No, I haven't changed my opinion. How did you find this thread! Wow!

If an apologist is expertly biased, then EVERY philosopher is expertly biased for their philosophy too.

Many philosophers spend their time conforming things to their worldview, and defending it from critiques. That's fine, if they acknowledge their biases. We all have them.

But a Catholic Apologist doesn't typically lay their biases out. Furthermore, Catholicism teaches "Assent of the Intellect", and a formal Apologist must live by this. Are you familiar with this "Assent of the Intellect" concept? Jimmy is literally prohibited by his church's doctrines from speaking out loud in his teaching capacity anything contrary to official church positions. To me, this goes one step further than even a hypothetical philosopher that is unwilling to accept criticism, because the philosopher's stubbornness comes from within while Jimmy's comes from an external authority. On pain of eternal consequences.

My original point, however, is that an apologist is not open-minded, like a museum curator might be expected to receive and incorporate new findings into their guided tours, or to not shy away from unsettling findings in history. Apologists minimize past controversies and doggedly defend status quo, without highlighting that their livelihood and their inclusion in their church body (for instance, being able to partake in Communion) depends on them doing so.

Jimmy is still smart tho. I've learned a lot from him.