Karl Keating's un-Catholic answers

Our unpleasant experience with the founder of Catholic Answers

By John Grasmeier
Angelqueen.org
July 10, 2005

Karl Keating, the founder of  “Catholic Answers” is a man who has attained a high degree of personal success instructing others on how to become good Catholics. As is often discovered by those who've had close encounters with him, it may be a good idea for Karl to spend less time teaching Catholic virtue and more time learning it.

One afternoon last week, while perusing the Angelqueen forum I noticed at the bottom of the page it read “the newest registered member is Karl Keating”. This of course caused my eyebrow to bend. As most Catholics who pay attention to all things Catholic already know, Keating is the former attorney and current apologetics industry author who founded Catholic Answers.

My first thought upon seeing Mr. Keating’s name was “what’s he doing here?” My second thought was that this may be some type of internet joke initiated by some type of internet joker. I then shot an email to Karl asking him to verify the account or it would be deleted. Mindful of  the fact that AQ posters can play rough at times, I created a thread asking everyone to treat Karl (if this was in fact he) charitably should he happen post to the forum. Given his reputation for taking after certain traditional elements, I feared the membership would be tempted out of the sin of vengence to turn Mr. Keating into an afternoon snack. After all, perhaps he had come in peace or was seeking to contribute something useful to the forum.

Okay, so I'm naive.

It wasn't long before I received a one-line response to the verification email from Karl that read "It's me. I just started a new thread", which confirmed that we weren't dealing with an internet joke. Unfortunately, the thread Mr. Keating posted failed to confirm to that we weren't dealing with an internet joker.

Thou Shalt not kid Karl

What prompted Karl's registration and subsequent posting on Angelqueen was a rebuttal by one of our members to Karl's E-letter titled "Feast and Famine." In it, Karl rightfully protests the watering down of our fasting laws and feast days. The rebuttal by our member was a mostly innocuous and rather humorous point by point examination of Karl's article, in which "Pascendi" (his AQ screen name) points out how odd it was that Karl had suddenly found his inner disillusioned-traditionalist, considering that he and those in his realm have spent a good part of the last decade savaging many of us for being outer disillusioned-traditionalists. The thread, while generating a few laughs, didn't get much action and Pascendi a few comments down apologized to Karl for any perceived lack of charity, although he really had nothing to apologize for.

None of us at the time were aware that Karl happened to be lurking on Angelqueen or that he knew Pascendi and his family personally. He apparently didn't take well to Pascendi's sense of humor and decided to respond.

Now... one would tend to think that someone of Mr. Keating's prominence would have neither the time nor the inclination to concern himself with internet chatter, even if the subject of the chatter happened to be one of his writings. One would also think that if he somehow did concern himself with such minutia, he would deal with it in a wise and charitable manner befitting a high profile representative of our faith. This however was not to be the case, as Keating chose not to betray his reputation as someone with personality issues given to wrathful bullying.

Upon reading the thread Karl referred to in his confirmation email, I was immediately outraged. It became clear within the first few sentences that Mr. Keating's motive was not to intelligently address anything on the Angelqueen forum written by him or anyone else, but to exact a price from Pascendi for having fun at his expense. As retribution for intellectually challenging and poking fun at Karl Keating, Pascendi would now suffer the consequence of having his and his family's previously private personal information exposed.

In the article Karl "blessed" us with, he not only revealed in a very contrived and purposeful fashion Pascendi's first and last name, but that of his wife as well. He also mentioned his parents and siblings, one of whom is a priest. I and many others happen to know Pascendi's mom and one of his sisters online by their screen names. If I hadn't immediately gone through Karl's post and redacted it, anyone and everyone clicking in would now know them along with everyone else Karl mentioned by their family name. For good measure Karl threw in the "Pascendi" family hometown.

Hey you never know, there might be someone lurking with phone book, a search engine or a grudge who may want to take a minute to look them up.

Never mind that these folks may have been using screen names and may for good reason have chosen to remain anonymous, we're talking Karl Keating here - renowned Catholic apologetics guru. A family's online privacy is a small price to pay when a man of his stature is trying to teach an uppity forum poster a lesson. This nonsense was no innocent mistake or even poor judgment. Later on Karl makes it audaciously clear that his intention was a retributive, albeit unsuccessful attempt to embarrass Pascendi for "attacking" him. Here's the quote:

"I am sure he would not have appreciated the unseemliness of attacking someone who always had treated him well--but he might appreciate it if he came in for some public embarrassment."

