1

Listen
Restate the uestion
Is it True?
Is it Wrong?
Find an Exception.
What about...
What are the Consequences?
So what?
Authority and Credibility
Says who?
Yes. No.
Claim expert status
and correct the objector
as one with superior
knowledge.
Yes.
Admit it.
Te Church does not
condone sin nor are
Catholics any worse
because they belong
to the Church.
No.
Apologetics Scheme
2
Apologetics Questions
Michael Hamilton
First of let me state something that you already know. When you meet a Non-catholic and start to talk
about Faith or Morals, you must trust that what you are saying is what the Non-catholic needs to hear.
God has a Divine Providence that guides all of us. When you meet a Non-catholic it is not by accident.
What you say to the Non-catholic is exactly what God wanted that person to hear. You should always
keep this in mind as a frst principle. Even if you feel that you failed, even if the Non-catholic walks away
seemingly unanswered, it is quite otherwise. Gods Truth has a power of its own. Even if you present it in
an imperfect manner, the force of the Gods Truth and its consequences will be passed on to the degree
that God has ordained. Everything that is not in your power you must leave to Gods Providence. What
is in your power is to sharpen your skills in apologetics and to be personally more convincing in your
arguments. In this way you become a better instrument for God to use to convert sinners.
Te very frst goal in teaching apologetics is to give you the proper mindset for success. You all know
enough about your faith to give a good explanation but apologetics calls for diferent tactics than you may
be used to. Te frst thing you must realize, and this can be very difcult for practicing Catholics, is that
other people are not like you. You have made an act of will to accept the truth no matter where it leads
or what follows. Committed Non-catholics have made a similar act of will; however theirs is to commit
themselves to sin and steer themselves as far from truth as they can. Truth leads to a guilty conscience,
to discomfort, to a crisis of morals. Tey do not want to face this reality. Tey do not think like you do.
Tey do not behave like you do. Tey do not practice the virtues you do. Tey do not value what you
do. Failing to recognize this fact will stunt you apologetic eforts. Apologetics is used to combat sinners
and heretics, not people who are simply uninformed but of good will. Non-catholics see everything of
value diferently than you do. Consider this statement, Te Pope defned Indulgences as an Infallible
doctrine of the Church. All of you understood what I just said. We, that is, practicing Catholics, all
have a common language. Te Non-catholic however, has a diferent language. To us the words: Pope,
Indulgences, Infallible, doctrine and Church, all mean something very specifc. To the Protestant, all of
these words mean something entirely diferent. Never assume that they know what a Catholic
doctrine is or isnt just because they use a Catholic word. Even if you feel that you yourself are a
very lowly person and the Non-catholic you meet is an educated man, a doctor, a physicist, etc, YOU are
the one with the superior knowledge. Do not be intimidated by Non-catholic intellectuals. With this in
mind let me play a conversation between a Catholic and a Non-catholic. Tis is a typical conversation
with a Catholic who does not know apologetics. It may sound familiar to you.
3
*{begin with a heated, shifing argument that the Catholic loses}*
Te goal of this talk is to give you a simple, easy to remember tool that will help you to defend the Faith.
I am going to teach you a technique of Apologetics. I will present my practical advice in 3 parts. Te
frst part will be some general knowledge, some apologetic philosophy or a good Catholic way to look
at things, the second will be the practical part in which I will give you a very simple technique based
around some very short easy to remember question that will help you. In the last part, we shall practice
our newly learned skill by listening to non-Catholics and then react to them properly.
Part 1:
We are going to learn together a technique of Apologetics, as I said. But what is Apologetics? Apologetics
is the skill or art of defending the Faith. It is also the skill or art of defending the truth. Tere are books
you can buy that have the title Apologetics, however, they are a bit misleading. Tey are great books
of information and flled with proofs and evidences for what we believe. However, apologetics is the
defense of the faith, not the explanation of it. In order to defend the faith, the faith must be attacked.
Explaining the faith is more an act of evangelism than defense. Another thing lacking in these books are
practical techniques. Tese books supply the ammunition but do not tell you how to conduct yourself
in the battle. Tese books tell you why Catholicism is right but do not tell you why Protestantism, say, is
wrong. Tey are worth while reading but they are very limited in the feld that they advertise that they
cover.
