Catholic Answers Staff Apologist Trent Horn joins Crisis Point to talk about Catholic apologetics: how to do it, the right attitude to have, the pitfalls to avoid, and much more. He also reveals his favorite debate and if he has ever “lost” a debate.
Links:
• The Counsel of Trent
• Trent Horn website
Watch on Odysee:
Watch on YouTube:
Transcript:
Eric Sammons:
What is Catholic apologetics, and why is it important? What does it mean to be a Catholic apologist? Why do some Catholics think apologetics might be a little dangerous for our faith? We’re going to discuss these issues on today’s Crisis Point.
Hello, I’m Eric Sammons, your host and the editor-in-chief of Crisis Magazine. Before I get started, I just want to encourage people to like and subscribe to the podcast. It just lets other people know about it and find out about, and you can find out when our new episodes come up. We have a lot of great guests, including today’s coming up in the next couple months, so you want be able to find out about that. Also, follow us on all the different social media channels. I say them in most of podcast, but you can find us.
Okay. So let’s get started. Our guest today is Trent Horn. Trent Horn earned his master’s degree in the fields of theology, philosophy and bioethics. He serves as a staff of apologetics for Catholic Answers. Trent is a frequent guess on the radio program Catholic Answers Live and he hosts his own podcast, the Counsel of Trent. He’s also been invited to debate at UC Berkeley, UC Santa Barbara and Stanford University. He’s an adjunct professor of apologetics at Holy Apostles College and has written for the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly. As he’s authored nine books, including Answering Atheism, the Case for Catholicism and Why We’re Catholic: Our Reasons for Faith, Hope and Love. And I would just add, I think Trent is probably one of the top Catholic apologist today, in my opinion. So welcome to the program, Trent.
Trent Horn:
Thank you for having me, Eric. And thank you, that’s very kind.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah. First, we want to talk about apologetics here. We want to talk in generically, but I also want to talk about your personal experience. Let’s first talk about why did you get interested in apologetics in the first place?
Trent Horn:
Well, I think that there’s a stereotype. I mean, there’s a nugget of truth to it that’s what always drives a lot of stereotypes that being a convert, people always think, oh, all the apologist are converts, basically. And that’s not actually true, like Pat Madrid is not a convert for example. But during my conversion experience in high school, I had to go through the objections for myself. So in doing that, I have to find the answers and tabulate them and go at them head on. And in doing that, after I was done with that process, I did youth ministry and then other ministry after that. I wanted to help people to get those answers in a more efficient way than I had. And that’s true, I think, for many other people. I think Jimmy Akin probably has a similar experience to Tim Staples. For certain kinds of converts, you have to go through all the arguments and since you have, you want to help other people do the same.
Eric Sammons:
Right. Okay. Now let’s talk about just generically about apologetics and the role of apologetics in the Catholic faith and how it relates to Catholic evangelization. I mean, I wrote a book, the Old Evangelization for Catholic Answers.
Trent Horn:
Yeah.
Eric Sammons:
So we can understand this, but I think it’d be good to explain the relationship between the two, when we engage in evangelization, apologetics and how they’re related.
Trent Horn:
Yeah. So I would say that apologetics is a tool at the service of evangelism. I think it’s very important for people to distinguish between the two. Some people treat apologetics and evangelism as if they were the same thing, and they’re not the same thing. Evangelism is just sharing the good news about salvation and Jesus Christ. That’s what it is. That when you evangelize, you share the good news about Jesus’s… that He has God incarnate, He died for us on the cross and that by placing our faith in Him and entering into the New Covenant, through the church He established, we can have eternal life. That’s the good news, that’s evangelism.
Apologetics comes into the fray when… Apologetics would be defined as providing a rational defense of the Christian faith. Well, generically apologetic is giving a defense of any kind. People will say you’re an apologist for X or Y. It comes from a Greek word apologia, to give a defense, like Socrates gave an apology in Greece, at his trial. It’s a defense. Though, when we talk about it in Christianity, we mean that it is a field of theology dedicated to the rational defense of the Christian faith. So, it plays in that evangelism is sharing the good news, apologetics is a tool that we would use when people might say, “Well, I don’t think the good news is true, or I think there’s no good reason to think it’s true or there’s reasons to think it’s false.” And we would deploy an apologetic of some kind to answer that, to clear out the obstacles so that you can evangelize.
Eric Sammons:
Right. Often I would think evangelization often is talking about your personal story, about your relationship with Christ, how Christ has affected your life and things like that. But then other people who haven’t had that experience might be like, “Yeah, but I think Jesus was just a man.” Or something like that.
Trent Horn:
Right.
Eric Sammons:
And that’s when we would then segue right into an apologetics.
Trent Horn:
Right. So it’s important, and I think that personal testimonies can be valuable to many people to be able to share, “Here is what Christ has done in my life. This is my faith journey.” People really resonate with that. I mean, I think probably one of the most popular books that has evangelized people to become Catholic is Pat Madrid’s first anthology, Surprised by Truth. I know that that affected a ton of people in the late 90s, early 2000s. I read it during my conversion experience. Just reading stories from other people. But what was neat about that anthology is it included stories of, “Hey, here’s what Christ has done to me. This is my version. But also here are the objections that I dealt with and here are the answers that satisfied me.”
So I think that we can put forward a good evangelism, that is testimonial based that is authentic, but also uses apologetics in a way that is not ham-fisted or triumphalist or the flaws. And there are flaws in apologetics, just like there’s flaws in any discipline within the church that we have to watch out for. We can do it in a good way.
