Shockwaves from the Vatican document Dominus Iesus continue. Has the inter-church and inter-faith dialogue been set back? The executive director of the Centre for Jewish-Christian Relations in Cambridge debates with the associate director for the American bishops? secretariat of ecumenical and interreligious affairs.

Dear Gene

Recent developments in the Roman Catholic Church are sending out the wrong signals, and friends of the Church are concerned. I am particularly worried about the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?s declaration, Dominus Iesus, on the theme of the uniqueness of Christ as universal Saviour. The outward purpose of this declaration is to offer a firm riposte to theologians who relativise the Christian faith. It has been criticised by many involved in inter-Church as well as inter-faith dialogue, because the tone of the document is so grudging and because it seems to represent a backward step in a concerted attempt to overturn the dialogue of recent decades.

The tone of Dominus Iesus fails to reflect the deeper understanding that has been achieved through dialogue over the past 30 years. How are Anglicans supposed to react to the statement that outside the Roman Catholic Church, Christ?s Church is only operative in those Churches which have maintained a valid episcopate, in succession to the apostles, and valid sacraments and Eucharist? The document has abandoned completely the personal dimension of dialogue, which requires one person to engage with another in a genuine mutual attempt to understand the core of each other?s position.

No wonder an alliance of Protestant Churches criticised it as ecumenically insensitive. Pope John Paul II had to make a personal intervention at a meeting of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. The commitment of the Catholic Church to ecumenical dialogue was irrevocable, he said in a welcome clarification.

This Vatican declaration has appeared immediately after a series of events which have depressed friends of the Roman Catholic Church. Attempts to canonise Pope Pius XII and the linking of the beatification of Pope Pius IX with John XXIII have caused grave concern about what is going on in the Vatican. The pairing of these two popes is clearly a balancing act between liberals and conservatives. For many of us, Pius IX is remembered primarily for holding out against modernity as well as acquiescing in the kidnapping and forcible conversion of a Jewish child.

I fear that these events, whilst separate, represent a concerted attempt to reverse the advances that emerged from the Second Vatican Council. If such attitudes prevail, they will cause untold harm not just to relations between the Roman Catholic Church and other Churches but also with Judaism and, more worryingly, to relations with other major religions, sharpening the anti-Christian fervour of some of their fundamentalists.

Although Dominus Iesus does not discuss Catholic-Jewish relations, it clearly has important implications for them. Judaism is obviously non-Christian, yet it is not a subset of non-Christian religions either. It is in a category of its own. But I wonder how followers of other religions view this document? How can Catholics involved in dialogue assert with integrity that their dialogue partners are in a gravely deficient situation?

This declaration is not, as some have suggested, a helpful line drawn in the sand. It may be that we are just witnessing conservative figures in the Church battling for the Pope?s ear during the twilight of this papacy; but some liberal Catholic theologians fear that something far more sinister is afoot: nothing less than a conspiracy to overturn the Second Vatican Council.

Over the last 40 years we have watched and welcomed the more ecumenical approach adopted by the Catholic Church: the current Pope, though a conservative, has taken massive strides to heal the historic rift between Catholicism and Judaism. We have grown used to a Catholic Church which spoke of its deep and mutual respect for its brothers and sisters in other Christian Churches, let alone its Jewish elder brothers.

The dialogue between Catholics and Jews has deepened in recent years and the relationship has matured. The desire to create a sustained, positive relationship between us, the willingness to engage in authentic dialogue about our long and complex history, and the ability to give (and receive) criticism ? all these are part of a continuing process, and should not simply be dismissed because of views which one partner does not like.

Edward Kessler

Dear Ed

I would underscore your point that the general remarks about non-Christian religions in Dominus Iesus do not in any way affect the Catholic theological tradition which is affirmative of the ongoing nature of God?s covenant with Judaism as a response to divine revelation and of God?s covenant with the Jewish people. As you say, the Church does not consider Judaism to be subsumed under the category of non-Christian religions but puts it in a theological category of its own. One may speak, I suppose, of the uniqueness of God?s People, Israel, from this perspective.

With regard to other Christians and non-Christian religions in general, one must be careful not to go beyond what the declaration actually says, though I agree its tone does tend to tempt one to do so. It is a highly technical text, written for bishops and Catholic theologians as an instruction. It does indeed draw lines in the sand. Tone aside, however, these are not in substance really new lines (nor a harkening back to Catholic attitudes before the Second Vatican Council). Like any monotheistic tradition, Catholicism must perforce draw some lines with regard to the claims of other religions. There is, we believe with Jews and Muslims, only one God, whom we Christians know as the God of Israel. There is, therefore, only one Creator and Redeemer. We Christians understand the work of this one God in the world in and through the one we believe is his only-begotten Son, God incarnate in man. Hence, we firmly believe, all the work of divine creation and redemption must of necessity be accomplished in and through the Son.

