try and steer Mr. Vanier into supporting Euthanasia bill C-14. One example is after Mr. Vanier talks briefly about lonely people and safeguards, she follows up with this: " But at the same time, do not lawmakers have to keep in mind those people who are in intense pain, who are facing a lifetime of suffering — whatever's left to their lives — to what degree do their rights have to be balanced out in this?" the next question, straightly said is, "CO: Do you think that people should have the legal right to choose the timing of their death and to have assistance in doing that?" The next question, once again, talks about "rights" of the euthanasia patient.

Right to start with our breakdown, the actual source of the interview MUST be analyzed. Now, the CBC always has, and is, a left-wing, mainstream media organization. They usually would NOT have reporters, report with the conservative/right-wing slant in the majority of their coverage. One can also reason that based on the emphasis of "rights," this reporter is adhering to that slant, and continually wants Mr. Vanier to give the "correct, liberal" response. Rights in the liberal sense, is NOT the same as human rights. The Catholic Church's view of a human right is the right to live with dignity and respect, to have basic human needs as shelter, food, water, love, etc. Rights are what every human needs to survive and deserve, on account of their inherent dignity.

 A liberal interprets a ``right`` not as such, but beyond what a human absolutely needs in functioning and living fully in this world. "Extras" as it were, extras that are even more important that those absolute human needs! More-so, that a "right" is a "demand" for whatever the minority or individual wants, regardless of the majority`s contrary rights and freedoms. Said liberals will demand it to the highest of heights, even if that person will NOT benefit from the right being demanded to be accepted by the majority ... at all costs. On that note of liberalism, or more appropriately its origin in libertarian-ism, anything that impedes humanity's evolution and self-fulfillment must be challenged and all barriers broken to such fulfillment, including any opposing philosophies and/or understanding of the human person. Keeping this in mind, we cannot trust the CBC and the reporter. this is a biased interview that will attempt to coerce the interviewee to say what the CBC wants them to say in their favour, or according to their liberal beliefs.

Now, even in the partial excepts of the full interview, despite what CO tried to do, Mr. Vanier did NOT in any way, shape or form, directly endorse euthanasia. If anything, he denied Mrs. Off's desire of him acknowledging the "human right" she wants do desperately, here, when she has the direct question of a patient having said legal right: " People could go through periods of just fatigue, depression, loneliness. So we mustn't go too quick to just say "there's a legal right". They also have a legal right to be walked with, accompanied, and helped."

Off then also tries to go for the jugular with the "personal" approach in her last question, whereby CBC reports (surprisingly in text ... as you'd think they'd want the full translation,) "CO: If you don't mind, one final personal question: I'm wondering, can you imagine circumstances in which you might choose to end your life, and to seek assistance to do so? JV: It's certainly a very personal question. And I would say no, I can't see. But, you see, I have never lived intense pain." She tried, but failed.

If anything can be said, during the interview, Jean Vanier continues to re-iterate the most powerful teachings of the prior Vatican II popes, Paul II, Benedict XVI Emeritus, and current pope Francis, about how at the root of much of the problem, is that these people, the handicapped, etc. are NOT loved. By love, it is meant that the person is loved for existing, pain, problems and all. That is what the L'Arche community does with its members and those who work within them.

Am I "taking crazy pills" to quote pop culture villain in the movie Zoolander, Mugatu? Nope, I am not. It turns out I am not the only one to see that Carol Off was an aggressive, biased, pro-euthanasia zealot who wanted to coax Mr. Vanier into supporting her cause. Those of you who are aware of the Pro-Life Movement, and in general the "culture wars," might remember media journalist and political activist, Ezra Levant. He used to be a lead journalist with Sun Media, until it collapsed, and during his time there, had become the subject of some libel suits. Currently, he is the head of The Rebel Media. From the Wikipedia article, "The Rebel Media (or The Rebel) is a conservative Canadian online political and social commentary media platform founded in February 2015 by former Sun News Network host Ezra Levant. The Rebel Media broadcasts its content on the Rebel Media YouTube channel and the TheRebel.media website."

While not the author, his "The Rebel Media" staff, Brett Fawcett, issued an editorial article on the website, analyzing the CBC interview (http://www.therebel.media/cbc_interview_jean_vanier_
euthanasia_culture_of_death.) I would strongly recommend you read the article in full, but relevant to this blog posting, the summary is that the editorial of Fawcett, agrees entirely with what I've siad, and without a doubt, is in stark contrast to the LifeSiteNews team, JPM, and the Radical Traditionalists who ate up their propaganda:

".... This whole [-life] philosophy is a warm contrast to the cold, contemporary idea that if someone seems too broken to enjoy life sufficiently, then the best option is to help that person kill him or herself. If you want to see how ingrained that latter mentality is, listen to Carol Off’s interview with Vanier for CBC.  Her questions, over and over, circle back to the same basic script: Should Canada legally allow doctor-assisted suicide? And, over and over, Vanier refuses to let himself be locked into this merciless mentality of the secular world. Off is asking the wrong questions: When someone is ill and wants to die, the question isn’t: Should we craft legislation to ensure that they can? The proper question is: How do we prevent people from feeling that way? Vanier consistently counters Off’s queries with this (revolutionary!) attitude: If someone wants to die, they are probably depressed, or lonely, or feel useless or pressured. The remedy for this is to take every effort to ensure that every sick and ailing person feels loved and cared for so that this suicidal idea isn’t there in the first place. This is a beautiful, life-affirming approach, which Off never engages ...." (Fawcett)

This above snip-it of The Rebel Media's posting clearly summarizes that interview. It was biased, and pushy, to force Mr. Vanier to reject his Catholic beliefs and affirm euthanasia. It did NOT work and Mr. Vanier was clever enough to engage in a word fight with Ms. Off, who was clearly off her journalistic game.

Now for the Other Biased Elephant in the Room ... The Mind of the Church Must be Discussed before we can Analyze the Attack by LifeSiteNews (herein, LSN) by Meenan ... 

So at least on the pro-life side (Meenan/LSN), the printed portions from the CBC interview are decently 'kosher.' However Meenan's attack on Mr. Vanier, comes from the FULL interview from the actual recording of the program, and translations of the original French, with portions NOT put in the written text online. In addition, the interpretation of Mr. Meehan towards Vanier's statements, is not thought out wholly according to the mind of the Church, as well as disregards possible factors that can mitigate what Mr. Vanier truly wants to say, or does not express his wishes fully in his words. 

Before I can analyze the direct arguments of Meenan, and the full text, one must discuss what is this "Mind of the Church" that a Catholic must have as their lens for interpreting documents, as well as that of any member of the faithful in regards to their faith.

The Mind of the Church,  can best be read about and defined in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/
15006b.htm) under TRADITION & CATHOLIC MAGISTERIUM. 

To think with the Mind of the Church, we obviously need a "benchmark" as to the major/central teachings of the Church, and what we can measure other things in this world against. With regards to the Church's teaching authority on faith and morals, in what is the Magisterium, and the deposit of faith:

"There is a formula current in Christian teaching (and the formula is borrowed from St. Paul himself) that traditional truth was confided to the Church as a deposit which it would guard and faithfully transmit as it had received it without adding to it or taking anything away ....  this idea of a deposit should not make us lose sight of the true manner in which traditional truth lives and is transmitted in the Church. This deposit in fact is not an inanimate thing passed from hand to hand; it is not, properly speaking, an assemblage of doctrines and institutions consigned to books or other monuments of every kind are a means, an organ of transmission, they are not, properly speaking, the tradition itself.  "

This does not exactly mean that documents from the Vatican, catechisms written at X time periods and NOT rescinded, compilations of doctrine/dogma (etc.) are to be dismissed. Then you get heresy garbage like in Longergan Theology where people think if the majority of the Church rejects something on paper, it can be thrown out. That`s how other non-Catholic churches function and look what it has resulted in: Numerous little churches that split off from the main to cater to individual feelings and ideas, until it is so far removed from the original mainline church, or THE CHURCH to begin with.

Rather, the concept of the Mind of the Church with regards to the individual and common doctrine is more along these lines: People can all have a common sentiment or idea about something that is absolute, or part of the Natural Moral Law and Divine Truths that God has established in existence. Individuals can have this common sentiment despite

"...the ideas and opinions of each man, but which take on a peculiar aspect in each man inasmuch as they are the ideas and opinions of all. The existence of tradition in the Church must be regarded as living in the spirit and the heart, thence translating itself into acts, and expressing itself in words or writings; but here we must not have in mind individual sentiment, but the common sentiment of the Church, the sense or sentiment of the faithful, that is, of all who live by its life and are in communion of thought among themselves and with her."

Obviously, the Church itself is to exist for all time, until its existence, tied with all existence, is ended by God at that point in finite time He knows, and has chosen, to end the finite world. Of course, we do not know, but considering the Bible covers 5000+ years of history, and our last century has had the most moral, technological, etc. change in our world, including globalization, that won`t come anytime soon. Over time, many different societies, cities, ways of life, etc. have become minimized or have become parts of history.

