The Catholic Church and Ecumenism Today
The Roman Catholic Church has always considered it a duty of the highest rank to seek full unity with estranged communions of fellow Christians, and at the same time to reject any promiscuous and false union that would mean being unfaithful to or glossing over the teaching of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Over the recent past, there has been a change in emphasis of the Catholic perspective on ecumenism. Before the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the main stress was laid on this second aspect, i.e., avoiding the possibility of compromising the teaching of Scripture and Tradition.

For example, Canon 1258 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law says: “It is illicit for the faithful to assist at or participate in any way in non-Catholic religious functions. For a serious reason requiring, in case of doubt, the Bishop's approval, passive or merely material presence at non-Catholic funerals, weddings and similar occasions because of holding a civil office or as a courtesy can be tolerated, provided there is no danger of perversion or scandal”.

The most recent 1983 Code of Canon Law, however, whilst absolutely forbidding Catholic priests to concelebrate the Eucharist with members of communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church (canon 908), allows, in certain circumstances and under certain conditions, other sharing in the sacraments. Furthermore, the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, 102, states, "Christians may be encouraged to share in spiritual activities and resources, i.e., to share that spiritual heritage they have in common in a manner and to a degree appropriate to their present divided state (italics my own)."

Pope John XXIII, who called together the Council that consequently brought about this change of emphasis, said that the Council's aim was to seek renewal of the Church itself, which would serve, for those separated from the See of Rome, as a "gentle invitation to seek and find that unity for which Jesus Christ prayed so ardently to his heavenly Father”.

Ecumenical endeavours continue to remain a priority of the Roman Catholic Church today. But what the Catholic Church construes as an ecumenical endeavour should not be misunderstood by other Christians who insist on their own brand of ecumenism. The Catholic Church respects that these have their own rendition of ecumenism, whilst she works out of her own ecumenical endeavours in ways consistent with her Sacred Tradition and ecclesial life.

The Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, has issued an unmistakable call to the Body of Christ, emphatically instructing the Church that “ecumenism is not an option but a sacred duty”.

-- End of Series --

Posted by SK at 11:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Our Understanding of Other Christians
The Catholic Church does not take a simplistic view of other Christian communities. Her understanding of the various communities is well-nuanced and therefore does not lump them all together.

The Orthodox Churches are seen as “true churches”. The Catholic Church recognises the Orthodox churches as true churches; in fact, they are frequently called “sister” churches. These churches born in the East, although not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, are distinctly characterised by apostolic succession and therefore have valid sacraments.

We do estimate that such churches are suffering from a “wound” since they do not recognise the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, among other Patriarchs. However, the wound is not so severe that it has caused them to lose the gravity of the marks of a true Church: oneness, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity. They still contain sufficient marks to constitute true churches.

[Note: Of course, there are some Eastern Churches who have throughout the centuries returned to full communion with the Bishop of Rome and have come to be called “Eastern Catholic Churches”. These are not wounded and continue to exercise their ecclesial life based on the distinctives of their traditions in consistency with the deposit of faith and in full communion with the Pope. There are also about two Eastern Churches which have never broken communion with Rome before in the course of their history.]

Protestant communities are called “ecclesial communities”. Whilst there is a measure of woundedness in the Eastern Churches, it said that the “wound is still more profound” in the Protestant denominations. The wound is so profound that these communities do not sufficiently possess enough marks of a church to be properly called “churches”. Therefore, the Catholic Church calls these communities “ecclesial communities originating from the Reformation”, a term used to refer to Protestants and Anglicans (the latter often do not identify themselves as “Protestants”, therefore it is right to identify them separately with due respect to their self-identity). A document of the Catholic Church says, “Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress ... it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to them”.

The Catholic Church does not mean these terms to be derogatory; rather, they are meant to be honest terms. She would expect no less from her dialogue partners. In the same way, there are well-meaning Protestant segments who call the Catholic Church “the Harlot of Babylon” and the Pope “the antichrist”. The Catholic Church does not react even to such derogatory name-calling, perhaps by way of respecting the rights of such well-meaning Christians to determine what they truly believe and to be honest about it. A Pentecostal theologian once said in a dialogue with the Catholic Church, “We think you Catholics are not saved, and our aim is to save you!” The point was well-received because the open honesty was respected.

But at the same time, the Catholic Church continues to recognise that within these ecclesial communities is to be found elements of truth and sanctification which assist people in the salvific process. The Catholic Church also continues to acknowledge, admire and deeply respect those who continue to proclaim Christ in local and foreign lands, the evangelists and those who die because of their faith.

And yet, whilst the Second Vatican Council's opening to other faiths recognised that there were “many elements of sanctification and truth” in other Christian denominations, the Church stresses that only Catholicism has all the elements to be Christ's Church fully.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them […] In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them (other Christian denominations) as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.”

