A CATHOLIC LOOKSAT PROTESTANTISM

A young Catholic intellectual charges that Protestant cruics of Catholicism mustfirst face their own considerable defects if mutual understanding is ever to comeabout. This article is the first of a series. Next month, Harvey Cox of Andover-Newton Theological Seminary will present a Protestant's view of modern Catholicism.

DANIEL CALLAHAN

SO M E morning, perhaps when the Reforma-tion has come full circle, a Catholic will nail

to the door of a Protestant church ninety-fivetheses. Unlike Martin Luther's theses, however,they may not be debated. More likely, they willbe hastily removed-either by the policeman onthe beat, the rector of the church, or by em-barrassed Catholics. As for Luther's imitator, hewill be denounced by his fellow Catholics forcrassness and, no doubt, be invited into the Prot-estant rectory for coffee. By the end of the day hewill be a thoroughly confused man: he will haveheard Catholics expressing sympathy for Prot-estantism and the Protestant rector quoting PopeJohn XXIII to him. To punish his temerity, hewill be put on the invitation lists of countlessinterfaith dinners and be assigned to an inter-minable Protestant-Catholic study group.

Yet, however unfashionable, it would be per-fectly possible for a Catholic to draw up ninety-five theses against contemporary Protestantism.

Some, following the traditional mode, would betheological; others, more modern in cast, wouldbe cultural and sociological. But which churchdoor ought to get the theses? Ought it to be thenearest Episcopalian church? But that wouldhardly do: too many Episcopalians considerthemselves Catholics. Then perhaps a Unitarianchurch? That would be worse-Baptists, Lu-therans, and Congregationalists might object thatUnitarians were only in the loosest sense Prot-estants. As a last resort, one might turn to theoffice door of the National Council of Churches.That could be a mistake also-for the Fundamen-'talist churches would no doubt inform one thatNCC was selling Christianity out to liberalism,socialism, and communism, and was neither Prot-estant nor Christian.

My point here, of course, is obvious. What,finally, does it mean to be a Protestant? Which,if any, Protestant church can claim to be gen-uinely Protestant? In these questions the Catholicwould find the basis of his theological thesesagainst Protestantism, For the Catholic, the mostobvious fact about Protestantism is its varietyand multiplicity, its internal wars and contradic-tions. Protestantism from the time of the Ref-

34 A CATHOLIC LOOKS AT PROTESTANTISM

ormation to our own day has, though oftenunwillingly, introduced into Christianity discordand disunity. Among themselves, Protestants ap-pear to agree on very lillie-except, for the mostpart, that Rome ought to be resisted and rejected.Disagreement and theological disputes are not,of course, necessarily unhealthy. But fundamentaldifferences over the very nature of the Church,the meaning of Christ, and the nature of mancan only be a source of scandal to the unbelieverand antagonism among believers. It is easyenough for Protestant churches to set themselvesagainst Catholicism; but for the Catholic, .it isfar more revealing when Protestant churches setthemselves against each other.

For the Catholic this can only mean that atthe heart of Protestantism there lies a funda-mental error. If Protestantism does not provide ameans of answering the most basic questionsabout Christianity, then it becomes indeed diffi-cult to know what Protestantism can claim. Onecould naturally object that, for the Protestant,the Bible provides the kind of direction andinsight which a vital Christianity requires. Hereagain one meets the same difficulty: Protestantsare notoriously disputatious about the meaningof passages in the Bible. More than that, manyProtestant theologians have rivaled the agnosticsin questioning the very inspiration and signifi-cance of the Bible. Not surprisingly, ProtestantBiblical scholars have swung widely from portray-ing Jesus as the Word made flesh to portrayingHim as an existentialist philosopher obscured byhis myth-making followers.

To say this is, confessedly, to exaggerate. Tryas he might, however, it is difficult for theCatholic not to see the wildly swinging pendulumof Protestant theology as a symptom of consider-able confusion. Equally incomprehensible to theCatholic is the ability of Protestants to live withthis confusion; to make, it sometimes seems, avery virtue of it. Indeed, Protestants often arguethat disunity and contradiction are the happyprice of freedom-a price well worth paying toavoid the snare of ecclesiastical tyranny and soul-binding dogmas. There may be something per-suasive about this argument; freedom alwaysentails risk. Yet such a position seems, in the end,to put the Christian message itself up for grabs-as if the Christian's only obligation were to him-self.

