Posted on 07/29/2008 4:39:52 PM PDT by annalex
Evangelicals have been going through a major change of heart in their view of Catholicism over the past 15 years or so. In the 80’s when I was in college I lived in the Biblebelt and had plenty of experience with Evangelicals–much of it bad experience. The 80’s was the height of the “Are you saved?” question. In Virginia, the question often popped up in the first 10 minutes of getting to know someone. As I look back, Isurmise that this was coached from the pulpit or Sunday school as it was so well coordinated and almost universally applied. It was a good tactic for putting Catholics on the defensive even before it was known that they were Catholic—”ummmm, uhhh, well no, I’m not sure, I’m Catholic.” Then a conversation about works righteousness or saint statues would ensue. Yeah, nice to meet you, too.
Thankfully, those days are pretty much over. We now have formerly rabid anti-Catholics apologizing and even praising the pope. Catholics and Evangelicals have both learned that we have much in common and need each other to face the secular culture with a solid front. But, where did this detente come from? I think there is a real history to be told here and a book should be written. Let me give my perceptions of 7 major developments since 1993, which I regard as the the watershed year for the renewal of the Catholic Church in the United States.
1. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1993. When this document came out, it was uncertain that even Catholics would read it. We should have known that something was up when the French version hit the top of the bestsellers charts in France and stayed there for months. The English version did the same in the US. Catholics were reading the Catechism, forming study groups and challenging errant professors in the classroom.
2. World Youth Day, Denver 1993. Catholic youth and youth ministers woke up. Suddenly, Catholic youth ministers realized that the youth loved the pope. And they loved him all the more because he did not talk down to them or water down the faith. He challenged them. Gone now were the pizza and a video parish youth nights. Furthermore, youth and young adults took up the challenge to evangelize. One of those youth heard the message and started a website, New Advent. Catholic youth were now becoming zealous for the Catholic faith in its fullness and were not going to be swayed by an awkward conversation that began with “Are you saved?”
3. Scott Hahn. While the Catechism is great for expounding the Catholic faith, it is not a work of apologetics itself. It is not written to expose the flaws of Evangelical theology. It is not written to defend the Church against the attacks of Evangelicals per se. It just would not let them get away with misrepresenting the Catholic faith. But Scott Hahn hit the scene at about the same time with Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism (Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 1993). I first heard his testimony on cassette tape in 1996. It blew my mind. Suddenly, Catholic apologetics, which is as old as the Catholic Church itself, got a leg up and there was an explosion of books, magazines and websites that effectively undercut the arguments of the 5 Solas. For the first time, there was a cadre of Catholics well enough informed to defend their faith.
4. The Internet. The Net started exploding from 1993 to 1996. I had my first account in ‘94. Compuserve was horribly basic, but by ‘96 I had AOL and the religion debates raged instantly. Catholics who had just been given the most powerful weapon in the arsenal in the war against misinterpretation of their teaching were learning to type on a forum while balancing their catechisms on their laps. Of course, online versions came out, as well. But, no Evangelical bent on getting Catholics out of the arms of the Whore of Babylon could expect to do so without himself have a copy of the Catechism, knowing it inside out and pouring over it for the errors and horrors he would surely find. Evangelical apologists were confronted with a coherent and beautiful presentation of the Catholic faith that they were ill equipped to argue against. They learned that Catholics, too, loved Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. The Catechism had arrived providentially just before the internet and had turned the tables in just a few short years. With the apologetic movement hitting at the same time, Evangelicals were also confronted with Catholics who could argue from the Bible defending their faith and demonstrating the weaknesses of Evangelical interpretations of scripture.
5. Early Church Fathers. One fruit of the Apologetics movement has been a flowering anew of Catholic interest in Patristics. This is happening at every level from armchair apologists to doctoral studies. It is suddenly all about Patristics, whereas in the 70’s-90’s the academic focus had been on Karl Rahner and Liberation Theology.
6. Evangelical Third World Experience. Evangelicals have had a field day in Latin America among the poor who are not part of the internet conversation and are distant from the study of apologetics. But, Evangelicals have learned from their experiences abroad an essential aspect of the Gospel they were missing: the Works of Mercy. Once haughty with their criticism of “works righteousness,” they have learned one cannot attend to the spiritual needs of the poor without attending to their bodily needs. Catholic have always understood this. Now, the Evangelicals are coming around. I haven’t heard an Evangelical Televangelist speak on works righteousness in many years.
7. Secularism. With the collapse of the Mainline churches as the backbone of American religion over the past thirty years (since about 1975), Catholics and Evangelicals are the only ones left standing in this country to present the Gospel. Secularism is on the rise and is ruthless. Evangelicals are now learning that only Catholicism has the intellectual resources to combat the present secular age. And, with the pope, we have a pretty effective means for communicating the faith and representing it to the world. There is nothing an Evangelical can do that will match the power of one World Youth Day.
With such an array of Providential developments, Evangelicals as well as Catholics have come to appreciate the depth and the breadth of the Catholic faith. It is far more difficult for them to honestly dismiss Catholicism as the work of Satan as once they did without qualm. There have been apologies and there have been calls for a new partnership. Let us hope these developments will bring about a new moment of understanding for the Glory of the Lord.
