1

Joe, you surely know that for every Catholic-friendly evangelical like you there's 1-3 who still believe Catholics aren't really Christians. I just spent an hour last week explaining to a couple 25-year-old evangelicals that Catholics don't actually worship saints.

My experience with American Catholics is spottier but it seems to me that even among traditional Catholics a certain level of discomfort with evangelicals is widespread.

This is just smart marketing. If you, Colson, and Neuhaus bust your buns, maybe in a few election cycles it won't be necessary anymore.

2

I agree with Luke. I don't believe there's a widespread recognition by evangelicals or Catholics of the common cause we share. In fact, I expect some who frequent this blog will take exception to that notion.

As to the focus on family and pro-life issues, that also would seem to be a marketing choice. Remember, the ultimate goal of a campaign website is not to have a fully informed electorate. It is to persuade you to vote for the candidate. If the target audience is evangelicals (or Catholics), why not focus on the handful of issues that seem most important, and that provide the sharpest contrast with the other candidate?

3

The RNC is guessing that the number of people who will be (mildly or otherwise) offended by two separate websites is lower than the number who would get prickly over a single website which presumed to unify the evangelicals and Catholics under one tent.

Are they guessing correctly? I think Luke has the answer.

4

Very cool!

OT,
I changed my blog address.

5

I suspect a large part of the reason for the separate websites is that, although Evs and Caths agree on a lot of these policy outcomes, they disagree on the source of authority why this is so. A website full of Old Testament proof-texts about homosexuality is not going to carry as much weight with conservative Catholic voters as a list of quotations from St Augustine or various Popes. ("These are the same fundamentalists who hate Catholics and support the death penalty while opposing school lunch programs. Why should I listen to them?"). Ditto the other way, a fortiori. ("These Papists dare elevate the words of man to the same level as the Word of God! Sacrilege!") Yet on the concrete policies proposed in the secular level, there are few discernible (or, at least, non-negotiable) differences among the conservative believers in each denomination.

6

In a sandwich shop I once heard the girl behind the counter say, "I'm not a Christian, I'm a Catholic."

I'm a Protestant myself, but I wanted to go over and tell her, "If you're a Catholic, you're a Christian."

7

Being an Evangelical (with 12 years of Catholic school education and occasionally teaching in Catholic schools) in a very large Catholic family, I can only applaud your efforts to bring civility and cooperation to the two sides. However, I am afraid the other posters are quite correct: there are still too many Catholics and too many Evangelicals who look upon each other with distrust and dislike. Therefore, two websites targeted to the separate groups is only prudent.

8

So. Which candidate is "more Christian"? Of course, you know you've stepped into a hornet's nest if you've dared to bring up the issue of the separation of church and state. Regardless of historical fact, many evangelicals, Catholic and Protestant, insist--I mean, insist!--the concept of liberal democracy as a secular ideal is fallicious. Instead, they posit drabble about Mosaic Law and the influence of Christianity throughout Western history. It doesn't matter one whit that the concept was developed by pagans in ancient Greece, or that democracy is theorized to have been practiced throughout primitive manking. It doesn't matter either that Machivelli, one of the first, post-Christ, philosophers to suggest it to the world of the Renaissance happened to be a pagan. It doesn't even matter that the very Thomas Paine of the American Revolution wrote a highly-lauded bestseller against Christianity as a religion, a book called "The Age of Reason." It doesn't even occur to evangelicals to go right to the sources--early post-American Revolution newspapers--to see that anti-Christian, especially anti-Catholic, sentiment ran high. In fact, revolution didn't mean simply revolting against England. It meant revolting against the entire European tradition--and that included Christianity.

It doesn't matter to evangelists that a secular government was designed, in part, to protect the people against religious bigotry such as the Inquisitions or the destruction of the Cathars. Putting the power of the state together with the power of religon, our forefathers understood, was a volatile cocktail.

Of course, in the Catholic worldview, the entire concept of individuality as we know it in America is morally suspect: An individual who is free to exercise his or her will is exercising self-will, and self-will, according to just about every Catholic source I've ever read is just about the worst sin anybody can commit. Perhaps that's why 19th Century European Catholic tracts proclaimed America as the Book of Revelation's "Whore of Babylon." America was the first nation-state to amass enough power to turn Catholicism's religious empire into a moot little kitten.

Sorry. But Protestant Evangelicals don't think that deep. They're trained not to think.

