In a post last week on the appointment of Dinesh D’Souza as president of King’s College, Rusty Reno wrote:
Surely we’re at an interesting juncture in American religious history when a prominent Catholic is tapped to head up an Evangelical College. A very interesting juncture. It will be interesting to see how the Catholic thing works out.
That was my initial reaction too. I would have also agreed with the description of D’Souza as a “prominent Catholic.”
Turns out, though, that may not be the case. In an excellent bit of reporting for Christianity Today, Sarah Pulliam Bailey gets an answer to the question everyone has been asking: Is D’Souza really a Catholic? Here are some of the relevant quotes:
“I’m quite happy to acknowledge my Catholic background; at the same time, I’m very comfortable with Reformation theology,” D’Souza told Christianity Today. “I’m comfortable with the evangelical world. In a sense, I’m part of it.”
D’Souza’s wife, Dixie, is an evangelical, and the family has attended Calvary Chapel, a nondenominational evangelical church in San Diego, for the past 10 years. . . .
“I do not describe myself as Catholic today. But I don’t want to renounce it either because it’s an important part of my background. I’m an American citizen, but I wouldn’t reject the Indian label because it’s part of my heritage,” D’Souza said. “I say I have a Catholic origin or background. I say I’m a nondenominational Christian, and I’m comfortable with born-again.”
He said that his views align with the Apostle’s Creed and C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity.
[. . .]
“A lot of times, Christians spend a lot of time in intramural type debates and squabbles: Are you a Catholic or Protestant; if you are Protestant, what type are you; are you pre-millennial or post-millennial; what position do you take on Genesis 1?” D’Souza said. “I would comfortably describe myself as a born-again Christian, but I don’t feel it is necessary to renounce anything. I am not doing Catholic apologetics, that’s for sure.”
[. . .]
“If someone says, I’m Catholic and as a result I will not agree that the Bible is the sole source of religious truth, then we can’t hire them because they don’t agree with our mission statement,” he said. “If someone happens to be Catholic and agrees with the statement 100 percent, we would not remove that person from consideration.”
Marvin Olasky, the college’s provost, also has some choice quotes that you won’t want to miss. Read the rest at CT.
As an evangelical, I would say that the statements by D’Souza (and Olasky) hint that he is an evangelical. But before we add him to our roster, I’d like to hear if he’s been released from the Catholic side. What say you, folks? Does it sound like he’s crossed over (theologically, if not culturally and sacramentally) to the evangelical Protestant camp?
August 25th, 2010 | 1:15 am
Seems like he’s a fall-away Catholic turned Evangelical who kind of likes the sound of Catholic being used as part of his background.
August 25th, 2010 | 1:32 am
He still under the “no trade clause.”
Here’s my take on the CT piece:
http://romereturn.blogspot.com/2010/08/does-mere-christianity-mean-rest.html
August 25th, 2010 | 1:45 am
Francis Beckwith He still under the “no trade clause.”
When we lost you we got a future draft pick. I thought maybe we were cashing it in now. ; )
By the way, CT should have read you some of Dinesh’s quotes before getting your statement. It may not have really changed the context of what you said but it would have given you the opportunity to add to it.
August 25th, 2010 | 3:28 am
I wonder what Ravi Zacharias would make of this both-andism (*ahem*).
August 25th, 2010 | 7:35 am
How can he be Catholic without going to Mass? I am a Methodist, definitely a loosely structured group compared to Roman Catholics. I would not consider my self a Methodists if I did not attend and belong to a Methodist congregation.
August 25th, 2010 | 8:00 am
I have admired Dinesh for a long time. When he is on talk radio, he is more knowledgable, sincere and easy to understand than most. It does not matter what he is. He is firmly planted in God’s plan.
What he knows and shares is remarkable. I would hope all christians stop pointing at thier brothers and sisters and realize in today world, we need to look for our common love and live with it. Otherwise, our enemies will conquer a country devided.
August 25th, 2010 | 9:24 am
Honestly, how much does it matter? (Yes, I know, I suppose it does, to some extent at least.)
As for me, what I’d like to see–and what Dinesh seems to be expressing–are more evangelicals showing admiration for the Roman Catholic Church, and more Roman Catholics showing admiration for evangelicalism. A pipe dream? Maybe, maybe not.
August 25th, 2010 | 9:26 am
Perhaps his Catholicism has been more cultural, more a part of his family history and he does not want to deny that part of his story?