[Responses to Some Questions Regarding
Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church]

Recognising also that the Protestant Reformation took place in waves, and that each wave of the Reformation represented a further drift away from the fullness of the deposit of faith, the Catholic Church further categorises the ecclesial communities into three separate clusters. The first batch of communities arising from the Reformation is known as the “Reformation communities” (i.e. Reformed, Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran). The second batch, most often further breakaways from the Reformation communities themselves, are termed “free communities” (i.e. Methodists, Baptists, Quakers). Finally, the subsequent communities arising from further breakaways are categorised under “sects” (i.e. Brethren, Salvation Army, Pentecostal denominations, Seventh Day Adventists, etc).

Posted by SK at 3:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What Ecumenism Is
Having elaborated what ecumenism is not, from the Catholic perspective, it is also important to define what it is. In order that dialogue may be open and respectful, this definition must be given in utter honesty and without a hidden agenda born out of the fear to offend. The Catholic Church speaks respectfully with distinct honesty and expects her partners to do the same; this is a basic requisite for healthy dialogue.

Ecumenism, as far as concerns the Roman Catholic Church, is to be a visible unity. In other words, for her, the goal of ecumenism is union with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not demand union, but it hopes to arrive at it through mutually respectful dialogue. And even if this union was not possible, the Catholic Church would continue striving in dialogue so that she may honour the desire of her Lord for His disciples to eventually be one.

The Catholic Church makes no apologies for being so forthcoming about its agenda and its understanding of ecumenism. Again, it must be emphasised, she believes that honesty is a requisite of fruitful dialogue, and would therefore rejoice in the respectful honesty of all other Christian communities in laying out their self-understanding. So it really is about laying out our cards in the open, with utter honesty and yet respect, and then proceeding with dialogue from there. It is fundamental to any kind of dialogue that the participants are clear about their own identity. Dialogue cannot be an occasion to accommodate or soften what you actually understand yourself to be.

The Pope, along with all Christians, believes salvation comes from belief in and acceptance of Jesus Christ as one’s personal Lord and Savior, as the only mediator between God and man. The Bible says as much. But he also affirms the long-standing doctrine of the Catholic Church that Jesus chose to work out this plan of salvation through His Church under the direction of His twelve Apostles and their successors (bishops in communion with the Pope).

The Catholic Church does not see the unapologetic expression of theological differences as a barrier to friendship, respect and brotherhood. In fact, a false sense of tolerance has made it now almost impossible to say, “I think I’m right,” without being called a bigot by denominational pluralists. Neither the Pope nor the entire Catholic Church would/should stand for that.

Posted by SK at 12:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What Ecumenism is Not (continued)
Thirdly, ecumenism is not false union. The Catholic Church does not see that the endeavour towards ecumenism necessitates the putting aside of all our theological differences. Pretending that there are no differences and relating to one another as a “united body” by resting on the lowest common denominator of the faith is to pander to false and promiscuous union. True ecumenism, by the standards of the Catholic Church, is to be measured in terms of consistency with our Creed (the faith and moral claims of the Church), Code (the discipline of the Church) and Cult (the liturgical worship of the Church).

So why do we not practise, say, open communion at the celebration of the Eucharist? Because for the Catholic Church, the sharing in one bread is not a means to unity, but rather, a sign of a unity (of Creed, Code and Cult) that should have already taken place prior to the sharing in one bread. We understand that our Protestant brethren do not agree with this, but the Catholic Church expects that her standards be respected within the context of her own liturgical celebration. It is, after all, our liturgy.

Similarly, the Orthodox Churches generally do not permit for our Catholic communicants to receive their Holy Eucharist in their liturgies even though the Catholic law permits for them to do so where they cannot find a Catholic Church in which to worship. Out of ecumenical respect, the Catholic Church teaches its children to abide by the disciplines of the Orthodox Churches even if it means the sad reality of being “deprived” of participation in the Holy Eucharist. No big fuss is made about such. That much respect the Catholic Church accords to the preferences of other communities, and that much respect it expects from others in her own ecclesial practices in accordance with her theological beliefs.

Unity is indeed important to the Catholic Church, and it remains her priority to strive towards that. However, it is a unity in the service of truth that she seeks, not just a unity for the sake of itself. For this reason, the Catholic Church does not - she cannot - sacrifice truth at the altar of unity. In the understanding of the Catholic Church, when an authentic unity has been reached, it is a unity of truth.

Therefore, two conflicting truths (e.g. the Eucharist being the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ for some and being a mere symbol for others) can neither be a source of nor a means to unity. Whilst the Catholic Church respects that this inconsistency does not perturb the Protestant practice of inter- and open-communion despite the presence of over 300 different interpretations on the Eucharist among the over 40 thousand denominations, she herself cannot pander to it.

Ignorant denominational pluralists are frequently scandalised by the fact that the Catholic Church refuses to take such a pluralistic position on ecumenism. The position of the Catholic Church is always inclusive but not pluralistic. The principle of inclusion enables the Church to make space for others and to recognise the good in others without having to compromise our self-understanding. It also respects the self-understanding of others, keeping in mind that respect does not mean consent or agreement. Unity based on a whitewashing of differences, according to Pope Benedict VI, is a facade and only stalls fruitful dialogue.

