I don’t believe it is a straw man to demand the Church’s stamp of approval on a particular philosophy. As you yourself have said, the Church has sanctified Plato and Aristotle by using their thought to support the True Faith.
Sure, but only after people had been “experimenting” with this for quite a while, often under a good deal of official disapproval. You don’t wait around for the Church to approve this kind of thing. You do it in the light of established doctrinal principles and the guidance of your conscience, knowing that if you goof up the Church will rap you on the knuckles.
Even after Aquinas’s death, some of his teachings were condemned by the bishop of Paris as too influenced by Aristotle–only to be vindicated a few decades later when Aquinas was canonized.
You will find the stamp of approval here by reading the writings of Augustine and Aquinas. Perhaps this is acceptable syncretism. I thought that syncretism was the deformation of Christianity by introducing features of other religions into it, but if you want to call it syncretism when Augustine and Aquinas do it, then it is certainly acceptable
I don’t necessarily call it syncretism. You can define syncretism different ways. But people seem to want to use the word “syncretism” for any attempt to learn from non-Christian Eastern religions/philosophies. My point is that we must be consistent.
On its surface, Confucianism doesn’t seem to conflict with the tenets of Christianity. If a Chinese Catholic theologian argued for theology based in part on Confucianism, and his writings were accepted by the Church, and he was declared a Saint and Doctor, I wouldn’t have any problem with it. But it has not happened.
It’s not happened because Chinese Catholicism labors under a lot of disadvantages and hasn’t yet produced a lot of major theologians. This kind of thing has been done in other Asian cultures quite a bit–and frequently the Church has disapproved (Balasuriya was even excommunicated, although the excommunication was withdrawn after he clarified his position). That’s just part of the process. No Asian theologian who engages non-Christian traditions will be declared Saint and Doctor if Asian theologians sit around and wait for someone to be declared Saint and Doctor before they even begin engaging non-Christian traditions. That should be obvious.
We have to be very careful for ourselves of reaching out to random world religions and incorporating thoughts and ideas from them just because they seem good or holy.
Careful in the sense of respecting established dogma, sure. Careful beyond that–why? This is what baffles me about Catholics. I’m willing to accept the notion of infallibility–indeed, I find it appealing precisely because it seems to make this kind of paralyzing caution unnecessary. If the Church will correct individuals who go astray, and the Church as a whole (in union with the Pope) is protected by the Holy Spirit so that it won’t go astray, then why all the caution? Why not leave that to the poor Protestants who don’t have the promise of infallibility? Infallibility doesn’t actually seem to do you much good.
We are not necessarily guided by the Holy Spirit in these endeavors. We must permit the Church to guide us through her pastors and teaching authority.
Aren’t you part of the Church? Aren’t you then guided by the Spirit–not as an individual but precisely as part of the Church, under the Church’s teaching authority?
My argument is precisely that you
aren’t trusting the Church’s teaching authority to guide you. You seem to think that if you open the door to this kind of engagement with non-Christian religions there will be nothing to stop you. But the Church will stop you. So, again, why the fear?
The Catholic Church is called Catholic - not because it incorporates every world religion - but because it has a universal message, a universal applicability, a universal salvation for all men everywhere. Nothing more needs to be added to it to make it perfect.
Since when? When did that become true? It must have become true very recently, given how much the Catholic faith has developed over the centuries. And as I showed above, it’s not true that this development has only come from “within.” It’s often been stimulated by “external” factors. Because ultimately, if the Church is Catholic, nothing
good is external to it. Of course Catholicism isn’t going simply to include world religions as they stand. But it is capable of assimilating everything that is good in them–and yes that will contribute to fuller development, just as it has done already.
The Catholic Church jealously guards the Deposit of Faith from outside influence. If the Church in China or the Church in India think that Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, or Hinduism can be borrowed to strengthen or augment the True Faith, then let’s see them try.
They are already. And the Church condemns these efforts when they are mistaken, and allows them to proceed otherwise.
The Church has no need of Far East thought because it has all either been condemned as heresy or is already present as Truth in the Deposit of Faith.
On what do you base this claim? Are you saying that doctrinal development is over, or simply that the “Far East” in particular has nothing to contribute. If the latter, why?
Now that I have presented the negative angle, let me take a positive angle of affirmation: why spend your time on anything other than the Catholic faith?
Because God made the whole world, and because as Vatican II said the Church rejects nothing that is good and holy even if found outside her present visible borders.
Edwin
), because Confucianism has neither a strong metaphysical doctrine nor was Master Kung…Kong, or however his name actually is really pronounced, attempting to establish a religion of any particular sort - there really are few if any conflicts between Confucius and your Catholicism.