Rejecting the Gospel
The next day a Boston Globe article reported that the document was the dawn of a new era in Catholic teaching, one in which the necessity of belief in Jesus Christ is limited to certain groups and unnecessary for others:
Citing teachings dating back to the Second Vatican Council, and statements by Pope John Paul II throughout his papacy, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops declared unequivocally that the biblical covenant between Jews and God is valid and therefore Jews do not need to be saved through faith in Jesus. (Michael Paulson, “Catholics reject evangelization of Jews,” Boston Globe, August 13, 2002).
When I first read this newspaper report, I assumed the reporter had misunderstood the actual contents of the document. After all, the media is not known for always interpreting official Catholic documents with accuracy and balance. Once I had read the document, however, I was distressed to find that the reporter was not far off the mark in his understanding of what the delegates of the BCEIA had stated.
Within a couple days I was receiving e-mails and phone calls from Catholics expressing concern, confusion, and even anger about the document and the media response. One caller told us of a lengthy conversation he had with an Evangelical Protestant radio talk show host. The host explained that the document was just further proof the Catholic Church was embracing indifferentism and was rejecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ more openly than ever before. There have been reports of similar reactions from other non-Catholic Christians.
A Little Perspective
Before looking at some of the problems with “Reflections On Covenant and Mission,” it must be pointed out that the document carries little, if any, authoritative weight. It is, after all, a reflection, not a papal encyclical or declaration from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In fact, after the first wave of media attention and controversy, Cardinal William Keeler, the U.S. Bishops’ Moderator for Catholic-Jewish relations, took pains to point out that the document was not authoritative and “does not represent a formal position taken by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) or the Bishops' Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs (BCEIA). The purpose of publicly issuing the considerations which it contains is to encourage serious reflection on these matters by Jews and Catholics in the U.S.” (Accessed at www.nccbuscc.org. Dated Aug. 16, 2002).
Unfortunately, most people, including many Catholics, do not understand the various levels of authority attached to different official Catholic documents. They do not always understand that there is a huge difference between a dogmatic constitution or papal encyclical, and the reflections of a USCCB sub-committee. Although such reflections can be important and may benefit the Church in different ways, they are not infallible and they do not necessarily reflect the teaching of the Universal Church. Such reflections can even contradict the established doctrine of the Catholic Church.
The document is part of an ongoing, twenty year long interreligious dialogue between the USCCB and certain Jewish groups. One of its goals is to state that “campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.” Although this is somewhat ambiguous, the delegates are apparently referring to coercive or aggressive forms of proselytism that do not respect the religious freedom of the individual. Of course, it would be difficult to find many Catholics today who support the forced baptisms and conversions that sometimes took place in past centuries.
The document also reflects on the relationship between the Old and New Covenants. Quotes from Pope John Paul II explain that Jews are “the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God,” “the present-day people of the covenant concluded with Moses,” and “partners in a covenant of eternal love which was never revoked.” This might surprise some readers, but this recognition of God’s faithfulness to His covenant with the Jews has been the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church. This is based, in part, on St. Paul’s teaching in chapter 9 through 11 of his Epistle to the Romans.
The more difficult issue, which the document seeks to address, is what this recognition of the Old Covenant means for evangelistic efforts by Catholics. Put bluntly, do Jews need Jesus? Is it wrong for Catholics to tell Jews that Jesus is the one Lord and Savior? Do Jews need to be baptized and become Christian? In addressing these questions the document becomes confusing and contradictory.
What Were They Thinking?
Although the Catholic Reflection in the document contains twenty-five footnotes, not one of them quotes Dominus Iesus, the controversial “Declaration on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church” issued by Cardinal Ratzinger and the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith in August 2000. That important document was confirmed by Pope John Paul II and carries substantial doctrinal weight. It is a cogent, unambiguous explanation of what the Church teaches about Jesus Christ, His centrality as Savior, the mission of the Church, and the relationship between the Church and other religions. You can access the entire document here.
In light of the confusion over the “Reflections on Covenant and Mission,” I would like to quote a few sections from Dominus Iesus at length. The first clearly affirms the unique and singular work of Jesus Christ, and the importance of entering the Church through baptism:
Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”. This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”. (Dominus Iesus, 20)
The second quote addresses the question of how non-Christians might be saved. It emphasizes that the Church can never be seen as one possible way of salvation among many, nor can any other religion be seen as equally valid and substantive as Christianity:
With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to Himself”. Theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully. Their work is to be encouraged, since it is certainly useful for understanding better God's salvific plan and the ways in which it is accomplished. However, from what has been stated above about the mediation of Jesus Christ and the “unique and special relationship” which the Church has with the kingdom of God among men — which in substance is the universal kingdom of Christ the Saviour — it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God. (Dominus Iesus, 21)
While other religions do contain many elements of truth, they do not possess an equal assurance of the means of salvation:
If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation. (Dominus Iesus, 22)
What Is Evangelization All About?
