Amateur Apologists: Why are they so bad?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theropod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
theropod said:
I’m sure he was making a light hearted comment, but I can think of things where this isn’t true at all. Surgery, legal defense, and building bridges comes to mind. All worthy endeavors, but disaster will come from those who do it badly.
Click to expand...
Yes, his whole point is that what is done for love and by love is worth doing badly. A mother who is uneducated but gives her children proper correction and lots of love perhaps isn’t the best educator, but she is the best one to teach her children love, respect, kindness, etc.

Chesterton had a horror of leaving everything, even things best done for love alone, to the “pros”, the “elite.” He was always a champion of the ordinary person doing their best out of the best intentions–that of love.

As for books like “Catholicism for Dummies”, they’re meant for the average Joe who will never read the Catechism or encyclicals or any other kind of theological work because they are over his head or he simply doesn’t have the time for it. Such books are only meant to whet the appetite, not be a full treatise on the deepest theological principles. 😉

I consider myself an amateur apologist, and I’ve been a very bad one at times 😊 --especially when I first ventured into the field. I regret all my mistakes, but I also learned from them. I hope I have learned to be compassionate, listening and helpful. Of course, the person who asks about another’s faith who isn’t disposed to listen makes it pointless. I’ve learned not to respond to that sort of inquirer. You have to know when you can be helpful and when the person isn’t ready to absorb what you’re saying. It’s a discernment process.

Apologetics is setting out a defense of the faith. It’s not convincing anyone of anything. An apologist set out the facts, listens to responds, is kind and understanding in his replies, prays and then let the Holy Spirit work in hearts, as only He can do. It’s an apostolate that not everyone is called to nor suited for. For the average lay person it’s enough to do as St. Peter admonished us to do, as another poster cited. We are to relate the hope that lies within us with love and kindness, by word and deed. If we get in over our heads there are plenty of resources to help us these days, thanks be.
 
theropod said:
Anyone else able to tell when someone has read “Apologetics For Dummies” or taken a beginning apologetics course? It’s like the chimpanzees at the zoo found a box of handguns.

Books and classes should come with disclaimers that they could do more harm than good if they aren’t careful.
Click to expand...
You have to start somewhere. Trust me, I am a lot better defending my faith now at all most 28, then I was a new Catholic at the age of 21.
 
So far, in my experience, there are two types of people: the “average Joe” seeker and the ambushers.

Any properly catechized Catholic can easily answer the average Joe’s questions, as to the ambushers: there’s no way they’ll ever be satisfied or accept anything you have to say. It’ll probably end badly with ad hominems flying or when you discover how much you have in common with St. Nicholas. Anyway, to the ambushers I tell 'em: I’ll answer questions, but I’m not gonna debate you. Here take this copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which they never do.
 
Wildgraywolf said:
So far, in my experience, there are two types of people: the “average Joe” seeker and the ambushers.

Any properly catechized Catholic can easily answer the average Joe’s questions, as to the ambushers: there’s no way they’ll ever be satisfied or accept anything you have to say. It’ll probably end badly with ad hominems flying or when you discover how much you have in common with St. Nicholas. Anyway, to the ambushers I tell 'em: I’ll answer questions, **but I’m not gonna debate you. **
Click to expand...
But then what do you say if someone says “The other side said such-and-such, and your side didn’t refute it.”?
 
  1. On the one hand there is a problem in that some of the 1 percent of Catholics who try their hand at Apologetics are either not well prepared, not good listeners, talking at people rather than to them, sometimes engage in ad hominem attacks, fail to see the (sometimes limited) truth in erroneous positions, and sometimes downright rude.
I see that problem. I agree.
  1. But I also see the other 99% of Catholics who never try to do apologetics - some because they lack confidence in Catholic doctrine, others because they lack confidence in their own understanding of Catholic doctrine, others because they have been influenced by the relativistic culture, that nothing is absolutely good or true, bad or false, but everything is fine, from some viewpoint. “I’m OK, you’re OK”.
That second problem is greater than the first problem, because it is so enormous. We hide our lamps under a bushel in defiance of Scripture. Things are starting to pick up after so many years when almost no Catholics tried their hand at Apologetics. A little patience is needed here. We are in the rebuilding stage now after decades when Catholics were told to be silent in Western societies, in the name of ecumenism, political correctness, etc. Don’t expect perfection. Start trying to activate the 99%.
 
commenter said:
  1. On the one hand there is a problem in that some of the 1 percent of Catholics who try their hand at Apologetics are either not well prepared, not good listeners, talking at people rather than to them, sometimes engage in ad hominem attacks, fail to see the (sometimes limited) truth in erroneous positions, and sometimes downright rude.
I see that problem. I agree.
  1. But I also see the other 99% of Catholics who never try to do apologetics - some because they lack confidence in Catholic doctrine, others because they lack confidence in their own understanding of Catholic doctrine, others because they have been influenced by the relativistic culture, that nothing is absolutely good or true, bad or false, but everything is fine, from some viewpoint. “I’m OK, you’re OK”.
That second problem is greater than the first problem, because it is so enormous. We hide our lamps under a bushel in defiance of Scripture. Things are starting to pick up after so many years when almost no Catholics tried their hand at Apologetics. A little patience is needed here. We are in the rebuilding stage now after decades when Catholics were told to be silent in Western societies, in the name of ecumenism, political correctness, etc. Don’t expect perfection. Start trying to activate the 99%.
Click to expand...
Applause. 👍
 
