Conversion from Roman Catholicism to Biblical Christianity

I grew up in a loving family who attended the Catholic Church regularly. Not just my immediate family, mind you(!) - but my entire family (aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, etc.) was Catholic! I was a regular participant and played the organ at church and also was a leader in the "folk choir" for most of my teenage years. In short - I was as "Catholic" as they come!

I never doubted my faith because I was told to just believe everything the Church taught me without question. The Pope was supreme in his authority, and the priests and nuns were to be treated as "holy" and "special" servants of God who would never teach anything not true. I remember several times, non-Catholic friends of mine would ask me if I was "saved" - I had no idea what that term really meant, but I assumed it was akin to the "Sacrament of Confirmation" in my Church, so I would always say that yes, I was saved. Many friends dropped it at that - never realizing I didn't know what they were talking about! If you have tried witnessing to a Catholic friend who says they're saved, please be sure they understand it completely, or you may be losing the chance to bring someone into the kingdom.

I also remember many non-Catholic friends asking me about some of the doctrines, such as purgatory, confession, the Pope, Mary, etc. I always would tell them, "Oh - that's in the Bible!" - but I had no idea where because we were never taught to read the Bible for ourselves, but rather to simply believe what we were told. I had no idea these teachings were not in the Bible at all - but were actually man-made beliefs that the Catholic Church had made up throughout the years. Many of the teachings they always said came straight from Christ were actually made up as late as the 1950's! But I defended my Church - I loved my Church and trusted it completely. One time a friend really pressed me about where in the Bible were the teachings about purgatory. I asked the priest about this, and was given the verse where it says something about being thrown into prison and not getting out till you've paid the last penny. I remember thinking - "THAT is where you get the whole doctrine of purgatory from??!!" I started having some doubts about that time, but just pushed it to the back of my mind.

When I was 21 years old, I had a special friend (Creg) who was a non-Catholic. He asked me about my salvation, and again I convinced him I was saved. However, the Lord wasn't going to let me get away that easily this time! I had been reading a magazine from the "Last Days Ministries", led by Keith and Melody Green, and came across some pamphlets they were offering called "The Catholic Chronicle Series". I remember thinking, "Oh, great! Finally something about MY church!" I ordered them and was thrilled when they arrived. I thought this would be great to prove my church was okay to my non-Catholic friends.

I remember that evening so well... My best friend, Wanda (also Catholic), and I sat on my bed and started reading the pamphlets excitedly. After a few minutes, we both realized the pamphlets were not "for" the Catholic Church, but rather were explaining the differences between the teachings of the Catholic Church and the Bible. Our initial reaction was, "Oh - they don't know what they're talking about!" However, we got out our "Catholic Catechism" book (which contains the teachings of the Catholic Church to educate people interested in becoming Catholic) and my Bible and started to compare them. We took each of the Keith Green pamphlets and looked up every single Bible verse he quoted and then looked the doctrine up in the Catholic Catechism book. I started to feel my heart sink. Could this be true?? Wanda got so nervous and upset that she decided to leave.

So all by myself, I spent the next several hours - until 1 or 2 in the morning - studying, reading, praying, crying, and being very confused. The next day I had planned to go with Creg to an out-of-town meeting about 2 hours away. During the trip, I had the time to tell him what was going on. I started reading the pamphlets to him, and he was amazed. "Catholics really believe THAT?" he'd ask about different doctrines mentioned in the pamphlets. I'd say, "Well - I didn't realize that's exactly what they believed, but yes - I guess they do." You see, I'd been taking the doctrines that didn't make sense to me and explaining them away by changing what they really meant. For example, the doctrine of Mary and the "Immaculate Conception" - I always assumed this meant Mary conceived JESUS "immaculately" - through the Holy Spirit. In reality, what that teaching says is that MARY herself was born "without sin". The Bible plainly states that ALL have sinned except for Jesus! Another example is when people would ask me about why we pray to Mary - I'd explain that as being the same as if I were asking a friend to pray for me - that I was just asking Mary to pray for me. However, the doctrine really states that Catholics DO pray to Mary and even that we are to go through Mary in order to "get to Jesus"!! This is totally un-Biblical. The Bible says that there is only one "mediator" between man and God - and that's Jesus Christ, not Mary, not the "Saints", not a Pope - no one else.