Eric Sammons:
Right. For me, it was Scott Han’s conversion story, of course.
Trent Horn:
Yeah.
Eric Sammons:
Was a big one for me because he does incorporate apologetics in it because obviously he’s talking about how he overcame his objection to Catholicism, but to me it was more just the idea that a Protestant pastor could become Catholic, that alone was enough to be like, “oh.” And he was just telling his story. Now, apologetics of course has been practiced since the time of Christ. I assume the Jews probably practiced even before that, but it’s been practiced by Christ since the time of Christ. But in the 1970s, particularly, it got a bad name. And I feel like my understanding of the history having lived through some of it myself is that Karl Keating, at least in this country, kind of single handily brought it back from the dead. I mean, I know some others did, but I mean, he really was interesting.
Trent Horn:
Here, I’m going to disappear out of the frame. Hold on. I’m not leaving. It’s on the floor. I got to grab this. It’s not just him. I have this little book here, Catholic Apologetics Today: Answers to Modern Critics, by Father William Most.
Eric Sammons:
Yes, that was a big one as well, absolutely. I remember reading Catholicism Fundamentalism, that was a big one for me. But really Catholic Answers, Karl Keating, Father Most, they kind of brought it back, but it was dead and it was kind of dead-
Trent Horn:
It was on life support for sure.
Eric Sammons:
… Life support probably. But yeah, that’s a better way to put it. But people really thought that it was wrong to do this. And I’ve started to see some of that coming back. In fact, I saw an article recently where they’re kind of attacking conservative and traditional Catholics and they’re saying it’s based on this idea that you have answers to questions or something like that.
Trent Horn:
Yeah.
Eric Sammons:
Why is apologetics denigrated in some quarters of the church?
Trent Horn:
That’s a hard one. Cause what’s here when we think of apologetics, it’s had a rich history. A great book to read on this is Cardinal Avery Dulles’s, History of Apologetics. Goes at it from really a 2nd century onward. You see against pagans, counter reformation, through modernism, against the Anglican controversies, in the 19th century, Newman. And then in the early 20th century, you have people like Frank Sheed, doing the Catholic Evidence Guild. He was doing Catholic Answers back in the 30s, essentially. But then after the Second Vatican Council, I think there was a concern that it was conflicting with the goal of ecumenism. The goal of seeking out, building bridges with other religions, other Christian denominations, other religions, and that if practiced in a triumphal way or in a closed minded way, it harms that ecumenical movement.
Here I want to be fair to both sides. There are brands of apologetics that can be harmful to ecumenism, like apologetics that will seek to refute, let’s say Islam, or Mormonism or other religions, and it doesn’t understand the very religion it’s trying to refute. So, if I go to a Muslim and say, “Well, here’s the problem with Muhammadanism, you a Mohammedan.” They would say, “I’m not a Mohammedan. I am a Muslim. I don’t worship Mohamed.” I’ve already gotten off on the wrong foot, essentially. I’ve misunderstood. So they’re not going to hear what I have to say. And so that can be harmful.
But a good apologetic is essential because the goal of ecumenism is to… We’re separated from people who disagree with us, we want to close the gap as much as possible, but then we don’t want to stop and just sing kumbaya. We want to close the gap so that jumping the gap, to bring people to Christ, is more manageable. And I think that’s the goal to see and it’s hard when people will try to pit the two against each other. No. If we do ecumenism, say with the Orthodox, we can say, “Hey, there’s actually a lot. We can learn from you guys on different issues.” So we get closer and closer and closer when the gap is smaller. It’s easier to do apologetics when the gap is small versus when the gap is wide. So, you’re right. But I think that the people in the 70s onwards kind of had this feeling that it’s either antithetical or, “It’s not the lady’s job, that’s what priests do. That’s what theologians do.” That it’s really, “That’s more of a Protestant thing not a Catholic thing.”
And yeah, I think Karl, Patrick Madrid, Tim Staples, Jimmy and others really revitalize this as a lay notion. But I’ve seen this online, certain social media circles. I always ask people. They’ll say things like, “Apologetics is dead.” Or, “Oh, the last thing the church needs are apologists.” And I ask them, “Well, what do you mean by that? I agree with you it doesn’t need bad apologists, just like it doesn’t need bad liturgist. It doesn’t need bad evangelists. It doesn’t need bad bishops. It doesn’t need people who do corporal works of mercy in a bad way. You could do that in a bad way too. It doesn’t mean it’s wrong to do these things, it means we should do them the right way.”
Eric Sammons:
Yeah. Wouldn’t you say that in the modern mind, there’s this idea that we can’t have answers? That we can’t have definitive answers. And I’ve seen that’s another criticism of apologist. They think they know everything or they think they have a final answer on thing. How would you respond? Somebody say, “Well, why do you think you have the right answer on this?”
Trent Horn:
Right. So, a few points jump out at me. First, this position, if you take it too literally is self-refuting. You can’t have any answers, but I know apologists don’t have answers. No, that’s just a quick observation, to be fair to the position. And that’s something that I’m trying to encourage in others when I do apologetics, when I do debates, when I do dialogues, to be fair to the other side. And being charitable isn’t just about not calling other people names. Being charitable also means correctly understanding your opponent’s position and representing it well before showing what’s wrong with it. Which is what Aquinas does for example.
