Special Sharing by a Woman Bhikkuni

At this Symposium, we also had a specially invited guest to come and share her struggles with us as a woman seeking to be recognised as a legitimate cleric in her own religious circle. (I do hope this wasn't done with particular reference to any undertones of seeking to have "women priests" in the Holy Catholic Church!)

Chatsumarn Kabilsingh, ordained Bhikkhuni Dhammananda, is a Thai Buddhist monk. On February 28 2003, the Venerable Dhammananda received full bhikkhuni ordination in Sri Lanka. She is the first Thai woman to be ordained in a Theravada monastic lineage. She is the abbess of the only temple in Thailand where there are fully ordained woman monks. She currently resides at the Songdhammakalyani Monastery in the Muang District, Nakhonpathom province, Thailand.

Since the Venerable Dhammananda was ordained nine years ago, many other nuns had been ordained as monks. They were not illegal, but neither were they recognised officially by the Thai government. Their temple had likewise not been recognised by the Thai government, and this recognition was contingent upon the recognition of women monks by the government. Thailand boasts of the highest population of Buddhists, with Myanmar being the second.

The speaker mentioned that the Buddha did ordain women. The first women he ordained were his own stepmother and aunt. Initially, he did not agree to ordain them and refused them three times. After three times asking, the Buddha did ordain them because he recognised that women could be enlightened.

She commented, in response to a question by an Archbishop from Myanmar, that Myanmar would be the last nation to ever recognise the ordination of women monks. This was because the monks in Myanmar were very strong and confident that their understand of Buddhism was the only right interpretation. It seemed almost impossible that they would be enlightened in terms of woman participation in the clerical role of women in Buddhism.

Most male monks in Thailand, she explained, accepted women monks at a personal level, even very senior male monks. However, because the religious community had not given official recognition to the women monks, this acceptance remained at a very personal level. Male monks who ever attempted to openly demonstrate acceptance of women monks might suffer structural discrimination.

The Venerable Dhammananda also recorded her dismay at the way in which the people of the world wasted resources such as water and food. She commented that the people of God had to be particularly serious about ecological concerns, as the world was now living on the resources of our children and grandchildren. Her comment was a sober reminder of our common responsibility for ecological responsibility.

Posted by SK at 7:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Fifth Talk
My talk was the fifth and the last plenary talk at this symposium. For a more "objective" report of the talk, here is the article published in UCANews about it.

HUA HIN, Thailand (UCAN) -- Men and women Religious are needed in Asia today to inspire laypeople and be a powerful a sign of God's presence in their economically driven societies.

This was the message a lay Church worker gave to leading Asian Religious gathered for a Federation of Asian Bishops' (FABC) meeting in Hua Hin, Thailand.

Religious must live the consecrated life not only for themselves but as an inspiration for laypeople, who face the pressures of modern living, Sherman Kuek told some 60 nuns, brothers, priests and bishops at the Nov. 16-21 FABC symposium. The meeting had the theme, "The Impact of Today's Culture on the Church, especially as regards Consecrated Life in Asia Today."

Kuek, 33, is director of the Melaka-Johor Diocesan Pastoral Institute in Malaysia and was the only lay speaker at the symposium. Religious must live radical antithetical lives that inspire and excite laypeople to emulate them, albeit in their lay state of life, he said.

He noted that laypeople live in a culture that urges them to "work more, earn more, spend more," and which is "at odds with the Gospel."

He said that laypeople have inevitably reinterpreted, redefined and compartmentalized religion. From being at the center of their lives, it is now relegated to a corner. They faithfully perform religious duties and obligations but otherwise they are busy engaging with a culture that advocates consumption and the acquiring of wealth.

In modern Asian societies such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan, laypeople "choose both God and mammon," Kuek asserted.

Now the Church in Asia is challenged to answer a prophetic call to authentic discipleship, Kuek continued, explaining that this call is for Religious to make a stand for the sake of the laity.

"The Church can shout and shout" in condemning materialism and urging charity but laypeople do not necessarily listen because they have to survive in the modern world, he stressed.

