CHAPTER 1 The Problem of Evil, Part I
Straight Talk about Non-Christian Religions By Fr John Bartunek, L.C., S.T.D.
Contents A Change of “Policy”? ..............................................................................................................................................1 A Pre-emptive Strike for Globalization ..................................................................................................................... 2 Not a Cop-Out ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 No Excuses.................................................................................................................................................................3 The Unity of Human Nature ......................................................................................................................................3 Common Questions ....................................................................................................................................................4 The Church’s Prescription: Mutual Understanding, Respect, Common Social Action .............................................4 The Role of Respect ...................................................................................................................................................5 Real Understanding ...................................................................................................................................................5 Tolerance-Plus........................................................................................................................................................... 6 Questions for Small Group Discussion: ....................................................................................................................6 Questions for Discussion and/or Personal Reflection: .............................................................................................. 7
A Change of “Policy”?
The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) devoted its attention not primarily to what Catholics believe, as did most previous councils, but to how Catholics ought to live out what they believe in a world that had changed drastically in the five hundred years since the previous ecumenical council (the Council of Trent, 1545-1563). In this context, one of the issues that the Council had to address was the Church‟s relations with non-Christian religions. In fact, it devoted one of its three declarations, “Nostra aetate” or “In Our Time” exclusively to that topic. Notice how the document begins: In our time, when day by day mankind is being drawn closer together, and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger, the Church examines more closely her relationship to non-Christian religions. In her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship. (NA #1)
CHAPTER 1 The Problem of Evil, Part I
A Pre-emptive Strike for Globalization
Decades before the turn of the 21st century, the Church had already explicitly acknowledged the coming wave of globalization, in which the fate of individual nations and the fate of the whole family of nations were more closely intertwined than ever before. In a world without telephones, Internet, airplanes, television, satellites, and nuclear weapons – and such was the world just one generation before the Council published this document, in 1965 – different peoples could easily keep to themselves. Earthquakes in Iran didn‟t used to make headlines in Argentina. Now, however, Argentineans can watch floods in Thailand on the Internet, and email contributions to relief funds the same day. The Church anticipated this change, and, more than any other institution, appreciated its profound cultural implications. No longer would it be rare for Catholics to come into frequent, familiar contact with non-Christians (or vice-versa); it would become an everyday occurrence – Hindus and Christians would be living in the same dorm room; Muslims would be working one office-cubicle over. The challenges of a shrinking world spawned various reactions. Western culture in general began propagating the dogmas of Tolerance, Multiculturalism and Diversity – buzzwords that have since been drained of their meaning and power. Other groups, small and large, resisted the change, barricading themselves inside cultural ghettos, and at times even using extreme violence to express their disdain for the inevitable process by which “mankind is being drawn closer together.” The Church has consistently called for a different approach, one that even many Catholics have misunderstood, and consequently opposed, one based on actively engaging in the new cultural exchange, setting its agenda, and taking advantage of it. The Council reiterated the Church‟s task of “promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations.” And to make this task more doable, Nostra aetate set out to reflect on “what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship.” It was looking for some way to build bridges between different cultures and their differing religions, instead of retreating into a fearful, fortress mentality.
Not a Cop-Out
Critics of this approach accuse the Second Vatican Council of compromising the primacy of Christ, of glossing over the uniqueness and definitiveness of Christian revelation and thereby falling into religious indifferentism – a
CHAPTER 1 The Problem of Evil, Part I
heresy which claims that all religions are basically the same. If some individual Catholics have perhaps tumbled into that error, the Church itself hasn‟t. Already the Council‟s document reiterates Christ‟s incomparable supremacy, and the Catechism goes so far as to restate the ancient affirmation that there is no salvation outside the Church, that “all salvation comes from Christ the head through the Church which is his Body” and that “to reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son‟s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation” (CCC #s 846, 845). No trace of indifferentism there.
No Excuses
In the same vein, the Council fathers reaffirmed the Church‟s task of evangelizing all cultures: “Although in ways known to himself,” they stated, “God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men” (Ad gentes, #7). So the Council didn‟t change Christian doctrine or espouse religious indifferentism, as many advocates of so-called Tolerance and Multiculturalism do. Rather, it highlighted what the different religions truly have in common, and proposed that as a basis for building fruitful relationships, relationships that can serve to help others come to know Christ (this, after all, is the ultimate goal of all interreligious exchange; dialogue is not meant to repress evangelization). It even provided a prescription for the qualities of those relationships: they should be characterized by mutual understanding, respect, and common social action. Only this approach can preserve the rich diversity of human culture in the face of globalizing forces, while at the same time opening up new avenues of exchange and cooperation, and drawing all souls closer to Christ. Catholics can‟t insure that everyone in the world will follow the Council‟s recommendation, but they can certainly do so themselves, and if all 1.2 billion of us did so, it would have a profound impact on the global scene. But following the Council means following a narrow path, one much more difficult than the illusory quick-fixes of Tolerance and Multiculturalism.
The Unity of Human Nature
First you have to reflect deeply on what all religions have in common: human nature. The Council fathers put it beautifully when they wrote, “One is the community of all peoples, one their origin, for God made the whole
CHAPTER 1 The Problem of Evil, Part I
human race to live over the face of the earth. One also is their final goal, God. His providence, His manifestations of goodness, His saving design extend to all men…” (NA #1). When God looks down upon the human race, he sees his beloved children, scattered and divided by sin, some of whom have found their way back to their Father‟s house, but most of whom are still estranged from him, wandering in the darkness of ignorance and selfishness, like sheep who have gone far astray. But in his eyes, they are all called to be members of one family, and Christ is their Savior, their Shepherd. This unity of human nature manifests itself in many ways, one of which is the universality of the religious sense. All people are hardwired to seek God. As the Catechism puts it, “Man is by nature and vocation a religious being… Man is made to live in communion with God in whom he finds happiness” (CCC # 44, 45). Because of this, all religions, whether local tribal creeds, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam or Judaism, share a common endeavor – they try to satisfy this innate human longing for God.