Trent Horn:
So, I think that when you see these criticisms, there is some truth to some of them when apologetic is done badly. So when you have apologist say, “Oh, well, here’s the obvious solution to this problem.” Or, “Here on this issue, this is the right answer.” An apologist can get in trouble if he fails to acknowledge, “Oh, well, there is another solution that could be offered.” The apologist who says, “Oh, there’s only one way to resolve this particular open theological question in the church.” Let’s say they only advocate for a very strict kind of Thomism with predestination. And they don’t even say, “There is all other things like Molinism and what Duns Scotus says.” If you act like, “Oh, I’ve solved it. I’ve got this rigid set of answers,” and you overplay your hand, that’s problematic. That you should be confident in those things, which are definitive. And you can talk about the variety of options with questions that are more open.
I do think that the critics who say this, to be honest with you, Eric, I think a lot of them, they have bought into a modern heresy affecting the church and that would be a kind of universalism. Idea that look, “Everybody is basically going to heaven. We don’t really need to convert people.” So apologist, the only thing they’ll do is they’ll come off snotty or arrogant and drive people away. That we should just focus on works of mercy and the liturgy and that will draw people in and the arrogant apologist will push people away. Yeah, we don’t need the arrogant apologist, but some people need the answers. They might say, “Hey, this is beautiful, but I don’t think it’s true.”
Eric Sammons:
Right. Now we were talking about the tension between ecumenism and apologetics. My most recent book is pretty critical of how ecumenism has been done for quite some time. Because I tend to believe that it ends up being people who just want to talk about how great the other religion is then go to their cocktail party, and that’s it. There’s no real sense of, “Okay, here’s where we think you’re wrong-
Trent Horn:
Right.
Eric Sammons:
… and you can tell us where you think we’re wrong, but we wanted you to know where we think you’re wrong.”
Trent Horn:
Or, “We say, ‘We think that you’re wrong.’” And the other side may say, “Well, actually we agree with what you say. We’re just using different wording.” Look at the efforts that have come in Catholics and Orthodox discussions, or the Joint Declaration on Justification between Catholics and Lutherans. Once again about bridging the gap, but still recognizing, “Well, here is something that we have not resolved yet.” And to offer to the other side here, “Here’s the problem.” So I agree with you, Eric, that I think that when ecumenism is sort of done by these advisory bodies and you’re right, that it’s just about meeting in a fancy hotel and we had a nice banquet hall and a PowerPoint.
When it’s done in that way, when it’s not done with a serious attitude of, “Here’s where we agree. Here’s where we disagree. Here’s our arguments we would like you to wrestle with.” But however, I think ecumenism, it can be done in a good way. I try to model that myself on my podcast that I will do debates, or I will do informal dialogues with people that are nice to chat with, and I’ve had these with a wide variety of people. That is where you can have that authentic ecumenism say, “Here’s where we disagree. Here’s where I’m not sold.” Or, “Hey, here’s an argument I really need you to wrestle with.” But I think we’re going to see that more in the personal interactions or among scholars who really take it seriously.
Eric Sammons:
Right. That was kind of my experience because I really got exposed to Catholicism through the pro-life movement. And that was an ecumenical effort and we would get together and a lot of times we’d come together and we’d agree with stuff, the Catholics and the Protestants, but then we’d also, one on one, at the abortion meals or afterwards like that, when we go out for coffee after we were praying at the abortion meal, we would then have our debates about, “Okay. Well, here’s why I think you’re wrong and here’s why I think you’re right.”
Trent Horn:
That’s right.
Eric Sammons:
Stuff like that, and it was beautiful. I mean, it was a way that we were working together.
Trent Horn:
And so the other side is correct, they’ll say, “You don’t need apologetics. You just need build a friendship and a relationship with people to draw them to Christ.” And I would say, you’re correct. We should do that. That’s one of the most effective kinds of evangelism are these relationships of mutual respect and friendship, when we have things in common. I would say that in many cases it is necessary. In some cases that will be sufficient to move someone to want to consider Catholicism. But in other cases, it won’t. I mean, it’s like saying, “I don’t need a flathead screwdriver. Why would I need that? I can always use my regular screwdriver or other things to get my job done yet.” Well, you might have been able to from any of these jobs. You may come across a job where, “Oh, actually I do need this. If I don’t have this, I can’t get this screw out.” And you’ll be glad you had the tool when you need needed it, even if there were many cases where you had the tool and you did not need it. And I think that’s true of apologetics.
Eric Sammons:
Right. Now, when engaging in apologetics with… That’s a very broad term.
Trent Horn:
Sure.
Eric Sammons:
Obviously we’re Catholic and you engage in apologetics with anybody who’s not Catholic, how do you distinguish between apologetics with atheists, Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Orthodox? Because you do it with everybody, it seems like. And how do you really go about distinguishing between how you approach those different groups?
Trent Horn:
Right. So what I would try to do is understand where the person is coming from and honestly assess the gap that I have with them and see what is the fundamental issue that we are disagreeing about and not get sidetracked on other issues. So with atheists, I’m going to focus on the evidence for and against the existence of God. And I’m also going to understand that amongst these groups, some people are closer than others, so I have more common ground. So for example, it’s not proper to speak of evangelizing the Eastern Orthodox. What we speak of is unification with the Orthodox to say that, “The title of church can be applied to your churches because you have valid holy orders and apostolic succession.” And so we can recognize that. When it’s with Protestant ecclesial communities, then I would say, “Well, we have a firm foundation in the Trinity and a valid baptism.” Affirming the similarities we have.
But I mean, you might say, “Well, what do you do like an atheist?” You got no similarities. Not necessarily. I had a wonderful conversation with an atheistic apologist recently, but he has been very critical of atheistic tribalism. Other atheists have criticized him because he is very pro Second Amendment, for example. And we had a good chat about how you can take the atheist out of religion, but you can’t take the religion out of the atheist. You still want to create your codes of behavior, your group think. And so even there, we found a common ground. Now it was cultural and social common ground but sometimes that can be helpful. That builds a bridge and caring about evidence and logic.
