|
Article of Comment on the Notification of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith pertaining to the book of J. Dupuis:
Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism.
Published in LOsservatore Romano, Feb. 27,
2001.
Translation from Italian by NCR.
1. In every epoch theological research has been important
for the evangelizing mission of the church in response to the design of God,
who wishes that all people may be saved and arrive at the consciousness
of truth (I Timothy 2:4). An understanding always more profound of the
word of God, contained in inspired scripture and transmitted through the living
tradition of the church, in fact enriches the entire people of God, salt
of the earth and light of the world (Matthew 5:13ff.),
helping them both to give witness to the truth of Christian revelation and to
render an explanation of their hope to whomever asks it of them (cf. 1 Peter
3:15).
Theology is shown to be even more important in times such as ours,
of great cultural and spiritual changes, which, posing new problems and
questions to the churchs understanding of the faith, require new, even
audacious, responses and solutions. The fact cannot be denied that today
religious pluralism demands of Christians a renewed understanding of the place
occupied by other religions in the salvific plan of God and the Trinity. In
this context, theology is asked to give a response that, in the light of
revelation and the magisterium of the church, justifies the meaning and value
of these other religious traditions that, as conscious and renewed
protagonists, continue to guide and animate the life of millions of people in
every part of the world.
As in the first centuries of the church, also today theology must
have, on the one hand, an attitude of listening, of consciousness and of
discernment of how much of what is true and holy is present in the
other religious traditions (extra-Biblical) [1], whose
modes of living and acting, and whose doctrines, however much they differ
on many points from what the church believes and proposes, nevertheless not
rarely reflect a a ray of that truth that illuminates all persons, and on
the other hand, an equally necessary attitude of incessant proclamation of
Christ who is the way, the truth and the life, (John 14:6),
in whom humanity finds the fullness of religious life and in whom God has
reconciled all things to himself. [2] In
interreligious dialogue and in theological reflection on the meaning and
salvific value of the other religions, audacity, which is often demanded by the
understanding and the liberty of the theologian, does not frutify or edify the
ecclesial community if it is not accompanied by patient maturation and by
continual confirmation of the truth that is Christ.
2. This invitation to a sincere and patient
dialogue [3] with the other religions should not
be seen as an impediment or a diminishing of openness to friendship, respect,
collaboration and mutual sharing, but rather as a true and proper pilgrimage of
faith into the comprehension of the truth of Christian revelation.
Perhaps it is useful to recall here two fundamental articulations
of another dialogue, ecumenical, whether expressed by means of a
dialogue of charity or a dialogue of truth. The same
charity which manifests itself in countless manifestations of reciprocal
respect, of common prayer and of fraternal solidarity, motivates all the
baptized in the dialogue of truth, which requires accurate studies of the word
of God and the tradition of the church, as well as profound and laborious
clarifications of the respective theological positions. The patient but
constant engagement of research into the truth, the epistemological accuracy,
and the serene praise of results reached makes ecumenical dialogue a
significant model for interreligious dialogue, the extreme difficulty of which
does not derive solely from the great variety of religious traditions, but
above all from the lack of reference to a shared foundation.
3. Therefore the church can only celebrate the precious
work of theologians who, facing the challenge of religious pluralism and the
new questions posed by interreligious dialogue, with creativity, sensibility
and loyalty to the Biblical and magisterial tradition, search for new
understandings and follow new trails, advancing proposals and suggesting modes
of conduct that necessarily require an adequate ecclesial discernment .
Timeliness in seizing the challenges of the signs of the times cannot and must
not be overturned in a superficial and inopportune haste, both in order to not
disorient the correct faith understanding of the ecclesial community, and also
so as not to risk the credibility and effectiveness of the dialogue.
The precious good of theological liberty and creativity must also
include an openness to receive the truth of Christian revelation, transmitted
and interpreted by the church under the authority of the magisterium and
welcomed with faith. The function of the magisterium, in fact, is not something
extrinsic to Christian truth and the faith, but a constitutive element of the
same prophetic mission of the church [4].
4. Moreover, precisely in the field of interreligious
dialogue, the magisterium of the church, far from being a simple observer or
from making obstructionist requests, has always played an undeniable and
pioneering role of protagonist. The conciliar documents and the numerous
pontifical initiatives, such as, for example, official organisms of dialogue,
demonstrate this. [5] The decade just ended was wholly
illuminated by the prophetic and forward-looking encyclical Redemptoris
missio (December 1990) of John Paul II, an authentic epistemological frame
of reference rich in content for a Christian theology of religions. At a
distance of ten years and with the rapid diffusion of the challenges posed by
interreligious matters, the declaration Dominus Iesus (August 2000) of
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was another illuminating
contribution that proposes anew some essential points of reference in both the
theory and practice of interreligious dialogue. These are cases of magisterial
interventions that accompany rather than obstruct legitimate theological
research, from the moment in which, rejecting objections and deformations of
the faith, they propose with authority new understandings and applications of
the revealed doctrine.
