Examining context and motives; or “Did he really say that?”
Very often we hear quotes attributed to some bishop or even a pope and we’re left scratching our heads, wondering what they mean or even whether they just said something that contradicts established Church teaching. All too often these quotes are offered as proof in certain quarters that the Church has gone off the rails completely, that the see of Peter is vacant, that… well, you get the idea. But is everything always as it seems?
“Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.”
“The Catholic commitment to ecumenism is not based on wanting to draw all Christians into the Catholic fold, nor does it seek to create a new church, drawing on the best of each of the ecumenical partners.”
Is the cardinal really saying that non-Catholics don’t need to convert and that Protestantism is equal to Catholicism? Taken by themselves, those quotes seem pretty damning and representative of a “Spirit of Vatican II” syncretism that is often decried by many. Now his analysis and conclusions are quite long and involved, so you have a lot of reading ahead of you if you want to join the discussion (and you better read it before jumping in and commenting here because I won’t take you seriously if you don’t.)
But the bottom line is that we too often have a tendency to turn everything into soundbites when they don’t admit of easy summaries. In fact, this is what fundamentalists often do to Catholic doctrine. They take a topic like Mary’s immaculate conception and her intercessory role in the economy of salvation and boil it down to prooftexts like Romans 3:23—“All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.” Are we sometimes guilty of this when we refuse to look at the complexity of a topic and insist that it be boiled down to a simple soundbite?
In a related vein, too many of us—and I’m not necessarily excluding myself in this—do not give the benefit of the doubt to the speaker or writer. We immediately attribute the worst motives to the speaker because of our pre-conceived notions. In this case, someone may have a pre-disposition to believing that those in charge of the Vatican are really pan-religionists watering down the Catholic faith in secret service to Satan. Really? Is that the conclusion we want to jump to immediately? Are we always so certain of our own righteousness that we must immediately believe the worst when its presented to us?
I’m not saying we can’t ever criticize another. Sometimes the words mean exactly what they say and sometimes the speaker’s motives are exactly how they appear and he has proven it sufficiently over time. But before we get to that point, we should stop occasionally and make sure we haven’t become an unthinking lynch mob out for rhetorical blood at every opportunity.
I appreciate Michael’s analysis of the Cardinal’s remarks. However, I’m not convinced yet that evangelization doesn’t encompass ecumenism. If the boundary between the two is baptism—that is, if evangelization ends at baptism—then a lot of people are going to have to change their definition of the term. There is plenty of talk around about the evangelization of non-catechized Catholics; about evangelization and justice, etc.
Posted by RC [ip: 66.92.67.33] on 12/1/06 at 12:43 AM
Have read all of Michael’s article and have no problem believing all of it. Been a Catholic for 73 years.
Tom Sanko
Old Navy ‘51-‘71
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) [ip: 76.4.161.221] on 12/1/06 at 10:37 AM
“However, I’m not convinced yet that evangelization doesn’t encompass ecumenism. If the boundary between the two is baptism—that is, if evangelization ends at baptism—then a lot of people are going to have to change their definition of the term. There is plenty of talk around about the evangelization of non-catechized Catholics; about evangelization and justice, etc. “
RC,
I’m not expert, but my first thought is that it is possible the wrod “evangelization” is being used in two different ways here. One is maybe a looser, common usage. The other perhaps is a more technical definition. So when the cardinal rejects the term evangelization to refer to Catholics, he is not rejecting the action of re-catechizing those Catholics who need it, but rather trying to be more precise in his language?
What I see in the alarmist reactions is precisely the point of Dom’s post: do you react with the most prejudicial interpretation or do you charitably assume there might be a misunderstanding or a difference in your definition of key terms?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) [ip: 24.128.184.216] on 12/1/06 at 01:38 PM
More comments: Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Comments are being moderated. After you submit your comment it could take up to a couple hours, but usually only a few minutes, before it will appear. Thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, you may contact Domenico Bettinelli.
Examining context and motives; or “Did he really say that?”
Very often we hear quotes attributed to some bishop or even a pope and we’re left scratching our heads, wondering what they mean or even whether they just said something that contradicts established Church teaching. All too often these quotes are offered as proof in certain quarters that the Church has gone off the rails completely, that the see of Peter is vacant, that… well, you get the idea. But is everything always as it seems?