When I’m engaging people, I just want to see what brings us closer together and then try to really understand their position and being very careful to not place them in a monolith. That example of the atheist I spoke to, he’s not like your social justice war raving, liberal lunatic online. He’s unique. And the same is true when you look at other apologist or other people you might engage… If someone says, “Oh, I spoke to them and they’re Catholic.” You and I both know that word is so elastic.
Eric Sammons:
Right.
Trent Horn:
Like, “They’re Catholic.” There’s a big difference between Father James Martin and Father Ripperger. You know.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah.
Trent Horn:
Catholics, we can be guilty of that too if we say, “Oh, he’s Protestant. Well, there’s a big difference between Protestants, even Muslims or Jews.” So that’s why it’s important when we engage others to get past the label and really understand what is their particular view globally, which religion are they, but also where do they fall within that particular religion or lack of religion.
Eric Sammons:
Right. So you’re trying to figure out where they stand, what you have in common with them. It’s funny, you mentioned that because I know a number of Orthodox. I know I have a friend who’s an Orthodox priest who basically thinks all Catholic sacraments are invalid and that we’re all basically graceless and out of the church and all that, and out of the true church. And I know other Orthodox priests who are very much more accepting.
Trent Horn:
Openly.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah, of Catholicism and understanding that we have valid orders, things like that. So yeah, you have to kind of know who it is you’re talking to. Now let’s talk a little bit more about specific effects of today.
Trent Horn:
Sure.
Eric Sammons:
One of the great challenges I know a lot of people have, Catholics have, when they’re trying to engage in apologetics with maybe even non-Catholics or people, is the scandals within the church today, specifically. Now, the moral problems of leaders, that’s one thing. But I mean like today where we have a Pope who, I’ll be diplomatic and say, he says some problematic things. And so when we’re trying to say… Okay, here’s an example I had where a woman, when I was working for a diocese, she wanted to set up a group that was support of a homosexual. Her son had come out as gay, and basically she wanted a group that was going to be basically endorsing homosexual behavior. And I said, “No. That’s against church teaching.” Whatever. This was in 2013, ’12, or something like that.
Well, then Pope Francis came, he said the famous words, “Who am I to judge.” And some other things like that. And then she basically then was like, “Well, the Pope says it’s okay.” Now I know he didn’t actually say that.
Trent Horn:
Yeah.
Eric Sammons:
But the point is that he’s winked and nudged at times. And so basically it makes it where I’m going… They’re comparing. They’re just saying, “Okay, the Pope says this but you say this.” Well, who are they going to go with? And I don’t blame them for saying, “I’m going to go with the Pope.” But what do we do in those situations where we do seem to be going against what the Pope seems to at least be indicating if not explicitly saying?
Trent Horn:
Well, I think there’s multiple strategies one can employ, and you might use them in different order. I mean, the basic line here is, if you’re engaging someone, you have to make sure if they’re saying that the church teaches X, when it actually doesn’t teach X, you’ll need a primer on understanding, well, how do we know what the church teaches? My friend, Jimmy Akin, has a wonderful book on this subject called Teaching with Authority that goes over that magisterial statements from bishops, or the Pope, have different levels of authority. So, at one point you’ll need catechesis with an individual to say, “Look, different statements that the Pope makes have different levels of authority. There’s a difference between something that dogmatically defines something like the immaculate conception versus an impromptu answer on an airplane to let people know, ‘Look…’”
Certainly you would agree what the Pope says has different levels of authority, and that also is in union with what the church teaches. Because you say, “Well, look, the Pope doesn’t contradict the church, right?” No. Then you go to the catechism paragraph 20 through 57 on homosexuality. But you can also, before this, maybe show the person… You have to be careful not to act like you’re trying to really grill the person. But you might want to show that they’re being a little self-serving sometimes to say, “You know what? You’re right. We got to listen to Pope Francis.” When Pope Francis said abortion is like hiring a hitman, you would agree that abortion is just like that. Because that’s the thing with Pope Francis, he’s the gift that keeps on giving.
And so, it’s funny you watch the roller coaster online of people like Advocate Magazine, a pro LGBT magazine, others. Pope Francis is man of the year for them. And then the CDF under his permission releases a document that prohibits blessing same sex unions, for example, that it’s released under his permission. And they’re having a back-pedal like, “Oh, well…” Because he’ll say one thing, you’re right, then he’ll… It’s roller coaster for everybody.
So I think there, if you’re shrewd, if someone is taking something that the Pope has said to try to promote a dissenting view of church teaching, sometimes it’s fun to see, well, what do you do with this very heavy handed Orthodox thing, the Pope has said? Will you go with that too or you’re just cherry picking when the Pope says problematic things that happen to favor what you think? So, that has to be done with due caution. You want to be gracious with people. But I think that can be helpful to show, “Look, are you cherry picking? Are you listening to the whole of magisterial teaching?”
Eric Sammons:
Right. And related to this, now this one, a little bit more tricky. There’s situations in which, as Catholics, we simply just don’t agree with the Pope and what he said. We think something he said is wrong. I’m talking, of course, not about doctrinal issues like the trinity or something like that, but maybe in him pushing for the vaccine or-
Trent Horn:
Like a Prudential judgment.
Eric Sammons:
… Yeah. Like the death penalty-
Trent Horn:
Sure.
