In searching for something on this blog I came across comments left by Roman Catholic apologist Scott Windsor. I hadn't seen any online statements from Scott in a long time. Out of curiosity I checked his websites to see what he was up to. Scott ran the website, American Catholic Truth Society (Acts). He also had a few social media accounts. If I recall, Scott's claim to fame was being one of the first online defenders of Rome, arguing for her using a Bulletin Board Service (BBS) in the late 1980's and early 1990's. I'm not sure if he was the first Roman Catholic apologist online, but he certainly was one of the earliest, and he continued defending Rome through the following decades.
Scott's website had not been updated since the fall of 2023. His website included Twitter (X) feed from early September 2023 in which he explains going though chemotherapy for cancer. My next search was for his obituary. Scott Windsor died October 23, 2023 according to this website. I say "according to" because it was the only obituary I located. I'm not a conspiratorialist, but it does seem to me that Google limits my searches and doesn't always give me helpful results, especially name searches. If it's not the fault of Google, Scott's death appears to have gone unnoticed by the Roman Catholic apologetics community, which I find both odd and sad. I suspect somewhere out there in the infinity of cyberspace, there are Roman Catholics friends that were saddened by his loss.
Out of the numerous Roman Catholic apologists I've sparred with over the years, some well-known, some anonymous, I always found Scott Windsor to be a nice guy. Being on opposite sides of the Tiber, we had very few instances of theological agreement (tied with the fact that I believe Rome is a false church with significant truth rather than a true church with significant error). Sure, Scott and I sparred from time to time in a heated way via the written format, but as I mentioned to him many years ago, if we ever met in a coffee shop and had a discussion, the results of our discourse would be much different. To hear Scott in action, he did a live "on air debate" with Dr. James White back in 2001. The blurb for this debate states, "Dr. White has been dialoguing with Scott Windsor for 15 years already..." If I recall, Scott was one of the first Roman Catholic apologists to interact with Dr. White.
One area of respect I have for Mr. Windsor is that, as far as I know, he did not claim to be a full-time Roman Catholic apologist. I don't know if he ever asked for donations, I don't recall him ever doing that. According to his obituary, he was a well-educated hard-working guy that did apologetics in his spare time. From my opinion, generally speaking, there certainly are some people that are meaningful professional apologists, but the overwhelming majority of people with an internet connection claiming to be professional apologists, either Protestant or Roman Catholic, should go out and get jobs. Scott demonstrated that one can still defend their beliefs and be a productive member of society.
If by some chance Scott's friends or family come across this blog entry, I've written it for you. I only knew Scott by his online interactions. He was brought into my life by God's providence... and the older I get, the more aware I am of the brevity of life. I will miss Scott!
Posts
1 comment:
"Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas..."
Better in the KJV, "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife," which, besides specifying a female (adelphē) - regardless of what some Methodists have United - denotes apostolic authority to take a wife, versus being under a vow of continent celibacy, which clerical requirement is another example of the accreditation of traditions of men in Catholicism.
Greg Dues informs,
Because Christians considered the priesthood of the New Testament to be greater than that of the Jews, the call to purity was considered greater, too. And since priests served at the altar all their life, shouldn't their abstinence be permanent? Early heretics, such as Manichaeans and Montanists, added a negative influence by proclaiming that sexual expression - including that of the laity - was impure. Catholic leaders, such as St. Augustine, taught that Original Sin was transmitted through intercourse. Therefore, abstinence and virginity was the ideal life and only the weak should marry. However, most bishops and presbyters continued to marry. In fact, the only marriages that had to have any kind of blessing were those of deacons and priests. (p. 168)
The tradition of celibacy continued to evolve. In some places it was expected that priests be not sexually active after ordination. When monastic spirituality became popular in the fourth and fifth centuries, it promoted the ideal of celibacy as a model for all priests.
One way church authority enforced celibacy was by ordaining monks, who took the vow of chastity, to evangelize large areas of Europe. Church authority continued to mandate celibacy. The First Lateran Council (1123-1153) forbade those in orders to marry and ordered all those already married to renounce their wives and do penance. Later legislation declared the marriages of clerics not only illegal but also invalid. Widespread disregard of these laws continued until a reorganization of preparation for priesthood following the Protestant Reformation and the Council of Trent in the 1500's. (Greg Dues, "Catholic Customs & Traditions: A Popular Guide," [1992]; p. 169 )
Note that RCs argue that Old Testament priests abstained from marital relations while serving at the altar, (Leviticus 22:3-6) yet they served in rotating shifts and could have sexual relations when not serving, as seen by Luke 1:5-13.
Moreover, the text quoted forbids any priest ministering in the holy things "having his uncleanness upon him," but being married did not render one to be in a state of continual uncleanness; only that one was unclean regarding such until the evening, after marital relations or any discharge of semen, and then washing. (Lv. 15:16-18)
And contrary to Catholicism, the New Testament states that "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4) And the NT church nowhere enjoins pastoral celibacy, for as said, 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 evidences that being married with children was normative for elders/presbuterosas, and presbyteros are never even distinctively called priests (as "hiereus," the word distinctively used for sacerdotal persons) nor shown uniquely exercising any sacerdotal function, which all believers are to do, (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church.
But requiring the contrary, that pastors be single (except in the case of certain married pastoral converts) is consistent with the extreme bias of such men as Jerome, who saw marriage as so inferior (at the least) to virginity, celibacy and continence, that he engaged in specious reasoning and abused Scripture to support his extreme imbalanced views. (https://peacebyjesus.net/deformation_of_new_testament_church.html#clerical)
Post a Comment