That’s not always true. Remember that evangelicals have a very pragmatic approach to the Church. They tend to see church primarily as a means of saving souls. “Sheep-stealing” consists of luring away from other churches people who are truly saved (and alas, not all evangelicals see the evil even of this). If a person does not have a living relationship with Christ, then they are not a “sheep” and can’t be “stolen.” From the evangelical point of view, what matters is that the person be brought into a relationship with Christ, and whatever church can do that is the right church for that person.
Most evangelicals today do not think that Catholicism is simply un-Christian, but most of them do think that there are a distressingly large number of self-identified Catholics who are not real Christians. And they think that these “nominal Christians” are fair game. From their perspective, a “hands-off” policy would put boundary claims above immortal souls.
A college friend of mine who became a Christian Church pastor put it best. He had been on a summer trip to Chile, and I made a sarcastic remark about his having gone to convert the “papists” (i.e., I was implicitly accusing him of being anti-Catholic). He responded (I’m paraphrasing since the conversation took place a long time ago), “I’d be quite happy if the Catholic Church would convert them–but someone needs to.”
This, I think, sums up the evangelical–as opposed to fundamentalist–attitude to evangelizing Catholics.
On the other hand, Billy Graham adopted the policy–which made him anathema to fundamentalists–of sending Catholics back into their parish churches after they had made a “decision for Christ” in his crusades. This is one of the most truly ecumenical acts of the 20th century, IMHO.
In Christ,
Edwin