The Great Debate

By Nike Patrick


John Nartignoni likes to debate. This can be a good way to
advance one's position regarding the truth of the Bible and Christianity. However,
it can also work against the one doing the debating. Unfortunately, this is often
the case with John Nartignoni. The problem is that John seems to be very
wrapped up in the because the Catholic Church says so" syndrome. !t's simply a
fact that most people who are either unbelievers, agnostics, atheists, or
indifferent, will not be impressed, and will not believe what you have to say
about God and the Bible, if all you can say is you're wrong" or because the
Church says so." For some people this may seem like a good way to go about
things, but for a Christian apologist, this is not a good method. As competent
defenders of our faith, we're called to give reasons why we believe what we
believe, and we must do so gently, and in kindness. We must also be able to
show how truth is present in the scriptures outside of the scriptures, or in John's
case, outside of the scriptures and the Catholic Catechism. !n other words, if all !
can say as ! present my side of the story is this is the truth because the Bible
(or the Catechism) says so", !'m well on my way to loosing the debate.

A good example of John's inability or unwillingness to correctly and convincingly
present his case is in a debate email he had some time ago with Dr. Joe Nizzi, a
former Catholic, and a person John seems to have a very hard time with. Dr.
Nizzi is a Christian apologist, and has debated John several times. Unfortunately,
John's efforts have resulted in some embarrassing moments for him. ! feel bad
for John, because ! think he's trying his best, but it just isn't getting the job
done, and it sets a bad example.

There are several major points to notice when examining Nartignoni's debating
style. John most often relies on three key elements - ignorance, meanness, and
what ! call the Catechism Deflection." He often claims that the person
disagreeing with him on a certain point of the Catholic faith simply doesn't
understand the Catholic position. You see this tactic often with scientists who
relish the position that somehow the layman is incapable of understanding the
higher" truths that the scientist fully understands by way of a superior intellect
or education. John taking a similar stance is puzzling to me, because even a
cursory examination of John's writings and tapes betrays many disagreements
between John and the Roman Catholic Church's official teachings, indicating
some misunderstandings oh his part - but !'ll address that in future writings.

John's you don't understand the issue" defense is often used to discredit an
opponent in a debate. !t's most often the case that the person John is debating
(as in Nizzi's case) absolutely understands the Catholic position, he just doesn't
agree with it. By stating over and over again that Dr. Nizzi doesn't understand
Catholicism, John starts to subtly convince the reader that Nizzi is incompetent,
stupid, or worse. !f you read the documentation carefully from the link below -
you'll see that Nizzi does understand the issues, and John is throwing up a
smoke screen and is hoping you and ! won't be able to see through it.

John also uses a sort of meanness" tactic that is most often presented as an
antagonistic tone, or a superior attitude toward his opponent used to presumably
bully. You'll find this method surface often in his writings as an obvious dislike for
Protestants. Don't let these tactics distract you from the real issues and the real
answers. Once you develop a good apologetic ear, you won't be fooled.

Finally, John often tries to build a Christian apologetic defense built on the Bible,
but he almost always turns to the Roman Catholic Catechism to back his point -
not the Bible. This is unfortunate for Catholics. Why? The assumption ! would (or
should) have as a Catholic is that the Bible and the CCC are in complete
agreement. ! shouldn't have to turn to the Catechism for proof" of anything
from the Bible. John may have confidence in the Catechism, but Nizzi doesn't, so
John needs to confine his arguments (if he can) to the Bible to be convincing,
since Nizzi rests his convictions on scripture alone. John should be able to do
this. !t's fine if, as a Catholic, John believes the CCC to be true, but that's not
good enough for the non-believer, and it makes for a very poor apologetic. By
doing this John has removed the Bible one step away from the issue. There is no
need for this if the Bible holds the truth. Now, if John is going to claim that the
Bible does not hold the truth, and we need to turn to the CCC for truth, then
that's another issue all together. ! don't think John is saying that, but ! may be
wrong. !n either case, Nizzi confines his arguments to the Bible - and so should
Nartignoni. !n the instances where the Catechism is at issue, John should
reference it, but John goes further in the email by also arguing doctrine, which is
why ! make these points.