Now, through all that history, were the Church to remain static, and no new development in the Faith occurred, in the doctrinal, theological, AND the practical realms of application of said doctrine, the Faith might become a "dead" religion! God, in her wisdom, made sure that the essential "core" of the Faith, its deposit, remains intact (also with the guarantee against all evil in cf. Matthew 16:18,) while expanding and being able to tackle the challenges of each time period, even when crises have hit the Church (e.g. Arianism in the 400-500AD period.) This Magisterium, purposely is a living entity that "... searches in the past ... The thought of the Church is essentially a traditional thought and the living magisterium by taking cognizance of ancient formulas of this thought thereby recruits its strength and prepares to give to immutable truth a new expression which shall be in harmony with the circumstances of the day and within reach of contemporary minds."

However, when people, both lay and clergy, try to put into concrete action the above in the boldfaced paragraph, trying to express the idea of these truths, to changing times, " ... human groups [are prone] to error and thoughtless or culpable tendencies. The Spirit of God always living in His Church upholds the sense of revealed truth ever living therein."

Henceforth, because of this error, we must always keep in mind that, "The Church is also (as regards religious and moral doctrines) the best interpreter of truly traditional documents; she recognizes as by instinct what belongs to the current of her living thought and distinguishes it from the foreign elements which may have become mixed with it in the course of centuries."

The underlined is often where (Radical) Traditionalists err in their ability to engage in analyzing actions and theological arguments , and if necessary, engage in charitable, fraternal correction,with regard to events, actions, and both those of their fellow brothers and sisters of Christ. Like the Liberals that they decry against for being heretics/schismatics and breaking Church doctrines, based on their "interpretation" of the Truth, they commit similar error.

Where the RMTs, and now their I.W.S. allies, go against the underlined portions, is in interpretation, and application of the Church's teachings to situations and people. Firstly, they do NOT think with the mind of the Church, in that they do not allow for organic/expanded interpretation of the said common mind/spirit/sentiment of the core "T"radition of the Church. They take the stance that anything even remotely different in verbage or expression, is blasphemy against Her holy "T"radition, and it can be often confused with "t"radition or pastoral practice. While there are genuine cases where things "go to far" (e.g. "Clown" Masses of the initial peak of post Vatican II,) the majority of occasions are NOT so.

This also applies to people speaking on issues or on theology. One who, contrary to the RMTs, thinks with the Mind of the Church, adheres to that common truth or thought, even if their word or expression is not the most eloquent or blunt. In other words, it is when someone directly contravenes teachings that they go against the Tradition of the Church. "Lukewarm" language, incorrect terminology, or weak language, is not a disqualifying condition from them veering from Her Mind. An analogy would be in a legal courtroom, despite how much we desire and how badly the defendant LOOKS like he is guilty (and possibly is,) the defendant is declared ``not guilty`` as the Crown has not sufficiently proven the defendant is, without reasonable doubt, guilty.

RMTs and other extremist right wingers, also go against the underlined portions, particularly in adherence to such strict doctrine, combined with their interpretation. The doctrines and/or, documents of the past, are often used to browbeat into submission, the person to adhere to the Lord's will. This is unacceptable, and the Church would NEVER forcibly make her members obey her commandments, against their free will. This includes wielding her doctrine against people as a weapon. Further, Her ultimate teaching authority is NOT solely restricted to the written word on paper. As much as humanity likes order and routine that does not change, this is NOT how the Church operates in a practical sense, akin to human systems like economics, law, politics, scientific research, etc. While yes, there is order to the Church, and an institution and hierarchy from within, the Church is MORE than just her physical constitution and word. Such a divinely instituted entity is beyond physical limitations of humanity, in thought and word.

Hopefully, you now understand, between my descriptions and especially the underlined portions of text, just WHAT the Mind of the Church is. We can now apply this to JPM's LSN article, in how he veers from the Mind of the Church and how Mr. Vanier does not, despite some of his possible, weaker words in defense of the principle/doctrine of Life from conception till death in the Church.

The LifeSite News Article. "Truth?" or Another Biased Article of the Ultra-Right wing Media, and an Author Veering from Her Holy Church's Mind?

We now turn to the matter at hand: The LifeSiteNews article by JPM that judges Mr. Vanier guilty of being Pro-Euthanasia. Each part will include what Meenan says, and then I will deconstruct these parts in my own analysis/criticism.

The beginning of the article starts of with brief, but positive acknowledgment of the good things of Mr. Vanier's education, his L'Arche community. ANALYSIS - This is a technique whereby you say good things about your target/opponent so that you are not said to be ignorant of the good a person has done, and putting it at the beginning allows people to forget those positive traits, as you go into your criticism of the person. Standard fare for debating, point-counterpoint.
___________

After the praise and adulation ceases, JPM begins his assault. He goes immediately to the first instance whereby biased reporter, Carol Off, asks Mr. Vanier if he is in favour of the proposed Euthanasia law. According to Meenan, in the actual recording of the interview, Mr. Vanier "... confesses on his own recognizance that he is in favour of a law" at the 36 minute of the program. Vanier's starting words are "Shouldn't we have some legislation to permit this?  I say yes, but let's put in safeguards..."

ANALYSIS - Here, simply because Mr. Vanier accepts the need for a legislation as a blunt yes, he is immediately kicked out of the "Pro-Life" camp's list of heroes, having violated their sacred cow of rigid adherence to pro-life "doctrine." Such doctrine of the camp, if one existed on paper, united or separate from the Church, would state that 'in no way is one to even support anything against life' (e.g. abortion, euthanasia.)

CRITICISM - Surely, Mr Vanier would NOT be so ignorant or stupid, to ignore Canada's current laws with regard to pro-life issues, especially the legal situation of abortion in Canada ... of which there is NO legal situation, because there is NO LAW since 1988 surrounding abortions. You could murder a babe in the womb at any point up to where a baby is born and breathes at least a minute out of the birth canal, completely. Having the L'Arche ministry, he would be acutely aware that due to advances in genetic screening, many babies with abnormalities (e.g. Down's Syndrome,) are aborted before full term in pregnancy. So we can give the benefit of the doubt, that Mr. Vanier likely thought that the current euthanasia situation might end up being a repeat of 1988, and if not, that this juggernaut would likely [as of 15/6/2016, now has passed the 3rd and final reading in the House of Commons and will become law,] become passed as law in Canada. Therefore, as Catholics, we can at least, with the greatest vigor and protest upon Parliament Hill, and whenever publicly, as in this interview, push for safeguards so that we would not be killing people with wanton abandonment, or applying "merciful" euthanasia to patients who have decent to excellent prospects of recovery, yet are given the syringe because of a zealous doctor's (ill?) advised decision. Hence, we can give good
credit to Mr. Vanier, that he spoke in the best manner possible in context of the reality that Canada now faces with regard to this situation.

Furthermore, I would like to start using a strategy out of the Radical Traditionalists' playbook, to expand on this point and prove that Mr. Vanier is more in line with Church teaching in this statement than JPM is not implying: The quoting of sections from Church documents. Specifically, I will quote from one of the very documents JPM uses in his article to attack Mr. Vanier: Evangelium Vitae, by John Paul II in 1993, a document that addresses morality, and moral life issues such as abortion and euthanasia directly. Let's even go further and use portions of one of the VERY SAME paragraphs that Meenan uses: Number 65.

The Church in E.V. outlines a more effective strategy in tackling this issue of how to regulate Euthanasia, or convey what it is to others in the Church and the world. Paragraph 65 states at its beginning: "For a correct moral judgment on euthanasia, in the first place a clear definition is required. Euthanasia in the strict sense is understood to be an action or omission which of itself and by intention causes death, with the purpose of eliminating all suffering. "Euthanasia's terms of reference, therefore, are to be found in the intention of the will and in the methods used .... " (EV, 65)

Obviously, a law that outright bans euthanasia is an ideal, Catholic desire. However, with a Liberal anti-life, majority government led by heretic and "c"atholic traitor, Justin Trudeau, a law such as this would NEVER come to pass in current reality. Therefore, having a law would be better than the 1988 scenario with abortion in Canada, with no law at all, and in passing a the euthanasia law, [though now that law has been passed,] the best option would be as stated in EV 65, so that it would, convey as best as possible in the given circumstances, that clear definition: an action or omission which of itself and by intention causes death with the purpose of elimination all suffering. This would achieve the Church's means of allowing people to see that the will, and methods, as well as morality in the Natural Law are part of this, in an absolute way, NOT for the good of humanity [though sadly, even that was struck down by our Senate for being "unconstitutional", and the law went through, without achieving the desire of EV 65.] So, for Mr. Vanier to make that statement, even if he did NOT read Evangelium Vitae, or read it so long ago, or best, has read it in full, he IS making a statement that squares more closely with Church teaching today on the issue of euthanasia, unlike the implications of JPM at that statement.