5. In this climate, therefore, of openness and readiness to
listen, in dialogue and reciprocal comprehension, the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith proposes now the Notification relative to the book
of J. Dupuis, Toward A Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. In
this work, which attempts to give a theological response to the meaning and
value that the plurality of religious traditions holds within the salvific
design of God, the author professes explicitly his intention to remain faithful
to the doctrine of the church and the teaching of the magisterium. The same
author, however, conscious of the problematic nature of his perspective, does
not hide the possibility of generating questions at least equal to the
solutions proposed.
After a patient and serious dialogue, in which some of his own
clarifications were not missing, at the conclusion of the examination of the
book the author has expressed his assent to the theses enunciated in the
above-mentioned Notification, which was approved by the Holy Father.
Such recognition and assent are without doubt a positive and encouraging sign.
That notwithstanding, as is recalled in the preamble the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith has nevertheless retained it necessary to publish the
Notification with the principal aim of offering to readers a secure
criterion of doctrinal evaluation.
In fact, an attentive reading of the book causes some ambiguities
and difficulties on doctrinal points of great relevance to emerge that can lead
the reader to erroneous or dangerous opinions. The Notification,
recalling also Dominus Iesus, confirms five doctrinal themes that in the
volume, independently of the intention of the author himself, are presented
with ambiguous formulations and insufficient explanations and thus can generate
confusion and misunderstandings.
First of all, faith in Jesus Christ as the lone and universal
mediator of salvation for all humanity is confirmed. Consequently the unicity
and universality of the mediation of Jesus Christ, Son and Word of the Father,
as actualization of the salvific plan of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
is underscored. There is no Trinitarian economy of salvation independent of
that of the Incarnate Word.
In second place the faith of the church in Jesus Christ,
completion and fullness of divine revelation, is reconfirmed, against the
opinion that the revelation of/in Jesus Christ is limited, incomplete and
imperfect. Also the seeds of truth and of goodness that exist in the other
religions are gifts of grace of the one mediation of Christ and of his Spirit
of holiness.
With respect to the universal salvific action of the Holy Spirit,
it is confirmed that the Spirit operating after the resurrection of Christ is
always the Spirit of Christ sent by the Father, who works in a salvific way
also outside the visible church. For this reason it is contrary to the Catholic
faith to retain that the salvific action of the Holy Spirit can extend beyond
the one universal economy of salvation of the incarnate Word.
Since the church is the sign and instrument of salvation for all
humanity, the opinion that the various religions are complementary ways
alongside the church in the order of salvation is rejected as erroneous.
Finally, while recognizing the existence of elements of truth and
goodness in the other religions, it does not have any foundation in Catholic
theology to retain that these religions, considered as such, are ways of
salvation, especially because in them are present omissions, insufficiencies
and errors that regard fundamental truths about God, humanity and the world.
Neither may their sacred texts be considered complementary to the Old
Testament, which was the immediate preparation for the event of Christ
itself.
The Notification intervenes in order to underline the
gravity and the danger of certain affirmations which, despite appearing
moderate, exactly for this reason risk being easily and naively accepted as
compatible with the doctrine of the church, also on the part of persons
emotionally invested in the outcome of interreligious dialogue. In a context
such as actually exists today, of a society that in fact is always more
multireligious and multicultural, the church feels with urgency the need to
manifest with conviction its doctrinal identity and to testify in charity to
its indestructible faith in Jesus Christ, source of truth and salvation.
6. The tone of the Notification must be
mentioned. It is not a case, in fact, of a long and articulated document, but
only of brief and assertive propositions. This mode of communication does not
intend to be a sign of authoritarianism or unjustified harshness, but rather
pertains to the literary genre typical of those magisterial pronouncements that
have the aim of defining doctrine, censuring errors or ambiguities, and
indicating the grade of assent requested of the faithful.
This literary genre, which is the same of the declaration
Dominus Iesus, certainly must be distinguished from other expressive
forms adopted by the magisterium for presenting its teaching, taking account of
their particular aims: expositive and illustrative, containing ample and
precise justifications for doctrines of the faith and pastoral directives (one
thinks, for example, of the Documents of Vatican Council II, of many papal
encyclical letters, and in our specific case of the encyclical Redemptoris
missio); and exhortative or orientational (for confronting problems
of a spiritual or practical-pastoral nature).
