A Journey of Hope? Or the Path of Indifference?

Yesterday I wrote introducing the new Vatican document, A Journey of Hope (JOH), commemorating the 60th anniversary of Nostra Aetate (ND), the Vatican II document on ecumenism. The new document was written by three Vatican dicasteries and approved by Pope Leo. As things have progressed since Vatican II, it's clear that ND was just the first down in the game of indifferentism. What's the score after 60 years? JOH gives us a clear look at the scoreboard.

Since Vatican II so-called progressives in the Church have been moving the ball down the field toward the goal posts of all inclusive religious and cultural fraternity. JOH does nothing to dispel the reality that the team is still moving in that direction with the emphasis on dialogue without the goal of conversion. Sadly, the leaders in the Church seem to be advancing the ball for the other team. The Great Commission given to the apostles and disciples has been watered down into synodal gab fests abandoning the goal to convert the nations, the Great Commission of Jesus Christ.

The word "dialogue" has become a mantra in the synodal church and is repeated over and over in JOH, about 130 times in fact. The note dedicates six paragraphs to "The Distinctive Character of Dialogue with the Jewish People." Those paragraphs are seriously problematic, although like many Vatican documents since the council they are steeped in ambiguity. Here's an example:

...the covenant with the Jewish people runs parallel to the Christian way of salvation: the Church teaches that Christ is the one and only Redeemer.[22] Nevertheless, this irrevocable covenant has theological significance.

Is this saying that the Old Covenant is "irrevocable" in the sense that it continues today? Canonist Fr. Gerald Murray says the Old Covenant is, indeed, irrevocable but it has been fulfilled, a truth completely ignored in JOH. The Old Covenant ended when Christ died, "And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent." Matthew 27:51 

But JOH implies that the Old Covenant continues, supporting the false interpretation emphasized in 2015 when  the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews issued “The Gifts and Calling of God are Irrevocable: A Reflection on Theological Questions Pertaining to Catholic-Jewish Relations” approved by Pope Francis. Like JOH it was issued on an anniversary of NA (the 50th). The document was interpreted in the media as advising the faithful not to try to convert the Jews, although Catholic Answers said it did not and also pointed out that it is not a magisterial document. So what opinion prevailed? The Jewish outlets all advertised that the Vatican was against converting Jews and that's what the media ran with. In view of that, what do Catholics formed by the culture and the mainstream media think? Do we have to ask?

This is the atmosphere in which JOH operates today. The document praises the 1986 Assisi meeting bringing representatives of all faiths together to pray for peace. While Pope John Paul II said they weren't praying together, each was praying in his own tradition, is that what the faithful saw? Is that what they understood when they witnessed all those religious leaders together praying? Did they understand that they were only together praying individually rather than praying together? Is this a distinction without a difference?

A picture is worth a thousand words and it can send a false message. The Assisi images advance the Pope Francis statement that God wills the diversity of religions. And seeing all those different representatives standing as equals side by side diminishes the Catholic reality that there is only one, true faith. In the synodal Church we're all equals on the path to truth, all just companions on the journey.

For Archbishop Lefebvre the Assisi meeting signified the "death of the missions," which the Amazonia Synod seemed to affirm when we were all told how much we have to learn from the spirituality of the pagans. And how much peace has resulted from the Assisi exercises, the Abu Dhabi statement that God wills all religions, the release of so many ecumenical documents, etc.? Is the world more peaceful today? It would be hard to support that claim.

The message of JOH is definitely syncretism although the text tries to claim it isn't. The document is not, after all, being written in a vacuum. All that precedes it impacts its message. We are all just partners on the common path called to respect each other's religion and culture. The document describes how Pope Francis "entered a new phase, deeply imbued with the vision of 'human fraternity,'" teaching that:

...it is impossible to understand oneself fully, or to grasp the reality of one’s own country, Church, or community deeply, without a respectful engagement with those who are different. Otherness thus becomes a source of mutual enrichment, provided that other faiths, spiritual traditions, and cultures are not perceived as threats.

That statement is almost funny in a pathetic sort of way. Some cultures are, in fact, "threats." Look at what is happening in Muslim countries where persecution and murder of Christians is common. Do you think the Christians in Nigeria perceive the government as a fraternal companion? We just commemorated 9/11, the result of a culture of violence and terrorism. JOH decries violence, but, hello, evil exists and some governments and cultures are committed to it like the Aztecs with their feasts of human massacre. Was Cortez a bigot who should have recognized the Aztecs as fraternal brothers who just happened to cut out the hearts of their enemies? Should we all share the cry of Pope Francis, “Isolation, no; closeness, yes. Culture clash, no; culture of encounter, yes.” when cultures revel in the murder of the innocent? Should we happily encounter the culture of Communist China where forced organ harvesting is common and babies are murdered for population control? Should the popes have followed the policy of fraternity in their encounters with Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung? Was Ronald Reagan wrong to call Communist Russia the "evil empire?" [speech]

The synodal way is turning Holy Mother Church into an organizational sensitivity team meeting with the Rodney King motto, "Can't we all just get along?" And the "concrete initiatives" that get such great praise are often scandalous. Nevertheless JOH gives high praise to all the local dialogue of the past 60 years:

...greater appreciation must be given to the concrete initiatives undertaken by the local Churches, which are on the front lines. It is they who, at the local level, develop the most creative and courageous forms of encounter: dialogue commissions, joint projects, educational or humanitarian initiatives, and shared celebrations. By gathering, sharing, and networking these experiences, the universal Church can enrich her life while also identifying and guiding new pastoral paths.

I remember one of those "enrichment" and "sharing" projects in Richmond during Bishop Walter Sullivan's tenure which continues today. In 1977 Sullivan along with the head of the Episcopal diocese of Southern Virginia, David Rose, founded a combined Catholic/ Protestant parish, Church of the Holy Apostles in Virginia Beach. The Catholics and Protestants have Mass together where they stay united for the liturgy of the word, then gather on opposite sides of the sanctuary at separate altars (left and right) for the liturgy of the Eucharist. The Virginia-Pilot covered the story in 1996. The parish is still active today. [website] 

So what do the children of those families learn? Simply this: It is a matter of indifference whether you are a Catholic or a Protestant; all paths lead to God. What does the Abu Dhabi Abrahamic Family House teach with its three cubic temples representing Christianity, Judaism, and Islam? Simply this: That it is a matter of indifference whether you are Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. 

And finally we return to Assisi where the message sent, perhaps unintentionally and subliminally (one can hope), that it is a matter of indifference whether you are Catholic, Protestant, pagan, or even atheist. (Yes an atheist spoke at the 2011 Assisi meeting with Pope Benedict no less.) The only one missing was a satanist. Will we see that in the future? 

Finally, JOH doubles down on the evil of proselytism:

To achieve this goal [peaceful co-existance], a genuine shift in mindset is necessary: abandoning the logic of defensiveness, hostility, or conquest in order to adopt an attitude that is open, benevolent, and courageous. Monolithic and isolated models, which encourage a closed view of reality, are proving increasingly inadequate and, ultimately, become sources of violence and suffering for the most vulnerable. The defensive entrenchment in one’s own position and the view that proselytism is the only way to engage with the other no longer make sense in a world that increasingly resembles an interconnected and constantly evolving global village.

Some paragraphs in this document sound like they came from Hillary Clinton. Maybe that isn't surprising since so many of the hierarchy act like functionaries of the Democrat party. So what exactly is proselytism and does it really deserve the demonization from modern popes?

The act or practice of proselyting; the making of converts to a religion or a religious sect, or to any opinion, system, or party.

And what is the definition of evangelization? How does it differ from proselytism?

to preach the gospel to; to convert to Christianity

It seems to me that JOH uses the term proselytizing because if they used evangelization it would directly contradict the Great Commission Jesus gave to His disciples before He ascended into heaven. "Therefore, go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Matthew 28:19. The two terms, proselytize or evangelize, represent a distinction without much of a difference. The call to evangelize is scriptural, so using a term with a pejorative label, proselytizing, makes sense if your goal is to discourage evangelization. And that was surely on Pope Francis's agenda which Leo has made clear he's following. 

Instead of evangelizing and converting the world to Jesus Christ, we are being called to "envision the logic of encounter and mutual dialogue as the path" so we can "provide a new paradigm for resolving conflicts and help foster greater understanding and the protection of creation." [Discussing this phrase on creation calls for another entire post! Mother Earth seems to have replaced Mary as the New Eve.]

The document ends describing NA this way:

...this brief yet bold text has radically transformed the face of interreligious relations. The Church has moved from an attitude that was often reserved or distant to a courageous path of sincere dialogue, respectful encounter, and fraternal cooperation.

I find that paragraph incredibly offensive! Talk about being highhanded and arrogant! Tell that to all the missionaries who went forth to convert the world. They were all "reserved and distant" unlike Bishop Erwin Kräutler who bragged during the Amazon Synod that he never baptized an indigenous person. Tell it to Jean de Brebeuf who wrote the first French/Huron dictionary to enable better witness and service to the native Americans and was brutally tortured and executed by the Iroquois. Tell it to Fr. Damien who lived in union with the lepers of Molokai and became one himself. Should he have engaged with the witch doctors in "sincere dialogue" instead of confronting and rebuking them. Tell it to St. Francis Xavier who believed the missionary should learn the language and customs of those he was evangelizing. Unlike Bishop Kräutler, he is credited with baptizing 30,000 Indian and Japanese converts before dying of a fever on the point of expanding his missionary activity into China! Tell it to all the missionaries who loved those they served and often died gruesome deaths while serving heroically in often terrible circumstances. 

Frankly I'm sick of all this nonsense and blather coming from Rome from clerics who I doubt would even scrape their knees to bring souls to Christ by "proselytizing." I will pray for the pope and for the "freedom and exaltation of Holy Mother Church" every day until I die, but I can't respect the indifference and syncretism being preached at the highest levels of the Church. Frankly, it makes me physically nauseated!

Chris Jackson has a substack article on this that is worth your time. "The experiment [of Nostra Aetate] worked," but not for the good of the Church. Check it out here. 

Just to make things absolutely clear, I totally support working together with all faiths on joint projects. Decades ago I worked with a Protestant to start the Alexandria Life Chain when I was the pro-life chairman at St. Louis parish. I joined Operation Rescue and was arrested with over 200 others of mixed faiths at the Springtime of Life in Buffalo in 1991. After I moved to Woodstock in 2002 I started the Life Chain there and contacted most of the local Protestant churches and invited their participation. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims have worked together at the U.N. to defeat some of the worst feminist efforts to impose abortion on the world, a tremendous ecumenical effort. But that is not the same thing as diluting Church doctrine that Catholicism is the one true faith founded by Jesus Christ. And that is exactly what Nostra Aetate and its progeny are doing, no doubt about it. 

Come Lord Jesus and bring St. Michael and his legion of angels to drive out the demons invading our beloved Church. O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee and those who don't have recourse to thee, especially Freemasons and those most in need of thy care.