Jews and Christians, of course, disagree radically on this interpretation of Jesus and the Incarnation. That?s what caused the parting of the ways. But the scandal is inherent in our monotheism, not in how we understand the one God to be working in the world, is it not? We differ on how the one God accomplishes our redemption, but I think are in agreement that the one God is all in all.

You mentioned the Pope?s very warm greeting to the delegates from the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, and his reaffirmation of the goal of Christian unity and profound respect for the Churches represented by the Alliance. More recently, the president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Edward Cassidy, has read to the representatives of world religions from around the world an equally warm letter sent on the occasion by Pope John Paul II. Again, the Catholic Church?s profound respect for these religious traditions is expressed and reconfirmed.

I?m not very strong, myself, on Vatican conspiracy theories. I?ve heard too many to be impressed at this stage of my life, I guess. In this case, it seems to me that the Congregation for Doctrine focused on a few very specific areas in which it felt that some Catholic theologians were, in effect, watering down the faith, and felt this should be called to their attention and to that of the world?s bishops. That is, after all, the job of the congregation.

But this document needs to be read within the context of the rest of the Church?s magisterial teaching, of which it is a part, but by no means the whole. It needs to be read tightly and technically. Read that way, it does not seek to add anything new of substance to what the Catholic Church has been saying since the Second Vatican Council. Many of those things, such as the full context of the Pope?s ecumenical encyclical of 1995, Ut Unum Sint, I must admit, are simply not in this text. But that does not imply that they are no longer there as controlling elements of church teaching today. These, be assured, remain fully in force.

Gene Fisher

Dear Gene

I am glad you agree with much of what I wrote. Reading between the lines, it seems that you yourself are not too happy about Dominus Iesus. Nevertheless, you offer a defence of the document. Sometimes it is better not to offer a defence but simply to stop digging a hole. First, you say that the document is a highly technical text, written for bishops and Catholic theologians as an instruction. Yet it is expressly written for the Catholic faithful, i.e. for the average Catholic in the street. It cannot be marginalised so easily, since the penultimate paragraph of the document states that John Paul II ratified and confirmed this declaration. Secondly, you mention the Pope?s warm letter to a variety of religious leaders read by Cardinal Cassidy. Surely this is an example of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. We now know that Cardinal Cassidy attempted to block the publication of the document because he knew it would cause harm to ecumenical relations with those Churches which are described as not Churches in a proper sense, as well as to dialogue with partners from other faiths. He is now unfortunately engaged in a damage limitation exercise. Thirdly, you suggest that Dominus Iesus is not in substance really new nor a harkening back to Catholic attitudes before the Second Vatican Council. But actually it is a step backwards. Of course Catholicism, like any faith, will claim to possess its own truths, but the great change in attitudes towards Judaism and other religions which has taken place as a result of the Second Vatican Council and other declarations over the last 40 years, needs repeating and develop-ing further again and again ? in the words of the Bible from generation to generation. None of us involved in dialogue want to be portrayed as an other but as a partner. One of the achievements of the last 40 years of dialogue between Catholics and Jews has been the development of a feeling of worth and admiration. Dominus Iesus takes a step backwards, since it portrays the other as inferior and unworthy. We must not let that happen!

Edward

Dear Ed

Thanks for your response. We agree that the great change in the Church?s attitude toward Judaism needs repeating and developing further again and again. Indeed, that is the essential purpose of the dialogue between our communities. But within that context, I must say that we read the statement of the Congregation for Doctrine in two very different ways. I read it as one for whom it is written, and attempt to discern in it what it is saying to the enterprise of Catholic-Jewish relations that the Church has entrusted to me over the last quarter of a century. The questions I ask of it, therefore, have to do with the mandate given to me. Will it inhibit further progress in Catholic-Jewish understanding? Do the strictures that it imposes with, as you rightly say, papal authority, impinge on or modify in any way the new understandings of Judaism and the Jewish people initiated by the Second Vatican Council and developed further by subsequent statements of the Holy See and bishops? conferences such as my own?

My considered answer to these questions was, and is, No. It is a highly technical document intended in the first instance for bishops and theologians and only through them for the Catholic faithful. I must here beg your indulgence. I have spent my lifetime working in and for the Church, and I really do think I know something more about how to read church documents than the average Catholic in the street. I also know just enough about how to read the Talmud to know that I should defer to rabbis in interpreting it, since it, too, is a highly technical text.

Now, why is my answer no to the question that most concerns me, which is whether it will substantially alter or, in your terms, step backwards from the doctrinal progress made by the Catholic Church to date? Simply, technically, because the document does not address the specific theological issues raised by no. 4 of the council?s document on the Church and other world religions (Nostra Aetate), where Jewish-Christian relations are discussed, or subsequent implementing documents of the Holy See or bishops? conferences such as my own. It does address issues of concern to ecumenism (the enterprise of fostering Christian unity) and issues of concern to interreligious relations in general. But Judaism, in Catholic doctrine, does not fall under either of these categories. It is sui generis. One can see this in the text itself, if one reads it carefully. For example, at one point it makes a major distinction between faith (defined as a response to divine revelation) and belief (defined as an amalgam of human aspirations and insights). From your letters to me, it is obvious that you feel that Judaism, for the Church, would fall under the latter category. But, in fact, that is a category mistake. Judaism, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God?s revelation in the Old Covenant . . . . When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God of the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, ?the first to hear the Word of God? (839). It is not a damage limitation exercise or a defence to explain this. What is, simply is. And what is, in Dominus Iesus, is in fact not a substantive problem for Catholic-Jewish relations, though it has certainly proven to be, as many have suggested, a public relations disaster of the first order. From a Catholic point of view, Catholic-Jewish relations are simply not an interfaith exercise. We know only the one God of Israel, and inherit (we believe, though you dispute) the faith of Abraham. Indeed, some years ago, the diocese of Rome issued an ecumenical document which spoke of the People of God, Jews and Christians. And that is so for us. And that is true for us after Dominus Iesus no less than before.

Gene

Dear Gene

I am relieved that you agree with me that Dominus Iesus has been a public relations disaster.

Of course learned scholars like you are more familiar with the interpretation of Vatican documents than I am ? but if the Vatican is going to place such a document in the public domain, it must not be surprised if the public reads it, and presumes to react.

The rabbis say that when they cannot come to a decision on a matter of Jewish law, they should go and see what the people are doing (one is reminded of the use of focus groups to find out what the electorate want to hear). It is apt for the Vatican to hear what ordinary people are saying about its document. I am therefore delighted that the Catholic Church in England and Wales despatched a bishop to Rome to explain the worries that Dominus Iesus has aroused in Britain. The expressions of concern voiced by Edward Cassidy as well as other cardinals and bishops also illustrate the sense of disquiet about the document.

Although Dominus Iesus does not deal with Catholic-Jewish relations specifically, but with ecumenical and inter-faith relations in general, there is bound to be a knock-on effect for Catholic-Jewish dialogue. True, the document is full of technical terms; nevertheless, anyone who struggles through it will see that it is at best unconstructive and at worst disapproving about non-Catholic partners in dialogue. You may be technically correct when you assert that Judaism is officially viewed by the Church as a special case and not just another religion ? but that will not be the perception of the majority of Catholics or Jews. Once again, we see evidence of a failure to grasp the importance of presentation in ensuring that the Church?s true position is not misunderstood.

Just as I expect the Catholic Church to be sensitive to the feelings of members of other faiths, I would want Catholic partners in dialogue to voice their concern about Jewish documents or statements, technical or not, which they felt might harm the relationship. I certainly would not want non-Jewish partners in dialogue to bow to the views of rabbis simply because they are ordained. Indeed, in good Jewish tradition, I encourage the asking of difficult questions.

Catholics and Jews such as you and I are committed to dialogue because we believe in it. We devote much of our life to it, and to teaching our communities about its significance. We both know that there has been a dramatic improvement in relations between Christianity and Judaism and that John Paul II has made an enormous contribution to this shift.

My fear is that as we enter the twilight years of his pontificate, those who are not committed to the dialogue will refer to documents such as Dominus Iesus and use it to negative ends. I hope I am wrong.

Edward

Dear Ed

Your concern with how Dominus Iesus will be received and the impact it will have on the local Church among Catholics is quite understandable. My personal prognosis is one of measured optimism. Dominus Iesus is in fact a technical document with a limited intent. I believe it will ultimately be read by Catholics the way it was meant to be read, i.e. within the context of the overall teaching authority of the Church on the theological subjects it addresses.

It does not intend to replace existing magisterial teachings, such as those by the Pope and other offices of the Holy See (such as the Pontifical Councils for Christian Unity and Interreligious Affairs). That would be in my view an improper reading of Dominus Iesus. Indeed, it often refers to these documents, as well as the relevant documents of the Second Vatican Council on the points it takes up. Dominus Iesus will certainly take its place among these other authoritative documents to which it refers. But to understand fully the teaching of the Church on ecumenism, Catholic-Jewish relations, and other world religions, one must still go back to all of these documents to see the context of the cited portions.

The Pope, in his warm greetings to the World Alliance of Reformed Christians, on the one hand, and to the interreligious leaders gathered in Spain on the other, and again in his Angelus text, has given us the spirit and pointed the way to the proper integration of Dominus Iesus into overall Catholic teaching on these sensitive and crucial relations for the Church. That is how, in my understanding, the system is designed to work. And I think it will in this case as it has in others. It cannot properly, in my judgement, be used within the Church as a block to further progress, either in the quest for Christian unity or reconciliation between Catholics and Jews. That was not its intent. That should not be and must not be its outcome.

Shalom.

Back to homepage