If a good, sound argument can be dismissed because it may also be a rationalization, then why make good sound arguments.
I might as well resort to insulting and degrading terms like white hanky and magicsterium and colored fonts.
Somebody asserted as fact what was not fact. Somebody claimed her experience as reason that those alleged facts should be thought of and acknowledged to be true.
Rather than say that the person lied, I said the experience was invalid as an indicator of truth -- it was poor teaching.
It seems to be , as I said, that that was a generous thing to say. I could have said, as you suggest, the person's memory was not functioning well in this instance. That would, of course, have been personal.
And I have seen very bad catechesis. So it seems to me a likely explanation.
EVEN if we stipulate that the rest of those scoundrels adduce poor catechesis unfairly, it is still the case that if someone claims authority on the grounds of his or her catechesis and insists that he be believed because of his catechesis in a matter in which he is clearly and demonstrably wrong, it is not a "rationalization" to call the quality of the catechesis into question.
And again, this is NOT about, "you'd have remained catholic if onyl you understood." It is about, "What you are saying indicates that you do not understand or are mistaken in our facts."
I’m sure there are valid cases for claiming
Poor catechsis sp?
To make it the 100% blanket explanation it has ALWAYS BEEN ON FR
IS ABSURD TO THE MAX, TO ME.
And, I think to most readers who are not awash in the biases.