My standards apply to thee, but not me

Ever since internet forums and chat rooms came into existence, revealing someone's personal identifying information without good cause or without his or her consent has been considered taboo. Anyone who frequents online discussion outlets for any length of time learns this quickly, if they don't already know it instinctively. Mr. Keating made it clear that the ethics employed as second nature by eleven year old gamers aren't shared by the middle-aged president of Catholic Answers, who also happens to be the owner of a large forum himself.

Outrageously, Mr. Keating's own rules on his own Catholic Answers forum strictly forbid the type of unseemly behavior he demonstrated on the Angelqueen forum. At the top of every forum at CA is a moderator post informing visitors that private information is a "banned topic". You're not even permitted to ask another user's age or income, much less any divulge any identifying info. In the same "banned topic" paragraph it states clearly that posters are to "focus on the issues and not the personalities of fellow participants." Here are a few more "do-nots" from his forum rules area:

CONTENT RULES
4. Do not post others’ e-mail addresses, private messages, or private e-mail sent by them unless they give you permission to do so.
6. Do not post material from unapproved private revelations.
7. Do not post personal phone numbers and addresses.

PRIVATE MESSAGING
1. If you have something to say to an individual member that is not of general interest to the board, use the private messaging system.

It seems that when Mr. Keating enters someone else's house, the guidelines and ethics he insists others live by when in his no longer apply.

Fear and Loathing

The reaction by our members to the mini-circus Karl paraded into Angelqueen ran from outrage to concern for their privacy and even concern for their safety. Nearly everyone, regardless of whether they enjoyed his work or previously viewed Karl and/or Catholic Answers in a positive light, was puzzled by his incredible lack of class. Some posters told stories detailing the negative experiences they've had when someone was privy to their identity. Several others requested (in the forum and in private) that I change their screen name or remove their account altogether. Mr. Keating had caused them to realize that some people - people who think like Mr. Keating - may attempt to use their personal information against them.

Karl attempted to justify his behavior with the following statement:

"I do not think much of hiding behind a pseudonym. I understand why some people feel it prudent to do so, given what they write. They know that what they anonymously put in print would shame them if it could be associated with them."

It's glaringly apparent that Karl, as he states above, doesn't "think much". He doesn't think much about the single mom who may not care to be "Googled-up" by a vengeful or even violent ex. It seems he never bothered to consider that there are folks in sensitive career situations who don't relish giving web-goons a potential method of access to their superiors, employees or clientele. Karl doesn't "think much" of clergy, politicians, or leaders of organizations who are in situations where their views are considered thought crime. He doesn't think much of those who simply don't feel their identifying information is anyone's business for a myriad of personal or even legal reasons, one reason being that someone might use the information to settle a score - as Karl did with Pascendi.

You see Karl, not everyone's perspective is that of an apologetics industry mogul selling luxury cruises. What you think of the long held and ubiquitous practice of internet anonymity is irrelevant. 

One email I received was particularly troubling. It was sent by an old man living in the UK who has lived a rich and very faithful Catholic life, but also has experienced acrimony and even outright persecution as a result of the political and religious landscape in the area where he lives. In his world, the things people do and say could result in real-life consequences. He wrote me a long, heart rendering email which I won't share, except for the following Keating-inspired excerpt:

"I wish to have my name and e-mail address removed from the list of members. I am very unhappy at the way things are 'progressing' in the forums. Not your fault, I know. I do know that you try to keep things in order. But as I used my real name and location and could be found very easily, I am concerned to what purpose some might use this information."

Thank you Mr. Keating, for your contribution to our forum. Since Angelqueen was founded, I've only had to ban Russian spammers, porn site operators, black market drug salesmen and two trolls who signed on with the specific intent of disrupting the forum. Welcome to their ranks. Your distinction is that you're the first "serious" (for lack of a better term) member of Angelqueen who has ever acted egregiously enough to warrant a perm-ban and receive a cell in the AQ contemplative monastery.

Comments on this article here
Karl's rap-sheet and mug shot here
Karl's original article here