Furthermore, the pluralistic position is often not as generous as it claims itself to be, because it actually excludes those who refuse its position. In other words, to the denominational pluralist, everyone must acknowledge that all "brands" of Christianity are on par with one another. Those who refuse to acknowledge that are automatically excluded; this irony is often a blind spot to the denominational pluralists who are quick to exclude those who disagree with their enterprise of leveling down all Christian traditions. Denominational pluralism, often justified in the name of “ecumenism”, is therefore a logical fallacy. The authentically inclusive position, on the other hand, respects one’s self-identity and the self-identity of others: all are not necessarily seen as equal or agreeable, but all are respected.

Posted by SK at 4:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What Ecumenism is Not
Before the Catholic conception of ecumenism is expounded, it is first crucial to clarify some points in the negative, i.e. what ecumenism is not.

Firstly, ecumenism is not yet achieved. It must be known to the dialogue partners of the Catholic Church that ecumenism is not something that has already been achieved, in our understanding. Ecumenism is a desired future, a goal, because it is the desire of the Son of God who prayed “that [we] may be one”. But this does not in itself mean that we are already one, even though we all profess faith in Him.

Ecumenism is not yet achieved because, unlike the conception of some factions of Christians, ecumenism is not merely an attitude or state of mind which says “Let us just behave like we are one, and we will be one”. Ecumenism, in the assessment of the Catholic Church, is much, much deeper than that, and she refuses to take a superficial stance on the matter.

Secondly, ecumenism is not easily achievable. It needs to be clarified that the Catholic Church does not think that ecumenism is something easily achievable. In fact, from a human viewpoint, it is not even remotely achievable, especially with our Protestant brothers and sisters. To return to a state of unity with over 40 thousand denominations globally, each with its own distinct doctrinal claims, is not a human possibility. This is true even without taking account of the fact that even within any one particular denomination, its individual members (i.e. both clergy and laity) hold differing theological viewpoints on crucial matters.

Of course, many would then say that we should focus our ecumenical efforts on a spiritual unity rather than a theological unity. This will not do for the Catholic Church; neither will it do for the Orthodox Churches, for that matter (although I will not assume the audacity of right to speak on behalf of that well-respected tradition in this series). This proposed alternative would sorely compromise our understanding of revelation and truth.

Well, ecumenism is indeed a possibility; just not a human one. Therefore, while we seek unity, prayer is the ultimate embodiment of that desire, because only God can unite His own fragmented Body. And as we pray, we also dialogue prayerfully with others by gentle invitation.

(More to come on "What Ecumenism is Not...")

Posted by SK at 3:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Introductory Comments
The Catholic faith is one of the most known but least understood of various faiths, not just among people of other religions but also among other Christians. Besides the fact of the mysteries surrounding the mystical aura of the 2000 year-old Church institution, this lack of understanding is in part because of the intricacies of its faith system which cannot be understood in simplistic monotonal terms. When people confront this system with simplistic mindsets without first truly understanding the vast minute intricacies underlying each Catholic truth claim, some tend to become hostile to the Church because of such lack of understanding or ignorance.

And so it is with the prevalent ignorance of many other Christians on the Catholic Church’s understanding of ecumenism. When questions like “Why does the Catholic Church not permit other Christians to receive the Eucharist when we are all supposed to be part of the same Body of Christ” or “Why does the Catholic Church not apply the term ‘church’ for us?” are asked, they betray a lack of understanding of what the Catholic understanding may be on such issues.

Of course, agreeability is not a requisite in ecumenical efforts; but the pursuit of understanding is. Therefore, it is not the aim of this writing to solicit agreement, but rather to clarify underlying assumptions and theological presuppositions as we all embark on ecumenical efforts in the service of truth (yes, the Catholic Church believes there is indeed objective truth as revealed by God and interpreted by the Church according to her divinely endowed right and responsibility, so it is not merely a matter of differing theological opinions among the pseudo intellectual elite).

Many non-Catholics Christians tend to impose their assumptions on the Catholic Church by telling us how ecumenism should be exercised (for example, insisting that we should practise open communion at the celebration of the Eucharist), and even going so far to try telling us what we believe based on their own misconceptions about Catholicism (for example, that the Catholic Church’s claim of commitment to ecumenical efforts is “dubious and smutty”).

Contrary to such ignorant accusations, Catholicism has over the years developed what has probably become the most substantive system of understanding ecumenism among the various Christian traditions. Therefore, in these next couple of days, I will be posting up a series on the Catholic Church’s position on ecumenism.

This treatise will not be exhaustive (because any discussion on ecumenism would necessitate a thorough investigation into the Catholic dogma of the Church), but it will be adequate to provide an understanding to people who truly wish to begin their journey of deeper understanding. And yet, this treatise would indeed be found sorely lacking for people who desire to antagonise and interrogate by picking on what is absent rather than what is present in this treatise. Hence, I post this series for the former and not the latter.