Even here, there is a peculiar kind of irony. Intheir quest for freedom many Protestants seeminevitably to fall into the very trap they mostseek to avoid. If, as Paul Tillich has written, "TheProtestant principle •.. is the prophetic judg-

ment against religious pride, ecclesiastical arTO-gance, and secula:r-self-s:u[ficienC)l;":'~wh.er.e.,pre-cisely, is one to find evidence that such a principlehas been decisive in Protestantism?

Surely-if one has to use these words-Calvinwas as "arrogant" and unbending in his theologyas the most hidebound pre-Reformation Catho-lic, Luther as full of "religious pride" as anymedieval Pope, the early American Protestantcommunities as full of secular "self-sufficiency"as twentieth-century Spanish Catholicism. Andwhat is the Protestant to say of the inquisitionJohn F. Kennedy underwent at the Houstonministers' meeting during his campaign? It wasjudgment but hardly of the "prophetic" S01"t.

"The Protestant principle;' Dr. Tillich hasalso said, "is the judge of every religious andcultural reality, including the religion and cul-ture which calls itself 'Protestant.''' On the con-trary, it appears that Protestantism has been asmuch the victim of these realities as their judge.When Christianity came under sharp attack inthe nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,from the historians, the philosophers, and thepolitical theorists, it was Protestantism which firstseemed to lose its nerve. In the aftermath ofKant, Protestants all too quickly denied thepower of reason to know of the existence of God;in the face of historical critiques of Biblical his-tory, they were all too ready to distinguish sharplythe "Christ of faith" from the "Christ of history";in the face of Marx, they were all too prone toturn Christ into a great social reformer. Beforethe onslaught of Darwinism, materialism, andscientific method, Protestant thinkers often fledin great rout: either to a rigid Biblical literalism,on the conservative side, or to hasty swallowingwhole of the attacks, on the liberal side.

In our own day, far from raising a propheticvoice against the ugly and soporific obsessions ofcontemporary culture, many Protestant congrega-tions have blessed them and supplied preachersto sing their praises. If we are looking for "peaceof mind," Dr. Norman Vincent Peale is ready toshow us the way. If we are worried about internalsubversion, the Reverend Billy Hargis will tell usabout the Red hordes in our midst. If we want tokeep the Negroes in their place, there are many

Daniel Callahan, associate editor of "TheCommonweal," was educated at Yale, Georgetown,and Harvard. Formerly a teaching fellow in RomanCatholic studies at the Harvard Divinity School, hewas also co-editor of "Christianity Divided: Protes-tant and Roman Catholic Theological Issues."

Southern ministers who will supply us with somehelpful Bible passages. It is all too possible tofind in American Protestantism not the univer-sality of Christianity but the ravages of time,place, and class. If anyone doubts this, let himtake a Southern Baptist friend to a PhiladelphiaMain Line Episcopal church; or his Lutheranfriend to a Jehovah's Witness rally; or a HarvardDivinity School student to a Billy Graham rally;or a Boston Brahmin Unitarian to a SouthernIllinois Reformed Church. In all cases, the dis-comfort will be acute. The class differences whichmark off one Protestant group from another area painful reminder of the power of social pridein American communities-not to say snobbery.

On the basis of these general criticisms a Catho-lic could, conceivably, draw up ninety-five theses.To the Catholic, Protestantism presents an arrayof contrarities: where it does not come close tosundering God and man, it sometimes seems toidentify God with man; where it does not ignorethe discoveries of science, psychology, and history,it often seems to let these discoveries smother it;where it does not ignore the mores of popularculture, it seems to abet and reinforce them.

THE CATHOLIC BECOMES"UPPITY"

HER E the Catholic must stop abruptly.Unless he is smug-and that, unhappily, is

a real possibility-sudden doubts are likely to as-sail him. Nailed to the door of one Protestantchurch, his theses may seem perfectly in order;nailed to the door of another, they will be pa-tently unfair and inappropriate. \\Torse still, onclose inspection his generalities will show flaws.

