Deacon Dan Wright

Meditation on the Memorial of St. Ephrem: The Sacraments

Living within a Christian milieu that consists of ideas tempered strongly with evangelicalism, we sometimes miss or overlook our rich heritage of the sacramental understanding of the faith. Having grown up in an evangelical household I can tell you that the word "sacrament" was not mentioned ever. It wasn't until I began exploring Catholicism that I began to consider the Sacraments as the means to grace.

It's not uncommon to find that Protestants, especially Evangelicals—with the exception of the old "mainline" denominations to a degree—reject the idea of sacraments and sacramentality.

Years ago, when I was working toward a theology Masters at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, I had a conversation with a woman who was in the process of being ordained to the United Methodist Church. She asked me about my theological interests. I mentioned Rahner, though at the time I had only just begun to read his works. My interest in Rahner sprang from what I perceived as his similarity to the European phenomenological philosophers whom I had studied as an undergraduate.

"You know," she told me, "that's good, but he's sacramental." I replied that a sacramental approach was exactly what I wanted. In her "…but he's sacramental" I perceived an implicit rejection of the notion that God works through sacraments as a means to provide the grace needed unto salvation. I suppose this type of rejection is what runs behind ideas such as the evangelical doctrine that baptism is not necessary for salvation, but rather that it is merely a church ordinance. In an evangelical view the same might be said in regard to the Lord's Supper, marriage, etc.

My classmate's objection to Rahner's theology as "sacramental" was ironic given that Rahner's theology might have helped her to see a connection between an individualist or personal view of grace and the certainty of grace available made possible in each of the Sacraments.  Sacraments and sacramentality in general are not such that they should appear as somehow foreign to or not belonging to biblical Christianity, even from a merely biblicist point of reference.

So this morning, as I happened to look at the Office of Readings for the Memorial of St. Ephrem (born 306 A.D.), I was delighted to find rich sacramental language dating from the early days of the Church.

In your sacrament we daily embrace you and receive you into our bodies; make us worthy to experience the resurrection for which we hope. We have had your treasure hidden within us ever since we received baptismal grace; it grows ever richer at your sacramental table.

Indeed it is refreshing to find such early affirmations of the faith we have come to know and depend upon. However, over the years I have noticed that frequently the idea—the truth—of sacramental grace often does not get the attention it deserves.

I have frequently wondered whether the Sacraments are still understood as the primary means of grace, or if we, like our Evangelical neighbors, understand salvation as a purely individual concern, defined only in terms of one's personal relationship with God. A question that concerns me is whether as Catholic Christians we are beginning to embrace a way of believing which is lacking in the communal dimension of the Sacraments as the primary means to receive the grace that leads to eternal life.

I ask this only because I frequently fail to see much attention given to teaching and sharing the understanding of the idea of the Sacraments as the normal means to grace. Perhaps it's a local phenomenon that comes from being literally surrounded by non-denominational churches, bible churches, storefront churches--some less than a mile apart, some back-to-back.  Surely there is influence.  I see it several parishes.  There is undoubtedly a tendency to be less sacramentally-centered and more emphasis put on the personal or individual dimensions of faith. 

It seems as if, in terms of importance, we risk transposing the knowledge of the importance sacramental participation with individual prayer and bible study, which of course in themselves are good.  However, personal prayer for forgiveness of sins is not a substitute for Penance.  Nor is bible study or preaching a substitute for Eucharist.  While we receive grace and forgiveness in personal prayer we do not receive it as a sacrament.  The same might be said for receiving the presence of God in bible study.  Sacraments offer us the certainty of grace beyond the limits of personal doubt.

I suppose it all goes along with shorter lines at confession, which in turn makes me wonder how much understanding accompanies those who are in the long lines for communion. From time to time at Baptism meetings I have caught doubtful glances or confused looks when mentioning that Baptism is something that we do in order to receive grace unto salvation and begin the sacramental life.  Occasionally I have gotten the unintentional negative nodding gesture.  I have heard from couples in mixed faith marriages that their baby will be christened now and then baptized as an adult if he or she chooses to do so.

I would never want to deny that grace is freely available in our world through belief and trust in Jesus Christ. I would never tell a Pentecostal that he or she has not received the Holy Spirit because of not having received Confirmation. However, if we approach the Sacraments without faith, without the belief that they offer us the fullness and certainty of grace, we are no better off—even less so—than those who deny the need for the Sacraments altogether.

Today, especially in the times and world in which we live, we might pray with St. Ephrem, "Teach us to find joy in your favor! Lord we have within us your memorial, received at your spiritual table; let us possess it in its full reality when all things shall be made new."

The Vatican and Darwin

As an educator I enjoyed finding the article I'm including on today's post, though I know that this is the sort of thing that's bound to bring out negative feelings--especially where Catholic-Evangelical relations are concerned.

I recently heard of an educator who had regretfully decided not to return to her job next year because the state was going to "make her teach evolution" (Texas recently changed it's ruling on evolution--at least for the time being).

Interestingly, it was only a couple weeks ago that I had a conversation with an evangelical friend who works in the public schools.  We were talking about dinosaur extinctions and I mentioned that the age of the dinosaurs, the Mesozoic era, ran from 250 million to 65 million years ago.  She told me that was interesting theory but couldn't be true since the planet is only 6 to 10 thousand years old.

Needless to say, literal interpreters of the Bible are going to have problems with the Vatican's conference on Darwin.

The Vatican is hosting a conference to mark the sesquicentennial of Darwin's book, On the Origin of the Species, and taking a fresh look at Darwin's evolution theory. The Vatican is implying that Darwin's ideas are compatible with Christianity. The Vatican's upcoming conference will discuss intelligent design as a "cultural," not scientific issue.

A century and a half after Charles Darwin published his revolutionary study of nature, On the Origin of the Species, one of his most ardent foes is taking a fresh look at his theories.

Although the Roman Catholic Church never formally condemned Darwin or his theories (thus demonstrating some significant progress from Galileo's time), there is no question that for decades, it was openly hostile to Darwin's theory because of its apparent conflict with the teachings of the church.

Next month, however, the Vatican will host a conference to mark the sesquicentennial of Darwin's book. The gathering will be held March 3-6 at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, Italy.

Not only have church officials declared that the naturalist's views are "compatible with Christian faith," they have even argued that Darwin's ideas can be traced to great theologians like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Both observed, for instance, that various forms of life on Earth have changed over time.

According to Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, the teachings of the Church and Darwin can be reconciled: "In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God," the archbishop said recently.

The upcoming conference is the culmination of more than a half century of slowly easing tensions between the Catholic Church and the chief proponent of evolution. In 1950, Pope Pius XII declared that evolution was "a valid scientific approach." Just a decade ago, Pope John Paul II went further and said that evolution was "more than a hypothesis."

....the organizers did not invite supporters of creationism or intelligent design because it was "not feasible" to include ideas "that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology."

Source

Pope Prays for Unity Among Christians

The desire for unity and reconciliation are nothing new, but recently I've started seeing a different dimension of it.  Often the differences between Christians is so marked that it goes far beyond doctrinal and historical disputes.  Often the differences strike at the heart of our greatest values and even makes it hard to see how some who claim Christianity as their faith can rightly do so.

Before I became a Catholic the idea of unity and reconciliation wasn't all that important to me.  Indeed as an Evangelical unity with Catholicism wasn't high on my list of things to pray for--at least from the viewpoint of one having a Protestant ethos, though deep within I heard my spiritual home calling me for years.

As a contrast, I recall 15 years ago, a couple years or so after becoming a Catholic, the idea of ecumenism and unity were utmost in my mind.  I remember having an overwhelming desire to work for unity with those seperated from us.  Perhaps it was because I knew the faith that I had come from was a real faith, though its beliefs and values were quite different from those I had come to claim as my own as a Catholic.