Many Religious said on the sidelines that his call to them was a powerful challenge.

Filipina Sister Julma Neo noted that after Vatican Council II, many Religious not only "adapted" to the world, as was intended, but also "adopted" the ways of the world.

The former general councilor for Asia of the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul agreed that for the consecrated life to make sense, it must be mystical, prophetic and counter-cultural.

Posted by SK at 1:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Fourth Talk
The fourth talk was delivered by Sr Judette Gallares, RC, the only woman speaker in the symposium. She spoke on the issue of spirituality of consecrated life and how it was impacted by the post-modern culture. She began by commenting that we in Asia had been using the term “postmodern” for a number of decades and yet had not come to a proper understanding of it.

The question which Sr Judette sought to answer was, “How do we [religious] become models of hope where people are so confused and discouraged?” The diversity present in the world today with its multiplicity of experiences and options, according to the speaker, had turned the world into a supermarket of ideas. What followed such a phenomenon was, therefore, a relativistic worldview in which subjectivity reigned.

A result of this confusion was that people had begun reacting to the need for some rootedness and certainty. The breakdown of belief systems had led many to pander to a form of fundamentalism in their religious beliefs. Whilst this may have been unhealthy and misrepresentative of the heart of religion, it also represented a new search for spirituality among people.

The speaker affirmed that there was a relevant form of spirituality for the postmodern times, and that the religious could be “joyfully reoriented” into this form of spirituality. This new form of spirituality entailed a renewed perception of God. This new perception of God, she explained, was such that it believed in a God who moved us not by determining what we were going to do or by external threats, but rather, by seeking to inspire us towards better ways of being.

Sr Judette affirmed that the young people of today were hungry for authenticity and would not settle for pretences or mere ritual. This, she said, posed a challenge to the religious to walk the talk in order that the young people might find their spirituality attractive and authentic. She encouraged the re-reading of the Gospels from the postmodern perspective, such that the life and experiences of Jesus could come alive to the reader in an inspiring way.

In all this, the speaker encouraged the religious to be open to a joyful reorientation of their spirituality in order that they might be relevant to the state of spirituality in the postmodern world and the prospects it presented.

Posted by SK at 10:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Third Talk
The third talk was delivered by Maryknoll Priest, Fr Robert Astorino, MM, the very-reknowned expert in social communications. His talk pertained to social communications and the Church.

In making mention of some Church documents, Fr Bob had demonstrated that the way in which the perception of the Church towards media had changed over the decades from something to be “vigilant” about into something that was “magnificent”.

He highlighted that people born into eras which employed certain communication technologies shaped the way they grew up and became.

In speaking of the internet today, Fr Bob explained that the internet changed people and the way they understood things. So did equipment like iPods. All these new communication technologies had caused a major crisis to printed newspapers. All this showed that we were today in a period of transition, and the world as we knew it was going to change fundamentally in ways beyond our imagination. He felt that the Church had not truly kept up with these changes as yet. In Fr Bob’s literal words, “You’d better take the internet seriously, because if you don’t, you’re talking to the wall!”

Fr Bob had also directed our attention to the message of the Holy Father for the 43rd World Day of Communications in May 2009, entitled “New Technologies, New Relationships: Promoting a Culture of Respect, Dialogue and Friendship”. He summarised this message as being that the world had changed partially because media had changed. As a result, the Holy Father had called upon the Church to pay attention to the young because it was now their world. This must have been one of the most dramatic changes in the world.

The speaker gave very practical guidance about what to do if we had to communicate in speech to a graphic-oriented generation. He said it was important that we told good stories, because that was what worked. Fr Bob emphasised the importance of taking Jesus as an example of a good storyteller. He said the reason that the telling of parables worked well was quite obvious, as people connected with stories by forming images in their minds as characters came alive to them.

The pertinent implication from these realities must surely be that the religious of the world, in this case, Asia, have to be sensitive to modes of communication prevalent among the younger people today. This would affect the awareness of people regarding the existence and roles of the various religious orders and the effectiveness with which people are inspired towards consecrated life.

Posted by SK at 10:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Second Talk
The first talk was, naturally, followed by the second talk (duh!) The topic of the second talk was the challenge confronting religious life in the face of moral relativism. The speaker was Fr Vimal Tirimanna, CSSR. Fr Vimal began by underlining the fact that he would be focusing on the negative points of moral relativism, thank God!

Often in today’s world, the objective truth about things have been diluted or even completely distorted by the subjective opinions of individuals and groups. This, in fact, is a direct result of personal experiences acquiring the status of a source of knowledge. When each and every opinion is granted equal status, then relativism simply follows.

When experience lacks a common reference point, it is exclusive subjectivism which excludes any link with other views. The individual then becomes the measure, the standard of everything (“the truth depends on me”). The individual is not the arbiter of what is right or wrong. Rightness and wrongness exist apart from the individual.

The speaker then moved on to also highlight the three criteria as expounded by St Thomas Aquinas on how to avoid falling into moral extremism. The three criteria were: i) the act itself; ii) the intention; and iii) the circumstances.

Fr Vimal, along with materialism and hedonism, that another serious “ism” which posed serious attack on consecrated life today was surely moral relativism. He highlighted eight areas in which consecrated life was under attack in the light of such moral relativism. Moral relativism might have led to:

1. Religious being unsure about the sustainability of life-long commitment;
2. Religious placing the Individual over / above the community;
3. Religious perceiving their vocation as jobs rather than vocation;
4. Religious emphasising doing rather than being;
5. Religious becoming unsure of the meaning of religious vows;
6. Religious interpreting the charisms of their congregations / orders subjectively;
7. Religious had erroneously compared consecrated life with marriage, as if the former was abnormal;
8. Religious had now been given haphazard programmes of formation according to the whims and fancies of formators.

Fr Vimal concluded by noting that moral relativism had come to stay. Every individual needed to engage their subjective moral judgements in ongoing dialogue with the objective moral standards of the Church.

I personally have nothing much to say about this talk except that it was a superb and timely response to what many of us today need to hear.

Posted by SK at 9:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

First Talk
After Archbishop Quevedo’s keynote address, the first talk began. This talk was done by Br Varghese Theckanath, SG, who highlighted how the issues of social justice were a challenge to religious life in Asia today.

He affirmed that human rights was an issue that appealed to all people. In fact, even people who did not have track records for upholding human rights seemed to speak positively of it. But in the socio-political scheme of Asia, various hindrances presented themselves to the Church’s struggle for human rights, which the speaker touched on briefly.

According to Br Varghese, human rights must be equal for all, inalienable, universal, indivisible, and binding on the state. The speaker also spoke of how the Church and certain popes failed to uphold human rights during what he called “the dark ages”. (I personally have serious misgivings about such dispensational misinterpretations of various epochs of the Church, especially when done so without due consideration to the historical context of each epoch. But anyhow, I’m just reporting what had been presented.)

The speaker affirmed that the Chuch had made great contributions to the development of human rights as we had them today. And yet the Church itself was said to be characterised by contradictions: “Heroic defense of human rights outside, little room for human rights inside”. He gave three live examples of how this was so. (Again, I personally think that one must learn to distinguish between the Church and the people/leaders of the Church. Our ecclesiological nuance is such that one must not confuse between the Church itself and the failure of her people/leaders. But I do agree with this observation to a large extent, as I recall a religious brother having once commented, “We go around teaching about human rights, but we cannot even fight for human rights in our own diocese”.)

This talk does leave us much to think about in terms of how we choose to respond to the call and need for upholding human rights in our world. The tricky part lies in being able to do this without heaping blame on the failure of Mother Church, or anyone else, for that matter.

I also take on very keenly to Archbishop Quevedo’s comment that we need to balance the aspect of human rights with the gospel of the Jesus Christ who laid down his rights by “turning the other cheek” (I’m paraphrasing here).