This confusion can already be found in an early section titled “The Mission of the Church: Evangelization,” which states:
Evangelization refers to a complex reality that is sometimes misunderstood by reducing it only to the seeking of new candidates for baptism. It is the Church's continuation of the mission of Jesus Christ, who embodied the life of the kingdom of God.
Yes, evangelization is more than getting people to join the Church. But exactly how do the authors of this document think that people enter into the “mission of Jesus Christ” and the “kingdom of God”? Baptism is the normal means by which one enters in God’s family, His Kingdom, and the life of Christ. This is why Pope VI, in his papal encyclical devoted to evangelization (Evangelii Nuntiandi, 1975), stated,
In the Church's evangelizing activity there are of course certain elements and aspects to be specially insisted on. Some of them are so important that there will be a tendency simply to identify them with evangelization. Thus it has been possible to define evangelization in terms of proclaiming Christ to those who do not know Him, of preaching, of catechesis, of conferring Baptism and the other sacraments.
Put another way, the “complex reality” of evangelization has no meaning without the reality of baptism and the possibility of entrance into the salvific reality of God’s life. Thankfully, the BCEIA document does declare “that evangelization, the Church's work on behalf of the kingdom of God, cannot be separated from its faith in Jesus Christ in whom Christians find the kingdom ‘present and fulfilled.”’
A little further on the question is asked: “Ought Christians to invite Jews to baptism?” The answer is troublesome: “This is a complex question not only in terms of Christian theological self-definition, but also because of the history of Christians forcibly baptizing Jews.”
There are two problems with this remark. One is the implication that “inviting” someone to baptism can be equated to “forcing” him to be baptized. Catholics are to invite the unbaptized to become Catholic and receive the sacrament of baptism – always with charity, tact, and respect for each individual. Clearly this is different from coercing the unbaptized to receive the sacrament.
Secondly, there is no “complex question” relating to Christian self-definition and baptism. Baptism makes us Christian and makes us “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4). Our Savior, Jesus Christ, wishes all men to partake of this divine life, and He has made it clear that the normative means of this is baptism (Jn. 3:1-5; 1 Pet. 3:21). Combining the issue of “theological self-definition” with the matter of forced baptisms does not bode well. It indicates the document is more interested in downplaying the scandal of the Cross for the sake of “mutual understanding” than it is in pursuing truly honest interreligious dialogue, which naturally contains tensions and difficulties.
After discussing the relation of the two covenants, the document states:
Nonetheless, the Church does perceive that the Jewish people's mission ad gentes “to the nations”) continues. This is a mission that the Church also pursues in her own way according to her understanding of covenant. The command of the Resurrected Jesus in Matthew 28:19 to make disciples “of all nations” (Greek = ethne, the cognate of the Hebrew = goyim; i.e., the nations other than Israel) means that the Church must bear witness in the world to the Good News of Christ so as to prepare the world for the fullness of the kingdom of God. However, this evangelizing task no longer includes the wish to absorb the Jewish faith into Christianity and so end the distinctive witness of Jews to God in human history.
This is problematic, to say the least. In essence, the document is saying Jesus came to save the Gentiles, but is not concerned about saving the Jews because they already have a saving covenant. It is difficult to not see this as a capitulation to a politically correct agenda, especially considering the indifferent phrase, “in her own way according to her understanding of the covenant.” Well, either the Church’s way of understanding the covenant is correct, or it isn’t – it cannot be true for one group of people and not true for another! Yet the documents appears to say so, a case of having one’s cake and eating it too.
Equally disturbing is the interpretation of Matthew 28:19, one that doesn’t square with the biblical evidence. The Gospels depict Jesus spending much time and effort telling the Jews that He is the Messiah. While this proclamation was accepted by some Jews, notably His mother and the Apostles, Jesus was rejected by the religious authorities and many of the Jewish people.
