Some people on the Catholic Right spend a lot of energy and keyboard time making the rational argument for the Resurrection, touting evidence and all. On the other hand, there’s a general belittling others when they ply the intellectual side for matters non-religious. So which is it? And why does it seem the Right, so soaked through with neoapologetics, pickpockets the approach of the Enlightenment to make a case the Lord himself seemed satisfied to present in a way different way.
At my parish, the staff splits up various questions the students drop into the query bucket. The other week someone suggested someone should tackle “How do we know the Resurrection is true?” Check out page 5a and see if I wander too much into rationalism.
I’m not suggesting either of the two Marks or their like-minded comrades lack faith. I’m sure these folks have as much faith as I. (Given their approval of authority and obedience, I’m sure they leave me far behind in the related quality of trust.) But I wonder, if the Risen Jesus thought encounters that solidified the foundations of the Christian sacraments were sufficient to spread his Gospel, why so many believers try to make this a matter of intellectual persuasion? All you have to do is go to Mass for three hours on Easter Eve, then hang around for social time till early the next morning to see the Resurrection proclaimed and lived.