The Early Church was well practiced in the art of apologizing, not because they were sorry for their beliefs, but because they were sorry that everyone else had not come to accept the truth. The most famous of apologies came from the pen of St. Justin Martyr, a philosopher saint, who wrote two famous defenses of the Catholic faith to the Roman Emperors. Ever since then, the field of apologetics has proven invaluable to the spreading of the Faith. With the re-emergence of Paganism and the stark division within Christianity between Catholics and Protestants, the need is especially acute in our time. But in order for it to be effective, there is a need to properly understand how it should be applied.
The battle between the Sexual Revolution and the Church has dealt a blow that, if not for Divine protection, would have been fatal for the Church. The attack came from both without and within, but was successful mainly because the Church lost the battle of public opinion. In other words, it was a failure of apologetics. This failure came about not because of silence, at least initially, but because she was speaking another language.
Using the Arms of the Adversary
As an example, take the battle over gay marriage. The best public defense that many Christians could offer was based on the Bible. It failed miserably, not because it wasn’t true, but because it wasn’t believable. Even the Church says things like “the Church teaches…” rather than “it is true because …” These arguments from authority, even if they are true, are the weakest of all arguments. That is because they only work when the two parties accept the same authority. Contrast this approach with that of St. Justin Martyr. In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, he limited his discussion only to non-disputed books of what would become the Old Testament. Most Jews did not accept certain books that the Christians did and, so, St. Justin did not use those books in his argument.
The awareness that successful apologetics rests upon shared authority prompted St. Thomas in the first question of the Summa Theologiae to formulate a rule of discourse:
Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation; thus we can argue with heretics from texts in Holy Writ, and against those who deny one article of faith, we can argue from another. If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections — if he has any — against faith. Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered.
(ST I, q.1 art.8)
For non-Catholic Christians, we can use Sacred Scripture, but only the books they accept. Likewise, because of the unity of the Faith, we can argue from one accepted article of faith to another. But for those who do not accept divine revelation, we cannot simply use the Bible as many are apt to do. Instead we must limit ourselves to using either reason alone to either answer their arguments or to prove those truths which, although revealed, are also discoverable through human reason (like God’s existence and attributes and most of the moral law).
From Common Authority
It is important to also emphasize that just because we limit ourselves to the arms of the adversary does not mean that the Bible is not true nor that we don’t believe it. Instead it is an admission that the person we are dialoguing with does not accept the same authority structure that we do. To obstinately cling to using that authority is to fail in the goal of leading the person to the truth. In fact, by arguing from their accepted authority you can often lend credibility to the truth of Divine revelation by showing how it leads to the same conclusion. Truth cannot contradict truth and so we should not be surprised that when we argue from true premises we often come to the same conclusion.
What also cannot be forgotten, although it often is, is the fact that faith in divine revelation is a gift that cannot be obtained via argument or discussion. The best that can be hoped for is to lend motives of credibility for the truth, that is, to remove the impediments that keep them from receiving that gift.
If reason cannot demonstrate faith and truth cannot contradict truth then there is a flip side as well. Any proof that claims to disprove the Faith is a mere sophistry. There is at least one error in the logic of the argument. We may not be able to prove the truth of the Faith, but because the truth cannot be divided, we can answer every objection using reason alone. This principle is what motivated St. Thomas to write the Summa Contra Gentiles.
This principle is well-known by the spirit of the world. That is why Nietzsche said that one should not attack Christianity based on its truth, but based on it livability. A moment’s reflection leads one to see that this is the way in which the Faith is most often attacked today. This is why we must be prepared to demonstrate its livability by our actions as well as through our words. In a culture obsessed with license masquerading as freedom, we must be prepared to show what true freedom looks like. True apologetics, then, will include both argument and demonstration, appealing to both intellect and will.
.