I try to keep up with some of the fallen heroes of Catholic apologetics. Ten to fifteen years ago, it wouldn’t be so uncommon to find the men below put forth as Rome’s best defenders.
I take 44 cents out Gerry Matatics’ pocket every so often. I’m on his mailing list, so the mailman brings me his newsletter. His most recent newsletter explains that his position is not a compromise with “the liberalism and modernism that has swept over the Catholic world in the last 50 years,” and he offers a new set of recordings to prove it.
He then states,
So called “mainstream traditionalist” publications like The Latin Mass magazine, The Remnant, The Fatima Crusader, Catholic Family News, and groups such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, The Institute of Christ the King, and even the society of St. Pius X (still unapproved by, but ever hopeful for a rapprochement with, Rome), have all fatally compromised with this modernism, as these talks demonstrate.
At this point, I’m unsure exactly who’s left in the room with Gerry. The only description that I can think of is, Gerry Matatics Contra Mundum.
Catholic Apologetics International is “a Catholic lay apostolate dedicated to the teachings of Jesus Christ preserved by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. It stands on the forefront of Catholic Apologetics, explaining Catholicism to fellow Catholics and defending it against her opponents.”
Here are some recent statements from CAI President, Robert Sungeinis.
“It’s always amazing to me how blind Catholics are to Scripture and prefer popular science to God’s inerrant word. Jimmy Akin should know better. Unfortunately, he molds Scripture to his own views and makes it teach things that it never said.” [source]
“I’m sad to see Catholic Answers and Ave Maria give what basically is an anti-Catholic position of both evolution and Genesis 1 a public platform. It seems that modern Catholics will do just about anything today to accommodate the unproven theories of evolution.”
“As for debating, I’ll debate Dr. Collins, Catholic Answers, Ave Maria, or any other Catholic who is touting the theory of evolution as fact and has the audacity to distort Genesis 1 as Collins has done. Unfortunately, when you raise this issue to the specter of a public debate, the opponents usually run and hide. But I’ll be waiting.” [source]
“The problem here is that [Mark] Shea has invented a new degree of doctrinal validity called the ‘pale of orthodoxy’ for a doctrinal issue that has no ‘pale.’ “
“I wish Mr. Shea would engage me, because it is important for the Catholic community to know the truth of this matter.”[source]
Well, so much for the unity of Rome’s apologists. Perhaps though, it can best be explained by Mr. Sungenis:
“Yes, there is quite a variety of views in the Catholic Church, but that is to be expected. There is everything from the ultra conservative to the ultra liberal, just as in most intellectual and political issues of life. But the good thing about the Catholic Church is that it has a central body that can determine the correct answer if a controversy erupts, which is the way the RCC has established its doctrines for the last 2000 years. In the end, it is what the Church OFFICIALLY teaches that is important, while the views of its liberals and conservatives may only act as an impetus for the church to study the issue more deeply in order to come to a firm and official answer. For what it’s worth, I am considered a “conservative,” although I would not classify myself in that way. Sometimes I’m traditional, sometimes conservative, and even sometimes I favor liberal ideas. For me the criterion is truth and not party affiliation.” [source]
My question of course would be, why are there still ultra conservative and ultra liberal positions within the Roman church after the church officially establishes a doctrine?
