By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.
IN THIS ARTICLE:
JOHN DALY IS NOT SPIRITUALLY COMPETENT
JOHN DALY’S IGNORANCE OF THE COUNCILS
JOHN DALY RUNS FROM ERROR TO ERROR – UTTERLY BLINDED FOR 15 YEARS
JOHN DALY, LACKING WISDOM, JUMPS TO THE OPPOSITE EXTREME
*REFUTING MORE OF HIS CLEARLY FALSE, ILLOGICAL, IRRELEVANT AND PETTY CRITICISM
MORE COMMENTS ON JOHN DALY’S VIEWS
Some of our readers are familiar with John Daly. John Daly is a layman, a Latin, French and English translator. Since some may be influenced by his views, and he’s had some negative things to say about us, it is necessary to say a few things about him for those who may be familiar with him.
Since John Daly hasn’t published much material on the internet to study and critique, this analysis will be somewhat brief. However, it will be sufficient for its purpose.
John Daly is a supporter of the heretical letter Suprema haec sacra (Protocol 122/49).
Suprema haec sacra is the fallible, heretical letter of Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggianni (1949) against Fr. Feeney. It teaches that those in invincible ignorance of the Catholic Faith can be saved, and that those who are not members of the Catholic Church can be saved. It also teaches that people who “do not belong” to the Body of the Church can be saved – an assertion utterly refuted by Catholic teaching. Daly publicly endorsed this heretical letter at a conference in New York.
Daly also endorses groups and publications and priests that hold that souls can be saved in false religions.
Daly is not spiritually competent
John Daly has arbitrarily declared that certain people who don’t meet his “requirements” are not “competent” to write on theological matters. To illustrate how ridiculous this is, I will now do the same thing as Mr. Daly. I will give certain requirements one must meet to be considered competent to deal with the current theological controversies. We will see how Mr. Daly is excluded. (Note: what follows is written to illustrate a point; I’m not asserting that a married person cannot contribute to these issues.)
1 Corinthians 7:32-33- “He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided.”
St. Paul says that a married man’s heart is divided and that he is “solicitous for the things of the world”. He says that he cannot devote himself entirely to the things of God because he has a wife. Since John Daly is a married layman with many children, he is not spiritually equipped to be writing on these matters.
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 24, Nov. 11, 1563, Can. 10 on Matrimony: “If anyone says that the married state is to be preferred to the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and happier to remain in virginity and celibacy than to be united in matrimony: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 980)
Since Daly has chosen the lesser path, he hasn’t demonstrated the spiritual dedication of his entire life (giving up the world and a wife) to contribute in this very sensitive area of directing others on these important spiritual and theological matters. He lacks graces that come from this better vocation and this full dedication of one’s life. He also lacks the independence from creatures and the time to devote himself to a thorough analysis of God’s will. Mr. Daly is not spiritually competent in these areas.
I have said these things to illustrate how ridiculous it is for this pompous, extremely presumptuous, salvation-for-non-Catholics-endorsing heretic to arbitrarily declare that others are not “competent” to write on these matters, rather than simply attempting to refute a person’s arguments if he could. This is simply a bad joke, especially when we consider…
Mr. Daly’s ignorance of councils
In line with his dishonest and false “pseudo-intellectualism,” rather than confronting head-on the arguments a person makes, Daly dismisses as unfit for theological discussion anyone who doesn’t meet his approval. One of Daly’s requirements is that a person have what he deems to be a sufficient knowledge of the subject. Would that include the Council of Basel, Mr. Daly?
