If we think of apologetics as a battle in spiritual warfare, a battle for souls, then our opponents in debate are really victims of a common oppressor, folks we ought to be liberating, not conquering. Our real enemies, our common enemies, are bad reason, bias, faulty idealism, upbringing, despairing guilt, and sin. When the victims we attempt to liberate attack us, it is only because they have been convinced we are the enemy. We must use apologetics to disarm, but not to injure, and once we have done so, we must offer peace, love, and healing. This is the way in war to make allies of those you liberate. It is the same in apologetics. At the core of it all is the all too often difficult task of remembering the personhood of the person on the other side of that Internet connection.

That seems to be a problem in any war whether real or spiritual. We come up with names that “dehumanize” our adversaries.  Helps us to forget that they are human beings too. I remember that in the Viet Nam War when I was in the service we were indoctrinated to think of the south east Asians as “Gooks” or other names besides humans.  Same principal goes for other wars. In the spiritual war it seems to be no different.

As Catholics, we are still figuring out exactly how to live out our faith online. It’s a new frontier.

What’choo talkin’ ‘bout, Warner? Whether it’s the Far East, the new American continent, or the Intertubes, Catholics have always been in the vanguard of each new frontier. It’s what we do. That’s the beauty of the Catholic faith, you can apply it to anything. You don’t need to work out how to live your faith in every new frontier, you just need to work out how to get that new frontier to live the Catholic faith. And if you don’t believe me, ask Matteo Ricci someday (God willing)!

And for what it’s worth, the Internet hasn’t really been a new frontier since 1995.

The real power of evangelization and apologetics in the new media (internet) age lies in the fact that people are much more willing to discuss their faith (or lack thereof) anonymously on social networks like Twitter than they would in person. This makes it possible to reach people with the Good News of Christ that would normally be unreachable.

Scott says how to engage the new apologetic:  By forming strong friendships with Marxists, atheists, and radical feminists so you’re not just refuting arguments, you’re responding to friends.  Say what?  Unless these people are willing to change, learn, and possibly convert and indicate they are doing so then what do you expect to gain from it because there will be arguments and they won’t be too friendly unless of course you downplay Catholicism which the protestant, false ecumenism, interfaith get togethers, Novus Ordo certainly does.  Perhaps Scott should read Fr. Kramer’s excellent book, The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy,
and the Devil’s Final Battle and return to tradition which produced many, many converts using the “old” way!

Thanks to Delorosa for giving the opposing view. Tim will have to make friends with Delorosa and her ilk who do not want to make friends with his friends. A critical question for Catholics, which I think is Tim’s challenge here is; do we see the Church as having a purpose or is it something to be protected in its own right?

I believe the Church has the purpose of continuing the mission of Christ to include all mankind in God’s Salvific Act, which Christ himself performed. Once people believe that the Catholic Church is living Christ’s mission they pledge allegiance to the Church. Once this is done they can subtly forget the hard bit’s, like self sacrifice. The Church has given Christ’s mission acceptable human parameters. I mean, what kind of future does martyrdom offer? There may be no better way than the Catholic way but the challenge is to still remember the original mission and judge the Church’s progress buy it.

What are we doing to let everyone know that they are included in salvation? Do we simply say; We have found the way, come join us and leave you sinful ways behind? Has the kingdom come in the Church, or are we still getting there? The Church rejected the truth of Copernicus, and Darwin, they wouldn’t talk to Luther, they excommunicated many, who they have since accepted. If the Holy Spirit is leading them, they have to accept that they often fail to listen.

If we do not listen to the feminist, the atheist, capitalist and everybody else, how will we pick up the truth they have learned? For we believe that the Spirit speaks to every soul. God’s word is written on every heart.

If the Church is to live Christ’s mission it has to be ready to sacrifice itself, or at least its human structures, as Christ did, in love of all mankind as a sign of God’s love. These people may not know what they are doing, but we as Christians are suppose to engage with them in love. Calling them friends shouldn’t be that hard should it?