Now, I would like to disabuse you of a prejudice that has been engrained into your mind. It is so deep
in some of you that you may never get over it, but with Gods grace and my words hopefully you will.
You have been taught that you should assume people are of good-will and are honest until they prove
otherwise. We tend to respect where people are in their faith journey. And if we see they are in error
about Gods doctrines, rather than attribute this to bad will, we attribute it to ignorance. We have this
mental block that people are mostly good. Tat people are honest. Tat most folks have good will. Tis,
however, is NOT the case. It is Our Lord who says that most people walk the broad path to destruction
and few even fnd the narrow path to eternal life. Jacinta at Fatima was shown a vision of Hell and she
said she saw souls falling into it like snowfakes. Another saint says the number of the saved is as the
grapes lef over in the vineyard afer the grape pickers have passed through. Te conclusion is that people
really do go to Hell. As a matter of fact a great number of people go to or are going to Hell. What I
am trying to say is that when you meet that non-catholic that does attack the faith, KEEP AN OPEN
4
MIND. Maybe they are ignorant, but most likely they are of bad-will. You must try and determine this.
Do not automatically assume that your opponent is being honest, is a good person, is being truthful, etc.
It may NOT be the case, in fact it probably isnt the case at all, but because of our respect everybody
mentality handed down to us since birth, we fail to recognize bad people when we meet them. Consider
this fact. How many abortions have been committed in this country? Over 50 million. When women
have an abortion, they are not shipped of into some other country. Tey live among us. Yes, there are
thousands, even millions of murderers living among us. So, your frst bit of apologetic advice is to try
to determine the good or bad will of your opponent and not to assume they are of good will or merely
ignorant.
So, the frst skill in any efort worth undertaking is listening. Consider these 2 comments from non-
catholics and see if you hear a distinct diference.
You are wrong to exalt the pope to a god like status. Tis is against the Bible.
Why do you Catholics give titles to the Pope like Holy Father, titles that belong to God alone?
Te frst statement is an attack and may indicates bad will, not because of the subject matter, but because
it is an accusation made without knowing the facts. Te second was a question. It seemed like an attack
and maybe it was but at least the non-catholic had the charity to pose a question, which allows for a
response, rather than than a direct condemnation.
At this point let me play a video from youtube and ask you to try to determine whether the speaker
has good or bad will. As you listen, try to come up with answers to his questions in your mind. Listen
carefully to WHAT he is actually saying, the actual words he is using and not what you think he is saying.
In other words, do NOT read between the lines. Take what he says at face value and try to formulate an
answer. Listen (Audio: Youtube video, Te Catholic Church: Where Satan Lives! Supplement 2-16)
Now let me give you one more piece of advice before moving on to the practical presentation. Apologetics
is the systematic defense of the faith. Apologetics is NOT the systematic explanation of the faith.
Defending and presenting are 2 separate activities. Please pay attention to Jesus: Cast not your pearls
before swine nor give what is holy to dogs. Jesus tells you NOT to give what is holy to dogs. NOT to cast
your pearls before swine. You will also recall that Jesus did not answer every question asked Him. Tere
were times when the swine and dogs of His day, namely the Pharisees, came and asked Him questions
5
and made accusations. Jesus responded not by saying, Oh, youre just ignorant, if you will just listen to
me I can straighten this whole thing out. rather, he answers either in parables or not at all. He did not
give what was holy to dogs. We must not either. Tis is why you need to determine the good or bad will
of your non-catholic. If he is of good-will, by all means, explain the faith to him, if he is of bad will, you
are obligated not to, lest your explanations be more fodder for the evil mans blasphemies and hatred.
So how do you determine whether they have good will or not? Ask them questions. Suppose they say
something like, How can you follow the Pope, a mere man who claims to speak for God? Is this an
attack on the faith? It might be. It might not be. Follow up with a question to fnd out. Ask, Would
you like me to explain why we do this? If they say yes, they may still have bad will, more information
is needed but if they say no,that they do not want to hear the answer, then this is the defnition of bad
will. Asking a question about Gods Church and not wanting to hear the answer is defnitely bad will. It
is dishonest.
