On July 2nd I posted a 3,330 word article relating to particular claims made by Roman Catholic writer Mark Shea in his three-volume set on Mary. I invested a fair amount of time examining Shea’s claims relating to an important topic, one related to Shea’s own criticism of one of my claims. I provided evidence of error on Shea’s part, documenting his errors from the text of Scripture itself.
Now, I have been saying for quite some time that the majority of modern Roman Catholic apologists do not seem to have any sense of concern about the truthfulness of their claims. As long as it serves Mother Church, well, it must be good. It seems to me that these men just don’t care what is said in response to their claims. Even if they are shown to be in simple factual and historical error, they will continue making the same claims in other contexts.
And Shea has pretty well demonstrated this for us all. Here is what he posted on his website:
And, in his own unique way, James White, having glanced briefly at it, raves that it is a “Desperate Defense of Marian Mythology”. That’s as handsome a compliment as I could have asked for!
Well, there you go! Nothing about the interaction with his material, nothing about the issues raised, just…nothing. I should say, though—at least he linked to it. We can hope someone will take a moment to see how much Shea just swept under the rug.
Shortly after writing this Shea popped a cork here. I have no idea why it is titled the way it is, but that’s not relevant. Shea seems upset that I actually looked to see if finally he had interacted with myself, and anyone else out here, who has been responding to Catholic apologists for the past few decades. What an amazingly anemic excuse for ignoring being refuted! He makes a snide, dishonest remark on his blog the day after I get his books (I wonder—how many of my books does Shea review?), and I post a 3,300 word documentation of error on his part on the relevant material, and I point out that his lone accusation of error is dependent upon a rather extended use of the term “early,” and what does Shea do? Ignores it all, of course, and does not even attempt to interact with it. The careful reader can see why: he can’t. And it must just gall him that I could pick up his book and document those problems in a brief period of time. “Oh, oh, but, you should read it all—just because you have debated us on these issues in the past and have written on the subject isn’t relevant, you should wade through all the blather we Roman Catholics produce in praise of Mary and not be so concerned about all this Bible and history stuff.” Again, one is left shaking one’s head at the utter incapacity of the majority of Rome’s most popular modern apologists to even pretend seriousness when it comes to meaningful argumentation. It is no wonder they refuse to debate.