And no, I will not ask them their confessions.
No kidding. Sometimes one must lower one’s self to the level that others have set just to get a point across.
The reason this is coming up is because the credibility of the RMs is in question. It is obvious from posting history that the bulk of the public rebukes are Catholics.
That objective fact and can be evidenced by simply looking at the RM history.
I have been accused of being a Mormon, a "Papist" - and anti-Mormon, an anti-Catholic, a Calvinist.
It all depends on whose ox is getting gored on any particular day.
In fact, it is because all of the groups complain about me from time to time that I know I am even-handed.
“I have been accused of being a Mormon, a “Papist” - and anti-Mormon, an anti-Catholic, a Calvinist.”
I’m not talking about accusations. I’m talking about the simple breakdown of Catholic rebukes vs. Protestant rebukes. It is totally skewed against Catholics.
That is verifiable fact in the RM history.
Anybody can look at it and see for themselves.
In short, you simply do not have the information to evidence your complaint.
Have you overlooked the "in forum" button on the RM home page?
Using that, and tracing the threads, much of what he claims is possible. (although I do not endorse his conclusion)
:)
“In short, you simply do not have the information to evidence your complaint.”
rbmillerjr may not have ALL the information, but your posting history is significant information, and can be used to “evidence [the] complaint.”
I've participated in other religion fora much better moderated than here, and the moderators' regular screen names were used, not the moniker “Religion Moderator.”
We may be hitting our heads against a brick wall in our request, but it is an eminently reasonable request, and no satisfactory reason has been provided for denying it.
sitetest
Insinuations fly back and forth constantly.
Some are more distant from the targets than others.
I try to be distant enough that folks who don’t feel they fit can dodge quite easily and comfortably.
Besides, we have to let the other side know that their efforts are noticed. Wouldn’t want them to feel ignored and unloved.
WOW.
Someone noticed! LOL.
All that you can see from the “in forum” is what I posted on thread, warnings not punishments. You cannot see the moderator information.
“You do not have access to the information to know who was banned, who was suspended and for how long...”
This is partially correct. There is the bulk of the evidence available though - and it does evidence my claim. There are many more public warnings and rebukes than suspensions.
“In short, you simply do not have the information to evidence your complaint.”
All of the evidence is not available. But what does exist, I would posit the bulk of it, verifies the claim that there is a disproportionate number of rebukes to one side.
Another quantifiable subset of the public rebukes are cases where there are two people involved and both are borderline on violating the rules. In an almost unbelievalbe skewing of balance, Catholics are rebuked, which is followed with the customary, “...if one party has been warned, consider... the other party to be warned as well...”
I guess you’re right it’s just cooincidence that it is nearly always the Catholic that is rebuked. Cmon. Fairness is all that is requested. There are others who feel the same way, they just don’t want to go public.
HOWEVER, EVEN AS STATED AND EVEN IF TRUE
it is
MEANINGLESS
APART FROM THE STIMULUS THAT TRIGGERS SUCH A RESPONSE.
IF, as most Prottys would possibly assert . . . the more rabid RC's are guilty of initiating say 85+% of the personal assaults on the Rel Forum,
THEN
OF COURSE
The RC's are going to have the majority of the well-deserved slap-downs. Sheesh!
The RC edifice tunnel-vision, revisionist, myopic, double-standard construction on reality sticks it's nose in the air yet AGAIN!
Evidently, the mods were once "outted" with undesirable consequences.
It is out of my hands.
But the truth of the matter is that I don't even look at the poster's confession in deciding what to do. The news itself sometimes wags the dog - e.g. when Romney or the FLDS are in the news, the LDS/anti-LDS/ex-LDS are in the spotlight and get more mod attention.
“You are hitting your heads against the wall making this request.”
I understand.
That doesn't make it any less reasonable.
“Evidently, the mods were once ‘outted’ with undesirable consequences.”
I'm sure that handled improperly, it could certainly have undesirable consequences. However, although I've been here 10 1/2 years, and came here long before there were moderators, I don't remember the specific incident[s] to which you refer.
Interestingly, there are other Internet fora, including religious fora, that manage to do just fine with identified moderators. In fact, my own observation is that it makes moderating easier, as all the cards are on the table.
Here, much of the evidence that bears on moderator fairness is “under” the table, is hidden away.
It's kind of ironic that you'd tell us that we couldn't possibly know what your biases are because we don't have all the information (that's hidden away). Of course we don't have all the information - we're not permitted to see it - including who you are and who the other moderators here on this Religion Forum are.
So, you tell us that we cannot logically press our case because we don't have enough information - information hidden from us. LOL. That's a bit vaguely reminiscent of the definition of chutzpah - the fellow who murders his parents and throws himself on the mercy of the court because he's an orphan.
In any event, based on the evidence that IS available, some posters are calling into question the fairness of moderation herein. I think it's a reasonable action, a reasonable attempt to discern the truth of things.
Sometimes, doing something that appears futile, that appears to be hitting one's head against a brick wall, is worth doing, if only because it's the right thing to do.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.