Kaninchen said:
I think the Pope’s 'Evangelii Gaudium’ strikes the right note for Christians, for example:
  1. In this preaching, which is always respectful and gentle, the first step is personal dialogue, when the other person speaks and shares his or her joys, hopes and concerns for loved ones, or so many other heartfelt needs. Only afterwards is it possible to bring up God’s word, perhaps by reading a Bible verse or relating a story, but always keeping in mind the fundamental message: the personal love of God who became man, who gave himself up for us, who is living and who offers us his salvation and his friendship. This message has to be shared humbly as a testimony on the part of one who is always willing to learn, in the awareness that the message is so rich and so deep that it always exceeds our grasp. At times the message can be presented directly, at times by way of a personal witness or gesture, or in a way which the Holy Spirit may suggest in that particular situation. If it seems prudent and if the circumstances are right, this fraternal and missionary encounter could end with a brief prayer related to the concerns which the person may have expressed. In this way they will have an experience of being listened to and understood; they will know that their particular situation has been placed before God, and that God’s word really speaks to their lives.
Click to expand...
This is great! But it might be more about evangelism, rather that apologetics, which is related.
Keep in mind when the Pope was an archbishop in Argentina, he was ripped by the media and political establishment as a “relic from the Middle Ages” because of his opposition to gay marriage and legalized abortion. The Pope has never failed to affirm the truth of the Catholic Faith even when it meant standing up the establishment which promotes false dogmas. So the Pope does both, evangelism and apologetics.
 
theropod said:
Anyone else able to tell when someone has read “Apologetics For Dummies” or taken a beginning apologetics course? It’s like the chimpanzees at the zoo found a box of handguns.

Books and classes should come with disclaimers that they could do more harm than good if they aren’t careful.
Click to expand...
You seem to be making a lot of presumptions with this statement. Some of which are;
  1. You are a very capable apologist.
  2. Whomever you’ve judged is not.
  3. Only those trained to dispense truth are qualified to recognize truth.
  4. Only those who adhere to the truth are those who are capable Apologists.
I would be willing to bet that you rarely admit to being wrong, your not very patient, and you find it easier to belittle a bad apologist than to reason with them.
Keep in mind this is all just a preliminary first impression and personal opinion.

May you be blessed in all endevours.
 
Randy_Carson said:
It would be much better if we let Protestants and atheists continue to go unanswered. :rolleyes:

Apologetics is an acquired skill and not everyone is suited for it, but the alternative is worse.
Click to expand...
The first sentence proves the second. Protestants and atheists? My guess is that individuals from either one of those groups won’t take kindly to being grouped together.
 
Also, and you can sometimes see it on this board, amateur apologists fall into the same pitfalls as their attackers. Amateur Catholic apologists are often guilty of ad hominems (“your church was founded by a womanizer”), appeals to authority not accepted by their opponents (The CCC teaches blah, so see, you’re wrong!"), logical fallacies such as non-sequiturs, begging the question and arguments from emotion (“well, if you’d rather be a heretic, then so be it”). Other ineffective approaches include arguments from piety (“I have faith [and you don’t]”).

Apologetics, aside from strong catechetical and Scriptural skills, requires impeccable logic as well. Reasoning is absolutely essential, and it must be bulletproof.
 
setarcos said:
Originally Posted by theropod
Anyone else able to tell when someone has read “Apologetics For Dummies” or taken a beginning apologetics course? It’s like the chimpanzees at the zoo found a box of handguns.
Click to expand...
I’m trying to figure out what the “this statement” is that you got that out of.
Click to expand...
 
Wildgraywolf said:
So far, in my experience, there are two types of people: the “average Joe” seeker and the ambushers.

Any properly catechized Catholic can easily answer the average Joe’s questions, as to the ambushers: there’s no way they’ll ever be satisfied or accept anything you have to say. It’ll probably end badly with ad hominems flying or when you discover how much you have in common with St. Nicholas. Anyway, to the ambushers I tell 'em: I’ll answer questions, but I’m not gonna debate you. Here take this copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which they never do.
Click to expand...
So there is such thing as the ambushers. I am glad you say it. 👍 I used to call this category as the guerrillas that employed guerrilla tactic. If you are the conventional army, they can really mount severe damage on you. 😛
 
I am of the belief that every Catholic should know apologetics, but not everyone can or should be an apologist. Often, knowledge of apologetics benefits the Catholic by just confirming him in his faith, leaving him less vulnerable to being snatched away.
 
steido01 said:
Randy Carson said:
Right.
Click to expand...
The first sentence proves the second. Protestants and atheists? My guess is that individuals from either one of those groups won’t take kindly to being grouped together.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe I should let you two work out the “Protestants and atheists” thing; but I think you’re missing the primary question here: Are there times when it’s better to ignore something than to respond to it?
Click to expand...
 
porthos11 said:
I am of the belief that every Catholic should know apologetics, but not everyone can or should be an apologist. Often, knowledge of apologetics benefits the Catholic by just confirming him in his faith, leaving him less vulnerable to being snatched away.
Click to expand...
True. Not every Catholic should be a outreaching, defend the Faith in public type.
But every Catholic should be able to explain, when asked, why he or she holds some Catholic belief.

On the one hand, some are much better prepared than I to explain some aspect of Catholic morality. On the other hand, my adult sons will likely never talk to those well prepared peeps. I am not the best apologist but my views hold far more weight than a stranger, for my son.

It is true I can hand my son a book or website, and I do so at times. But he usually won’t bother to follow up. If I have his attention now, for 5 minutes, I need to do my apologetics as best I can. Karl Keating could explain it better, but he is not in my kitchen at the moment, and my son’s attention span is, well…

Again, I think the dangers of occasionally over enthusiastic or pushy apologists are far outweighed by the vast majority of Catholics who are silent.
 
To the OP: same reason baseball players who get called up from the minors don’t start breaking records immediately. It takes time and experience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top