9

Joe,

Great information, I'm glad you posted it. I don't pretend to be the source for matters ecumenical, but I question the need for the two sites. I think the momentum in the Christian Church within American at the moment is for closer ties between evangelicals and Catholics. (I frankly don't know where the mainline Protestant churches are at these days, so I cannot comment on them.) Witness Evangelicals & Catholics Together (as you noted), witness First Things, witness Touchstone, witness your site. The fact is, we are coming to the realization that that which we share in common is greater, and far, far stronger, than that over which we disagree. I also think that, as the culture becomes progressively anti-Christian and as younger Christians of all stripes mature, we will draw even closer together. Looking at my own bookshelf right now, here are some authors I see: Hahn, Chesterton, and Kreeft; Colson, Swindoll, McGrath, and Strobel. (Augustine's there, of course, but both claim him.) In any event, I think I would prefer to see one site.

God Bless,
Mark

10

Nah, we don't think. It is interesting that evangelical historian Mark Noll would put pretty much everything you said on its head. Now what school does he teach at? Oh yeah, Notre Dame.

By the way, it is evangelical not evangelist. Catholics have no self will and thus cannot think for themselves, like uh, Thomas Acquinas? The last comment illustrates why Evangelicals and Catholics are working together despite our common misgivings. The secularists mock us both. That's also why more Catholics will be voting for the Evangelical because he is more "Catholic" than the Catholic running against him. We may disagree but we also have found out that we can respect each other. That's one good thing that has come out of this otherwise nasty election cycle.

11

Gordon,

"An individual who is free to exercise his or her will is exercising self-will, and self-will, according to just about every Catholic source I've ever read is just about the worst sin anybody can commit."

Did your sources include Augustine:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm#cat

or the Catechism of the Catholic Church?:

http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/search.cfm

The Catholic Church believes in the free will of man. It does expect man to exercise that free will in a certain direction, but the will exists. (Protestants are, admittedly, all over the place on the concept.)

You might want to actually know what you are talking about before you state something as a fact. Helps maintain your credibility.

Also, the "worst sin anybody can commit" is to exalt man over God. All other sins are merely footnotes to this.

God Bless,
Mark

12

I come from the Calvinist/Augustinian spectrum of things. Even we believe in freedom. Following Augustine, we believe that when we become a Christian we go from non posse non peccare to posse non peccare. Thus, all Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, believe in freedom. I believe what is being discussed here really is autonomy which is no freedom at all.

13

Re: Evangelicals and Catholics Together…Against Kerry?

How about Pope John Paul II against George W. Bush?

References:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=15&num=1904

http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen04222003.html

Catholics: the bottom line is your emissary to God - if you indeed believe that the pope is His divine messenger - holds deep contempt for George W. Bush and his policies. This can't be good news for Bush when he gets to the pearly gates.

"How can George Bush meet his god with so much blood on his hands?" - Iraqi olympic soccer player.

14

All this esoteric stuff is interesting, but, the Campaign is just being practical. Many of the Evangelicals patently do not see any salvation in the teachings of the Catholic Church. THEY (The Campaign) are not separating us, WE separate our selves. Call me what ever you wish, but I simply bypass anything addresed to Catholics. I suggest
that most Evangelicals would simply ignore anything that address us jointly. I am quite often guilty of that myself. I am busy and don't have time to mess up my mind with all of the Eucumenical Stuff. It is only smart and pratical to address the two separately. No offense meant and none should be taken. The heat of a campaign is not the time to worry about Joining us together. All that stuff is fine for scholars and such, but practically, it doesn't have any effect on me. It is not the Campaigns duty to try to pretend we are all the same. Evangelicals, and Catholics alike have very strong beliefs and while we are not at war, I see nothing wrong with addressing each of us separately.

As for Luke, to us it looks like worship, the statues look like idols and frankly you can talk all day long and probably never change that perception. I am with you it is just smart marketing not an attempt to separate already separate groups.

15

"How can George Bush meet his god with so much blood on his hands?" - Iraqi olympic soccer player.

bush thinks he IS god.

isn't the one-world church another sign of the end'tiems? i am surprised that you are purporting that view here. i mean, catholics aren't going to heaven now are they? you know, they pray to the virgin and all that instead of the baby jesus.

16

I am afraid that some Evangelicals act like some of the rabidly anti-Bush types. Namely, because of some deep disagreements with the Catholic church, there is a compulsion to be almost irrationally contrarian.

My next comment will address the issue of authority and why he is neither a good Catholic nor a good Protestant.

17

John Kerry claims to be a good Vatican II Catholic. As far as I understand it, though, Vatican II did not deny the Teaching Office of the Church, known as the Magisterium. (Catholic readers please correct me here if I am wrong.) Authority according to Catholic theology rests on two equal pillars, Scripture and Tradition. There is some debate to the degree of infallibility and who the bearers of that infallibility are, but for the sake of simplicity I will simply call it infallible.