Creg and I talked about this the whole trip and that evening when we got back to his house, he got his family together to help me understand "true" salvation doctrines. They got out their Bibles and went through everything with me - explaining how Christ's death at Calvary paid the price for my sins and that because of that, anyone who accepts Him as their Savior is immediately brought into the Christian family and can be assured they'll go to heaven. I was totally amazed! The Catholic Church taught me that we can never be sure we're going to heaven - that it was a guessing game, depending on how good or bad we were, and whether we died "with sin on our souls" (meaning without having been to confession since sinning). They explained to me that when Christ died, He took ALL my sins away - past, present, and future - and that God wouldn't hold them against me any more. There was no way I'd die "with sin on my soul" - because Christ took them away! I was in shock, and quite upset about my Church's apparent errors, but I was also pretty excited and hopeful.

While we were looking up the Scriptures, we came across one in my Catholic Bible that said, "Unless you do penance, you shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven." They all were quite shocked and said, "That's not what that verse says at all! It says, 'Unless you REPENT, you shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven'!!" "Penance" is a Catholic term, meaning going to confession and then doing what the priest tells you to do to "make up for" your sins. "Repent", on the other hand, is an internal change that happens when we turn away from our sins and turn back to God. A totally different meaning! Creg was so upset that my Bible had such untruths that he gave me his own personal Bible and told me to read it! And I did!

That whole weekend, I kept my nose in that Bible and read pretty much the whole New Testament. It was like a light-bulb had come on in my head. Words I'd heard many times before now made perfect sense - in this new light of salvation through grace. I felt light and happy and joyous - like I'd found the truth at last - something "real"! I called Creg a few days later and said, "Creg, this is amazing! I feel like a brand-new Christian!" He said, "Jacki, you are a brand-new Christian!" I realized then that while I was following the doctrines of the Catholic Church, I had never really been a "Christian" in the true sense of the word - believing totally in Christ's sacrifice at Calvary to save me from my sins. I mean - I'd always heard from the Catholic Church that "Christ died for our sins". But it really had no meaning, if you think about it. If Christ died for our sins - then why were we forced to go to confession, do penance, attend church, follow the other sacraments, etc., etc. - in order to HOPE we were going to make it to heaven? And if Christ paid for our sins, why on earth would we still have to go to purgatory when we die to keep trying to make up for them?? Where did Christ fit into that picture? In reality, His death did me no good according to the Catholic Church - I still had to try to earn my way. But the truth was that His death did everything! There was nothing I could do to add to it. He paid the price in full. I could be assured of my salvation! The Bible even says, "I write these things unto you so that you may know you have eternal life." You can't get more plain than that! Something about this made me feel so FREE - and made me want to serve God with all my heart because of what He'd done for me.

Being a musician/composer, that day I wrote a song that expressed what I was feeling. Here are the lyrics:

The next several days were so exciting for me. I learned about the rapture and how we Christians who are still alive will be taken up to heaven to be with Jesus! I learned what heaven is going to be like through reading the book of Revelation. I never knew any of this was in the Bible! The Catholic Church actually taught that heaven was not a real "place" but rather a "state of mind"! I have to admit, I felt cheated - like the Catholic Church had kept all these marvels from me. I was so happy to have finally found the truth that I started sharing about this with my friends and family. My younger sisters and brother all were anxious to receive God's "gift of salvation" and all accepted Christ into their hearts as their Savior. That was a precious moment for me.

However, my friend Wanda was another story. She got so angry that I was saying these things about the Catholic Church that she turned her back on me. She said I was "dead" as far as she was concerned. My mother also had major problems with this - she had a very hard time believing that the Church she'd loved for more than 50 years could ever teach anything in error. I was very sad that this came between us, but I knew I had to choose between the Bible and the Church. I chose the Bible.

