|
When it
comes to Catholicism, look beyond the sound bites
PRAISED BE JESUS
CHRIST!
(Now and Forever)
On July 11, the Lafayette Journal and Courier published an
Associated Press wire story attributed to Nicole Winfield headlined:
“Protestants criticize statement on Roman Catholics’ primacy.” A key
statement in the story was that the pope was telling the world that
“Christian communities (other than Catholic) are either defective or not
true churches and Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation.”
I had received an embargoed copy of the Vatican statement a week or so
before its release. My blood boiled when I read the Associated Press
article. It distorted what the Vatican had said big time, specifically
in suggesting those who are not Catholic lack the “means of salvation.”
The Vatican statement came not from the Holy Father, but from the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the office of the Holy See
that promotes and safeguards Catholic doctrine. Titled “Responses to
Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church,”
it addresses negative criticism of a 2000 document issued by that same
congregation titled Dominus Iesus. Dominus Iesus emphasizes that
salvation, be a person a Christian, Moslem, Buddhist, Hindu, whatever,
comes through Jesus Christ. The specific point in the “Responses to Some
Questions” is the authentic Catholic understanding of a phrase used by
the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, namely, Catholic belief that
the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. This is
highly technical stuff, to say the least.
It is not possible in a column such as this to go into a comprehensive
presentation of what the Catholic Church means when it states that the
Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. This incident,
however, underscores yet again that when it comes to Catholicism, the
media rarely seem to get it right.
Why is this? While a generalization (it isn’t always true), reporters
assigned to do stories on the Catholic Church rarely understand to whom
the documents they report have been addressed, or what prompted those
documents. Often their knowledge of Catholicism is superficial. Their
understanding of the terminology used is problematic. Most often, the
writer is given a limited period of time in which to file his or her
report. The reporter may or may not have a full copy of the document
involved. Moreover, the approach is to look for the newspaper equivalent
of TV and radio sound bites, something that will catch the eye of
readers and draw them away from spending time pondering the latest sales
at Sears or Macy’s. Then the task is to find people willing to react.
Controversy adds spice to the news.
Rarely do the individuals interviewed have an opportunity to read the
documents they are asked to critique. Rather, they react to what the
reporter tells them the documents say. When the story has been written,
it goes to an editor who may or may not make changes to “tighten the
story up.” Finally, a headline writer enters the picture. The goal again
is to come up with a headline that will capture attention. That headline
may or may not reflect the substance of the story. This is a ready-made
formula for distortion, yet it is not unusual for readers to take what
they read at face value.
The document in point was issued to clarify what the Catholic Church
means when it proclaims that “the Church of Christ subsists in
the Catholic Church.” The document itself (not a summary or a press
release) needs to actually be read, of course, and it needs to be placed
in a context of ecumenical dialogue.
Ecumenical dialogue requires that the participants in that dialogue are
firmly rooted in their religion and prepared to humbly but clearly place
on the table the teaching of their faith community. The burden on the
listeners is to listen, that is, to intellectually grasp what the
speaker presents as the teaching of his or her faith community. It is
not to sit in judgment. It is not to agree or disagree. It is not to
dismiss what is being said as insulting or demeaning. Rather, it is to
understand the precise position of that specific faith community. This
is not easy, takes time and requires repeated clarification.
It is also most important in ecumenical dialogue to understand terms.
“Church” is an example. In the Catholic view, the world “church” applies
only to a faith community that has apostolic succession, the priesthood,
the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the full sacramental system, as well
as certain core doctrines. Those engaged in ecumenical dialogue need to
understand that these are the criteria that the Catholic Church
considers necessary for use of the term “church.” If these criteria are
not met, there is, in Catholic understanding, a certain
deficiency. Something is lacking. Others are not asked to agree with
this, but they are asked to understand and respect the Catholic mindset.
The bottom line is that in ecumenical dialogue, the Vatican refers to
the Catholic faith communities of the West and East as well as the
various Orthodox faith communities as “churches,” while the reformed
faith communities are termed “ecclesial communities.” Still other groups
are viewed as “sects.”
This may seem picky to some, but it is of extreme importance in the
context of ecumenical dialogue. Each faith community must make its
ecumenical principles clear.
Although it would be helpful, it is perhaps unreasonable to expect
reporters laboring under the limitations of a deadline and without the
benefit of a doctoral degree to grasp the nuances involved in ecumenical
dialogue and therefore clarifications issued by the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith designed to promote that dialogue.
The search for sound bites can easily lead reporters and the rest of us
away from the substance of what is involved. In this instance, the
substance has to do with the Catholic understanding of Jesus Christ as
Savior, that he established a Church, one Church, and where that Church
is to be found in the 21st century. Elements of the Church of Christ are
found in a multiplicity of faith communities. The means of salvation are
not the exclusive possession of the Catholic Church. At the same time, a
basic teaching of Catholicism is that the Church of Christ subsists most
perfectly in the Catholic Church. That elements of sanctification are
found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church is not
questioned. Personal holiness is not the issue. Neither is “who is
saved.” All that said, in Catholic eyes, salvation comes through Jesus
Christ and the elements of the Church founded by that Christ subsist
most perfectly in the Church that has apostolic succession, the fullness
of the sacramental system, etc.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of
Benedict XVI, issued its latest clarification because it had discerned
over a period of some seven years since the issuance of Dominus Iesus
that some criticism of that document (most often by Catholics) is not in
conformity with Catholic ecumenical principles. It wrote to set the
record straight. Having done that, the hope is that the clarification
will further rather than impede genuine ecumenical dialogue.
It is easier to rush through a press release than it is to read formal
documents. A further complication is the fact that the terminology we
ordinary folks use tends to be indiscriminate, while in ecumenical
dialogue precision is crucial. We throw words like denomination,
congregation and church around quite freely. It’s one thing when that
happens in casual conversation. It is quite another to blur the meaning
of those terms in official dialogue.
When I read the Associated Press article on “Responses to Some Questions
Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church,” my blood
boiled because it was a big-time distortion of what the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith actually said. Unfortunately, it’s the only
version most people will remember. If you are still plowing through
this, you might want to go to www.vatican.va and pull down “Latest
Updates.” I am confident that an actual reading of the Vatican document
would be helpful and surprising even to those who do not have advanced
degrees in comparative religions. |