I consider the article I'm blogging today to be timely in that there's been a lot to say recently about the situation of diversity in America--and world abroad too.  Specifically the differences highlighted in the practice of faith and American politics comes to mind.

On Saturday afternoon, at the Roman basilica of St. Paul's Outside-the-Walls, the Holy Father marked the end of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity by presiding over the second Vespers of the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul. The Pope reminded his audience that is only by allowing ourselves to be conquered by the love of Christ that true unity can be achieved.

The ceremony, which this year coincided with the two thousandth anniversary of the birth of the Apostle, was attended by cardinals and bishops, as well as by representatives from other Churches and ecclesial communities.

In Pope Benedict’s homily, he reflected upon the conversion of St. Paul, saying "it presents us with a model of, and shows us the way to, full unity" which, "calls for conversion: from division to communion, from a lacerated unity, to a restored and complete unity."

The conversion of the Apostle to the Gentiles "was not a move from immorality to morality, from an erroneous faith to a correct faith, rather it was the fact of being conquered by the love of Christ, of renouncing one's own perfection. It was the humility of one who placed himself unreservedly at the service of Christ for his brothers and sisters. And it is only in this self-renunciation, in this conformity to Christ, that we also become united to one another, that we become 'one' in Christ. It is communion with the risen Christ that gives us unity."

Read the whole story here.

Italian Rabbis Boycott Dialogue

It is truly disappointing to find in an age that claims to be tolerant and enlightened, that there can still be intolerance expressed over the continuance of a historically traditional way of praying.  Such oppositional fervor can only be seen as an example of intolerance against the most basic and foundational of Christian beliefs.

ROME (Reuters) - A leading Italian rabbi Tuesday accused Pope Benedict of wiping out 50 years of progress in Catholic-Jewish dialogue and announced that Italian Jews will boycott an annual Church celebration of Judaism.

Elia Enrico Richetti, chief rabbi of Venice, said in an editorial in a Jesuit journal that the main reason for the rabbis' decision to boycott was the reintroduction last year of a Holy Week prayer for the conversion of the Jews.

"If (to the prayer) we add the pope's recent statements on dialogue being useless because the Christian faith is superior, it is clear that we are moving toward the cancellation of 50 years of Church history," he wrote in the Jesuit journal Popoli.

Last year the Vatican revised a contested Latin prayer used by traditionalist Catholics on Good Friday, the day marking Jesus Christ's crucifixion.

But Jews criticized the new version because it still says they should recognize Jesus Christ as the savior of all men. It asks that "all Israel may be saved" and Jews said it kept an underlying call to conversion that they had wanted removed.

Read the whole story

It seems obvious that with last year's revision of the traditional prayer the Church made a monumental gesture of good will.  To demand that Christians not pray that all might recognize Jesus Christ as the savior is in effect tantamount to insisting that we no longer recognize Jesus as God incarnate.

The spirit that rejects Christ has been in the world since the time of Christ, and because it's nothing new we should keep in mind that there's no real reason to take a reactionary stance.  Rather patience, tolerance, and, somewhat ironically, prayer is often the best way to deal with assaults against our traditions and beliefs.

A great deal of truth comes through in the Church's celebration of Judaism, which the article mentions. Certainly such a celebration respects and serves to lift up the prayers and traditions of Judaism that we too see as a vital source of nourishment to our faith. 

There is also wisdom to be had in knowing that the Catholic prayer for conversion to Christ does not necessarily entail conversion from Judaism.  Rather the heart of the prayer for conversion is the hope that Christ will be revealed within all human cultural expressions that search in truth for God.

Despite the current boycott and others that are sure to come, dialogue will continue and progress toward mutual understanding and respect will also continue.  However, it's realistic to expect that opposition to Christianity will continue as well.  In fact it may even grow to such a degree that being intolerant of the Catholic faith will be accepted by many as a virtue.  However, again, this is nothing new to us--we are called to have faith and to hope for the coming of the day when all will know the Son of God as the savior of the world.

Haight Controversy

While browsing through the news I found this article on a US Jesuit now barred from teaching Christology by the Vatican.  While I'm not overly familiar with Haight's work it stirred up my interest, since several years ago while working in an interfaith group I began to view the claims of pluralism as incompatible with Catholic doctrine:

Here's an excerpt from the first article I found in USA Today, which left me wanting to know more:

VATICAN CITY — An American Catholic theologian censured by the Vatican for "grave doctrinal errors" has been told to cease teaching about the nature and identity of Jesus Christ.

The Rev. Roger Haight, a Jesuit, has been asked by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Catholic Church's highest doctrinal authority, not to teach Christology at any institution, even one unaffiliated with the church.

Haight, 72, has been forbidden to teach theology at Catholic universities since 2005, when the congregation denounced his book "Jesus: Symbol of God" for casting doubt on the reality of Christ's divinity, resurrection, and unique role as the savior of all humanity.

Continue reading

After looking into it a little more, I found this much more informative piece at the National Catholic Reporter.

A recent Vatican move barring American Jesuit theologian Fr. Roger Haight from teaching and publishing while he works with the order’s leadership to clarify his views could, at least theoretically, be analyzed in a variety of ways:

• At the level of church politics, it could be seen in terms of long-simmering tensions between Rome and the Jesuits, or as the predictable tendency of a first-time American prefect in the Vatican’s doctrinal office, Cardinal William Levada, to take a special interest in his own backyard.
• It could also be fed through the grinder of clashing interpretations of Pope Benedict XVI, since the Vatican’s interest in Haight dates from the period when the pope was still running the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (As one Jesuit wag put it, the recent moves show that “Ratzinger is still alive and well inside Benedict.”)
• Yet another approach would be in terms of administrative judgment: Granted that the Vatican has a right to police Catholic teaching, is preventing a past president of the Catholic Theological Society of America, not to mention a septuagenarian academic, from teaching in a non-Catholic setting going too far? (As a consequence of the restrictions, Haight will no longer teach at Union Theological Seminary in New York.)

....As worthy of discussion as all that may be, however, it’s no more than a sideshow to the main event. That’s because at the level of substance, the Haight case pivots on the most explosive question in Catholic thought today: What theological sense should Christianity make of non-Christian religions?

In a post-9/11 world, in which inter-faith relations are, for good or ill, a central driver of history, how Catholicism answers that question has potentially mammoth consequences.

To be clear, what’s at issue is not whether non-Christians can be saved, or whether there are “elements of truth and grace” in non-Christian faiths. Both are settled points of church teaching. Instead, debate turns on the theological basis for these attitudes. In varying ways, theologians such as Haight have argued that religious pluralism exists not only de facto, as a consequence of sin and the fractured unity of the human family, but also de jure, as a positive feature of God’s plan for salvation.

Put in an admittedly over-simplified form, the idea is that Christ is bigger than Christianity, and that at least in this order of history, God may well be content for some portion of humanity to approach him through non-Christian paths.

More

Apparently Haight is best known for his work Jesus: Symbol of God.

How Shall We Defeat Evil?

On many occasions I have intimated, if not outright said, that the we live in a world where the forces of evil are prevalent and evident everywhere.  The evil that exists ranges from the things people do to cause injury to themselves and others, on both small and large scales, all the way to the things they merely say--either verbally or in writing. 

Often, and it really is unfortunate when it happens, evil is done in the name of good.  Interestingly, evil prefers frequently to step outside the bounds of straightforward acts of malice and to masquerade as something good.  It is such insidious evil that is truly the enemy of us all, for we are easily duped into somehow both seeing and believing that bad actions, words, intentions, ideas, etc., can result in what is best for someone else.

Clearly, every action has an effect.  Even the smallest of secret acts causes an effect, if only it exists in the depth of our souls and no place else.  However, every action, regardless of its secrecy, is like a seed planted--we can be sure that we will reap what we sow. 

The analogy that I have always liked best is that of the perfectly calm pond: we drop in a stone and it's sure to send out ripples in every direction.  Our goal, rather than to create for ourselves a state of being without effect, is to send out ripples of goodness. 

It even seems to be clearly evident that there will always be some kind of ripples on the pond because our lives are filled with actions of some kind each day.  Even if--hypothetically--there could be nothing more than a purely calm mental state consisting of nothing other than calmness and quiet, some kind of activity would still exist.  To deny that action always occurs is to deny something essential about being human.

The scripture readings from the lectionary for today tell us:

Seek good and not evil,
that you may live;
Then truly will the LORD, the God of hosts,
be with you as you claim!
Hate evil and love good,
and let justice prevail at the gate...

The challenge for us is that we learn to discern good from evil.  Perhaps one would think that the ability to tell what is good from what is bad comes naturally, but evidence indicates otherwise.  Developing a life of prayer and scripture study is essential to discernment; however, to recognize the good--to apprehend it and make it be part of our being--we must engage the whole of creation, that is, we must engage and apprehend life as it is lived.  God created the world as good, and that goodness still exists--it is the goodness that flows forth from the new creation brought about by the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Learning to do the good is also about learning to see the good in others, but it is also about making good for others by doing nothing that would bring about a negative effect.

I believe that we live in a world where there is entirely too much hatred.  At times even common civility seems to be lacking.  Good, in this sense, includes good manners.  Unfortunately, for the past ten years or so that I have been following religion on the Internet, I have encountered the extremes of bad manners, rudeness, crass comments, and thoughtless speech presented in the name of faith. 

I only bring this up because we have to start somewhere if we are going to do the good and fill the earth with it, and furthermore we have to fill it every day because goodness in our world is a little like a gas tank on big car: it tends to run out quickly.  No problem though because the source of goodness is like a river of living water springing up.  It won't run out.

Maybe you've been a little rude in someone's combox (that's real life too), or perhaps you have taken it to speech with someone else.  Perhaps you said something to a spouse or child that you regret.  Not a problem--we have all done it.  Reconciliation is as close as a prayer.  If you feel that you need, you can receive the Sacrament of Penance as well. However, begin by going to your room and shutting the door and then get down on your knees and ask the Lord Jesus to fill you with goodness.

Goodness has the power to permeate the world around us, and evil tends to run from goodness.  Therefore, goodness is the true power that we must learn to apprehend if we are serious about transforming the world.  Every action of ours--every word we say and write and everything we do--should aspire to create goodness in others, to edify, to build up.  Clearly, such is the sign and evidence of goodness.  It does the opposite of evil, which, rather than building ties, bonds, and relationships, has only the power to tear apart.

Goodness has the power to cast out evil, as the gospel story today of the demons being driven into the swine herd indicates.  Goodness has great power, but often it will encounter opposition as the story also indicates--in the case of our Lord being asked to leave the district, he encountered fear and misunderstanding.

I want to sum up today's reflection by emphasizing that it is entirely possible for us to defeat evil.  In fact we are called to do so.  However, we have to start somewhere and the right place to start is with our own lives.  It's not that we have to become perfectly good saints before we can do and share goodness, but that we have to ask for goodness to be given to us, just as we are now.  We must bring all that we are to the Lord and allow him to begin healing us and transforming us.

It's true that when we bring ourselves to the Lord we do it in prayer, yet we should also see that we encounter him every aspect of life and being human.  Thus, in our living we have a lifetime of opportunity to make ourselves one with all that is good.  With the right amount of prayer and discernment we will always be able to recognize and distinguish the good and the evil, and ultimately we will stand victorious with our victorious God who is all good. 

Lived-Communion

Many years ago as a university student I came to understand the value, from a purely philosophical point of view, that lived-experience holds for revealing the deepest truths of life.  Experience is such, I learned, that approached the right way--with suspended judgment concerning one's presuppositions--it has the ability to offer a view into being-itself.  At least this method or approach shed light for me on the depth of experience that often goes unnoticed.