Again, we are not teaching the Faith in apologetics. We are, like the defense attorney, trying to get a not
guilty verdict. To do this, rather than make statements about the Faith, you ask questions. Questions are
your tools in apologetics and I will tell you the questions worth asking and when to ask them. Questions
help to expose error and prevent yourself from throwing your pearls before swine. It helps to determine
the good or bad will of the objector. Questions are for apologetics, statements are for evangelism.
In order to have any apologetic efort, there must be an attack on some aspect of the Faith. To determine
this, you must listen. Listen to what the non-catholic says. You can not get into their heads and know
what they are thinking. You have to deal with what they say. When you hear an attack or objection, you
ask a question and DO NOT make a statement. You remember that statements are NOT for apologetics,
not at frst at least. Statements in apologetics must be saved for the punch-line. Tey will be an efective
tool at the end of your efort, at the end of the string of questions you will ask. Again, you can not
know what someone is thinking, you can only go by the words that they use, therefore, when you hear
an objection, it is best to restate the objection so that you have it very clear what is being said. But you
make this restatement in the form of a question. I suggest you start your question with: Are you saying
that...? and then add the restatement of the objection. Here is an example:
P (Protestant): Your church is wrong because you teach that the Pope is infallible, but the Bible says that
all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, it also says that no man is perfect.
6
Now your natural Catholic reaction is to clear up the obvious error that our friend is making. You might
want to say something like:
C (Catholic): I think you have the word infallible confused. When we say the Pope is infallible, we do
not mean that he is perfect or sinless, we simply mean that God sometimes, in very limited circumstances,
allows the Pope to make statements of truth about religious and moral issues.
You must NOT do this. Since we have not determined whether the man is of good will or not, we should
NOT throw our pearls before potential swine. Restate his position and go from there, such as:
Are you saying that we Catholic teach that the Pope is sinless and perfect?
or...Are you saying that infallibility is the same as sinlessness?
I hope you see the diference. either way we are getting to the point but the question allows us to examine
the objector more and gather information about him. If he IS of bad will and did not really know what
infallibility was, you would have missed a golden opportunity to expose this fact rather than give him
more fodder for his blasphemies. So Listen and restate the objection using the Are you saying that...
model. It happens frequently that the objection has many parts and is complex. Your restatement helps
to focus the issue and bring it to a conclusion.
A person of bad will has a huge emotional commitment to his beliefs. He, like any of us when we
commit sin, gives in to his lower nature. He allows his passions and emotions to guide him. In the
case of the person of bad will, he forces, unnaturally, his intellect to accept what his passions desire. He
forces himself to believe and profess what is bad as good. He, therefore, does NOT want to hear logical
arguments that could prove him wrong. He does not want his ignorance either exposed or cured. He
will then, make things as difcult for you as he can. He will avoid answering questions, he will divert the
conversation to irrelevant topics, he will make ad hominem attacks against you personally, against the
church, our Lord, Mary, the saints, etc. He will do everything to stop you from bringing the conversation
to a conclusion that shows that he is in any way in error. Please be aware of this.
Now for the practical questions that will help you to deal with attacks or objections to the faith. Tese
questions are to be asked by you to yourself and if needed, out loud to your opponent. Please remember
that we are Catholics in Gods true Church. We do not need to resort to slimy lawyer tactics or dishonesty
7
to win. Be completely honest at all times. Be transparent; admit your techniques when asked. Openly
show what you are doing. Defending Gods honor is useless if you resort to dishonesty. On the other
hand, do feel free to pull technicalities or split hairs. You know that the Popes and councils very
carefully select the most appropriate technical terms in their defnitions in order to be perfectly accurate.
Te words used in dogmatic defnitions are very precise and do NOT have double meanings and are
NOT ever fgurative. Tey are exact and mean exactly what they say. Since these are the only things we
defend in apologetics, you must use the same standards. So being technical is NOT being dishonest.