Michael at Evangelical Catholicism gives us an example of how controversial quotes can be put back into their context and change the meaning completely. In this case, he uses two quotes from Cardinal Walter Kasper of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity on ecumenism.
Is the cardinal really saying that non-Catholics don’t need to convert and that Protestantism is equal to Catholicism? Taken by themselves, those quotes seem pretty damning and representative of a “Spirit of Vatican II” syncretism that is often decried by many. Now his analysis and conclusions are quite long and involved, so you have a lot of reading ahead of you if you want to join the discussion (and you better read it before jumping in and commenting here because I won’t take you seriously if you don’t.)
Don’t become prooftexting fundamentalists
Technorati Tags:Catholic, debates, dialogue, rhetoric
But the bottom line is that we too often have a tendency to turn everything into soundbites when they don’t admit of easy summaries. In fact, this is what fundamentalists often do to Catholic doctrine. They take a topic like Mary’s immaculate conception and her intercessory role in the economy of salvation and boil it down to prooftexts like Romans 3:23—“All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.” Are we sometimes guilty of this when we refuse to look at the complexity of a topic and insist that it be boiled down to a simple soundbite?
In a related vein, too many of us—and I’m not necessarily excluding myself in this—do not give the benefit of the doubt to the speaker or writer. We immediately attribute the worst motives to the speaker because of our pre-conceived notions. In this case, someone may have a pre-disposition to believing that those in charge of the Vatican are really pan-religionists watering down the Catholic faith in secret service to Satan. Really? Is that the conclusion we want to jump to immediately? Are we always so certain of our own righteousness that we must immediately believe the worst when its presented to us?
I’m not saying we can’t ever criticize another. Sometimes the words mean exactly what they say and sometimes the speaker’s motives are exactly how they appear and he has proven it sufficiently over time. But before we get to that point, we should stop occasionally and make sure we haven’t become an unthinking lynch mob out for rhetorical blood at every opportunity.
COMMENTS
Did you even read anything I or Michael wrote? Did you miss the entire point?
Posted by Domenico Bettinelli [ip: 24.128.184.216] on 11/30/06 at 10:16 PM
I appreciate Michael’s analysis of the Cardinal’s remarks. However, I’m not convinced yet that evangelization doesn’t encompass ecumenism. If the boundary between the two is baptism—that is, if evangelization ends at baptism—then a lot of people are going to have to change their definition of the term. There is plenty of talk around about the evangelization of non-catechized Catholics; about evangelization and justice, etc.
About Cdl. Kasper: unfortunately, ever since he—then Bishop Kasper—proposed letting remarried divorcees receive Holy Communion in 1993, there has been reason to scrutinize his public statements with care.
Posted by RC [ip: 66.92.67.33] on 12/1/06 at 12:43 AM
Have read all of Michael’s article and have no problem believing all of it. Been a Catholic for 73 years.
Tom Sanko
Old Navy ‘51-‘71
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) [ip: 76.4.161.221] on 12/1/06 at 10:37 AM
“However, I’m not convinced yet that evangelization doesn’t encompass ecumenism. If the boundary between the two is baptism—that is, if evangelization ends at baptism—then a lot of people are going to have to change their definition of the term. There is plenty of talk around about the evangelization of non-catechized Catholics; about evangelization and justice, etc. “
RC,
I’m not expert, but my first thought is that it is possible the wrod “evangelization” is being used in two different ways here. One is maybe a looser, common usage. The other perhaps is a more technical definition. So when the cardinal rejects the term evangelization to refer to Catholics, he is not rejecting the action of re-catechizing those Catholics who need it, but rather trying to be more precise in his language?
What I see in the alarmist reactions is precisely the point of Dom’s post: do you react with the most prejudicial interpretation or do you charitably assume there might be a misunderstanding or a difference in your definition of key terms?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) [ip: 24.128.184.216] on 12/1/06 at 01:38 PM
Comments are being moderated. After you submit your comment it could take up to a couple hours, but usually only a few minutes, before it will appear. Thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, you may contact Domenico Bettinelli.