Time to Junk the New Apologetics [Apologetics 101 for Catholics]

Catholic Answers ^ | 2-17-04 | Karl Keating

[Salvation]

TIME TO JUNK THE NEW APOLOGETICS?

---

Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:

In the 1960s, after South Vietnam had been undergoing a less-than-peaceful change of government every week or so, there came a period of stability. One magazine took notice and ran this headline: "No Coups Is Good Noups."

You know the feeling. It's nice to take a breather from the fuss and fury. It's nice to have no one saying silly things that need to be responded to. It's nice to relax, kick back, and think that, even if only for a moment, all's well with the world.

And then "America" magazine arrives in your mailbox ...

OUT WITH THE NEW, IN WITH THE NEWER

The February 2 issue of "America" features an article titled "Do We Need a New(er) Apologetics?" The writer is Richard R. Gaillardetz, professor of Catholic studies at the University of Toledo.

The article caught my attention because I'm mentioned in it twice, once in passing (in a listing of other "so-called new apologists") and once in criticism. I'll get to the criticism in a moment. First let me give an overview of the article.

Gaillardetz--whom I otherwise never heard of--begins by saying he wants to look at the strengths and weaknesses of the "new apologetics," and then he wants to "propose five characteristics of an alternative [that is, "new(er)"] apologetics that would be more consonant with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and the needs of the church."

Among the strengths of the new apologists he lists "their obvious enthusiasm and passion for their faith." They are able to convey these in their public presentations. The "new apologists are not afraid to talk of doctrine," and, when they do so, it is "out of a deep-seated conviction that Catholic Christian doctrine is meaningful, relevant, and communicates the truth of God's loving plan for humankind."

The new apologists also "have responded effectively to Protestant fundamentalist attacks on the Catholic faith." They know that most Catholics are ill-educated in their religion and need help to fend off these attacks. "These apologists are often quite successful in exposing Protestant fundamentalist caricatures of Catholic belief."

Lastly, "one cannot help but be impressed with the new apologists' sophisticated use of modern communications technology and the Internet." (Hmmm. I wonder if he's thinking of my E-Letter?) "They have been remarkably successful in making their reading of Roman Catholicism accessible to millions of people today."

NOW FOR THE COMPLAINTS

So much for the compliments. Let's turn to the dark side of the new apologetics.

The new apologists, say Gaillardetz, are little better than the Fundamentalists they oppose because they use the Fundamentalist technique of prooftexting. What makes this worse is that the new apologists assume "an overly propositional view of revelation."

This, supposedly, is contrary to Vatican II, which "presented divine revelation as nothing less than the self-communication of God." This self-communication is not so much through propositions (defined beliefs) as through the person of Jesus Christ.

The new apologists, because of their propositional approach, end up giving false weight to magisterial pronouncements. They give too much authority to "non-dogmatic church teaching."

Another problem is that they "encourage a neo-triumphalism that can undermine ecumenical endeavors." This is seen especially in conversion stories, which leave people with the idea that everyone ought to become a Catholic.

Still another problem--and this is where I come back into the picture--is "the ahistorical presentation of the Catholic faith." My book "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" "is far too reluctant to acknowledge the historical difficulties with some traditional Catholic claims regarding the origin of the papacy (e.g., that Peter functioned as a residential 'bishop of Rome')."

There are other criticisms of the new apologists, but you get the drift.

I NEVER THOUGHT OF RICHARD McBRIEN AS AN APOLOGIST

We need a newer form of apologetics, Gaillardetz says. It will have five points.

First, it will be "passionate and positive." He has in mind the writing of such folks as Monika Hellwig, Thomas Rausch, and Richard McBrien. I can see the "passion" in their writings (Rausch was rather passionate when he gave a speech against me some years ago!), and certainly they are "positive" in what they write--but, so often, what they write is positively wrong.

When was the last time that Richard McBrien's moral theology correlated with that taught by the Catholic Church? When did Monika Hellwig write that women cannot and should not be ordained? When did Thomas Rausch acknowledge that his method of teaching theology did not result in converts? (Come to think of it, he said exactly that in his speech.)

Gaillardetz gives, as his second chief point, that the newer apologetics should be "dialogical." This suggests that the new apologetics has not been. That will be news to the thousands of Protestants and non-believers who have been in dialogue with Catholic apologists during the last two decades.

I think Gaillardetz is looking for a particular kind of dialogue: the exchange of opinions that does not lead to one party adopting the other party's beliefs. If both parties ended up on the same side of the religious divide, what would there be left to dialogue about? The "process" would disappear.

The new apologists see things differently. They dialogue for a purpose: to bring others to the truth of the Catholic faith. Their goal is intellectual and spiritual union, with the process being only a means toward an end.

This segues into Gaillardetz's third point, that the newer apologetics will be "ecumenical." Vatican II rejected the "ecumenism of return," he says, so what we need is a "self-critical approach to ecumenical dialogue." Catholics can learn from non-Catholics and should be happy to do so.

Well, yes, there are things we can learn--and things we already have learned. But all the post-Vatican II papal writings on ecumenism point to the ultimate goal, which is personal and corporate reunion. They do not say, "Let's talk with Protestants and be happy if they end up being better Protestants. That's all we should seek." No, that's not all we should seek, according to the popes from John XXIII to John Paul II.

As his fourth mark of the newer apologetics, Gaillardetz says that apologetics must be "historically responsible." There should be an awareness that "some beliefs and practices simply lost their authority over time."

He points to slavery as something that, supposedly, the Church once endorsed (she didn't--she just said it should be put up with), and he mistakenly thinks Catholic teaching on usury has changed (wrong again--what changed was the role of money in the economy).

Lastly, the newer apologetics must be "culturally engaged." "The effective apologist would look to political events, the visual arts, music, fiction, theater, and film with an expectation that they will encounter there the drama of human salvation and, for those with eyes to see, intimations of the divine."

WHERE IS THE APOLOGETICS IN THE NEWER APOLOGETICS?

Gaillardetz ends up with a newer apologetics that doesn't look like the new apologetics or the old apologetics or any form of apologetics--because it isn't apologetics. What it is is an apology for theological dissent and liberal culture.

The very word "apology" means an explanation or a defense. Gaillardetz doesn't seem interested in either. He seems interested in accommodating the soon-to-be has-beens of the Catholic Church in America. He is writing to please a dying constituency: theologically liberal Catholics.

As an ironic coincidence, the last paragraphs of his article share a page with a cartoon. The setting is Washington, D.C. A man with a briefcase--presumably a politician--encounters an extraterrestrial, who says to him, "Take me to your pollsters."

Politicians spin their convictions to mirror those of their constituents. Gaillardetz has spun apologetics to mirror the beliefs of the average reader of "America." That average reader is not interested in real apologetics because there is so much of the Catholic faith that he himself rejects. Who defends a set of beliefs when he thinks many of them are wrong?

Real apologetics always will be done by people who believe the Catholic faith is true and is worth sharing in its entirety. Those who are uncomfortable with that will talk about different forms of apologetics, but they really mean non-apologetics.

Their goal is not to explain and defend the faith but to refashion it to their own image and likeness. This means there will be a perpetual divide between them and the real apologists.

But--who knows?--maybe the real apologists can dialogue with them!

Until next time,
Karl

[Salvation]

Please post any evangelization, educational, apologetic material that will help us all grow in this area of sharing our faith.

God bless all of you -- and go out there and spread the Word of the Lord!

[Salvation]

Ping!

[Salvation]

Catholic Apologetics and Evangelization Ping!

Please notify me via Freepmail if you would like to be added to or removed from the Catholic Apologetics and Evangelization Ping list.

[Salvation]

Get back to the basics!

Learn about the Church year

The Mass

The Sacraments

The Saints and Feastdays, Mary

Prayer and Spirituality

Church Seasons -- Advent, Lent, Easter, Christ, Pentecost, ordinary time, etc.

Morality and virtues

Add your own wishes here. What would you like to learn about?

[Salvation]

Real apologetics always will be done by people who believe the Catholic faith is true and is worth sharing in its entirety.

[Salvation]

The Creed

Justice and Service

[Salvation]

Mel’s Passion, the New Evangelization and You

Catholics plan 'Passion' evangelism

The Prospects for Evangelization

A National Catholic Register Symposium: Should Catholic Evangelization Target Jews?

Evangelism or Bust: Jew, Pagan, or Protestant - All Must Convert (uh oh...flame suit on)

(Catholic) Cardinal (Keeler) Issues Clarification On Evangelization of Jews

[Aquinasfan]

I'm really enjoying Karl's e-letter.

Here's a link to Jim Burnham's 8 volume Beginning Apologetics set.

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Real Social Justice, not that quasi marxist stuff we normall get, but the real Social Justice.

[Salvation]

That is an outstanding series. I have experienced a class with the green one.

Another thought -- maybe we could do it as a Book Club here on FR. Everyone could get the book -- only $6.00!

Would you be the cyber instructor?

[Salvation]

Agree with you. Not the 'feel good' social justice, but getting out there and doing something in your own community.

[dsc]

"Real Social Justice, not that quasi marxist stuff we normall get, but the real Social Justice."

Wouldn't it be more in keeping with Catholic Tradition to think about the Spiritual and Corporal acts of Mercy, and about Charity?

What is justice?

For starters, it's a thing that people have a right to expect. You have a right to expect just laws and a just trial if accused of violating them.

That means that "society" has a stake in enforcing justice. The state tries to enforce justice at gunpoint.

But what right does anyone have to expect mercy and charity?
Your neighbor enjoys free will. If he decides not to be charitable or merciful, is it compatible with Christianity to put a gun to his head and demand that he be so?

"Social justice" is spiritually damaging, because we only become better people through *voluntary* mercy and charity. Coerced or grudging charity does our souls very little good. As Shakespeare put it,
"Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy."

What do we learn when the government deducts our mercy and charity from our paychecks and gives it to some anonymous stranger?

It may be that when you say "real social justice" you actually mean voluntary works of mercy and charity. If so, I think it would be better entirely to eschew the use of the term, "social justice." It was invented by Marxists and other utopians, and is irredeemably tainted by their atheistic, coercive approach.

[Salvation]

**Spiritual and Corporal acts of Mercy, and about Charity?**

Very good additions to our list.

[Antoninus]

Not the 'feel good' social justice, but getting out there and doing something in your own community.

"Social Justice" without FAITH is dead.

[Salvation]

http://www.zenit.org/english/

ZENIT - The World Seen From Rome

---

Code: ZE04021601

Date: 2004-02-16

Pope Calls for New Initiatives to Evangelize Youth

Laments Family Breakdown That Leaves Them Vulnerable

VATICAN CITY, FEB. 16, 2004 (Zenit.org).- John Paul II encouraged the invention of "new proposals" so that young people will come to know Christ and grow humanly and spiritually.

The Pope delivered that message to a group of French bishops from the ecclesiastical provinces of Bordeaux and Poitiers when he received them at the close of their five-yearly visit to Rome.

"Today I make an appeal to invent new proposals for young people with the objective of offering them specific places, means and support that will enable them -- at the diocesan and parish level; in chaplaincies, movements and services -- to grow humanly and spiritually," the Holy Father said Friday evening.

"The mission of Christian communities is to lead young people to Christ and make them enter into intimacy with him so that they can live their lives and build an ever more fraternal society," he said. "The social aspect must not make one forget the primary objective of pastoral care: to lead young people to Christ."

In his address, the Pope analyzed the situation of youth, stressing "the numerous breaks which make young people particularly fragile," especially because of "family separations."

"How can one not think of the children and young people who suffer terribly because of the disintegration of the family cell, or of those who are going through precarious situations which often lead them to regard themselves as excluded from society?" he asked.

In this context, young people are led to believe that "all behavior, being doable, might be good," thus leading to a "grave diminution of the more sense which leads to thinking that good and bad objectives no longer exist," the Pope said.

Hence, he called for new methods of proclaiming the faith. John Paul II encouraged the use of Internet as a means in which young people can be "informed, formed and discover the different proposals of the Church."

After stressing the importance of "places" of support, where the education of youth is carried out -- family, school, university chaplaincies -- the Holy Father asked that bishops appoint "qualified priests, with a good formation and a sterling spiritual and moral life, to support young people, to transmit Christian teaching to them, to share fraternal and leisure moments with them, so that they will become missionaries."

Another opportunity to evangelize young people is in preparing them for marriage, the Pope said.

"The Church wishes to propose the way of progression in loving relationships, which includes engagement and proposes the ideal of chastity," he said.

"It's remembered that marriage between a man and a woman, and a family, are built especially on the strong bonds between persons and on a definitive commitment, and not on a merely affective aspect, which cannot constitute the sole basis of conjugal life," the Pope said.

He concluded: "May pastors and Christian couples not be afraid to help young people to reflect on these delicate and essential questions, through catechesis and vigorous and suitable talks, making the depth and beauty of human love shine!"

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Like you said. No, I am not refering to Social Justice in the Marxist term of the word, but Social Justice in the Human Dignity sense, ala Pro-Life (anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, etc), that is real Social Justice, course that hasn't been taught or anything. Rather Social Justice as it is taught today is that neo-marxist, universal everything type.

[OMalley]

Salvation,

What Id like more information on is opinions from others about what is taught in RCIA.

I am a sponsor and we recieve something called the "Catholic update" It seems rather liberal to me, especially since reading and learning here on FR.

The last one, "what the Church teaches about homosexuality" (website www.AmericanCatholic.org)-atleast i think it would be there, was very troubling to me.

Any thoughts from you and other Catholics would be great.

Blessings,
O'Malley

Ps I like the idea of a book club on FR!!

[Salvation]

What did the Update say about homosexuality?

[Salvation]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Do a search for homosexuality.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

---