Te frst question: You hear an attack on some aspect of our Faith or morals and you determine that
there is someone who may beneft from you defending the faith. You frst listen to the objection, even
restating it to make it more clear and then ask yourself:
IS IT TRUE?
What you are trying to determine is whether the claim made against us is true or not. You must
understand that Protestants, for the most part, do not learn about Catholicism by means of the Summa
of St. Tomas. Tey learn from their pastors, Prot radio, and Prot books. Tese sources, not having any
authority, frequently get things wrong. Tey ofen get things wrong about people like you and me on
purpose. Tis is called lying.
So, they level an attack, you ask, is this true? Is what he is accusing us of really true. Do we actually do or
believe what he says we do? If the answer is no, then your task is very simple. Between you and the non-
catholic, YOU are the expert on Catholicism...not him. All you need do is claim this status and correct
him. No matter how vehemently they insist on the point, if it is NOT true, then state your superior
authority and correct them dogmatically.
I illustrate: (audio #4)
P:You catholics have it so easy, all you do is give your money to a priest and presto! you get your indulgence
and no more sin.
C: Im sorry, Im not clear on what youre saying. Are you saying that we catholics can buy indulgences?
P: yes, you slide the money over, just like the middle ages and there ya go!
C:Well, it is your lucky day, I am a knowledgeable Catholic and have studied this very subject so let me
correct you in all brotherly charity and say that the church does not sell indulgences. You cannot buy an
8
indulgence. I know that is not what you have been told but I am here to tell you that it is not true.
P:Sure it is, my preacher just told us about it a few weeks ago. You sell indulgences and you worship
statues. How can you call yourself a christian and worship a statue, a false idol?
C:I would be happy to deal with statues as soon as we fnish talking about indulgences, so getting back
to that, since you brought it up, I will tell you again, that you can not buy an indulgence. I am the expert
on Catholicism here and i am telling you that it is not true.
P: Well what about your idols?
C:If you will agree with me and accept the fact that we do not sell indulgences, Id be happy to talk about
our use of statues...
But what if the accusation IS true? What do you do then? Ten you move to the second question.
IS IT WRONG?
What you are trying to determine with this question is whether what we are accused of doing is sinful or
not. If they are accusing us of something and it IS wrong of us to do it, then admit it. Again, be totally
honest and transparent. If we are doing something wrong, it is, by defnition, NOT something the
Church teaches us to do. For instance, as we heard in the video, Your Church is full of priests who are
pedophiles. Is this true? To some extent, certainly not full of them. Is it wrong? It sure is. Is it a Church
teaching? It is NOT. It is a horrible blight on our Church to have such predators in our parishes. But it
is a reality, so let us not deny it, but put it in its proper perspective. Does this make our Church wrong
because we have sinners? Does or Church ofcial teach that priest should be pedophiles? Is there some
mechanism in the Church, some defect, that makes our priests pedophiles? Let me draw a distinction for
you. God is perfect. Te Church God established is perfect. Tat is to say that its structure, sacraments,
prayers, etc are perfect. Te men within the Church are NOT perfect. Our Church is full of sinners.
We do not defend individual Catholics committing individual sins. We defend that which is perfect,
that which God gave us. So again, if they are merely pointing out that certain Catholics sin, admit it, be
honest. It is true, but so what? Is his church any diferent? Are there no sinners in his church? Are the
boy scouts any diferent? Are school teachers and coaches any diferent? What he is really accusing us of
is being HUMAN, of having a fallen nature. Tis is not as a result of the Catholic Church, this is simply
a state common to all men.
(audio #6)
P:I could never become a catholic. Te priest down the street is an alcoholic and I even heard he was
fooling around with some women in the parish. I cant belong to a church that condones that sort of
9
thing.
C:Are you saying that the Church teaches that its priests should become alcoholics and womanizers?
P:no, of course not.
C:then what are you saying?
P:I just couldnt belong to a church like that.
C:Well, Im not sure about the priest you are referring to but you do understand that the Church ofcially
condemns sins like gluttony and fornication and does not promote those sins among its members.
P: well, yeah, thats true...
C: then what is the REAL reason you wont become a Catholic?
