Catholic ecumenism among Christians expressly admitts and acknowledges the importance of the reality of doctrinal differences and disagreements. It aims, notwithstanding these, to nonetheless foster cooperation in common areas of concern and agreement, while also aiming to produce productive dialogue between the parties that might facilitate an ultimate reunion: Catholics, in their morning offering prayer, do in fact pray for the re-union of all Christians, which is necessarily an ecumenical petition; and this, according to the venerable prayer, arises from no other source than the Lordâs own Sacred Heart.
I am ok with praying for unity. But I am mainly objecting to the way it is done.
Today, all we have are prayer sessions where everyone gets together in different churchâs (or prayer service centers) and then pray and just have a good time. There is virtually no dialog.
I can see this friendliness as essential part of our starting step toward dialog. You cannot dialog with those who are always suspicious of you. I have had the misfortune of attending some non-Catholic forums and most of the time I am treated with suspicion or berated as a heretic. That is indeed not an environment for dialog.
BUT, today we have settled in to the groove of merely continuing in this âfriendlinessâ without any dialog. If you press the question, you will be rebutted as âthis is how ecumenism is done and no dialog is needed. People must convert by exampleâ.
In the mean time, Catechesis against the errors of these faiths are not heard of that prominently at your local parish mass anymore. Anything that is problematic is avoided in the name of ecumenism.
I feel that this just breeds confusion. I am honestly ok with ecumenism as long as the church continuously reminds and makes clear what the goal of ecumenism is suppossed to be. Instead, now its confusing and even I have doubts as to whether the Church is now saying that âwe are all just groups with different viewsâ.
Catholic ecumenism does not bury doctrinal differences under the rug or pretend like they do not actually exist: its first step is acknowledging, admitting and recognizing these important differences, which remain real differences. Catholic ecumenism, again, has two objectives: (i) co-operation and (ii) creating a forum or relationship that might (hopefully) one day lead to actual or full unity by way of increasing understanding among Christians. But even if (ii) is highly unlikely if not (from the point of view of reason) practically impossible, it still seeks cooperation on as many issues or fronts that the Church deems safe and worthy to foster, encourage or promote (e.g., humanitarian relief and assistance, helping and alleviating the poor at home, working for religious tolerance especially for Christians, etc.).
I think what you say above is excellent. I would also, like I said above, like it if the parishes that do engage in ecumenical work did continuously remind the faithful of what is the idea behind the actions. Just putting an event at another non-Catholic denomination out on a bulletin on the Church notice board without any warnings or reminders of the purpose of it seems to really cause confusion.
There is also the issue of encouraging mixed marriages in the name of ecumenism. I am not sure most people are capable of doing this in a way that benefits the church since most people already have the church as something they do on a Sunday. After marriage, the person will go to whichever service is closest and preferable and gradually drift away from the Church.
Catholic ecumenism is actually contrary to religious indifference because it expressly acknowledges the very real differences that divide Catholics and non-Catholics. Still, I confess there is a real danger that ecumenism could easily be interpreted as, and potentially for some possibly even result in, religious indifference, whether in belief or practice, which is detectable when a Catholic (for his part) actually imagines that the Churchâs doctrine -but especially dogma- has no bearing or binding upon him. Indifference is only really dangerous from a Catholic perspective when Catholics become practically indifferent *to their own *religion; however, I donât know of anyone who cites, e.g., the Churchâs practice of ecumenism as the reason why he or she professes that, e.g., abortion, contraception or a homosexual relationship is somehow morally licit; and I have never heard of a study that ties, e.g., Catholic laxity with the Churchâs practice of ecumenism.
I donât think anyone cites ecumenism as the reason. It just gradually leads a person down the road. The not-so-well catechized person who decides to attend the Bible study with his best Protestant friend (encouraged by his parish priest on the grounds of ecumenism) will end up baffled and âhave his eyes openedâ to the âerrorsâ of Catholic thought. Eventually he just becomes Protestant. Will he know it could have been prevented if the priest he sought advice from had been prudent? Most likely not. But it doesnât change the fact.
Imagine a situation where parents advise a child not to attend an ecumenical event but he argues that he should because his parish priest said it was what Christ called him to do so that âall may be oneâ?
To me, the assumption of encouraging ecumenism without much individual consideration of parish Catechesis levels or even individual level of maturity and other factors is itself a sign of imprudence at work. But this seems to be the majority practice today. All parishes are simply engaged in ecumenical work. That too is not dialog based but simply a way of attending different events at different churches. This just cannot be right.