Posted by SK at 5:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | 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)

VATICAN CITY : Benedict XVI has decided to create a structure for Anglican clergy and groups who want to join the Catholic Church. The forthcoming Apostolic Constitution will provide for “Personal Ordinariates”, thus allowing “for the ordination as Catholic priests of married former Anglican clergy.”

The ordination of Anglican priests in the Catholic Church is nothing new. In 1982, John Paul II had approved provisions whereby married Anglican clerics who wanted to become Catholic priests could perform their ministerial service.

Benedict XVI has decided to provide a framework for such a situation, this according to a Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering the Catholic Church.

Personal Ordinariates “will allow former Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony. Under the terms of the Apostolic Constitution, pastoral oversight and guidance will be provided for groups of former Anglicans through a Personal Ordinariate, whose Ordinary will usually be appointed from among former Anglican clergy.”

The Apostolic Constitution “provides a reasonable and even necessary response to a world-wide phenomenon, by offering a single canonical model for the universal Church which is adaptable to various local situations and equitable to former Anglicans in its universal application. It provides for the ordination as Catholic priests of married former Anglican clergy. Historical and ecumenical reasons preclude the ordination of married men as bishops in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Constitution therefore stipulates that the Ordinary can be either a priest or an unmarried bishop.”

Ultimately, the papal document “seeks to balance on the one hand the concern to preserve the worthy Anglican liturgical and spiritual patrimony and, on the other hand, the concern that these groups and their clergy will be integrated into the Catholic Church.”

This, according to the Note, is due to events that occurred since the Second Vatican Council, most notably the decision by some Anglican communions to ordain women and “openly homosexual clergy” and bless “homosexual partnerships.”

Following such experiences, in addition to decisions by individuals, “Sometimes there have been groups of Anglicans who have entered while preserving some ‘corporate’ structure. Examples of this include, the Anglican diocese of Amritsar in India, and some individual parishes in the United States which maintained an Anglican identity when entering the Catholic Church under a ‘pastoral provision’ adopted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope John Paul II in 1982.”

“We have been trying to meet the requests for full communion that have come to us from Anglicans in different parts of the world in recent years in a uniform and equitable way,” said Card William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

“They have declared that they share the common Catholic faith as it is expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and accept the Petrine ministry as something Christ willed for the Church. For them, the time has come to express this implicit unity in the visible form of full communion,” he added.

The provision of this new structure, the Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said by way of conclusion, “is consistent with the commitment to ecumenical dialogue, which continues to be a priority for the Catholic Church, particularly through the efforts of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity.”

Courtesy : AsiaNews

Posted by SK at 12:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms the following:

In the [Catholic Church] subsists the fullness of Christ's body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him “the fullness of the means of salvation” (CCC #830).

It goes further to explain the following:

The Church is catholic: she proclaims the fullness of the faith. She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation (CCC #868).

It is now a world that no longer takes delight in such absolute statements. These statements, for the many relativists of various degrees one meets in the intellectual arena, are too arrogantly certain. Such protestors say, “We must never take any one group or denomination of believers to be in full possession of the truth”.

This statement usually means that every group has some fraction of the entire body of truth, and that full truth is found only when one embraces the sum of all these fractions of truth. And many actually audaciously call this “ecumenism” - to be sure, many Catholics are guilty of this too.

Underlying this statement is to be found a series of logical fallacies.

Many claimants of this statement do not realise that such an assumption is intrinsic to their argument. The nature of his claim, that no one body of truth encompasses truth in its completeness, presupposes that the claimant himself knows what a complete body of truth must look like. If he himself had no possession of the full truth, he should not know what the full truth is like. And if he possesses not the full truth, he has no logical basis - without first having known full truth - of knowing that other groups have incomplete bodies of truth. If every body of belief, as he claims, is incomplete, then there would be no standard of fullness by which all other bodies of faith claims are to be measured. This would render his own claim arbitrary at best and defective at worst.

Therefore, the fallacy in this position lies in its self-contradiction. It is found in the assumption that the knower knows the extent of truth propositions required to constitute a “fullness” of truth. Even if he does not yet possess the full truth, it assumes that he at least possesses the capacity to collate the sum of truths found in every group of believers, and consequently emerging with a set of full truths. Furthermore, even if he has not yet attained the sum of truths or the fullness of truth, this position must necessarily assume that he can and will one day attain the fullness of truth.

But in the first place, if such fullness of truth was at all possible, then why would this knower be the only one for whom it was possible to attain that fullness? Why would it not be possible for any one group of believers to have attained it prior to the claimant’s attainment of this fullness?

In reality, certain beliefs held by the various groups, even if they are all Christian, may be mutually exclusive because they totally contradict one another. In such cases, someone must be wrong, and the other right. One cannot therefore assume that all the different truths of the various groups of believers can be indiscriminately taken together to form a greater whole.

In this sense, to almagamate the various bodies of truth to form a complete whole, one would have to in the process purge these various bodies of truth from their errors before merging them together. But such an enterprise, again, actually assumes that one is in possession of the complete body of truth in order to recognise truth from error. And the irony is, if one already possessed that complete body of truth, he would not have a need to bring together the various bodies of truth to form a greater whole in the first place.

