✝ Catholic Treasury Network
Home ›Tracts›Apologetics›Catholic Apologetics
T.J. WalsheApologeticsChapter 1

Catholic Apologetics

Section I.—First Principles

Chapter I.—Catholic Apologetics

The word “Apologetic” is derived from the Greek “ἀπολογία” which means “defence.” Hence the expression “Catholic Apologetics” implies the defence of Catholic belief. An apologetical treatise may confine itself to the setting forth of the rational grounds which are the bases of Christianity—such as the witness of reason to the existence of God, to the endowments of man and to the relations between God and man, concluding with a general defence of Divine Revelation. In the development of such an Apologetic an opportunity is given whereby the assured conclusions of the various sciences which bear upon the origin of man and upon the history of the earth which he inhabits receive especial attention. But an Apologetic which proposes for its specific object the defence of Revelation continues to make use of reason, but reason sub directione fidei as its main instrument, presupposes the truths of Natural Religion already established, and proceeds to the detailed and philosophical exposition of the nature, possibility, necessity and cognoscibility of Divine Revelation as set forth by the Catholic Church “pillar and ground of the truth.” Thus the formal object or aim of a treatise on Catholic Apologetics is the philosophical defence of Divine and Supernatural Revelation, and is the logical sequel to the Principles of Christian Apologetics. The relation of such a treatise to the science of Theology may be briefly stated. The subject matter of Theology—i.e., its formal object—is God as supernaturally revealed, and as the treatise in question defends by reason the nature, possibility, necessity and cognoscibility of the supernatural knowledge thus revealed, it is clear that “Catholic Apologetics” form a fundamental and integral portion of Sacred Theology. But the development of this subject does not cover the whole field of Fundamental Theology. Note the following divisions:—

And if the question be asked what are the theological loci, they are set forth in the following chart:—

From which divisions the conclusion is clear that Fundamental Theology is a science (“the knowledge of things through their causes”) of wide extent, and one which entails varied and accurate scholarship.

“Catholic Apologetics” may be simply defined as “the rational defence of Divine Revelation.” This defence is made by reason “under the direction of Divine Faith.” Not indeed that a Catholic Apologist may use Faith to enforce reason and reason to establish Faith, but he chooses under the direction of Faith the special rational arguments put forward to defend Revelation, and develops their probative force wholly by means of the light of reason. Regarding the necessity of such a treatise, as the fact of Revelation is not immediately evident to us, we need the establishment of its truths because of their intrinsic value, and because of the momentous consequences for time and eternity which follow therefrom.

The division of the subject matter usually followed by Catholic Apologists is as follows:—

I. Theoretical Part (against Philosophical Rationalism).

(a) Possibility of Revelation.

(b) Congruity and necessity of Revelation.

(c) Cognoscibility of Revelation from certain signs.

II. Positive Part (against Biblical Rationalism).

(a) Historical testimony of Christ regarding His Divine mission and regarding the institution of the Church.

(b) Confirmation of this testimony drawn from

(1) Satisfaction of human aspirations afforded by the teaching of Divine Revelation.

(2) Sublimity of the doctrine revealed.

(3) Marvellous life of the Church.

(c) Confirmation of this testimony by miracles and prophecy.

(d) Comparison of Christianity with Mosaic and other religions.

(e) Consequent obligation of accepting Divine Revelation.

Enumeration of the chief divisions of this treatise shews that Catholic Apologetics is not a subject specifically distinct from Theology. As Père Gardeil reminds us, just as Metaphysics has its epistemology (criteriology) whereby the objective character of knowledge is established, so Theology has its supernatural epistemology—i.e., Apologetics—demonstrating the truth of Divine Revelation. Regarding its attitude to other sciences, Apologetics presupposes the truths of Metaphysics, Natural Theology, Psychology, and Cosmology; the truth also of the history and exegesis of Holy Scripture—not of course as a work divinely inspired. Inspiration of the Bible can be proved only by the decision of an infallible authority.

The foregoing division of the subject is suggested by the constitution de fide catholica of the Vatican Council. In quoting the decisions of Councils we wish the student to understand that such quotations are given because they are authoritative declarations of Catholic doctrine. Needless to say that in a treatise, which appeals to reason alone, conciliar definitions (though infallible from another point of view) are outside the argumentative scope contemplated in this work. The Vatican Council under titles “Revelation” and “Faith” suggests the division of the subject matter: 1. Possibility of Revelation and its congruity (D. 1801).1 2. The Council asserts the cognoscibility of the fact of Revelation, i.e., credibility of the mysteries of Faith and the validity of the motives of credibility (D. 1811, 1812, 1813). 3. The Council defends the freedom of the supernatural act of Faith and its irrevocability when once acquired (D. 1814, 1815), thus declaring the existence of Revelation to be proved from miracles historically certain. Here is an instance of what is meant by argumentation sub directione fidei. The order of this treatise will be that suggested by the Vatican Council, viz., possibility, cognoscibility and existence of Revelation so that two great errors may be confuted—philosophical rationalism which denies the possibility of revelation, and biblical rationalism which explains away the miracles of the Gospel. The Church is not content with indicating the true method to be followed, but condemns erroneous methods:—

  1. Method of the Early Protestants who, whilst accepting Revelation confirmed by miracles, denied the infallibility of the Church.

