SAVE OUR NATION: Another opportunity to sojourn into apologetics


I came across this public website, and found it to purport some rather severe errors concerning the Roman Catholic Church. Here is the link:

Here is a quote from the thread that I am considering replying to:

[quote="[font=Times New Roman][size=3]JayWJr:"]

While Roman Catholicism has some elements to it that indeed mimick Chrstianity; I would certainly be careful about basing any doctrinal stances or certainties, historical or current, on the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church.

They do after all believe that the way to God is through Mary and that men of the cloth, so to speak, should remain single.

The Bible says exactly the opposite on both counts.

Roman Catholicism, by its very nature encourages homosexuality because it worships femininity, ie…(Hail Mary).

No where is this more evident than in the catholic priest and altar boy sex scandals that have been unable to be suppressed any longer by the organization.

Should I reply, and what would be the best means to provide correction to these henious errors?

I appreaciate your help.

Pax Christi[/size][/font]


Probably best to just email them a link to a reputable site explaining Catholic doctrine, like this one. If you actually tried to get into it with them yourself, I can’t see any good coming out of it.


[quote=Jeremy]Probably best to just email them a link to a reputable site explaining Catholic doctrine, like this one. If you actually tried to get into it with them yourself, I can’t see any good coming out of it.

I agree with Jeremy.I have been there and done that all it does is get you mad,because regardless of what you say they will not hear it.Send them a link per charge they make and if they are worried about TRUTH they will investigate if not they will keep spreading lies.God Bless


here’s the reply I posted:

[size=3][font=Times New Roman]I don’t suppose you would mind backing up your claims against the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) with any kind of factual information that could be verified, would you?

I am curious as to where you found these teachings and the notion that Catholics “mimic” Christians.

I find it rather amusing that you regard the “Hail Mary…” as “worship of Mary”, when if this is true, then wasn’t the angel Gabriel worshiping Mary in Luke 1:28? Didn’t God send Gabriel to Mary, and that being the case, does that mean that God Himself, through Gabriel, was worshiping Mary when he presented her with the salutation “Hail, full of grace…” in the Greek “Charie, Kecharitomene…”

Goodness knows that if only the Church would allow priests to marry and be less approving of feminism then the scandals of recent would not have happened, right? Sure, there are no married people who ever perform any kind of deviate sexual conduct, right? C’mon JW…that is a farse…

Also, how do you manage to refer to the Church as being feminist and yet you know her historical stance on birth control? Can one be a feminist AND be opposed to birth control? I thought the two were mutually exclusive.

I sure hope to hear from you soon JW.

Pax Christi,



You said it well. Always try to be relaxed yet focused in your replies. :thumbsup:

Gerry :slight_smile:


Thank you Gerry.

I am flattered but I think you are too generous…

pax Christi


JayWJr made his second reply. Here it is:

Now its time for me to systematically correct his error. Anyone care to help? :smiley:

Pax Christi,



I strongly urge you to refrain from replying to this guy. He is not interested in the truth, he is only interested in looking for ammunition for spewing ungodly hatred toward both the RCC and homosexuals.

His conversion is not in your hands, but in God’s. The best thing to do now is to just to pray for him.


[quote=Kecharitomene]JayWJr made his second reply. Here it is:

Now its time for me to systematically correct his error. Anyone care to help? :smiley:

Pax Christi,


Ok I remember on a CA broadcast the answer to the bishops only needing one wife. This is a cutural reference to the fact that at the time it was considered a huge character flaw to get remarried after your spouse died. You were just supposed to remain chaste after their death. It actually says nothing about them having to be married or single. And if I remember correctly the preference was single at the time anyway. I think a lot of bishops took vows of chasity with their wives before the accepted becoming bishops.

At least that’s what I remember. :rolleyes:


Jeremy, I understand your warnings, and I respect them. This particular case is one that has caught my attention personally, so I am compelled to respond. Please do not think that I am disregarding your suggestion in any way.

In my reply, I borrowed heavily from the Catholic Answers Library and all of its rich apologetic treasures. I hyperlinked all of my references, however their board is so primitative or something, that HTML isn’t enabled.

Ok, here is the lastest reply I provided to our friend, JW:

Take Care,

Pax Christi,


Oh, naturally, you can handle it however you feel moved to do so.


The fellow has so many charges that need to be refuted that it’s practically going to take a book’s worth of apologetics to deal with it–starting with the “mimick” (sic), continuing with “the only copy of the Bible chained to the altar” (source, please), etc.
You’ll find that this poster is relying heavily on Lorraine Boetner (sp), which has been thoroughly debunked by reliable historians, point by point. Yet it has so heavily influenced the more virulent anti-Catholics in the last 50 years or so that even with the refutations, they still drag it up. Yep, the “seven hills” = the Catholic Church= the “whore”, bishops’ hats, the forbidding of the Bible readings, the “sign of the cross”, the “pagan wafer god” etc. can all be traced back to this little “gem” of misinformation.


Great job so far Thom! However, I think maybe you shouldn’t have copied and pasted directly from A Crisis of Saints as much as you did. It’s not clear that you are reproducing the article since your footnotes are not included in the post. The impression I got was that I was reading an experience you had here:

Earlier this week I had finished my exercise at a local gym and was coming out of the locker room dressed in my black clerical garb. Upon seeing me, a mother hurriedly moved her children out of the way and shielded them from me as I was passing. She glared at me as I passed, and when I was far enough away she finally relaxed and let her children go-as if I would have attacked them in the middle of the afternoon at a health club!