August 25th, 2010 | 9:30 am
Personally I think the man is a coward. I know that sounds harsh, but ultimately isn’t that what he is? He wants to be in both worlds, but to be a Catholic you cannot do that, you have to choose. Not only is he is clearly not a practicing Catholic, he belongs to another church. A man of his learning knows full well that he has essentially severed his ties with the Church, so why doesn’t he state simply that he is no longer Catholic? If he does indeed do that then I will happily say I am wrong and he is not a coward.
__________________
As to this from Joe Carter regarding Mr. Beckwith:
“When we lost you we got a future draft pick. I thought maybe we were cashing it in now. ; )”
I’d have to say we got the better of the trade. Though D’Souza may be a good scholar, he is not in Mr. Beckwith’s league as a theologian. You got a writer/scholar, we got a wonderful writer/scholar/theologian. Look at it in football terms: in getting Mr. D’Souza the non-Catholic side got a possibly great athlete, but in getting Mr. Beckwith the Catholics got a great football player. If I’m a football coach I want the football player. I’ve seen too many “great athletes” make only nominal pro football players.
August 25th, 2010 | 9:51 am
He’s a former Catholic, now Protestant.
August 25th, 2010 | 9:53 am
Yeah, if you’re a Catholic you can’t stay away from the Eucharist. Well, at least it’s difficult. G.K. Chesterton was a convinced Catholic for ten years before he converted, some say out of sympathy for his wife’s devout Anglicanism.
If you’re a Catholic, it’s hard to be cavalier about where your heart lies. If you believe that the Church is what she says she is, then you long to be at home with her, and to claim her as your home.
As a Catholic, you also can’t deny the value of the difference. If it matters, then it matters. It’s no dig at Mr. D’Souza’s character to say that it makes a difference. I’ve come to see that the Catholic Church is the summum bonum of the Christian life. If he hasn’t, it could be any manner of obstacle that keeps him from it and it’s not for me to decide if it’s a matter of his own will.
August 25th, 2010 | 10:12 am
It is characteristic of the post-modern narcissist to equate truth with what one is “comfortable” with. For the Christian, truth should make a man uncomfortable. But non-denominational Christianity is its own denomination. And to be some sort of Catholic by background while not practicing it, is like being a husband by background, while not being obligated to a wife. In his “Biglietto Address,” John Henry Newman called this the “spirit of liberalism” in religion against which he whole life had contended:
“It is inconsistent with any recognition of
any religion, as true. It teaches that all are to be
tolerated, for all are matters of opinion. Revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste; not an objective fact, not miraculous; and it is the right of each individual to make it say just what strikes his fancy. Devotion is not necessarily founded on faith. Men may go to Protestant Churches and to Catholic, may get good from both and belong to neither. They may fraternize together in spiritual thoughts and feelings, without having any views at all of doctrine in common, or seeing the need of them. Since, then, religion is so personal a peculiarity and so private a possession, we must of necessity ignore it in the intercourse of man with man. If a man puts on a new religion every morning, what is that to you? “
August 25th, 2010 | 10:16 am
Is Joshua Hochschild still an evangelical?
August 25th, 2010 | 10:35 am
Dinesh D’Souza is Catholic the way pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion Elizabeth Hasselback is conservative.
If you believe “Scripture is the sole source of religious truth” by that statement you deny the existence and/or importance of apostolic succession which is the backbone of Catholic Faith and one of the four marks of the Church.
Now, by his valid baptism, D’Souza is forever Catholic, but that can equally well be said of any validly baptized person, including Lutherans, evangelicals and fundamentalists.
D’Souza is supposed to know that. So, the safest thing we can say is that D’Souza is intellectually dishonest, because he knowingly uses the word “Catholic” in an equivocal way – he is ontologically Catholic via baptism, but intellectually apostate.
I have long thought D’Souza was a sloppy thinker. This merely confirms my suspicions.
August 25th, 2010 | 11:05 am
“Is Joshua Hochschild still an evangelical?”
Francis Beckwith is still an evangelical.
Regarding the initial article: I would think that if someone agrees that “the Bible is the sole source of religious truth,” that person would not really be Catholic. That particular question does seem to touch on the very crucial issue of authority.
August 25th, 2010 | 11:06 am
Oops, Steve Kellmeyer already pointed that out.
August 25th, 2010 | 11:43 am
Is he none-of-the-above? By identifying with CS Lewis, I suspect he’s identifying with Lewis’ point that the cross is like food, one need not know how nutrition works to know that you need to eat it. In other words, one can be a Christian while suspending judgement about whether to be Catholic or Protestent about soteriology. Given the crisis of the Reformation, that remark has given trouble to both sides.