John Daly, May 20, 2006: “Thanks for this Hudson. The text you offer is indeed the same one de Lugo refers to, known from its opening words in Latin as “Ad Evitanda Scandala” and promulgated by Pope Martin V as part of the Council of Constance (not Basle), but please allow me to intervene straight away and point out that the text you give contains a serious mistranslation by omitting several crucial words. And the word omitted completely change the meaning of the part you put in bold print. Here is the full and accurate text:”
In the post above, Mr. Daly was commenting on someone who had used something we found from the Council of Basel. It was a bull entitled Ad vitandum scandala from the Council of Basel, similar to but distinct from the bull published by Martin V as part of the Council of Constance. Without even checking himself and presuming on his “knowledge” of Catholic teaching, Daly proceeded to “correct” the person who wrote in. Daly confidently stated that the Council of Basel made no such declaration. Mr. Daly was completely wrong, for the Council of Basel indeed made the declaration that the person quoted. Daly’s mistake demonstrated that 1) he is blinded by his pride – failing even to check himself before publicly correcting the person and accusing him of using a faulty translation; 2) Daly lacks a profound familiarity with the councils of the Church. When I read Daly’s claim I knew right away the declaration the person quoted was from Sess. 20 of the Council of Basel and that Daly was wrong. Mr. Daly may know a lot about Latin, but for him to accuse of “ignorance” people who do have a real knowledge of Catholic teaching is, as we can see, quite ridiculous.
Mr. Daly runs from error to error – utterly blind for 15 years
It’s also important to note that for 15 years John Daly held the ridiculous and totally illogical position that everyone who holds that John Paul II is the pope is to be considered schismatic without exception. In other words, Daly held that everyone who hadn’t seen John Paul II’s heresies and the teaching proving that he couldn’t be the pope was a schismatic. This is false, totally illogical, and something we’ve always rejected. Here are his comments on this:
John Daly, July 7, 2005: “The truth is that a single error or erroneous tendency can do a lot of mischief and I was in one from 1983-1998. That was the tendency to see implicit heresy in every religious error and implicit pertinacity in every failure to see truth that was clear to me. An utterly poisonous attitude which I now regret and detest with every fibre of my being. I have set out in several articles and studies the reasons and texts that led me to hold the harsh, erroneous view on heresy and pertinacity, and the reasons and authorities that led me to abandon it. Those articles are to be found on the web and elsewhere, in English and French, and no serious attempt has been made to answer them.
“Emerging from that trap in 1998 was like taking off a pair of borrowed spectacles that had lent a distorted view to everything else. Once cast aside, things returned to their true perspective. It is not a secret that I have changed my views and I am glad you have drawn public attention to it. I may still be wrong about many things, just as you may. My views are as good as the reasons I advance for them, no better.”
15 years is quite a long time to hold such an illogical position, which anyone with faith and who considers deeply should at least suspect as not making sense. For instance, if everyone without exception who believed that John Paul II was the pope should be considered a schismatic, then the adherents of antipopes during the Great Western Schism would also have to have been considered schismatic. But some of them are canonized saints. Further, if everyone without exception who believed that John Paul II was the pope should be considered a schismatic, then the same is true of everyone who recognized Paul VI and John XXIII, which is clearly ridiculous. The “logical rigor” of these arguments, which demonstrate the illogical fallacy at the heart of his former position, didn’t faze Daly for 15 years. Yet, this same man has the audacity to declare others not fit to write on these matters, rather than simply focusing on trying to refute their arguments. Again, it’s just a bad joke.
During this long period of time Daly was also was affiliated with a priest named Fr. Egregyi who held (and still may hold) the laughable position that one may lawfully travel around the world administering sacraments but that it would be a violation of canon law to preach a sermon! This is truly an example of book knowledge gone awry. In 1998, it finally hit Daly that his position on these matters was gravely wrong and he amended it.
