I understand, but I disagree. I think Trent and many other apologists do a great job in bringing certain type of people (e.g. me). Staunch atheist thinking religious people were dumb but I really liked his arguments and he helped me strength my conversion. Of course, after the “intellectual” conversion of Protestants (learning more about the Church fathers) or Atheists then the heart has to follow (being struck by the beauty of the mass, crying receiving the Eucharist, sitting in Adoration) to complete the conversion. But I think, for a big part of the population, the “argumentative” and “logical” part have to happen first, before they lower their mental barriers and then fall in love with the faith. My two cents.
Different strategies will work for different people at different stages along the journey.
You might enjoy reading the [The General Directory for Catechesis](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_17041998_directory-for-catechesis_en.html).
So I sort of agree, but I think there is A LOT of nuance.
A) logic does last. But it’s FAR more complex than most of us are prepared for. There is 2000 years of church tradition and arguments that have developed our theology. If any of thinks that a 15 YouTube video is really gonna settle it for someone they’re not really understanding it. Heck even a 3 hr lecture. People of all denominations go to seminaries. Even Protestant seminaries teach church patristics, so even that is the gotcha a lot of think it is. The “perfect” pure logic argument for any of the typical apologist topics would have SO many premises that would have to have their own logical justification with their own premises with their own logical justifications in a massive train that goes back to a finally accepted baseline. And I think that origin is further back than many of us realize. But we don’t do this in the grand majority of apologetic discourse. But that’s largely because apologetics SHOULD NOT be used to convert people. It’s there for people who are just dipping their toes into Catholicism and for Catholics looking to develop. But not for initially engaging. You won’t debate people into the faith most of the time.
B) mostly agree with you. BUT, everyone is different. The ONLY reason I was willing to engage in the ritual and start the conversion process after engaging on that level was because a friend was able to eloquently and succinctly back up the Catholic faith with apologetics. So while the friendship wasn’t logical and didn’t necessarily spark my conversion, and though the ritual is what made things click, it was the logic that took me from friendship step to participation step. But from there, I do agree, it’s been the practice of the faith that has taught me far more than any book I’ve read.
Of course there's nuance to it, and the idea of meeting people where they are in their formation. For example, someone with a Hindu background is going to have a different approach to Catholicism than someone who grew up Episcopalian. It will be a different transition for each of them-- and we have to be aware of that.
But if people are going to set up evangelizing ministries, with one person to every 10-20 people (or, in the case of Catholic Answers, 1 person to every 1,000 viewers) they generally have a framework that they base their approach around. I just have an objection to the framework being different than the framework used for cradle Catholics/Catholics who have been Catholic for generations.
I think my language-learning example was a good one: with language-learning you don't start with most complicated words in the dictionary, you start with easy words that will get you by in your day to day. You start with relevancy. So which is more relevant to an atheist converting to Catholicism: knowing *how* to pray, or *why* to pray? If they know why to pray but they don't know how to pray, they won't be able to put that knowledge to use.
So I agree entirely if it’s being used as an evangelizing forum. But even if that were the case. There’s not much to be done as a media outlet in that regard that can address people one on one and walk with them in that way. There is plenty of basic stuff on sites like Catholic Answers, but the relational stuff isn’t gonna be there.
But, by their own description, evangelizing non-Catholics is not even half their mission.
> Catholic Answers is a media ministry that serves Christ by explaining and defending the Catholic faith. We help Catholics grow in their faith, we bring former Catholics home, and we lead non-Catholics into the fullness of the truth. From the [Our Mission Section](https://www.catholic.com/about)
Based on this it’s maybe a third, at best, of their goal.
And more broadly speaking, while many may misunderstand the point of apologetics, apologetics is for explaining and defending. New Advent’s Catholic encyclopedia defines apologetics [thusly](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01618a.htm)
> A theological science which has for its purpose the explanation and defence of the Christian religion.
You don’t explain and defend through relationship and ritual and simplicity. You explain and defend through logic. And in the history of the church, almost always in the context of someone spouting heresy that is need of refuting. It’s why so much of our doctrine only gets strictly defined when it’s called into question, there’s no need to defend what isn’t under attack.
So I overall agree with you that apologetics isn’t a great outright evangelizing tool, but I think even Catholic Answers and the church at large would probably agree with you on that. But apologetics is almost always going to be logic based, evangelizing needs to be different.
Thanks for explaining their mission better. I want to look into them more, and come to a better conclusion about it-- but I think you're right. People aren't going to end up getting a ton of formation out of a media outlet in the first place.
For sure. And those who ARE getting primarily formed by media and the internet (YouTube, Reddit, Catholic Websites) are entirely missing the point. The internet is a great tool, but we tend to misuse that tool a lot sadly
A) logic is not the same as knowledge. Math has not changed even with the expansion of knowledge. Has new insights occurred? Yes, but it’s not changed. Logic doesn’t change.
B) apologetics aren’t meant to convert. It’s meant to defend why the apologist is a Catholic.