If religious people are correct in their Faith, then religious will be required not to be smug in the next life while Atheists and Agnostics will be abashed; conversely, if life ends with death, then Atheists will not be smug and it won’t worry the religious.

Thanks ! It reminds me how to deal to those people.

Have you hugged a Marxist today ?  I’m going to have to chew on this one a while.

I totally agree with Scott. To Tim, I love the Church. And the Church teaches me to love all people. Remember the story in the Bible of the woman who kept persisting in getting Jesus to respond to her pleas, by saying, “even the dogs eat the scraps from the table of the master.” How can you try and convert someone if you don’t like them? Let me tell you, a person will listen a lot better to what you have to say, when he or she knows that you love them, or at least like them. If they perceive you as an enemy, or vice-versa, they will shut right off to anything you have to say. That’s just common sense.

All of this “love” twisted logic, is enough to continue the loss of this life and the life after.

Enough already about hugging a atheist that is not our faith. You don’t argue with evil.

So far this approach has worked really well Obama is in office because Catholics “loved” him into office.

The world right now is a complete mess that “we” have made based on this crazy interpretation of Love.

Children are being raised with no Father, no Mother - abortion is beyond what any of us saw coming. The Church is bleeding members (no matter the spin), same gender marriages are soon coming to a Church near you. And you are smiling about engaging radicals and loving them in their space.  We did all of this and it does not work, smart guys - but common sense and truth trumps this - we did it, it didn’t work.

Live and fight for the culture of life. I don’t think Arch Angel Michael loved the fallen angels in their fallen state - he had a job to do and he did it - well I might add.

This intellectual love is not real.

Susie - “hugging an atheist” is not our faith? I’m not sure about hugging, but loving an atheist most certainly is.

I think you’re missing my point…and Fr. Barron’s and Dr. Hahn’s. They are ENCOURAGING us to take back the public sphere in terms of sharing the truth. They are suggesting we need to go back to how it was in the past when we engaged in this debate as a matter of priority - not as a matter of privately formed consciences.

The other point is that when we do this, we must do it out of genuine love for the other person. That means our goal must be genuine conversion, not winning an argument. And “common sense” says that such conversion comes from first establishing real relationships based on common ground with others. That doesn’t mean watering anything down or softening the Truth. That’s an important distinction.

The Magisterium encourages friendly dialogue too:
“The Church, therefore, urgees her sons to enter with prudence and charity into discussion and collaboration with members of other religions. Let Christians, while witnessing to their own faith and way of life, acknowledge, preserve and encourage the spiritual and moral truths found among non-Christians, also their social life and culture (Nostra Aetate, art. 2).”
I don’t think it gets any friendlier than authentic, Christian charity. Yes, this document is directed specifically towards non-Christian RELIGIONS, but I think it is also suitable to the battle of today against more modern movements.

When I was a pro-choice atheist, my best friend was a Catholic. He loved me through some of the ugliest years of my life. Later he attended my Christian baptism (when I was 30), was with me at the Easter Vigil Mass in which I was received into the Catholic Church (when I was 35), attended the Vigil Mass in which my husband was received into the Church (when I was 40), and is godfather to all of my children. We are still dear friends.

I believe my friend acted (as Matthew stressed above) out of “genuine love for the other person.” I am extraordinarily grateful that he never dismissed me simply because I did not, initially, share his faith. He was able to separate the person from the actions (to separate the worth of my soul from the evils of which I was guilty.) He was, in other words, Christ to me.

So, whether or not one believes this approach “works” I can say with certainty that it worked with me. Although, on second thought, “an approach that works” isn’t even the right phrase. That phrase implies a strategy and strategies are antithetical to love. We were simply friends.

Karen - that’s a very powerful story. Thank you so much for sharing it!

Thank you, Matthew—God is so good!