Too many Catholic apologists; not enough Catholic evangelists?

[DeSales111]

Defending Catholicism IS defending Christianity, the original and authentic Christianity. It is in our actions, love and charity, that we evangelize. We naturally have to be apologists because of the endless lies, misunderstandings and myths against our faith. From personal experience as being a cradle Catholic I have had more Protestants try and lead me out of the Church than to actually evangelize, you see, we already know and love Jesus but the Jesus we know and love is not the Jesus of individual truths but rather the Jesus of one faith and one body.

It seems to me that the term evangelize may have different meanings from a Catholic perspective than from a Protestant perspective. We do not see it as leading someone to a one time event, aka “getting saved,” / “born again.” It is why there are many Protestant faiths sending missionaries to so call “evangelize” Catholics in countries such as Mexico. What is the Gospel of Christ??? Is it simply accepting Him as our Savior, which we Catholics do, or is it obeying His commandments, which is to love one another. Isn’t that kind of love evangelizing too?

I think the real question is…how did Jesus evangelize? How did He send the Apostles to evangelize? We Catholics have evagelized the whole world. We tell the whole world who Christ is, we are the most charitable faith on earth. We believe in repentance as every non Catholic kbows,what confession is for. We honor and love the Blessed Mother of our Savior, we love and are one with the communion of saints. We do not need more loud speakers or preachers, what this world needs is more love, more charity, more examples of the morals of Christ, and only then will there be true and authentic evangelization!

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Catholic apologists only defend Catholicism.

Well, we’re certainly not going to defend Protestantism, in view of Church history.

 

[lilypadrees]

I have, and see nothing in that post that conflicts with them. If you do, could you point it out?

Thank you. I don’t know what the words are either. Imo, there wasn’t anything worth flagging. No one was attacked. An honest opinion was expressed.

 

[Nap66]

Good point, it’s probably better to make a non believer into a believer than to make an Episcopalian into a Catholic.

True. As Protestants have told me - too many rules in Catholicism, and that’s just in the Mass. I’ve given up evangelizing for Catholicism. People just aren’t interested in having to follow rules in life. Too hard.

 

[KevinK]

How about flagging excessive flagging?

 

[ndmoharo]

I think too much focus has been made on the flagging. Let’s leave it alone and move on.

Back to the topic, I think the world is in a state where there are too many evangelists who don’t know enough about their religion. As a result, when someone challenges them or asks questions, the need for apologetics arises. Therefore, it’s actually appropriate that there are more apologists than evangelists. If you are bad at apologetics, then you might turn people away from God rather than the other way around

 

[bobperk]

There are many areas of apologetics and they are all necessary for not only defending the faith, but also evangelizing.

Apologetics has many different levels: from explaining the concept of God, explaining the Bible, explaining Christianity, explaining Catholicism, and then explaining specific issues.

If you wish to evangelize, you certainly need to have a working knowledge of the theology, proofs, reasons, etc. for all of these things. Otherwise when faced with a tough question or argument you will not have the knowledge to respond.

When trying to evangelize without study of apologetics, the faith may just come across as an emotional feeling to someone else. They may just end up thinking you are a Catholic because it makes you feel good, you were born and raised Catholic, you like the devotions, you use it as a cover for conservative views on certain issues, etc. So if you cannot intelligently respond to **why ** the Church teaches something, you might be brushed off as just superstitious, simple, or unquestioning. Additionally, Catholics unfamiliar with apologetical arguments to certain issues may themselves be easily persuaded to adopt an opinion contrary to the faith.

I will end by saying that the best way to show your love for the faith is to live it, not be hypocritical, and be a humble example to the faith for others. Not everyone will have the wherewithal or time to study many of these issues. But we live in a very argumentative society where the Church is seen as behind the times on many issues, so you are bound to face arguments even if you are not looking for one.

 

[commenter]

When I was growing up in the 1950s, there was not so much a need for apologetics. Most people knew the basic logical framework that Christianity fits into; they just needed an evangelist to encourage them to make a personal commitment right now; thus Billy Graham, Fr. Patrick Peyton, and other Catholics or Protestants. People knew the question, they needed a nudge towards the right answer.

Today we live in a different world. The Church not only has to defend Faith, but also Reason. The Church has to rebuild the whole logical framework, the context, so people understand the questions for which Christianity is the answer.

In the 1950s the Church faced mild dragons, such as materialism, selfishness, attraction to alcohol or lust. Those are fairly easy to refute. Today those dragons are still there, but we have much more powerful dragons of secular humanism, and those dragons control the media, most education systems, and most governments in the West.

Thus, the need for more apologists.

 

[Gorgias]

Flagged

This is totally against CAF rules.

People are suspended for words like those

Meh. The implication is that we all “froth at the mouth” regarding some point of doctrine or another. It’s not limited to one denomination.

 

[Gorgias]

True. As Protestants have told me - too many rules in Catholicism, and that’s just in the Mass. I’ve given up evangelizing for Catholicism. People just aren’t interested in having to follow rules in life. Too hard.