Does he accuse Protestantism of an insensitivityto destructive diversity and disunity? Then whatis he to do with the fact of the World Council ofChurches, so passionately concerned to bringabout Protestant and Christian unity? Does heaccuse Protestantism of saving faith at the ex-pense of reason? What is he to do about thoseProtestant theologians-Rudolf Bultmann, PaulTillich, Emil Brunner-who have spent theirlives trying to find an adequate philosophicalbasis for Christianity? Does he accuse Protestan-tism of slavish conformity to cultural fashion?What is he to say about men such as John C.Bennett or Martin Marty who week in and weekout attack the foibles and follies of our plasticage? Does he accuse Protestantism of sentimental-ity? How is he to account for Reinhold Niebuhrwho has painfully recalled us all to recognize thelimits of human power and wisdom, the painful

BY DAN IEL CALLAHAN ssfact of human finiteness, and the horrible com-plexity of the moral and pulitical order?

In the end, the theses would have to bescrapped. Whatever point the leveling of blanketcharges may have had in the age of the Reforma-tion and Counter Reformation, it has long beenlost. With, naturally, some important exceptions,many of the charges that the Catholic could levelat the Protestant could with equal justice beleveled at him as well. Catholics and Protestantshave alike been guilty of traducing Christianityfor the fads of the moment; of abetrirtg thedestructiveness of nationalism, racism, andcolonialism; of placing institutional self-interestbefore the common good of all men. The non-Christian has little trouble indicting both Catho-lics and Protestants indiscriminately; and there ismuch point to his criticism.

Yet if we have passed that stage in historywhere the hurling of accusations has any rele-vance, we have by no means resolved our differ-ences. Catholics and Protestants are as much thevictims of the past as its heirs. 'We feel not onlythe effects of earlier theological disputes but alsosee vividly the indirect consequences of these dis-putes in our social and political life. Instead offighting over the meaning of justification byfaith or the doctrine of transubstantiation, weare now prone to wrestle with one another overthe meaning of "obscenity," federal aid to paro-chial schools, Bingo, and Sunday blue laws. In-stead of the bloody post-Reformation wars, wenow contend at the polls and in the courts. '\IVeargue not about what St. Paul meant by g-racebut about what Thomas Jefferson meant by a"wall of separation" between Church and State;not about Calvin's Geneva but about Catholicpower in Boston and Baptist power in Houston.

This shift from the theological into the po-litical, however, reflects as much the differenthistories the Reformation imposed upon Catho-lics and Protestants as it does the undercurrentsof old theological disputes. It is very tempting tosee an argument, say, over contraceptive laws asa stark encounter of Protestant and Catholicprivate morality. But it is much more plausibleto recognize tha tit reflects as well a tension be-tween different political g-roupings and differentconceptions of the role a minority's moral valuesshould play in the determination of the lawswhich bind all. Indeed, specifically theologicaldifferences count for comparatively little in someof the most violent Catholic-Protestant clashes.What can be seen more often is the clash ofCatholicism as a rising minority with Protestan-tism as an entrenched majority. Catholics-many

36 A CAT H 0 LIe L 0 0 K SAT PRO T EST ANT ISM

Protestants can't seem to Iorget-scame to Americafor the most part as poor, unlettered, and alienimmigrants. Not only was their social classagainst them, they came from cultures-partic-ularly the Irish and the Italians-which almostinstinctively rubbed Anglo-Saxon Protestants thewrong way. They were Popish, poor, and, worsestill, pressing their way up the social ladder.They were a religious, a cultural, and an eco-nomic threat.

'For some time now, as the nation's largestminority, Catholics have had forced upon themthe common role of any rising American minor-ity: the role of challenging the assumption thatAmerica is, by Constitutional if not divine right,a Protestant nation. The Catholic cannot helpfeeling at times that he is resented solely becausehe has refused to stay in the place the Protestantmajority has tacitly assigned him. Like the South-ern Negro, the American Catholic has become'"uppity" and no longer doffs his cap to hiscultural masters. The Protestant, not surprisingly,has behaved like a man threatened. Whetherthis sense of threat has taken the form of dis-crimination against cheap Irish labor in thenineteenth century or the more urbane form ofa Paul Blanshard's almost yearly book full ofominous warnings about "Catholic power," thetheme has been a constant one in America.