It took me a moment beore I realized it came from Fr. Landry’s article.

one more correction (maybe you can go back and edit your existing posts?), you forgot to enclose JW’s quote:

This is one of the best examples one could think of to describe how false doctrine ie.(Roman Catholicism) leads to sexual perversion.

within the quote code so it doesn’t stand out as a new section from the previous paragraph.

Keep up the good fight!


Thanks Rich, I appreciate your kind words.

If that dadgone site was setup for HTML then my foot notes would have been visible and workable. But its not and it won’t allow me to edit any previous posts.

I probably shouldn’t have posted directly from the CA Library, but under the time restraints that I was experiencing, it permitted me to respond to him with the force that I thought was necessary in the window of opportunity I had available at the time.

I liked your experience quotation…but I guess I am kind of scatter brained, because I didn’t understand the context of which you were quoting it.

Pax Christi,



As far as priestly celibacy goes, refer him to 1 Cor 7:32-35. And be sure to always refer to Paul as St Paul.
It sounds like he will have more respest for St. Paul than he does for Jesus. Many of them do. That Scripture passage above is a good one.
Good Luck


[quote=Kecharitomene]JayWJr made his second reply. Here it is:

Now its time for me to systematically correct his error. Anyone care to help? :smiley:

Pax Christi,


Hey. Here is my two cents worth…may help a bit.

Ask your new friend why Paul (and as all good sola scripturists go he will be a fan of St. Paul before all others) taught that it would be best if all could be single like him so that they could focus full time on God’s work? I am hazy on the reference itself, I’m thinking Romans, will find and post again later. Paul states that he understands why some require a partner, it keeps them from mindless lusts etc. but the implication is clear that he believed that a single person would be ideal if they could devote themselves.

Next, the priest scandal. I agree that it is shocking and absolutely incorrect. However look at the actual statistics. Fewer than 1% of RCC clergy have been accused of such activities while fully 10% of protestant clergy have been accused of sexual impropriety…funny how that little ratio has been swept under some parlor rugs. In addition you simply cannot hold a grudge against a total group/organisation for the acts of people. And our clergy, God love them all, are people first. If I take out a busload of people in the name of M & M’s will society stop eating them? Nope, they’ll say “What a lunatic, wonder what she was thinking?” Same principle applies.

Bottom line? If you let a bias or a person stand between you and God, who is on the losing end? Answer: you are, cause you refuse to get around the block.

Stay focussed and relaxed in your correspondence with him…a seed will be planted.

Warm regards,



I can’t begin to find words to tell you all how grateful I am for your collective as well as individual support as I undertake this apology. I really get a sense of what St. Paul was speaking of when he spoke of a “cloud of wittnesses”.

Doing apologetics can be rewarding, but it sure has become a lot of work lately! I am just glad I have you all to help me along the way.

Ok, here’s my latest response.
Tell me what you think please:

I look forward to hearing from you.

Pax Christi,



[quote=Kecharitomene]Tell me what you think please:

I look forward to hearing from you.

Pax Christi,


Just about perfect. Aside from some small spelling/grammatical errors that I don’t think matter, it is well thought out, well written, and well resourced with scripture and the CCC.

One small problem I see is it looked like you might have lost your patience and charity slightly when you describe his joke as “down home southern fried good ‘ol boy, plastic banana, good time rock n roll humor.” I agree with you that the joke doesn’t have a punch line, and he doesn’t present a reasonable or logical defense to your post, but I think that comment might have diminished your credibility slightly for others that may be reading along like myelf. Something that helps me is waiting a while before clicking the submit button. After you have typed up what you want to say, how you want to say it walk away for a half hour or so to relax. Read a book, watch TV, then come back and re-read what you wrote. Look for anything that you might have said with a lack of charity. Edit it accordingly and THEN submit it.

By the way, JW has already replied and as usual, he doesn’t answer any of your questions, nor does he challenge any of the statements you have made. At this point I doubt you are making any impression on him. He isn’t listening, you are talking AT him, not TO him. I encourage you to continue though since this should be as obvious to any third party as it is to me. You may not change JW’s false impressions, but you never know how many people who are more intelligent than him may be reading along.

I suggest you continue as before, refuting his vague, rediculous, and undocumented claims, and continue to ask why he doesn’t answer any of your questions nor does he attempt to refute any of your claims.

Good luck Thom, you are in my prayers!


Thank you Rich, I am much obliged for your prayers and your guidance!

I am limited on time until after the weekend, so I may not reply to JW right away, but I will do just as you have recommended when the time permits.

Rich, your Catholic wittness and support are much appriciated!

Pax Christi,



I have replied to JW’s most recent post. Please refer this link:

yeah, its the same link as I have been posting. I just put it here for convienence.

I tempered my approach in responding to JW and decided to take it a bit slower and address his objections one issue at a time. It seems that he spews out much error such that it would either be too cumbersome to respond to it all, or that the response to all of his error, would be too cumbersome for him to mentally digest and understand.

I really appreciate your words of encouragement and suggestions as to how to approach this dialogue. Please keep it comming.

Pax Christi,


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit