Personal Perspective on the Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (Part Two)

I wasn't sure whether I would ever get around to writing part "Part Two" concerning the Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization, which I wrote a post about on January 3 this year. Part of it was that I was searching for just that "right thing" that I needed to express—and there was a question put to me by a reader of whether I thought that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith might be at odds with the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue.

I have to admit that I wasn't well versed in the statements and writings of the Council for Inter-religious Dialogue, so I spent a little time reviewing them—honestly, I couldn't find any real opposition or "being at odds" anywhere, though if someone would like to point it out to me I think it would make for a good combox discussion. Certainly, the tone overall is quite different from what we find in the Doctrinal Note. However, more than a few years have passed since the Declaration and Proclamation of the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue was written in 1991.

Many years ago, I remember wondering what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was up to when they, along with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, issued a response and clarification regarding the Lutheran-Catholic joint declaration on the doctrine of justification. In time I came to see it essentially as an attempt to present the Catholic position in a clear and honest manner. This too is where I see the Doctrinal Note's importance for us.

Too often, I believe, a criticism that one might hear regarding the statements of the Curia and various Pontifical Councils is that they have little, if anything, to do with us where we live in our everyday lives; that is, a common complaint I hear is that Rome is a good distance from the parish. The nuances of doctrine, some say, are far removed from the real world and are irrelevant to life. Of course I would never take such a position, and moreover I disdainfully view it as symptomatic of an anti-intellectual attitude that I have too frequently encountered.

Contrary to the claims of detractors, pronouncements such as the Note bear tremendous relevance to our lives in the faith.

The fact is that we do—or at least we should—have opportunities to express the doctrinal truth of the Catholic faith. It is indeed something that we should not shrink from when given the opportunity to share what we believe. Because the doctrine of the Church is relevant to our faith, it is also relevant to our everyday existence in the world. Having knowledge and being familiar with the various documents of the Curia and Pontifical Councils only aides us in sharing the teaching of the Church—the truth—in such a way that we do not come across as doctrinaire of offensive to those who do not hold our beliefs.

I had such an opportunity just last week. It seems that topics such as the bible, church history, and even something as theoretical as academic theology, hold strong interest among members of the community. My conversation was with a woman who was a graduate of small but well-respected university affiliated with a Pentecostal ecclesial community.

"As I drove past a Catholic Church a few days ago," she told me, "I thought about how I've made it a point not to discuss anything about religion that cannot be found in the bible." I resisted a momentary temptation to say "too bad we won't be able to talk about your denomination," realizing immediately that what I was hearing was a poorly disguised sola scriptura argument against Catholicism. In such times the Doctrinal Note, and like documents, can be a source of encouragement to move forward and assert the truth of our faith when we face boorish attempts to discredit it.

With only a small effort I responded that the main problem with a "bible only" approach is that it ignores the history of the Church prior to the completion of the canon of scripture as well as ignoring the history of the New Testament canon itself. I explained that we are not a church arising from the book; rather the bible is the sacred book that came forth from the Church.

There was little response to what I had to say, but it would have been a failure for me claim a victory and offer no more. I continued by inviting my Pentecostal friend to look into the Catholic teaching about scripture and to explore sacred history a little better. I'm sure that I will have other opportunities to visit with her again, and certainly evangelization, sharing the truth as taught by the Catholic Church, will be on my mind.

For me, the whole importance of documents like the Doctrinal Note is that they serve as a constant witness of the presence of truth in our world today.  Thus they witness to the catholicity of our belief and purposes.  Rather than betraying tension between various curial and pontifical councils, they reveal the unity of our purpose.

Comments

[Gabrielle]

dd, I've been able to read some of the "Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization", and I do find it to be a very beautiful document. But regarding my previous comment about sensing some disharmony between the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue, maybe if I gave you a little example of what I find confusing/contradictory, you would have a better idea of what I mean; for example, here's a little extract from the PCID re its "Nature and Goals" taken from the Vatican website:

"Nature and Goals of PCID

The PCID is the central office of the Catholic Church for the promotion of interreligious dialogue in accordance with the spirit of the Second Vatican Council, in particular the declaration “Nostra Aetate”. It has the following responsibilities:

1) to promote mutual understanding, respect and collaboration between Catholics and the followers of others religious traditions;

2) to encourage the study of religions;

3) to promote the formation of persons dedicated to dialogue.

Methodology of PCID

Dialogue is a two-way communication. It implies speaking and listening, giving and receiving, for mutual growth and enrichment. It includes witness to one’s own faith as well as an openness to that of the other. It is not a betrayal of the mission of the Church, nor is it a new method of conversion to Christianity. This has been clearly stated in the encyclical letter of Pope John Paul II “Redemptoris Missio”. This view is also developed in the two documents produced by the PCID: The Attitude of the Catholic Church towards the Followers of Other Religious Traditions: reflections on Dialogue and Mission (1984), and Dialogue and Proclamation (1991)."

I wish I really understood this whole subject-area better, but don't you see some tension/contradiction between the PCID's mandate of openness to other religions without attempting any conversion, as opposed to what is expressed in the Doctrinal Note re the absolute necessity of evangelization otherwise we are promoting relativism? These are both organizations within the Vatican. Do you see why it is confusing to a person who loves Catholicism but is also drawn to inter-religious dialogue?

[JustMe]

Unless it's only of cereal box length, I'm too lazy, undisciplined and/or perhaps too limited to mine for documents' gold dust; if I come away with nuggets that jumped into my brain's arms, it's a fine day.

Conflicting messages from within the Church is cause for a serious confusion or a delay of evangelization, as it trickles down to cereal-box laypersons like me who mean well, but not knowing what more one should do, mostly just take up R.E. or RCIA materials and help wean our own from milk so as to give them meat.

The only nugget I caught from the two documents, along with seeing that the goal of evangelization is always the same -- all of us into Christ's arms safe from that bastard devil who hates God through His most precious creation, man -- the problem is still a 2000-year "How?" That will always remain a stumbling, gasping thing. One cannot please all the people, all the time. All we can do, is do the best with whatever we have. It is undeniably part of our mission to invite into formation what is already non-Christians', too, for their acknowledging, but we must first listen with respect actively, definitively, to those who are equally Loved, and certainly not only with just our own witness given in living the Gospel. After listening, tho', we can't not have something to say. And it's more important than ever, or so it seems, that we have what to say, because satan is so busy.

There are ever more weird if pretty gardens growing out there. Husband is doing sidework for a guy who handed him his business card for ancient Harmonic Voices therapy (with a didgeridoo, which retunes our own vibrations...) Naturally, it has links to more than just the holistic -- Reiki, witchery, yada yada, everything but Personal Love of a God to believe in. For Pete's sake --let some Congregation or other in the Curia compile and provide us with basic Truth pamphlets to hand out!

[Deacon DW]

Gabrielle- I think that your analysis is good; however, it's important to keep in mind that the CDF and the PCID have essentially different aims. The tension we see arises partly, I believe, as a semantic difference. It's clear to me in the documents of the PCID that the call to evangelize is not overlooked. Also in the CDF Note there is attention given to presenting the faith in such a way that it still respects the validity of the beliefs of others.