Should apologists be certified by bishops?

[Bartolome_Casas]

It seems like anyone can call themselves a Catholic “apologist” these days.

Many have no formal education that is relevant to accurately communication information about the Faith to people.

I don’t mean to say that formal education is necessary. But it seems like someone authority should put people through some formal testing and perhaps an interview before they are allowed to call themselves a Catholic apologist.

It seems like Catholic apologists need to be accountable to someone, and under the supervision of some in the Church hierarchy.

No on is allowed to act as a lawyer without a law license from a state bar licensing organization.

The Catholic Church even has a canon law requiring certain theologians to get a certification from the local bishop before they can act in a teaching role.

The only people allowed by canon law to give homilies in parishes during mass are ordained priests, ordained priests, or ordained bishops or popes. Yet, self-proclaimed “apologists” give something very similar to homilies on the radio and on the Internet every day, and it seems that most of them are not priests, have have no degrees in theology or Church history from colleges or seminaries.

In short, if Catholic apologists are not certified by Catholic authorities,** how can anyone be confident that they are getting the true teachings** of the Catholic faith?

For example, I believe that many self-proclaimed Catholic “apologists” down play or completely ignore Catholic ecumenism, despite how the Second Vatican Council, and Blessed John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI, put it at the very center of the mission of the Church today.

What do you think? Do we need a certifying process for anyone calling themselves a Catholic “apologist”?

 

[1ke]

What makes you think the Church has no process in place?

 

[Safia]

What makes you think the Church has no process in place?

I have the same question.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Many dioceses now have pastoral training programs for their lay ministers which may include a course on apologetics.

 

[vera_dicere]

Given some of the behaviour and “teachings” we see from some of our Bishops, I think the least of our worries as a Church is officially unqualified apologists.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

What makes you think the Church has no process in place?

My belief that the Catholic Church has no process for the regulation of people calling themselves Catholic “apologists” is based on several facts:

(1) When I hear “apologists” on the radio, I never hear them mention any certification in apologetics from any bishops, diocese, or institution of the Vatican. If they had any such certification, surely they would mention it.

(2) The **Code of Canon Law **of the Catholic Church, as far as I can tell, has no provision relating to the regulation of people calling themselves an "apologist.

The Code of Canon Law does have provisions relating the the regulation of any Catholic calling themselves a “catechist.” Here is one provision:

Can. 780 Local ordinaries are to take care that catechists are duly prepared to fulfill their function properly, namely, that continuing formation is made available to them, that they understand the doctrine of the Church appropriately, and that they learn in theory and in practice the methods proper to the teaching disciplines.

When the current Code of Canon Law was issued in 1983, the rise of the Catholic Apologists had not occurred yet. That might explain why the Code of Canon Law does not address them.

Given the rise of the unofficial “office” of the “apologist” in recent years in the Catholic Church, and given that for some people today get most of their information about the Catholic Church not from priests, deacons, bishops, catechists, or theologians, but from largely untrained, self-appointed “apologists,” I hope that it will not be too long before bishops take action to prevent anyone calling themselves a Catholic “apologist” unless their expertise has been certified by some office of a Catholic bishop or Catholic university, and unless they keep their knowledge updated with regular Continuing Education.

In wonder if some “apologists” are unaware of certain teachings of the bishops, the popes, ad the Councils. Particularly, I have in mind the Church’s teachings on **Ecumenism **(which were central to the papacy of Blessed John Paul II, and are also central to the papacy of Benedict XVI), and some of the Church teachings on Social Doctrine (in support of the Minimum Wage, Labor Unions, the Just War Theory, universal health care organized with the help of the secular government, environmental regulations on business activities, etc.). I’ve heard many statements by self appointed Catholic “apologists” which I didn’t think were fully accurate statements of what the true Magisterium teaches.

For the good of the Church, I hope there will soon come a time when Catholics and non-Catholics alike can have more assurance that the education they are receiving from Catholic Apologists is an education in the complete and authentic teachings of the Holy Catholic Church. After all, the welfare of souls is at stake!

By calling them “self appointed” apologists, I don’t mean to denigrate them. **But what else can they be called? ** In most cases that I know of, no official agency or bishop of the Catholic Church has granted them the title of “apologist,” and they do no seem to have an particular accountability to any bishop or agency. They’ve just given the title to themselves, as far as I can see.

I think we all agree that if any lay Catholic started calling themselves “Deacon Dan” or “Friar Phil” or** “Brother Bart”** or “Professor Pete”, and the we learned that these didn’t in fact have any special official or status in the Church, we’d all be concerned about who we were dealing with.

 

[1ke]

If they had any such certification, surely they would mention it.

That is an assumption, not a fact.

The **Code of Canon Law **of the Catholic Church, as far as I can tell, has no provision relating to the regulation of people calling themselves an "apologist.

Individual Catholics have a right to apostolic action of their own undertaking, which does not require a degree or credential. However, apostolates must have the consent of the competent ecclesial authority to use the name “Catholic”. Catholic Answer, Catholic Answer Radio, EWTN, etc, have permission to operate from the bishop in the diocese in which they are located.

Can. 216 Since they participate in the mission of the Church, all the Christian faithful have the right to promote or sustain apostolic action even by their own undertakings, according to their own state and condition. Nevertheless, no undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.

When the current Code of Canon Law was issued in 1983, the rise of the Catholic Apologists had not occurred yet. That might explain why the Code of Canon Law does not address them.