I was just a week away from moving to Florida to attend college, so I attended the Catholic Church before leaving. I heard words in a totally new light now, though. Words of the "Mass" that I'd heard a thousand times before and had just taken for granted - not even giving a thought to their meaning - now were so obviously anti-Biblical that I knew I couldn't continue to participate in the Catholic Church once I moved to Florida. I found a wonderful little Bible-believing church that helped me grow spiritually as a Christian. I have never looked back - never once regretted leaving the Catholic Church - never doubted that I did the right thing. I know now that every single belief I have comes straight from the Bible - I'll never again have to "defend" my beliefs with half-truths and made-up stories.

Shortly after I moved to Florida, my mother pressed me about talking to a priest to try to "straighten myself out"! I told her I would. I made an appointment with a local priest and went with my Bible in hand. He thought he was going to counsel me on the teachings of the Catholic Church. For about 5 minutes, I asked him questions like, "What does the Church teach about Mary?" and "What does the Church teach about Purgatory?" Then I asked the biggie(!) - "Does the Church teach we can know we're going to heaven?" I'll never forget what happened next! He just said, "Well...I wouldn't say we can know we're going to heaven - we can only hope that we won't die with sin on our souls." I knew then that God had opened the door for me to witness to this priest!

It was wonderful after that! I counseled HIM for about 20 minutes - going through the Bible, showing him where it says we can know we have eternal life, showing him the many verses that say our salvation is a free gift from God and that Christ's death paid the price in full for our sins so that nothing can ever separate us from the love of God again...

He was amazed! He got very excited and said, "Maybe I'll include this in my sermon next Sunday!" (He was a young priest, by the way - maybe an older one wouldn't have received these teachings in this way.) He asked if I'd come see him again and talk more about this. I said I'd love to!

However, over the next several weeks, I tried many times to contact him and was always told he either wasn't there or was busy, etc. I realized I was being "put off" and gave up. I don't know if he went to his senior priests and told them about this and they tried to quiet him down or what happened. But I do know that I at least shared the truth of God's word with him and that maybe it had an impact on him.

I truly believe that salvation is so "simple" that we humans try to make it way too complicated! The conversation between the priest and me above explains all someone needs to know to be saved. I hope that my story has touched your heart and that you will study God's word for yourself to see that what I've said is true. I hope that if you're a Catholic now, you'll take the time to learn that what your Church really teaches is not in the Bible as you've probably always assumed, and that you'll have the courage to seek out the truth. I hope that this message will cause someone else to say, "You know - I'd never thought of it that way before!"

Straw man. First of all, "Show us where Scripture [etc.] " is only compelling for sola Scriptura adherents.

Actually, you have just made you OWN straw man. Sola Scriptura means ONLY that scripture contains ALL THAT IS NEEDED for salvation... in terms of the Catholic Cult, this does mean that "Holy Tradition" is basically pap. It does NOT mean that everything that was ever written is contained expressly therein. Here is a quote from John MacArthur, taken from Ligonier,org:

"The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. This or that “scientific truth,” for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture—but Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is “more sure,” according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our senses (2 Peter 1:19). Therefore, Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter on which it speaks.

But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary. Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3).

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take away from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18–19). To add to it is to lay on people a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what sola Scriptura means.

“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” — Westminster Confession of Faith

Adapted from John MacArthur’s contribution to Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible."

Emphasis mine.

So, now... let's not have any straw men.

Hoss

[paladinan]
Second, who's claiming that anyone is a Christian because of the church they attend?

[Iscool]
How many times have we read that ALL Catholics are Christians??? I'll bet you've said it yourself...

Of, course, I have... but didn't you even read the very next sentence from the same short paragraph of the very comment (#91) to which you're replying?

"I know of many people who don't even claim to be Christian, who attend once or twice out of curiosity (and some of them convert); I know of others who are not validly baptized, but who still attend.

Summary: "validly baptized" = Christian. Dismiss or argue that, if you like... but it soundly refutes the point which you're defending (i.e. that I ever claimed that someone is a Christian merely because of the "church" they attend). Someone can attend Catholic Masses as often as they like; if they're not validly baptized, they're not Catholic.

[paladinan]
Interesting. Can you supply quotes from their writings, to that effect? And when you do, can you please supply page number and edition, so that I can track the references down correctly? Or is this your raw opinion?

[Iscool]
Nope on both questions.

