I don't keep up with the dynamics of Rome's defenders... however, these comments from a former staff apologist at Catholic Answers caught my attention. She writes about the method of excessive information that some apologists utilize when making their arguments:
From the way a lot of Catholic apologists present evidence for the arguments they make, you’d think they have either facts or precedent on their side. A cursory skim of their materials will turn up a lot of references to Scripture, canon law, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. When I did apologetics reviews during my years as a professional apologist, I always knew I could safely allow my eyes to glaze over and read on autopilot when I got to the huge chunks of quotations from the Bible, the Church Fathers, and papal documents.
Why? Because apologists who used this method of arguing were not actually trying to persuade anyone to accept their conclusions. Rather, they were engaging in an information dump, intended to overwhelm audiences into accepting Catholic teaching on the sheer volume of evidence presented.
Occasionally, these information dumps backfired. Once, I was tasked with providing an alternative viewpoint to an essay that had “gone viral” on social media, igniting a firestorm of outrage at the position the author defended. When I dug into the piece, fact-checking its references, I was amused to note that the author had cited the Catechism incorrectly, and I took full advantage of that oversight in my rejoinder.
When apologists rely on information dumps to persuade their listeners, it’s all too easy for them to get lost in the weeds they’ve sown.
When I first began interacting with Rome's defenders, this method was often utilized in their presentations of Martin Luther or the Reformation. I remember specifically dealing with webpages that were filled with excessive despariging citations of either Luther or secondary sources buttressing their negative evaluations. An interesting facet of these webpages was that often the material was pulled entirely from secondary sources... "Luther said x or y..." (in English) then a reference to either a German or Latin source was provided (if at all), and in some instances, the actual secondary source was given. Perhaps the most egregious webpage I have ever encountered is Luther, Exposing the Myth. I spent quite a while looking up every quote and every reference (my results found here). It was obvious many of Rome's defenders did not actually read the contexts of the works they were citing.
This ex-Catholic Answers apologist makes a good point: some apologists use excessive information dumps intended to overwhelm a reader into accepting their arguments. I would only add that while Rome's defenders are often guilty of this, I've seen the same method utilized on both sides of the Tiber. In a weird twist of irony, recently I came across someone on my side of the Tiber doing a "Luther was awful" information dump... and then was informed the content was cut-and-pasted from a Roman Catholic website!
Granted, I suspect I have engaged in information dumps from time to time. However, I say the majority of what I've posted over the years is simply untangling the mess that Rome's defenders make with historical data. Looking up all the references they spew out takes much time, energy, and sometimes... money.
I suspect this former staff apologist from Catholic Answers is still Roman Catholic (her comments cited above are now over two years old). I do though appreciate her candor in evaluating those on her own side.
Posts