________

Next, JPM goes for Mrs. Off's second direct question, the "personal opinion" route, to try to get a direct yes from Mr. Vanier for euthanasia. Mr. Vanier's reply is: "... That is certainly a very personal question, and I would say no...But I have never lived intense pain...".

ANALYSIS: JPM uses EV 65 in order to speak about palliative care in the context of Mr. Vanier's statement, and then uses paragraph 72-73 in order to rigidly state that ANY law that legitimizes killing the unborn or old people, oppose human dignity and the true "right to life." JPM`s usage of the Church`s major class of document, the encyclical, is being used to humiliate and enforce his target into submission, or prove Mr. Vanier is sinfully wrong. It is done NOT out of a true intention to enact the Spiritual work of Mercy of admonishing the sinner. Further, this is selective quoting from Church documents, with the rest of such documents abandoned usually by Radical Traditionalists, in order to thrust their arguments against others, and advance their raison d'etre.

Criticism: Ironically, it is the very reliance on specific pieces of Church doctrine, used as a "billy club" of a police officer to beat down Mr. Vanier, that also can discredit JPM`s arguments. While Radical Traditionalists use selective quoting of Church documents, thankfully, the Church, in her wisdom, thinks as a whole on matters. She realizes the limitations the Faithful can have on the larger world and their society, and by what means they can achieve change in their society to that of the Social Kingship of Christ. Evangelium Vitae, was ahead of its time (in Canada) with regard to forced euthanasia, and even realizes that radical enforcement of change in society is not likely a feasible means for Catholics to pursue, in paragraph 46:

"46. With regard to the last moments of life too, it would be anachronistic to expect biblical revelation to make express reference to present-day issues concerning respect for elderly and sick persons, or to condemn explicitly attempts to hasten their end BY FORCE. The cultural and religious context of the Bible is in no way touched by such temptations; indeed, in that context the wisdom and experience of the elderly are recognized as a unique source of enrichment for the family and for society ...." (EV, 46)

Clearly, John Paul II, in this encyclical, is conveying that the Church realizes, a) that flinging Bible verses as well as Church documents with them, straight out, isn't going to change the minds and hearts of humanity so engrossed in the world, flesh, and the Devil's desires, and b) that Catholics will NOT win the "culture war" as it is deemed by pro-lifers and Theo-political conservatives, through major enforcement of any kind, of the moral TRUTH contained in the Natural Law.

To add, a valid assumption, would be that a professor at an orthodox teaching institution, such as OLSWA, would NOT be so careless as to NOT read a whole encyclical. Likely, this was ignored by JPM for the purpose of concentrating and strengthening his arguments. Together, we can say that Meenan's usage of paragraph 34 from Evangelium Vitae, while being a nice reminder of the Church's position on the value of life from start to end, contradicts EV 46 in Two ways. The first is that the Church (JPII) realizes that such adamant force of the teaching of life on others is not proper for Catholics yet this is what JPM wishes of Mr. Vanier in how EV is used in the editorial/essay. The second is that the Church realizes that few people will be swayed by Biblical/Scriptural including documentation with Revelation regarding end-of-life morality, yet here is JPM doing exactly that with E.V., against another Catholic who WOULD listen to such arguments and who isn't the average 'Joe poorly-catechized "c"atholic.
_________________

As a final blow to show that Vanier is 'pro-Euthanasia, JPM had LSN issue a clarification of Mr. Vanier about his words in the interview.

ANALYSIS: Mr Vanier clarifies his words in the interview as stating he stands "... by everything that I have said. The main thing is in any case to support life and to avoid all situations of suicide that originate in a situation of depression and solitude." However, the full transcript of his clarification at the bottom of the article adds insight from a relative who is a pallative care nurse, with two additional lines for attacking Mr. Vanier: "....  If the correct sedative or medication has not been found one cannot oblige someone to live through an unrelenting agony ...." and ".... Pope Francis continues to tell us that everything cannot be regulated by a law and there are always exceptions." With this clarification, JPM goes after the suffering angle, using Pro-Life Hero JPII's Veritas Splendor and Salvifici Doris to say that you can't violate the moral law whatsoever and that " God always provides the helps and graces necessary to bear such suffering as He sends, whether through natural, medical means, or through supernatural, grace-inspired means." Since Mr. Vanier's words are not exactly this, Meenan then says that Mr. Vanier's words are "scandal."

CRITICISM: Once again, JPM has overlooked issues practically, as well as Church document wise, in using Veritas Splendor, but especially Salvifici Doris, in an attempt to make Mr. Vanier deem euthanasia permissible in circumstances, by concentrating on his remarks with regards to patients, pallative care, and suffering. JPM states above about patients suffering that "God always provides ..." in an absolute manner, so Mr. Vanier's statements about drugs and pallative care seem offensive to God and patients in end-stage of life.

Practically, not all patients have the will and mindset to go through to their death, and DO need the medication to sedate them to that point. While yes, there is grace at work in our lives, do you think that a patient can honestly be recipient of that grace, or more importantly, will actively CARE about that, and/or JPII's statements? NO! They will be in excruciating pain or a mental state not fully cognoscente at that point due to the severity, or the shock, of having the terminal illness. Yet here, JPM applies the statement from Salvifici Doris, as if it does not matter what is happening with said patient, and they will carry on to that point. Such an expectation, and application of S.D. is highly unfeasable. Thankfully, the Church has spoken on this matter, not just through Vatican II pope and Pro-Life hero JPII, but also through a Pre-Vatican II pope, Pius XII in a 1957 letter to physicians, Iura et Bona. Once again, Evangelium Vitae, paragraph 65, leads the way in what the Church has to say on the matter, courtesy of JPII, a matter which contradicts JPM's rigorist interpretation and application of Salvifici Doris:

".... In modern medicine, increased attention is being given to what are called "methods of palliative care", which seek to make suffering more bearable in the final stages of illness and to ensure that the patient is supported and accompanied in his or her ordeal. Among the questions which arise in this context is that of the licitness of using various types of painkillers and sedatives for relieving the patient's pain when this involves the risk of shortening life. While praise may be due to the person who voluntarily accepts suffering by forgoing treatment with pain-killers in order to remain fully lucid and, if a believer, to share consciously in the Lord's Passion, such "heroic" behaviour cannot be considered the duty of everyone. Pius XII affirmed that it is licit to relieve pain by narcotics, even when the result is decreased consciousness and a shortening of life, "if no other means exist, and if, in the given circumstances, this does not prevent the carrying out of other religious and moral duties".79 In such a case, death is not willed or sought, even though for reasonable motives one runs the risk of it: there is simply a desire to ease pain effectively by using the analgesics which medicine provides ..." (EV, 65)

So as much as JPM uses S.D. to say there is grace to go ahead to the end of death, the Church realizes not everyone will have the capacity and means to become that "hero" of death, such as JPII was towards the end of his life. Yes, while palliative care is addressed by both JPM and Vanier in the article, it is clear that the rigorist application of  S.D to attack Mr. Vanier, also betrays those patients who cannot actively accept that grace, and the Church in E.V. 65 is more congruent with the sentiments of those dying patients and Mr. Vanier's clarification. Finally nowhere in the portion of the transcript dealing with pallative care, does Mr. Vanier outright advocate euthanasia for that minority of patients who cannot die fully conscious without suffering.

Since JPM is using S.D. in a way that applies to ALL humans, we should speak about them then. He also adds attacking the Holy Father, because Mr. Vanier uses a quote, likely from Pope Francis' recent Amoris Laetitia about legislating law. Meenan uses the following alongside the S.D. reference:

".... let it be said for now that although there may be exceptions to human law, there are never exceptions to the natural moral law, amongst which are suicide and murder, violations of which must be resisted even to the point of martyrdom, as Pope John Paul II declares so forcefully in his 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor (cf., par. 76; 90-94). "

Meenan, myself, a small minority of good, practicing Catholics, and maybe (or maybe not,) Mr. Vanier, would be aware of the natural moral law. As to failing to educate people on that, in the Church and without, there are many fingers to point for blame, but that is not the topic of discussion in this rebuttal. Rather, such knowledge would NOT be known, even by the majority of Catholics in the Church.

While the Church, via the doctrine of infallibility, does have supreme jurisdiction over Faith and Morals, most people in this world do NOT live by those morals/the natural law, nor do other lukewarm Catholics "care" about things in those realms. When a patient whose faith is near dead, or those who are NOT of the Catholic faith know little to nothing about the moral law, or are not of the Catholic faith, violation of the moral law would be the LAST thing on their minds. When the person is approaching that near-death experience, not knowing it will not be their last time on earth, or their family members, intending to end their loved one's current suffering with no foresight of the future, they then will opt for euthanasia when the doctor pushes it on them. We can only hope the doctor is not more inclined to it of an "angel of mercy" serial murderer, and has truthfully considered all medical options. Without the safeguards in the [now passed] euthanasia law, even those whose faith is lapsed, are non-Catholics, or secular, will consider it as the permanent solution to likely temporary problems, including mental illness complications, serious illness that can be treated, etc. Having the "grace" to go through till the end, would be the farthest thing from the mind of those patients, relatives, and medical staff. Also, people will blatantly abuse or ignore the Natural Law and/or Church law anyways, Catholic or not.

