I think that kos's criticism of the quotations from Jindal's article "How Catholicism is Different" is grossly unfair and exaggerated. The title makes it clear that this is an attempt to proselytize, which is allowable in certain contexts; heck, even atheists are proselytizing these days, telling us theists how stupid we are for believing in God.
By definition, proselytization has to point out the good points of the religion in question and/or point out the corresponding flaws in other religions. Proselytization crosses the line, in my opinion, when a) it is done in an inappropriate context (in a public classroom, on the front page of a secular newspaper, on my front doorstep, etc), b) it distorts facts about the other religion, or c) it demonizes people of other faiths (i.e. calls followers of other religions "evil" or "followers of Satan", unless of course they refer to themselves as "followers of Satan").
So let's consider whether he breaks these rules.
Disclaimer: I have not read the whole article myself because I don't have the time; I will stick to Kos's selected quotes since he considers those to be the worst cases.
This old Free Republic post contains the text of Jindal's "How Catholicism is Different" article, which is now the focus of a Democratic Party attack ad against him. It won't likely be up long, as the magazine is aggressively seeking to expunge versions of the piece from the web to protect Jindal.
Just as C.S. Lewis removed any room for comfortable opposition to Jesus by identifying Him as either "Lord, liar, or lunatic," so the Catholic Church leaves little room for complacent opposition to her doctrines.
Summary: Catholics are right, everyone else is wrong.
Again, this is an attempt at proselytization, so of course he thinks that Catholics are right and others are wrong...not about everything (he doesn't say others get everything wrong) but about some things. If the Catholic Church thought it was wrong and someone else was right, it would change its policies to adopt the thing they thought was right.
Also, "The Catholic Church leaves little room for complacent opposition" is a statement of fact: officially, the Church isn't very tolerant of diverse opinion. Don't blame Jindal for that.
It is nearly impossible to derive the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, and other teachings which were disputed in the early Christian community, from Scripture alone without recourse to Church teachings. Sincerely motivated Christians studying the same texts have disagreed on the fundamentals of the faith, thereby dividing not only Protestants from Catholics, but also particular Protestant denominations from each other. Post-Reformation history does not reflect the unity and harmony of the "one flock" instituted by Christ [...], but rather a scandalous series of divisions and new denominations, including some that can hardly be called Christian. Yet Christ would not have demanded unity without providing the necessary leadership to maintain it. The same Catholic Church which infallibly determined the canon of the Bible must be trusted to interpret her handiwork; the alternative is to trust individual Christians, burdened with, as Calvin termed it, their "utterly depraved" minds, to overcome their tendency to rationalize, their selfish desires, and other effects of original sin. The choice is between Catholicism's authoritative Magisterium and subjective interpretation which leads to anarchy and heresy.
Summary: Catholicism is infallible, all other religions are burdened with utterly depraved minds subject to subjective interpretations leading to anarchy and heresy.
Or even more concisely: Non-Catholics are anarchic heretics.
First, I believe that Kos misread the quote. The phrase "utterly depraved minds" is attributed to Calvin, who was a founder of Protestantism. "Utterly depraved" is meant to describe everyone, not just non-Catholics; it is referring to the fact that, as humans, we are flawed, with all number of lusts and sins and whatnot. The argument here is that, rather than depend on the fallibility of one's own conscience, one would be better to put faith in the collective, the positions of the Catholic church which have been shaped by the church's best minds over the course of millennia. This is not a terribly controversial statement: scientists don't try to derive everything from scratch, but depend on the work of those that preceded them. In science, of course, we know that established wisdom is occasionally toppled over by new paradigms, something which the Catholic Church does not officially acknowledge (to their detriment). The Church believes too much in its own infallibility, but again, that is not Jindal's doing.
I also want to comment on the word "heretic". "Heresy" is defined as "belief contrary to orthodox religious doctrine", so according to the Catholic Church, anyone who disagrees with their doctrine is a heretic by definition. So what? I, a Catholic, am a heretic according to the Southern Baptists. "Heretic" was a much scarier, darker word back when the Church had more temporal power, and when there was only one Church. Nowadays, in a multireligious environment, we all live in heresy of one sort or another. Anyone who is offended at being called a heretic by another religion is ignoring the obvious, like a traveller who in enraged on being asked "You're not from around here, are you?" (Now, being called a heretic by people in your OWN church, that's a different story.)
Christ founded the Church and vested her with unique authority. The apostles, the very men who wrote much of the New Testament, were the Church's first bishops, and they appointed successors. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church traces its lineage directly to the apostles, and, thus, the Church claims to be the one Jesus founded.
Summary: Jesus was a Catholic, not a protestant.
This is a core belief of the Catholic Church, that it is the church that was founded by the apostles. I'm not sure the church would claim that Jesus was Catholic, but they would say that the apostles were Catholic, just as we say the Founding Fathers were American even if they were British at birth. Protestant churches broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, and so they are merely branches of the central trunk.
So the church would say, anyway. Personally, I think one could make the argument that the Orthodox church is the apostolic church, and that the Romans broke away from the Orthodox rather than vice versa.
Whether this matters or not, who can say. It's like the Taiwanese government saying that they are "the real Chinese government in exile", or like two activist groups arguing over which of them is more truly carrying on the legacy of Martin Luther King or whomever. It's hardly surprising that a Catholic would accord themselves that honor.