  2. Method of Liberal Protestantism which accepts only truths conformable to the aspirations of the religious sense.

  3. Method of Modernism.

Pius X in his Encyclical Pascendi condemns:

(1) The foundation of Modernistic method, i.e., Agnosticism and the doctrine of Immanence.

(2) The method of historical interpretation which Agnostics affect.

(3) The method of Immanence.

The cardinal doctrine of Agnosticism is that human knowledge is knowledge only of phenomena. The law of causality is resolved into a mere succession of antecedent and consequent, and knowledge of the existence of God which depends on the law of causality cannot be established.

Modernists claim that there is a mysterious unknown element in Christianity—a hidden element—which constitutes the object of Faith, i.e., of religious experience. Dogmatic teaching should be subject to correction, because the truths and logic of life are different from the truths and logic of reason. According to Hegel, even the principle of contradiction is only a law of logic and not a law of reality. The method of Immanence which presupposes in human nature an exigency for the Supernatural is condemned. Two claims are made by advocates of the doctrine of Immanence:—

(a) Mutability of dogmatic teaching.

(b) Subjection of Faith to Science.

As an instance of supposed change of dogmatic teaching the two concepts of God as Judge and Father are mentioned. As a change of teaching due to the advance of science, Modernists assert that the original conception of the personality of Christ was that of “rational substance consubstantial with the Father,” whereas psychologists nowadays place the essence of personality in self-consciousness. The vivid consciousness which Christ possessed of dependence on the Father constituted His sonship and divinity!

Having indicated the method of procedure in the development of this Apologetic it will be instructive to investigate if the said method is “scientific.” The logical processes of induction and deduction are both necessary in the pursuit of truth. Advance from the complex to the simple is accomplished by Induction or Analysis. For example: water (H₂O) is by analysis resolved into simpler constituents, hydrogen and oxygen. On the other hand, hydrogen and oxygen unite in definite proportions of volume and weight to form water—a fact which illustrates synthesis. Again, Sir Isaac Newton recognised in the fall of an apple a complex phenomenon. It was one of many such phenomena. And by the study of numerous such instances he evolved the simple law of Gravitation—simple inasmuch as it links together innumerable instances of a similar kind, and reveals them as subject to the same natural tendency, however mysterious in itself the nature of the tendency remains. Induction and analysis are thus cognate processes; deduction and synthesis are similarly correlated. Perhaps the very best example of the combination of induction and deduction in scientific discovery is shewn in the history of observations of the planet Mars in its revolutions round the sun. From a certain number of observations (right ascensions and declinations), i.e., from a certain enumeration of instances, a hypothetical orbit was assumed. Herein is the inductive or analytic process—the advance from the complex to the simple. From the hypothetical orbit thus assumed the position of Mars at some future time was calculated and predicted. This is a striking instance of deduction. If the predicted position was found to agree with the real one, strong confirmation would be obtained of the truth of the hypothesis. But if, as really happened, there was a divergence, then the astronomer began a new and more numerous set of observations, i.e., a better enumeration of instances, and formed a second hypothesis based upon the wider experience. In this way, after many attempts and many failures, the orbit of Mars was discovered to be not circular but elliptical.

The science of Catholic Apologetics is based upon the true scientific method. There is in the first place a searching analysis of:

(1) The true notion of Mystery and Revelation,

(2) The exact idea of Credibility,

(3) The validity of the motives of Credibility.

To shew the necessity of this analysis, compare in the following table the findings of Catholic theologians compared with those of the Modernistic school.

Catholic TeachingModernistic Teaching
1. Mysteries of Faith are supernatural.1. Mysteries of Faith are not supernatural.
2. Divine Revelation is external.2. Divine Revelation is immanent.
3. The motive of Faith is the authority of God.3. The motive of Faith is the religious sense.
4. Mysteries are to be believed because revealed by God.4. Mysteries are to be believed because they are conformable to human aspirations.
5. The motives of credibility are chiefly external.5. The motives of credibility are chiefly internal.
6. Religion is divine and supernatural.6. Religion is human and natural.

It is clear that a searching analysis of the mysteries of Divine Revelation is necessary, inasmuch as divergencies of opinion are so great. Perhaps the greatness of the divergency is not an unmixed evil, for “error is more dangerous the more of truth it uses for the commendation of itself.” The idealistic rationalism of Kant and Hegel is more insidious than materialism.

The synthetic part of Apologetics sets out from the existence of Divine Revelation proposed by Christ and by the Church, and shews that such Revelation exhibits true notions of mystery, has legitimate claims on human credibility because supported by valid rational motives; that in fact the truths proposed for belief realise, and more than realise, the ideal which previous analytic examination desiderated.

Thus the method of proof adopted by approved Catholic Apologists is analytico-synthetic and corresponds, as far as difference of the subject-matter allows, with the method which has been so fruitful in the advancement of physical science.

In physical science, experience is the supreme test, the supreme motive of credibility. It is essential for the enumeration of instances; it is likewise essential for the verification or otherwise of results which follow from hypothetical inference. In Apologetics, motives of credibility are both external and internal. Here too experience is necessary, whether it be the experience of the senses or the mental experience of various emotions. The following table gives an enumeration of the motives of credibility:—

The probative force of these motives, singly or in combination, will be considered subsequently. It will be sufficient at this stage if we point out how consistent has been the appeal to these motives from the time of Moses to the present day.

Notes

Footnotes

  1. References are to Denzinger’s tenth edition. ↩