So, at the very least in thinking about all those other people that exist outside academia, dealing with the blatant realities of living, Mr. Vanier and Pope Francis, are thinking as realists who realize that not everything can be codified to force people to obey the Church and the moral law, and that civil/human law would at the very least prevent anarchy or wanton abuse of freedoms that would make our situation more tragic and volatile, as in other European countries whose Euthanasia laws are loose and not restrictive. While passing a euthanasia law is not true adherence to the moral law, at least what Mr. Vanier and Francis say, acknowledges the facts I've said and gives some minimal guideline for people to not descent into carnal depravity in this area.
____________________

Finally, there is also contained in the last attack, sentiments of antipathy against Pope Francis. Between those in the extremist parts of the Pro-Life, Conservative, Radical Traditionalist, etc. movements of Christians/Catholics, anything uttered by 'Pope Francis the Destroyer' as he is now known on the Internet, and anyone uttering anything from, or defending, Pope Francis, is vilified and given spiteful names like ``papologist`` and ``ultra-monist.`` Any defenders are hated by these champions of their social/liturgical cause, even when said champions literally say they do not hate the Holy Father, or couch their "concerns" in nice words that betray their true intentions. Unless Pope Francis says something that is usable to forward the cause you support, it is uncouth to have any association with the current Holy Father if you are a true Latin Mass devotee, pro-life warrior, culture warrior, social justice warrior, etc.

Don't Forget The Human Factors: Age and Bias
Finally, as an overall criticism of the article, we CANNOT simply take JPM`s article on LifeSite News simply at face value. We cannot truly evaluate this scenario without examining the views of LSN and human factors such as age.

First is LifeSiteNews. One can see their public about page, here. In much blunter terms, LSN is a strictly, anti-culture, pro-life website that operates independently of any government body, or the Church for that matter. While it has people on staff who are Catholic, it is NOT run by a body of Catholics only, nor of Catholics of all shades and stripes. LifeSiteNews as an organization, does not have any Impriatur, Nihil Obstat in their content, bishop's blessing to operate, etc. by any authority or ordinary officer of the Magisterium (a.k.a. a bishop,) in any archdiocese including that which contains their base of operations. They speak not for the Church in anyway whatsoever.

LSN was set up purposely against the cultural narrative of anti-family, anti-pro-life, etc. operating independently of any government or Church oversight, they are free to attack anything that they stand for, without re-probation, or being governed by any laws of the Church and those in authority to implement that law, whether it be properly, loosely, or abusively. They likely did so, in their own words from the about page, to operate in the following manner: "Accuracy in content is given high priority. News and information tips from readers are encouraged and validated. Valid corrections are always welcome. Writing and research is of a professional calibre .... LifeSiteNews.com attempts to dispel confusion and ignorance, enable constructive dialogue and help informed decisions to be made and appropriate actions to be taken for the good of all."

Understandably so, governance such as the civil government and the Institutional Body of the Church, would hamper them from their goals. The only laws possibly governing them would be civil law, though the only sort of action against them was a frivolous and false lawsuit by dead ex-priest, Fr. Gravel, which ended up being thrown out.

However, a cursory view of the articles, especially ones of the Church/Pope Francis, reveals that at times, LSN has skirted, if not borderline came close to not thinking with the Mind of the Church, and has reacted harshly, especially to Pope Francis. Basically any grave offense to their sacred cow of "pro-life" or not in conjunction with their right views, gets harsh criticism. They would not do this with prior popes. Just one example of their "spin" is here after Pope Francis' latest homily against rigid fundamentalism/Radical Catholicism, where they pit him against pro-life hero, John Paul II, as well as current "Trad hero" Cardinal Robert Sarah, because Pope Francis dared to criticize those who do not think with the Mind of the Church. This is only the first of numerous lashings against the Holy Father,

In addition, while LSN has cleaned up their act a little with regards to their editorial staffing, they did skirt the line with Radical Traditionalism in the past, in the form of former LSN editorialist and journalist, Hilary White. Hilary is the main author and owner of the website What's Wrong with the Synod (started during the time of the extraordinary 2014 synod), who has consistently expressed anti-Church/anti-novus ordo sentiments in her writings, to the point, one could describe her like professional Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong does, as "quasi-schismatic," in her rejection of the Novus Ordo Mass and Church in the form of what Hilary calls, "Novusordoism." Hilary, has always been championing the rights of human life and dignity in her writings as a Catholic, and likely that's what got her on their editorial staff as of June 2014. She was writing articles for LSN, up until May 2015, with her last article being about two episcopal prelates and covering up crimes against youth in the Church. Judging by what she writes now on the blogosphere, the publications she contributes to (e.g. known Radical Traditionalist sites as the Remnant and OnePeterFive, unlike LSN and other mainstream Catholic online publications,) and Dave Armstrong's evaluation/conversations (see here and here) where Hilary has revealed her ever-sliding position downward the Radical Traditionalist (and separation from Holy Mother Church with her "novusordoism" statement,) it is clear that her extremism was the likely factor for her sudden 'disappearance' from the LSN blog page of the main site.

While there may be good souls with good intention contributing to the work for the sake of the pro-life movement (e.g. Ryan Bomberger) who are not Radical Traditionalists, in terms of LSN as a whole, one must realize that they are "right-wing" or staunchly "pro-life" in their media bias, even to the point that anything that contradicts their bias intentionally/unintentionally, will be met with criticism and have an implicit accusation of being anti-life, or taken personally against the pro-life movement and its champions. Further, due to their recent articles involving Pope Francis, and their recent flirtation with Radical Traditionalism in the addition (and recent dismissal of) Hilary White in the Blog page section, it is clear that LSN editorial analysis will not be as accurate as they tout their organization to be. This bias was on full display in their release of Meenan's article, as it fit squarely with their cause, all the while lambasting another Catholic who has done more ministry and the Lord's work than most cradle `Catholics in their lifetimes in being `whole life,` not just pro-life.

Second, to Mr. Vanier's credit, we should give him more benefit of the doubt due to his age. He is currently an octogenarian of 87 years old. It is excellent that at his age he can communicate effectively with our cutthroat, mainstream media in an interview, and continue to play a vital role in the organization he founded for the mentally challenged, L'Arche, with a supportive community structure. However, being that old, it cannot be denied that there likely would be some, generalized cognitive decline, and perhaps certain thought processes, do not come to light as quick, or are momentarily forgotten. Are there seniors that are "sharp" as a tack in their fields of work or in reasoning? Yes, absolutely. Benedict Emeritus XVI is a perfect example (although some Radical Traditionalists are rejecting their one-time Latin Mass hero, blaming him for abandoning the Church and resulting in Bergoglio becoming Pope Francis.) when he has from time to time given speeches of importance, even in his "papal retirement." However, to expect an octogenarian outside of Benedict XVI, to perfectly adhere to the Church's doctrines and teachings, and to apply and communicate such in regard to many moral issues and a perfect manner, is unreasonable. Not to mention try doing that, while under pressure from a journalist with her own, anti-life, pro-choice bias as part of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. However, to JPM and LSN, these factors are negated in the light of presenting their "accurate" news, news that is so accurate it can properly assess one`s mind with regards to orthodoxy with Holy Mother Church and the state of a person's soul.

Conclusion

When you think of it in a way, in an odd sort of irony and/or hypocrisy, in this matter, those RMTs, and new allies the ``Ortho-Catholics`` or ``I`m with Stupid`` crowd, who were quick to judge Mr. Vanier for his comments in this clearly biased interview, share a similar type of agenda to that of the pro-euthanasia crowd and our current Canadian government. What they share is this addictive desire to idol worship their side of the moral issue, but both have an underlying "false idol" that they worship, disregarding the common human, born and/or unborn.

Pro-euthanasia politicians and people, push their agendas through in society and in our civil laws. They tout that what they are doing is for the benefit of their citizens, or for those who deserve "mercy:" the suffering, the weak, etc. They tout that every citizen deserves what they are peddling. The truth underlying that crowd, is that they want CONVENIENCE, and the freedom to do away with whatever burdens them from their own selfish whims and progress. It is that convenience and narcissistic pleasure, that is truthfully at the core of their actions, their "golden calf." They do so at the expense of the constitutional rights, true human rights and freedoms, of every person, regardless of country or system of government.

And the Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalists and I.W.S. crowd, including the article written by Prof. Meenan in LifeSiteNews? They might not be willing to break the moral law that God commanded, and might be on the side of "Pro-life" as it were against the pro-euthanasia above, but like those liberals/pro-euthanasia devotees, they also share the exact same, agenda driven madness of their enemies, but using, abusing, and misinterpreting the "T"radition of the Church. They take the opposite approach in that the moral law is vital, so vital with a Pharisaic rigidity that what is said by the Church is "set" in stone, and any violation of it is an offense greater than the deepest of crimes.