Hence, when one makes such a statement, the question must arise as to who or what constitutes the final arbiter of completeness and orthodoxy. The one who makes such a relativistic claim is not very much of a relativist himself after all, because his claim implicitly implies completeness in the claimant’s own body of faith claims.

Such a relativistic viewpoint of the deposit of faith shows itself to be a logical fallacy on various accounts when one thinks deeper about these claims. In saying “we must never take any one group or denomination of believers to be in full possession of the truth”, it refutes exclusive claims to completeness. But it refutes exclusive claims in a very exclusive way. It accepts exclusively people who reject exclusive claims, and rejects people who accept exclusive claims. In the final analysis, it shows itself to be more exclusivistic than those who make exclusive claims but acknowledge that others’ exclusive claims may not be in agreement with their own.

To set the record straight, I am not objecting to any group of believers’ claim over absoluteness and completeness in their “deposit of faith”. In fact, I am arguing in favour of it. Because this would be the only way by which one can judge any other belief to be incomplete. It takes a claim to complete knowledge of the deposit of faith to recognise incompleteness.

And so this is the Catholic position – we assume (no, we believe!) that our body of truth, our deposit of faith, is complete. And we hope that our dialogue partners would assume the same about their own bodies of faith. Otherwise there would be no grounds for dialogue, only grounds for teaching and evangelisation.

I call this logical fallacy dialogical relativism.

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

In the recent decades, many Protestant Christians – especially those involved in the disciplines of Spirituality and Spiritual Theology – have sought to broaden Protestant spirituality by seeking to glean from the spiritual wealth of the Catholic faith.

More Protestant Christians are using the signum crusis (sign of the cross), cultivating spiritual disciplines such as silent retreats, doing the lectio divina (divine reading of Sacred Scripture), using the term “spiritual formation”, and practising a variety of other spiritual disciplines which in past centuries were relegated only to the realm of Catholic spirituality.

Of course, there are other spiritual disciplines which remain uniquely Catholic (and Orthodox). By and large, Protestants continue to be reserved about disciplines such as the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints, veneration of the cross, the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, and praying the rosary, among others.

The openness to glean from the wealth of spiritual disciplines of the Catholic Church is indeed commendable, and one can be sure that the Church welcomes that openness in positive spirit. There is however more to be said about that.

At this point of time, the openness to such spiritual disciplines is found only among individual Protestants and perhaps in some seminaries as a part of their academic exploration in Christian Spirituality. These disciplines are most often not a part of the ecclesial life of the local Protestant congregations. In fact, any Protestant individual who overtly demonstrates such disciplines, for example, genuflection before the altar, would be deemed strange by his/her fellow community members.

Hence, the adoption of any form of Catholic spirituality by a Protestant Christian is limited to the realm of personal piety, no matter how admirable that may be. The communal dimension of such spirituality, especially in the corporate worship of these communities, is still largely (even if not totally) non-existent. The corporate worship of the Protestant community, often being minimalist in its orientation, does not provide an environment for the cultivation of these spiritual disciplines to their fullest potential.

Thus, although the individual develops in personal spirituality, this growth is dislocated from the corporate spiritual devotion of the community. In a very real sense, the Protestant individual who attempts to cultivate such spiritual disciplines is doing it apart from the rest of his/her community and undertakes this task away from the ecclesial environment like a fish out of water.

One can genuflect, kneel before the Blessed Sacrament, pray the rosary, and make the sign of the cross in a Catholic parish, and no one would stare with suspicion. But try doing these things in a Protestant parish, no matter how spiritual the people there know you to be, and you would certainly attract no small amount of attention and perhaps some expressions of disdain from passersby.

Of course, the personal cultivation of any such spiritual practices is not a bad thing. It is certainly good and is to be encouraged. But in this sense (among other considerations, to be sure), the Catholic Church continues to hold that the fullness of the Christian faith is found only in the Catholic Church. It is only the Church that bears the marks of the faith in its fullness – the Church that is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, that preserves the fullness of the faith and spirituality passed down from the Fathers – which provides for an environment of spirituality that connects the Christian with the faith of generations of believers long past.

In Catholic liturgy, we bow together, make the sign of the cross together, and adore the Blessed Sacrament together, among a variety of spiritual practices we undertake together. This is very much what makes it Catholic.

Posted by SK at 1:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In conjunction with the 2nd memorial programme for the Late Ven. Dr K. Sri Dhammananda Nayaka Maha Thera, the Buddhist Maha Vihara has organised an Inter-religious forum entitled

Religion and Good Governance

Date: 22 August 2008

Time: 8.00pm

Venue: P.H. Hendry Hall, Kuala Lumpur

Panel of Speakers:
Mr Harcharand Singh representing the Sikh community
Dr Amir Farid Dato Ishak representing the Muslim community
Mr P. K. Moorthy representing the Hindu community
Dato' Dr Victor Wee representing the Buddhist community
Mr Sherman Kuek representing the Christian community

Posted by SK at 12:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Have you attended an inter-religious dialogue? I've often found myself in such events wherein some Smart Alec stands up and says, "We all must practise the golden rule - to treat others the way we want to be treated. We must not say our god is the only true god, and our religion is the only true religion".

