The National Catholic Review
Image

The Vatican document Dominus Iesus has been poorly received by Christians and non-Christians with whom Catholics have been in dialogue for the last 35 years. Although experts will debate its theological arguments in the months to come, it was the general tone of the document that upset most of our dialogue partners. They felt they were not being treated with respect as equal partners in dialogue. Even Cardinal Edward Cassidy, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said that neither the timing nor the language of the document were opportune.

While theological precision is an essential part of any ecumenical and interreligious dialogue, so too is courtesy. Civility, kind and considerate behavior toward others, the friendly recognition of one another’s traditionsall of these are essential to human communication. Courtesy goes beyond strict laws and regulations. It transcends any well-planned order; it considers the feelings of the listener before one speaks; it makes encounters pleasant and lifts the spirits of the participants.

Paul the Apostle possessed this social grace or magnanimity. When in Athens, standing in the middle of the Areopagus, and, well aware that the city was full of idols, he did not inform the bystanders that they were deficient in their faith but proclaimed: People of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are religious.... I found an altar with this inscription, To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. His preaching was not in vain: some persons joined him and believed, although others did not when he spoke of the resurrection (Acts 17).

There is in Paul’s approach the model for authentic ecumenical and interreligious exchanges. Paul addressed the Athenians with utter courtesy, openly affirming the good that he found in them. He revealed his love for the Athenians as he talked to them. Paul had experienced the gracious kindness of the Risen One; he could not be but gracious toward those for whom Christ died. Paul listened before he spoke. He recognized the gift of God in the pagans; they have found the Unknown God. Their simple belief in a mystery that had no namePaul knew wellwas the fruit of grace.

Here a lesson for all ages as to what ecumenical discourse ought to be. It must bring forth the charity of the speaker who has known God’s mercy, and it must show an appreciation of God’s gifts in others. This is the law of charity so well described by Paul in his First Letter to the Corinthians: And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

The document Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith last month, can be read as a summary of certain articles of the Catholic faith, but an important question remains: does it communicate to Christians and non-Christians the love and respect exemplified by St. Paul? If not, we may move mountains, and yet, in the ecumenical exchange, we are losing our way.

 

Perhaps the source of the problem is that, since the beginning of the ecumenical movement, the mind-set of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been: We do not participate in dialogue, we judge it. By not being part of the dialogue, even as observers, the congregation has never quite caught the spirit or tone of the discussions and has treated them as dry, impersonal academic exercises on which it is to pass judgment like a university professor over students.

The congregation has also been excessively concerned about theologians who might confuse the faithful. In fact many of the congregation’s actions, like Dominus Iesus, have confused the faithful far more than the theologians it has attacked. By attempting to micromanage theological discourse and by trying to silence dissident views, the congregation has alienated mainstream theologians and created a breach between theologians and the Vatican that is unhealthy for church life and scholarship. Unlike the prudent farmer in the Gospel parable, it has favored attacking the weeds even if that means damaging the wheat.

Nor can the congregation simply blame the press for miscommunicating its views. As long as documents are produced without listening to other Vatican offices, episcopal conferences, bishops and experts (other than a select few), then communication disasters like Dominus Iesus will continue to occur. Local bishops try to put the best spin possible on these documents, but even they are getting tired of defending documents on which they were not consulted.

Comments

Edmund F. Kal, M.D. | 1/22/2007 - 12:44pm
As I read with fascination in both America (10/28) and other journals how hierarchy and theologians struggle with the ripples (or tsunamis?) created by Dominus Iesus and cognate edicts, I cannot help but visualize an Oleg Cassini or an Yves St. Laurent trying to custom-tailor a ceremonial garment to the precise physical dimensions of the risen body of Jesus Christ, or even of the person of God’s Holy Spirit. Well, lots o’ luck! After all, isn’t the “people of God,” as described, if ever so haltingly, in Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, ultimately a mystery, not much less unfathomable than the two just mentioned before?

Perhaps the real mistake is not so much in definitions worded this way or that, but in the very insistence on defining (“making finite”) realities that are meant to prompt primarily not verbose dissections but profound awe and spiritual fascination—there being “different forms of service, but the same Lord”(1 Cor. 12:5).

James Likoudis | 1/22/2007 - 10:59am
The editorial “Ecumenical Courtesy” (10/28) takes to task the C.D.F. document Dominus Iesus as being a “communications disaster.”

The problem with the editorial is that ecumenical courtesy is placed in false opposition to the truth that the church is always obliged to proclaim and defend. St. Paul was indeed the “model for authentic ecumenical and interreligious exchange,” but he did not compromise Christ’s truths for the sake of “going along to get along.” Let us have St. Paul whole and entire.

