Replies

I don’t see refutation as bashing as long as it doesn’t become so. For example, Yes there are Catholics who still hold with the belief that those outside the faith are damned. That belief is not the current understanding of the Church on the teaching of “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”. So to challenge that and defend yourself against being told you will go to Hell by appealing to the Church’s own teaching and what you believe about Hell is a valid answer. Even bringing up that there are religions that believe Catholics are going to Hell would certainly make a point about legitimate differences. If the refutation consists of claiming Catholics are the ones going to Hell because they don’t believe in the Bible or because they worship the Pope then I think that would be bashing.

Our agreements as well as disagreements should be based on facts. When some things are misunderstood a correction should not be seen as an attack. When some things are corrected again and again yet still people remain obstinate in believing lies that is when you get bashing.

I am grateful you attempted a definition of "bashing." However, it is hopelessly subjective. That is the core of our objection to it. For example, theologically conservative evangelicals cannot process that genuflecting to a wafer in a monstrance isn't idolatry. I would argue we are right to have that disability, that it is the correct way to view the situation. We know full well the charge is denied. We simply can't get past the objective fact that the wafer is underserving of worship, no matter what rationalizations are offered, up to and including Aquinas.

Obviously, the RC who is accustomed to this practice lives immersed within what we consider a rationalization, and no doubt thinks we are just being willfully obstinate by insisting they are doing something wrong.

So I get how difficult it is to have these kinds of conversations.

Which is precisely why it is going to be so very difficult to come up with objective criteria for what is "bashing." I think the term is useless. It's root sense is simply to criticize something. As in critical thinking. If you have any personal beliefs about the matter, you cannot compare the Roman version of the Gospel with the evangelical version without critiquing the differences. If truth matters, those differences matter.

So a narrower definition must be sought. I've been struggling with this. I agree that an endless stream of criticism, even if done dispassionately and with the best intentions, may not be the best way to "win friends and influence people." So I'm thinking that a more judicious use of the forum, combined with keeping the tone as friendly as possible, is probably closer to the ideal being sought. But this "definition" is a work in progress. I don't really know if I'm on target or not. Just making my best guess so far.

Peace,