Sounds all right, no?

But then, he goes on to say, "All are the same god. We just have different names for that one god, and we worship him in different ways". At this point, I see red flags waving all over my inter-religious dialogical sensibilities.

To insist that everyone's god is the same and that this god is just named differently and that we worship him differently is as ethnocentric and obstinate an insistence as that of the one who claims that his god is the only true god. Here are my two reasons why:

1. If all our gods were the same god, there wouldn't be a need for dialogue. Most pluralists I have met before seem to forget that part of an inter-religious dialogue is that of acknowledging that we are different, and that it is all right to be different in our convictions. Even if we wanted to rest purely on our commonalities, one main thing we have in common is that we have differences in our convictions! So for a dialogue partner to state his claim that all rivers flow into the same sea, and then to insist that everyone else has to embrace the same claim in order to bring about religious harmony, is as bad as someone who says he is Christian and thinks that everyone else should be Christian in exactly the same way that he is.

2. Not everyone in an inter-religious dialogue believes in a god! I know of at least one religion, in every inter-religious dialogue that I attend, which does not subscribe to the existence of an Almighty God. That religion speaks of itself as a way of life, a philosophy, a search to end human suffering by transcending beyond one's self, not of a god who brings salvation to his people. How dare anyone insist that everyone's god is the same to the exclusion of the religion that doesn't even subscribe to a godhead. What audacity to exercise such conceited ethnocentrism.

All rivers do not flow into the same sea. We are of different religions with different ways of articulating our understanding of the divine. And each religion, by its sheer nature, is exclusive in its claims to understanding the right path towards the divine. Whilst we each disagree with one another, that's okay; we can still honour one another's search for truth and purity. That's real dialogue.

Posted by SK at 12:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Many people are quick to express disagreements about issues, doctrines, and opinions. The fact is, many don’t understand enough to have the right to agree or disagree. But still, they’re quick to assert the personal right to do so.

When we disagree simply because we do not understand enough – yet foolishly think that we already do – it’s a sheer manifestation of folly and self-deceit.

Of course, this inevitably brings in the question of dialogue. The initial phase of dialogue always involves listening and a search to understand a position with which we’re unfamiliar. More than that, we need to give ourselves the mental and emotional space to come to terms with the reality that such contrasting positions actually do exist, and that these positions form the moral and religious convictions of our neighbours. For as long as we still find ourselves in a state of shock, space must be created for our personal acceptance (not necessarily agreement!) of our neighbours’ positions.

When we are calm and rational, and are conscientiously sure that we have tried our utter best to understand the inner workings of our neighbours’ convictions, then we can begin formulating our agreements and disagreements, providing reasons for our positions.

In the process, we will also inevitably discover that convictions are not cold beliefs; they don’t exist in a vacuum. The believer with a conviction is a person with a personality, feelings, and a mind. He is respectable and worthy of dignity inasmuch as we ourselves are, regardless of what his beliefs may be. He is a child of the universe, like we are. Like us, he too is a believer – we just believe in different things. Even the skeptic is a believer in something.

Seek first to understand before jumping to conclusions of agreement or otherwise. Jumping to conclusions is jumping the gun. The next time we catch ourselves being too quick to express agreement or disagreement, be even quicker to ask ourselves, “Do I truly agree/disagree, or am I just exhibiting ignorant folly in thinking that I already know?”

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

London, May. 7, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican's top ecumenical spokesman has posed a challenge to Anglican leaders, saying that the Anglican communion must decide whether it has more in common with the Catholic and Orthodox churches or the Protestant denominations.

[ Read more ]

Posted by SK at 12:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For as long as I've been involved in ecumenical dialogues - both interfaith and intrafaith - one issue I've been extremely concerned about has been the inclination for dialogue partners to remain at the comfortable level of superficial pleasantries and convenient alliances.

Beyond establishing friendship within such contexts of dialogue, I've often felt that authentic friendship also involves mutual searching for truth (however it is defined), together with mutual help rendered in one another's search. This is something I have, rightly or wrongly, observed to be largely absent in most dialogues.

I'm delighted to have come across Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran clarifying the following:

Interreligious dialogue is certainly a bridge-building exercise. […] It includes creating harmony in society, encouraging development of friendship and spirit of tolerance. But it goes beyond the niceties of polite conversation which encourages people to stay where they are and avoid talking about the grey areas of disagreement. It is a journey in search of the truth.

[ Read more ]

Posted by SK at 2:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In mid 2007, the Vatican released a document called Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church.

The document described Christian Orthodox churches as true churches, but suffering from a “wound” since they do not recognise the primacy of the Pope. The text also refered to “ecclesial communities originating from the Reformation”, a term used to refer to Protestants and Anglicans, stating that in these denominations the wound is even "more profound”. It states:

Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress ... it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of "Church" could possibly be attributed to them.

