Ask an Apologist subforum

jamada · #1 Jul 1, '09, 4:03 am

I understand and accept that the panel "Ask an Apologist" is meant as a place for short and informative answers given by the staff and that no comments are allowed there. Nevertheless, since one cannot express her or his opinion there, one easily gets the (hopefully wrong) impression that these answers are supposed to be infallible and dogmatic. Most certainly, they are not. Therefore, I think that each of them should include a link to a thread open for discussion.

**Forum Admin** · #2 Jul 1, '09, 9:59 am

Feel free to start a discussion thread on any AAA "answer" that you do not understand or with which you disagree.

In general, the Apologetics forum is a good place to do so.

jamada · #3 Jul 1, '09, 12:42 pm

Sure.

But my point was that it would be very nice to have a link from any answer to one well defined discussion thread associated with it. Which basically means that after posting the answer, the apologist (not the reader) would open an associated discussion thread in, say, Apologetics, and then would edit the answer, adding the link to it. This would encourage discussion, show to any visitor that the posted solutions may be questioned / strengthened / further explored, make alternatives more easily available (also to criticism), etc.

dnar · #4 Nov 10, '09, 9:19 pm

Scrolling through the hundreds of already answered questions to read is annoying. I think if you stopped answering the same question over and over and over, it would be better.

jamada · #5 Nov 11, '09, 2:32 am

Well, I think that (1) the need to answer the same question again and again may indicate, that the question was not really answered, and (2) having the discussion organized, with links going out from the relevant "Ask an Apologist" article to the discussion threads, would keep the readers better informed. Moreover: at the moment, I personally refrain from any remarks simply because I see no point in spending time to comment on an important issue only for the comment to disappear in a minute among posts to which no link from the outside world exists.

quettandil · #6 Jul 16, '11, 2:25 am

I think Jamada's suggestion is a good one. Ideally the discussion thread would be created automatically and the link to it automatically added to the apologist's answer—that is, it would not require the apologist (who has little enough time available to read and answer the question in the first place) to take an additional positive action to enable the comment thread to exist.

But would that be contrary to CAF's reasons for not allowing replies on AAA?

**Dale_M** · #7 Jul 16, '11, 3:19 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by quettandil

I think Jamada's suggestion is a good one.

I disagree. The purpose of the AAA forum is to provide reliable answers which are in the mainstream of Catholic teaching.

If anyone disagrees with a AAA answer, they are free to start a discussion thread. But to automatically start such threads would call into question whether any of the answers are reliable.

If someone accepts the reliability of the staff apologists at Catholic Answers, fine. If someone doesn't accept their reliability, that too is fine. But the former doesn't need an additional discussion thread.

quettandil · #8 Jul 22, '11, 12:18 pm

"Reliable" means only that they are well trained and exercise due diligence to ensure that what they say in their answers is consistent with the Magisterium. They deserve great respect for that, yes, but it doesn't guarantee that their answers will meet all the questioners' points or even address the main question being asked. I've seen errors of that sort in advice forums in all media, from newspapers to the radio to the Internet. If AAA were immune, it would be a miracle.

**Dale_M** · #9 Jul 22, '11, 12:54 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by quettandil

"Reliable" means only that they are well trained and exercise due diligence to ensure that what they say in their answers is consistent with the Magisterium. They deserve great respect for that, yes, but it doesn't guarantee that their answers will meet all the questioners' points or even address the main question being asked. I've seen errors of that sort in advice forums in all media, from newspapers to the radio to the Internet. If AAA were immune, it would be a miracle.

Well, sure. The apologists are human, like the rest of us, and can make mistakes.

If someone disagrees with the what an apologist says, that person is free to start a discussion thread about it. I've never done so, however once when someone cited a AAA opinion in an existing thread, I disagreed with the advice and explained why.

sojo · #10 Jul 28, '11, 11:39 am

oooh! I just now found this sub-forum. So sorry if this is not the right place but....

