It would be impossible, within the scope of these articles, to enumerate every single anti-Catholic slander and provide an answer to each and every one. It would probably be impossible even if there were an infinite amount of space and time, simply because it seems as if a new one appears every week or even day.
Anti-Catholic slanders do not refer to times when members of the Church have acted in a less-than-exemplary manner and which are raised by a non-Catholic as “evidence” that the Church cannot be the Church of Christ. They refer, simply, to negative and insulting things which anti-Catholics say about the Church which are just not true.
Examples would be that the Vatican library has the world’s largest collection of pornography (it does not), or that the Vatican was behind the Jewish holocaust (it was not, and in fact was one of the first organizations to speak out against the Nazis, hid and saved thousands of Jews and was recognized by the Jewish leadership as having helped the Jews during World War II). There are also spiritual slanders – such as the “Whore of Babylon” foolishness.
Catholic apologists must always be ready with a response to these slanders – and the fact they are slanders rather than uncomfortable or difficult to explain truths means it is obvious what the first response should be when defending against them; saying it isn’t true! Of course, for many people that won’t be enough, and the apologist will have to convince the anti-Catholic that the slander isn’t true.
Rather than attempt to offer a defense against every single slanderous remark (which, as mentioned above, would be next to impossible), this article will concentrate on the general principles behind addressing such slanders.
Why do they do it?
The first question which is often asked by Catholics is, why do these people say such things if they are untrue? The answer very much depends on who the person is, and what he or she knows.
The majority, if not all, of people spreading such lies are simply not aware of the fact that they are lies; they genuinely believe these things which are not true. This ignorance is down to many factors – most of which is a tendency towards gullibility and credulity in humanity. The simple fact is that humans tend to accept what they are told as true without often questioning it; most people are not natural skeptics. If you don’t believe this, then ask yourself how many times you have read “It is the Church’s teaching . . .” in these articles and not questioned it! You believe these articles because they come from a source which you trust, even though this is not a primary source (and the introduction to these articles, in fact, told you they were not the source of teaching, but rather a representation of it, and that Church teaching should be checked against the Catechism and other Church documents!)
Sometimes, people have been told these lies as if they were true by people they trust (parents or pastors) or have read them in published books (forgetting the fact that something is published does not mean it is necessarily truthful!) Very many times, the individuals have not been even offered competing beliefs, or those beliefs have been presented as a “straw man” without any solid evidence. In many cases, the evidence which supports the lies as being truthful has been faked or mis-represented.
However, these lies all appear from somewhere – they must have been made up by people. Exclusively, the genesis of these slanders lies with individuals who have an ax to grind against the Catholic faith – either these people simply hate the Church for perceived evil actions, or else they believe another lie about it which causes them to think that it is acceptable to invent a lie of their own in order to persuade others to have nothing to do with the Church!
The core motive for anti-Catholic slanders is simple hatred and an unwillingness to actually engage in debate and discussion. Those who spread these lies have many opinions and assertions, but are always short on actual evidence – as you would expect for something which is not true!
What harm do these slanders do?
Many Catholics wonder what harm these slanders do, and if engaging in debate with these people simply validates them. In many cases, this is true – for people who are not interested in debate being willing to talk to them just gives them a chance to rant and rave, which is never a good thing.
However, for reasons of charity if nothing else, the Catholic apologist should always be willing to extend the offer to engage in rational, adult debate without rhetoric or insults. If this offer is refused, or the person does not actually engage in this, then the apologist should certainly walk away and “shake the dust from his feet”. By offering a rational, open debate and then having this refused or his opponent degenerate into a screaming madman the Catholic apologist gives a very powerful witness to not only his compassion, charity and calmness, but also shows that the opposing position is not even capable of being defended rationally.
It is always vital, however, to at least state a slander is not true. This is for many reasons – firstly, because a slander is an insult against the Church, who is Jesus Christ’s mystical body and bride. No-one would allow a family member to be insulted without at least correcting the error – the same applies to the Church.
Secondly, the person spreading the slander deserves – as a human being made in the image and likeness of God – to be told the truth. It may be that he or she will respond to the truth and come to know, understand and love the Catholic Church. At the very least, he or she may stop spreading that particular lie about her!
Finally, the refutation is not just for an audience of one. There may be other people listening and, if all they are offered is lies, then they may believe them as if they are true. By offering an opposing viewpoint, the apologist can possibly prevent someone from leaving or never joining the Catholic Church – and this is all the more likely if arguments are offered in defense of the Catholic position.
How to refute slanders
Some slanders are simple and easy to refute – all that is needed is personal testimony or the testimony of someone else in the Church. For example, some anti-Catholics claim that the Catholic Church forbids her members to read the Bible – a Catholic saying that he or she has read the Bible, and that her Priest encouraged her to do so, and that there are Church documents which encourage Bible reading completely destroys this argument.