Is the Vatican therefore now withdrawing from its endeavours to seek unity with the rest of the Christian world? How should this document and the statements contained therein be construed by those who seek fellowship with the Catholic Church?

Topic:
Blessings Amidst Blunders... Catholic-Protestant Relations

Resident Instructor:
Revd Dr Jojo Fung

Invited Speaker:
Sherman Kuek

Venue:
Sacred Heart Cathedral,
Taman Sri Tebrau,
Johor Bahru, Malaysia

Date/Time:
01 April (Tuesday) @ 8 pm

Posted by SK at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In one of today's newspapers, the Vatican is reported to have defended the right to evangelise and to accept new converts (read here).

Let's face it: few of us ever bother to open our hearts to try and understand what others believe. We're afraid that in listening, we might be "bought over". That just shows how confident we are (not) in what we believe.

I think all of us need some evangelisation. Some of us are really good at evangelising others but become stiffly resistant towards others' evangelisation efforts, as if only our gospel is worth listening to. At a human level, I think if we want others to hear us out, we too should listen. Otherwise our gospel is no more than one that defies the right to human dignity.

But what if after listening to the gospel from over the other side, we discovered the poverty of our own gospel? Frightening thought, isn't it? Here's how I see it:

If we end up being "bought over" to a belief that we have reason to think is more credible than our previous convictions because we're now more informed about the issues surrounding our faith, what's wrong with that?

In response to the newspaper article, here's something good for our souls:

The purpose of this video is to help Protestant Christians and others develop a better understanding of the Roman Catholic Church, its history and basic beliefs by listening to Roman Catholics tell their own story.

Posted by SK at 3:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Listening is such a lost art, even in the Christian tradition. We have very devoutly spiritual Christians who happen to be brilliant theological minds, but who function like heresy hunters. At the slightest hint of some doctrines or belief that takes a marginal variance from their own, they don’t think twice about pointing it out. Not only do they point it out; they in fact point it out as if their view was superior and absolute in its validity.

Why can’t we meet someone who has a different theological position on some issues, and think to ourselves that perhaps this person has seen a perspective we’ve been missing? Or perhaps that this person actually does know more than us on something of that issue, and that we actually need to learn? What makes us often conclude so conveniently that our views are the absolute ones?

Are we afraid if we actually listened, that perhaps we might be obligated to yield our positions? Are we afraid to leave our views open to scrutiny for fear that our views might actually be proven wrong? Since when were we appointed to be guardians of doctrinal truths (well, truth in our view, at least) without the appointment of an ecumenical council?

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t share our views or state our position. I do that a lot; and I believe I’m doing just that right now. One stark example I can cite is a recent meeting I sat in last month consisting of various representatives from different Christian traditions, during which it was mentioned that “the Christian message is love”. I responded, hopefully gently, that in my tradition, the Christian message is not love. The Christian message is Jesus, who taught us to love. But Jesus and love cannot be mistaken to be the same entity. Our understanding of love is contingent upon who Jesus is, and our love cannot stand apart from him. God is love, but love is not God. The point is, part of the listening process also involves the sharing of our own positions and convictions, and that’s okay as long as it’s done with utmost respect.

I think we need to learn to listen to one another. I’ve grown up in a strictly Reformed tradition wherein black and white were thoroughly delineated (I’m not saying all Reformed people are like that – it’s just the background I grew up in). Over the years, I found myself opening up to a plethora of other voices, meeting people who might have had something to say from different perspectives, and discovering many areas of grey apart from the black and white through which I was taught to define my faith. As a result, my position on a number of issues has shifted; probably not changed all together, but nevertheless significantly shifted.

Of course, this puts me in great peril, because some people think I’m no longer “evangelical” (sigh, whatever that means anymore, really). Some say I’m liberal, and fortunately, yet others still say I’m evangelical (like on the occasion when I said that the Christian message is Jesus, someone stood up and commented that it seems I’m evangelical). And there have even been some who have called me a fundamentalist, actually! This just goes to show that different people develop different perceptions of one same object (in this case, me); and this further compounds the need to listen and to try to understand why and how these perceptions develop.

Yes, listening does that to a person. It ensures that our senses are not dulled to a world containing wisdom in various expressions. It ensures that we don’t become protectionistically elitist in our self-understanding. Many things in life are, after all, not as clearly cut and dry as we’d like them to be.

It’s very unlikely that I’m ever going to move away from my personal conviction that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and that no one goes to the Father except through him. It’s very unlikely that I’m ever going to shift from my understanding that Jesus is uniquely very man and very God. I’m always willing to strongly defend these beliefs (although not at the risk of misrepresenting the very God whose truth I seek to defend, which unfortunately happens a lot among some people I know).

But should that stop me from listening to what anyone else has to say, or put me in a defensive mode about what I believe in, or insulate my faith from public examination, I think it shows an insecurity in my own positions. I know this makes some of my brethren worried about me. To these who are concerned, please keep praying for me.

Thank you for listening.