Tell that to Frank Sheed.

And, you are mistaken, the Church does address it. Canon 216.

Given the rise of the unofficial “office” of the “apologist” in recent years in the Catholic Church,

Apologist is not an office. However, apologetics is an obligation by virtue of your baptism.

In most cases that I know of, no official agency or bishop of the Catholic Church has granted them the title of “apologist,”

That is because it is not a title. It is every person’s baptismal call, echoing St. Peter’s admonition (1 Peter 3:15).

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

That is an assumption, not a fact.

Individual Catholics have a right to apostolic action of their own undertaking, which does not require a degree or credential. However, apostolates must have the consent of the competent ecclesial authority to use the name “Catholic”. Catholic Answer, Catholic Answer Radio, EWTN, etc, have permission to operate from the bishop in the diocese in which they are located.

Can. 216 Since they participate in the mission of the Church, all the Christian faithful have the right to promote or sustain apostolic action even by their own undertakings, according to their own state and condition. Nevertheless, no undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.

Tell that to Frank Sheed.

And, you are mistaken, the Church does address it. Canon 216.

Apologist is not an office. However, apologetics is an obligation by virtue of your baptism.

That is because it is not a title. It is every person’s baptismal call, echoing St. Peter’s admonition (1 Peter 3:15).

You have provided a good defense (“apologia”) of the present state of affairs regarding the immense popularity of Catholic “apologists” on the radio and the Internet.

I would accept your defense and grant you the point, and move on, if there was in place some way to have more confidence that people calling themselves Catholic “apologists” were trained, certified, and supervised by Church authorities.

A couple years ago I emailed a verified quote from then Cardinal Ratzinger to a popular Catholic radio “apologist,” in order to show what I thought was an error he made in an answer to a caller, and he dismissed it with this exact statement to me:

*"**I don’t get bogged down in the minucia *- I just preach the fullness of the Catholic faith at all times and everywhere and lift up the name of JESUS and I will leave the rest to HIM."

**Isn’t it odd **that there is bishop oversight and training requirement for anyone who wishes to call themselves “catechist,” but no such requirement for those call themselves “apologist.”

If the canon you mention, Canon 216, gives an adequate authorization to lay apologists, why doesn’t it likewise give an lay catechists?

Instead, Canon Law has a rather stringent requirement for lay catechists. It is as follow:

Can. 780 Local ordinaries are to take care that catechists are duly prepared to fulfill their function properly, namely, that **continuing formation **is made available to them, that they understand the doctrine of the Church appropriately,…

Since that is needed for catechists, why not apologists?

Given the reach of radio and the Internet, I assume more people are learning from apologists than from catechists, at least in the USA.

If I were a popular apologist, I would WANT a certification from a Catholic bishop or university or seminary, so that my listeners could have confidence that they can base their earthly life and eternal salvation on what I am saying.

I would think that apologists themselves would be at the forefront of an effort to get “certification” or “accreditation” from Catholic bishops.

Would anyone want their law case handled by a self-appointed “lawyer,” or their serious illness treated by a self-appointed “doctor,” or their finances handed by a self-appointed “accountant”?

Does not the logic of this carry over to the current widespread mass medial phenomenon of the Catholic “apologist”?

 

[1ke]

You have provided a good defense (“apologia”) of the present state of affairs regarding the immense popularity of Catholic “apologists” on the radio and the Internet.

I would accept your defense and grant you the point, and move on, if there was in place some way to have more confidence that people calling themselves Catholic “apologists” were trained, certified, and supervised by Church authorities.

The lay faithful are not required to have credentials to evangelize, it is our mission by virtue of our baptism.

A couple years ago I emailed a verified quote from then Cardinal Ratzinger to a popular Catholic radio “apologist,” in order to show what I thought was an error he made in an answer to a caller, and he dismissed it with this exact statement to me:

*"**I don’t get bogged down in the minucia ***- I just preach the fullness of the Catholic faith at all times and everywhere and lift up the name of JESUS and I will leave the rest to HIM."

Sounds like a personal problem to me. Let it go.

**Isn’t it odd **that there is bishop oversight and training requirement for anyone who wishes to call themselves “catechist,” but no such requirement for those call themselves “apologist.”

That is because they are commissioned in an official capacity under the authority of the Bishop in his diocese. Lay faithful on the street are not.

If the canon you mention, Canon 216, gives an adequate authorization to lay apologists, why doesn’t it likewise give an lay catechists?

Catechists teach in an official capacity under the commission and authority of the bishop.

Since that is needed for catechists, why not apologists?

Because they aren’t commissioned by their bishop. Apologists are just you and me explaining to people why we believe what we believe to the best of our ablity. Sometimes we do a good job, sometimes we don’t.

If I were a popular apologist, I would WANT a certification from a Catholic bishop or university or seminary, so that my listeners could have confidence that they can based their life on what I am saying.

I would think that apologists themselves would be at the forefront of an effort to get “certification” or “accreditation” from Catholic bishops.

If they are employed by a Catholic apostolate, then they are under the authority of the bishop who approved the apostolate.

Does not the logic of this carry over to the current widespread mass medial phenomenon of the Catholic “apologist”?

I think you have a pesonal problem with a particular person and it is clouding your judgment.

The Church does not require a credential for baptized Catholics to spread the faith. It’s what we do. Educated or not.

The Churc, OTOH, does have a process for authorizing those organizations that want to use the name Catholic or be known as a Catholic organization. They report to the Bishop.