Just out this morning: the American Catholic bishops' "Clarification" of some problems with Peter C. Phan's Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interfaith Dialogue. Fr. Phan has a chair in Catholic social thought at Georgetown University.
The book suffers from "certain pervading ambiguities and equivocations that could easily confuse or mislead the faithful, as well as statements that, unless properly clarified, are not in accord with Catholic teaching," as the bishops' Committee on Doctrine put it in their conclusion. The committee is chaired by Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport and includes the bishops of Toledo, San Antonio, Worcester, Paterson, and Oakland, and the archbishop of Washington. They note that Phan was asked to respond to their questions, but did not.
The 15 page, 5,000 word statement begins with a statement of the "importance" of "a theology of religious pluralism, that is, a theology that 'seeks to investigate, in the light of Christian faith, the significance of the plurality of religious traditions in God’s plan for humanity'" (the phrase quoted taken from the Vatican's description of the problems with a similar book by a Jesuit, Jacques Dupuis).
It then takes up "three areas of concern: i) Jesus Christ as the unique and universal Savior of all humankind; ii) the salvific significance of non-Christian religions; iii) the Church as the unique and universal instrument of salvation." Here is a summary of the bishops' argument. I don't have a link to the statement, but will provide one when I do.
For the first concern (this is the longest part of the Clarification), the bishops note that Phan accepts the uniqueness of Christ in some places but in others "the term 'unique' is rejected or else accepted with confusing qualifications." The bishops do not say this, but the quotes they provide suggest that "rejected" is Phan's essential position, though he presents it confusingly. For example, he argues that
Although such terms may have served at one time, "words are unavoidably embedded in socio-political and cultural contexts, and the contexts in which these words were used were, in many parts of the world, often tainted by colonialist imperialism, economic exploitation, political domination, and religious marginalization." From this the book concludes that the terms "unique," "absolute," and "universal" "have outlived their usefulness and should be jettisoned and replaced by other, theologically more adequate equivalents."
The bishops respond, quoting Dominus Iesus and other documents, that this is wrong. Jesus is "the Father’s definitive and universal means of salvation." Therefore:
Because of who Jesus is and what he has done and continues to do as the Risen Lord, the Church, from her earliest days, has proclaimed: “There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved” (Acts 4:12). This does not mean that members of other religions cannot possibly be saved, but it does mean that their salvation is always accomplished in some way through Christ.
No one, therefore, can enter into communion with God except through Christ, by the working of the Holy Spirit. Christ’s one, universal mediation, far from being an obstacle on the journey toward God, is the way established by God himself, a fact of which Christ is fully aware. Although participated forms of mediation of different kinds and degrees are not excluded, they acquire meaning and value only from Christ’s own mediation, and they cannot be understood as parallel or complementary to his.
The block quote is taken from John Paul II's encyclical on on the Permanent Validity of the Church's Missionary Mandate (Redemptoris Missio).
For the second, "the salvific significance of non-Christian religions," the bishops note that Phan argues that
"the non-Christian religions possess an autonomous function in the history of salvation, different from that of Christianity," and that "they cannot be reduced to Christianity in terms of preparation and fulfillment." . . . [and] “that these religions may be said to be ways of salvation and that religious pluralism is part of God’s providential plan.”
They again note the "ambiguities" in the way Phan argues his point, but conclude that the book teaches that "there is some kind of moral obligation for the Church to refrain from calling people to conversion to Christ and to membership in his Church." This, they go on to note, "is in conflict with the Church’s commission, given to her by Christ himself" and say
The Church's evangelizing mission is not an imposition of power but an expression of love for the whole world. The very fact that other religions do not possess the fullness of the Father’s truth revealed in Jesus Christ and the fullness of the Father’s love that is poured out in the Holy Spirit ought to compel Christians, in their love for all men and women, to share their faith with others. To offer others the gift of Jesus Christ is to offer them the greatest and most valuable of all gifts, for he is the Father’s merciful gift to all. Thus there is no necessary conflict between showing respect for other religions and fulfilling Christ's command to proclaim the Gospel to all the nations.
The book also implies "a perspective that is somehow beyond that of Christian faith, indeed, that enables one to judge what is of 'religious' salvific value in a given religion" that we do not, and cannot, have.
For the third concern, "the Church as the unique and universal instrument of salvation" (a section, I know, of more direct interest to our Catholic readers, though Phan writes of "the Christian Church" in a way that could be taken more broadly, and others could apply the bishops' argument to their own churches), the bishops note that Phan argues
that the claim for her uniqueness and universality "should be abandoned altogether." With regard to this claim, the book notes that what arouses much skepticism and even outrage is that a human institution such as the to be the exclusive vessel of divine grace while there is plenty of evidence that other religious institutions, no less than the church, have been instrumental in achieving good (and, of course, evil as well).
Again noting Phan's ambiguous treatment of the matter ("While it is not clear whether or not this passage represents precisely the position of the author"), the bishops respond that despite the sinfulness of Christians, "the holiness of the Church is not simply defined by the holiness (or sinfulness) of her members but by the holiness of her Head, the Lord Jesus Christ."
According to the Second Vatican Council, the Church as the messianic people of God is "a lasting and sure seed of unity, hope and salvation for the whole human race. Established by Christ as a communion of life, charity and truth, it is also used by Him as an instrument for the redemption of all, and is sent forth into the whole world as the light of the world and the salt of the earth." The Church is the indispensable "universal sacrament of salvation" that has been instituted by Christ himself and that continues to be sustained by him.
Because of the book's "pervading ambiguities and equivocations," the bishops conclude, they had to write to "help ensure that the singularity of Jesus and the Church be perceived in all clarity and the universal salvific significance of what he has accomplished be acknowledged in the fullness of truth."
Recent Comments