At least it was a constant one until the elec-tion of John F. Kennedy to the Presidency. Hisunsuccessful predecessor, Al Smith, could testifyto that. But even in Mr. Kennedy's case, about allthat can be proved is that there were enoughother things in his favor to counterbalance thebigotry which led many to vote against him solelybecause of his religion. One of these favorablethings, sadly, was that many Catholics voted forhim precisely because he was a Catholic. On thewhole, however, the 1960 Presidential campaignmarked, on at least one level, the coming of ageof the Catholic minority in America-a comingof age which would not have been possible hadnot Protestants themselves taken a new look attheir own place in American society.

Nonetheless, for the Catholic who is grapplingwith myriad local and national problems involv-ing a balance of power between Catholics andProtestants, the residue of an earlier ProtestantAmerican ethic is still a very real thing. Much ofthe opposition to federal aid for parochialschools, for instance, appears to a great manyCatholics to be little more than a concerted effortto ignore and thwart legitimate demands for afair share of any tax money meant to improveAmerican education. There can be no doubt that

there is a knotty Constitutional problem poser!in providing aid to parochial schools, even whensuch aid would not be spent directly on the teach-ing of religion. At the same time, many Catholicsfeel that a rigid reading of the First Amendmenton the separation of Church and State reflects ilS

much a fear of parochial schools and Catholicpower as a plausible interpretation of the Con-stitution. Where the Catholic sees a question ofjustice, the Protestant seems to see only ambitioussectarian pressure.

Ironically, Protestants appear to have consid-erable difficulty recog-nizing their own uses ofpressure: whether to block RamblinR legislation,ban Bingo, press for regulation of liquor adver-tising, or reject the appointment of an envoyto the Vatican. 'What is often most curious aboutthese Protestant [ora vs into the political arenais that they reflect more the spirit of an older,more rural generation of Protestants. Even t.heliberal Protestant weekly, the Christian Century,can become almost as exercised about the evilsof alcohol as t.he most Fundamentalist periodical.But are these attitudes any longer appropriate inour urban age? It is cert.ainly legit.imate andvaluable to call attention to the dangers ofgambling and liquor, hilt it seems useless andharmful t.o attempt to legislate them out of 'exist-ence. Not only the Catholic: but, for t.hat. matter,many Protestants and non-Christians find thesepressures objectionable.

Along with the belligerent opposition tospecifically Catholic desires, these pressures ap-pear to reflect a certain undoubted, if unspoken,assumption that America is a Protestant nat.ion;t.hat Protestantism provides t.he cultural andethical values at the base of our public philosophy.This bias appears most prominently in t.he £re-fjllent. assertion that Catholic claims, mores, andbehavior introduce "divisiveness" into the com-munity. The Catholic who wants to see his valuescount is treated as an intruder who must behandled with dispatch.

SIGNS OF PROGRESS?

DES PIT E the fact that many Catholic-. Protestant conflicts in America do stem

from historical and cultural rather than t.heolog-ical differences, their often remote religioussources should not be 'minimized. Nor, in ourday, ought we to be misled into think.ing that weneed only a political modus vivendi betweenCatholics and Protestants. Neither politics norlife is that simple. Polit.ical harmony withoutsome measure of theological understanding be-

tween Catholics and Protestants seems, to me atleast, impossible. And is this all that Catholicsand Protestants, as fellow Christians, ought todesire? On the contrary, we ought to want a gooddeal more; we ought to want not merely a sterilecoexistence but, even more, a thrust towardhealing the wounds left by the Reformation.

What ought to matter for the Catholic andProtestant of the twentieth century is that wherethey should be examining their own conscience,they are looking for that familiar mote in theeye of the other. To be sure, differences exist.Truth counts, beliefs count, traditions count,dogmas count; they count, finally, more thanunity. Nevertheless, as Pope John XXIII hassaid: "We do not intend to conduct a trial ofthe past; we do not want to prove who was rightor who was wrong. The blame is on both sides.All we want is to say: 'Let us come together. Letus make an end of our divisions.' "

But is it possible for Catholics and Protestantsto "make an end of our divisions" in America?If we can resolve some of the innumerable politi-cal stresses and strains, is it conceivable that wecan make some progress toward resolving ourreligious differences? The answer to these ques-tions is, first, that if we look closely enough, wecan already see signs of progress. At the sametime, secondly, it would be illusory to think thatCatholics and Protestants can, or ought to, wipeaway their cultural and theological histories.

