Originally Posted by trinacria
Thank you for your clarification regarding the qualifications of an apologist and the relative differences between theologians and apologists in terms of training and depth of knowledge. Reflecting on these differences, I may in retrospect have had rather higher expectations of the forum than were warranted. That being said, it seems to me that the apologists might profitably consider responding to the more complex/controversial questions with a candid acknowledgment of their limitations and referring the individual to more qualified sources. Simply ignoring the question seems inconsistent with a genuine and purposeful resolve to enrich our understanding of the faith.
I agree that a message with a redirection, if you can't answer, would be helpful. For a long time we had Fr. Vincent who has an advanced degree in theology. I have not seen him writing as often as he did. I'm sure that he's still around. Maybe you can send him a direct email or something.
As I said, I don't presume to know what academic requirements CA has for their apologists. For example someone like Scott Hahn (sp?) has a PhD in scripture and he's an apologist. Someone like Fr. Benedict Groeschel has a PhD is psychology and an MA in theology and he does apologetics. Then there is Mother Angelica who has a high school education, who also does apologetics or did when she was healthy enough. The point is that not all apologists are theologians. To be a theologian you must have a doctorate degree and a license from the Church if you want to be a Catholic theologian.
I used to explain it to people using the analogy of politics. I would say that many lawyers are in politics and every politician is in law. Get my meaning? The apologist is like the politican.
Br. JR, OSF