Thanks.
Seems logical that we would have a standard approach and apologist training that would be a reference for Catholics.
Good morning.
Here is the relevant passage I referred to:
‘The committed fundamentalist, who is often a former Catholic, knows the Catholic religion is wrong and thinks he can prove it from the Bible. The first step is to demonstrate to him that much of what he knows simply is not so. Emotional barriers will be overcome later, and they will fall as he realizes he has not been told the whole story. Glad-handing alone will not suffice; in fact, it is often counterproductive. The fundamentalist wants Catholics to discuss doctrines, and when they do not — when when they deliberately shy away from even trying — he concludes their doctrinal beliefs are groundless, and the indictment against Rome seems rock solid.
‘Although it is essential to treat fundamentalists with respect and love (especially difficult for those too quick with jabs, whether verbal or pugilistic), that is hardly sufficient and will resolve no confusions and produce no converts. Fundamentalists must be approached on the level of doctrine, which means making biblical (but also historical and other) arguments. It has been on the level of doctrine that the fundamentalist challenge to the Church has found its power. This power lies not in the objective truth of the fundamentalist position, which is a mixture of truth and error, but in fundamentalism’s insistence that truth really matters, that one’s salvation depends on accepting God’s truth in its entirety, in all its consequences. People find this intellectually challenging and immensely attractive — and not just attractive, but compelling, for who says A must say B.
‘If Catholics expect to answer fundamentalism, they will have to answer it not just with charity – necessary, although hardly sufficient – but with doctrine. They will have to appeal not just to the heart but to the intellect. After all, it is the truth that sets us free.’
I hope this helps.
