Only 16 percent of Roman Catholics in Boston are going to church these days. So the Archdiocese has redoubled efforts to re-evangelize those who have fallen away. Good for them.But I wonder if the poor Catholics staying on the edges of the community are going to be feeling a bit of whiplash. On the one hand, in Massachusetts, most Catholics voted Democratic, support gay marriage, and endorse the broad availability of contraception. On the one hand, a cursory examination of one segment of the Catholic blogosphere ----vociferously says, "If you dissent --on anything--get out. If you use contraception and support its public availability, if you don't oppose gay marriage, if you supported health care reform, if you voted for Obama--well, go away. You're not a good Catholic."I don't think Cardinal O'Malley operates in this way. And I don't think its effective to operate in this way. David Campbell and Robert Putnam wrote a book suggesting that the politicization of the church is a great impediment to evangelization among young people.But clearly, many Catholic prelates do operate in this way. I can't help wondering, for say, Archbishop Chaput and others like him, what's the point of a broad evangelization program: Why invite people back just so you can kick them out again? If these issues are deal-breakers, why go through the motions? You might have a smaller, purer church (the Donatists thought so). But it's awfully unlikely that you'll have a BIGGER, purer church.A second thing: What's the best way to evangelize? I think evangelizing is like giving Christmas presents. All too often, we give what would like to get, rather than what the recipient would like to receive. I wonder if that is the case with, say, Fr. Barron's Catholicism series. From all accounts, it presents the Church in all its power, strength, beauty and glory--the Church militant, if not the Church triumphant. That may warm the cockles of the hearts of certain segments already within the Church--it confirms them in their beliefs. But is it likely to bring back those who have left? Or to attract people who have worries about the Church's abuse of power? I don't know. I haven't seen it. But I wonder.About evangelization, I hve a few questions:1. In evangelizing, should we recognize any distinctions, if not differences, between preaching Christ and preaching the Church?2. Do those who evangelize pay any attention to any studies of rhetorical effectiveness? Advertising? Or is the problem that believers give others the arguments that they think the others SHOULD be convinced by?3. We've talked about this before, but I increasingly believe there's a big difference between evangelization and apologetics. Back to Cardinal O'Malley. People I know say he is an effective evangelizer, because of how he lives, not just what he says. My father has spoken admiringly, more than once, of the fact that Cardinal O'Malley lives simply, wears his habit, and (I'm told) gets his coffee at his neighborhood coffee shop. He is a prince of the church understood as the kingdom of God, not as the kingdom of this world.UPDATE:4. When reading certain conservative Catholic websites, it strikes me that the favorite verb is "to explain." Janet Smith "explains" the church's teaching on contraception. Anthony Esolen "explains" the meaning of the new liturgy. The presupposition is that the problem is that non-Catholics and (from their perspective) not-up-to-snuff Catholics, well, really aren't too bright. They just need things "explained" to them. In my experience, however, many people who reject the official teachings on the current culture war issues understand quite well. They simply don't agree. Changing peoples' minds and hearts is a lot more complicated than providing them with better "explanations."