You wrote:
“Respectful dialogue is done man to man not by playing politics over a magazine or the internet.”
Incorrect. Respectful dialogue is done in a respectful tone not in a particular medium. Ever read the respectful WRITTEN debates of Joad, Lunn, and others?
“True dialogue doesn’t need impersonal letter writing.”
True dialogue comes from the heart and mind. Impersonality is irrelevant.
“I question the sincerity and purpose of someone who doesn’t have the integrity to speak to him personally or write him personally before he engages in advertising his position.”
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.
“Again, sincerity of dialogue is achieved by personal association not some advertising campaign for Catholic theology.”
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.
“Christian charity is achieved through a letter published openly and now on the Internet?”
Yes, if it is charitable in intent and method.
“Is that what you call charity? I call it propaganda and impersonal despite the putative sincerity.”
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”?
“I guess it would be redundant for me to answer this one given my position above.”
I don’t think you can answer it. Apparently all you can do is complain about it.
Remember, Paul wrote a letter to the Romans and he didn’t even know them.
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.