A Catholic who will go unnamed

gave this little list on Catholic Creation Alliance on FB:

It is my observation that a few Catholic Creationists (who will remain unnamed) have resorted to belittling and condescending behavior. I may be guilty of it as well to a small degree. In order to be effective in debates and discussions we need to behave in a cultured and educated manner. We also need to be frequently doing a critical self-examination. We need to ask ourselves the following questions. Is my conduct and demeanor convey virtue and is it pleasing to God? How can I better present my case? What areas do I need to study up on? Do my syllogisms make sense? Are my facts up to date? Did my sources of education get the facts right? Am I assuming too much about my opponent? Am I taking the time to understand my opponent's perspective? Am I incorporating or mentioning in passing opinions and/or facts of irrelevant subjects that can harm my case because of negative associations? Am I careful not to associate myself with certain groups and organizations that can do harm to my case? Do I admit the possibility of being wrong when discussing an area that I'm not as familiar with? Do I pretend to know more than I actually do? I think that's enough for now. This is just food for thought. No need to point fingers. Especially when...

I answer (the public part):

My dear, most of these questions are rather things that evolutionists should ask themselves. We are usually getting it right, we creationists.

This question is however inappropriate:

"Am I careful not to associate myself with certain groups and organizations that can do harm to my case?"

It is pure Pharisaism.

Oh, by the way, if you find any faults with me in facts or syllogisms, do have the courage to challenge me on spot rather than to pack it into this kind of remarks, if I were the guy you meant.

This little remark is also inappropriate:

"In order to be effective in debates and discussions we need to behave in a cultured and educated manner. We also need to be frequently doing a critical self-examination."

Sounds like Marxism or Maoism. Or as if it were a question of monastic virtue, where examination of conscience each day is not just a recommendation (with the usual addition of not being scrupulous) but an official duty of the state of life.

Debate has its virtues and vices that are NOT those of monastic calling and strictly contemplative monks are not even very encouraged to engage in it. Getting self critical instead of criticising the faults of not the other man but the other case being made, is simply a trap. This other remark is equally stupid:

"Am I incorporating or mentioning in passing opinions and/or facts of irrelevant subjects that can harm my case because of negative associations?"

Sorry, if public debate were what it isn't, namely trying to convince one particular man whose tastes and foibles you fairly know, yes, you would have a point. But in public debate you are not only or always even mainly arguing to save the soul of the other debater, whom you may get to know : you may need to be agonistic against him so as to save souls that his words may otherwise harm for eternity.

Christ very certainly took no such care in not offending Pharisees. You might do well to read up on St Thomas Aquinas on scandal. "Is Pharisaic scandal to be avoided?"