In using and relating established Church Law/Tradition in the Magisterium of the Church, they cast out the Mind of the Church, for the sake of the upholding the law, as codified in catechisms, encyclicals, etc. They do so, stifling the Mind of Holy Mother Church and the organic development of the Magisterium, in addition to usurping her as the authentic interpreter of  such Traditional documents. They disregard the ideas and applications of the individual, simply because it is not steadfastly adhering in a specific manner to every single printed word of the document. In their rush to be the Church's supreme officers, judge, and jury, of a Magisterium they feel is being hardly applied by the Church's true officers (the bishops,) they trample and violate those rights and dignity of other lay faithful and even the Church's own clerics. They too, have their own "golden calf" in the law, documents, doctrines, etc. of the Church, and go so deep as to usurp Her Magisterium in such pursuit of Her laws, thinking NOT with Her Mind. In doing so, they express the opposite in action of the Church's Divine Mercy and Love, exemplified in our Lord, Jesus Christ.

The RMTs'/I.W.Ss' pursuit of their "golden calf," results in what you see in the LifeSiteNews article and on other blogger's websites: calumnies, detraction, and public shaming abound, disguised as "admonishing the sinner". It doesn't matter the person's age, past accomplishments, etc. The pursuit of the upholding of Church "T"radition, at all costs, disregards all other factors including Her Mind, and Her as interpreter of documents and doctrine, including documents on doctrine.

Like John Paul Meenan's sadness at writing such an article, I too, express a sadness at having to challenge a full time faculty member of one of Canada's few, "orthodox" Catholic institutions, where one can send a child after high school and not expect the university/college culture, or the institutions' department of Catholicism/Christianity, to destroy my child's faith. Sadly, Meenan's example of this contribution to LifeSiteNews, is another mark of the ever rising wave of Radical Traditionalism that is claiming the best and brightest, and most devout, honest, and faithful of Catholics, who do not realize that the Devil's works swing both ways: in extremes.

I hope this is honestly a one off event, or that Meenan is just one professor of OLSWA, with the rest not espousing to this Radical Traditionalist frame of mind that deviates from the Mind of the Church. If however, this is NOT just a one off, or that more people at OWSLA share this professor's thoughts, then at the very least, the "mark of orthodoxy" of an academic institution, CANNOT protect the individuals within from falling to 'intellectual sins,' such as Radical Traditionalism. At the absolute worse, this example from Prof. Meehan has now contributed to more internal strife and division, proving that not even our "orthodox" institutions can form students in their mental prime, in the Mind of the Church and in obedience to Her, and protect their Catholic Faith from spiritual decay.

As mentioned earlier, were the Spiritual works of Mercy. Two are ``Counseling the Ignorant``,  and Admonishing the Sinner. I had to enact these two spiritual works of mercy, in order to make you, the readers, especially those of you young people valiantly searching for the REAL truth of the faith, realize that just because a Catholic sticks to the writings of the Church, and/or submits works with such writings, to sites that supposedly give the "read deal," on the Faith, that does NOT mean the work, the author, nor the blog/website is TRULY acting in line with Catholic teaching. What young people like myself, especially those hungering for the Lord, possibly including the Latin Mass, or orthodox TRUE Catholic teaching, don't realize is that their teachers or role models, are resorting to intellectual and theological sins and viewpoints, like the Pharisees of the Temple of old that were chastised numerous times by Christ.

It is bad enough that our rights and freedoms to live our our Christian Faith in developed countries are being eroded and attacked daily. Instead of becoming unified against these threats, it's other Catholics who fight among one another, in person, and especially, those of the more orthodox camps, launching attacks on other Catholics, in the hope of converting them to the lie of the "true orthodoxy of the Faith." To those in the Ortho-Cath camp, I can only say, please stop being like the Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalists, and aiding them in their internal destruction of the Faith from within. You are not like them, don't become them.

And to all of you, lest you become bogged down with the next odd web report of some Catholic doing something, or the next speech of Pope Francis that has you questioning yourself in confusion,
remember, and seek out, the Love and Divine Mercy of our Lord in this, the Jubilee Year of Mercy.
Ask for the Gifts of the Holy Spirit to inflame within you once more to discern things properly with the Mind of the Church.

Pax Tibi Christi, Julian Barkin. 

Simple Novus Ordo Catholics is an Insult to the Body of Christ and the Majority of Catholics Worldwide!

Hello Everyone,

Unfortunately, there will be no Part II to the Dave Armstrong posting I did. The apologist contacted me and thanked me for my efforts, but no more will be needed on the matters at hand.

Sure. Glad to serve the Catholic Church and you, SIR!

However, there is one thing that bothered me on the attack from Mr. Armstrong, and it really did bother me because I felt it was quite heretical, not to mention blatanly offensive to the Church at Large, the majority of believers who attend Mass in the Roman Rite (the majority of the Catholic Church), and embarasses once more those of us who participate in any way, even occasionaly, the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite/Latin Mass.

In the attacks on Mr. Armstrong, the following statement was said by his assailant, which I will not link to, to prevent you from being exposed to spiritual evil and possible corruption of your souls, and that they deserve no more web hits feeding their Internet Troll-ism:

"As for my "bombastic" comments, they are reserved for those who undermine the faith, not the simple "Novus Ordo Catholic" which you will never find on this blog."

WHAT THE HECK? "SIMPLE" NOVUS ORDO CATHOLICS??????

This comment has a number of sick problems with it. I'll start with the theological/heretical problems with this statement, and then I will tackle it common sense, which I think might be the more powerful evidence that this statement is quite asinine. 

Theological, Basic

This is foolish, even on a basic level. When Christ got together his Apostles, the 12 ordinary men from all walks of life, Christ did not summon only the elite and the wealthy to spread the Gospel and build his Church. If he wanted to turn to those who were the "elite" and/or with the most forceful and literal interpretation and knowledge of religious laws among the Jews, he would have taken 12 of the following: The Sanhedrin or other high/chief priests. Rabbis. Rich and wealthy in biblical times in Jerusalem. Popular scribes.

Jesus did NOT practice a spiritual elitism in his choice of people to carry out his mission. If he didn't want "simple" Jews, those who weren't the tops at practicing the law including the 613 Mitzvahs, he would have picked people from the above groups mentioned.

But he did not. He picked 12 ordinary men of the day and age, with the most wealthy or privileged being Matthew the Tax Collector, as in that time, as is this day and age, government jobs usually mean security and a fairly decent wage. Not to mention that Matthew, being the tax collector, got to take money from other people according to the Roman government's dictatum! But even Matthew wasn't "elite" or popular. In fact, as a tax collector, he was despicable to the common citizen because of his association with the Roman Empire as the guy who steals your hard earned money, only to give it to a corrupt and merciless government.

Christ clearly, even in his picking of his 12 Apostles, clearly shows that he did not want his Church to be one of popular prestige, nor that he only wanted perfect practitioners of the law to head it and demand the same rigoristic, non-merciful rendering of God's order and law to be part of his Church. That rendering, by the way, is purely how humans interpret the carrying out of the law, not necessarily the law in and of itself.

Theological, Advanced. Statement has Possible Traces of Heresy

The statements, also commits comments of a pseudo-Gnostic nautre. Gnosticism, of which the Church has condemned Gnosticism always in its history as heresy, is defined as by Wikipedia:

"Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός gnostikos, "having knowledge", from γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) is a modern term categorizing a collection of ancient religions whose adherents shunned the material world – which they viewed as created by the demiurge – and embraced the spiritual world.[1] Gnostic ideas influenced many ancient religions[2] that teach that gnosis (variously interpreted as knowledge, enlightenment, salvation, emancipation or 'oneness with God') may be reached by practicing philanthropy to the point of personal poverty, sexual abstinence (as far as possible for hearers, entirely for initiates) and diligently searching for wisdom by helping others .... In Gnosticism, the world of the demiurge is represented by the underworld, which is associated with matter, flesh, time and, more particularly, an imperfect, ephemeral world. The world of God is represented by the upper world and is associated with the soul and perfection. The world of God is eternal and not part of the physical. It is impalpable and timeless"

While people do not formally call themselves, "gnostic" in their religious denomination on censuses taken by governments, it is entirely possible for people to subscribe to its heretical ideas, including pseudo-forms such as the idea expressed in the sentiment above. In this statement, it is a blend of both Gnosticism, as well as Puritanism/Jansenism.

Applied to the statement above, the Novus Ordo Church is what is the demigurge,  associated with improprieties in form, in the priest's demeanor, supposed poor theological education and lack of proper formation, and the majority of the laity as a whole being hypocrites to the Scriptures. The Novus Ordo Church, in the mind of bloggers and other Radical Traditionalists, is the demigurge, associated with only a face value love of Jesus.

Where the Pharisicm/Jansenism comes in, is that in the Catholic Church, is that in Pharicism/Jansenism, there is a high strictness for criteria of worshiping the Lord, according to specific ritual, law etc. as placed on papers, in definitions, etc. with no other interpretation but the most strictest.