I was interested to see a question asked and answered in the top of the board "Ask an Apologist" -- I was disappointed to see the answer was two links and a remark that if those links don't help to ask an CAF person directly.

The two links, the only answer to the question, were to books to be purchased on Amazon. It came across as, 'if you want an answer to that buy these books.'

Perhaps in their haste the CAF apologist just clicked on two past links but it came across as a real brush-off.

Its one thing to link to a long thread that really hashes out a situation or opinion, but to ONLY link to two "you gotta pay to know" answers??? That wasn't so cool.

I appreciate the time and energy the apologists put into their work, but just wanted to point that out. At the time I thought of alerting the apologist, but then I felt badly for them as they were probably just in a rush.

**Dale_M** · #11 Jul 28, '11, 1:13 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by sojo

I was interested to see a question asked and answered in the top of the board "Ask an Apologist" -- I was disappointed to see the answer was two links and a remark that if those links don't help to ask an CAF person directly.

Who wrote the answer you are referring to? I am wondering if it was a staff apologist, or if it was a docent. The docent's job is to direct people to resources which already exist on the website, which might explain the two links instead of a direct answer.

**puzzleannie** · #12 Jul 28, '11, 1:17 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by dnar

Scrolling through the hundreds of already answered questions to read is annoying. I think if you stopped answering the same question over and over and over, it would be better.

the fact that people still ask the same questions is the reason docents were selected to gather all those past answers in one convenient thread, and have to keep posting those answers. If they did not answer all the new questions they would be accused of ignoring those new posters

the best idea is to introduce a thread on apologetics or the appropriate forum, referencing the AAA thread you want to discuss, and go for it.

please take time to look at the site contact information, since many times the answer invites you to contact the apologist directly, which you can do outside the forums

waterbrook · #13 Jul 28, '11, 2:53 pm

The apologist thread is only boring and repetative to those who are long standing, regular visitors. For those who call in with a genuine and pressing concern and have no idea of past threads an answer is appropriate. There are some apologists who never seem to answer a question, merely post links to other threads, which sometimes whilst relating to the topic do not actually address the key point of the question, to me this sometimes seems like a lack of courtesy and a bit of a brush off. I agree that the way that the forum works gives the impression that the answer is authoritative.

**Dale_M** · #14 Jul 28, '11, 3:13 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterbrook

There are some apologists who never seem to answer a question, merely post links to other threads, which sometimes whilst relating to the topic do not actually address the key point of the question, to me this sometimes seems like a lack of courtesy and a bit of a brush off.

Could you provide an example? I wonder if you are confusing the answers of a docent, with those of the apologists.

**Therese Martin** · #15 Jul 28, '11, 3:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterbrook

The apologist thread is only boring and repetative to those who are long standing, regular visitors. For those who call in with a genuine and pressing concern and have no idea of past threads an answer is appropriate.

The apologists do the best they can to answer new questions, but the queue is filled with a lot of repetitive questions. We strongly recommend that those who have genuine, pressing concerns take the time to use the search engine in the AAA forum to see if their question has already been answered. They are also welcome to contact Catholic Answers directly if their question is not answered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterbrook

There are some apologists who never seem to answer a question, merely post links to other threads, which sometimes whilst relating to the topic do not actually address the key point of the question, to me this sometimes seems like a lack of courtesy and a bit of a brush off.

You are probably thinking of the docents, who are not apologists but volunteers who find links to previously-asked questions for some of the inquirers who asked some of the repetitive questions. The intention is to help in some small way to answer a few more of the questions in the queue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterbrook

I agree that the way that the forum works gives the impression that the answer is authoritative.

The original answers given by Catholic Answers staff apologists are only intended to be authoritative insofar as those apologists "speak with the Church's voice" (e.g., citing documents, applying principles). Where they are offering opinion or recommendation, the apologists are careful to flag it as such.