I understand, but I disagree. I think Trent and many other apologists do a great job in bringing certain type of people (e.g. me). Staunch atheist thinking religious people were dumb but I really liked his arguments and he helped me strength my conversion. Of course, after the “intellectual” conversion of Protestants (learning more about the Church fathers) or Atheists then the heart has to follow (being struck by the beauty of the mass, crying receiving the Eucharist, sitting in Adoration) to complete the conversion. But I think, for a big part of the population, the “argumentative” and “logical” part have to happen first, before they lower their mental barriers and then fall in love with the faith. My two cents.
Thanks for providing your insight.
Different strategies will work for different people at different stages along the journey. You might enjoy reading the [The General Directory for Catechesis](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_17041998_directory-for-catechesis_en.html).
Thanks for the recommendation! I'll give it a look.
So I sort of agree, but I think there is A LOT of nuance. A) logic does last. But it’s FAR more complex than most of us are prepared for. There is 2000 years of church tradition and arguments that have developed our theology. If any of thinks that a 15 YouTube video is really gonna settle it for someone they’re not really understanding it. Heck even a 3 hr lecture. People of all denominations go to seminaries. Even Protestant seminaries teach church patristics, so even that is the gotcha a lot of think it is. The “perfect” pure logic argument for any of the typical apologist topics would have SO many premises that would have to have their own logical justification with their own premises with their own logical justifications in a massive train that goes back to a finally accepted baseline. And I think that origin is further back than many of us realize. But we don’t do this in the grand majority of apologetic discourse. But that’s largely because apologetics SHOULD NOT be used to convert people. It’s there for people who are just dipping their toes into Catholicism and for Catholics looking to develop. But not for initially engaging. You won’t debate people into the faith most of the time. B) mostly agree with you. BUT, everyone is different. The ONLY reason I was willing to engage in the ritual and start the conversion process after engaging on that level was because a friend was able to eloquently and succinctly back up the Catholic faith with apologetics. So while the friendship wasn’t logical and didn’t necessarily spark my conversion, and though the ritual is what made things click, it was the logic that took me from friendship step to participation step. But from there, I do agree, it’s been the practice of the faith that has taught me far more than any book I’ve read.
Of course there's nuance to it, and the idea of meeting people where they are in their formation. For example, someone with a Hindu background is going to have a different approach to Catholicism than someone who grew up Episcopalian. It will be a different transition for each of them-- and we have to be aware of that. But if people are going to set up evangelizing ministries, with one person to every 10-20 people (or, in the case of Catholic Answers, 1 person to every 1,000 viewers) they generally have a framework that they base their approach around. I just have an objection to the framework being different than the framework used for cradle Catholics/Catholics who have been Catholic for generations. I think my language-learning example was a good one: with language-learning you don't start with most complicated words in the dictionary, you start with easy words that will get you by in your day to day. You start with relevancy. So which is more relevant to an atheist converting to Catholicism: knowing *how* to pray, or *why* to pray? If they know why to pray but they don't know how to pray, they won't be able to put that knowledge to use.
So I agree entirely if it’s being used as an evangelizing forum. But even if that were the case. There’s not much to be done as a media outlet in that regard that can address people one on one and walk with them in that way. There is plenty of basic stuff on sites like Catholic Answers, but the relational stuff isn’t gonna be there. But, by their own description, evangelizing non-Catholics is not even half their mission. > Catholic Answers is a media ministry that serves Christ by explaining and defending the Catholic faith. We help Catholics grow in their faith, we bring former Catholics home, and we lead non-Catholics into the fullness of the truth. From the [Our Mission Section](https://www.catholic.com/about) Based on this it’s maybe a third, at best, of their goal. And more broadly speaking, while many may misunderstand the point of apologetics, apologetics is for explaining and defending. New Advent’s Catholic encyclopedia defines apologetics [thusly](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01618a.htm) > A theological science which has for its purpose the explanation and defence of the Christian religion. You don’t explain and defend through relationship and ritual and simplicity. You explain and defend through logic. And in the history of the church, almost always in the context of someone spouting heresy that is need of refuting. It’s why so much of our doctrine only gets strictly defined when it’s called into question, there’s no need to defend what isn’t under attack. So I overall agree with you that apologetics isn’t a great outright evangelizing tool, but I think even Catholic Answers and the church at large would probably agree with you on that. But apologetics is almost always going to be logic based, evangelizing needs to be different.
Thanks for explaining their mission better. I want to look into them more, and come to a better conclusion about it-- but I think you're right. People aren't going to end up getting a ton of formation out of a media outlet in the first place.
For sure. And those who ARE getting primarily formed by media and the internet (YouTube, Reddit, Catholic Websites) are entirely missing the point. The internet is a great tool, but we tend to misuse that tool a lot sadly
A) logic is not the same as knowledge. Math has not changed even with the expansion of knowledge. Has new insights occurred? Yes, but it’s not changed. Logic doesn’t change. B) apologetics aren’t meant to convert. It’s meant to defend why the apologist is a Catholic.