John's email debate with Nr. Nizzi located here:
http:ffwww.biblechristiansociety.comfnewsletter_details.php?id=31 Apologetics
for the Nasses - #2+"

!n this message, John claims that his strategy" is: Simply mentioning to him that his
website misrepresents Catholic teaching and then asking him if he, as a Christian, has a
responsibility to accurately represent what the Church teaches, even if he disagrees with it. It's
pretty hard for him not to respond to this and it's impossible for him to say that he has no such
responsibility to accurately portray Church teaching.

Here we see John simply confronting Dr. Nizzi with several points on Catholic
teaching he says Joe got wrong. When Joe asks for specific examples, John says
he gave him five - but did he? Joe can't debate you got it wrong" allegations
alone. He needs specific examples of where he went wrong. ! emailed Nartignoni
on this point, and he deflected my assertions, choosing instead to tell me what
he didn't like about people like me." ! took it in good stride.

The point is that John fires salvos at Joe Nizzi, and that's all he does. When Joe
asks for details and even states he'd be grateful" for clarification, John gives
none. When Nizzi points out that John's response is essentially a non-response",
and is too weak to rebut, John chastises Dr. Nizzi because Nizzi wont talk" to
him. How silly is this? Rather than address Joe's answer, and provide Joe with
specifics on what John is claiming, thereby giving Joe the opportunity to honestly
answer, John seizes the moment, accuses Nizzi of not answering his questions,
and focuses on the fact that Joe has become frustrated. Also notice that John
stages" the argument by trying to get his readers to form an opinion of Nizzi
that's unwarranted. He writes:

How convenient for you (and how very Christian of you) to simply dismiss what I say with a
contemptuous sneer