Pope Francis made the point, a couple of years back, that Catholicism isn’t about rules – it’s about accepting the grace that Christ offers and entering into a relationship with Him. No one joins an organization for the sake of the rules.

Talking about the rules only comes later, once a person understands and buys into the message. Francis makes the point that precious few (even among Catholics!) understand the message… so the time for preaching rules doesn’t come until after they learn Christ’s message in and through the Church.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

A couple of observations: It seems that everyone on this (entire) forum plays on defense, so to speak, occupied with defending Tradition, etc.

There is a lot more that is on this forum. But the part you mentioned is the result of a question and answer discussion forum aptly called Catholic Answers.

The reasons behind many of the Church’s disciplines are reasonable, and therefore the disciplines can be discussed. Some Catholic theology falls into the “mysterious” category, and therefore it also makes for interesting discussion. The Church hierarchy also adds a layer which makes discussion interesting.

All this interesting discussion can draw people in, but in and of itself, it’s probably not a great evangelization tool for most people. But I think it draws more people to the Church than it draws people to Christ.

 

[AndrewAxland]

Talking about the rules only comes later, once a person understands and buys into the message.

No offence, but the way you worded that sound less like evangelism than a shady cheap sales practice called “bait and switch”.

I know that’s not what you intended.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

In the 1950s the Church faced mild dragons, such as materialism, selfishness, attraction to alcohol or lust. Those are fairly easy to refute. Today those dragons are still there, but we have much more powerful dragons of secular humanism, and those dragons control the media, most education systems, and most governments in the West.

Is this some veiled way of saying gay marriage is harder to argue against than straight lust? Or did you mean something else by “secular humanism”?

 

[commenter]

The reasons behind many of the Church’s disciplines are reasonable, and therefore the disciplines can be discussed. Some Catholic theology falls into the “mysterious” category, and therefore it also makes for interesting discussion. The Church hierarchy also adds a layer which makes discussion interesting.

All this interesting discussion can draw people in, but in and of itself, it’s probably not a great evangelization tool for most people. But I think it draws more people to the Church than it draws people to Christ.

These kinds of discussions, if charitable and intelligent, draw more people closer to Reason. If you exercise a muscle at the gym, you are able to do more things IRL. Even if an atheist or agnostic on CAF or in real life disagrees with the conclusion to some logic expressed, they are exposed to that logic, a healthy experience. Some have entered the Catholic Faith only after an earlier process of developing intelligent refutations for it.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

In my view, Steve Ray does an excellent job defending the church AND evangelizing.

You really need both. You first have to offer people the correct understanding of the Church then explain to them why their salvation is linked to the one true church.

 

[Gorgias]

No offence, but the way you worded that sound less like evangelism than a shady cheap sales practice called “bait and switch”.

LOL!

No, it’s just that, if you want to enjoy baseball, you go to a game, enjoy the day with friends, have a hot dog and a beverage… and put off learning the ‘infield fly rule’ until later.

I know that’s not what you intended.

 

[Hereiam]

Interesting post…IMHO what is needed is not apologists but catechists (and evangelists)…Non-Catholics need evangelists, but only those who are catechists and not merely apologists. Even more Catholics need catechists before they need apologists…apologetics without catechesis is fruitless.

This may be an unfair statement, but its how I feel: Most evangelists and catechists are fulfilling their baptismal promises; too many apologists are peddling books.

Pax et bonum!

 

[Elf01]

No, it’s just that, if you want to enjoy baseball, you go to a game, enjoy the day with friends, have a hot dog and a beverage… and put off learning the ‘infield fly rule’ until later.

But we’re not the observers. We’re the players. A player may be able to play and enjoy it without knowing the rules, but they’ll be better players when they do know the rules.

However you’re right that they’ll need to enjoy playing before they will learn the rules.

 

[commenter]

Interesting post…IMHO what is needed is not apologists but catechists (and evangelists)…Non-Catholics need evangelists, but only those who are catechists and not merely apologists. Even more Catholics need catechists before they need apologists…apologetics without catechesis is fruitless.

Apologetics is not competing with catechesis, it is part of (normal) catechesis. In my Catholic education it was woven into the fabric, some in grammar school, more in high school, as well as colleges and in other Catholic communications. We had it, far more than we do now, we just did not use the word “apologetics”.

Around 1965 it was systematically ripped out, not only from Catholic schools but from almost all Catholic media. People got used to it being missing, that is the new “normal”. After a few decades some people began trying to restore it.

It is now back, but far more limited than in 1960. People act as if it is some odd innovation. The secular world, which loves to applaud Catholics who are finding their own, unique spirituality, hates the whole idea of “Catholic apologetics”. My diocesan newspaper won’t touch the subject, they are into peace and justice.

Unfortunately, because we are now dealing with people who got an incomplete catechesis, we have to give a lot of attention to that deficit. Apologists are going to be unpopular, but they are needed.

 

[Hereiam]

Until the internet age, when it could be argued it became a money grab.