Well, here's the quote that Prof. Newsom seems to be alluding
to: "In case it wasn't clear, my point is that Catholics today are (I
hope and believe) quite different from Catholics of 500 years ago, and
more open to genuine alliance with, respect towards, and even affection
towards Protestants who disagree on some liturgical questions, but agree
on deeper questions, both theological (acceptance of Jesus) and moral
(rejection of abortion)."
(http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/2005-November/020253.html)
"Where do you get this from? Don't you think that you ought to
disclose that?," asks Prof. Newsom. Well, I would have thought that
this statement "disclose[d]" "where [I] get this from." The "I hope"
part I get from, well, my hopes. The part about "acceptance of Jesus"
being a deeper matter than other liturgical questions was pretty clearly
my own sense of Catholic theology, yet one I would have thought is
uncontroversial: Accepting Jesus, as I understand it, is fundamental to
being a Christian and therefore a Catholic; once you're a Christian,
Catholics may of course think it's very important that you celebrate the
Mass, but I would think that acceptance of Jesus is indeed a deeper,
more fundamental, point than the particular liturgy one uses to
celebrate Jesus's works and one's faith. The part about "rejection of
abortion" being a deeper matter than other liturgical questions was, I'd
have thought, pretty clearly my opinion. It's an opinion I stand by,
and one that I'd think many Catholics would share; but if it's a
mistaken opinion, surely it's just a mistaken opinion, rather than one
that isn't "candid."
As to "Catholics today are (I . . . believe) quite different
from Catholics of 500 years ago, and more open to genuine alliance with,
respect towards, and even affection towards Protestants," that refers to
an earlier post (the one I allude to in the preceding sentence, "I would
have hoped that my post clearly had '[some]thing to do with' this
issue"): "I would think that the history of the Catholic Church over
the last 500 years shows how things can and do change. I suspect that
many Catholics would agree that the Church of today is very different
from the Church of hundreds of years ago, and for the better -- it is
genuinely (and I would hope not just tactically) more tolerant of Jews,
of Protestants, and of religious freedom more broadly than it has been
in the past. Many Catholics hope to shift it even further, on questions
such as tolerance of homosexuality, contraception, abortion, and the
like." Is this a remotely controversial point? Recall that 500 years
ago we were still in the midst of bloody interdenominational wars; for
many years that followed the end of the wars, as I understand it, the
Catholic Church was quite militantly anti-Protestant in its rhetoric,
much wore than it is so now; the Catholic Church's public statements
about Jews, as I understand it, are far more amicable and respectful now
than they were in the past.
Naturally, if I had made some specific factual allegation ("I
happen to know that the Pope is secretly planning to . . ."), it would
be quite proper to demand that I disclose its source, and to fault me
for lack of candor if the allegation was wrong and I knew it was wrong.
Yet I take it that most of us express our opinions on-list, and also
make general statements of what we see (rightly or wrongly) as broadly
understood facts (e.g., Catholicism today is not as militantly
anti-Protestant as in the past). We may surely be wrong in these
matters, but such errors hardly demonstrate a lack of candor.
May I ask, incidentally: Does anyone else on the list think
that my statement was somehow lacking in "candor" for failing to
"disclose" where I got my opinions and broad factual assertions from?
Am I indeed lacking in candor (as opposed to the quite different matter
of lacking in correctness) for not footnoting the statement that "In
case it wasn't clear, my point is that Catholics today are (I hope and
believe) quite different from Catholics of 500 years ago, and more open
to genuine alliance with, respect towards, and even affection towards
Protestants who disagree on some liturgical questions, but agree on
deeper questions, both theological (acceptance of Jesus) and moral
(rejection of abortion)"?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Newsom Michael
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 9:29 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Candor
>
>
> You keep trivializing the Mass, saying that there has to be
> something "deeper" than the Mass for a Catholic. Where do
> you get this from? Don't you think that you ought to disclose
> that? That is all that I said. (For what it is worth, I
> believe that you have accused me, on more than one occasion,
> of a lack of candor, in particular some sort of deep-seated
> animus against evangelical Protestants. I have actually said
> a lot about evangelical Protestants, and some of it might be
> uncharitably construed as such. I mean something rather
> different, having everything to do with a
> persistence-resistance dynamic, but I am not sure that that
> matters to some people who would prefer to rewrite
> what I have said.)
>
> I have nothing more to say on this subject.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 4:45 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Candor
>
> I like to think that I do practice candor. If Prof.
> Newsom believes that I am not being candid about something --
> that is to say, that I'm lying about something (as opposed to
> being mistaken, which I'm certain I must be on many things)
> -- I would appreciate it if he backed up his accusation with
> some specific facts.
>
> Eugene
>
> Michael Newsom writes:
>
> > Your response to point 1 begs the question. You insist on
> > trivializing liturgy. You are welcome to do so, but please
> > don't impute your point of view to others.
> >
> > I think that you also trivialize the Religion Clauses, but
> > there is no need to rehearse that argument here.
> >
> >
> > You need to find some authority for your audacious claim that
> > the Catholic Church might be willing to lose members in order
> > to save unborn children. Your claim supposes that the only
> > way to save them is to run the risk. I don't buy that for a
> > minute, and I seriously doubt that the Church does either.
> > Again you are engaging in some remarkable trivializing
> >
> > Eugene, you tend to trivialize matters that either you don't
> > know much about or lack sympathy for -- the Mass, the
> > Religion Clauses, and the Catholic faith community.
> >
> > You call for candor, you ought to practice it.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