And ~
You signed your email, "Sincerely." It seems there is nothing sincere in what you are doing. May
God cause the scales to fall from your eyes.
!t all seems to be another attempt by John Nartignoni to discredit, rather than
educate. He exhibits absolutely no apologetic debating skills, and instead tries to
vilify his opponent to win" the debate. This tactic does nothing for you, the
student. !t does nothing for Joe Nizzi, the person John seems to think is lost to
Christ, and it does nothing for John himself, because he has learned nothing, and
has contributed nothing to the argument. This should be John's main goal, to
present his faith as a defense and an educational tool, not to present his faith as
a weapon. !f John was truly interested in helping others, he would also try to
help Dr. Nizzi because, after all, Christ died for Joe just as he died for John.
One point that comes to mind here is best addressed elsewhere, but !'ll touch on
it here. A common thread that runs through almost all of John Nartignoni's
writings is the tone of conversion. !t's pretty well known that the Catholic Church
has had a hard time loosing membership worldwide for some time. Perhaps the
recent sex scandals or the lack luster outreach of the Church has turned many
away, ! don't know. But it feels like the mission of John Nartignoni is two fold:
1: To convert non believers, or bring fallen away Catholics back to the Catholic
Church.
2: To wipe-out Protestantism.
!t's fine with me if John Nartignoni wants to recruit members for his church. He
has a perfect right to do so, but personal attacks won't win any converts.
The discussion posted above between John Nartignoni and Joe Nizzi can be read
from the link above. There is a follow-up to that first exchange located here:
http:ffwww.biblechristiansociety.comfnewsletter_details.php?id=32 in which Dr.
Nizzi explains his position. He points out that John makes bald assertions" with
no substance, and he notes that John makes references with no context - a
problem that often surfaces in John's writings. John often asks rhetorical
questions, but never answers them - leaving the reader with doubt, but no
answers.
When it's pointed out that John was unable to demonstrate a single
misrepresentation he claims Nizzi made about the Catholic faith, John replies:
I did exactly what he asked me to do...well, I did more than he asked me to do. He asked me to
give him one instance of where his website misrepresents Catholic teaching. I gave him five (I
probably could have given hundreds!). Now, he comes back and says that I didnt give any
evidence, any proof to back up my examples.
Reading the document again and returning to the points John gave Nizzi, we see
that Nartignoni did not give even one instance of Catholic doctrinal
misrepresentation, but merely repeated his allegations and disagreements.
Repeating allegations and disagreements over and over is not giving evidence, or
even providing the other side with any substance to work with. John doesn't
seem to understand this, and this point is troubling. We must, as defenders of
the faith, be able to respond with independent, cogent, and convincing evidence
for our claims. With Nizzi, John picks a fight, and then stands back and claims
foul" when Nizzi responds by pointing out John is making no sense. This is a
baiting technique. No matter how Dr. Nizzi had responded, John would have
found fault with it. !t appears John wasn't interested in answers, but only in
argument.
Finally, John sets out to somehow prove his points by raising issues unrelated to
the email, which focused on alleged misrepresentations of the Catholic faith by
Joe Nizzi. John argues doctrine from this point on. What's interesting about the
email exchange is that John started it with empty assertions, wasn't satisfied
with Nizzi's request for clarification, dismissed Nizzi, and then proceeded to
reconstruct the issues. What we find in most of John's arguments is that all who
are not Catholic misunderstand" the key points of the Catholic faith, and the
implication is that if we could somehow come to understand those points as he
does, we'd all be Catholics. !t's not misunderstanding that gets in the way. !f
that were the case, millions of Catholics would drop out of the faith tomorrow.
No, it's heart condition that matters. A person might not understand a Catholic
doctrine, but still be a Catholic. Likewise, a person can come to fully understand
a Catholic teaching, and still not be Catholic. No, the point is that men like Joe
Nizzi questioned their Catholic faith, and found it wanting. They turn away not
because they misunderstand, or are stupid, or are not sincere" as John claims
Nizzi is, but because they are not satisfied with the answers they're given.
Something got Joe Nizzi to change his mind, and Joe Nizzi is the best one to
explain how that happened. Nartignoni's apologetics do nothing to convince Nizzi
to come back to the Catholic Church. !t's possible that Nartignoni's apologetics
fail not because of Nizzi's galvanized stance, but because Nartignoni's
apologetics don't have any substance.
One more small observation: at one point, John makes the comment Dr. Nizzi
has the understanding of a man who is on the outside looking in". John goes on
to essentially claim that Nizzi can't really have a good understanding of the
Catholic faith, because he (Nizzi) left the faith at fourteen years of age. The
implication John makes is that Nizzi couldn't have possibly come to any true
understanding of Catholicism by age fourteen. !'m not sure if this is true or not,
but if we use John's logic, Dr. Nizzi, or anyone else for that matter, can't
understand the basic message of the Gospels, or truly know God at age fourteen.
This is a silly argument indeed.
While !'m not here to defend Dr. Nizzi, his claim is that he has been on both
sides, examining all issues from all angles, and has come to conclusions based
on those studies, some of which have come from the outside looking in." !t's
vital that if we're to come to a clear understanding of our faith and God, we must
be able to look from the outside in, as well as from the inside out. Here, John is
at a distinct disadvantage, because John is what is known as a cradle Catholic"
or a person that was born into his faith. This is not necessarily bad, but it is often
the case that people born" into a faith, even if they leave it for a period of time
as John says he did, can't see the overall picture. !'m not faulting John for
defending his faith, ! do this also, but if doing this causes John to not look at his
faith critically, or not to ever look from the outside in" John is missing out on
one of the most powerful faith builders known to man. !t's always the case that
if a man (or woman) can step outside of his or her faith and fearlessly examine
it, putting it though the fire of critical examination and scrutiny, and still come
back to it - that person is better off because if it. !t's not a bad thing being born
into your faith, !'m just saying that it's often the case that we never critically
examine our beliefs if it's all we've ever known, and we've never questioned it.
We shouldn't attack or get angry at a man like Dr. Joe Nizzi because he chose to
take a critical look at his relationship with God, and came up with different
answers. ! admire him for that, and ! know that God will honor him for that -
!sa. 1:18. For more information on Nizzi go here: http:ffwww.justforcatholics.org