Ah. So you make baseless, unsubstantiated, and slanderous claims against a man, and you offer no retraction or expressions of regret. Gotcha. When someone slanders another and excuses themselves from even the smallest defense of the accusations, that really does a number on anyone's responsibilty to take that person's writings seriously. Just saying. And you might want to check out the "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" commandment, when you get a moment. When last I checked, it was still in full force.

When threads about Hahn and Staples and the others show up with videos or their writings revealed, there is ample biblical refutation of their theology posted...And I'm sure will happen in the future.

Even better. "disagreement with Dr. Hahn's theology" = "authorization to make claims about his motives". I'll leave you with this simple idea: even if Dr. Hahn's theology were 100% nonsense, that would say NOTHING about his motives for entering the Catholic Church. Logic alone (even if decency and charity are ignored) should tell that to anyone with sense.

I don't keep a log of what these people falsely teach.

Then that probably implies that you shouldn't presume to attack his theology, doesn't it? If I disagree with [x], and I bring that up in a public forum, I think I'm responsible to defend my accusation with sound reasoning; don't you? And I'll offer another reminder: whether anyone thinks that Dr. Hahn's theology is "wrong" is completely irrelevant to the issue of his motives for entering the Church... and you presumed to speak to THAT point (i.e. motive). That was as illogical as it was crass.

[Iscool]
It's interesting to note that all of these bible rejecting thinkers have moved on to money making positions in your religion...

[paladinan]I really don't quite know what you mean by that. As opposed to what? Starving to death? Tell me: what *IS* the maximum allowable income per year (for you, and RnMomof7, etc.), beyond which they're being money-grubbing and avaricious? Are they allowed to make $30,000/year? $80,000? Do you make allowances for number of children, and cost of living increases?[paladinan]I really don't quite know what you mean by that. As opposed to what? Starving to death? Tell me: what *IS* the maximum allowable income per year (for you, and RnMomof7, etc.), beyond which they're being money-grubbing and avaricious? Are they allowed to make $30,000/year? $80,000? Do you make allowances for number of children, and cost of living increases?

[Iscool]
My point is: these crossovers can go from one paying position in one organization, completely change their God ordained position in that religion and get re-God ordained and get paid to teach totally different beliefs in a different religion, without even going to a Catholic seminary...Seems a little fishy to me...

Catholic seminaries are for training Catholic priests (and deacons, sometimes)--not for training lay people, in general. Dr. Hahn was already married (and ineligible for the priesthood in the Latin Church), and he didn't feel called to the diaconate. So... I'm not sure what the problem is, here. There are plenty of Catholic Universities at which Catholic theology can be studied. But this still doesn't come close to touching your comment about his MOTIVES... for which I can find no basis, at all.

The guy had hands laid on him by two elders with no sanction from the church he claimed to be part of.

He obviously had the sanction of the local elders--right? Or are you suggesting that they were coerced? In the Presbyterian communion, "authorization" from the PCA is not required (see above references). To call Dr. Hahn's ordination "sanctionless" or "invalid in the eyes of the Presbyterians" is simply smoke-blowing.

He only did it to avoid taxes.

He ONLY did it to avoid taxes? Show me where even the biased account of the "Dr. Hahn denouncer" uses the word "only", please.

The church he was a so called "pastor" in wasn't even part of the Presbyterian church. Look again.

The church in question, according to the hostile blog, was not affiliated with the PCA. That's not the same thing, in the least. See my links, above.

He's in the same league as Al Sharpton or some other mail order pastor. He's fake, a fraud, a tax cheat, and appears after the dollar now.

Opinions, opinions, everywhere... and not a truth to think! (With apologies to Samuel Taylor Coleridge...)

[paladinan]
Straw man. First of all, "Show us where Scripture [etc.] " is only compelling for sola Scriptura adherents.

[HossB86]
Actually, you have just made you OWN straw man. Sola Scriptura means ONLY that scripture contains ALL THAT IS NEEDED for salvation... in terms of the Catholic Cult, this does mean that "Holy Tradition" is basically pap.

First of all: you joined the conversation rather recently, and you may not have followed our conversations about this topic from RnMomof7's thread; I (and other Catholics) addressed the idea you mention, repeatedly. You might check out that thread to see those responses.