Scripture never mentions an "invisible church," a doctrine created by individuals attempting to justify their departure from Rome; rather, it speaks forcefully of an institution blessed with a divine mission to preach the Gospel and offer the graces necessary to accomplish that mission. The Church's foundation was not built on a plurality of prophets; rather the earliest Christians were unified on doctrinal issues in one body. The Catholic Church was the only church for some 1,000 years. Given Christ's promise to be with His Church always, so that "the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18), it is hard to believe that the true Faith disappeared from the world with the "fall of the Church" (dated by Protestants at various points in the first seven centuries), failing to reappear until the Reformation around the 16th century.
Summary: Anyone leaving the Catholic Church is a heretic.
Again, that's the definition of "heretic".
One of the most consequential, and yet neglected, Reformation beliefs is the view that utterly depraved man is incapable of meaningful sanctification. This rejection of spiritual regeneration and subsequent separation of spiritual from physical realities has resulted in various widely held current beliefs, ranging from predestination to nominalism. Yet Luther was wrong to claim that our sins are as dung covered by snow, for he underestimated both God's justice and His power. Faith does more than cause God to ignore our sins, for His grace is enough to accomplish a true spiritual rebirth.
Summary: Luther was an idiot.
He says "Luther was wrong" and you read that as "Luther is an idiot"? I think Patrick Leahy is wrong for not having invoked inherent contempt yet, but that doesn't mean I think he's an idiot. I, as a Catholic, think Mohammed was wrong when he said that Jesus did not really die on the Cross, but I'm not calling Mohammed an idiot.
I trust I have provided enough evidence to indicate that the Catholic Church deserves a careful examination by non-Catholics. It is not intellectually honest to ignore an institution with such a long and distinguished history and with such an impressively global reach. I am not asking non-Catholics to investigate the claims of my neighborhood minister, but rather am presenting a 2,000-year-old tradition, encompassing giants like Aquinas and Newman, with almost a billion living members, including modern prophets like Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II.
Summary: My church is big and old and can kick your church's ass.
Asskicking is not mentioned. There is some merit to arguing that "The Catholic Church been around for a while, and a lot of good and smart people have been Catholics, so there must be something to this Catholicism." It's like saying that "the U.S. has the oldest Constitution in the world, and it's still working, and America is now a powerful nation, so maybe the U.S. Constitution is a good thing". It's not a sufficient argument, and one can easily take the opposite tack and say that "old=out-of-date", but it's valid.
There's more, but the piece is pretty much unreadable. It looks impressive if you are easily impressed by cites and the such, but ultimately, it paints a picture of disdain for competing religious denominations.
As an amateur theologist, this might fly. But as a candidate for governor in Louisiana?
Why would a gubernatorial candidate be anything but an amateur theologist? I know I'm only an amateur at theology, and I feel no shame in that. Your implication here is that politicians should have a professional knowledge of theology, which seems rather silly.
One last point:
"Most Americans believe we should respect one another's religion. But not Bobby Jindal," the ad says, according to a script from the Democratic Party. "He wrote articles that insulted thousands of Louisiana Protestants. He has referred to Protestant religions as scandalous, depraved, selfish and heretical." [...]
The quotes I've seen here suggest that Jindal does believe Protestants are wrong and heretical, but nowhere does he leave the realm of civility, and label them as evil or malicious or selfish or scandalous. The label "depraved" is meant to refer to all human beings, and since the word was quoted from the 16th century theologian Calvin, one should be careful in interpreting the word according to current definitions. Furthermore, these beliefs were mentioned in an article specifically intended to compare and contrast Catholicism and Protestantism, not in any stump speech where active proselytizing would be inappropriate.
Jindal said the ad was outrageous, mischaracterizing his writings about religion. He called the ad "an attack on his Christian faith."
"They'll do anything to hold onto their power. This ad is absolutely false," he said.
The passages above definitely refer to Protestants as depraved, selfish, scandalous, and heretical. Stupid, too. Yet Jindal is -- gasp! -- lying about that!
In conclusion, I'm afraid I must agree with Jindal here. His position has been distorted and made to seem more ominous than it is, and in doing so, the Democrats are employing the "politics of fear and division" we so deplore in our opponents' actions. I am disappointed.
I think Catholics have something to say about that sort of thing...
And so, I as a Catholic, have done.
P.S. It should be noted that, while I am a Catholic, I am an ecumenical one who believes that the Catholic Church does not have all the answers, that other religions have aspects of the Truth that we do not, and that all will end up being saved by a loving and forgiving God. This diary is therefore not an endorsement of Jindal's position, but rather my attempt to show the respect for his religion that the Democratic Party's ad says we as Americans should have for each other.
Update: I have now read Jindal's original article, at the behest of some commenters, and nowhere does Jindal demonize Protestants, or demonstrate anything but a healthy difference of opinion. In fact, I think the last two paragraphs are very important:
Nonetheless, the Catholic Church must live up to her name by incorporating the many Spirit-led movements found outside her walls. For example, the energy and fervor that animate the Baptist and Pentecostal denominations, the stirring biblical preaching of the Lutherans and Calvinists, and the liturgical solemnity of the Anglicans must find expression within Catholicism.
I am thrilled by the recent ecumenical discussions that have resulted in Catholics and Evangelicals discovering what they have in common, in terms of both theology and morality, and as exemplified by joining to oppose abortion and other fruits of an increasingly secular society, but I do not want our Evangelical friends to overlook those beliefs that make Catholicism unique. The challenge is for all Christians to follow Jesus wherever He leads; one significant part of that challenge is to consider seriously the claims of the Catholic Church.
These are not the words of a man who believes the Catholic Church is "always right", or someone who thinks Protestants are morally bankrupt as compared to Catholics. (Mind you, he's probably not be so open-minded about atheists or liberals!)