The Crisis Facing Catholic Apologetics

'Catholic apologists “reacting” to videos of Protestants and other Catholics, “debunking” the same; and online debates on salacious platforms and channels are more common every day.'

From Crisis

By Kennedy Hall

Sadly, I believe that Catholic apologetics and debate have been greatly degraded, at least in the popular culture, with the meteoric rise of social media influence.

Afew years ago, I stumbled upon a stack of old copies of The Chesterton Review at a parish book sale; so naturally, I bought about 20 copies. The first edition I read was an issue focusing on the question of whether G.K. Chesterton was a fascist. The first essay proposed that he was a fascist, or at least his ideas were adjacent to or in favor of fascism, and the subsequent four essays argued the opposite. I cannot recall who all the authors were, although I do remember that Joseph Pearce was one who argued that Chesterton was not, in fact, a fascist; I never forget something that I read from Pearce.

In any event, it was a splendid activity to read those essays, and I was thoroughly impressed with each writer, even if I wholeheartedly disagreed with the first essay arguing for Chestertonian fascism. It was, quite frankly, so refreshing to read a debate in that format—a format that ensured no author could be misrepresented and, because of the editing process, there was not a hint of ad hominem shenanigans, and the arguments were supremely organized. 

On another occasion, when I was fresh into my “reversion” to the Catholic Faith, I stumbled upon a series of lectures by the great Peter Kreeft wherein he explained the theology and philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. He was natural, relatable, thorough, and even entertaining. I remember the feeling of joy I had after listening to those lectures, a feeling of happiness and fulfillment that you only get when hearing the truth; perhaps something like what the apostles felt with their “hearts burning” as Jesus opened the Scriptures for them on the way to Emmaus (Luke 24:32).

Sadly, I believe that Catholic apologetics and debate have been greatly degraded, at least in the popular culture, with the meteoric rise of social media influence. A decade ago, when I first discovered the world of Catholic apologetics, even in the digital realm it seemed to me that there was decorum and class to how things were done, which I think has largely slipped away. 

Presently, the internet is filled with apologists, whatever their training may be, who seem to have adopted the methods of popular internet personalities and creators. The videos are legion. Catholic apologists “reacting” to videos of Protestants and other Catholics, “debunking” the same; and online debates on salacious platforms and channels are more common every day. I have a particular disdain for “reacting” and “debunking” because it is largely uncreative and destructing; it is much easier to tear down someone’s argument than make an argument of your own, and it takes no intellectual activity to simply talk about something someone is talking about. Of course, often, the word “debunking” means explaining the truth of a thing when it has been lied about, which can be noble; but in general, the trend annoys me.

Before I continue, I must admit that as a podcast creator I have fallen into some of these less-than-sophisticated traps in the past, and I regret doing so. Anyone who follows my work might have realized that, over the last year, I have largely changed my approach, and the majority of what I do now focuses on long-form presentations, which are more like classroom lectures or book studies.

At any rate, I do not believe the trend is positive, even if the numbers of those who engage with such content are massive; fast-food restaurants have innumerably more patrons than 5-star outfits, but it doesn’t help anyone.

There are several reasons for this trend which I believe help to explain it. First, content creation is a business, whether this is admitted or not. So, if you want to make a living doing it, you better get a lot of views/listens; advertisers aren’t going to sell their products on a small show, and YouTube won’t send you a big check unless your numbers are big. Second, even where content is not created for commercial purposes, big donors like to see that their money has not gone to waste; you cannot provide your backers with metrics on conversions and how well your viewers understand the Faith, but you can show them a graph with rising viewership and retention metrics. Third, there is a temptation for relevance, which can grip any man as we are all subject to lower passions and can be as vain as we allow ourselves to be. 

Of course, it is easy to explain all of this away for those committed to the popular paradigm of content creation. Yes, we all have to make a living; yes, we need to prove to donors—of which I have none, by the way—that their money is well spent; and, yes, it isn’t bad to be relevant per se, as someone will be relevant, so it would seem that a Catholic explaining Catholicism would be as good as anyone to have a public persona.

However, at what cost do we make these justifications? 

Are we sure that these modern content-creating apologists can keep their motives pure? What sort of living ought one make explaining the Faith? Do donors not often come with ideological strings and prejudices attached to their money? Is the temptation to vanity and celebrity resistible by the average man who cannot demonstrate heroic virtue?

Furthermore, what about the platforms themselves? Granted, I am not for a second saying Catholic apologists should not be on YouTube or the radio, for example, especially given the fact that these platforms still allow for detailed curation. However, should they be on TikTok? I have never spent much time on TikTok, given that I am a grown man and not a homosexual, but from what little I do know about the platform, it seems like avoiding near occasions of sin is basically impossible. 

I understand that it could be retorted that “Jesus spent time with sinners,” which is of course true; but He did not go into the brothel to minister to them. The closest example we have to brothel ministry would be St. Vitalis of Gaza, who paid to spend the night with prostitutes but would bring them away from the den of iniquity and preach to them the Gospel and minister to them in a holy setting.

Also, if we consider the wisdom of Marshall McLuhan—the medium is the message—how can creators avoid the pitfalls of producing videos that have to compete with compilations of cats falling off of ceiling fans? Can we really expect a well-thought-out presentation of the Faith, which will be “dry” compared to popular entertainment, to compete in that marketplace of squirrel-like attention spans? 

Quite frankly, if we are being honest, we cannot say that much of Catholic apologetic media has avoided adopting the characteristics of the popular media culture, and I think it is wrong. Again, I do not believe it is intrinsically evil to engage on certain platforms, and I do not believe there is anything wrong per se with creating media of a particular style. But it has to be done with due caution and circumspection. 

Also, we should all agree that one of the greatest obstacles to explaining the Faith to people is that the population, in general, is poorly educated in the most basic sense of the term, meaning that whatever degrees people may have, they have likely never been taught how to think the way that truly educated people should be. If we produce fast food and salacious entertainment that feeds the popular need for twaddle distractions, is anyone really being catechized? Are they not merely distracted by yet another shiny object that, in this case, happens to have a positive message rather than a useless one?

Lastly, I will say that while I do believe there must be some interaction with mass media—of course, there is—Catholic apologists and apologetic outlets should, I think, do an examination of conscience on the subject and strongly consider whether they are doing more harm than good; or in the very least, not doing the real, lasting good they could do if they stepped away from the dubious tactics required to compete in a godless realm with godless tactics that will likely produce short-lived fruits, if any.