Recently Mark has been recording and commenting on a brouhaha which has erupted over recent comments of Cardinal Eijk on the Council of Trent. Dutc Protestants, seemingy, are incensed at a Catholic Church prelate, a Cardinal no less, speaking the truth AS CATHOLICS SEE IT; well, at least faithful Catholics. This has reminded me of our own little local difficulty when the CDF released Dominus Iesus in 2000. And so I copy below an unpublished article I wrote at that time regarding misinterpretations and misrepresentations (lies, you might say and you might not be so very wrong) published in both The Times and The (Glasgow) Herald.
Dominus Iesus
by Hugh
McLoughlin
Magnus
Linklater in The Times (7 September, 2000) stated that in his opinion Dominus Iesus
might well have been intended as “the first stirrings of a papal campaign”,
that it “sets out the official position on church unity” and “will dismay many
ordinary Catholics.”
In
short: it wasn’t, it didn’t, and it shouldn’t have.
And
Linklater would have known this had he even bothered to read as far as
paragraph 2 of the document wherein it is written: “In considering the values which these religions
witness to and offer humanity, with an open and positive approach, the Second
Vatican Council’s Declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian
religions states: ‘The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy
in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct,
the precepts and teachings, which, although differing in many ways from her own
teaching, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all
men’.”
Linklater
also went on to state that: “Superficially Dominus Jesus (sic)
adds little new to Catholic doctrine.”
Nonsense!
It added absolutely NOTHING new to Catholic doctrine.
As
Archbishop, now Cardinal, Tarcisio Bertone, the then Secretary of the Supreme
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, made clear at the press conference
held to launch Dominus Iesus, it was simply a “Declaration” and as such
it was “not teaching new doctrine, but rather reaffirming and summarising the
doctrine of the Catholic faith defined or taught in previous documents of the
Church’s magisterium, indicating its correct interpretation, in face of
doctrinal errors or ambiguities diffused in today's theological and ecclesial
ambience.”
In
the Scottish press, The (Glasgow) Herald columnist Ron Ferguson (sometime
Church of Scotland minister) noted that in a recent radio interview Fr Danny
McLoughlin (no relation), then of the Scottish Catholic Press Office, had
stated that he regretted if “members of non-Christian churches” had been
offended. Ferguson then went on to snidely remark that he presumed that this
was “a simple mistake, and not a Freudian slip” on Fr Danny’s part.
It
was neither.
Another
gem from the Linklater pen: “It goes on to examine other Churches including the
Church of England.” Oh no it didn’t! And barely mentioned them, except in
passing.
Tarcisio
Bertone’s boss, His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, stated quite clearly at
the press conference that it was written not with the ongoing discussions
between the Catholic Church and the Protestant and Anglican churches in mind,
but rather the affairs of the Catholic Church in relation to the non-Christian
(and, indeed, non-Jewish) churches. As the Document puts it the concern was
with and in: “the practice of dialogue between the Christian faith and other
religious traditions” (Introduction, paragraph 3).
Neither
the Church of England, nor the Church of Scotland (nor, indeed, any other
Protestant church) is anywhere mentioned in the Document, but section IV on
Unicity and Unity of the Church does, indeed, apply to them. However, if the
document is read carefully there is nothing therein that will surprise anyone,
Catholic, or Protestant, or Anglican.
(The
Vatican always distinguishes between Protestant and Anglican. In part this goes
back to Pio nono, Pope Pius IX, and his anxious desire that Blessed
Dominic Barberi’s crusade to convert England should go well. There was great
rejoicing in the Papal household when word reached Rome that this saintly
Passionist had received John Henry Newman into Holy Mother Church.)
Paragraphs
16 and 17 in that section are simply a re-statement of Catholic Church teaching
from Vatican II onwards: absolutely nothing new, controversial, frightening or
offensive for anyone already involved in ecumenical dialogue. And that is a lot
more than can be said for the uninformed offerings of the various pundits
supposedly in the know which were inflicted on us at the time of the document’s
publication.
Essentially
the text here simply restates what we Catholics have held, hold now, and always
will hold to be the case: that the Church of Rome is the one, true, Catholic
and Apostolic Church and that the Orthodox Churches can claim ─ despite the
Schism, which arguably in any case might not really have been a true Schism
since neither side at the time authoritatively excommunicated or anathematised
the other (at least as far as I am aware) ─ direct apostolic succession and
are, therefore, most close to our Catholic hearts.
So
how then could Linklater talk of the “ecumenical movement” being “saddened” or
even “horrified”? (Whatever the “ecumenical movement” actually is or was meant
by him to be.) Presumably he thought that it consisted entirely of people like
him who had not taken the time to read the Document, never mind attempted to
understand it within its proper context.
Ah,
context!
Although
formally addressed to the “bishops, theologians, and all the Catholic
faithful”, Dominus Iesus was primarily aimed at Catholic theologians
working as either missionaries or as “native” priests, or in some other way
involved with both of these categories. Most especially, Dominus Iesus was meant as a cautionary restatement of authentic
Church teaching for the benefit of those working in the Indian sub-continent,
parts of Africa, and South East Asia.
The
late Archbishop Marcello Zago, then Secretary of the Congregation for
Evangelization, and himself a former missionary priest in Laos, tried to put
the document into its proper context in an interview with the Vatican News Agency,
FIDES.
He
said in part: “Too many theologians question the need for evangelization, and
refrain from suggesting conversion from another religion.” (ie from a
non-Christian religion!) He went onto say: “… the Church’s claim to offer the
unique and complete means to salvation has prompted sharp opposition from some
Asian religions ― particularly Hindus in India and Muslims in Indonesia and
elsewhere. Some Christian missionaries respond by watering down the content
of the Catholic faith and this is a mistake.”