Posted by SK at 3:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Office for Consecrated Life (OCL) of the Federation of Asian Bishops Conferences (FABC) is now holding its Second Symposium on Consecrated Life in Hua Hin, Thailand. It is to be held from 16 to 21 November 2009.

The topic of this symposium is "The Impact of Today's Culture on the Church Especially with Regards to Consecrated Life".

I flew from Changi Airport with two Mother Superiors of Franciscan congregations in Sabah and Sarawak, and the Right Rev. Paul Tan, SJ, Bishop of Melaka-Johor (who is also in charge of the Office for Consecrated Life in the FABC).

Here we are upon arrival at the Suvarnabhumi Airport in Bangkok, afterwhich we had to take a big van to our venue in Hua Hin (200 km south of Bangkok). It was a three-hour drive to the Salesian retreat centre there where our symposium was to be held. In the picture above is Bishop Paul Tan, SJ, looking all casual - and exhausted from his recent return to Rome, afterwhich we had to fly to Bangkok almost immediately upon his return.

Here is the stage of the conference hall, all decorated and waiting for the symposium to begin.

Participants trickled in throughout the whole of yesterday (until late last night). Our day began this morning with the Morning Office and the Holy Mass celebrated by Archbishop Orlando Quevedo, OMI. The participants consisted of Asian bishops, religious priests, and a vast many major superiors of the various religious orders in different Asian countries.

Archbishop Orlando Quevedo is the Secretary General of the Federation of Asian Bishops Conferences (FABC). He began the entire symposium with his keynote address, outlining some of the socio-political and cultural issues peculiar to the Asian context. This keynote address would then open the way for further explication by the subsequent speakers as they considered how religious life in Asia was being challenged today.

Archbishop Quevedo is an extremely dynamic man with an adorably wacky sense of humour; utterly spiritual and yet down-to-earth.

The symposium continues... more updates to come throughout the day...

Posted by SK at 11:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The following article is from The Catholic Herald, UK.

Years before Pope Pius V excommunicated Queen Elizabeth I, and absolved the people of England from their allegiance to her (at a stroke turning Catholics into traitors), years before the threat of a Catholic invasion and plots to unseat her, Pope Pius IV had invited the Queen to send Anglican bishops to the Council of Trent, and, it was rumoured, was willing to approve the use of the Book of Common Prayer in the English Church.

The next initiative came not from Rome but from King James I, who wrote to Pope Pius V offering to recognise his spiritual supremacy and reunite the English Church to Rome, if only the Pope would disclaim political sovereignty over kings. The offer was rejected. Too late would a new pope, Urban III, succeed to the papacy two years before James died, and declare: "We know that we may declare Protestants excommunicated, as Pius V declared Queen Elizabeth of England, and before him Clement VII the King of England, Henry VIII... But with what success? The whole world can tell. We yet bewail it in terms of blood. Wisdom does not teach us to imitate Pius V or Clement VII."

Hopes ran high under Urban VIII. Archbishop Laud of Canterbury mentions in his journal that on the very day he was appointed he was seriously offered the dignity of being a cardinal. Nothing more is known of this mysterious offer, but soon a Benedictine monk, Dom Leander, was sent to England by the pope to report on the English Church. Dom Leander, a close friend of Archbishop Laud from their student days, had been expelled on suspicion of being a Catholic from St John's College, Oxford, where they had shared a room.

Dom Leander made extensive contact with Anglican bishops and his report was optimistic and lengthy.

"In the greater number of the articles of the faith the English Protestants are truly orthodox... they contend they have been treated unworthily as heretics and schismatic; that greater differences than theirs were tolerated by the Council of Florence; and that the importance of Great Britain and its dependencies renders it an object of as much importance to reconcile her to the Roman Church, and as much worthwhile to call a special council for the purpose, as it could have been to obtain the reconciliation of the Greeks." But he did note that the Puritans were very numerous and fierce. Dom Leander suggested a way of reconciling "moderate Papists and moderate Protestants". This was by allowing:

1) Communion under both kinds;
2) Marriage of the clergy;
3) Liturgy in English;
4) The admittance of English Protestant clergy to benefices (coming to agree in points of faith) either by re-ordination sub conditione, or by way of commenda;
5) To allow Roman Catholics to take the Oath of Allegiance to the monarch.