Secondly: all snarky, raw opinions about "cults" aside, your point breezes completely past mine; if someone holds to "sola Scriptura", then they feel empowered, authorized, and entitled to dismiss anything (pertaining to spiritual matters) which is not found in the 66-book Protestant Bible. If you disagree with that assertion, you'll have to explain how... since your reply here doesn't contradict it, or even address its substance.

It does NOT mean that everything that was ever written is contained expressly therein.

Perhaps you might quote where I said any such thing?

Here is a quote from John MacArthur, taken from Ligonier,org:

I'd direct you to the other thread (link above), where a (very long) discussion of that very thing is in progress... so as not to derail this thread too badly.

Just a few specific points about your quote from John MacArthur:

[Sola Scriptura] only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3).

2 Peter 1:3 makes no mention of Scripture, whatsoever.

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take away from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18–19).

Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 are referring to the Mitzvot, the 613 commandments of the Old Covenant, which is no longer binding... and they don't specify "Scripture", anyway, which is critical to your case. (Note: when Catholics use the term "Word of God", they refer to both the written Word [Scripture] and the unwritten Word [Sacred Traditon], and most of all to Jesus, Himself [the Logis, cf. John 1:1]; Protestants are not justified in running off with every last occurrence of the term "word", and demanding that it refer only to Scripture... especially when Scripture itself does not demand any such thing.)

Revelation 22:18-19 refers specifically to the Book of Revelation, not the Bible (which didn't yet exist in compiled form).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what sola Scriptura means.

You'll have to explain the "therefore", in the first sentence... since I don't see where it even follows necessarily from his earlier premises, much less that all his premises are true (which they are not).

So, now... let's not have any straw men.

I fully agree. So... perhaps you might dispense with the ones you laid out, here?

I fully agree. So... perhaps you might dispense with the ones you laid out, here?

None were. Sorry you seem too blind to see that.

Secondly: all snarky, raw opinions about "cults" aside,

Can't help it if the opinion fits...

your point breezes completely past mine; if someone holds to "sola Scriptura", then they feel empowered, authorized, and entitled to dismiss anything (pertaining to spiritual matters) which is not found in the 66-book Protestant Bible. If you disagree with that assertion, you'll have to explain how... since your reply here doesn't contradict it, or even address its substance.

I don't disagree -- it's not about "feeling" empowered, it's about BEING completely sure of the totality of the scripture's content, infallibility and authority regarding spiritual things. Plainly and simply, the Roman Catholic Cult ADDS requirements to salvation... faith AND works. Praying to Mary (who is supposedly a mediator, in direct opposition scripture), indulgences, Purgatory.... so it's not about "breezing past" things.

And I'm ALL for dismissing anything regarding spiritual things that are not supported by scripture. Note the items above for a start.

It does NOT mean that everything that was ever written is contained expressly therein.

Perhaps you might quote where I said any such thing?

Perhaps you should not read into that post something that is not there. Perhaps you should show me where I SAID that you said that. My post was (ready for this?) -- my statement of the definition of Sola Scriptura. It had nothing to do with anything you said.

Just a few specific points about your quote from John MacArthur:

You'll need to take that up with him. Not me.

Hoss

[paladinan]
I fully agree. So... perhaps you might dispense with the [straw men] you laid out, here?

[HossB86]
None were. Sorry you seem too blind to see that.

:) Oh, FRiend! Irritable and combative words don't take the place of proofs...

[paladinan]
Secondly: all snarky, raw opinions about "cults" aside,

[HossB86]
Can't help it if the opinion fits...

To the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To the man with an agenda, every agreeable opinion looks like a fact.

I don't disagree -- it's not about "feeling" empowered, it's about BEING completely sure of the totality of the scripture's content, infallibility and authority regarding spiritual things.

Ah. And how do you arrive at this surety, personally?

Plainly and simply, the Roman Catholic Cult ADDS requirements to salvation... faith AND works.

Jesus did that, actually... unless one doesn't mind being a goat. (Matthew 25:31-46) St. James repeats that idea rather explicitly, as well (James 2:24)... unless one doesn't mind having dead faith which does not save.

