Mistiming dooms document

Anyone who has ever been involved in a family dispute or workplace argument knows that once the problem is resolved, it is foolish or perverse to stir the pot again. Resurrecting contentious issues at the dinner table or around the coffee urn reopens old wounds that had been healing. That seems to be precisely what the Vatican did in issuing "Dominus Iesus," an ill-timed and unnecessary document.

Everyone who has read "Dominus Iesus," issued earlier this month by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, agrees that it says nothing new in its reiteration of Church teaching that Jesus alone is the savior of mankind and that the church He founded "subsists in the Catholic Church."

But the repetition of that teaching at this moment undercuts decades of work in ecumenical and interfaith relations:

* Rabbi Leon Klenicki, interreligious affairs director of the Anti-Defamation League, called the statement "a step backwards in the dialogue relationship."

* In Rome, a Vatican-sponsored Day of Jewish-Christian Dialogue was postponed indefinitely when leaders of Rome's Jewish community withdrew their participation following the publication of the declaration.

* The Rev. Ellen Wondra, Anglican coordinator of a long-term project on authority for the U.S. Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue, said the way the document spells out its position "is part of the era of mutual polemics among churches rather than an era of reconciliation and greater communion."

* Michael Root, a leading Lutheran ecumenist, said the document's lack of attention to ecumenical advances "seems to simply place us back where we were 30 years ago."

* Retired Methodist Bishop Mark B. Herbener said the declaration "does not breathe the fresh air of the Gospel but only the dusty, musty smell of medieval controversy."

Others responded to "Dominus Iesus" by reasserting their own long-held beliefs:

* Muzammil Siddiqi, president of the Islamic Society of North America and Muslim co-chairman of the West Coast Dialogue of Catholics and Muslims, said the document spells out the Catholic position that other religions are deficient, but "our position is the same thing: that the Catholic position is deficient."

* C.S. Radhakrishnan, a Hindu in India, said it was ironic that followers of a "merciful Christ" should speak "intolerant language." He said the declaration's claim of the Church's necessity for salvation would spark "unnecessary animosity" among religions in India.

* Timothy F. George, dean of Beeson Divinity School of Samford University in Birmingham, Ala., and executive editor of Christianity Today, said, "From an evangelical perspective, we must say to the Church of Rome the same thing that this document says to non-Catholic Christians: Serious defects remain in Catholic teaching and piety, and we call the Church of Rome, as we call our own churches, to further reformation on the basis of the word of God."

Furthermore, it is not only non-Catholics who find the document disturbing. Even a Vatican official, Bishop Walter Kasper, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said it lacked "the necessary sensitivity."

Bishop Karl Lehmann of Mainz, president of the German bishops' conference, said the statement did not represent an "all-embracing presentation of the Catholic attitude to questions of ecumenism."

Archbishop Alexander J. Brunett of Seattle, co-chairman of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Dialogue, said that since "the declaration does not cover any new ground or provide any new theological insights,...some perhaps will wonder why it does not reflect the ecumenical sensitivity achieved through 30 years of dialogue and cooperation."

Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland of Milwaukee expressed disappointment in the "tone" of the document, which he said many ecumenical dialogue partners will find "heavy, almost arrogant and condescending." He added that it "ignores all of the ecumenical dialogues of the last 35 years, as if they did not exist. Has no progress in working toward convergence of theological thought occurred in these 35 years?"

Given Pope John Paul II's heroic efforts at dialogue (see related articles on page 2) and such triumphant ecumenical moments as last year's Catholic-Lutheran agreement on justification and the papal visit to the Holy Land last spring, who at the Vatican thought it was time to throw cold water on the process by saying nothing new but saying it insensitively and at precisely the wrong moment?

The Pope has used this Holy Year as a time for apology and repentance for the Church's previous mistakes, missteps and errors. We wonder how he feels about someone on his staff creating the need for one more mea culpa.

(09-28-00)