Doubling Down.

C. Michael Patton goes "all in" after his post arguing his view that "Roman" Catholics cannot be "true scholars" by posting an essay on "Why I hate Roman Catholics."

The title of the essay is a kind of passive-aggressive rebuke to people who criticized his first essay.  Patton seems to be arguing that he has been unfairly attacked for hating Catholics, when, in truth, he has the most open mind imaginable and actually spent a year investigating Catholicism.

As they say, "whatever."  The responses to Patton's first essay didn't accuse him of "hating Catholics."  The responses were actually quite calm and intellectual critiques of Patton's cognitive dissonance in denying the beam in his eye, namly that he has first principles he cannot deny if he wishes to remain an evangelical and a true scholar - such as the Resurrection or the Incarnation. The comments are interesting and worth reading.

In response to this most recent post, Bryan Cox - who certainly qualifies as a "true scholar" - comments:

You might remember that scene in The Hunt for Red October where a Russian sub named the Konovalov fires a torpedo at another sub named the Red October, but the captain of the Konovalov was so confident that his torpedo would hit the Red October (because it was at such close range), he had deactivated the safety mechanisms on the torpedo, so that it became armed right at launch. But the torpedo misses the Red October, and subsequently locks on to the Konovalov instead, at which point, just before the torpedo impacts the Konovalov and destroys it, the Konovalov’s assistant officer turns to the Konovalov’s captain and says,


“You arrogant ass. You’ve killed us!”

I was reminded of that scene, when I read your comment above: “However, when it comes to theology and, most specifically, exegetical studies of the Bible, I don’t think he or she can be a scholar, since they lack the academic freedom to disagree with Rome.”

That’s because if you replace the word ‘Rome’ with the words ‘Jesus and the Apostles,’ you’ve just destroyed the possibility of Christian scholarship. And you have no non-arbitrary way of preventing that term-replacement.

Cox gets extra points for the pop culture reference.
 
Jeremy at Unsettled Christianity offers this interesting insight, namely after his baptism, he couldn't be a non-Catholic scholar even if he tried:
 

Upon returning to the Church, however, I was surprised to find out that my marriage was invalid … yes, that’s right invalid. The Church considered it invalid in the sense that it was not sacramental. I literally could have gotten divorced and gotten a quick annulment at that point (Thankfully my wife didn’t seize on her last opportunity for freedom as we had our marriage convalidated shortly after I returned to the Church and she started the RCIA process). And why was my marriage invalid? “Lack of Canonical Form.” In other words, I had not, as a Roman Catholic, obeyed the canonical requirement of being married in a Catholic Church witnessed by a priest or deacon (or with a dispensation from the bishop of my archdiocese outside of the Church).


But, wait a second … I was an ordained Southern Baptist minister not a Roman Catholic. Well, as it turns out, a person is Roman Catholic by virtue of their baptism. I discussed this with my instructor when trained to be an advocate for annulment cases. I knew this from the Catechism (paragraph 1280) at that point: “Baptism imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual sign, the character, which consecrates the baptized person for Christian worship. Because of the character Baptism cannot be repeated.” But, he put it a bit more eloquently; he said something to the effect: “you may have gotten wet, but you didn’t get baptized again.” Baptism is an indelible mark, and not even becoming an ordained Southern Baptist could remove it.

Now, at the same time I was a Southern Baptist minister, I was also getting my MA in Old Testament and Hebrew language and starting my doctoral program in Biblical Languages (which praise and glory to God I just finished). I get my years mixed up, but I believe I gave my first SBL presentation and wrote a peer-reviewed journal article before returning to the Church (though these did not deal with theology, I obviously dealt with theology in local church settings). It’s possible my papers and publication came a little after, but regardless of the time frame there is a sense in which I was a scholar before returning to the Catholic Church.

So, this presents an interesting situation. While I was a Southern Baptist, I was still, according to the Church, a Roman Catholic bound by canon law with with regard to my marriage, so much so that I could have had a short form annulment. And, I was also a scholar in the area of Biblical Studies and Biblical Languages. Ironically, I believe there is some real sense in which I could have been considered a Catholic biblical scholar when I was a Southern Baptist minister, at least in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Otherwise the Church holding me responsible for canon law wouldn’t make a great deal of sense. Again, baptism is indelible.

Now, would I have been a Catholic scholar faithful to the Magisterium of the Church? Of course not. Would I have been a scholar with a mandate from a bishop to teach Catholic theology? Of course not. But, a Catholic is Catholic by virtue of their baptism, not because of agreement to doctrinal formulations. Of course, the Church would hope that faithfulness to Magisterial teaching would follow upon baptism, otherwise there might not be that much point in remaining Catholic. And, there are ways of being excommunicated or even excommunicating oneself. I suppose even I could have pleaded for excommunication. But, I don’t imagine that this is where the majority of Catholics who disagree end up.