Praying to Mary (who is supposedly a mediator, in direct opposition scripture),

"Mediator" is anyone who intercedes ("bridges the middle") on behalf of someone else, yes? Every time you pray for someone, you're a mediator. Yes, Jesus is the Sole Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5)... in the sense that, without Him, none of our prayers would matter at all, and we could do nothign good (and we wouldn't exist, anyway). But for anyone to assume that this excludes all SUBORDINATE mediators is to fail to understand the meaning of the word.

indulgences,

How are these problematic? (And I mean the actual indulgences, not any abuses of them--one judges things based on their intended purpose and condition, not on cases where they're misused; one doesn't judge a hammer faulty because it didn't cut wire properly.)

Purgatory....

Ditto... you'll have to explain your problem with this. It's plainly indicated in 2 Maccabees 12:39-45, and there's an allusion to it in 1 Corinthians 3:12-15... and even beyond that, how is this against anything in the Faith?

And I'm ALL for dismissing anything regarding spiritual things that are not supported by scripture. Note the items above for a start.

But don't you realize that you're "going beyond what is written" (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:6) in order to implement that idea (which is nowhere to be found in Scripture)?

[HossB86]
It does NOT mean that everything that was ever written is contained expressly therein.

[paladinan]
Perhaps you might quote where I said any such thing?

[HossB86]
Perhaps you should not read into that post something that is not there. Perhaps you should show me where I SAID that you said that.

Well... it was addressed to me, and I have a quirky habit of assuming that people address comments to me only if they have some relevance to me. Since you seemed to be chastising me for allegedly constructing a straw man (re: "sola Scriptura"), and since this comment of yours was apparently in the context of explaining the "real" definition of "sola Scriptura", I naively assumed that you thought the "it does NOT mean[...]" bit was somehow applicable to me! If it was mere errata and a non-sequitur (something like the typing version of "Tourette's Syndrome"), with no bearing on my position or on the debate, then please pardon me.

:) Yes, I'm teasing you, a bit... and pardon me, for that. But why DID you direct that comment to me, if you weren't trying to correct what you might have seen as an error on MY part, specifically?

My post was (ready for this?)

:) I wait with baited breath.

my statement of the definition of Sola Scriptura. It had nothing to do with anything you said.

I didn't say anything relating to sola Scriptura? Your comment certainly makes it sound as if I did, and that you disagreed with what I said... and comments #127 and #135 certainly seem to have text from me which was addressing the idea of "sola Scriptura". Care to elaborate?

[paladinan]
Just a few specific points about your quote from John MacArthur:

[HossB86]
You'll need to take that up with him. Not me.

Oh, I only mentioned that because you quoted him, leading me to presume that you found his quote relevant and compelling, and that you'd be interested in the flaws in his argument. If you don't care about his comments, one way or the other, I'll be happy to let it be. I would, however, be left wondering why you quoted from him in the first place...

Hahn gave no other reason.

Correction: The website which gave the account of Michael P. Gendron, who relayed what he claimed was an account by Dr. Hahn, didn't mention any other reason.

So... an admittedly third-hand account (written by someone with an obvious bias against Dr. Hahn and the Catholic Church, who was second-hand quoting another person with an obvious bias against Dr. Hahn and the Catholic Church, who might possibly have found it a bit difficult to portray Dr. Hahn's account with full and unbiased accuracy)... and even it doesn't say that this was the ONLY reason Dr. Hahn accepted ordination. (It might possibly have been the "only" reason which was emotionally compelling enough to stay in the memory of the people giving the accounts--just a suggestion!)

And this justifies calling Dr. Hahn "a fraud, etc."... HOW, again? Here are at least a few alternate explanations which come to my mind:

1) Dr. Hahn had other reasons for accepting ordination, but he didn't go into them with PTG (who was obviously a hostile audience).

2) Dr. Hahn gave other reasons for accepting ordination to PTG, but the interviewer neglected (intentionally or unintentionally) to mention them.

3) The entire account by PTG is made up out of whole cloth.

Personally, I find #1 or #2 to be more likely than #3... but the point remains: no one with any sense (or ability to think logically) would take a look at the data and come to the "certain" conclusion that Dr. Hahn was a "fraud" (whatever that means--especially since no tax laws seemed to be broken) or an insincere opportunist (in valuing ordination solely for tax-relief purposes).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.