Eric Sammons:
… probably is the best example in my mind where… I mean, I’ve said this before, it really, to me, sounds like he’s just simply contradicting church teaching on this, because the death penalty is clearly justifiable in certain circumstances. And I understand Pope John Paul II was making it more like it’s not really necessary in developed world, all that. Because I know one of the criticisms, the Catholic Answers has gotten, is that sometimes it’s a little too willing to try to defend the Pope on some of the more problematic things it says. I’m not even sure what my question here is at this point. But I just know a lot of Catholics have challenges when they’re talking to their friends who either fallen away Catholics or not Catholics, they don’t want to popesplain, but yet they also want to be respectful of the papacy. How do we do both those things?
Trent Horn:
Well, it is a fine line to walk between two errors. And it’s something that I have learned over the course of Francis’s pontificate, to walk and I’ve tried to grow in that area, at least in the past few years of addressing these things, so you’re right. Because prudential matters are one thing, I’ll discuss that a little bit after this. But this is more the question… Well, it’s interesting as an apologist, people will bring up objections to the faith. One common objection from Protestants is, “Ah, the actions of this particular Pope actually show Catholicism as false.” The common examples were Pope Liberius, Honorius, Vigilius, from the early middle ages, things like that. And so you’ll go through.
So I think your question seems to be concerned, what about people who add Francis to this Armada, essentially? What should we do if we agree with them? How do we respond? And you’re right, so there’s the two errors. One would be a kind of ultramontanism, that basically says, “If the Pope has every utterance is infallible,” and will bend over backwards to defend him and not ever just say, “Yeah, he just really biffed it on this one.” But then there’s another view that goes a bit too far that would almost seem to deny the Holy Spirit’s promise that it will prevent the church from habitually falling to these errors. It’s almost maybe tabloidesque a little bit so much that you sound like those fundamentalist Protestants from the 80s. I’ve heard some online Catholics talk about the Pope. I’m like, “Who is this? Jack Chick?”
I’ve thought about it be a fun game like very angry traditionalist, anonymous, Twitter Catholic, and Jack Chick, the famous very anti-Catholic cartoonist, putting their quotes together, I’d be like, “Oh wow, this almost like identical.” So you don’t want to fall into either of those traps. So I think my response to that would be, and I think this is something hopefully the Catholic Answers has grown in and I’ve tried to grow in. And actually it’s interesting something like this to come up in my rebuttal to a Eastern Orthodox apologist named Jay Dyer. And so Jay brought up, “Look at what Francis has done with the death penalty?” And what’s funny is he sounded a lot like Taylor Marshall with his criticism, but then the conclusion is therefore become Orthodox.
And so my reply there, and I think this is important is like I said earlier, we should offer a lot of different options for people. I follow Jimmy in this regard and I think he’s very good at this to say, “Well, here’s a difficulty and there’s a few different ways a person might address the difficulty. And just allow, ‘Hey, there’s certain in things we can’t say. We can’t say the Pope can formally bind the church to heresy or something like that.’ But we could offer a lot of different options. One could offer the option that what the Pope has taught that this falls under a prudential judgment that does not require the religious submission of mind and will. And to say that this is erroneous but it does not fall under an error that is covered under people infallibility.”
So you could say that’s one option. Another option that could be presented is that this is a development in Catholic social teaching and give examples about how different social teachings can develop. One might say with the death penalty, the church always considered it moral to exercise the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes, even public theft, hunting on the Lord’s land. A wide variety of crimes, it was permissible to use a penalty of death to instill public order. But over time, the crimes that are suitable for death, it shrinks and gets more and more narrow till it’s just like murder or treason. The idea here is maybe you see there’s a trajectory and development that the justifications keep getting narrow and narrower over time.
So as I said, those are two options. So I think that’s helpful that, “Look, we’re a big tent. People are going to have different views about which prudential judgements or even theological observations that are made or opinions, of pro-lets or the Pope, are their value of them.” But I think that could be helpful when these things come up to put forward all the options. You can almost put it as like, “Here’s my preferred one, and if that argument doesn’t work, here’s my fallback position.” And all of them. It’s like I have all these safety nets, if you will, that catch me before I fall into schism or leave the faith or something. I don’t know. Does that make sense?
Eric Sammons:
Yeah, I think so. I think the challenge is… I mean, some of it’s interesting because I feel like some of the ultramontanist, at least, they’re saying exactly what I was told as a Protestant by Catholic apologist. “No, we don’t do that.”
Trent Horn:
Right.
Eric Sammons:
We don’t think everything that Pope says is infallible and things like that. We don’t treat him as a divine Oracle. Like to me, I think the people I’ve talked to out this, when it comes to Pope Francis, we’re willing to understand that there’s tons of things he says that are just problematic but they’re just like, “It’s airplane interview.” He has certain politics that we don’t agree with, which is fine, whatever. But it’s when he hits on. I think the big ones are probably the death penalty, the communion for divorce and remarried. Where it looks like he is changing a church teaching that can’t be changed and the whole structure of Catholicism does really depend on.
I know people, and I’m sure you do too, who have left the church or fallen because of this. Because they feel like, “Okay. The foundation is crumbling because we said that Pope cannot change unchangeable church teaching.” And yet, at least, to them, they appears that he has. I know we’ve had the debate. I mean, you’ve been involved with it about what it means to change church teaching.
Trent Horn:
Right. Sure.
Eric Sammons:
And we’ve both written about that, and I think we come out from different perspectives, but I think that’s really issue of apologetics that I think is causing a lot of issues. Which some of that, I want to try to look at more optimistically is, it helps refine our apologetics.
