The gross ignorance about Catholicism and the inability or desire to modify said ignorances was one of the most shocking things I encountered in my years as a Protestant. Many Protestant churches I attended did not display outward ignorance but some did, and on a level that was mind boggling.

Let me give a few examples

Catholics worship statues (1162, 2132), Mary (971) and the saints.
Catholics believe that Christ is re-sacrificed at each mass. (1545)
Catholics don't believe the bible. (105+) -- by recent example, this ignorance is even further hampered when mainstream press issues articles like this (via Catholic and Enjoying It!) further cementing ignorance and bias in the minds of the masses.

In each of these cases the teachings of the Church demonstrate that they are frequently misunderstood and often grossly misrepresented. The problem is, simply repeating the same falsehoods over and over about the Church wasn't going to miraculously make the assertions true. One must demonstrate that Catholics believe these things. According to the teachings of the Church, Catholics simply don't believe them. The explanation of these teachings is often met with violent opposition as if being wrong on this ONE point will somehow verify that the Catholic Church is right about everything. That logic, of course, doesn't follow, so why the violent opposition?

Is it really that hard to take a man or a religion, especially one with clear official teachings, at its own word? I found the answer in some settings to be overwhelmingly NO.

Another perplexing phenomenon I witnessed was objection to the Catholic Church over and above Episcopalianism. I couldn't understand the hatred towards the Catholic position but not towards Protestants who held similar positions. Everyone I knew was fine with C.S. Lewis holding to a doctrinal purgatory, or to the Orthodox for a post-life cleansing state but the Catholic doctrine was somehow wrong where the others were not. The feeling was; "At worst those folks were just wrong on one or two points" or "its not the same as purgatory". Catholics, however, were out in left field on everything for holding to the SAME DOCTRINES and, worse, giving them unbiblical names, which brings me to my final point. I cannot tell you how many times I read that because the word "papas" (pope) did not exist prior to the 4th century that Catholics didn't believe in the primacy of the bishop of Rome until AT LEAST that time. The problem is that there is historical evidence of actions demonstrating such authority prior to then. The same is true with the word "transubstantiation". The word came into use in the 12th or 13th century, but the historical doctrine of the Church has been in line with it since Christ uttered the words "This is my body". A better way I have seen this clarified is to point out that just because the word "car" did not come into regular use until the 1930's doesn't mean that there were not cars prior to 1930.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" - William Shakespeare

What I saw were many bad arguments against the Catholic Church. If anything, these arguments drove me TOWARDS Rome. Catholic apologists always seemed more credible in defense of these doctrines because the hatred clearly seemed lacking on their side of the fence (this is not always the case). These were simple objections with rational yet frequently more verbose refutations.

The goal with opponents seemed to be collecting as much as possible to deal with the one error of Catholicism. Sadly, not the greatest level of discernment seems to have been employed. It seemed more to me that anything that could be piled on to make your book about the evils of Catholicism 700 pages instead of 80 pages was worth getting in on. After all, a larger book meant a BIGGER and BETTER case, right? It didn't really. It greatly undermined the case AGAINST the Church. I knew that in order to give the Catholic Church a fair shake I was going to have to sift through a sea of arguments based solely on hatred for the Church vs. those based on the actual teachings themselves. My own objections were based somewhat on many of these superfluous and lacking arguments but I knew there were some solid and more intellectually stimulating objections out there. Those were the ones I intended to either find explained or find sufficiently damaging to prevent my continued conversion to Catholicism.

This "straw man" aspect demonstrated itself over and over and was most obvious in the Protestant understanding of indulgences at the church I initially attended out of college. [next post]