BTW, as a cranky Presbyterian type, I am still not yet satisfied with all the details with the reconciliation between Protestants and Catholics. However, I have never dispised the Catholic church as being outside of the continuity of Christ’s work grace in history, I have never dispised Catholic theology concerning the essentials of the apostle’s creed, nor it’s commitment to Augustinian and Thomistic natural theology, nor the substance of it’s social teaching, nor the role of the pope as authorative spokesperson for the Christian tradition to the world. And though I’m not yet satisfied, the great progress made by the Joint Declaration of the Doctrine of Justification, fills me with hope that those final difficulties will be worked out. So I hope that y’all can be somewhat content with my appreciation for Catholicism, even though you’ll not be saying Mass in my Kirk.
August 25th, 2010 | 12:09 pm
Back when D’Souza’s Enemy At Home was released there was the most awesome blogfight — D’Souza versus Victor Davis Hansen, Roger Kimball and Scott What’s-his-name at Powerline plus a few more folks.
A some point during the fight Roger wrote a terrific line about D’Souza’s book, the controversy he courted with it and the insults he hurled at folks on his side of the political aisle:
“It also illustrates the often overlooked fact that the preposterous and the malevolent are not mutually exclusive: they can, and often do, cohabit quite comfortably.”
Those words what came to mind when reading this:
“If someone says, I’m Catholic and as a result I will not agree that the Bible is the sole source of religious truth, then we can’t hire them because they don’t agree with our mission statement,” he said. “If someone happens to be Catholic and agrees with the statement 100 percent, we would not remove that person from consideration.”
Tell me, as I’m not as intelligent as Denesh, what is the difference between “I’m a Catholic and “someone happens to be Catholic”
Isn’t the difference (as well the newsworthy bit) here that D’Souza will not hire practicing Catholics?
August 25th, 2010 | 1:15 pm
Okay, here’s a fun little question:
Can one be a Roman Catholic and an evangelical? My wife’s devout Catholic grandmother would characterize herself as such.
Myself, I’d say I’m an evangelical with strong Roman Catholic sympathies. Maybe that just makes me an outsider everywhere–or just a committed First Things reader.
August 25th, 2010 | 1:41 pm
Shamefully stolen from “Ignatius Insight”:
“The difficulty of explaining why I am a Catholic,” wrote G.K. Chesterton, “is that there are 10,000 reasons all amounting to one reason: that Catholicism is true.”
August 25th, 2010 | 1:55 pm
A real Catholic is evangelical – all evangelical means is “one who proclaims the evangelion”, .i.e., one who proclaims the Good News.
Given his own statements, D’Souza is obviously not Catholic.
Indeed, from the Catholic point of view, he is no longer capable of being fully evangelical because can proclaim only part of the evangelion; he no longer accepts all of it.
August 25th, 2010 | 3:10 pm
Consider him released from the Catholic side. He did so himself when he failed to receive the Eucharist and participate in a Mass for a decade. I wish him the best, and still respect him, of course, but his explanation is definitely a non-Catholic one. It’s just not the same as hopping from one non-denominational church to another.
August 25th, 2010 | 3:47 pm
What part of “I do not describe myself as Catholic today.” did the posters here not understand?
August 25th, 2010 | 4:00 pm
“Can one be a Roman Catholic and an evangelical?”
Not to harp on this too much, but this is how Francis Beckwith describes himself. To describe me, you’d have to throw in a big chunk of “Pentecostal/Charismatic” as well.
I don’t really think of myself as, in addition, Eastern Orthodox, but give me time.
August 25th, 2010 | 7:54 pm
At the very least, your mom most likely taught you, if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all. And, I am certain most know their bible verses- I Thessalonians 5:11.
I ask my own sons, Are you building up or tearing down?
August 25th, 2010 | 8:06 pm
“If someone says, I’m Catholic and as a result I will not agree that the Bible is the sole source of religious truth, then we can’t hire them because they don’t agree with our mission statement,” he said. “If someone happens to be Catholic and agrees with the statement 100 percent, we would not remove that person from consideration.”
A Catholic can’t say the Bible is the sole source of religious truth. Someone who says that and “happens to be a Catholic” just happens to CALL himself/herself a Catholic.