Trent Horn:
Right.
Eric Sammons:
These things happen, but how would you say those… How does it not make the foundation crumble? How would you answer those who, I mean, I don’t think it does, but I know people who do.
Trent Horn:
Right. I think that that’s where it’ll become problematic that as an apologist, if you put forward an extremely strong indefensible claim about something. That this never happens or the church never does this, or things don’t change. How you articulate it, you have to be careful so that you’re not left open to a counter example, whether it’s in the current age or in the past 2000 years. When you look at things like how church fathers have articulated matters in the past versus the development in modern science and things like that. Because you could go too far and say, “Well, look, if the fathers are in agreement on something, then you are bound to believe that.” But the problem is you have to tailor the understanding of what that in particular means, because then you might bind people to believe in outdated scientific theory.
I’m sure the fathers of the church all believe in the theory of the humors. That our health system is basically four fluids going together. We’re not bound to believe that, but that would also apply to scientific observations about the age of the earth, or the development of life. That could lead you into problematic areas if you’re in conflict with other things. I think that you’re right. The concerns that are brought up, that you just have to make sure that what you’re putting forward that you use this as an opportunity to refine the position you put forward. And, I think then in charity is to offer people. It’s kind of like they’re looking at Catholicism, they might say… because it’s interesting. Like when I’m engaging people who are Eastern Orthodox, many of them will say, “Well, I can’t be a Catholic because I think Thomism is bonkers. I think that Thomas Aquinas, he doesn’t make sense. He’s crazy. It goes against everything the Cappadocian Fathers taught.”
Eric Sammons:
Right.
Trent Horn:
And so I would say, “Well, okay. So there’s two options here. You could defend Thomism.” Which I think is a fine thing to do. Or you might say, “Hey, you know what? If you find this problematic, there are other ways to articulate these theological issues that you might find to be more… Like a Franciscan Way.” I just state other things like that. So just like if I offer, let’s say, Pope Francis and the death penalty, that’s why, for me, I’d say, “Here’s my preferred solution.” Someone might say, “That sounds like you’re grasping me with straws. I can’t really buy that.” “All right. Here’s what Eric Sammons would say. And he’s in faithful magisterium and he’s Catholic. You might prefer that.” So I think when we’re engaging others, we should be open to presenting people, a variety of Orthodox proposals, even if we’re not a big fan of them as long as they’re Orthodox and have not contradicted the positive faith, then that can serve the cause.
Eric Sammons:
Right. Sometimes what I do, I just say, “I don’t know how to reconcile it.”
Trent Horn:
Yes. That’s another approach.
Eric Sammons:
I mean, because the fact is, I do know. There’s so much evidence for Catholicism in every other way, the fact that in this one area, I’m not able to reconcile it with my brain, doesn’t make me lose my faith in the fact that everything else. It just means that, okay, my puny brain can’t reconcile that.
Trent Horn:
Right. Well, there’s a parallel here that if you say, “Well, the Pope said this, but the catechism says that, this seems contradictory, therefore Catholicism is false.” If you walk in that mindset of, “Hey, there is an apparent contradiction to my faith, therefore the faith is not true.” You’re only going to get about 10 steps. What do you do when you read the Bible and you’ve got atheists who have assembled 1,001 Bible contradictions? Mark 2:26. It says that Jesus said when Abiathar was high priest when the whole Testament clearly says it was father, Ahimelech. But then what do I do in those situations? You could say, “First, if you’ve never studied it, I don’t know, that’s weird. But I know Jesus walked out of his own tomb, He established a church, so I’m going to go with Him and put a little asterisk next to this thing. I don’t understand.”
And you could do the same thing if Pope Francis says something that, “I don’t quite understand what’s going on here.” Because if you have that rigid mentality to warn someone, “Hey, look.” You’re going to be out the door. You’re not just going to give up the Pope. If you say, “Hey, apparent contradiction, this doesn’t work.” You’re going to leave Christianity. You couldn’t even believe in God, because you’ll say, “Hey, God’s all good, there’s evil. Apparent contradiction. I don’t know how to resolve it.” If you have the rigid mentality where if there’s an apparent contradiction, “I’m out the door,” you’re going to be an atheistic nihilist.
So I think what you said is very good that you can say, “You could present possible options.” But it’s fine to be humble and say, “I’m not sure. But I have all this other evidence, whether it’s a Bible contradiction or a contradiction in magisterial texts, I know there’s a God. There has to be a God that created everything. I know that Jesus’s resurrection is the only thing that makes sense of why Christianity got started in the first place, and the Catholic church is the only thing that makes sense of how Christianity grew in the first 300 years and onward.” And then from there you’ve got your anchor and you’ve got these apparent contradictions, at least a bit, it shouldn’t give you as much worry.
Eric Sammons:
Right. Exactly. Okay. Now I want to talk a little bit about some of your personal experiences people would like to hear us. You’ve been involved in a lot of debates, a lot of different discussions, what would you say is probably your favorite debate that you’ve ever been involved in yourself?
Trent Horn:
Yeah. So I think my favorite debate was my debate with Ben Watkins last year, this is back in August, in Houston at the Capturing Christianity Conference. This is a neat event and this is actually a neat way to talk about ecumenism. So that of event was a Protestant Conference though it was focused on mere Christianity. So it was focused on defending existence of God, the resurrection. And there was a Protestant who was supposed to debate a well known atheistic speaker, but both of them had to drop out for personal reasons, and COVID. So they got a new atheist. They said, “Hey Trent, you do really good debates. Why don’t you come and debate him?”
So I debated him, Ben Watkins, Real Atheology. He was really the first debate opponent I felt who took me seriously, rigorously studied what I had to say. So the debate was very neck and neck, even, even I still think I came out ahead. But he was very well prepared. So it made for a very stimulating and intellectually enriching discussion. He’s a gentleman, we could debate and have ideas clashed without being jerks or anything like that. And so I liked that and I thought it really benefited the audience to see this engagement with high level Catholic philosophy, promoting the existence of God and high level atheism. It’s not like Richard Dawkins stuff. It’s like really higher level stuff. And so that is good for atheists to leave the village atheism stuff to come over to more philosophy.
Yeah, that one was probably one of my favorites. And what’s helpful here, Eric, when we talk about ecumenism, one of the reasons that I have focused on… I do a lot of apologetics, but I focus a lot on atheism, pro-life, the resurrection. I’ve done a debate on the resurrection. I want to put out the best resources on those questions so that any Christian, Catholic or non-Catholic, will go to them. Because I know a lot of Protestants who read my work because they like how I handle atheism and that warms them up to my arguments for Catholicism. And so you serve ecumenism in that respect.
And frankly I’ve been kind of disappointed a little with, in the Catholic apologetic world that Protestants really have a good lock on defending mere Christianity and we don’t have as many people who do that. I’d love to train more and see more people out there. But in doing that, that’s another reason I like that debate was because after it, I got to hang out with Protestants all weekend and some of them had bought Case for Catholicism and I signed it and we talked. So that was like a real authentic ecumenical outreach.
Eric Sammons:
You’re doing like apologetics against atheism but doing backdoor apologetics towards the Protestant.
Trent Horn:
Right. And also here’s what was fun about that. What was really fun was it’s not just I regurgitated Protestant arguments, but I offered Catholic philosophy to address particular objections, so it’s unique. So for example, we had a panel discussion and it was so fun to be at this conference. I want to go to more of them because you go to Catholic conferences, it’s all the same.
Eric Sammons:
Right.
Trent Horn:
But a Protestant conference, you just get so many different kinds of people. So we had a panel of all the speakers and they asked us, “How many of you believe in classical theism? How many of you think God is timeless?” And only I and one other guy raised our hands. And so everyone else believe God is temporal. He’s in time. Everyone else on the panel, I think, rejected divine simplicity except for maybe one other person.
Eric Sammons:
Wow.
Trent Horn:
But it became an opportunity to discuss well, “Here’s why I think this robust view of God can really tackle atheism better than less robust views.” And yeah. And then to share with them, “Here’s why I think all these Catholic arguments together…” The whole Catholic worldview has a lot to offer.
Eric Sammons:
Okay. Now I’m going to put you on the spot and you got to be honest here. Have you ever felt like you lost a debate or at least you felt like your opponent was really good to the point where he might have kind of topped you in it? I know it’s not about winning or losing, but you know what I mean?
Trent Horn:
Sure. Well, I think in any debate… I’ve used this analogy before that it’s sort of like boxing matches, when you do a debate. Some debates I’ve done, it’s like full knockout. It’s not even fair.
Eric Sammons:
Right.
Trent Horn:
When you’re engaging the other person you can tell by their accountants that they didn’t feel like they did very well. It’s just a knockout. Other debates though, you land good punches and the other guy lands good punches too. And you can watch the debate and look at it in different ways. So, I think overall, for example, I did well in my debate against James White on whether a Christian can lose his salvation. There were areas where if I go back now, I would’ve handled cross examination a lot differently because I think James got a few good blows in on me. So there, if you were to judge that debate, it would not be I knocked out James White. It might be I won by technical knockout, by just adding up the points.
I think there have been some where it’s definitely a lot closer. The other person had definitely a lot more rebuttals and things to offer and others where it was further apart. And there have just been some debates where my opponent said something and I wasn’t sure what they referred to and if I could go back and say, “Oh, I would handle it, here’s what I would say.” Like when I was debating Alex O’Connor on atheism, we were debating quantum physics and he was referencing something in quantum physics and I gave more of a generic response. And then after the debate, I thought about it. I thought, oh, he’s talking about spooky action at a distance. Oh, I would have had a much better response if I’d clicked that in my head. But it’s like any sporting. It’s like anything you go back, hindsight is 2020. But overall I think that those engagements, whether they’re debate or dialogue, which I prefer if someone is a good dialogue partner overall, I think, help people come to see more about the faith.
Eric Sammons:
What would you say is probably the toughest question you’ve ever had to face where you really thought, “This…” Like it’s the most challenging one to answer, to defend as a Catholic?
Trent Horn:
Yeah, I don’t know. To be honest, the toughest questions… The toughest questions that I get asked are just the ones that have a simple yet unsatisfying answer, I would say. So the toughest questions might be related to the problem of evil to someone who is personally struggling with evil and suffering. Especially if they ask you in a public forum, what your response is going to be. Because the answer is a simple one about God’s infinity, His ability to bring good from evil. A simple three step summary of the answer to the problem of evil. But it’s just very unsatisfying to someone who’s really in the midst of the emotional problem of evil. Or I get asked how do I help my son come back to the church? I was like, “I don’t know. I don’t know him. I can help with an argument or something he’s struggling with, but I don’t know how to penetrate deep into the soul of where this person is.” I think those can be difficult.
