Medium counts. But now I would be repeating myself. I question impersonal letter writing done through a magazine.
True dialogue comes from the heart and mind. Impersonality is irrelevant.
So if he published his letter in, let's say, Penthouse, that would be ok? Medium and methodology do count. Indeed part of the message you intend to make depends in how it's delivered not just what is stated. I question the motive and sincerity of the method you don't.
I don’t in this case. 1) The motives are clear - evangelization. 2) More conversions may result this way. 3) More personal communications may simply be impossible.
The motives are not evangelization. He is not preaching to the lost. What you mistate as evangelization is actually an intention to teach or potentially to disciple at least that's a known secondary and maybe even primary definition. But that is quibbling over definitions. And how can you state personal dialogue "may simply be impossible"? Had the author attempted personal dialogue with Mr. Baldwin? I guess not. So instead of honestly reaching out to communicate, a magazine is used with his famous name in the process. To do what? Gain some readership? Cynical yes. But justifiably so.
Your either/or is simply nonsensical. 1) This open letter might be the beginning of a more personal association that might otherwise never happen. That’s what happened in the past with others. 2) Sincere dialogue is from a sincere mind and heart and exists irrespective of medium used to communicate.
Or it might be the beginning of a personal offense. Did the writer attempt to contact Baldwin and advise he would be writing a letter to him and publishing it in his magazine likely aware that same could be published all over the internet? Indeed, would it not be absurd for him to have actually spoken to Baldwin and stating to him I'm publishing an open letter to you - read it in the next edition? The absurdity is not mine.
What you call it is irrelevant. Again, the intent was charitable, the method was charitable under the circumstances. There is no logical reason to doubt the sincerity of the letter. Please remember that St. Paul wrote to the Romans even though he had never visited them yet. Was what he wrote propaganda when he wrote: “For I really want to see you and give you the gift of the Spirit, so that you may be justified through Him, And as one we become justified through faith, yours and mine”?
Your understanding of St. Paul's letter as the medium for delivery is deficient. It was a personal letter delivered personally by Christian brothers not published in the daily Roman press.Furthermore, he had actual physical reasons why he could not be there personally - related to his mission and facility of access. I can imagine Paul taking a flight and being there if we were to translate some kind of analogy to present day. That wasn't possible then. So what is the deficient physical ability of the writer here? Too busy evangelizing in China or India? I think not.
You wrote:
“Medium counts. But now I would be repeating myself. I question impersonal letter writing done through a magazine.”
Okay, question it. You have not been able to make much of a case that it matters that it is an open letter. All you’ve said so far is that you don’t like it because you feel it’s impersonal.
“So if he published his letter in, let’s say, Penthouse, that would be ok?”
No. I said medium. That means type of communication here, not type of porn.
“Medium and methodology do count. Indeed part of the message you intend to make depends in how it’s delivered not just what is stated. I question the motive and sincerity of the method you don’t.”
I don’t because both the motive and method are obvious.
“The motives are not evangelization. He is not preaching to the lost.”
Evangelization is not just preaching to the lost. It can and is preaching to those who identify themselves as Christians but who lack the fullness of the faith.
“What you mistate as evangelization is actually an intention to teach or potentially to disciple at least that’s a known secondary and maybe even primary definition.”
No, this is evangelization.
“But that is quibbling over definitions. And how can you state personal dialogue “may simply be impossible”?”
Because it may be impossible.
“Had the author attempted personal dialogue with Mr. Baldwin?”
Maybe yes, maybe no. You don’t know and neither do I.
“I guess not. So instead of honestly reaching out to communicate, a magazine is used with his famous name in the process. To do what? Gain some readership? Cynical yes. But justifiably so.”
No, it is done to evangelize - just as it is obvious.
“Or it might be the beginning of a personal offense. Did the writer attempt to contact Baldwin and advise he would be writing a letter to him and publishing it in his magazine likely aware that same could be published all over the internet?”
You don’t know. And it is not essential. Thankfully Justin Martyr did not follow your tact.
“Indeed, would it not be absurd for him to have actually spoken to Baldwin and stating to him I’m publishing an open letter to you - read it in the next edition? The absurdity is not mine.”
That would be absurd - much like your hand-wringing angst over this simple letter.
“Your understanding of St. Paul’s letter as the medium for delivery is deficient.”
No, there is nothing deficient about my understanding of St. Paul’s letter.
“It was a personal letter delivered personally by Christian brothers not published in the daily Roman press.”
1) There was no such thing as the Roman press, and if there was, Paul - with his great zeal for souls - would have used it.
2) It was not a personal letter because it was not written to one person but to “all who are beloved of God in Rome”. He wrote the letter to the whole CHURCH of Rome.
3) He wrote the letter in secret. It was not a personal letter. It was a secret letter. It was written in secret to protect the faithful. And it still wasn’t a personal letter of the sort you imagine.
“Furthermore, he had actual physical reasons why he could not be there personally - related to his mission and facility of access. I can imagine Paul taking a flight and being there if we were to translate some kind of analogy to present day. That wasn’t possible then. So what is the deficient physical ability of the writer here? Too busy evangelizing in China or India? I think not.”
How would you know? Also, there doesn’t have to be a physical reason impeding a meeting. That’s just your personal oddity on this. The open letter is about evangelization. Souls will be converted no matter what. The author probably composed the letter because bringing fallen away Catholics back to the Church has been a special concern of his: http://books.google.com/books?id=rXnd43pXAt4C&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=Victor+R.+Claveau+biography&source=web&ots=GAwxWiyunK&sig=DxBdIvyEql0lwKRjSfoHv-MWX8g&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result