So to recap, you hear the objection, restate the objection, ask the 1st question, Is it true if so, ask the
2nd question, Is it wrong.
But what if he is accusing us of something that is not wrong? Again, as we heard, Jesus said to call no
man father, yet we do call priests father as well as the Pope, the Holy Father. Now what do we do? I will
give you 3 ways to handle this and I have assigned 3 questions to help you remember them. You may use
any of these 3 ways or any combination of them. First, let me remind you again that since our Church
is perfect, having our perfect God as its creator, any accusation made against us that is true but is not
wrong must have an answer.
Exceptions: What about...?
Te frst way to deal with this is to fnd an exception to the charge. What you are doing is to show that his
attack is not a general principle but a peculiar circumstance that may have more than one way of looking
at things. He has determined that there is only one way to see things. When you fnd an exception to his
accusation you open the door to other possible interpretations that he has not considered, thus redering
a not-guilty verdict. You may ask the question starting with: what about...?
Again let us illustrate this so you see how this works. (audio #8)
P:You Catholics are not Christians because Jesus said to call no man father, yet you Catholics go against
this teaching by calling your priests and even the Pope, father.
C:Let me see if I understand what you are saying, are you saying that when Christ said to call no man
father He meant this literally, that the word father used in any other context than of God is sinful and
deserves punishment?
10
P:All I know is that you do what Jesus says not to do.
C:Yes I heard you and I asked a question to help clarify what specifcally you are objecting to so let me ask
again, are you saying that when Christ said to call no man father He meant this literally, that the word
father used in any other context than of God is sinful and deserves punishment?
P:Dont put words in my mouth!
C: Im sorry, I am trying to understand the meaning behind what you are saying, this is why I asked a
simple yes or no question. I am not accusing you of anything at this point, I am simply asking what your
belief is, so I w ill ask again, are you saying that when Christ said to call no man father He meant this
literally, that the word father used in any other context than of God is sinful and deserves punishment?
P:Tis seems like some sort of trap.
C: Well it is not, it is a simple request for information, I am asking you to be more specifc about the
charge you leveled against my Church. And even if this was a trap, wont God hold you up with His
truth? If you are defending God, what should you be afraid of ? I ask again: are you saying that when
Christ said to call no man father He meant this literally, that the word father used in any other context
than of God is sinful and deserves punishment?
P:Yes, so what?
C:What if there was an example of a Christian in the Bible who called men father afer Our Lords
command not to? Wouldnt you have to retract your accusation?
P:No because Rome is the whore of Babylon!
C:Tank you for trying to change the subject. Let me back up, you agreed that when Our Lord said to
call no man father that meant that the word father used in any other context except for God was sinful
so I am asking you that if I can show you an example of a real Biblical Christian using the word father
for people other than God you would have to retract this one objection at least. You may have other
objections, but this one will not be valid, right?
P: Oh, I have plenty of objections!
C: very well, no problem, we can deal with them as soon as we fnish with this objection of yours. If I can
show you an example will you retract that one objection?
P:Sure, but there is no such proof.
C:Alright, please open your Bible to Acts chapter 7. You will fnd an account of St. Stephen, the frst
Christian martyr witnessing to the jews and elders. In this one chapter alone he uses the word father
over a dozen times referring to Abraham as his father and calling the ancients and elders of the synagogue
father. His reward for witnessing to the jews was that he was stoned to death and he saw the heavens
open up for him. Stephen was not punished for what you are accusing us of, therefore, Christs command
must not be literal but fgurative. Can we agree on that?
11
I hope you are getting the feeling of how this works. He put forth a general principle and we showed the
principle to be in error by fnding an exception to the rule. Tis same argument could also be dealt with
in or next technique:
Consequences: So What?
Te second way to deal with this is to determine the consequences. Tere is a very strong prejudice to
not think about people actually going to Hell, about actually stating that people go to hell. Tis can be
used to your advantage. In essence you are asking what happens to a person if they do exactly what we are
accused of doing. What are the consequences? What is the punishment for doing what we are accused
of. If there is no punishment, then it is NOT wrong. If there is no punishment then God either approves
of the action or just doesnt care. Lets illustrate this so you can see how it works. (audio #10)
P:You Catholics are not Christians because Jesus said to call no man father, yet you Catholics go against
this teaching by calling your priests and even the Pope, father.
