Catholic apologetics is self-destructive

There's a significant difference between Catholic and Protestant apologetics. Catholic apologetics suffers from an inner tension lacking in Protestant apologetics. That's because the Catholic faith is far more reliant on the argument from authority than the Protestant faith. Notice how often a Catholic apologist reframes an issue in terms of authority: "What's your authority for that interpretation!" "That's just your private opinion!" Human reason is so untrustworthy that we need the pope to play referee. 

That worked better in the past, when there was a dichotomy between educated clergymen and uneducated laymen. But when, in principle, laymen can study whatever clergy study, then "Trust me–take my word for it" breaks down. That's because the clergy don't know anything a layman can't know. 

Apologetics defends a faith-tradition by giving evidence for its claims or providing explanations for why the claims are logical and true. But once you do that, it shifts the question from an argument from authority to an argument from reason. Giving evidence or giving an explanation is an appeal to reason, not authority. So it then depends on how persuasive the reader finds the explanation or the purported evidence. 

Take biblical prooftexts for Catholicism. That puts the judgment in the hands of the reader. Does he find the Catholic interpretation convincing? 

Or take transubstantiation. Aquinas wasn't content to say the real presence is church dogma. That may be because the real presence is so counterintuitive. If the bread and wine become Jesus, why don't they appear to be Jesus?

So he proposed a theory to reconcile the hiatus between appearance and reality. But once he provides an explanation, his explanation invites rational scrutiny. 

A classic case is the ban an artificial contraception. From what I've read, that's supposed to be based on natural law. Yet natural law is an argument from reason rather than authority. And therein lies the rub, because many Catholics don't find the natural law arguments cogent–or even plausible. 

The dilemma for Catholic apologetics is that it tries to mount arguments from reason to defend ecclesiastical authority, yet the argument from reason cuts the ground out from under the argument from authority. The competence of reason sabotages the appeal to the pope to play tiebreaker. It is hazardous to spell out the rationale if it turns out that the rationale is weak. Apologetics may unwittingly expose the weakness of a position. It's like an antidote to doubt that may kill the patient if there's a slight overdose. 

Of course, authority has a necessary role in religion. It's just a question of where to locate it.