Apologetics is that part of theology which tries to show the reasonableness of the Christian faith and to refute objections against it. St. Justin Martyr (d. 165) was one of its first and ablest practitioners.

Apologetics became more explicitly Catholic at the time of the Protestant Reformation, when the Reformers questioned the use of "fallen" reason to defend and justify the faith against its critics.

Apologists, like Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, came to the defense of the teachings and practices of the Catholic Church regarding, for example, the ordained priesthood, the papacy, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, and the necessity of good works for salvation.

In the 19th century the new enemies of the church were perceived to be science and rationalistic philosophies. In reaction, Catholic apologetics argued for the necessity of revelation, the existence of a supernatural order, and the essential need for a teaching church.

Catholic apologetics in the 20th century --- at least until the Second Vatican Council --- sought to establish the divinity of Christ on the basis of the claims he made and the miracles he wrought in support of those claims --- both attested to in the pages of the inspired New Testament.

Ironically, Catholic apologists were now using the same methods that had been employed by the Rationalists against the Catholic faith. The apologists were not simply defending the faith; they were "proving" its truth by history and logic.

The line of argument went something like this: Jesus claimed to be divine and proved his claim by his miracles and especially by the miracle of the Resurrection. These claims and miracles are reported in the Bible, which is an historically reliable source. Therefore, Jesus is divine.

Next: Jesus founded a church and conferred on its leaders and their successors full authority to teach and to rule. This, too, is attested in the Bible, which is an historically reliable source. Therefore, the church is a divinely established institution with full authority to teach and to govern its members.

Apologetics went into something of a decline around the time of Vatican II. We were now in a more ecumenical age, when the defense of Catholic teaching and practice against the Protestants was regarded as no longer necessary.

There was also a more historically critical understanding of the Bible, and a greater recognition of the fact that, while faith can be shown to be "reasonable" (that is, not contrary to human reason), its truth cannot be "rationally" proved.

Efforts are being made today to revive apologetics, but they are being initiated largely by former Protestant fundamentalists who, like the early-20th-century apologists before them, tend to embrace the methods and assumptions of their opponents. In other words, they use a form of Catholic fundamentalism to combat Protestant fundamentalism.

Richard Gaillardetz, Murray/Bacik Professor of Catholic Studies at the University of Toledo, has published an important article on the subject in the Feb. 2 issue of the Jesuit weekly, America ("Do We Need a New(er) Apologetics?").

While acknowledging the strengths and good intentions of these new apologists, he also identifies various weaknesses in their approach. (My enumeration differs slightly from Gaillardetz's, but the substance is the same.)

First, they mirror the fundamentalistic assumptions of their opponents, by entering into "Bible wars" with them, citing one text against another.

Second, they view revelation as entirely propositional, that is, as a series of abstract truths divorced from history and culture.

Third, they lump all church teachings together as if they were of equal weight and importance. For them, there is no "hierarchy of truths," as Vatican II insists.

Fourth, they tend to be excessively critical of non-Catholic expressions of the Christian faith, as if the truth were all on the Catholic side and error on the other.

Fifth, they employ an ahistorical approach to key issues like the nature of the papacy, assuming, for example, that Peter functioned as the first residential bishop of Rome.

Sixth, they have a romanticized view of the church, stressing only its transcendent truth and beauty while failing to acknowledge its historic, often spectacular failures and even sinfulness.

Finally, they tend to label as unfaithful, disloyal or even heretical those fellow Catholics who identify and criticize the human weaknesses and failures of the church, past and present alike.

Richard Gaillardetz draws a useful parallel here between their concept of fidelity-versus-disloyalty and the distinction in the political order between patriotism and nationalism.

Patriotism combines love of country with a capacity to criticize it for valid reasons. Nationalism, on the other hand, takes the position, "My country right or wrong."

Nationalism is wrong politically --- and ecclesiastically as well.

Father Richard P. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.