May I add that the content of the "way" the Faith is defended is what is most important here. As you know doctrine doesn't change.
The good Fathers were born in the 1800s. I hope we can continue to diologue with our separated brethren keeping that in mind.
I still consider "Radio Replies" a classic in Catholic apologetics.
The good Fathers were born in the 1800s. I hope we can continue to diologue with our separated brethren keeping that in mind.
I still consider "Radio Replies" a classic in Catholic apologetics.
I think you bring up a critical point and one that has disturbed me, in candor.
If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.
It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919.
While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.
And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.
A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.
Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.
Myself, I could see these "Radio Replies" as being more of a handy resource for answering a diatribe posted by a non-Catholic than initiating a conversation. I've generally found that it is far more fruitful to be tactful until somebody else "pulls the trigger" and "goes nuclear."
For what it's worth.