Further, Jansenism as applied in the Catholic Church, was more of a practical level, denying Sacraments in combination with a lack of mercy and forgiveness, but also implying a denial of freely received and used grace, including free will. Today, these neo-Jansenists apply that theology in new ways with the Latin Mass and Roman Rite, whereby only the Latin Mass is "TRUE" Catholic Worship with true grace and true sacramental gifts, and where the TRUE Catholic faith is. The Novus Ordo, and the people within it are receiving a "bastardized" form of the faith, where the True Church is nearly all but absent.

How to we tie this all back into the statement from the attack on Dave Armstrong? Well, due to a misconstrued understranding of true Catholic tradition, the statement commits a fallacy in stating that the Novus Ordo, essentially, is a second class form of the Mass, and everyone involved is not a true believer, or are hypocrites. Thus, the only true form of the Mass in the Latin Rite is the Extraordinary Form, 'untouched by heresy and the Devil', and only those who attend this form of the rite, and believe everything that the neo-Jansenists and other "True remnants of the Catholic faith", the priests who serve it, are true sons of Christ, who are sacramentally nourished.

One could also argue that such a statement and the behaviour underlying the statement, even dovetails along the line of other schismatic groups in Church history, such as the Donatists.

The Killer .... Common Sense and the Statement Above Insults Normal Novus Ordo Catholics!
So, you may think I, beacause I am not of Holy Orders, or have umpteen theological degrees, have utter hogwash. Well, then, in preparation for a response of denial of my arguments, I decided to see just how offensive this statement is to those "simple" Novus Ordo Catholics.

Taking a poll of my friends on Facebook, I asked what they felt about this statement, positive or negative, or neutral. I received a good half to full dozen responses at this time, all from differrent perspectives. but also, one could say, different levels of Catholic education and involvement in the Church. Of the responses, I shall post the most prominent of the responses that illustrate the hatred and contempt (and even, possible heresy) of the comment. Two actually go together. All contributors names have been withheld to prevent Facebook stalking.

The first, from "Joan":
" XXXXXXXXX Yeah, kinda rubbed the wrong way by this. Someone who is Catholic, and therefore abides by Jesus' teachings, is telling others not to come to his/her blog because his/her profound statements are for people who think like him/her only. Doesn't that run contrary to the whole point of Jesus' teachings? What if He'd said at the beginning of a parable that it was only for those who were already following Him, or who agreed with what He'd taught in a previous lesson, or whatever, and everyone else should go away? I mean, of course it's this person's right to say and do as he/she sees fit, but I don't know, it doesn't seem very...Catholic."

What I love about this statement is it is quite common sensical, and even just on common sense alone, the argument is nearly blown away, and the hypocrisy and LACK of Christ`s example is present.

Next, someone, ``Augustine,`` a recent graduate of a Catholic-run theology School in Toronto, with a Masters in either Theology/Divinity, adds onto Joan's comments with this:

" XXXXXXXXXX [Joan] has already said what needs to be said but as a theologian I feel the need to point out that this person is dangerously close to denying that the NO sacraments are just as efficacious as the VO ones."

Ouch! Clearly this graduate, who has the proper credentials of study in Catholic Theology, is supporting what Joan has said, and adding a wealth more. Further, he support what I have said in my advanced section with this statement coming close to, if not containing, heresy. Mind you, I am not surprised at this heresy in a way, as the Society of St. Pius X speaks in a similar manner about the Novus Ordo, with firm detestment, and even statements in past such as it being "evil" which convey the same heretical message.

Finally, I will display some commentary from a devout, woman, "Theresa" who has attended the Latin Mass, though mainly attends the Novus Ordo. Despite not being a theologian, a Catholic teacher, or a lay minister of any sorts, her statement is full of knowledge, Truth of the Faith, and is powerful:

" The Catholic church, in it's truest meaning is an Universal Church, It includes everyone. The Magisterium permits either form of Mass and adherents to either form were extolled not to hold the other form in contempt. His statement belies both the universality of his Church and the acceptance of both forms."

Whoa. This one blew me away. This is quite a catechesis indeed!!! Universal, is one of the 4 marks of the Church, meaning Christ meant it for everyone. This is something basic that I've taught to confirmandi in past, and is key. Christ meant salvation for everyone, not just a select few.

Further, the Magisterium is the authority of the Church on matters of the Faith, including its deposit of dogmas/doctrines (what must be believed by all Members of the Church, even if struggling with the concepts,) and the lessons of Christ and the Moral Truth. Yes, this is true, and even in Trad Hero, Benedict Emeritus XVI's Summorum Pontificum, he reiterates this concept of NOT bashing the other form of the Roman Rite, from either side.

Finally, that last statement ..... it's clear as day. This Mark of the Church, universality, is being denied in the statement, and the statement is also tratorious to the author's causes, and one of his Latin Mass heroes, Benedict XVI, who "freed" (though the Latin Mass was never legally/formally banned), the Latin Mass.

............................................................................

This just had to be countered. Offensive to the Church, as proven here by fellow `simple`` Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo Mass, and even heretical, I, Julian at Servimus Unum Deum, could not allow this to stand and with the help of my friends, I must "apologize", as in engage in Apologetics, against this statement, sadly even against my own Sibling in Christ.

All of us, have the duty, as a spiritual work of Mercy, as well as Practicing Roman Catholics, to instruct those needing counsel on matters of THE Faith, but as well to be proud and defend our truly universal, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Pax Tibi Christi, Julian.

Highlight: Intermission. Dave Armstrong Follow Up.

In the meantime while waiting for Part II of my pro apologia defense for Dave Armstrong, enjoy this commercial break. Geez, some people cannot understand true, fraternal correction in the Catholic faith and true apologetics/evangelization/ecumenism. Oh well, Pax.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/12/lately-ive-been-exceedingly-blessed-by-insults.html

Pro Apologia for Dave Armstrong, Professional Catholic Apologist, Part 1

BAAAAD To the Bone. Catholicism's Heavy Metal Gunslinger of Apologetics .... Dave Armstong!!! Source: http://speakerpedia.com/speakers/dave-armstrong

EDITOR'S NOTE: Due to starting the draft of this posting on an Iphone, and not doing what was necessary to fix things, the text displays itself all weird. I'll have to rewrite 

this post to fix the weird error later. 

Hello Everyone,

If you wonder why Catholic Traditonalism, never mind even in general the Catholic Faith is 
not spreading, it is because of sick, vile hypocrisy. Catholics, who are full of zest and vigor, and a sound knowledge of the Church's teachings, are misapplying their efforts into sinful 
stabs of Satanic action (e.g. gossip, misinformation) against other faithful Catholics, twisting truths into mis-truths, while trying to tell people about our faith and the awesomeness of our Catholic Liturgy. 

Who are the stabbers and the hypocrites? If you thought it's those dreaded "neo-cons" or 
"neo-traditionalists" ... You are being misled by the wrong kind of Catholic social media. The truth is, it is Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalists who are the ones doing this stabbing. 

Some of the most prolific examples, comes from blogs and "news sites" such as Rorate 
Caeli, PrayTell blog, Mundabor, etc. Every day is virtually another story that paints Pope 
Francis, many cardinals and bishops who are not Cardinals Burke or Athanasius Schneider, etc. as the Devil's servants from within. Other individual bloggers add to the fray in a 
likewise, similar manner, projecting their true inner hate for Jesus' Church, oddly 
abnormal, even OCD-like obession (no offense to truly diagnosed OCD sufferers reading 
this, you are not THESE RMTs, and any overlap is entirely coincidental if you are a true 
case,) with Church liturgy and Tradtionalism, and/or untreated spiritual and mental wounds, 
in the form of calumnious and slanderous posts. They are not fraternal correction, they are 
hate crimes. 

Recently, I had the displeasure of being informed of a hate piece targeting a well-known 
Catholic apologist who've I've frequently featured here on Servimus by the name of 
Dave Armstrong. Dave's analysis of the sad situation of the poisoning of Traditional 
Catholicism by these individuals (e.g. as in this "Penses" piece) and groups who supposedly"love" the Church enough to commit evil to achieve good (ignoring St Thomas Aquinas,) is 
excellent and highly recommended reading, aside from the plethora of work he has done 
with other areas of Church apologetics and TRUE Church ecumenism. Such reading can 
be found in his blog postings, as well as in his two major books on Radical Traditionalists, inboth hard copy and e-reader formats. 

I will not link to the blog post attacking Dave, under the axiom of "Don't feed the Trolls." in 
Internet lingo. Web hits feed the trolls. The blog also does not deserve any more hits or 
exposure to gain access to innocent, Catholic souls, young and old alike, but especially 
young, "wired" ones. However, a blog search with Dave Armstrong might yield you the hate piece. Sadly it is when works like this are made public, and lies are spread, the New 
Evangelization is halted further in the church and further division is maintained or enhanced.

So, allow me to dispel these calumnies of Mr Armstrong in a pro apologia defense, where 
"the pot has called the kettle black," with some assistance from Mr. Armstrong as he has 
already taken this assassin's claims apart with factual information.  