Was the fiery Apostle unecumenical when he judged it necessary to warn the early Christians “to watch out for those who make dissentions and offenses contrary to the doctrines which you have learned, and to avoid them” (Rom. 16:17; see also Acts 20:29; 2 Thess. 3:14-15; 2 Tim. 2:16; 2 Tim. 2, 3 and 4)? He certainly insisted on “love and respect” for all, but he also demanded observance of very strict precepts regarding the purity and integrity of doctrine.

Both our Lord and his Apostles had choice words for those who would lead the faithful astray: false teachers, false prophets, anti-Christs, liars, deceivers, seducers, fierce wolves.

Similarly, non-Christians cannot ignore that the same Christ who was “meek and humble of heart” and who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4-5) had also declared that “he who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk. 16:16).

It was also St. Paul who noted that “from among your own selves men will rise speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Watch!” (Acts 20:30). In its various admonitions, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith follows faithfully in the footsteps of the great Apostle.

S. Andrea Zbiegien | 1/22/2007 - 10:57am
Yes! to the editorial on Dominus Iesus (10/28). We Catholics, catechists and theologians need not be said to compromise our own beliefs/teaching because we make the effort to be respectful toward persons of other faiths or denominations.

The document struck me as being a response to reactions on the part of fundamentalist Catholics who have been filling our airwaves and putting pressure on the Roman Curia for a few years now. They are alarmists who think they, not God, are in control.

J. Peter Carey, S.J. | 1/22/2007 - 10:56am
Bravo on the Oct. 28, 2000 issue and the three outstanding articles on Dominus Iesus—the most lucid and compelling comments on the subject I have yet to see. All three were indeed excellent. Father Clooney’s final paragraph quite beautifully captured the essential core.

America has once again done signal service for God’s people.

Edmund F. Kal, M.D. | 1/22/2007 - 12:44pm
As I read with fascination in both America (10/28) and other journals how hierarchy and theologians struggle with the ripples (or tsunamis?) created by Dominus Iesus and cognate edicts, I cannot help but visualize an Oleg Cassini or an Yves St. Laurent trying to custom-tailor a ceremonial garment to the precise physical dimensions of the risen body of Jesus Christ, or even of the person of God’s Holy Spirit. Well, lots o’ luck! After all, isn’t the “people of God,” as described, if ever so haltingly, in Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, ultimately a mystery, not much less unfathomable than the two just mentioned before?

Perhaps the real mistake is not so much in definitions worded this way or that, but in the very insistence on defining (“making finite”) realities that are meant to prompt primarily not verbose dissections but profound awe and spiritual fascination—there being “different forms of service, but the same Lord”(1 Cor. 12:5).

James Likoudis | 1/22/2007 - 10:59am
The editorial “Ecumenical Courtesy” (10/28) takes to task the C.D.F. document Dominus Iesus as being a “communications disaster.”

The problem with the editorial is that ecumenical courtesy is placed in false opposition to the truth that the church is always obliged to proclaim and defend. St. Paul was indeed the “model for authentic ecumenical and interreligious exchange,” but he did not compromise Christ’s truths for the sake of “going along to get along.” Let us have St. Paul whole and entire.

Was the fiery Apostle unecumenical when he judged it necessary to warn the early Christians “to watch out for those who make dissentions and offenses contrary to the doctrines which you have learned, and to avoid them” (Rom. 16:17; see also Acts 20:29; 2 Thess. 3:14-15; 2 Tim. 2:16; 2 Tim. 2, 3 and 4)? He certainly insisted on “love and respect” for all, but he also demanded observance of very strict precepts regarding the purity and integrity of doctrine.

Both our Lord and his Apostles had choice words for those who would lead the faithful astray: false teachers, false prophets, anti-Christs, liars, deceivers, seducers, fierce wolves.

Similarly, non-Christians cannot ignore that the same Christ who was “meek and humble of heart” and who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4-5) had also declared that “he who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk. 16:16).

It was also St. Paul who noted that “from among your own selves men will rise speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Watch!” (Acts 20:30). In its various admonitions, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith follows faithfully in the footsteps of the great Apostle.

S. Andrea Zbiegien | 1/22/2007 - 10:57am
Yes! to the editorial on Dominus Iesus (10/28). We Catholics, catechists and theologians need not be said to compromise our own beliefs/teaching because we make the effort to be respectful toward persons of other faiths or denominations.

The document struck me as being a response to reactions on the part of fundamentalist Catholics who have been filling our airwaves and putting pressure on the Roman Curia for a few years now. They are alarmists who think they, not God, are in control.

J. Peter Carey, S.J. | 1/22/2007 - 10:56am
Bravo on the Oct. 28, 2000 issue and the three outstanding articles on Dominus Iesus—the most lucid and compelling comments on the subject I have yet to see. All three were indeed excellent. Father Clooney’s final paragraph quite beautifully captured the essential core.

America has once again done signal service for God’s people.

Recently in Editorials