August 10, 2007
A Shepherd's Message
By Archbishop Daniel N. DiNardo
I must apologize in advance for the undue length of this article, but the issues to be discussed demanded it.
A few weeks ago (July 10), the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith published a text about the truth and uniqueness of the
Catholic Church which caused some heated reaction from some, both inside and
outside the Church. The motivations behind the publication of this text concern
the growing theological reflection in recent years on ecclesiology, the study of
the Church. The Doctrinal Congregation wanted to reaffirm and clarify
traditional Catholic Faith teaching on some issues which had been either
confused or erroneously interpreted by some Catholic theologians writing in the
field of ecclesiology.
The text is composed in a semi-"scholastic" form, that is, in the model of a
question posed and an answer given along with various notes and footnotes, a
style akin to forms of theology in the Medieval period, to whit, St. Thomas
Aquinas. At the same time the text is not written to dispute but to present the
traditional "received" teaching on the doctrine of the Church. In that sense it
is distinguished from a theology text or article. The form of the writing means
that it is intended chiefly for bishops and theologians. It also means that the
Doctrinal Congregation is writing THEOLOGICALLY, not sociologically or
psychologically. The notion of the term "Church" in the text is not being
examined from a purely descriptive point of view; rather, it is being analyzed
from the slant or angle of Catholic theological identity. In the United States,
there is a tendency to employ the term "Church" in a descriptive or religious
sociological vein: "The Church of the Covenant," "The Lutheran Church." In
fact, every religious body is either referred to as "Church" or so describes
itself, particularly if the religious group is Christian. An analogous term is
"denomination."
There is nothing wrong with using such designations, but these meanings of
"church" can be highly ambiguous or equivocal, almost too generic for a deeper
understanding of the faith content of this important word. A few years ago the
World Council of Churches even asked for "profiles" of the Christian groups in
its membership and what each of these groups understood by the word "church"
theologically. The Catholic Church has always been clear about the theological
meaning of the church and thus about her own identity. The Doctrinal
Congregation wrote the document to underline some important aspects of "the
Catholic profile" on the meaning of the Church. Some might find the style of
writing and form of presentation too stringent, but the Holy See was clarifying
the Catholic understanding of its ecclesial self-identity theologically. And
that understanding has always been quite distinctive. (It is interesting to
note that an Orthodox bishop, while expressing disagreement with some of the
individual points raised, praised the clarity of this text's emphasis on the
theological understanding of "church," something shared by both Catholics and
Orthodox.)
When one speaks about the Church theologically, one is asking about her
identity, her definition as that identity is given in Revelation, that is, in
Sacred Scripture and the Rule of Faith (Tradition). One is distinguishing what
are the essentials and the necessities involved. The Catholic Faith names those
necessities and the recent text highlights a few of them that have been
overlooked or misinterpreted. Certainly other Christian groups would not want
to hear that they lack something essential theologically. By the same token the
Catholic Faith would not like to hear the statement of the Orthodox Faith that
they alone keep the truth of the first millennium of Christianity or the
theological analysis of those who come from the Reformation that the Catholic
Church had not remained faithful to Christ and Scriptures. The reason for all
such statements is for the parties involved to "know their ground." It is
really the only way that dialogue can move forward. Such statements can also
reveal the common ground that all Christian parties to the dialogue share. That
is also very crucial since the dialogue must work simultaneously on both the
identities and the differences at play in the understanding of the word
"church."
What did the text say? It first states that the Second Vatican Council did not
nor did it intend to change the doctrine on the Church. It did make some
aspects more explicit and deepened some other terms. The text then explains the
meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic
Church. The word, "subsists," had caused much commentary. By using the word
"subsists," the Second Vatican Council was emphasizing that Christ founded only
one Church endowing her with perduring, historical continuity and the permanence
of all the elements that Christ wished for the Church; that one "Church" is the
Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has the fullness of the meaning of
"Church." At the same time, there are numerous elements of sanctification and
truth which are found outside the Catholic Church and her structure. These
gifts properly belong to the Church of Christ and impel towards Catholic Unity.
The Churches and communities outside the structure of the Catholic Church are
not deprived of significance or importance in the mystery of salvation; nor has
the Spirit of Christ refrained from using them as instruments of salvation. But
from the Catholic understanding such Churches and communities still suffer from
wounds or defects. It is, in other words, a question of the fullness of truth
theologically.
The various Orthodox Churches are still called "churches," because they have
true sacraments, the apostolic succession of bishops and the priesthood, and
thus, the Eucharist. But the Catholic Church considers communion with the
Successor of Peter to be something internal to the constitution of a local
Church and not an external complement. That essential aspect of the church is
not fully realized between Rome and the Orthodox Churches.
The communities that arise from the Reformation do not enjoy apostolic
succession in the sacrament of Holy Orders and therefore miss a constituent and
necessary element of being a "church" theologically. This is especially shone
in the absence of a sacramental priesthood for these communities. The integral
substance of the Eucharistic Mystery is thus missing. According to the Catholic
profile, then, such communities cannot be theologically designated as "church."
This text, by its own admission, was not meant to handle all, even most,
questions in ecclesiology. The motivation was to clarify some elements of the
Catholic Church's position and to correct some theologians who either said or
implied that the Church of Christ does not exist anywhere "concretely" on earth,
but is either a kind of theological construct or a future reality or the sum
total of all churches, whether they are united or not. In such views the Church
of Christ really does not exist at all theologically; it is a utopia of future
convergences or a pure object of study and research. Any genuine ecumenical
dialogue, and such dialogue is absolutely essential, must be constructive. Such
a constructive dialogue involves, on our part as Catholics, fidelity to the
identity of the Catholic faith theologically. Other parties in the dialogue must
be faithful to their understanding of the word, "church." The presence or
absence of certain necessary elements for the meaning of the concept "church,"
is precisely what can engender deeper dialogue, clarify disagreements and even
lead to a deeper agreement in the truth. Open mindedness theologically has
nothing to do with speaking from a void or an emptiness of content.
Last week, even as I was already intending on publishing an article about the
recent text of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I received an
e-mail from a Catholic in this archdiocese. That e-mail intensified my
motivation. The second sentence of the email states that the Catholic laity
think the Pope is a complete idiot for this latest statement "on the solo
legitimacy of the Roman Catholic Church as a Christian religion." That is not
what the text of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states. Further
it is unbecoming and at the very least lacks Christian charity to call the
Successor of St. Peter a "complete idiot." Such a statement is empirically
false, is highly tendentious and is not conducive to create dialogue with the
Archbishop of Galveston-Houston. (I phoned the person involved and said as
much.) I have tried to disengage three arguments in the e-mail from the general
nastiness and overly angular rhetoric in order to attempt a somewhat rational
response to the writer. The arguments, as I see them, are: (1) the statement
could hurt world peace since Muslim radicals also call their religion the only
permissible one to rule the world; (2) the statement is the muttering of a
Pharisee (i.e. the Pope); (3) it is insulting to non-Catholics.
On Number 1, it is to be recalled that the truth claim affirmed is made on the
basis of an understanding, not on the basis of a political program. As I stated
above, the formal theological language of Catholicism is traditional and is
offered as a way to unpack the truth of God's revelation to us. The language is
used in theological dialogue with other Christian groups to get at the meaning
of the identity of the term "Church." The statements are not slogans or paths
"to rule the world" but ways to understand the New Testament and the ongoing
teaching of the Church. The author of the e-mail in question is a lawyer;
surely he would not be opposed to the technical language of law which itself is
based on a series of reasonable legal principles. Because of the complexity of
issues, a technical language is needed, frequently opaque to others, because one
is being reasonable within the methods of legal principle and custom. Not
everyone can enter into such reason because not everyone is trained in law,
though everyone can understand some of the basis for complex legal reasoning and
technical language and can appreciate its use. An analogous situation is meant
here. The desire to understand God's revealed word and truth leads in a variety
of directions. One way is through the development of human reasoning on
Revelation that results in a more technical and refined language to make some
terms more precise, even though we are always dealing with Mysteries of Faith
and not purely human realities. Even ordinary Catholics understand that the
everyday language we use in faith is always saturated with a deeper level of
meaning, and, while not hostile to reason and its everyday use let alone hostile
to a person outside the faith, this language is always addressing a spiritual
reality that meets us and embraces us, but is also transcendent to us. The
Catholic Faith has an objectivity and a truth that is not fabricated but is
accepted as true and life-giving. This total experience/expression is called
the fullness of truth, not out of pride but out of wonder of being called to the
Catholic Faith. This fullness of truth includes the teaching about the
inestimable worth and dignity of each human person, even the person with whom we
might disagree. This is a far cry from some aspects of radical Islamic
fundamentalism. (I would also add that the vast majority of faithful members of
Islam would also disagree with Islamic fundamentalism on this point, even though
they would state that their faith is the true faith.) Thus the text of the
document cannot be viewed as a long term harm to world peace. Far from such an
effect, the document clarifies and invites other Christians to enter into a
deeper conversation about the meaning of the Church and Christian faith, a
conversation meant to highlight our inestimable dignity as human persons.
The second point of the e-mail is that somehow the Pope is a Pharisee. I must
confess that I cannot fathom what this point means. In approving the text of
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith the Pope was giving approval to
what the faith of the Catholic Church has always stated. There was nothing of a
Pharisee there at all.
The third point of the e-mail concerns a fact: the statement of the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith is insulting to non-Catholics. On this point I
would repeat some comments from above. At a psychological level the statement
may indeed seem too stringent. At this level it may have been helpful if the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had given a more ample Press
Conference on the day of the document's publication. At a theological level, the
statement is meant to clarify how Catholic teaching authority understands the
Church, its continuity in time, its being founded as one by Christ, the
importance attached to apostolic teaching authority and sacramental life, all
elements that are seen as essential for the fullest expression of what the New
Testament and the Early Church, as well as the Church through the ages, means
when it speaks of "ecclesia," "Christ's flock," the "Kingdom of God," and many
other statements and images concerning this fundamental reality of our
incorporation by faith through the Holy Spirit into Christ's Body to the glory
and praise of God the Father. Though the document initially may have received
negative comments from some non-Catholics, I think that the 40+ years of
ecumenical dialogue with a wide variety of non-Catholic groups in addition to
the wise comments by Cardinal Walter Kasper, the President of the Pontifical
Council for Promoting Christian Unity, on the document would more than balance
such negativity. There are various affirmations in the document and these
statements must be held together, particularly the balance between the fullness
of expression of truth in the Catholic Church and the genuine elements of truth
and sanctification in other Christian Churches and communities. The unity of
the Church, for which Christ prayed, requires courage and perseverance. It also
requires a respectful yet clear statement of our understanding. Such an
understanding is not hurtful but an invitation to think and examine what is
said.
I have tried to summarize the main points of the recent document on the Doctrine
of the Church prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I
have also tried, within the limits of my patience, to respond to a recent e-mail
from a member of this local Church on the same document. May I finally add that
the role of civility and prudence in expression, even in disagreement, is always
necessary in our Church and in our country. The level of discourse in our
country at the moment is not very healthy. I have a difficult time abiding
insults to any human person; I have a very difficult time abiding insults to the
Holy Father, especially by members of the household of the Faith. Let us try to
regain our simplicity and purity of heart even in disagreements.
Copyright © 2005. All Rights Reserved. Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston 1700 San Jacinto, Houston, Texas 77002-8291.