See my interlineations below (all in upper cae).
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 6:49 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: 500 years
Of course no document of Vatican II talks specifically about
private religious speech in public schools. And if there were such a
discussion, it would not be on the basis that some religion is better
than no religion.
SO MY POINT STANDS. WHATEVER THE CHURCH MAY TEACH ABOUT HUMAN DIGNITY,
WHY WOULD THE CHURCH FAVOR EAA WHEN IT CLEARLY DISADVANTAGES THE CHURCH?
ITS SUPPORT OF EAA WAS A MISTAKE, PLAIN AND SIMPLE, AND NOTHING IN THE
DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II REQUIRED THE CHURCH TO SUPPORT EAA. IT IS TRUE,
AS YOU SAY, THAT CATHOLIC DOCTRINE IS MORE TOLERANT THAN EVANGELICAL
PROTESTANT DOCTRINE, AND THIS MAY EXPLAIN, IN PART, WHY THE CHURCH HAS
FAILED TO GRASP THE FULL IMPLICATIONS OF AN ALLIANCE WITH THE
NON-CATHOLIC RELIGIOUS RIGHT.
The documents of Vatican II do defend freedom of conscience for
all, which necessarily means that "evangelical Protestant teaching" will
be protected by law even if it tends to undermine Catholicism. And the
reason given in those documents sounds in the dignity of the human
person, not in institutional or theological advantage. The documents of
Vatican II also recognize the possibility of salvation outside the
church, and even outside Christianity, makig Catholic teaching far more
tolerant than evangelical Protestant teaching.
Michael, you seem to think that the persistence of serious
theological disagreements show that the conflict of the Reformation has
not burned itself out. I agree that theological disagreements persist,
but they no longer motivate much serious conflict.
SEE SAM VENTOLA'S REMARKS, AND I COULD ADD PLENTY OF EXAMPLES FROM MY
OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WHICH I WILL NOT. THE CONFLICT IS REAL, THE
TERM "SERIOUS" COVERS UP WHAT IS REALLY AT STAKE, PERSISTENT DESIRE TO
CONVERT CATHOLICS. THE FACT THAT THE CONFLICT IS OR IS NOT "SERIOUS"
SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE INTENSITY OF THE DESIRE.
For more than 200
years, from Henry VII to Culloden Moor in 1746, Englishman
intermittently killed each other in serious numbers over the
Protestant-Catholic divide. Nineteenth-century Americans occasional
killed each other in street violence, and occasionally destroyed
churches, over the Protestant-Catholic divide. In the 1920s, Oregon
banned private schools as a way of banning Catholic schools, and several
other states considered similar legislation. That's the kind of
conflict that has burned itself out.
BUT IT HARDLY FOLLOWS THAT THE CONFLICT IS SERIOUS ONLY IF CERTAIN KINDS
OF ACTIONS ARE OR ARE NOT TAKEN. THE CONFLICT IS AS REAL AS IT EVER
WAS, EVEN IF WE -- THANK GOD -- NO LONGER BURN PEOPLE AT THE STAKE. (I
COULD OFFER UP SOME ANALOGIES FROM THE ARENA OF RACE RELATIONS TO
BUTTRESS MY POINT BUT I WILL RESIST THE TEMPTATION TO DO SO.)
After Vatican II took away so many Protestant talking points,
and after the popularity of the Kennedys, old-style anti-Catholicism
faded away and became disreputable. Al Smith was hurt as a Presidential
candidate by his Catholocism; Kennedy was hurt some but seems to have
been helped more. Kerry was not hurt by being Catholic; he was hurt by
not being Catholic enough. The current theological disagreements are
nothing like the old style conflict. Contemporary anti-Catholicism is
rooted not in Protestantism, but in the secular left, principally
organized around issues of sexual morality, and secondarily on derision
of any belief in the supernatural.
It may be that reduced conflict is a form of assimilation, and
bad for Catholic doctrine in the long run. That's a different point
from whether social conflict actually persists.
TAKE A LOOK AT MY FIRST PROTESTANT EMPIRE ARTICLE (AND, FOR THAT MATTER,
THE SECOND AND THE THIRD). I THINK THAT YOU WILL SEE THAT I TAKE A
NUANCED VIEW OF "CONFLICT."
Finally, let me say that I agree that persistence and resistance
pretty much describes a lot of evangelical Protestant proselytizing. I
resist too. But while there are some limits to that persistence, I
agree that proselytizing is at the very core of the First Amendment, and
that resistance, not censorship, is the appropriate response.
WHEN PROSELYTIZING HAS THE IMPRIMATUR OF THE STATE BEHIND IT, THERE IS
GOOD REASON TO CENSOR. (I THINK THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER SITUATIONS IN
WHICH CENSORSHIP IS WARRANTED. I CANNOT SEE HOW A BLANKET OBJECTION TO
CENSORSHIP IS CONSONNANT WITH THE EC.)
I have left below the original question to which I was
responding, which is considerably broader than just children
proselytizing in public schools.
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.