Posted by SK at 9:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

An Email I Received Recently
Hi (Sherman),

I have some questions for you which need your response. Recently, my pastor shared with me about his struggle over a church member who was marrying a Muslim. He and other church members were invited to the wedding. He saw this as apostasy. The fact that the Christian girl had agreed to enter into union with a Muslim, it was an expression of her having renounced her Christian faith. So he decided not to go to their wedding and advised his church members who were invited not to go too. By going to their wedding, it would mean that they would be celebrating their union. Instead, he shared that we should mourn and pray as we had lost a sheep to a wolf. And he was disappointed with a missionary couple, who were close friends to the bride and who decided to attend the wedding.

Questions:

1) If you were the pastor, would you make the same stand? Why? Please also state the scriptural principles on the reason of your stand.

Perhaps, the only scriptural principle I can draw on for my pastor's position is from the book of Nehemiah, where Nehemiah and Ezra forced the exillic Israelites to divorce their foreign wives as they regained their land. In other words, we need to show we have a different stand from other faiths.

2) What are the practical steps we can take in order to win her back to the Christian faith and yet be able to show a stand in our belief so as not to offend our Muslim friends as we live in this pluralistic society?

The only answer I can come up with is to not attend their wedding and say it nicely that I will mourn for her as she has renounced her faith. After that, I would try to make an effort to remain a friend and try to win her back (together with her husband).

My Reply to the Email
I'm deeply saddened by the position taken by your pastor to not attend the wedding of the couple. To forbid the marriage to take place in the church premises is one thing, but to not attend the wedding is entirely another thing all together. Even if this sister has decided to become a Muslim and to marry a Muslim, there is still a human-to-human level at which we all need to honour one another's choices and to show acceptance and respect for one another. I think the refusal to attend the marriage doesn't speak very well of Christian goodwill. Because implicitly, that refusal speaks of a derogatory view of all other faiths and people who embrace other faiths.

I hold that we cannot get a direct scriptural reference on this issue. In fact, there is no explicit passage in scripture that forbids marriage between a Christian and a person of another religious tradition. We can use the Old Testament passage about God not wanting the Israelites to marry people from the pagan nations; but to extrapolate that and to equate that with the contemporary situation without taking variant factors into account is to be rather naive in our understanding of scripture. As far as scripture is concerned, it is most directly clear in the New Testament that when a union like that takes place, the Christian should not dishonour his/her spouse.

I think one of the greatest fears your pastor might have about attending the wedding is that it might show approval for the sister's decision. But to not attend the wedding would show disrespect; that we can respect only "Christian" decisions and not "non-Christian" decisions. I think we need to be gracious enough to see that every human person is an equal subject on a journey towards God; some have gone further in their journey, some have not. Your pastor's participation in the wedding would certainly have helped them progress positively in their journey. Sometimes we handle people as if they are objects of our faith and not equal subjects in our life journey.

I think if there's anything that can win them to faith in Christ, it would be love, friendship, acceptance, and respect with no hidden agendas. It becomes totally obvious if we establish relations with them for the sake of "winning them to the faith". Ultimately, the best representation of Christ we can offer them is to relate with them, person to person, human to human, friend to friend. Only then can our love be authentic and dignifying to those we relate with.

Posted by SK at 12:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

The way in which the Spirit of unity brings his people to a level of maturity where they are able to look beyond themselves, laugh at their differences, and dwell on the importance of listening to one another continues to amaze me.

Have you heard a pastor of a church emerging from a Classical Pentecostal tradition asking questions about spiritual formation? Have you seen the words of Henri Nouwen printed on the bulletins of such churches? I saw all that this past weekend. For me, there was a phenomenal beating of the heart.

I am witnessing a tremendous coming together of various streams of Christian spirituality, which I never saw when I was younger in my ministerial journey. I never thought that a “mainline Christian” like myself would one day be found preaching amidst the people who jump, who play loud music, and who lift their hands when they hear the preacher say something that “speaks to them” – the people who love God.

And for all the “depth” my mainstream tradition claims to possess, I see these people, and I observe a passion to rekindle in my own journey towards the partaking of the divine. I hear the stories they tell one another, as if God was working in their midst in the here-and-now, and I realise how this dimension of the Spirit’s work has often been missing in the circles I’m familiar with. And it dawns on me, how dull it would have been if everyone’s spirituality had looked exactly like mine.

The spirit of self-critique is one that speaks of humility, one which brings us into a greater magnitude of depth. It speaks of self-awareness, understanding where we have come from that we may know how to move forward in our spiritual journey. And it is empowering when we meet others like ourselves who, in being different, also ask questions which reflect the same concern about things that matter in the Christian journey.

True unity is not about reducing everything to a lowest common denominator. It is also not about avoiding discussions on our differences when we come together. True unity is when we are at real liberty to express the richness of our diversity in contribution to the beauty of the larger whole. It is when we are able to come together and perform the different and yet magnificent expressions of our dance of life together, so that all of these expressions result in the artistic reflection of what the divine dance of life must look like.

Posted by SK at 7:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by SK at 10:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)