But after His death and resurrection did He tell those who were faithful disciples to witness only to “the nations other than Israel”? Of course not. He said, “[B]ut you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). And to that end, the first several chapters of the Acts of the Apostles describe the efforts of the disciples in evangelizing the Jews. It wasn’t until later (Acts 10 and following) that the Apostles begin also evangelizing among the goyim.
The muddled nature of the document is most vividly displayed in its final passage. It states,
“The Catholic Church must always evangelize and will always witness to its faith in the presence of God's kingdom in Jesus Christ to Jews and to all other people,” and then remarks, “[The Jews’] witness to the kingdom, which did not originate with the Church's experience of Christ crucified and raised, must not be curtailed by seeking the conversion of the Jewish people to Christianity.”
Again, we cannot have it both ways. Either all men need Jesus Christ as Savior, or they do not. If they do, we must evangelize and witness to all people, both Jews and non-Jews. If they do not, then the very nature and mission of Christianity is called into question, along with the intended purpose of God becoming man, suffering, dying, and rising again. Catholics are to seek the conversion of all people to Christianity — not by coercion or force, but by faithful evangelization and charitable witness.
As Christians, we are partakers of Christ’s “more excellent ministry” and of “a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises” (Heb. 8:6). The New has fulfilled the Old, and God has shown His faithfulness to the Old Covenant most completely in the New Covenant. To doubt this in any way, or to suggest that the Old and New Covenants are equal in value is to seriously misrepresent the unique, singular work of Jesus Christ and His Church.
Finally, in addressing interreligious dialogue, Dominus Iesus again stresses the unique nature of Jesus Christ, the need of all men for the Church, and the vital place of the sacraments in the work of salvation:
In inter-religious dialogue as well, the mission ad gentes “today as always retains its full force and necessity”. “Indeed, God ‘desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth' (1 Tim 2:4); that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the promptings of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. Because she believes in God's universal plan of salvation, the Church must be missionary”. Inter-religious dialogue, therefore, as part of her evangelizing mission, is just one of the actions of the Church in her mission ad gentes. Equality, which is a presupposition of inter-religious dialogue, refers to the equal personal dignity of the parties in dialogue, not to doctrinal content, nor even less to the position of Jesus Christ — who is God himself made man — in relation to the founders of the other religions. Indeed, the Church, guided by charity and respect for freedom, must be primarily committed to proclaiming to all people the truth definitively revealed by the Lord, and to announcing the necessity of conversion to Jesus Christ and of adherence to the Church through Baptism and the other sacraments, in order to participate fully in communion with God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus, the certainty of the universal salvific will of God does not diminish, but rather increases the duty and urgency of the proclamation of salvation and of conversion to the Lord Jesus Christ. (Dominus Iesus, 22)
Whether you are a lay person, an apologist, a theologian, a priest, or even a bishop, it is never easy to proclaim the Gospel. The Gospel is always a challenge, both to Christians and non-Christians alike. The tendency, in our human weakness, is to downplay those elements that might upset or offend other people, or even ourselves. One reason Dominus Iesus was so controversial is that it did not back away from making claims that critics derided as “exclusive” and “triumphalistic.”
It seems to me that this recent document from BCEIA, while filled with good intentions, suffers from a fear of offending. This timidity and lack of assurance results in confusion. Although some might say the confusion comes from the document being a complex, nuanced document, such is not the case. There are nuances, but there is also confused and murky thinking. A comparison to the quotes from Dominus Iesus make this deficiency apparent.
A contributing factor to the tone and remarks found in the document might be the recent state of Catholic-Jewish relations. The Catholic Church has been criticized – sometimes fairly and sometimes not – for the past failures of Catholics who have persecuted or offended Jews. Recent attacks on Pope Pius XII, almost all of them false and slanderous, regarding his actions during World War II have put many Catholics on the defensive. Some people, among them Catholics, believe that evangelization is actually an act of arrogance or even oppression. It could be that some theologians and bishops might be afraid to appear anti-Semitic or bigoted in any way, leading to a flawed reflection on Catholic-Jewish relations.
Cardinal Keeler’s remarks indicate that the USCCB is not pleased with the document. And there are reports that some bishops are very unhappy with both its timing and the content. Unfortunately, the document has already caused more than a few problems, including giving the impression that the Catholic Church has a relativistic and indifferent approach to other religions and to her own central doctrines. We must do our part in correcting these erroneous views and clearly declare our faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the need to evangelize all people, whether in season or out of season.
(Carl Olson is editor of Envoy Magazine. This article originally appeared on August 30th in Planet Envoy, Envoy Magazine's e-newsletter.)
