|
|
|
KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER
TOPICS:
TIME TO JUNK THE NEW APOLOGETICS?
Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:
In the 1960s, after South Vietnam had been undergoing a less-than-peaceful
change of government every week or so, there came a period of stability. One
magazine took notice and ran this headline: "No Coups Is Good Noups."
You know the feeling. It's nice to take a breather from the fuss and fury.
It's nice to have no one saying silly things that need to be responded to.
It's nice to relax, kick back, and think that, even if only for a moment,
all's well with the world.
And then "America" magazine arrives in your mailbox ...
OUT WITH THE NEW, IN WITH THE NEWER
The February 2 issue of "America" features an article titled "Do We Need a
New(er) Apologetics?" The writer is Richard R. Gaillardetz, professor of
Catholic studies at the University of Toledo.
The article caught my attention because I'm mentioned in it twice, once in
passing (in a listing of other "so-called new apologists") and once in
criticism. I'll get to the criticism in a moment. First let me give an
overview of the article.
Gaillardetz--whom I otherwise never heard of--begins by saying he wants to
look at the strengths and weaknesses of the "new apologetics," and then he
wants to "propose five characteristics of an alternative [that is,
"new(er)"] apologetics that would be more consonant with the teaching of the
Second Vatican Council and the needs of the church."
Among the strengths of the new apologists he lists "their obvious enthusiasm
and passion for their faith." They are able to convey these in their public
presentations. The "new apologists are not afraid to talk of doctrine," and,
when they do so, it is "out of a deep-seated conviction that Catholic
Christian doctrine is meaningful, relevant, and communicates the truth of
God's loving plan for humankind."
The new apologists also "have responded effectively to Protestant
fundamentalist attacks on the Catholic faith." They know that most Catholics
are ill-educated in their religion and need help to fend off these attacks.
"These apologists are often quite successful in exposing Protestant
fundamentalist caricatures of Catholic belief."
Lastly, "one cannot help but be impressed with the new apologists'
sophisticated use of modern communications technology and the Internet."
(Hmmm. I wonder if he's thinking of my E-Letter?) "They have been remarkably
successful in making their reading of Roman Catholicism accessible to
millions of people today."
NOW FOR THE COMPLAINTS
So much for the compliments. Let's turn to the dark side of the new
apologetics.
The new apologists, say Gaillardetz, are little better than the
Fundamentalists they oppose because they use the Fundamentalist technique of
prooftexting. What makes this worse is that the new apologists assume "an
overly propositional view of revelation."
This, supposedly, is contrary to Vatican II, which "presented divine
revelation as nothing less than the self-communication of God." This
self-communication is not so much through propositions (defined beliefs) as
through the person of Jesus Christ.
The new apologists, because of their propositional approach, end up giving
false weight to magisterial pronouncements. They give too much authority to
"non-dogmatic church teaching."
Another problem is that they "encourage a neo-triumphalism that can
undermine ecumenical endeavors." This is seen especially in conversion
stories, which leave people with the idea that everyone ought to become a
Catholic.
Still another problem--and this is where I come back into the picture--is
"the ahistorical presentation of the Catholic faith." My book "Catholicism
and Fundamentalism" "is far too reluctant to acknowledge the historical
difficulties with some traditional Catholic claims regarding the origin of
the papacy (e.g., that Peter functioned as a residential 'bishop of Rome')."
There are other criticisms of the new apologists, but you get the drift.
I NEVER THOUGHT OF RICHARD McBRIEN AS AN APOLOGIST
We need a newer form of apologetics, Gaillardetz says. It will have five
points.
First, it will be "passionate and positive." He has in mind the writing of
such folks as Monika Hellwig, Thomas Rausch, and Richard McBrien. I can see
the "passion" in their writings (Rausch was rather passionate when he gave a
speech against me some years ago!), and certainly they are "positive" in
what they write--but, so often, what they write is positively wrong.
When was the last time that Richard McBrien's moral theology correlated with
that taught by the Catholic Church? When did Monika Hellwig write that women
cannot and should not be ordained? When did Thomas Rausch acknowledge that
his method of teaching theology did not result in converts? (Come to think
of it, he said exactly that in his speech.)
Gaillardetz gives, as his second chief point, that the newer apologetics
should be "dialogical." This suggests that the new apologetics has not been.
That will be news to the thousands of Protestants and non-believers who have
been in dialogue with Catholic apologists during the last two decades.
I think Gaillardetz is looking for a particular kind of dialogue: the
exchange of opinions that does not lead to one party adopting the other
party's beliefs. If both parties ended up on the same side of the religious
divide, what would there be left to dialogue about? The "process" would
disappear.
The new apologists see things differently. They dialogue for a purpose: to
bring others to the truth of the Catholic faith. Their goal is intellectual
and spiritual union, with the process being only a means toward an end.
This segues into Gaillardetz's third point, that the newer apologetics will
be "ecumenical." Vatican II rejected the "ecumenism of return," he says, so
what we need is a "self-critical approach to ecumenical dialogue." Catholics
can learn from non-Catholics and should be happy to do so.
Well, yes, there are things we can learn--and things we already have
learned. But all the post-Vatican II papal writings on ecumenism point to
the ultimate goal, which is personal and corporate reunion. They do not say,
"Let's talk with Protestants and be happy if they end up being better
Protestants. That's all we should seek." No, that's not all we should seek,
according to the popes from John XXIII to John Paul II.
As his fourth mark of the newer apologetics, Gaillardetz says that
apologetics must be "historically responsible." There should be an awareness
that "some beliefs and practices simply lost their authority over time."
He points to slavery as something that, supposedly, the Church once endorsed
(she didn't--she just said it should be put up with), and he mistakenly
thinks Catholic teaching on usury has changed (wrong again--what changed was
the role of money in the economy).
Lastly, the newer apologetics must be "culturally engaged." "The effective
apologist would look to political events, the visual arts, music, fiction,
theater, and film with an expectation that they will encounter there the
drama of human salvation and, for those with eyes to see, intimations of the
divine."
WHERE IS THE APOLOGETICS IN THE NEWER APOLOGETICS?
Gaillardetz ends up with a newer apologetics that doesn't look like the new
apologetics or the old apologetics or any form of apologetics--because it
isn't apologetics. What it is is an apology for theological dissent and
liberal culture.
The very word "apology" means an explanation or a defense. Gaillardetz
doesn't seem interested in either. He seems interested in accommodating the
soon-to-be has-beens of the Catholic Church in America. He is writing to
please a dying constituency: theologically liberal Catholics.
As an ironic coincidence, the last paragraphs of his article share a page
with a cartoon. The setting is Washington, D.C. A man with a
briefcase--presumably a politician--encounters an extraterrestrial, who says
to him, "Take me to your pollsters."
Politicians spin their convictions to mirror those of their constituents.
Gaillardetz has spun apologetics to mirror the beliefs of the average reader
of "America." That average reader is not interested in real apologetics
because there is so much of the Catholic faith that he himself rejects. Who
defends a set of beliefs when he thinks many of them are wrong?
Real apologetics always will be done by people who believe the Catholic
faith is true and is worth sharing in its entirety. Those who are
uncomfortable with that will talk about different forms of apologetics, but
they really mean non-apologetics.
Their goal is not to explain and defend the faith but to refashion it to
their own image and likeness. This means there will be a perpetual divide
between them and the real apologists.
But--who knows?--maybe the real apologists can dialogue with them!
|
|
|
Catholic Answers
Index
Prior issue
Next issue
Sign up