C:Let me see if I understand what you are saying, are you saying that a person who calls a priest father
just once in his whole lifetime but otherwise lives a good Christian life will go and sufer in the eternal
painful fres of Hell because of this one thing alone?
P:Well, its against Gods commandments!
C:What if a man calls another man father while acting in a Shakespearean play? Does he go to Hell for
being an actor?
P:Now your being silly.
C:If this commandment of Gods is literal and there are no exceptions then you would have to say say
yes, right?
P:Acting is diferent.
C:What if a 7 year old boy calls his dad father just once. Are you saying that little 7 year old boy goes to
Hell for all eternity for that one thing?
P:Of course not.
C:What if he does it twice?
P:Tis is getting ridiculous.
C:Ten you tell me, how many times will it take little 7 year old Timmy to be sent to Hell for violating
this commandment? What about 100 times?
P:A 100 times? Yes!
C: so he goes to Hell if he does it 100 times but not if he does it once. Please show me in the Bible where
12
you got this from?
Authority: Says who?
Yes, we all agree that God is the supreme authority, and we Catholics acknowledge an authority on
earth, that of the Church headed by the Pope. Te non-Catholic has NO authority to rely on. Tey will
claim that the Bible is their authority. Te Bible was translated by fallible men who, even with the best
of intention, can get their translations wrong. Te Bible is proof read and printed by fallible men, who,
again, even with the best of intentions, could make mistakes. Te Bible, without an authoritative Church
to preserve and interpret it infallibly, is useless as an authority. As proof, I do not need to point out the
thousands of people who have read and read this book and come to drastically diferent conclusions as
to what it means, thus spawning a ridiculous number of prot Churches, all professing to have and teach
the truth and yet never agreeing with each other on even the most basic doctrines. So, If they make
an accusation that is true and is not wrong, then they can only say it is wrong on their own authority
and not the Bible. Tis is the 3rd and last way to defeat the attack. Namely, attacking the objectors
credibility. You must understand that the non-catholic says he believes the Bible to be infallible and that
no man, including the Pope can be infallible. Use this to your advantage. Ask him to show you the exact
chapter and verse that his objection comes from. Since there is none, we conclude that the non-catholic
and NOT the bible or God is making the accusation. Since the non-catholic is not infallible, he can be
wrong! Let us illustrate this: (audio #12)
P:You Catholics are not Christians because Jesus said to call no man father, yet you Catholics go against
this teaching by calling your priests and even the Pope, father.
C:Let me see if I understand what you are saying, are you saying that when Our Lord gave this command
he meant it literally and not fguratively?
P:He meant what He said!
C:Yes, of course He meant what HE said, what I am asking is if YOU know what He meant. I ask again,
are you saying that when Our Lord gave this command he meant it literally and not fguratively?
P:Of course its literal. He meant it literally.
C: You would agree that at times Our Lord did speak fguratively such as when he said if your hand
scandalize thee, cut it of. He didnt really want Christians going around cutting of their hands, He said
this to emphasize a point. You agree He sometimes speaks fguratively?
P:Sure, sometimes, but not in this case.
C: How do you know He is not speaking fguratively in this case? Who says that this verse is fgurative
and this isnt.
13
P: Its the context. If you read it in context, it is obvious it is meant literally.
C:but there is no infallible footnote that says, this verse is literal right?
P:of course not.
C: so then YOU are concluding that this verse is to be taken literally?
P:Yes, its in the context. Its so obvious.
C:Are you infallible?
P:No of course not, no man is infallible.
C:Ten your reading into the context of this verse is not infallible and could be wrong, correct?
P:Just like you could be wrong!
C:Tank you for NOT answering the question, I ask again, your reading into the context of this verse is
not infallible and could be wrong, correct?
P:Im not infallible and neither are you!
C:Fine, since your accusation of my Church is based on your reading of the context, and you are not
infallible when you read into contexts, then your conclusions could also be wrong.