But there are relatively few slanders of this type which rely on modern activities which the average Catholic is intimately aware of. This is why many slanders are so readily accepted – because they are about things which most people are unaware of, and thus people lack personal experience to refute them.
Consider common sense
It is said that common sense should not be called “common” sense; if it were common more people would have it! But common sense is an excellent method of refuting some of the more outlandish claims.
Although the idea of what is reasonable does not by itself prove or disprove anything, it does tend to make people stop and think. The Catholic apologist should ask him or herself (or, indeed, the person who either believes or is considering these slanders) “Is this reasonable or likely to happen?”
As an example, some anti-Catholics claim that the Vatican keeps a massive supercomputer in Rome which has a complete list of all the Protestants in the world ready for the great persecution, when the Catholics will imprison or kill all the “true Christians”! If this were true, it would require the Catholic Church to have spies in every single Protestant denomination, feeding lists of names back to the Vatican. Most Protestant congregations do not keep completely accurate lists of their members. Such a claim defies rational explanation – especially as most people have not heard about this computer. If it were true, would not the media have got hold of it and published such an amazing story? Why is there no evidence?
Demand historical proof or other evidence
When attempting to refute a slander a common trap apologists fall into is attempting to prove a negative – e.g. they attempt to prove that the Church doesnot keep a database of every single Protestant on the globe in a supercomputer in the Vatican. The fact is, one cannot prove a negative. And it is not the responsibility of the Catholic to prove that such things are not true – the burden of proof lies with the anti-Catholic.
Imagine for a second if the burden of proof lay in proving that something was not true in other spheres. People would be guilty until proven innocent. Someone could accuse someone of stealing something, and they would be completely unable to prove that they did not take it, sell it, and spend the money without anyone noticing. Fortunately, this is not the way the justice system – or debates – work.
Ask the anti-Catholic to produce evidence – and demand real evidence. What some other anti-Catholic said is not enough. If the anti-Catholic is saying that the Inquisition killed millions and millions of people in the middle ages, demand to see secular historians who say such a thing. Do not accept a single source – no major or important historical event is attested in just a single source. (As a matter of fact, the Inquisition could not have killed as many people as some anti-Catholics say it did; simply because there weren’t that many people alive in Europe at the time!)
Without evidence, all the anti-Catholic has is wild accusations – which would not be enough to even warrant an arrest in criminal law. Why should it be enough to warrant a change of theological belief?
The “Massive Media Conspiracy” Theory
In some cases the anti-Catholic will make some outlandish claim (“The Vatican founded Islam as a weapon against genuine Christianity”) and then say “all the evidence for this has been covered up”. On the face of it, this sounds very convincing – not only did the evil Catholics do some terrible thing, but they also covered their tracks! Evil and sneaky!
Of course, a moment of logical thought shows that – while the position is internally consistent – it is not verifiable. The only evidence for the claim is the result (in the above case, that Islam exists and it is opposed to Christianity) – but there is no evidence to suggest that the Catholic Church was responsible for it, or for any cover-up.
Ask the anti-Catholic, if all the evidence was covered up, how do you know it happened? What evidence is there for the cover-up? Even if there isevidence for the cover-up, how do you know the truth of what was covered up?
In all cases where the evidence was “covered-up” a better way for the anti-Catholic to say it would be “All this evidence has been made up”!
Check actual sources
Sometimes, the anti-Catholic will offer actual evidence for his or her claims. In this case, you must check the evidence. The anti-Catholic does not accept your evidence without checking it, so why should you accept his or hers?
Check the original source being quoted – often you will find that the anti-Catholic is quoting incorrectly or out of context (either deliberately, or just because he or she has not read the original himself).
Check the credentials of the author of the source; is this person qualified to comment on the subject at hand? Is the person a witness to the events being described, or is he or she simply repeating another source? Check that source as well, as far back as you can go.
Check logic
Anti-Catholic slanders are often based on false logic. The notion that Roman Catholicism is a pagan religion is based on the spurious logic that, because a number of pagan religions have a mother and child somewhere within them and Catholicism has Mary and the child Jesus, Catholicism must be a pagan religion. But that logic is false – a number of pagan religions pray on their knees; does that mean anyone who kneels to pray is a pagan?
Carefully check every step of the logic – from evidence to conclusion – and see if it stands up. Are there any logical jumps which rely on assumptions which cannot be substantiated?
By following these steps the Catholic apologist will be able to address any and all slanders directed at the Catholic Church. Be warned, however, that for the people who claim that the pope is the Antichrist or that the Church has murdered millions of Jews and true Christians, proving the falsehood of these slurs may not be enough to dissuade them from their vitriolic attacks – they are not interested in meaningful dialog or understanding, but are rather concerned with simply attacking the Church.
For people such as this, after attempting dialog, the only thing left to do is pray that they will stop hating the Church and become more open to the truth.
Source: http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/4m.htm