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…
Well..is AAIM trying to get all Austin religions into one room to do something in common in particular, like build houses for the poor a la Habitat, etc, or like the Interreligious Cooperative Food Ministries which sat us all Catholic, Quaker, Jew, and every hue of Protestant to report/brainstorm every month on how the soup kitchens/food pantries were holding up to need in the city? Or is AAIM simply trying to make one Austin religion?
My first thought was very brief, tho'. Sure, we have obligation to evangelize rather than say all religions are the same even when Christ isn't in it..but what did Mother Teresa say to all the poor around her, most of whom weren't Christian, let alone Catholic? She was all about their dignity, too. I think she simply lived what she believed was of love, the best she could and the best she could get her Sisters to. I don't back down or back out when someone slams or snorts at Catholicism, but I proselytize in words only to kids in religious ed or to folks in RCIA (and in the blogworld). Maybe words are secondary or even useless in most situations.
Posted by: JustMe | January 04, 2008 at 02:16 AM
Yes, AAIM is trying to get all Austin religions into one room to work for a common cause. That was what attracted me initially to it, and the reason that it had a good number of Catholic parishes as members. I am not aware but I assume they still have Catholic members, although now their membership is open to Wicca groups and Scientology, which was not the case when I was affiliated with them.
There was also a strong ecumenical effort at work in AAIM. This too was an attracting factor to me. However, the more involved I became, the more the more the inconsistencies of pluralism became evident. At least from my perspective as a staff member I had to personally decide whether I accepted religious truth as pluralistic, and therefore relative rather than absolute. It was Dominus Iesus that became the decisive factor for me.
I am not opposed to every aspect of what AAIM does. I believe that they serve an important purpose in the community; however, they do lend themselves to pluralism. It's not that they want to make one religion, but that they tend to view all things as equal.
Posted by: Deacon DW | January 04, 2008 at 07:11 AM
Hmm.. it seems the same reason today as it was those many years ago in the Protestant reformation: catholic Christians choosing their own agenda over God's. I know so many Catholics who have chosen to walk away from the Church; some are honest enough to not drag the Tabernacle with them to their deceptive new digs.
That is a whole other ballgame, tho', from what Muslims and Jews are charged to do, which is to uphold their religion under pain of sin or punishment. Neither Wicca nor Scientology is a religion, but I have been to numerous interfaith gatherings otherwise, and I must say that although all were careful and respectful and never mewling, there was one joyful one that could not possibly have rattled, offended or smote anyone present at all--yet did not deny God anything or anyone. It was a Ba'hai gathering of anyone who wished to give thanks to Him for their new school, which my husband so nearly lost his life for while building. They gave thanks for his survival, too. There was much to be learned from that day - about how a Catholic must be/come if he or she would truly invite others in Christ's name to come partake of something well beyond this world's mere love and graces. Because, of course, Catholics are charged to uphold their Church on earth as the agent of the Kingdom. If not under pain of sin, then certainly under pain of abandoning the Lord Himself. If we truly believe the Catholic Church holds the fullness of the truth thus far, then we must live that as bravely and surely as we professed in our being sealed by the Holy Spirit Himself. This is the duty that Dominus Iesus reminds us about, as well as the CDF letter.
But not even Jesus walloped anyone over the head, as today's Gospel shows. "Come and see where He lives." He invites; so must we. And only then, with the whole Church, do we baptize and confirm, but it's also with the whole Church that we must first evangelize.
The ecumenical common denominator, as Christ well knew, and as John Paul II well knew, is the cross of suffering for love, for peace. All on earth have met that cross--all may understand that much of it. All may not believe in the Rising that came of that while they are still in the flesh, but all of us do bleed the same red and suck in the same air into same lungs when we cry, and most of us want to ease that. To come together for that, we must indeed lay down the sharp sword, but never the Good Book, Who is also Himself. People make the mistake of appearing to grant all things an equality, but we don't even uphold that in our own wombs, so it is better to just be honest, as in an honest leaving, such as yours, even while supporting whatever of it you can honestly applaud.
It's always been a sticky-wicket. It always will be, until He comes again in glory. But at the end of the day, we know what will have counted the most, just as Mother Teresa did. She knew what opened the door so that they could come and see..
Posted by: JustMe | January 04, 2008 at 02:07 PM
I may be completely wrong about this, but sometimes I get the feeling that the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue (I have some excerpts from the PCID on my Inter-Religious Dialogue Page on my blog) and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are at odds with each other rather than working together. This leaves Catholics who are sincerely attracted to ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue confused, to say the least.
Posted by: Gabrielle | January 07, 2008 at 12:47 AM
What? Confusion within the same Catholicism? Oh, possibly so, yes..
That has always slowed down evangelization. By the time we see Christ, He and we will be bald from tearing our hair out.
Posted by: CO | January 07, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Gabrielle, I've had moments when I wondered the same thing. It's helped me to see everything as a big picture. I don't think that the PCID is at odds with CDF, not really. However, I will look at addressing this when I get part two together--I returned to work today, and had some marriage prep work tonight, so I'm running behind.
Posted by: Deacon DW | January 07, 2008 at 10:38 PM
CO--do you notice that I'm getting bald? Now you know why.
Posted by: Deacon DW | January 07, 2008 at 10:40 PM
I haven't come across any discussion of this elsewhere, so am really looking forward to reading your Part Two post whenever you have time, dd.
(But let's be honest. We all know the real reason why your hair is thinning. It's not because of Catholic Confusion, is it? It was the Shock of the Giant Spider. I just knew there would be after-effects). :)
Posted by: Gabrielle | January 08, 2008 at 12:23 AM
No no no! It's just that I have run out of garments to rend, and it's dangerous to keep smacking myself in the forehead, so I have begun tearing out my hair. I just presume everyone else does so, too, eventually.
Posted by: CO | January 08, 2008 at 01:16 AM