The plan hotted up. Gregory Panzani was sent as an agent and spent two years in England in detailed discussion with the King and others in Church and state. Opposition to unity, he noted, came from Jesuits and Puritans. Most Anglican bishops were in favour of unity. Some, particularly the Bishops of Gloucester and Chichester (nothing changes) were very keen, and only the bishops of Durham, Salisbury and Exeter "were violently bent against the See of Rome". But like Leander, he spoke warily about the rising power of the Puritans. The Civil War broke out. King Charles was beheaded, going to the scaffold declaring: "I die in the Christian Faith, according to the profession of the Church of England." Archbishop Laud was impeached for corresponding with Rome and treating with the pope's men in England, and he too was beheaded.

And for the next 15 years there was no Anglican Church. All the bishops were banished, imprisoned or fled. Priests lost their parishes. The Book of Common Prayer was banned. Presbyterianism became the new religion.

The restoration of the monarchy under Charles II restored the church. Enough exiled bishops were alive to consecrate new ones. The king opened Parliament calling for religious toleration and the repeal of laws against Catholics, but the House rejected his proposals and actually increased the discriminatory legislation. Nonetheless, it was in the reign of Charles II that what amounted to a Uniate Church was proposed:

1) The Archbishop of Canterbury to be designated Patriarch, responsible for governing the Church in the three realms, except a few rights reserved to Rome;
2) A Roman Legate, a native Englishman, to reside in England to exercise the rights reserved to the pope;
3) Existing archbishops, bishops and clergy to remain in office if they accept Catholic ordination;
4) An annual General Synod to be convened;
5) The King to nominate bishops;
6) Complete religious freedom for Protestants;
7) Priests and bishops could be married, though celibacy would be introduced later;
8) The Eucharist in two kinds for those who wish;
9) Mass in Latin, with English hymns;
10) A Catholic catechism based on Scripture to be published;
11) Some religious orders to be restored;
12) The most disputed questions, like the infallibility the Pope and his right to depose monarchs, not to be discussed either in the pulpit of in writings, though Catholic preachers could dispute with Protestants, providing they avoided the narration of miracles or speaking of a material purgatory.

Nothing happened. The Protestants were far too powerful. But as the centuries went by the vision of unity was kept alive by many individuals. The 1833 Oxford Movement of Newman, Pusey and Keble gave it fresh impetus. The Association for the Promotion of the Unity of Christendom was formed in 1838. At the first Lambeth Conference, in 1867, the Bishop of Salisbury presented a petition signed by more than 1,000 clergy and 4,500 laity urging the Anglican bishops to end the long separation of their church from Rome.

The Catholic League was formed to promote reunion. Many do not know this, but the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity began in 1908 as an Anglican initiative to promote unity between Anglicans and Catholics; only from 1936 was it decided, under the influence of a French priest, Abbé Paul Couturier, to widen its scope to embrace all Christians.

After the Appeal for Christian Unity at the 1920 Lambeth Conference, Cardinal Mercier of Belgium and Lord Halifax gathered a group of theologians into what became known as the Malines Conversations, producing a plan for a Uniate Church similar to that proposed in the reign of Charles II. The talks ended when the Archbishop of York visited the Pope, the first Anglican archbishop to visit the Pope, and explained that Lord Halifax had no official standing.

It was not until the Second Vatican Council that the time became more auspicious, and through the visit of Archbishop Michael Ramsey to Pope Paul VI in 1996, the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC)_was created "to work for the restoration of complete communion of faith and sacramental life". Archbishop Ramsey had already indicated what form he thought it might take.

