Replies

If someone claims to be an expert on Chihauhuas and then proceeds to tell you they're the size of Great Danes, it's fair to ask if he might possibly not know as much about Chihauhuas as he claims. Is it proof? That depends on what standard of proof you're requiring. There are people in this world who, no matter how much evidence is presented to them will persist in claiming that we never put a man on the moon. Nothing will prove to them otherwise. People with common sense think those folks are fruitcakes. So yes, it's possible that Bennett is not outright lying about his background - he could be nuts, for example - but in any event he seems to not know fundamental, simple things anyone who had the experience he claims to have had could reasonably be expected to know.

The formal name for the Dominicans is the "Order of Preachers", and perhaps their most famous member is St. Thomas Aquinas. They have a friendly rivalry with the Benedictines, who are monks, and as such are quite clear that they are, by contrast, friars. Bennett seems not to know that. Moreover, he seems not to know much about what St. Thomas treated of in the Summa, which directly addresses some of the theological issues he raises. As a Dominican, he would have studied the Summa and certainly know enough not to mis-state what the Catholic Church actually teaches. In other words, he might have disagreed with St. Thomas' arguments, but at least he would have known what the issues actually are, rather than what he says they are.

In other cases, he could have straightened himself out on the issues by a purusal of the Catechism, which any reasonably well-educated Catholic - certainly a priest - would have done. But the evidence is quite otherwise.

Consider as well his remarks on the Breviary, and compare them with the actual text to be found at the website I linked. Draw your own conclusions on the accuracy of his statements.

Something's wrong here. I don't know exactly what, and charity prevents me from speculating what's actually going on, especially as I don't know the man. But his statements are typical inaccurate Protestant boilerplate, guaranteed to edify his audience of Protestants who aren't too fond of the Catholic Church. He certainly has not refrained from "degrading the Catholic Church", so a reasonably well-educated Catholic audience wouldn't be taken in by this essay. Sorry, but the guy's ultimately indefensible.

As mentioned prior I do not get caught up in that which catholics feel significant to a mans testimony..and which generally generate division and discord. Rather this former Priests Testimony is very clear that He is no longer bound to the catholic faith, Pope, nor their requirements of Him. Rather he, after careful time and study of the scriptures, over many years, determined what he was practicing as a Priest in the catholic church, was not in accordance with the teachings of scripture.....thereafter He gave His life to Christ and is currently in the work Christ has called Him to.

Why would He feel the need to “straighten himself out” as it is quite apparent he was doing just that.

You have stated “something is wrong here” when in reality it is a hard thing for any catholic to believe this mans testimony. You say you “don't know what it is” but some will continue to dig until they find something. You say you “don't know the man”.......And so in brief you don't know what's wrong, you don't know what it is, and you don't know the man.

But you see This former Priest knew something was wrong and found out what it was...and He discovered the man Christ wanted Him to be from His written word....

.....The “Proof” He was looking for He found....”The sufficiency of Christ and Christ alone”.