Re the RCC's recent "responsa ad dubia"

[ambushed]

This thread has branched off from: A Question for Atheists concerning ignorance.

It concerns a Vatican release of a Q&A hoping to clarify an earlier document, and that has been (mis?)interpreted by various news sources, editorial writers, and bloggers as asserting that the Pope has stated that the only true church is the Catholic Church and that Salvation can only be found there.

Note that I am not arguing this point of view; I’m merely moving that sub-discussion here.

I pick up where this left off…

---

Just ruminating a bit here, but when I read (present-tense) the "responsa ad dubia" or the uncommented original (here ) – and from a one-time relatively informed Catholic point of view – I can very easily see how it would (not just “could”) be misinterpreted in the way it has been and still is. Since this was supposed to be a clarifying response to an earlier formal document – it even takes the form of a Q&A, hardly a formal pedagogic document – it really should have been written far more clearly and unambiguously and with a partially lay audience in mind. As it stands, it’s ambiguous as hell. Perhaps it’s not to sophisticated Catholic theologians, but even then I have my doubts. I believe it can easily be (mis-?)construed as claiming that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, true Church and all others are “defective”, which, considering all the ambiguity arising from the extremely pedantic prose in the minds of the average reader, can easily be marshaled for the argument that it amounts to little more than window-dressing to mask the assertion that only Catholics can achieve salvation.

Consider the following Catholic blog entry (again at the "responsa ad dubia"):

@Anonymous

The more I read it over and the more I think about it, this Response of the CDF is worthless. Within it are the same ambiguities that it purports to clear up. It doesn’t merely say that grace mediated by the Church is present among those outside the visible Church, but that “the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities.” That is all the wiggle room that an Ecumenist needs to suggest that another community (or religion) is salvific.

The Church was and is still embarrassed to say that it is really the one true Church. If you follow the footnotes of this document you find this (4) “The Council wished to express the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church.” The Bishops were expressing concern about this by their questions and the footnoted responses (in Latin) declare that the Catholic Church IS the Church of Christ. But this wasn’t plainly stated in Lumen Gentium. It still isn’t being plainly stated.

For those of you who think that this document said something, I’d like to point out that this document had no public or reported opposition at all to its publication. Compare that to the Motu Proprio which was fought over for a year and a half under Benedict and longer under JPII. Ecumenists like Cardinal Kasper saw no threat at all in these Responses to their attempts to make the Catholic Church just one way among many. Satan never gives ground without a fight.

This Catholic writer doesn’t come across to me as particularly ignorant (though he’s certainly taking a far, far-right position).

And consider this report in the Christian Science Monitor (which I’ve always considered a source of good reporting): A church’s assertive shift toward tradition

@CSM article selections

Subtitled: Pope Benedict XVI consolidates sweeping changes, reasserting the spiritual supremacy of the Vatican.

Rome and Paris - The leader of 1.1 billion Catholics, Pope Benedict XVI, is completing a significant theological shift of the Roman Catholic church – a sweeping change that not only eclipses 40 years of a more moderate and collegial Catholicism, but seeks to reassert the spiritual supremacy of the Vatican and more openly proclaim the authority of the office of pope among all Christians.

Some two years after taking the reins, say Protestant and Catholic theologians and religious experts, the Bavarian-born pope is moving swiftly to affirm orthodox doctrines and medieval church rituals that undermine the spirit of Vatican II, a period of modernization in which the church appeared to be rethinking its centuries-long insistence that it had exclusive claims to matters of grace, truth, salvation, and church structure in the Christian world.

Liberal Catholics go so far as to characterize Benedict as leading a counterreformation in the church – in which fervent backers of traditional Catholic identity and faith are favored, even at the expense of popularity. “While Vatican II said that the Holy Spirit was in operation among the people, now we are saying, no, the holy spirit is operating in the bishops. It is an enormous change.” says Frank Flinn, author of the “Encyclopedia of Catholicism.” The “impression [previous Pope] John Paul II gave was to emphasize teaching so that all may be one. But Benedict is turning around and saying to churches, ‘you aren’t all one.’ It is destroying the ecumenical movement.”

Now, I’m not claiming that the Pope actually did or intended to assert that salvation is closed to non-Catholics. I’m just saying he supplied some official-looking ammunition to those who are trying to argue exactly that.

[tomndebb]

@ambushed

Now, I’m not claiming that the Pope actually did or intended to assert that salvation is closed to non-Catholics. I’m just saying he supplied some official-looking ammunition to those who are trying to argue exactly that.

I think that that is a fair assessment. He is used to speaking in the rarified atmosphere of highly technical theological discussions and he does not have a good PR assistant to help him see where the thought needs to be expressed in more accessible language. So when one of his protégés back in the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, (suffering the same disability regarding popular speech), issues a statement, the pope, focusing on the nuances of the theology, does not catch the implications of popular speech.

Still, as I quoted from the Wikipedia article in the other thread, the offending document does pretty clearly say (bolding mine):

The document stated that “the full identity of the Church of Christ” is the Roman Catholic Church.[sup][48][/sup] It said that the Catholic Church notes “that there are ‘numerous elements of sanctification and of truth’ which are found outside her structure, but which ‘as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity’. It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.”

[sup]48[/sup]^ a b c d William Cardinal Levada, Angelo Amato, S.D.B.; ratified and confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI, Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church, June 29, 2007.

In addition, Pope Benedict has never issued any statement that contradicts the passages currently expressed in the Catechism from sections 836 through 856 that assert the primacy of the RCC, but go on to describe the other belief systems of the world as genuine (if flawed from the RCC perspective) responses to God, making no claim that anyone participating in them is damned.

So, while I would agree that his technical, theological language presents itself in a way that is rather clunky to those outside the community that speaks that jargon and that such statements can be used as “ammunition” by those who are predisposed to see the pope as trying to lead the RCC into the nineteenth (or sixteenth) century, I see no evidence that he has actually said the damning things of which he is accused.

[dropzone]

My ADD is acting up so I couldn’t make sense of all that. Are you guys saying that Pope Simon Bar Sinister says Dubia is going to Hell? I suppose Benny’s got better connections than I and Dubya, being a Protestant, is probably going to roast, but who can be so sure about God’s decisions before He makes them? Hmmm, but God exists outside of time so “before” has no real meaning for Him. I’m confused.

[tomndebb]

The issue raised in another thread was that several people have recently interpreted some statements by Pope Benedict to mean that he has claimed that only Catholics can be saved.

The discussion point was whether any of his statements support that interpretation.

My position is that the interpretation is just so much bullshit, (fed partly by Catholic bashers and partly by overzealous Catholics–each of whom desperately hope it is true, if for different reasons). However, while I think the interpretation is wrong, I would agree that some of the arcane and esoteric language used in several of his declarationsor or the documents published by his underlings makes it easier for those who are unfamiliar with the jargon to come to arrive at the misinterpretation.

[tomndebb]

(And I know that dropzone was just being a smartass, but the thread was sufficiently cryptic as to confuse some random viewers.)

[dropzone]

@tomndebb

…So when one of his protégés back in the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, (suffering the same disability regarding popular speech), issues a statement, the pope, focusing on the nuances of the theology, does not catch the implications of popular speech.

Maybe they should only write their press releases in Latin and let the public try to figure out what they said.