Building on the plans of past centuries he suggested: "Unity could take the form of the Anglican Communion being in communion with Rome, having sufficient dogmatic agreement with Rome, accepting the Pope as the presiding bishop of all Christians, but being allowed to have their own liturgy and married clergy and a great deal of existing Anglican customs; that is to say, it would be in a position rather like the Eastern Uniate Churches in relation to the see of Rome."

Bishop Butler in 1970 picked up the old idea of the Archbishop of Canterbury becoming a Patriarch of the English Rite "with its own bishops, liturgy and theological tradition". Later the same year Pope Paul VI stressed there would be no seeking to lessen the prestige and usage proper to the Anglican Church, which he called a sister church. He returned to the theme, assuring Archbishop Coggan in 1977: "these words of hope 'The Anglican Church united not absorbed' are no longer a mere dream".

To suggest now, as some have done, that Pope Benedict is seeking to undermine the Anglican Church is unfair and untrue. He has not undermined it; it has undermined itself. Strictly speaking, there is now no such thing as the Anglican Communion. It would be more accurate to call it a Federation of Anglican Communions, for there are several groupings, which are no longer in communion with each other or with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Cardinal Kasper addressed the Anglican bishops at Lambeth, pointing out the difficulty this presents. " In several contexts, bishops are not in communion with other bishops; in some instances, Anglican provinces are no longer in full communion with each other." How can the Catholic Church maintain a dialogue for organic unity with an Anglican Communion so divided in itself? The ARCIC conversations were inevitably downgraded to cooperation and friendship, but are still most important for all that, and more so now when relations are under strain.

For there are very large numbers of Anglicans, like the allegedly 400,000 Anglicans of the Traditional Anglican Communion, and others no longer in communion with their diocesan bishops, who have separate "episcopal visitors". Many of these have earnestly requested Rome to complete the ARCIC process with them. This put Rome on the spot. Cardinal Kasper referred to the dilemma at the Lambeth Conference in 2008.

He asked: "Should we, and how can we, appropriately and honestly engage in conversations also with those who share Catholic perspectives on the points currently in dispute, and who disagree with some developments within the Anglican Communion or particular Anglican provinces?" Not an easy question to answer.

What would the Anglican Church do if 400,000 Methodists asked to come into the Church of England while being allowed to keep their distinctive traditions? My guess is that it would be churlish to refuse, and they would be warmly welcomed, despite the possible risks. Rome has drawn from the precedents of history, and this favourable response is neither a novelty nor a surprise.

Posted by SK at 8:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Dialogue is indeed an integral part of the evangelising mission of the Church. But let us also not forget, “proclamation is the foundation, centre, and summit of evangelisation” (Evangelii Nuntiandi, 1975, point 27). To drive this point further, we can surmise that the Church would not have so emphasised the importance of proclamation as “the foundation, centre, and summit of evangelisation” if all religions were equal in revelation and truth. We can dialogue and share in order to learn, understand and respect one another. But ultimately, the truth must be spoken, and all dialogue must be at the service of truth. There must be a point at which dialogue transposes into proclamation.

At the same time, dialogue, by its sheer nature, also means that the religious conscience of the human person must be respected, that “no one must be constrained to act against his conscience, nor should he be impeded in acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters" (Dignitatis Humanae, 1965, point 3). Dialogue ensures that the graces of voluntary and willing conversion are preserved in the evangelisation efforts of the Church.

Evidently from this entire discussion, it does not necessarily follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned. And yet, Holy Mother Church continues to invite our non-Catholic neighbours to dialogue, and to ultimately proclaim among them the truth of Jesus Christ.

But lest we who are already found within the Church sink into complacency about our own salvation, we are also reminded: still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. St Augustine of Hippo once remarked, “How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!” (Homilies on John, 45, 12). This serves as a stern warning to we who distort the truth in our dealings with our non-Christian neighbours: we must be careful what we teach, in both word and deed.

Posted by SK at 12:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Church Dialogues with Other Religions

Proclamation is squarely ”the communication of the Gospel message, the mystery of salvation realised by God for all in Jesus Christ by the power of the Spirit. It is an invitation to a commitment of faith in Jesus Christ and to entry through baptism into the community of believers which is the Church” (Dialogue and Proclamation, point 10).