Please feel free to use the word infallible rather than a phrase like are you guaranteed to be correct
without any possibility of error? Again, there is a prejudice among non-catholics for all things Catholic.
Infallibility is a catholic word. Asking them to ally themselves with a Catholic term is something they
will not do.
You will also notice that in none of our conversations did we win. We didnt make any instant converts,
nor did we actually get the attacker to admit his attack was wrong, unfair or unfounded or that he was
being dishonest. Despite the lack of these admissions, with the use of this technique, we made the point
nevertheless. We forced the issue to a conclusion. We can never force the non-Catholic to accept truth
as we can not violate his free will but with God and His truth on our side, and NOT his, we can vindicate
God and His Church.
Let me restate the scheme we have learned and put it together in simple language:
1. LISTEN to the non-catholic when they talk about religious matters. Pay attention to the words they
use and do not read into their words. If an attack or false claim is made, try to determine their good or
bad will if possible.
2. Since most statements, even objections can come in complex multi-part statements, REPHRASE the
objection to make it clear what is being said. Are you saying that...?
3. Once you know what the objection is, ask yourself: IS IT TRUE? If it is NOT, you assume the
position of the Catholic authority and pronounce the truth, not explaining it, merely pronouncing it. If
14
it IS true then
4. Ask yourself, IS IT WRONG? If it is, admit it and point out that it is neither a teaching of the
Church, nor a result of being a member of the Church. We do not defend sin.
5. If the accusation is true but it not wrong you my deal with the objection in one or more of the following
ways:
a. Find and EXCEPTION What about...?
b. Determine the CONSEQUENCES So what?
c. expose the CREDIBILITY of the objector. Says who?
Break/ questions on the technique only/ move onto the youtube vid and practice.
Some extra points:
Although, in the end of the conversations, I did not win, that is to say, my opponent did not change
his position and accept the truth, we still brought the conversation to a logical conclusion. We can not
force the will of another to be good or to accept what is true, all we can do is to show the man his errors
in hopes that at some point in his life his heart will cease being hardened against God and His truth. If
he reaches that point, he will not be ignorant but will know what to do and where to go.
All apologetics is removing the veneer of objections the non-catholic uses to shield his immoralities. I
remind you of Our Lady of Fatimas words, that people go to Hell because of sins of the fesh more than
any other reason. She did not say that heresy was the main problem. Heresy, or refusing to believe truth,
is merely a symptom of an immoral person. Consider the beneft of heresy. Tere is none. Why would
a person, who knows the truth, purposely choose and publicly proclaim the opposite? It is personal
sin. As I said, it is the unnatural bending of the intellect, which knows the truth, to the will embroiled
in sin. Heresy is a cover-up. No one says, the catholic Church is bad because it teaches that I have to
stop cheating on my wife. No one says that, what they will say is, I cant in good conscience belong
to a Church that elevates a mere human like Mary to a God-like status. Tis is idolatry and is thus
condemned by the Bible, especially in the greek septuagint in verse 24 which states... So the goal of
apologetics is to strip away this veneer and get to the real issue which is a moral one and not a doctrinal
one. Tis requires humility. Stripping down all of the non-catholics arguments, if they have good will,
will leave them with nothing but the truth staring them in the face which is, the Catholic Church IS the
only Church established by God Himself. Tis is a fact. So why stay out of it and why attack what God
has made? Again, all apologetics is removing the veneer of objections the non-catholic uses to shield his
immoralities.
15
Final comment:
It is my experience that most Non-catholics are so committed to not hearing the truth, not listening to a
real plea for conversion that they will stop the conversation at the restatement phase at the beginning.
Just by asking for clarifcation on their attack of a truth of Catholicism shows them that you are not only
willing to fght for the Faith but that you are actually capable of doing so. Tis is frightening for them.
Tey know within themselves what their conscience is telling them. Tey do not want to be in that most
uncomfortable position of exposing their errors and sins for examination. Tis would require a degree
of humility that they are unwilling to exhibit. Simply restating their objecting in clear, unambiguous
language is enough to scare them out of a fght.