It’s interesting you asked me this though, because I’ve just sent to Catholic Answers’ press a new book I’m working on. I finished it. And it’s a dialogue between me and my inner skeptic. So it’s a dialogue book between the voice of doubt in my own head. And so I cover those different tough questions where I’m not really sure how to answer that. And I’m not really, “Oh, that is kind of a tough question.” And I cover tough questions related to hell like why would God make someone, knowing they’re going to go to hell? That’s a tough one right there.
Eric Sammons:
Right.
Trent Horn:
I don’t have a clean answer to that question. At best, I can say, “Well, the balance of evidence still shows Catholicism is true, and I think there are some things related to that issue that can help me make sense of it, even if they’re not a complete answer.” And then I just have to accept what St. Paul said on this side of the veil we see as in a mirror dimly, and what he meant though, a lot of people don’t understand that is during his time a mirror was just polished bronze, wasn’t glass. They had primitive glass in Egypt, but it was polished bronze. You look in polished metal you kind of see yourself. And that’s with some of these tough questions, that’s the best we’re going to get at this side of the veil, and then the other side we’ll get the full answer.
Eric Sammons:
Right. And I think that’s probably the… it goes back to what you’re saying in the beginning of bad apologizes is people who don’t want to recognize that the mirror isn’t always clear, when they answer questions. That sometimes the answer is not satisfying. It’s not necessary. Like I was saying before, you can’t always reconcile it perfectly, but you just say, “Okay, we’ll soldier on because a lot of other things we can’t answer very well.”
Trent Horn:
Yeah.
Eric Sammons:
One thing I wanted to ask was, who would you say is, maybe one or two, are the best non-Catholic apologist out there?
Trent Horn:
Yeah. So there are a few that I really enjoy for different reasons. The non-Catholic apologists… Well, that’s interesting the way that you’ve phrased it actually. So here, let’s me go through this. So there are Protestant apologists who defend mere Christianity. Ones that I recommend, I like William Lane Craig for his preparation, his extensive knowledge of issues, his professionalism, and doing debates and being always very prepared and being extensively versed in the issues. That it’s not good you try to do apologetics and you only have a surface level knowledge of the issue. You’re going to get in trouble pretty quickly there. My friend Randall Rauser is a Protestant theologian. He might be more left uncertain issues, but he calls himself the tentative apologist. He’s very good at not overstating the case, and being honest about things. So I like that. And you find something similar with Josh Rasmussen, who is a Protestant who deals with the existence of God. I have really enjoyed his work. He’s very congenial, very gentle. Mike Licona would be, has a similar temperament, he’s a great defender of the resurrection.
In the Protestant world who defend mere Christianity, now there are Protestants who defend Protestantism. Ones that I’ve really enjoyed are those who are knowledgeable and charitable. There are Protestant apologists who are neither knowledgeable nor charitable. They’re the worst. There are some that are charitable, but they’re just pushovers. They don’t really know anything. And then there are those that are knowledgeable and lack charity, I just don’t enjoy them very much.
Eric Sammons:
Right.
Trent Horn:
But there are those who are knowledgeable and I would say quite charitable, Jordan Cooper is a Lutheran I really like. Gavin Ortlund is a Baptist who I’ve engaged, done rebuttal videos with him. I’m hoping to set up a debate with him, maybe late spring, early summer, but we’ve engaged each other’s work. But then there’s apologist for other non-Christian sects, if you think about it. So when it comes to atheism, the best people out there apologist is a loose label Philosophers like Graham Oppy, probably one of the best. The Real Atheology crew, the Ben Watkins I debated and others, they’re good. I had this agnostic, Joe Schmidt, who’s 21 and he makes me feel like an old guy because he already knows so much. I get a taste of what other people felt like, I guess, when I was 21. Now I’m like, “All right, great.”
And then there are others and other non-Christian religions among Muslims. Many Muslim apologists, I really don’t enjoy. I think they lack charity. An exception of that would be Shabir Ali. I think he is a very charitable Muslim apologist and knowledgeable. There’s a few off top of mind. When you do apologists, it’s good to be versed in the apologist of other sects. Sects, S-E-C-T-S, to be aware of the good arguments that are out there.
Eric Sammons:
Right. I mean, that’s just St. Thomas way. You’re not trying to find something to knock down, just the easiest thing, a straw man, but you’re trying to find the best arguments and then engage with those. Okay. I think we’re running out of time here. Why don’t you tell us where people can find out more about all… I mean, you’re doing a ton of stuff, so where’s the best way they can find out all the different things you’re doing?
Trent Horn:
Well, I’d recommend people check out my podcast, the Counsel of Trent, C-O-U-N-S-E-L, and you find that on iTunes, Google Play, it’s also as a YouTube channel. So it’s the Counsel of Trent, you can just subscribe to it. YouTube is an easy place to go or iTunes, Google Play. You can support that podcast also at trenthornpodcast.com. So that’s a good way to keep following what I’m doing. My books are available, wherever you can get online. Catholic books available. And I publish a lot at catholic.com, but I think my podcast is a good place for people to follow up with me.
Eric Sammons:
You lucked out with your name, getting that title Counsel of Trent.
Trent Horn:
Pretty good for having non-Catholic parents at all.
Eric Sammons:
Yeah. There you go. Exactly.
Trent Horn:
Yeah.
Eric Sammons:
Little did they know what that would lead to one day.
Trent Horn:
Yeah.
Eric Sammons:
I will link to all this. I’ll link to your podcast, into your homepage, and Catholic Answers so people can find out more about the stuff you’re doing. Hey, I really appreciate you coming on the program, Trent. This has been great.
Trent Horn:
Anytime, Eric.
Eric Sammons:
Okay. Everybody else, until next time, God love you.
Recent Comments