The clear declarative/assertive tone of a magisterial document -
typical of a declaration or of a notification of the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, analogous to that of doctrinal decrees of the former
Holy Office - intend to communicate to the faithful that it is not a case of
debatable arguments or disputed questions, but of central truths of the
Christian faith that certain theological interpretations deny or place in
serious danger. The tone, therefore, from this point of view, pertains to the
content, which must be coherent with the particular aim of the text. Assent to
the Person of Jesus, to his word and his mystery of salvation, demands a
response of faith simple and clear, such as that found, for example, in the
symbols of the faith which form part of the prayer of the church.
The effectiveness of the Notification, whether in its
comprehension or its appeal to the assent of faith, resides precisely in the
tone. We repeat the point, it is not the tone of imposition, but the tone of
solemn manifestation and celebration of the faith. It is the tone used in the
Professio Fidei [6]. From its very beginning, in
fact, the church has professed faith in the Lord crucified and risen,
collecting in certain formulas the fundamental contents of its belief. We know
that the Creed is not an ensemble of abstract truths, but a rule of faith that
sustains life, prayer, testimony, action and mission: lex credendi, like
lex vivendi, orandi, agendi et evangelizandi. It is moreover clear that
the proclamation of the truth of the Catholic faith implies also the refutation
of error and the censure of ambiguous and dangerous propositions that introduce
confusion and uncertainty among the faithful.
It would certainly be wrong to hold that the declarative/assertive
tone of the declaration Dominus Iesus or of the present
Notification are regressive steps backward in comparison to the literary
genre and the expositive and pastoral nature of the magisterial documents of
Vatican Council II and afterwards. It would, however, be equally wrong and
unfounded to retain that after Vatican Council II the literary genre of the
declarative/assertive type must be abandoned or excluded from the authoritative
interventions of the magisterium. It is thus displeasing but obligatory to note
that certain criticisms, raised in many quarters, of the general
tone of the declaration Dominus Iesus, which is said to be
quite diverse from that of other documents, such as for example the encyclical
letters Redemptoris missio and Ut unum sint, thus demonstrate a
failure to take account of the differing, but in no way contradictory, aims of
these documents. The declaration Dominus Iesus, just as the present
Notification, intends simply to reaffirm certain truths of the faith and
of Catholic doctrine, indicating the relative grade of theological certainty
and thus making precise the secure doctrinal basis for conserving the integrity
of the deposit of faith, and at the same time guaranteeing that interreligious
dialogue - just like the ecumenical dialogue among the Christian confessions -
develops as a dialogue of truth.
Moreover the simple act of proposing anew the truth expresses
unity in faith in God, one and three, and cements communion in the church.
Assent to truth and assent to Christ and to his church constitute the true
space of human liberty: There are many paths which lead to truth, but
since Christian truth has a salvific value, any one of these paths may be
taken, as long as it leads to the final goal, that is to the Revelation of
Jesus Christ. [7] Christ in fact is the way,
the truth and the life (John 14:6): The truth, that is Christ, is
imposed as a universal authority. The Christian mystery, in fact, conquers
every barrier of time and space and realizes the unity of the human
family. [8]
[1] It is necessary to specify that an
entirely particular discourse belongs to the relationship between the Christian
faith and the religion of Israel, because as the Vatican Council II teaches,
there exists a bond with which the people of the New Testament is
spiritually tied to the descendants of Abraham. (Vatican Council II, dec.
Nostre Aetate, n. 4).
[2] Vatican Council II, dec. Nostre
Aetate, n. 2.
[3] Vatican Council II, dec. Ad
gentes, n. 11.
[4] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith, instruction Donum veritatis, n. 14.
[5] On August 6, 1964, Paul VI published
his famous encyclical letter on dialogue, Ecclesiam suam. But already
some months earlier Paul VI himself had instituted the Secretariat for
Non-Christians, which became in 1998 the Pontifical Council for
Interreligious Dialogue.
[6] On July 1, 1988, the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith published both the Professio fidei, designed
for the faithful called to exercise an office in the name of the church, and a
special oath of fidelity concerning the particular duties inherent
in the office to be assumed. The Professio fidei, beyond the
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, included three paragraphs that intend to
better distinguish the type of truth professed and the corresponding assent
requested. On May 18, 1998, the Holy Father issued the motu proprio
Ad tuendam fidem, in order to introduce into the texts then in force of
the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern
Churches certain norms which expressly impose the duty of observing
truths proposed in definitive form by the magisterium of the church. June
28 of the same year the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published an
Illustrative doctrinal note on the concluding formula of the Professio
fidei. In the Note is presented a more detailed
explication of the three paragraphs along with concrete examples.
[7] John Paul II, encyclical letter
Fides et ratio, n. 38.
[8] Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith, dec. Dominus Iesus, n. 23.
National Catholic Reporter, Posted March 5,
2001
|
|