Daly, lacking wisdom, jumps to the opposite extreme
But now Daly has gone to the opposite extreme. Daly still holds the sedevacantist position, but now he justifies as Catholics some people who should be considered heretics. This is a false reaction to his former position. Daly published an article on heresy which, while making some certainly valid points on the necessity of pertinacity, goes too far and actually endorses evil opinions. He writes:
John Daly: “In 1907 (10th January), a parish priest requested the expert advice of the moral theologian on the staff of the Ami du Clergé concerning two or three families among his parishioners. Though baptised as Catholics, they sent their children to the Protestant school and from time to time went to the Protestant services of the same sect. They did not go to the Catholic Church at all, it would appear, and blasphemed the Blessed Eucharist to the parish priest, relying on typically Protestant arguments. Nonetheless, they refused to be called Protestants themselves, and requested the parish priest to baptise their children.”
Daly is presenting the case of a family baptized as Catholics but attended Protestant services and blasphemed the Eucharist.
“The parish priest asked whether the parents had incurred excommunication, whether they could be buried as Catholics, and whether, if he should manage to convert any of them, they would have to make a formal abjuration.
“Now according to the position of those who think that most “traditionalists” today are excluded from membership of the Church, only one answer is possible: the culprits are manifest heretics and anyone who dares to consider them still Catholics and remain in communion with them must himself incur excommunication and be avoided by all true Catholics.
“However, the Ami du Clergé, a periodical formally approved and encouraged at about this time by St Pius X himself, was not at all of this opinion. Their moralist argued that there is no proof that the culprits intended, by assisting at the Protestant ceremonies, to apostatise from the Catholic Church – indeed they expressly denied it by insisting that they were Catholics and not Protestants. Similarly, he held that their stated wish to be Catholics gave to understand that these poor misguided souls had no wish knowingly and willingly to reject the dogma of the Church concerning the Holy Eucharist.
So in evaluating the questions posed by the parish priest, the Ami du Clergé replied that the culprits were still members of the Catholic Church, were not excommunicated, had no need to make formal abjuration of their errors, but only to repair the scandal given, and that if, dying with no sign of repentance, they were ineligible for Catholic burial (which would perhaps need to be confirmed by the bishop) this would have been as public sinners and not as heretics.
Now I have no doubt that it will be objected that in this instance the Ami du Clergé did not play the part of a true friend of the clergy, but rather showed evidence of laxism. That is my own opinion of the matter too. I do not accept for a moment that the individuals complained of could have failed to realise that they were denying the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, and I imagine that when they claimed to be still Catholics, it was because they had completely lost sight of what being a Catholic means – imagining that their Catholic antecedents and baptism made them Catholics irrespective of their beliefs, which were plainly Protestant, when they knowingly rejected the faith of the Church.
So I have no difficulty in disagreeing with the Ami du Clergé. But what is quite different and indeed patently absurd is to claim that by forming its lax judgment of this case the moralist of the Ami du Clergé himself incurred excommunication and ceased to be a Catholic along with all who accepted his solution and therefore remained in communion with uncondemned public heretics. Indeed such a theory would involve the excommunication of the bulk of the clergy of France who all continued to remain in communion with the Ami du Clergé…”
Commenting on this family, Daly refers to a journal in the early 20th century which claimed that the members of family were not heretics, even though they abandoned the Catholic Church, attended Protestant services and blasphemed the Eucharist. Daly says that he doesn’t agree with the position of the journal, but he presents it in his article as one which could be acceptable. But Daly is obviously wrong. Attending Protestant services while blaspheming the Eucharist demonstrates pertinacity in heresy. It would be offensive to Catholic teaching to present as acceptable the position that such as family is Catholic, but that’s exactly what Daly did. So, after laboring for more than a decade in a ridiculously false position that condemned as schismatics many who were not, Daly has now jumped to another extreme and gone too far in the other direction. He runs from error to error because he is of the Devil. He is not anchored in a real relationship with God and a real dedication to infallible Catholic teaching. He is a pompous and dishonest heretic who doesn’t have the faith. This explains why he is friendly with individuals such as John Lane, who financially supports the SSPX after years of knowledge about their heretical and schismatic positions. Would Daly tell Lane that he is supporting the propagation of heresy and schism by supporting the SSPX? I don’t think so.