Dialogue, on the other hand, is less straightforward, and in this article I would like to dwell on this particular facet of evangelisation. Here is what dialogue means:

…in the context of religious plurality, dialogue means "all positive and constructive interreligious relations with individuals and communities of other faiths which are directed at mutual understanding and enrichment", in obedience to truth and respect for freedom. It includes both witness and the exploration of respective religious convictions.

(Dialogue and Proclamation, point 9)

But why do we have to couple dialogue with proclamation? Why would proclamation itself not be sufficient? To put it succinctly, the Church deems it fit that dialogue be an integral part of our evangelisation activity because we represent a God who dialogues. “God, in an age-long dialogue, has offered and continues to offer salvation to humankind. In faithfulness to the divine initiative, the Church too must enter into a dialogue of salvation with all men and women” (Dialogue and Proclamation, point 38).

The Church speaks of four different forms of interreligious dialogue in no particular order of priority:

a) The dialogue of life, where people strive to live in an open and neighbourly spirit, sharing their joys and sorrows, their human problems and preoccupations.

b) The dialogue of action, in which Christians and others collaborate for the integral development and liberation of people.

c) The dialogue of theological exchange, where specialists seek to deepen their understanding of their respective religious heritages, and to appreciate each other's spiritual values.

d) The dialogue of religious experience, where persons, rooted in their own religious traditions, share their spiritual riches, for instance with regard to prayer and contemplation, faith and ways of searching for God or the Absolute.

(Dialogue and Proclamation, point 42; also in
The attitude of the Church Towards the Followers of Other Religions:
Reflections and Orientations on Dialogue and Mission, 1984, points 28-35)

Posted by SK at 12:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Is My Neighbour Saved?

However, the Church also acknowledges the reality that not all people are privileged to hear the Gospel in its fullness. Some receive it only partially, perhaps because of the inadequacies of its transmitters, whilst others almost never receive it at all throughout their lifetimes. As a result, their religious conscience does not incline them to realise a need for Christ and His Church. Of these, the Church says,

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.

(Lumen Gentium, point 16)

In summary, the Holy Catholic Church acknowledges the goodness found in all religions, and the possibility of salvation for those who seek God to the best of their abilities. However, in the same breath, it affirms the abiding efficacy of Christ’s work to save the world. In other words, we believe that if people are saved, regardless of their religious adherence, it is Christ who saves them. Other religions are a preparation for the Gospel of Christ; they are not the Gospel itself. Hence, the all too common practice of substituting our reading of Sacred Scripture with the scriptures of other religions is nothing less than a scandal to the integrity of Christ’s redemptive work.

We should not be ashamed to make unique truth claims about our faith, because making exclusive truth claims is innate to the nature of religion. After all, which religion does not claim itself to be uniquely true? To defy this nature of religious beliefs by turning truth claims upon themselves, and insisting that no one religion is unique, would constitute starting a whole new religion; and ironically, this new claim itself would be exclusive too!

For the Church to acknowledge the possibility of salvation for peoples of other faiths is entirely different from saying that all religions are the same, for such a notion defies the very nucleus of our faith - that it is Jesus who saves! The words of the first Pope of the Church, the Apostle Peter, continue to resound today: “Only in Him [i.e. Jesus Christ] is there salvation; for of all the names in the world given to men, this is the only one by which we can be saved (Acts of the Apostles 4.12)”.

Posted by SK at 11:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Who Is My Neighbour?

The Second Vatican Council teaches that God’s salvation plan includes all peoples: even Jews, Muslims, and peoples of other non-Christian religions. “Christ, the New Adam, through the mystery of His incarnation, death and resurrection, is at work in each human person to bring about interior renewal.” (Dialogue and Proclamation, 1991, point 15).

This holds true not for Christians only but also for all persons of good will in whose hearts grace is active invisibly. For since Christ died for all, and since all are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the Paschal mystery.