The signs of progress, both theological andpolitical, are many. For one thing, the attitude ofCatholic theologians toward Protestant thoughthas changed sharply in the past few years. Theinvitation of Protestant observers to the SecondVatican Council bespeaks a startling change inatmosphere; so too does the acceptance of theinvitation. Part of this change is traceable tothe initiative of Popes Pius XII and John XXIII,part to the work of Catholic theologians likeFathers Gustave Weigel, George Tavard, H.Jedin, and Hans Kung, who have set out to re-examine the Reformation and contemporaryProtestant theology; part to the sociological factthat Catholics and Protestants since the secondworld war have been thrown together more.

For the Catholic who still believes that Luther'srevolt against Catholicism turned on his desireto marry a nun, or that the sole explanation ofthe Anglican Church lies in Henry VIII's divorce,or that Protestants want only to subordinate the\l\Tord of God to their own personal tastes, thereis the work of Catholic scholars to convince themotherwise. If he is curious about Karl Barth orRudolf Bultrnann, he will be surprised to learn

BY DANIEL CALLAHAN 31

that, by Protestant acclaim, some of the mostpenetrating and sympathetic studies of these menhave been done by Catholic scholars. If he lives inBoston, he will find that Richard Cardinal Cush-ing has worked closely with a group of Protestantleaders at. Packard Manse in nearby Stough-ton to bring priests and ministers together fortheological discussion. Again, if he reads the mostrecent Catholic Scriptural studies, he will findthem liberally footnoted with references to Prot-estant works. He may also discover, to his sharpsurprise, that both Catholic and Protestant schol-ars are contrihuting t.o a new t.ranslation of theBible under the general editorship of ProfessorsDavid Noel Friedman and William Foxwell Al-bright., scheduled for publication beginning inthe fa II of 1963.

Nor can the Catholic help noting that Protes-tantism has, in the past. generation, producedinnumerable scholars and theologians with a newopenness to Catholicism. The names of GeorgeLindbeck of Yale, Robert. McAfee Brown ofUnion Theological Seminary, and Krister Sten-dahl of Harvard come immediately to mind. Nolonger do Protestants scorn the liturgy, no longerdo all Protestants attempt to set Scripture overagainst tradition, no longer do Protestants seeCatholicism only as a religious tyranny sustainedby superstition and political power. Basic differ-ences remain, but a new tone and a new attitudetoward Catholicism are discernible in the presentmovement of Protestant theology. As DouglasHorton, former Dean of the Harvard DivinitySchool, has noted, the United Church of Christapproaches Catholics, "not as old enemies butas brethren with whom Christ can make all thingsnew." For Catholics, this new spirit can only bea source of satisfaction; not because Protestantsare likely to convert to Catholicism, but becauseit suggests that after four hundred years Protes-tants have ceased to act as if Catholics weretheir enemies instead of their brothers. Catholicshave hardly done any better until recently.

If we can see progress among theologians, canwe also see progress in resolving our politicaldifferences? Here again, I believe, we can. If theCatholic protests that Protestants have attemptedto make America in their own image, it is a pro-test which such outstanding Protestants as Wil-liam Lee Miller at Yale, Kenneth Underwood atWesleyan, and John C. Bennett at Union arequick to second. Protestants, not Catholics, werethe first to talk of a "post-Protestant" America.Again, if the Catholic protests on the matter offederal aid to parochial schools, he can nowcount on a growing number of Protestants sym-

38 A CATHOLIC LOOKS AT PROTESTANTISM

pathetic to his anxieties and claims. The Chris-tian Century and the Christian Herald still haveshivers when they confront Catholic demands.But the magazine Christianity and Crisis, bycontrast, has shown itself sympathetic and con-cemed-it has also brought the charge of being"soft on Catholicism" down on its head.