Common Questions
Nostra aetate expresses this by pointing out the basic questions that all religious doctrines try to answer, the same questions that resound in the depths of the human spirit: “Men expect from the various religions answers to the unsolved riddles of the human condition, which today, even as in former times, deeply stir the hearts of men: What is man? What is the meaning, the aim of our life? What is moral good, what sin? Whence suffering and what purpose does it serve? Which is the road to true happiness? What are death, judgment and retribution after death? What, finally, is that ultimate inexpressible mystery which encompasses our existence: whence do we come, and where are we going?” (NA #1). These are the questions that all religions try to answer – and few questions go deeper into the human heart – though all religions do not in any way offer the same answers.
The Church’s Prescription: Mutual Understanding, Respect, Common Social Action Recognizing and appreciating this profound bond by which a common human nature links all individuals and all peoples is the pre-requisite for following the Church‟s recommendation. Without assimilating that truth, striving for mutual understanding, respect, and common action between Catholics and non-Christians is a pipe-dream – with it, it‟s a real possibility.
CHAPTER 1 The Problem of Evil, Part I
If human nature is the same for all human beings, then all have the same basic rights, the same basic dignity. The promotion of that dignity and the protection of those rights provide an ample field for common action among followers of different religions. Jews and Catholics may not agree on the divinity of Christ, but they can certainly agree that we all ought to pool our resources to see that starving children get fed.
The Role of Respect
Similarly, true respect for other religions has to start from understanding the nature of religion, and the deep religious yearning of the human soul. The Catechism explains that “The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as „a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life‟” (CCC #843, Lumen gentium #16). The religious yearning of the human heart is too sacred a thing to be easily dismissed or belittled – thus all authentic religions need to be respected. This profound respect enables mature Catholics to honestly recognize and admit the limits and errors present in the many forms of human religious behavior. A superficial doctrine of Multiculturalism, which implicitly demeans the real differences between cultures and religions, cannot admit negative characteristics. The Catholic, on the other hand, is able to affirm with the Council Fathers, “Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to the ultimate despair” (LG #16). The Catholic is not afraid to try and convince the natives of Fiji that cannibalism is contrary to true religion; the dogmatic Multiculturalist wouldn‟t dare.
Real Understanding
Finally, the mutual understanding that ought to characterize relations between Catholics and non-Christians also finds its foundation in the unity of human nature. Each human heart longs for transcendence, for lasting happiness. Each religion claims to offers a different path to the fulfillment of that desire – this is the starting place for authentic dialogue. It presupposes that individuals understand thoroughly the tenets of their own faith, not only by study, but most especially by a concerted, heartfelt effort to live it out.
CHAPTER 1 The Problem of Evil, Part I
Without understanding your own faith, you will have nothing to offer others, and you run the risk of being seduced by half-truths found in other religions. That‟s the first step towards mutual understanding. The second consists in the sincere effort to understand others‟ beliefs, deeply, without fear, not looking just to identify the flaws and be able to point them out, but also to grasp the answers it offers to the deepest questions, the reasons behind its practices, its history. The greatest chapters in the history of evangelization demonstrate the effectiveness of striving for mutual understanding. When Sts Cyril and Methodius pioneered the faith among the Eastern Europeans, they early on decided to write an alphabet for the Slavic language, which had never before been written down. It took time and humility to learn the language and customs, but eventually they could translate the Bible into Slavic, and thus they made the revelation of Christ understandable to an entire civilization.
Tolerance-Plus The fragile dogma of Tolerance avoids this kind of deep exchange. It eschews forays into the realm of mutual understanding, because true understanding involves the frank admission of differences, which can, and often does, lead to tension, which in turn takes time and effort to overcome. Tolerance prefers to sweep differences under the rug, to whitewash, ever so slowly, anything that reflects deep convictions; it‟s too big a risk to actually deal with them. The Council Fathers saw globalization happening long before it became a buzzword. And they offered Catholics a way to approach it, a way to assure that the emerging global culture wouldn‟t be reduced to economic and political expediency, but would reflect the richness of the human spirit, and irrigate the seeds of truth in other religions with the fresh, bright water of Christ‟s Gospel.
Questions for Small Group Discussion:
1. What struck you most in this chapter and why? What did you learn that you didn‟t know before? 2. Why is it important to acknowledge human nature itself as a point of unity among people of different religions? 3. Why does mutual understanding require a deep knowledge of one‟s own faith?
CHAPTER 1 The Problem of Evil, Part I
4. Why is tolerance a superficial solution to the problem of religious division? What important questions does it leave aside?
Questions for Discussion and/or Personal Reflection:
1. How deeply do I probe the reasons for my own faith and the faith of others? How frequently do I raise deep questions 2. When I am with non-Christian friends, how do we talk about religion? Respectfully, with openness and an interest in learning from each other? Do we fall into sterile debates – or do we whitewash our differences as if they didnâ€&#x;t matter? 3. Am I a good representative of the Catholic faith? What might I need to change and improve to represent Christ and the Church more worthily?