The first major calumny is to attack Mr Armstrong in his profession as a Full Time 
"professional" Catholic apologist, that is it a self-appointed, claim. Now, we need to break 
down the attacks in this claim to show you the calumnies and retractions within, as well as 
hypocrisies. 

1a. Lay Apologist Status - Detraction combined with Selective Preference

First, the claim of being a ``self-appointed`` lay apologist must be examined. Here at the 
least the sin of detraction has been committed. What will be examined is how the claim is 
used in a detracting way, despite "truths," but also that based on his work, a "Catholic" 
curriculum vitae, the blog cannot make any claim about his status in this manner. 
Also, it can be argued that the blog post is implying in its attack, that one cannot bear a 
written or verbal status or title of work in the Church if it is non-official, or not pertaining to 
ordained clerics. 

Yes, it's true that in terms of employment or ministry, Mr. Armstrong is not formally 
employed in a company or institution that specializes in apologetics, with an annual salary of x dollars/yr. He would be ``self-employed,`` as per other professions, such as trades. If you are not providing service to someone, or people are not buying your products, you don`t 
make money. It is also true that his diocese, does not have a formal position of a "Lay 
apologist for the archdiocese of X, USA" that Mr. Armstrong can apply to, and smack on a 
business card. 

To tear apart this attack on his ``job`` we need to look at various apostolates and other 
church ministries/apostolates that other lay people do, without full compensation or salary, 
or no compensation at all. Within the Catholic Church, many laypeople, and even clerics, 
perform apostolate/missionary work that are full time hours, such as a parish assistant (not 
formally paid associate), and even duties a Deacon does, would qualify for this "Full-time" 
status, or perhaps a lay head of an intensive ministry (e.g. Catechesis of confirmandi in a 
multi-week program). These parish volunteers and Deacons are "full time" in terms of their 
quantity of hours of work, but more so, they are devoted in time and energy to their 
missionary work/apostolate in the Church. 

Does the Church acknowledge such work as, work per se, or that it is valuable? Yes it does.It even encourages it. One can especially see Mr. Armstrong's work as a lay apologist as 
exactly part of the Church's missionary spirit, vital to the New Evangelization, and also
allowable as She recognizes that with time, or change within a community, the Church must be able to meet new challenges and demands. A lay apologist is doing exactly that in this 
post-Vatican II/1962 environment. From the Vatican II Apostolic Decree, Ad Gentes, "On the Missionary Activity of the Church:"

" ...."Missions" is the term usually given to those particular undertakings by which the 
heralds of the Gospel, sent out by the Church and going forth into the whole world, carry outthe task of preaching the Gospel and planting the Church among peoples or groups who do not yet believe in Christ. These undertakings are brought to completion by missionary 
activity and are mostly exercised in certain territories recognized by the Holy See. 
The proper purpose of this missionary activity is evangelization .... Moreover, the groups among which the Church dwells are often radically changed, for one reason or other, so that an entirely new set of circumstances may arise. " (AG, 6)

And what of course are these new conditions? Well, if you want to follow the narrative of the Radical Traditionalists that Vatican II nearly killed vocations of the priesthood as well as the orthodoxy and quality of seminary formation, we have a crisis of vocations, and not enough orthodox priests to effectively carry out the "Old Style/Old Concept" of evangelization as 
above in AG 6, and even the "New Evangelization." 

And ironically, here is Vatican II acknowledging a new approach and need for evangelization and more lay involvement, yet the RMTs say Vatican II caused the crisis in the first place: 

" ....Therefore, let the missionaries, God's coworkers, ( cf. 1 Cor. 3:9), raise up 
congregations of the faithful such that, walking worthy of the vocation to which they have been called (cf. Eph. 4:1), they may exercise the priestly, prophetic, and royal 
office which God has entrusted to them .... To obtain all these things, the most important and therefore worthy of special attention are the Christian laity: namely, 
those who have been incorporated into Christ and live in the world. For it is up to them, imbued with the spirit of Christ, to be a leaven working on the temporal order from within, to dispose it always in accordance with Christ.(16) .... Now, in order to plant the Church and to make the Christian community grow, various ministries are needed, which are raised up by divine calling from the midst of 
the faithful congregation, and are to be carefully fostered and tended to by all. Among these are the offices of priests, of deacons, and of catechists, and Catholic action. Religious men and women likewise, by their prayers and by their active 
work, play an indispensable role in rooting and strengthening the Kingdom of Christ in souls,and in causing it to be spread." (AG, 15)

So in attacking Mr. Armstrong's position as a "lay apologist," on a broad basis it can be said 
that any type of missionary/apostolate work without compensation is not an official position one can say they do, and invaluable to the service of the Church, contrary to the above in 
Ad Gentes. 

Even if the implication was not intended by the blog post, detracting his lay apologetics 
position is an ad hominem attack, a foolish one when you consider the examples of other 
full-time apostolate work by lay people/clerics in the church without a formal requirement for secular/religious, post-secondary degrees and/or formal job postings. Furthermore, 
the attack is contradictory to the aims and goals of the Church in how the laity 
are to participate in Her missionary work and what Holy Mother Church encourages her 
adopted sons and daughters of Christ to do in being Hearlds of the Gospel. 

Having stated what I have above in the context of formal employment vs. voluntary work in 
the Church, it is also an ironic attack in a way, as the poster on the blog is involved in an 
apostolate/ministry centering around the Latin Mass that requires work, organization, 
training of involved members, (e.g. serving, schola cantorum, executive roles, priest 
training,) including the holding of an annual general meeting. The primary focus of the blog author is cantoring. The author is also a lay cantor at a parish for their Saturday vigil Mass 
weekly. All the activities, qualify quantitatively as a "Full-time" career of sorts, yet the 
author's positions are not formally titled or compensated, that of ``cantor`` nor head of their 
lay ministry. In addition, the blog author spends many hours blogging, in their ``journalism.`` 

However, the blog author, then, according to their logic, should not be publicly calling 
them self by any title that isn't formally part of ordained ministry or formal, employed work. 
That means the author should not be calling themselves a cantor, or a journalist, or 
whatever else they claims to be in their blog posts, as that is public, just the same as 

Mr. Armstrong. 

1b. Lay Apologist Status - Discrediting the Work, Training, and even the Mentorship of Mr. 
Armstrong. 

What I will state is factual, that the attack on Mr. Armstrong's position totally discredits 
the work, training, and formation of Mr. Armstrong. In fact, the training, experience, and 
body of work proves the opposite of the claim, that Mr. Armstrong in fact merits the title of 
lay apologist, and is perfectly justified to use it publicly. 

I will allow Mr. Armstrong`s factual information to speak for itself, that he has, quantitatively, and qualitatively, the combined practical experience, mentorship, and body of work 
equivalent to that or exceeding a post doctoral student (Ph.D) in the field of apologetics:

`` "self-appointed" huh? This is one of the favorite lines of "usual suspect" 
slanderers. Let's see, for starters, I have twenty officially published books 
with six different publishers, including most of the largest Catholic ones 
(including four bestsellers in the field). My first book has a Foreword by 
Servant of God, Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ, who was Blessed Mother Teresa's catechistand a close adviser to Blessed Pope Paul VI. My second book has a Foreword by 
Dr. Scott Hahn. I've been endorsed by virtually all of the leading apologists, 
have been interviewed on Catholic radio over 20 times, including twice on 
"Catholic Answers Live". I have Imprimaturs, including from my own bishop, 
a column every other week for "The Michigan Catholic," worked for The Coming Home Network for three years, but I am merely self-appointed and not even entitled to use the title "apologist"to describe myself. What the heck am I, then? I've made my living by writing apologetics these past 14 years. Oh, I forgot: I'm just one "of these sorts." That's what I'll put on my tax form, for occupation]

[Note: this guy favorably cites Fr. Hardon in articles dated 9-20-14, 1-17-14 (inthe title), 1-4-13, Fr. Hardon loved my work and called it "very Catholic." 
I studied with him for many months in 1990-1992. He received me into the Church and baptized my first two sons ``]"

Not to mention, on top of that, his formator, sponsor, and clearly his "supervisor" as it would be for a Masters/Doctoral student, was Fr. John Hardon, SJ. Hardon is widely acclaimed by good and Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalism as a holy priest and orthodox, and one ofthe few good Jesuits left they would cite if asked. 

Mr. Armstrong clearly received proper theological, and practical formation by Fr. Hardon, 
who brought him into the Church. Then again, Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalists 
already have an axe to grind with Dave, being a convert. They are seen as "spies" for the 
enemy, despite their conversion, who never truly give up their old ways. Do not believe the RMTs at face value when they deny this. 

Further, just look at the quantity of work, produced, published, created, and endorsed. Whenyou look at all that, that at the very least is quantitatively equivalent in man hours and work 
produced, to that of a post doctoral degree. Qualitatively speaking, it is clear that his 
formation if anything, even rivals or superceeds that of our modern seminary system, of 
which also, Radical Traditionalists love to bash for churning out "modernist" priests. 