Finally, if the Catholic is determined thatreligious values not be pushed aside in our publiclife, he finds the Protestant a willing helper andally. The outcry by both Catholics and Protestantsat the recent Supreme Court decision in the NewYork prayer case-despite the absurdity of muchof the protest-s-was a striking instance of a grow-ing Catholic-Protestant concern on the place ofreligion in America.

Yet one could easily exaggerate the scope ofthese isolated examples. On the whole, the num-ber of Protestants sensitive to contemporary de-velopments in Catholicism remains small; thenumber sensitive to Catholic worries, problems,and commitments is even smaller. Yet, signifi-cantly, their number grows.

A CATHOLIC MONOLITH?

O B V IOU SLY, differences remain. His-tory is more easily ameliorated than van-

quished. Unhappily, Catholics have not alwaysbeen as sensitive to the rights of others as theywould have others be to theirs. The scatteredinstances of local Catholic opposition to bondissues and higher taxes for public schools; casesof economic boycotts of movie houses for show-ing "indecent" films; campaigns in Connecticutand Massachusetts to keep (Protestant-initiated)birth-control laws on the books; efforts to makenewsdealers and booksellers conform to Catholicstandards of literary morality-all such pressuresare bound to offend many Protestants and non-Christians.

And such pressures often offend many Catho-lics as well-those who see that the leap fromabstract morality to public legislation is some-times a long and dubious one. Unfortunately,many Catholics, like their non-Catholic neigh-bors, see the Church as a monolith. The Protes-tant can hardly be blamed if he does not see whatmany Catholics can't seem to accept: that, on al-most all issues of public policy, there are in-numerable alternatives open to the Catholic;that, in the end, there is no such thing as theCatholic position on the majority of public issueswhich divide Catholics and Protestants. This isas true of birth-control legislation, for instance,as it is of most other things.

The unfortunate thing about so many politicalclashes between Catholics and Protestants is thatcloser personal contact between Catholic andProtestant leaders could avert many of them.Here, a history of antagonism and separationtells very heavily. It is a comparatively rareAmerican community in which Catholic priestsand lay leaders work out their differences withProtestant ministers and laymen quietly and dis-creetly. Instead, the struggles are carried on bymeans of impersonal statements issued to thepress and massive public campaigns to rally teamsupport. Yet if, say, it were common practice forCatholics and Protestants to meet privately be-fore engaging in any public dispute, the resultscould be very different.

Surely the federal aid-to-education disputecould be lessened if some of the American cardin-als and bishops would take the initiative in ar-ranging a series of conferences with Protestantleaders; and if they won't act in this direction,then I would hope Protestants will. Would it notalso be possible for groups of Connecticut priestsand ministers to meet on the question of plannedparenthood clinics? Or priests, ministers, andlaymen to talk with one another about pur-portedly obscene books and movies? It is scan-dalous and unnecessary that Catholics andProtestants confront each other only in newsprintand not in person. Where they have met-inBoston and in Pittsburgh, for example-the re-sults have invariably been profitable for both.

In the long run, however, Catholics and Prot-estants at all levels must begin talking with oneanother. Neither bishops, theologians, priests, norministers alone can bring about understanding.Only the ordinary Catholic and Protestant con-fronting and coming to know each other canproperly break down old barriers and remove thenewer sources of irritation. From the Catholicwho looks only for submission from his Protes-tant neighbor, the more abject the better, ane! theProtestant who looks only for Rome to give upits extravagant pretensions, little can be expected,But from the Catholic and Protestant who arewilling- to meet each other as human beings,joined by one Lord, much can be hoped.

Of necessity, meeting is only possible if bothare willing to leave the sheltering walls of theirghettos. To meet is to risk: to risk the painfulshattering of illusions, the confrontation ofmuddy and harsh issues, the loss of the falsesense of security that isolation and mixing withone's own kind breeds. This will not be easy, asanyone who has experienced the frosty mutualsuspicion of Protestants and Catholics in many

communities will know. But there is no real al-ternative, and Christians, certainly, ought to bewilling to risk much.