It is quite possible, I learned, to apply such an approach to all areas of life, say religion, mysticism, literature, and even to the events that unfold in the news.  Perhaps this is why something that has recently appeared as newsworthy gives a glimmer of hope:

Interfaith dialogue has become an important exercise in finding the right words to overcome both extreme violence and ordinary misunderstanding. True progress, however, is best measured in deeds. The inauguration last week of Qatar's first Christian church — a small Catholic chapel bearing neither bells nor visible crosses — has been hailed as a welcome step forward in relations between Catholicism and Islam. But an even more dramatic development is under discussion just across the border: The Vatican has confirmed that it is negotiating for permission to build the first church in Saudi Arabia. (source)

However, hope often comes with an accompanying feeling of foreboding, or perhaps with the sense of a warning included with it.  Part of the suspension of judgment required to see into the reality of the situation demands that we take notice of our deepest feelings as well as what happens on the surface.  Given that, we must take heed that

Presiding over the cradle of Islam and home to its holiest sites, the Saudi monarchy has long banned the open worship of other faiths... (see source above)

I'd like to think that I'm just being paranoid about the reaction and the implications, the wave of indignation that would surely result from the Catholic Church being established in Saudi Arabia.  I want to think and go on believing my deepest sense of the matter, namely, that we are perhaps being given the possibility for lived-communion on a grand scale.  Yet I recognize and see the dark side lurking nearby:

Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden threatened the European Union with grave punishment on Wednesday for publication of cartoons mocking Islam's Prophet Mohammad.

In an audio recording posted on the Internet coinciding with the birthday of Islam's founder, bin Laden said the drawings, considered offensive by Muslims, were part of a "new crusade" in which Pope Benedict was involved.

"Your publications of these drawings -- part of a new crusade in which the Pope of the Vatican had a significant role -- is a confirmation from you that the war continues," said the Saudi-born militant leader, addressing "those who are wise at the European Union".

You are "testing Muslims ... the answer will be what you shall see and not what you hear." (source)

Nevertheless, in the spirit of Holy Thursday, and in the spirit of communion--gathering together the deepest possible meanings of the word and its corresponding experience--hope must be allowed to shine forth as real, and as a given in the world of things that have true meaning.  Fear cannot be allowed to surface--it cannot be allowed to have being, for in reality fear has no real being of its own because it arises from nonbeing.  It is as unreal ultimately as the evil from which it issues forth.  Fear is no-thing, and thus it cannot be allowed to acquire being in experience.  It arises from the envy and jealously of true Being, which is love entirely.

It's not really my intention to enter into a long existential meditation today.  It seems years since I've spent time with that type of endeavor.  Somewhere along the way I learned that the faith--that is, Catholicism--held the key for me.  However, there is a good point to be made here on the Thursday when we recall the Lord's Supper; when we Catholics around the world remember God's gift to us of Eucharist, which we still have with us today--which we have as a sure promise always.

It's important to look into the meaning of communion on a big scale: it's important to look at what living out Eucharist means to us globally.  I believe that we should hope and pray for the Catholic Church to be established where the Word of God is forbidden, where lived-communion lies waiting in hope and expectation like the coming of spring.  We should welcome dialogue with Muslim scholars, and even sit down to meals with Muslim men and women in our communities and offer peace, even in the face of persecution, and even when such persecution reaches an unfathomable degree of inhumanity in places that are outside our immediate sight but never outside of our seeing.

Remember that it is by our love that we will be known as Christians.  For me that says a lot more than one might find on the surface.  It is a statement that demands to be uncovered layer after layer, for truly it is a many-layered reality.  We are Christians, that is we are of Christ--of his Body and his Blood--we are in lived-communion, and our call and responsibility is to carry that same lived-communion into every corner of the world.  We must welcome every overture of love into our world, a world which grows ever smaller.  Only in Christ, the meek and mild, can we somehow begin to enlarge this ever shrinking globe and let its true horizon show forth the bounty and greatness--the expanse--of the Kingdom of God.

Catholic Mass Disturbs Jewish Group

I was going to post something on the story below when I saw one similar several days ago.  It is relevant to the two posts I did on the recent CDF document Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization, which I blogged about last on February 10.

In so many ways this brings back memories of my own work within an interreligious ministry.  However, in light of the Note it will be interesting to follow this story if it develops further:

Reuters

February 14, 2008

WASHINGTON -- An assembly representing Conservative rabbis worldwide expressed dismay this week over a revised Roman Catholic prayer calling for the conversion of Jews, and it voted to ask the Vatican to clarify the text's meaning.

The 1,600-member Rabbinical Assembly said it was "dismayed and deeply disturbed to learn of reports that Pope Benedict XVI has revised the 1962 text of the Latin Mass, retaining the rubric 'For the conversion of the Jews.' "

In a resolution approved Tuesday after an hour of debate over two days, the rabbinical group agreed to "seek clarification from the Vatican of the meaning and status of the new text." The Conservative movement is one of the three main branches of Judaism, along with Orthodox and Reform.

The Good Friday prayer in Latin would be heard by few Roman Catholic congregations, but Jewish groups have expressed disappointment with its language, viewing it as a step backward after decades of work to improve Jewish-Catholic ties.

Pope Benedict touched off controversy last year when he agreed to make the old-style Latin Mass more available for traditionalists along with a missal that had been phased out in the 1960s.

The pope had agreed not to use the traditional Latin prayer because of such references as Jewish "blindness" toward Christ. But the prayer released last week asks God to help Jews "acknowledge Jesus Christ as the savior."

Source

In my opinion the move from "blindness" to "acknowledge Jesus Christ as the savior" seems more to be a step forward than backwards.

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.

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

For the past couple days I've spent time reading the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization. The following reflection is the first part of a longer reflection on the Note which I will continue. I invite your comments, and I will be available for response.

Several years ago, just before my ordination to the diaconate and shortly thereafter, I worked as the congregational support director for one of Austin's inter-faith groups. Having grown out of what was once the Greater Austin Council of Churches and undergone several name changes, the organization was known, at the time of my association with it, as Austin Metropolitan Ministries. Since then it has become Austin Area Interreligious Ministries, or AAIM.

AAIM, which is independent from denominational affiliation, aspires to be sort of a hub for the entire faith community of Austin. In order to do this, AAIM holds that it is necessary to be highly respectful of the beliefs and doctrines of other traditions.

This is where I got my first real taste of religious pluralism, and where I began to debate within myself the rightness of certain positions that I encountered regularly. I didn't say so, but I was measuring everything—rightly so—by my faith as a Catholic.

A couple things were going on at the time. I had recently (within three years) graduated from one of the local Protestant seminaries—Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary—where I had attended with the spiritual support from my pastor at the time, Father Jim McCabe, a priest of the Paulist Fathers.

My reasons at the time for studying at a non-Catholic seminary had mostly to do with convenience of location and the lack, at that time, of a local Catholic program of study leading to a Masters Degree; however, during my time at the seminary my goal was to enter Catholic lay ministry and I felt that Austin Seminary was more than able to equip me to reach my goal. While there I considered myself to be an ambassador for Catholicism, though in retrospect I probably missed some good opportunities to share the faith out of a misdirected desire to respect the freedom of others in their choice to be Protestant.

I had been taught not to push matters of belief.  It wasn't good social manners, and after all I was on their territory and I was receiving Presbyterian scholarships to cover a good portion of the costs.  Honestly, I was rarely challenged by Presbyterians. 

For the most part I found that Presbyterians were pluralists on doctrine and relativists on morals.  Yet other denominations were present and I remember a classmate, now pastor of large and historic Missionary Baptist congregation in Austin, who would often tell me that it was quite unusual for Catholics to be Christians. I took his remarks with the charitable rebuke that they were sheer nonsense. Meanwhile, I kept the faith that I was there for a purpose and that God had a plan for me.

It was when I was nearing graduation that Father Jim encouraged me to enter diaconal formation. I owe much to his support initially. Just after graduation I both landed a job in lay ministry—at a parish other than Father Jim's—and I entered diaconal formation.

After two years on the staff as "Director of Evangelization and Social Outreach" at the parish where I now serve as a deacon I changed jobs and took the position with Austin Metropolitan Ministries. In it I saw the opportunity to grow in what I had chosen to do at the time, and I saw it as a great experience for a deacon-in-formation.

I was still on the staff of what had become Austin Area Interreligious Ministries when I was ordained as a deacon on June 18, 2000. Something else—something that would change how I think forever—was about to happen. Less than two months later, on the Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published Dominus Iesus.

Recall I said that I was getting acquainted with pluralism at AAIM. While there were no official requirements for membership in AAIM that one accept all things as equal in terms of the doctrines of other religions, I nevertheless found it to be an underlying tenet in terms of what the organization called "interfaith respect." Furthermore, as a member of the staff I was counseled privately not display Catholic artwork in my office.  I got by hanging above my desk a rope type rosary that a friend had given me.  However, I was warned that certain board members might object to it.

What I saw at AAIM was that instead of each member organization celebrating its identity fully, there tended to be strong encouragement aimed at reducing each religion to something that everyone might accept. Such "unofficial" pluralism was most evident when a public prayer was offered at an organization event: it had to be a homogeneous prayer that held no identifiably sectarian features. AAIM also shied away from inviting clergy, with whom we were not familiar, to pray, knowing that a prayer offered in "Jesus name" would likely offend or even enrage non-Christian members.

I recall having a conversation with the representative of a Baptist congregation in which they rejected membership in AAIM because they would not be allowed to "practice evangelism" at AAIM events. I didn't have a good answer for them because I knew that proselytism among members of the organization would be detrimental to its existence. Yet I knew that Christians had a duty to proclaim their faith.

Undoubtedly the practice of evangelism—sharing one's faith with an eye towards conversion—within an inter-faith organization needs to be done with the greatest care not to alienate others. At the time I remember being a little concerned that the Baptist congregation wanted to launch a full-fledged mission. I couldn't agree with every method used to share the faith. Again, something within me rejected the methods of proselytism.

I was torn within, having just read Dominus Iesus. Pluralism was incompatible with what I believed and what the Church clearly was teaching, but I wanted to continue in mutual endeavors and community efforts. I believed in ecumenism as a goal and ideal, but I needed further guidance. I saw an inherent unfairness in pluralism. It was the limitation of freedom that bothered me most.

On one occasion I had a visit from a board member who was a former Christian—a cradle Catholic who had converted to a non-Christian religion. She told me that at one time she was just like me but that her eyes had finally been opened to the "truth." Too often it seems that those who take the greatest offense from Christianity do not mind being offensive in its regard.  This time, unlike being challenged at the seminary, I held my peace.  I sensed my future in the balance.

The year 2000 brought a new Executive Director to AAIM, who, in a conversation with me regarding my practice of the Catholic faith, told me that she wouldn't have a problem with my orthodoxy provided that I did nothing to cross her on her views concerning gay rights and abortion rights.  Typically, I am a tremendously tolerant and patient person, and I never had any intention of bringing the aforementioned "rights" into work.  It simply wasn't the direction in which the organization was headed.

I realized that irrespective of my liking I was living in a pluralistic world, both in terms of faith and politics, but this time it really wasn't my politics that were being challenged. I realized that I had gone too far: I had asserted that in my practice of Catholicism I wholeheartedly embraced Church doctrine.

I knew that my days at AAIM were not to last, and in October of 2000 I resigned my position. I could not promote pluralism as an alternative to what my heart was telling me. Still, I believed, as I do to this day, that interfaith organizations have a great value, although there are limitations. For such organizations to succeed they must be prepared to allow each member to express his or her faith without putting pluralistic limitations in place. Only in this way can honest dialogue take place.

In view of my experience in inter-faith work, I see a great value in the CDF Note recently published. Even more I see in it an urgent call for a renewed evangelization that does not shrink away from proclaiming the truth of the Catholic faith. It's worth looking into a little further…