For the blog author to discredit all this experience, betrays the time, energy, and the 
dedication that Mr. Armstrong has done in devoting his life to. He even has stated outright, 
this IS how he has made a living, and might I add in the process he has done so while 
having his larger family of more than two children home schooled AND participating in the 
life of the Church via his Ordinary parish under the archdiocese, one blessed with both the 
Extraordinary Form, and the rarer Latin Novus Ordo liturgy. 

The blog author, certainly does not have equivalent, nor superior experience, quantitatively, and qualitatively in a field as apologetics, to make such a claim. Further, the same can be 
applied to the blogger's past experience in the field of choir-mastering or his blogging, that 
because it is: a)  not based on formalized education, but rather years of practical experienceobtained from a combination of secular/religious experience, b) nor attached to a holy order, c) nor that the author possesses any formal post secondary education, period, and d) not 
part of formal paid work as implied in 1a (of which, as Dave has admitted, HE HAS DONE 
TO MAKE ENDS MEET) the blogger should not claim then, to be a choir master nor any 
position within the Catholic Church, regardless of "practical" experience. Clearly, to the 
author, practical experience does not merit the status of an individual. 

An secular side note, in the working world, is that one can obtain all the degrees, even 
doctorates or multiple degrees, in their post-secondary education, but employers refuse to 
look at them over those with practical experience. Formalized education is clearly not 
everything for work, and thus students, after degrees are going back to colleges for that 
practical experience and entry level job, to enter the workforce. 

Summary of 1a and 1b: My main points are such. The blogger's claim of the foolishness of Dave calling himself as a lay apologist, is asinine. In making the claim, it is an ad hominem attack on Dave. The blogger makes at least a broad claim that ministry in the Church, 
unless formalized or attached to religious orders, cannot be formally recognized through 
usage of a title to describe one's apostolate or ministry. Even if not part of the claim, it still 
singles out Dave's work as an apologist as fake and that he cannot use the title, 
"lay apologist", compared to others with "full-time" ministry in the Church and volunteers 
such as the bloggers and other lay ministers who can. Furthermore, it is an insult to the late Fr. John Hardon, SJ, and to the training, experience, and quantitative volume of work to be simply dismissed by the author. If anything, even at the least quantitatively, Mr. Armstrong 
has the equivalent and even more, of one or multiple Ph.D's in the field of both theoretical 
and practical apologetics, to rightfully deserve the title "lay apologist," even if no formal 
position with compensation exists in his diocese or in his parish. Dave also has used his 
field as a full, and at times a partial means, to provide for his family. Finally, the author's 
statement of claim contains an additional hypocrisy when attacking Mr. Armstrong, in that 
they discredit themselves as a cantor and journalist, or whatever ministry position/title they 
are, because they lack a formal education in their fields of practice, and their training 
was not under an official institution of the Church or a university/college/formal work 
experience. 

Logic is clearly lacking here in the attacks on Mr. Armstrong. 

I will follow up with a second post, attacking the claim that Mr. Armstrong`s respect for 
Traditional Catholicism is false in his apologetics work.  

Due to past history that the author and his adherents/loyal fans commit verbal/written 
harassment against  those who dare to say anything even remotely intelligent and insightful,
properly debated or analyzed, when it comes to their arguments, or the 
``establishment`` of what Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalism THINK is Traditional 
Catholicism, (Not to mention anyone who is an anathema or gentile in their eyes, clerical or 
laity, young or old, even the Holy Father,) the combox is closed. 

Pax.

Highlight: Professional Apologist Dave Armstrong Counters RMT Anger at Pope Francis Not Being Clear on Abortion in USA

Hello Everyone,

Professional Catholic Apologist, Dave Armstrong, over at the Patheos Catholic channel, at Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, has just delivered an excellent apologetic post today.

He is countering the awful and bile-laced complaints of the Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalists' (RMTs) blogs, who are slandering and committing calumny against Pope Francis, all because he was not explicit in his language today when he was speaking on a number of occasions, especially that he did not speak directly about "abortion."

The ironic thing is, these people didn't crap on Blessed Mother Theresa, when she spoke about these matters to the UN and elsewhere in the 1990's, yet didn't speak about abortion explicitly. But thanks to the marvel of the Internet and the False "Traddies" or as Dave has used before, "quasi-schismatics' ," supreme hatred for anything that doesn't smell like Benedict XVI, they've once again assisted the Devil through the grievous sins of gossip/calumny, and struck out against the Vicar of Christ, and henceforth, Christ Himself.

I'd say Dave shares my thoughts exactly in this snippit:

".... What is not acceptable, though (I agree) is truly grumbling or complaining or thinking that oneself knows how to be pope better than the real pope does. Thus, each instance of a registered criticism would have to be examined on its own. A lot of it may indeed be unsavory whining ...."

Allow Mr. Armstrong, to cleverly debunk the hatred of these RMTs in their latest bile filled hate trains, and explain to those desiring true education, on true Catholic teaching on obedience/disobedience to the Pope in non-ex cathedra matters. Please direct yourself to the link below:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/09/must-the-pope-explicitly-mention-abortion-to-congress.html

Pax, Julian.

Facebook Highlight: Dave Armstrong and Personas On-line with In Person ... Your Heart Affects Your Words

Hello Everyone,

I follow the well-respected Catholic apologist, Dave Armstrong, on Facebook. Recently, he created a great post on how what we are online is no different from in person. Our heart/soul cannot lie, and despite how one person thinks that you can be nicer in person vs. online, it doesn't truthfully matter. Here's what Dave Armstrong has to say on the matter, and he's no hypocrite if you have viewed his writings at "Biblical Catholicism":

BAD ONLINE BEHAVIOR: NO EXCUSES IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS

Someone noted that people are generally a lot nicer in person than they are online. This was my response (with quite a bit added presently):

If a person habitually acts like an ass online, it's still the same person who exists offline who chooses to do that, when it is totally unnecessary and wrong. They're either "acting" online (passive-aggressive, gossipy, slanderous, rude, juvenile garbage) or acting when they are "nice" in person. Something is fishy there. Otherwise, they would act with normal Christian charity whether online or in "real life." 

In other words, they are not two people, but one, who chooses to act differently (usually much worse) when online. Ethics and morality don't change according to venue or environment. They are what they are.

Of course, some folks simply have an uncontrolled tongue or a hot temper, or a tendency to run others down, for various possible reasons (besetting sins), and that comes out online as well as offline. I do agree that those sorts of faults get *magnified* online, but such behavior can't be blamed *solely* on lack of body language, inflection, tone, and all the rest, that has been noted hundreds of times.

People act in self-interested fashion. So, we have more to lose in person and we shape up. But online, many folks seem to feel that they can act like idiots and "get away" with it: almost like a know-it-all rebellious college kid out of town on one of the pathetic "breaks": where he or she feels that they can do any outrageous behavior and not be noticed by anyone they know. No boundaries or responsibilities . . . 

THAT'S how (sadly) too many people act online. I contend that this is the real person coming out (due to less social pressure to "behave"), and that we stand accountable for all the words we say (or type).

In the end, we are responsible for what we do; how we act. Does anyone think it will matter a hill of beans to God on Judgment Day whether our sins were committed via Internet writing or in vocal words in person? St. James' and St. Paul's and Jesus' warnings about the tongue and lack of charity apply here as much as anywhere else.

Thus, I've always, from the beginning of my online participation (1996) insisted that folks should act exactly the same here as they would in real life (like a Christian!), and cease with the games, the anonymity (with the allied silliness of nicknames), the one-upsmanship, being the big shot of a forum or venue, the cliques, the disposable friendships, the endless vanity and pretensions of self-importance, factions, divisions, and "groupthink" -- and all the other nonsense. But of course, all of that reflects real life, too.

My conclusion is: folks are online what they are "in real life": even if the "real life" persona may be primarily hidden in their hearts, and is not outwardly observed. What comes out of our "mouths" [or, keyboards] proceeds from the heart, after all, and the bad tree produces bad fruit, etc. (Sermon on the Mount stuff). We are all in need of God's grace on a continual basis (primarily from the sacraments) in order to be and act as God would have us to be.

Some good food for thought from a true, orthodox Catholic. Pax, Julian. 

Highlight: Dave Armstrong Defends Benedict XVI and his Reform of the Reform Spledidly from TBBs and Naysayers

Hello Everyone.

So, the next, fad for the Trads Behaving Badly (TBBs), and additionally from some new allies, the "naysayers" (who are not necessarily TBBs, more just giving more ammunition to validate the TBBs in their minds), is to say "The Reform of the Reform" touted by Pope Benedict XVI, is DEAD.

Well, Dave Armstrong, one of the best modern Catholic Apologists on the Internet, who has done frequent work with North America's Catholic Answers in past, has decided to critically examine the TBBs/naysayers' latest attack from the right, and to speak with the mind of the Church and defend it.

Please see these postings to dispel the latest shenanigans of the TBB side:

Part One & Part Two.

Pax, Julian.