I've been hesitant to jump in as this seems to drift a bit off topic, but given the invitation I'll add my perspective. I am a Catholic, and was educated in Catholic schools and have represented Catholic organizations for many years. But, I married a protestant and go to Sunday services and Bible studies, etc., at an evangelical protestant church. So I have some perspective on what goes on in both worlds.
I do agree with Professor Newsom that there remains a great deal of lingering disdain among evangelical protestants for Catholics. For example, they do still deem it important to "covert" Catholics, and the missionaries who come to our church talk about converting Catholics the same way they talk about converting Hindus or Muslims. This annoys me somewhat, but I recognize their right to say what they want and convert who they want. They also have serious doctrinal problems with Catholic theology, mostly centering around their perceptions (incorrect in my view) that (1) the Catholic church deems the approval and involvement of priests to be essential to salvation, as opposed to a more direct relationship with God, and (2) that Catholics believe salvation comes through works rather than faith. If you took a vote you'd probably get a 50/50 result as to whether they think Catholics are "saved," with most of the nays coming from the older generation. I was considered someone they wanted as an elder in the church, until I told them I was Catholic, and then that went out the window. On the other hand, I don't agree with Professor Newsom that Catholics feel so threatened by Protestants that they wish to see government prohibit religious messages in the public square. As Professor Volokh has suggested, I believe that Catholics would like to see government become more friendly to religion in general. I also disagree with Professor Newsom in his view that Catholicism is not evangelical. Catholics are, in fact, trying to convert people every day. Preferably to Catholicism, but at least to Christianity. They are less likely to take a direct approach of the type that some evangelicals take, generally preferring to show Christ by example, but they certainly are not opposed to direct approaches. I also think Catholics are less likely to believe that non-Christians are necessarily condemned to damnation. Sam Ventola Denver, Colorado On 11/7/05, Volokh, Eugene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since this is relevant to the question of whether Protestants > are so unusual in proselytizing, I thought I'd take the liberty of > asking a theological question: Don't Catholics hope that more > non-Catholics become Catholics, and in fact take active steps to do so? > If so, then I don't see why Catholics should simply want Catholicism to > be left alone; nor should they see "proselytizing" as a dirty word. > (Prof. Newsom is free to simply want Catholicism to be left alone, but > I'm just trying to explore whether it's somehow an essentially Catholic > view.) > > Finally, I don't think there's anything offensive in pointing > out that Prof. Newsom's arguments, both on the list and in his writings, > seem to contain a certain degree of hostility to Protestantism, and a > greater degree than seems to be generally expressed by at least the > American Catholic church. Perhaps it's justified hostility; he is > certainly free to express his views about what he sees as the legacy of > some Protestant Empire, for instance. But others are free to suggest > (whether or not Doug Laycock meant to suggest it) that Prof. Newsom's > views urge a greater degree of suspicion of Protestantism than many > Catholics exhibit, and urge a greater degree of tension and a lesser > degree of cooperation between the faiths than many Catholics urge. > > Eugene > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Newsom Michael > > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 3:03 PM > > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > > Subject: RE: 500 years > > > > > > Doug, could you refer to the documents of the Second Vatican > > Council that say that the Church should support facilitation > > of the teaching or presentation in the public schools of > > doctrine antithetical to the Catholic faith on the grounds > > that teaching any religion is better than teaching no religion? > > > > Doug, with respect, you beg the question. The question is > > whether or not agreement on social and "moral" issues can > > coexist in some sort of long term and stable relationship > > with disagreement on theological issues. Maybe yes, maybe no > > (although I lean to the "no" side). Furthermore, the conflict > > arising out of the Reformation regarding the church-sacrament > > system has not "pretty much burned itself out." As I have > > said in an earlier post, take a look at the responses to > > Baptism, Eucharist, Ministry, and tell me if you still > > believe that the conflict has "pretty much burned itself out." > > > > Finally, it is offensive to insinuate that that I am trying > > "to stir the embers and keep the fight going." My interest > > is merely in protecting the Catholic faith from erosion, and > > my desire is merely that Catholics be left alone. I don't > > see how this can be read as "stir[ring] embers" unless you > > suppose that somehow the desire to be left alone to tend to > > the (re-)building up of the Catholic faith is a provocation. > > > > There is some public opinion survey evidence that American > > Catholics may be losing their belief in Transubstantiation. > > I am not surprised at this, but I fail to see how my dismay > > is, ipso facto, a provocation. It is my belief that the > > alliance between conservative Catholics and others on the > > Religious Right will, over the long haul, undermine and erode > > the Catholic faith. > > > > Those unsympathetic to the Catholic faith, of course, see all > > of this as a fool's errand, and may even want to undermine > > any efforts at (re-)building the Catholic faith, and may even > > see the efforts as a provocation, mightily to be resisted. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 4:02 PM > > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > > Subject: RE: 500 years > > > > The question below is one that Pius IX might have > > asked. Probably did. My understanding is that John Courtney > > Murray gave the Catholic version of the answer, and that his > > answer was largely adopted at the Second Vatican Council. > > > > The centuries long conflict arising out of the > > Reformation has pretty much burned itself out. There are a > > handful of people on both sides trying to stir the embers and > > keep the fight going. You still have Bob Jones to fight with > > Michael, but you don't have many others. > > > > Of course there are theological disagreements that run > > deep, and that line still runs between Protestants and > > Catholics. But on many moral and social issues, conservative > > Protestants and conservative Catholics have far more in > > common with each other than with liberals of their own faith, > > and vice versa. And there is the possibility of making law, > > and coercing behavior, on moral and social issues; there is > > no such possibility on theological issues. So it is hardly > > surprising that on both left and right, believers are making > > common cause across theological and denominational lines. > > > > > > > > > > Douglas Laycock > > University of Texas Law School > > 727 E. Dean Keeton St. > > Austin, TX 78705 > > 512-232-1341 (phone) > > 512-471-6988 (fax) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Newsom Michael > > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 2:40 PM > > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > > Subject: RE: 500 years > > > > > > if evangelical Protestant teaching undermines the Catholic > > faith, then why should Catholics encourage such teaching? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, > > see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be > > viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read > > messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; > > and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the > > messages to others. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, > > see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be > > viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read > > messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; > > and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the > > messages to others. > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; > people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) > forward the messages to others. > _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