The Reformation fell into two parts: the Magisterial Reformation and the Radical Reformation. The former is where Evangelicalism and Mainline Protestantism came from and it is from there I will describe the Protestant and Evangelical theory of authority. Like the Catholics the Bible is a regula fidei. Unlike the Catholics, the Bible is the only infallible regula fidei. What is not well understood (by both sides it seems) is that for the Magisterial Reformation there is a role of little-t tradition. That tradition is a guideline for interpretation that is authoritative but not infallible. The interpretation of the Bible by the church is to be treated with reverence and not ignored lightly. But, under extreme circumstances it may be necessary to do ao. When the church discovers she has erred in her interpretation then she explicitly changes her public confession. So, even this process is not up to the individual.

The rise of Fundamentalism and the congregational form of church government in the 20th century weakened or cut Evangelicalism's historical roots. Even so, the so-called "fundamentals" are still tied to Evangelicalism's historic roots.

In summary, Catholicism and Evangelicalism share the same two pillars of authority the Bible and the church. They differ in that in Catholicism these pillars are of roughly equal weight and can stand on their own while in Evangelicalism the pillar of the church is built on top of the pillar of the Bible.

John Kerry claims to be a good Catholic while his personal beliefs trump the Magisterium. Thus, he cannot be a good Catholic. The temptation is to call him a Protestant but even here the conscience needs to be bound to an external authority, namely the Bible. Kerry's beef with the Catholic Church is also a beef with the Bible. Thus, he is seeking for an option neither of us allow.

18

Note the following interview from Iraq at a glance. The Iraqi goalkeeper, Akram Sabeeh was interviewed why they reacted so negatively to the U.S. during the Olympics. Well, surprise, surprise it was because of our good friends in the MSM. Here's a portion of that interview:

A: So what was wrong with other Olympic players, they were so upset when they were shown on the TV after each game, they kept repeating: occupation, targeting the cities..etc, they blamed on the Americans for that, what do you think?

Akram: Well..they were saying this cause they were watching what was going on in AlNajaf and previously in Fallujah, they felt that the families were being killed everyday.

A: And do you believe that?

Akram: we are watching all of that on the channels.

A: Have you ever watched some good news regarding Iraq on those channels?

Akram: Frankly…Never!

A: So those channels intentionally collect the bad news and exaggerate in most of them and play with our emotions to achieve their goal, and they’ve succeeded in that with some people..if they are honest they had better look at the good changes also.

Akram: Yes, you are right, we cry and get angry as we watch those channels!

19

>Joe, you surely know that for every Catholic-
>friendly evangelical like you there's 1-3 who
>still believe Catholics aren't really
>Christians. I just spent an hour last week
>explaining to a couple 25-year-old evangelicals
>that Catholics don't actually worship saints.

"The Reformation Wars ended in 1648.
Where were you?"

>John Kerry claims to be a good Vatican II
>Catholic. As far as I understand it, though,
>Vatican II did not deny the Teaching Office of
>the Church, known as the Magisterium. (Catholic
>readers please correct me here if I am wrong.)

You are right, Grasshopper. However, "The Spirit of Vatican II" has been quoted to justify a lot of lunatic-fringe tangents. Kind of like "I Gotta Be MEEEEEEEE!" and "Sexual" justifies just about anything these days.

(Incidentally, I'm a Mystery Babylonian, Satanic Death Cookies and all. Ia! Ia! Nimrod! Ia! Ia! Semiramis! Ia! Ia! Tammuz! ;-)

20

Many good and intelligent points made by commenters on the separate RNC pages for evangelicals and Catholics.

I think there is a simple explanation for the two pages: if you had one page, what would you call it? "Why Kerry is Bad for Christians"? Can you imagine the storm that would cause?

21

"If you'er a Catholic, you're a Christian"? Sorry, but I strongly disagree.

Whenever people say "Catholics are Christians too," I cringe. Some of them are, but not all of them.

And FTR, I say the same thing about Protestants (who are on more solid Biblical ground, IMO).

22

fix your web-page. your sponsors are blocking your articles.

eugene f. hgari
310-813-4088

23

This Evangelical Lutheran will be supporting John Kerry when he becomes, as is more and more evident, our next President. W's carpetbagging Christian posturing is patently machiavellian and manifested itself within a few days of his inaugural. One of the sponsors for the president's inaugural prayer breakfast was none other than Sun Myung Moon! Yes the one with the messiah complex. (He even passed out tracts!) Source -Kevin Phillips 'American Dynasty'. Then there's General Boykin still on the job fighting Satan. One can only imagine the 'rapture' crowd salivating at the prospect of initiating armegeddon while they get to watch from the balcony. I haven't quite figured out who is using whom, W or the radical fundie Christian right. I just want to thank you Jesus for W and his leadership...ya sure you betcha.