But when Catholics and Protestants dostand before one another, what would theCatholic ask of the Protestant? For my part atleast, I would not ask that Protestants ceasecriticizing Catholics. I would only ask that Prot-estants be as quick to look candidly at them-selves; to observe their own uses of politicalpower, their own failures to raise a propheticvoice in society. It is Protestantism which, afterall, has held that the Church must forever beopen to radical judgment upon itself, that theChurch is semper reformanda-"always to be re-formed." Does not that also mean that Protes-tants have the obligation to judge constantlytheir own attitudes toward Catholicism; to raiseagain the question whether the traditional cri-tiques of Catholicism are still relevant in ourday? Is it not true that some of the great move-ments in contemporary Protestantism-the litur-gical movement, the quest for Christian renewaland unity, the drive [or social justice-havesprung from Protestant self-criticism? Cannot theProtestant be as unsparing with himself inresponding to Catholicism?

No less urgently, I would hope for an unceas-ing effort on the part of Protestants to penetratemore deeply into the nature of their own religiousconvictions. Cannot the Protestant take ever moreto heart the words of a Swiss Protestant theolo-gian, Hermann Kutter: "Have you nothing betterto do than protest against the Catholic Church,and make idols of the words we used, as old toolsand weapons are enshrined in museums? Theyare good for looking at, but not for use; it is newones that are needed." Contemporary Protestan-tism, that is, must seek anew its specific g-enius,its specific place in the Christian world. That itis making such an attempt is apparent. In theWorld Council of Churches Protestantism has ex-pressed a fundamental belief that the Churchmust renew itself and seek unity, that the basesof Christian belief must be explored afresh, andthat each Protestant Church should examineagain its doctrinal and traditional loyalties. InAmerica, the recent proposal for discussion be-tween the Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Methodistchurches and the United Church of Christ, madeby Bishop James A. Pike and Dr. Eugene CarsonBlake, show the strength of the ecumenical move-ment. The Catholic can, in part, encourage thesedevelopments. They hold alit some promise of amore articulate, reflective Protestantism, sensi-tive to the disunity of Catholics and Protestants.

BY DANIEL CALLAHAN M

In recent years a number of important bookshave specifically addressed themselves toProtestant-Catholic relations. Among the moresignificant:

An American Dialogue. By Robert McAfeeBrown and Gustave Weigel, S.)., 1959 (Double-day, $2.95).

Facing Protestant-Roman Catholic Tensions.Edited by Wayne H. Cowan, 1960 (AssociationPress, 50 cents).

The Catholic Approach to Protestantism. ByGeorge Tavard, 1955 (Harper, $3.95).

The Papal Council and the Gospel. Edited byKristen E. Skydsgaard, 1961 (Augsburg, $3.95).

The Riddle of Roman Catholicism. By JaroslavPelikan, 1959 (Abingdon Press, $4).

Christianity Divided: Protestant and RomanCatholic Theological Issues. Edited by DanielCallahan, Heiko A. Oberman, and Daniel .T-O'Hanlon, 5.]., 1961 (Sheed and Ward, $6).

The Catholic challenge is no less real than theProtestant. Catholics too have much confessingto do; our own house is hardly in perfect order.We have sometimes erected barriers where noneneed exist. '\Ve have been rigid and unbendingwhen flexibility and love were needed. Catholicshave been and still are guilty in many placesof racial and religious discrimination, protectivenationalism, and the piling up of unneededwealth. And Catholics have been, as often enoughcharged, cold and aloof toward Protestants. Yetalready the Protestant surge toward Christianunity and Church renewal has done much to stirCatholics. Already the increasing desire of Prot-estants to discuss, as friends, their differences withCatholics has prodded Catholics to take a newlook at themselves. Already, in countless privatemeetings and public symposiums, Catholics andProtestants are beginning to talk with each other.

So far this development is still comparativelylimited in its scope. The great mass of Catholicsand Protestants do not know of these encountersnor have they been stirred by their implications.What comes next will depend upon the ability ofCatholics ann Protestants to rise above their oldselves-not in the sense of compromising theirconvictions, but in facing together their commontask in the world. As citizens, Catholics andProtestants have a joint obligation to Americansociety; as Christians they have a duty to servethe same God. The political and the theological,finally, go hand in hand. To seek unity in theone should be a seeking of unity in the other,

Harper's Magazine, November 1962