By the Apologist names he mentions you wonder if he had actually ever listened to or read them on a day to day basis.
As someone who is quite thankful for the help from Catholic Answer and Envoy in coming to the Church and as someone who has listened to these shows and read the works of all the names listed I wonder what straw-man apologist he has set up to knock over.
I learned the history of the Church both good and bad on these shows. I heard nothing but charity extended to those who disagreed.
As to the prooftexting that is silly. When having a conversation with a Sola Scriptural type to argue only from tradition serves no purpose. You have to go to what they understand. Jesus did not talk to Gentiles, Sadducee's and Pharisees in the same way. He worked with what they already accepted and added to it.
I have never been on Lasix, but have found Guinness renders the same result.
By the by, who knew opening the HaloScan comment box at Dyspeptic Mutterings would lead to a link to Lesbian Women Talk at bottom?
Dyspeptic Metrosexual Mutterings?
The truly amazing thing about Gaillardetz's article is that it proves him to be about a decade out of date on the "New(er) Apologetics" front. Flip through a copy of This Rock or Envoy. Articles on the Catholic-Fundamentalist brouhaha are balanced out, sometimes supplanted by, other issues such as leftist Catholic dissent, liturgical abuses, non-Christian dialogue, and basic Catholic theology. The Catholic-Fundamentalist skirmishes gave the "New(er) Apologetics" its start, and it remains an important part of its work, but it's not the sole focus of the lay apologetics movement.
Jeff:
Agreed, especially on the proof-texting. Discussion of scripture verses is pretty well inevitable, 99% of the time. To pretend otherwise is silly.
Mark:
Metrosexual? 
Not unless your average MS munches chips and salsa while watching the NHL....
Well, what can I say? Actually, when I checked after noticing your remark, it was a blog asking for help in finding a new girlfriend.
What will the wife think?
Michelle:
That's a really good point--Paging back through my most recent issues of Envoy, I notice the same thing. The cover story for the second most recent issue was about the rejection of the Catechism as a norm for teaching the faith.
Regarding the DV issue - I think part of the problem is that the sides of the argument are to some degree talking past each other inasmuch as they mean somewhat different things by "inerrancy."
Kevin:
How so? I am very interested in this issue, so I'd really like to hear your explanation.
Commenting by HaloScan
