about Chesterton and you're ausblotely right that he wasn't a silent witness. He was very vocal. What made him different? I think it's that he never appealed to popular culture and never tried to gain followers. His true value lies in his unshakeable common sense in a world that had gone mad (still has). Everything he's written reads like something we've known deep down but forgotten. His words are, for me at least, like an aha! moment, but not aha, now I know something I didn't , more like, aha, now I understand something I've always known. I guess what I'm saying is that he used Truth to evangelize, but in my experience of reading him he comes at it not from a This is God and He is true angle but a this is Truth and it will take you to God angle. That makes a difference to certain people. To others, they will need to see it the other way around. Does that make sense?I agree with all the points about evangelization needing to be personalized depending on the person. As far as Fulton Sheen, I'm not gonna lie, if a priest got into my cab and asked me about the state of my soul I would start crying. But if a lay person got into my cab and asked me about the state of my soul I would ask them to get right back out again. Priests have a certain power about them (I've written about it before) that laypeople don't, and when laypeople try to act like priests or address concerns about people that really should only be between that person, their confessor, and God, they come off looking and sounding like self-righteous holy rollers. To me, at least. Maybe others see it differently. Titus, I see what you're saying (although I'm not going to lie, I had to read your comment a few times before I could work it out. You write like my husband). I actually disagree with you, though, that invasiveness, emotiveness, and exuberance are feminine models of behavior. Certainly they've traditionally been found more in women in the last two hundred years, but I, as a woman, have always been uncomfortable with invasiveness and forced exuberance. Not emotiveness, because I emote with the best of them. The incredible explosion in invasiveness and emotiveness is probably a result of the last thirty years of self-esteem conditioning, coupled with the lack of privacy with which we live our lives now (online, for all to see). And while I understand your point about living in a wasteland, I would argue that fifty years is not remotely enough time in which to destroy all ideals of masculinity. At the very least, masculinity has been under attack for the last two hundred years (along with femininity), but I would say that the roots of the modern disconnect between men and masculinity and between women and femininity date back to the Reformation, when we suddenly learned that what we are is essentially evil. Since then, men and women have been struggling to either reject themselves because they are so depraved or struggling to reconcile a proper understanding of the essential goodness of the human person with a world which tells them that it does not exist.