(Gaudium et Spes, 1965, point 22)

The Church further goes on to say that all these who have “not yet received the Gospel are related to the people of God in various ways” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, point 839). In points 839 to 842 of the Catechism (also in Lumen Gentium, 1964, point 26), further explication is given on the unique nature of each of these relationships. Then, point 843 sums up these relationships as follows:

The Catholic Church recognises 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…”

It is imperative that we should note here - categorically - that the Church does not say that all religions are equal or that all religions bring salvation. In fact, the Catechism also speaks of how “in their religious behavior… men [i.e. people of other religions] also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them” (point 844). This unambiguously points to the necessity of evangelisation.

Posted by SK at 7:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the complications arising from living in Asia stems from the religious composition of the Asian population. The Asian continent is the very source of the world religions that thrive in the world today: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and a good many other religions.

Having to make sense of this plethora of religions together with their variety of truth claims must be disconcerting to the Asian man on the street. This is so even for those of us who follow Jesus Christ, who call ourselves Christians. Over the centuries, Asian Christians have come to make sense of these other religions among them in different ways. There are two prevalent notions I would like to briefly explicate here:

Two Common Notions about Other Religions

This very exclusivist position on the salvation of peoples of other religions is one of two common notions among Christian people of other religions. For most of the strict Evangelical Christians (although not all), there is no relationship whatsoever between the Christians and people of other religions; it is only those who explicitly profess the Christian faith who will ultimately be saved. For the record, there are some of them who think Catholics are not saved either, since “they worship Mary and not Jesus Christ”!

ii. All people will be saved regardless of their religion. Another common position, strangely, seems to be very prevalent among Catholics in this part of the world. It is the pluralist position which claims that all religions lead to salvation, and that no one religion is better than others.

This pluralistic notion is, of course, rejected by the Holy Catholic Church. If all religions led to salvation, then Jesus Christ would have been a most foolish or insane person to think that He would have to die for the sins of the world. Furthermore, if the truth claims of all religions were equal, the unenviable onus would fall upon the adherents of all these religions to reconcile their seemingly conflicting beliefs. For example, some religions believe that after death, there will be judgement, heaven, and hell, whilst some others believe that death would merely lead to one’s reincarnation into another life which may be of a similar or different state. Two conflicting claims such as these cannot both be right; one must be correct and the other wrong.

The Catholic Church does not give assent to either one of these two positions in regard to her relationship with non-Christian peoples. It is therefore sad that many Catholics continue holding on to at least one of these two notions. What is even sadder is the fact that many, if not most, Catholics have no idea of the position of the Catholic Church on her relationship with peoples of other faiths. For those who have come to this knowledge, they continue to be fascinated and awed by the beauty of this position. It is a position that is inclusive, which takes into account God’s grace and love for our neighbours but without having to compromise the uniqueness of Jesus Christ who gave His life for the sins of the world, and whose Body and Blood is offered upon the altars of our churches daily as a result of His one timeless sacrifice.

Clearly, there is a need for Catholics to understand the finer nuances of the Catholic faith and position in regard to this issue rather than to hold naïve positions on it.

Posted by SK at 9:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Throughout the past two years since I became Catholic, countless people have asked me what the Catholic position was on peoples of other religions. Does the Catholic Church think that only Catholics will be saved, or can peoples of other faiths be saved too? Of course, this question may seem rather strange to Evangelicals. Ironically, many of those who have asked me about this before were themselves Evangelical Christians.

One of the things that have amazed me very much about the Catholic faith is how the Roman Catholic Church is perhaps the only existing religion that has such a comprehensive (and official) position on other religions in relation to itself. This is not to say that other religions do not have such systematic notions of thought. It is just that the extensiveness and depth of Catholic thought pertaining to this issue in question continues to amaze me.

I will be posting up in this blog, in installments, an entire series called "Through No Fault of Their Own: The Catholic Church and Peoples of Other Faiths" to explain the Catholic position on this matter.

Stay tuned for this series...

Posted by SK at 11:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)