Tito Edwards at The American Catholic has a post on ecumenism that is followed by an interesting combox discussion.
Writing about institutional-level dialogue and ecumenism, Tito states:
Ecumenism, whatever that means anymore, is a dead cat. It’s going nowhere because it has no idea what it is. Hence the forty years of fruitless labor has produced nothing to celebrate.
The only real progress I foresee is with the Orthodox. Only they understand us and we they. We have much in common and are capable as divinely inspired institutions to be of one. Not our Protestant brothers who continue to devolve to the point of being unrecognizable among the worldly.
He also quotes Piuses (Pii?) XI and XII to the effect that the point of interreligious dialogue is to promote the “return” of non-Catholics to the Catholic Church. And concludes that ecumenical efforts have produced nothing over the last forty years.
I see his point. Too many people (pro-dialogue and anti-dialogue) confuse “ecumenical dialogue” with “ideological compromise.” Compromise on essential truths is simply not permitted, and not possible if the Church is to remain the Church.
The two things that can be done are to pare away inessentials and to accurately understand each other’s reasoning.
To pare away inessentials is not, of course, to remove elements of worship, belief, and practice that are helpful and fruitful for many, but to identify those features of faith that, being a help to some and a hindrance to others, may be chosen or rejected freely and so do not represent obstacles to union.
To accurately understand each other’s reasoning is not, of course, to adopt the reasoning of the other body, but to understand the exact definition of terminology, to know the rational basis upon which their reasoning rests, to understand the responses to common objections — in short, to comprehend the others’ beliefs on their own terms, with respect for their intellectual freedom. It does not mean accepting faulty reasoning as faulty; it does mean scrupulously understanding each step in the chain of reasoning.
The problems Tito has outlined with ecumenism are largely restricted to institutional ecumenism: committees of leaders of the Church, theologians and prelates and such, getting together with leaders from other traditions and hashing out documents and things like that.
“Dialogue” — otherwise known as “conversation” — between two individuals is another situation entirely. And there are other possibilities besides “I’m trying to convert him” and “I’ll compromise so we can come closer to agreeing.” In the conversation between two people, members of different faiths, who are both loyal to their own faith, fruitful dialogue is possible even if neither party changes their beliefs one whit.
Fruitful dialogue is when the two parties carefully explain themselves to each other, defining terms, clarifying distinctions, and so on, so that they can each come to an accurate understanding of what the other believes and the rational basis upon which those beliefs rest.
Fruitful dialogue pares away areas where misunderstanding of terms, superficial differences in behavior or in practice, etc. makes the two believe they have differences where they really are not.
Fruitful dialogue identifies real differences. It pinpoints the areas where the two really do have to say, “Ah, I see. That’s something you assert which I deny.” Or: “Hey, my belief on that issue, though I phrase it in different words, is not really so very different from yours.”
Because to clearly identify the exact points of difference is to understand how far apart you are. And when two bodies have clearly delineated the exact points of difference — which they do through fruitful dialogue — it is a help to individuals who may be wondering if they belong not there, but here. It is a challenge to individuals within those two bodies to decide which of the two is more true.
That is why dialogue can be fruitful, even if it does not seek to “convert,” but only to teach and to learn. To teach the truth as we know it, to learn exactly where the other does not align with that truth.
One of the greatest mistakes anyone can make in a disagreement — religious, political, or otherwise — is to assume you know why the other thinks and acts as they do, and to dismiss their own explanations of themselves. It’s plainly unkind. It’s remarkably self-centered (“I am the only person in the world whose beliefs are based on rational thought.”) Finally, it’s stupid, shooting yourself in the foot like that, because an accurate and unprejudiced understanding of the other is crucial to crafting arguments that may convince them. And it’s disappointingly common.
bearing blog 