August 25th, 2010 | 8:13 pm
Design-your-own-Bible-covers, enneagrams, bumper stickers, Christian rock, vague spirituality, crystals, drum sets, fat boys in Hawaiian shirts founding their own me, me, me churches, theology that isn’t the same from week to week — what IS the man thinking?
August 25th, 2010 | 10:15 pm
This finally explains why his theology is weak, from a Catholic perspective, ie, he isn’t Catholic anymore.
Joe, he placed himself on waivers by his own admission. He’s all yours.
I’m with the Steve Kellmeyer thought process.
If he’s a serious Christian scholar then he should know better than to muddle his Catholic faith, which he left long ago.
He should just say he’s an evangelical.
Maybe he was trying to have it both ways a la Elizabeth “Please Love Me” Hasselback.
If that is the case and if I were an evangelical, I would approach him to get his house in order.
He’s culturally Catholic at best.
August 26th, 2010 | 2:52 pm
I wouldn’t say that you can be seriously Catholic while believing that the Church is NOT the guardian of the sacraments in the same way that you can’t be seriously evangelical while believing that the Church IS the guardian of the sacraments. That being said, D’Souza is probably as good a Catholic as someone like John Kerry whom I always pictured as Catholic in the sense that the Roman Catholic Church was the church which he specifically did not attend. The real question, I think, is whether one can be nominally Catholic while being a practicing Protestant.
August 27th, 2010 | 2:36 am
“I do not describe myself as Catholic today.” He released himself. When I was a fresh convert from Anglicanism, having detoured through several denominations, and Eastern thought (Hindu/Buddhist/Sufi), I was hungry for Catholic scholarship. I read D’Souza and was underwhelmed. Even my Buddhist and Sufi studies were more helpful in making me a stronger Catholic. Maybe that’s it, there’s no strength in his writing. Steve Kellmeyer described the situation well.
August 27th, 2010 | 3:19 pm
Show me a “Catholic” who skips Mass to go to Calvary Chapel, and I’ll show you a man who does not believe in the Eucharist.
August 28th, 2010 | 1:19 pm
Well, as someone who is versed in Canon Law, he’s a Catholic. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. We’re like a cult – you aren’t allowed to leave!
He is, in the parlance, a non-practicing Catholic.
August 29th, 2010 | 2:20 pm
Charles Collins:
“Well, as someone who is versed in Canon Law, he’s a Catholic. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. We’re like a cult – you aren’t allowed to leave!”
Can you provide a specific canon to support that claim? Because I’ve studied a fair bit of this stuff myself, and as I always understood it, there is a very simple way to “leave” the Catholic Church: by renouncing it.
If D’Souza had simply stopped participating in the Sacraments, that would make him a “non-practicing Catholic”–someone who fails to observe the Church’s sacramental requirements. But D’Souza by his own words, “does not consider himself a Catholic.” As I understand it, that means he’s not. He has renounced his Catholicism.
The implications of that for his soul are between D’Souza, God, and (God willing, one day soon) his confessor and bishop, but the simple fact of the matter is that right now he’s not a Catholic.
Again, if you understand it differently, I would be interested to see canonical or catechetical support for your position!
August 29th, 2010 | 2:31 pm
p.s. I think there’s potential for equivocation here that I want to prophylactically clarify: When I talk about “renouncing” Catholicism, I mean choosing to no longer identify oneself as Catholic and/or affirmatively affiliating oneself with another church.
When D’Souza says “I don’t want to renounce [Catholicism] either because it’s an important part of my background,” he has to be referring to something different (I would submit that he means “renounce” in the pejorative or denunciative sense, i.e., that he doesn’t want to badmouth Catholicism) because the context clearly indicates that he has rejected a Catholic identity and affiliated himself with evangelical Christianity.
August 31st, 2010 | 11:26 am
Thank you Steve Kellmeyer, very well put. “Intellectually apostate” captures it very well.
The more important point that to be Catholic is the means to be fully Christian, and to be Catholic is the means to be fully evangelical is a point that is often overlooked.
Protestantism (and D’Souza) share parts of unified Catholic truth.
And I heartily agree about the sloppiness of his thinking. His debates against Hitchens and the like, while admirable that he would try, seemed to miss many of the most important strengths you would expect from a Catholic thinker.
September 14th, 2010 | 3:22 pm
Wasn’t D’Souza once the editor of Crisis magazine? Didn’t he used to be on the masthead of the Catholic League? If someone who once held those positions has left the Church, I’d think that would be a big deal. But maybe not, since we’re only noticing eight years after he left.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact