Mirror of Justice

This week's Vatican statement clarifying the doctrine concerning the Catholic Church and other Christian churches and denominations has of course triggered reaction, mostly over its assertions that the others "suffer from defects" and that the Protestant bodies "cannot . . . be called 'Churches' in the proper sense."  The New York Times article, while recognizing that this document simply restated previous teaching (most recently in Dominus Iesus, 2000), strove to suggest some sinister "roll back Vatican II" trend in the timing of it, a week after the authorization of the Latin missal.  Some mainline Protestants, quoted in the Times, complained (as they did in 2000) that the Church's assertions call into question its "respect for other beliefs" and will set back ecumenical relations.  But as a Protestant, I agree with Christianity Today's response in 2000 and today: Respect for each other in dialogue requires the participants to be honest about their differences before moving ahead in openness and charity -- to practice "an ecumenism of conviction, not an ecumenism of accommodation" -- and therefore honest, respectful statements of differences are "a step forward, not backward, for Christian unity."

To me, the new document is respectful and charitable.  Like Dominus Iesus, it takes pains to recognize the "numerous elements of sanctification and truth" in other Christian denominations, which the Spirit can and does use as "means of salvation" (Dominus Iesus 17), although those "derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church" (id.).  We Protestants, of course, won't agree with the last clause.  We believe that some of what the Church calls the fullness of grace and truth are mistaken doctrines; and we cannot agree with the kind and degree of primacy that Catholicism gives to the visible Church, as against the invisible church of all believers in Christ, or with some of the doctrines stemming from that primacy (such as the necessity for apostolic succession in order to be called a "Church").  But discussion and argument over those matters will continue -- in charity and respect -- and the Catholic Church should not have to be quiet about fundamentals in its understanding of the faith in order to participate in such dialogue.

I'd make only a more modest point about this document and Domine Iesus: perhaps a criticism, but more likely only a suggested further clarification.  When the Church claims "the fullness of grace and truth" as compared with other Christian bodies -- that the Church possesses or affirms all the essential elements A through Z while others, say, only have/affirm up through P -- it would help me if there was also some explicit recognition that this fullness, while it exists (let's grant for argument) in ideal doctrine and structure, is not necessarily always present empirically to the same extent as in other bodies.  Other bodies may not merely have some of what the Catholic Church has and affirms; they may actually have more of it, or in a more effective form, and thus may have something to teach the Church about its own core affirmations and elements.  For example, I assume that the Church affirms as a matter of "grace and truth" that believers should know and understand the Scriptures, yet the evidence indicates -- this is not just some hoary stereotype -- that American Catholics are substantially less likely than other Americans (certainly than Protestants) to read the Bible.  (Thanks to Rob for the survey link.)  If one finds that a problem (as I hope is the case), then one may be led to pursue some other questions about why it's so, and what changes in practices and culture within Catholic institutions (parishes, seminaries, etc.) may be necessary to do something about it.

But let me be clear: I have analogous reactions to some assertions that Protestant theological positions are superior.  For example, although Protestants often claim that their approach is better than the Catholic at observing the Second Commandment -- not to make an idol of anything in the culture or the world -- things frequently have failed to work out that way, to say the least.  Protestants have sometimes capitulated to evil in the culture much more easily than have Catholics, partly because Protestants have lacked a strong ecclesiastical structure to stand against powerful competing forces, and thus have tended to mirror or adopt the mores and institutions of the local community.  A prime example, sometimes mentioned here on MOJ, is the much better record of Southern Catholic bishops, compared with Southern Protestant clergy, at standing up against racial oppression in the 50s and early 60s.  Protestants have lot to learn from Catholicism, even to be better Protestants.

The modest point of this long post is that when any of us talk about the greater truth of our theological claim as against another's, we should also be asking and acknowledging how that claim is (or isn't) being lived out in reality.  At the very least we're less likely to fall into arrogance -- or leave that impression, which documents like this week's can easily do -- and we'll realize we need to pray for grace to live up to the ideal.  But beyond that, we might find that we can each be truer to our own claims by learning from the other: Catholics learning from certain features of Protestantism about how to be fuller and more faithful Catholics, and Protestants learning from certain features of Catholicism about how to be fuller and more faithful Protestants.  Maybe we'd find we need to change some non-core beliefs and practices that are interfering with the core ones.  All of this amounts to a lot of learning from ecumenical dialogue, and it all stops short of changing any really core beliefs themselves.

I can't imagine that any of this is inconsistent with what's said in this week's document and in Dominus Iesus, which is why I think I'm just suggesting a clarification.  But if some such recognition of the gaps between ideal and reality were explicitly included in documents like those, it would remove a stumbling block for me and maybe for others in reading them.

With thanks to all of you who continue to welcome me as a contributor to the MOJ project.

Tom