Ecumenism is the opposite of pornography, easy to define but you are never sure when you are actually seeing it.
Last week a group of Jewish leaders were gnashing their teeth because the Church said that the one of the purposes of ecumenism is sharing the gospel.
Jewish groups said they interpret the new document to mean that the bishops view interfaith dialogue as a chance to invite Jews to become Catholic. The Jewish leaders said they “pose no objection” to Christians sharing their faith, but said dialogue with Jews becomes “untenable” if the goal is to persuade Jews to accept Christ as their savior.
“A declaration of this sort is antithetical to the very essence of Jewish-Christian dialogue as we have understood it,” Jewish leaders said in a letter to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The signers were the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee and rabbis representing the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform movements.
The statement fueling the tension was issued by the bishops in June to clarify a 2002 document called “Covenant and Mission.” The bishops said the earlier document mistakenly played down the importance of sharing the Gospel and was therefore misleading.
The temptation to say “so what?” is very great as the dissatisfied in this case are a perennial crop. Leaving them aside, perhaps it is time to better define ecumenism so that in the future we can recognize it when we see it. In a recent interview Monsignor Brunero Gherardini lamented a …
“misguided ecumenism, in search of what unites, rather than of what divides. … We entered into a new spirit of conciliation, adaptation, resignation, wary of other people’s preconditions, almost as though we believed, perhaps without admitting it, that the truth was on the other side.
Amen, what passed for ecumenism the last years was far from it. Right thinking ecumenism clarifies differences, it does not blur them.
Let me put it in this simple way. Ecumenism is like building bridges. When many people think of bridges they think of a support structure designed to get people from one side to the other, from their side to yours. This is certainly a key goal of ecumenism for those headed generally in the same direction. But bridges also serve another critical function. They enable those going in a completely different direction to pass under or over safely without crashing into you. This is an equally worthwhile purpose. So too ecumenism.
So that is the dual purpose of Ecumenism. To enable those headed in your direction to find their way across the divide or for those going in a completely different direction to pass by safely. Either way, it is important that everyone agree on which side of the road we should all drive.
August 31, 2009 at 4:03 pm
No, ma'am, you do not see the word "appertain" in the decree of Vatican II which you have cited. I was just looking for a word to express a concept.
I should merely point out that this decree does not contradict the traditional Catholic doctrine about who is considered to be a "member in fact" of the Church and who is not. Theologians often use words which the magisterium herself does not use or uses only later. For example, theologians had long used expressions like "necessity of means" and "implicit desire" when discussing the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics, even though the magisterium herself did not adopt such expressions until they were emplyed by the decree 'Suprema haec sacra' of the Holy Office in 1949 (addressing the theological errors of Father Feeney). I have used the word "appertain" (perhaps there would be a better expression, such as "be ordered towards") in order to describe the situation of those who, without being members of the Church as such, nonethless 'in voto' (by desire) are still in some way joined to her, assuming, as we always must, that there is invincible ignorance: for a particular Protestant, merely because he had been validly baptised, does not remain in a salvific relationship to the Church IF, through his own fault (laziness, pride, wilful prejudice, etc.) he continues to be ignorant of the truths of the Catholic faith.
"It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation." Well, no indeed, but that certainly does not mean that God wills for there to be non-Catholic denominations (I am not saying you implied that he does); it simply means that part of the divine omnipotence is that God can bring good out of every evil. As the Council says, this is something of a mystery.
I am glad that you clarified that you did not wish to imply – nor to make Vatican II imply – that Protestant denominations as such are "part" of the Church. To some extent I think our disagreement, if we may call it that, is a question of vocabulary. Since no previous document of the magisterium had ever used the expression "imperfect communion" (as far as I am aware), this is a concept which would need to be carefully explained, a duty imposed upon as all by the Holy Father's emphasis on interpreting Vatican II according to the famous "hermeneutic of continuity". (I would suggest that since Vatican II deliberately defined no dogma it would be dangerous indeed to refer exclusively to Vatican II, without reference to the anterior magisterium, in doctrinal discussions of this sort.) It seems to me that the concept of "perfect communion" used in this decree is the same as the traditional concept of belonging to the Church 'in re' (in actual fact), as a member of the Church, and that the notion of "imperfect communion" refers to those who, though not in fact members of the Church, nonetheless have a certain orientation to the Church.
When I used the word "appertain" I was trying to bring out the sense of word 'aggregati' as used by the Council of Florence (a council not one ecumenical but also dogmatic!): "none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can become participants in eternal life … unless before the end of life they have been added to the her "[nisi ante finem vitae eidem fuerint aggregati]." I think the word "appertain to" is a defensible interpretation of 'aggregati' ("added to", i.e., the Church), since it leaves open the possibility of somehow being added to the Church even in those cases where circumstances make it impossible for a person to become an actual member of the Church.
I am sorry for having gone so far afield from the original topic, which was the change to the U.S. catechism for adults and the reaction of some Jewish groups.