More of his hypocrisy
As stated above, Daly has composed his “requirements” for being fit to discourse on Catholic issues. One of those is:
John Daly: “…e. It must be mild and charitable in expressing disagreement with other Catholics on controverted issues.”
Daly looks down upon those who are not acceptably “mild” in his view. When convenient, however, Daly abandons his own requirement. This reveals his hypocrisy.
John Daly, June 11, 2006: “Dear Dylan, I’ve had enough of this junk and the gloves are coming off. First, stop saying that priests who name Benedict are telling a lie. A lie is a statement you know isn’t true. They don’t know.”
Boy, he is so mild when expressing his disagreement with this gentleman, isn’t he? How “sophisticated,” moderate and dispassionate his arguments are, no?
Refuting more of his clearly false, illogical, irrelevant and petty criticism
When Daly cannot refute a person’s position, in order to attempt to discredit him he will seize upon a sentence here or there and go on and on about it, even when he agrees with the substance of the person’s argument – and even when Daly’s own commentary on the issue is quite illogical, as we will see. For instance, Daly stated about issue 5 of our magazine:
John Daly: “Please do not misunderstand me, XXXX: the vast bulk of the JP2 texts Dimond has diligently collected in this issue are indeed unorthodox, and taken as a whole they constitute an overwhelming case that JP2 does indeed habitually hold and teach a heresy according to which Christ’s incarnation directly divinised the whole of mankind, rather than merely making possible the divinisation realised by grace in favour of the just.”
According to Daly, issue 5 of our magazine constitutes an “overwhelming case” that John Paul II taught that man is God. But even though he agrees that it presents an “overwhelming case,” since he wants to dishonestly exaggerate his criticism of us and find a way to attack us, he goes on and on about a sentence here or there in the same magazine. But as we will see, his petty criticisms are easily refuted:
John Daly: “Four pages earlier you will find the following:
Commenting on JP2’s words “Especially man must be given and restored to God, if he is to be fully restored to himself.” (Redemptionis Donum), Dimond remarks:
“He says that man must be restored to God if he is to be restored to himself. This clearly indicates that man is God.”
Non sequitur. It indicates nothing of the sort. Neither clearly nor obscurely. The inference is utterly unjustified by the text. A lost walking stick must be restored to the matron of the geriatric hospital if it is to be restored to the elderly resident who lost it. Does that “clearly indicate” that the elderly resident is the matron? Restoration to A is stated to be a condition of restoration to B. Dimond pretends that this logically implies that A and B are identical. It implies no such thing.
It is no defence to say that JP2 does indeed believe that man is God and has said this elsewhere. He does not say it here.”
There are a few things to be said in response to this criticism. Before I get to the non sequitur in Daly’s own criticism, I must emphasize that issue 5 of our magazine dealt with revealing a theme, showing that there is a consistent pattern in John Paul II’s writings to substitute man for God and to teach that man became God in the Incarnation. The evidence in issue 5 was to be taken in totality, in which quote after quote demonstrated that John Paul II did the same thing, on purpose, over and over again.
Hence, if one pulls out a quote here or there from that particular issue, especially if it’s not one of the best quotes to prove the point, one will not find the case nearly as clear or convincing as if one read it in context with the others. One must see the code, so to speak, that John Paul II uses in inculcating (sometimes subtly, sometimes blatantly) that man is Christ and that man is to be equated with God.
In this vein, upon analyzing a few of our comments on John Paul II’s statement that man must be restored to God if he is to be restored to himself, Daly declares them illogical and compares the issue to the following example:
“A lost walking stick must be restored to the matron of the geriatric hospital if it is to be restored to the elderly resident who lost it.”
A careful reader will see that Daly has employed a non sequitur and an obviously false analogy.
Remember, John Paul II said: man must be restored to God if man is to be restored to himself. Suppose that A = man and B = God in John Paul II’s statement.
According to JP2, A (man) must be restored to B (God), if A is to be restored to A.
If one is going to analyze our comments by drawing an appropriate analogy, as Daly attempted to do, it must fit: A must be restored to B, if A is to be restored to A.
However, in criticizing our comments as illogical, Daly uses as a comparison a walking stick being returned to the matron of a hospital (a woman in charge of nursing) if it is to be restored to an elderly patient. One can see that his comparison is blatantly faulty.
John Daly: “Non sequitur. It indicates nothing of the sort. Neither clearly nor obscurely. The inference is utterly unjustified by the text. A lost walking stick must be restored to the matron of the geriatric hospital if it is to be restored to the elderly resident who lost it. Does that “clearly indicate” that the elderly resident is the matron? Restoration to A is stated to be a condition of restoration to B. Dimond pretends that this logically implies that A and B are identical. It implies no such thing.”
Daly’s analogy clearly lacks the “logical rigor” it would need to prove his point. Daly introduces a false analogy that incorporates C.
Daly’s analogy: A= the walking stick, B = the matron of the hospital, and C = the elderly patient. Daly says that A (the walking stick) must be restored to B (the matron) if A is to be restored to C (the patient)!
Sorry Mr. Daly, but John Paul didn’t say that A (man) must be restored to B (God) if A (man) is to be restored to C (someone or something else)! Try to get that through your head!! Considering this, his attempted comparison is blatantly false, a blatant non sequitur which lacks the very “logical rigor” that he arrogantly accuses others of lacking.
If it followed rigorous logic, Daly’s analogy should be: A (the walking stick) must be restored to B (the matron) if A (the walking stick) is to be restored to itself. As one can clearly see in this rigorously logical analogy, this would seem to indicate that the walking stick is equated with the matron.
In fact, Daly’s attempted analogy to refute the “illogic” of our words is so blatantly false that if we were to judge him by this alone – as Daly seems to like to do with others by pulling out single sentences here and there and going on and on about them – we would have to dismiss Daly as someone who lacks even basic logic skills.
John Daly: “First a few principles. 1. To write in public on matters of theological controversy it is necessary to be competent. That competence comprises the following elements: a. Correct use of the mind – thinking straight. Distinguishing between a valid and an invalid argument; identifying a convincing proof, a probable proof, suggestive evidence, tenuous possibility and outright sophistry.
Hmmm, I guess that would dismiss you, Mr. Daly. Daly is truly a blind and very dishonest heretic, a false pedant, who is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.
More comments on Daly
Daly is also a fierce advocate of “baptism of desire.” Of course, he cannot respond to any of the arguments we have made that refute baptism of desire, as covered in my book, such as how an unsacramentally baptized person could possibly be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as every human creature must to be saved, when the Church cannot exercise jurisdiction over the unsacramentally baptized. Nor can he answer how the unsacramentally baptized can be part of the faithful, when universal liturgical and patristic tradition hold that only the water baptized are part of the faithful, and all must be part of the Church of the faithful to be saved… and on and on and on…
Daly bases his position on baptism of desire primarily on Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent. But the section in my book (Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation) which deals with Sess. 6, Chap. 4 (and which is appended to the end of this article) quotes a Latin scholar to prove that this passage doesn’t prove their point, and shows how the context of it proves our point, by declaring that John 3:5 is to be understood as it is written. I refer the readers there for all of the issues pertaining to that matter.
Daly’s lies on the baptism issue
John Daly: “First we find him [Dimond] denying the de fide truth that Baptism of Desire suffices for justification (which even Fr Feeney accepted!), and indeed for salvation. Trent is quite clear. St Thomas is quite clear. The Doctors are quite clear. Canon Law is quite clear. Historical examples of unbaptised canonised saints are numerous and clear. The theologians are unanimous.”
Sorry Mr. Daly, but the very passage of Trent which you think proves that baptism of desire is de fide doesn’t state what you claim. In fact, it contradicts your claim by declaring that John 3:5 is to be understood AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”
As an aside, the man who posted Daly’s criticism of us is a man named Lance Tardugno. In an e-mail exchange a few years back, in order to illustrate to Lance that the above passage doesn’t say that either water or desire is sufficient for justification – it says justification cannot take place without water or desire – I gave him a few different examples:
This paper cannot be written without pad or pencil.
This sacrament cannot take place without matter or form.
Lance fired back ferociously declaring that he would “expose” me to his fellow “Catholics” because I didn’t know English, for (according to Lance) I had used nouns in the place of desire, and desire is a verb – which means to wish!
I wrote back to heretical Lance and pointed out that desire is a noun and a verb. It’s a noun, for instance, when I say: I have a desire to go there… and a verb when I say: I desire to go there. As used in Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent, it’s used as a noun. Thus, Lance was completely wrong on the very matter about which he accused me of not knowing English and was ready to “expose” me to his “fellow Catholics.” I bring this up to illustrate how bad willed, how pseudo-intellectually pompous these people are, who worship man and savor the things of intellectual pride rather than the things of God – and don’t even know what they’re talking about on top of it.
The answer to the above passage is simple: it doesn’t say that either water or desire is sufficient for justification; it says that justification CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT (“sine”) water or desire, AS IT IS WRITTEN (John 3:5). The fact is that God made sure that the words “as it is written” were included in that very sentence to ensure that the Council was not teaching baptism of desire by its wording in that passage. The passage thus teaches – as it is written – unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. And if what baptism of desire proponents say were correct, we would actually have the Council teaching us in the first part of the sentence that John 3:5 is not to be taken as it is written (desire sometimes suffices), while simultaneously contradicting itself in the second part of the sentence by telling us to take John 3:5 as it is written (sicut scriptum est)! But this is absurd, of course.
But I don’t want to get sidetracked on this passage; please consult the appendix to this article for the full discussion. But notice that, in the quote above, Daly says that the theologians of the Church are unanimous on baptism of desire. This is simply a lie.
St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.: “You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”
St. Gregory Nazianz, 381 AD: “Of those who fail to be baptized some are utterly animal and bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked. This, I think, they must add to their other sins, that they have no reverence for this gift, but regard it as any other gift, to be accepted if given them, or neglected if not given them. Others know and honor the gift; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable desire. Still others are not able to receive it, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance which prevents them from receiving the gift, even if they desire it…
“If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism, without having received Baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? I cannot see it. If you prefer, we will put it like this: if in your opinion desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory. You will then be satisfied to long for glory, as if that longing itself were glory. Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it?”
St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3: “For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above… for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
Daly Doesn’t Respond To Debate Offer
John Daly was also challenged to a debate related to ‘baptism of desire’. He did not respond. In such an encounter he would be exposed as the heretic and liar that he is.
Daly endorses Fahey
John Daly: “Let’s really develop a taste for those encyclicals, for Dom Gueranger, for Fr Fahey, for St Thomas Aquinas, for St Alphonsus Liguori, for the Gospel soundly commented, for the Fathers. After all, if these men lead us astray we may safely say to our divine Judge – Lord I erred because I followed those your Church most told me to trust.”
I wonder if Daly knows that Fr. Fahey taught that Jews who reject Christ can be in the state of grace, and if he would call his position heretical? Probably not.
Fr. Denis Fahey, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation (1953), p. 52: “The Jews, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that a member of the Jewish Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul, and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not good. If a Jew who rejects our Lord is good in the way God demands, it is in spite of the movement in which he and his nation are engaged.”
What I’ve covered in this brief look at John Daly shows that his writings aren’t reliably Catholic and that Catholics shouldn’t worry too much about him or his petty attempted attacks on Catholics.
Read Section: SESS. 6, CHAP. 4 OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
This video and article, among other things, completely refutes the position of John Daly.
The Best Argument Against “Baptism of Desire” (video and article)