King David: quite the sinner himself, yet God made an eternal covenant with him, knowing he would commit adultery and murder
For my part, I have covered the sad sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church quite a bit, having compiled many informed articles dealing with it in multiple posts (one / two / three). The devil would love nothing more than for people to believe that this is only a "Catholic problem" so that people can ignore any other instance of it happening, thus allowing many more thousands of cases of abuse to proceed, under cover of an anti-Catholic or at least tunnel vision "see no evil anywhere else" mentality.
I have nothing to do with this scandal. I have condemned it in no uncertain terms from the beginning. But lo and behold, here comes John Bugay, telling me and other apologists that we ought to quit what we are doing.
Basically, of course, this boils down to saying that we ought to renounce Catholic teaching and become good ol' Protestants (preferably Calvinists), just as he has done, having left the Church of his youth. Sorry, John. It doesn't work that way. Sin and truth are two different categories (in case you didn't know that).
Sin will always be with us. This is why we have Christianity in the first place: to save men from sin (duh!!!). It's called . . . original sin . . . concupiscence, etc. John's brand of Christianity takes it even further than we do, holding that men have a "sin nature." Yet he is surprised that sin -- even very serious, especially evil sin, with cover-ups -- occurs. But there is one truth, and that doesn't change because some people in the ranks of where the Christian truth resides most fully, have sinned.
It's a huge tragedy, disgraceful, abominable, unspeakably evil, but it doesn't cause doctrinal truth to change. If Isaac Newton -- heaven forbid -- had been found having sex with a little boy, it wouldn't alter the fact that gravity is a scientific truth. We wouldn't reject his established, demonstrable teaching because he was personally a scoundrel.
St. Paul didn't hesitate in calling the Corinthian assembly "the church of God" (1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1; RSV) even though terrible sexual sin had occurred within its ranks:
1 Corinthians 5:1 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father's wife.
Somehow, our Lord Jesus still called the assembly of Christians in Thyatira "the church" (Rev 2:18), despite the presence therein of wicked sexual immorality:
Revelation 2:20-25 But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jez'ebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. [21] I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her immorality. [22] Behold, I will throw her on a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her doings; [23] and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches shall know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve. [24] But to the rest of you in Thyati'ra, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan, to you I say, I do not lay upon you any other burden; [25] only hold fast what you have, until I come.
Again, for some reason God didn't cease his eternal covenant with David (Ps 89:3-4, 26-37; 132:11-18; 2 Sam 7:12-17), even though he had committed adultery with Bathsheba and had her husband killed (no small sin). God, knowing everything and being outside of time, knew this would happen, but it didn't stop Him from making the covenant with David. He decided to choose Moses to be His lawgiver, despite his having murdered a man; selected betrayer Peter to lead His Church, and murderer of Christians Paul to be His chief initial missionary to the Gentiles (and all four men wrote plenty of inspired Scripture). Lots of very serious sin there, all around (how many of you have pastors or priests who murdered someone?). It's tough to get around, where human beings are concerned.
Anyway, after having made these rather obvious observations, let us now see what Bugay wrote on the anti-Catholic Triablogue site where he is a regular contributor (on 11-10-11), about myself and several other apologists needing to give up our outreach and apologetics efforts altogether:
Called to Communion? Or called to be abused, only to have the “infallible” church cover it up?
. . . Those of you who defend Rome, let me ask you. What more could Rome have done? In the name of Christ, what should you be doing in the face of such a cover-up? Scott Hahn and Bryan Cross and Devin Rose and Taylor Marshall and Mark Shea and Dave Armstrong and “Catholic Answers” and all of you who are defending the Roman Catholic Church and trying to win converts to it ought to stop now what you’re doing and demand, that Rome itself repent for the sins it has committed, and to make restitution – real restitution – for the evil that its own laws and policies have perpetuated for centuries. And while you’re at it, you ought to examine your own lives and beliefs and motives. Because no artificial distinction between “dogma” and “discipline”, or “doctrine” and “canon law” can account for the pure and simple evil that Rome both perpetuates and hides over with folded hands and a smiling face.
So, folks, it's been good, but now it's time to pack it in and call it a day: to ditch Catholicism and go be a Calvinist like John Bugay, where no sins ever occur and never will: the assembly of perfect saints and angels, because a very tiny proportion of Catholics were guilty of terrible sexual sin.
Amazingly enough, Bugay demonstrates his double standards in this regard in the very discussion thread underneath his post. Our Lord and Savior and Redeemer Jesus Christ told us to take the beam out of our own eyes before complaining about the specks in others' eyes: to examine ourselves first. But he won't do that with regard to Protestant sex abuse cases. As soon as he watches the Paterno scandal he uses it as a pretext to go right back to bashing the Catholic Church. It always has to go back to that.
In the first comment under his post (written by Ron Van Brenk), a person was brought up [Patty Bonds] who has publicly stated (in print and even on television) that she was sexually abused by her Baptist pastor father (who happens to be the father of a rather well-known anti-Catholic apologist: her brother). Note that this was brought up in the combox by a fellow anti-Catholic, not myself or any Catholic. He introduced the topic. But Ron puts her down and John follows suit, saying, "I wouldn't trust her as far as I could spit her." This is how someone who says they were a victim is treated in anti-Catholic circles. It's ignored; it's not taken seriously. Patty was publicly insulted and smeared (and this is not the first time, or even close to the worst instance, believe me).
Now, let's assume for the sake of argument or neutrality that the pastor is perfectly innocent of the alleged outrage, and the woman is lying through her teeth. Still, why isn't a purported victim's report taken seriously at all? Generally, victims of abuse don't lie about it. Well, it is clearly, I think, because it is "anti-Catholic politics." A well-known and high-ranking person is in the same family, so it is immediately dismissed. In other words, it would be the same exact sort of specific sin that John blasts the Catholic Church for: covering-up incidents: politics and PR over even rudimentary truth and justice in individual cases. John proves that he acts the same way right in the thread under his post. How ironic.
Now, imagine abused victims of Catholic priests being treated in the same fashion: as soon as they make their charge they are dismissed out of hand as liars. We know that Bugay wouldn't countenance that for a second, but let a person who says they have been victimized in Protestant anti-Catholic circles speak out and she is immediately taken to be a liar and publicly trashed.
Moreover, as an example of superior anti-Catholic piety and love for all human beings, Ron linked to a post of his own of four days ago, entitled "Do NOT Pray for [So-and-So]" -- capitals his own. In this outrageous piece he mocks and derides the person, even practically making fun of physical maladies and illnesses that she is going through; and of course she is a liar: that is casually assumed. It's unbelievable.
This is a fine piece of Christian charity, isn't it? Jesus told us to pray for our enemies and those who persecute us and speak evil of us. But our anti-Catholic friends will publicly urge others to not even pray at all for someone whom they have made out to be their enemy. Even if they actually were an "enemy" (and she is not) our Lord would have us pray for them, anyway!!! St. Paul wrote:
1 Timothy 2:1, 3-4 I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, . . . [3] This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, [4] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
This is the exact opposite of how any Christian worth his or her salt should act: so absurd and sinful that it is grounds to question whether the person is a Christian at all, to have the gall to publish such a ridiculous, wicked thing.
[Note: originally at this point, I wrote about showing love towards John Bugay, by asking my readers to support his family, since his wife is suffering from leukemia, and he has publicly asked for aid (I provided a link to his PayPal account). Someone did just that and John actually returned the donation with scorn, and questioned the motives of both my appeal and this particular donation; also asked me to remove the links, so people could help him. I wrote a separate article about this pathetic incident]
***
.jpg)
