From the new Napa Institute blog, a post by Nathaniel Currie on obstacles to apologetics in the 21st century:
In the first chapter of his early work Introduction to Christianity, Pope Benedict XVI recounts the famous story by 
Kierkegaard about the clown and the burning village. He writes,
“According to this story, a traveling circus in Denmark caught fire. The manager thereupon sent the clown, who was already dressed and made up for the performance, into the neighboring village to fetch help, especially as there was a danger that the fire would spread across the fields of dry stubble and engulf the village itself. The clown hurried into the village and requested the inhabitants to come as quickly as possible to the blazing circus and help to put the fire out. But the villagers took the clown’s shouts simply for an excellent piece of advertising, meant to attract as many people as possible to the performance; they applauded the clown and laughed till they cried. The clown felt more like weeping than laughing; he tried in vain to get people to be serious, to make it clear to them that this was no stunt, that he was not pretending but was in bitter earnest, that there really was a fire. His supplications only increased the laughter; people thought he was playing his part splendidly — until finally the fire did engulf the village; it was too late for help, and both circus and village were burned to the ground.” - (Introduction to Christianity, Chapter 1)
Our Holy Father sees this story as an allegory for the experience contemporary theologians have when trying to assert their role in society and academia. But this allegory can also be extended to include the experience all Catholics have when trying to defend the Faith and evangelize others. In the story, the poor clown is not trusted because the villagers think that what he is telling them is merely a clever ploy to sell tickets, and for the simple reason that “he is a clown.” After all, clowns, like all actors, are supposed to be dramatic, entertaining, and dishonest. In the end, however, we can see that both the clown and the villagers are to blame for the resulting tragedy. The clown could have attempted to remove his costume and makeup, and so help the villagers overcome their false assumptions. The villagers, for their part, could have tried to overlook the extraneous circumstances surrounding the clown’s plea for help and taken him seriously. Had either party made more of an effort toward effective understanding, perhaps real communication would have occurred.
Similarly, Catholics are often at a disadvantage when it comes to the public square.
Read the entire post, "Contemporary Obstacles to Catholic Apologetics".
Comments