Wasn't Pope John Paul II Wrong to Reject Proselytism?

[Steve_O_Brien]

Solid, informed Catholics should realize that even Popes can occasionally make statements that they ought not to make–statements that contradict the Faith and cause scandal. The dogma of papal infallibility does *not *mean that God has prevented all utterances of this kind during the Church’s history. It is only when the Vicar of Christ teaches ex cathedra that his statements are protected from error by the charism of infallibility.

Against this background, I respectfully pose the following question: is it not true–sadly–that Pope John Paul II made a statement that conflicts with the Faith? In a joint declaration with Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I on December 7, 1987, John Paul II said the following:

“In this spirit, we reject every form of proselytism . . .].”

I have translated from the Italian text to be found on the Vatican’s own Web site (“In questo spirito rifiutiamo ogni forma di proselitismo . . .]”):

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1987/december/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19871207_dichiarazione-comune_it.html

From the perspective of Catholic doctrine, John Paul II’s non-ex cathedra statement is erroneous for the following reasons: since the Catholic Church is the one true Church, Catholics should urge all non-Catholics, including Eastern Orthodox Christians, to convert to Catholicism. This is proselytism, i.e., the encouragement of conversion to the one true religion.

As Vatican II’s Unitatis redintegratio 4 teaches:

“However, it is evident that, when individuals wish for full Catholic communion, their preparation and reconciliation is an undertaking which of its nature is distinct from ecumenical action. But there is no opposition between the two, since both proceed from the marvelous ways of God.”

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[davidv]

Using this definition of “*proselytize: *To induce someone to convert to one’s own religious faith” (from the American Heritage Dictionary)

Our role is not to “induce”, we are to proclaim the Good News. It is the Holy Spirit’s role to do the inducing.

With the above in mind his statement is not erroneous.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Using this definition of “*proselytize: *To induce someone to convert to one’s own religious faith” (from the American Heritage Dictionary)

Our role is not to “induce”, we are to proclaim the Good News. It is the Holy Spirit’s role to do the inducing.

With the above in mind his statement is not erroneous.

The English verb “to induce” is derived from the Latin verb ducere, which means “to lead.” When we proclaim the Gospel, we are inducing-- i.e., leading–non-Catholics to convert (of their own free will and in cooperation with God’s actual grace) to the one true Faith.

The above understanding of proselytism is the official teaching of the Catholic Church:

"The transmission of the Christian faith consists primarily in proclaiming Jesus Christ in order to lead others to faith in him" (CCC 425; my emphasis).**

Regrettably, Pope John Paul II, by repudiating proselytism, implicitly denied the truth taught in CCC 425.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[porthos11]

I think evangelization is the better term. Perhaps his statement can be reconciled.

I loved our late Pope very much, and do hope to see him elevated to the honors of the altar.

However, If I were the devil’s advocate at his canonization process, I would use this against him most forcefully, among others.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I think evangelization is the better term. Perhaps his statement can be reconciled.

I loved our late Pope very much, and do hope to see him elevated to the honors of the altar.

However, If I were the devil’s advocate at his canonization process, I would use this against him most forcefully, among others.

Pope John Paul II’s erroneous and scandalous statement repudiating proselytism is only one of the reasons why the Church cannot and will not canonize him.

Still, we should be grateful for John Paul II’s issuance of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and we should respectfully evaluate his statement in the light of section 425 and similar sections of the new catechism.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Mirdath]

I do not know Italian, but that wording struck me enough to give it a shot. It just didn’t sound like John Paul II, if you know what I mean. I came back with something rather interesting. Here’s the entire sentence: In questo spirito rifiutiamo ogni forma di proselitismo, ogni atteggiamento che sarebbe o potrebbe essere percepito come una mancanza di rispetto.

Babelfish, in its ever-charming way, returns this: In this spirit we refuse every shape of proselytism, every attitude that would be or could be perceived like one respect lack.

Note the rest of the context! It’s clumsy from the automatic translation, but it’s pretty easy to see what JP was getting at: be respectful of others’ persons and beliefs in your evangelization. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

So Steve, may I ask why you only translated the first part of the sentence?

 

[scylla]

So he essentially was saying that prostelytism was wrong if we disrespected the person. Which I as a Catholic would affirm, I cannot disrespect the person by forcing them, hurting them or abusing them, uncharitably.

Now this would not mean that I cannot call them a liar if they prove themselves a liar, a coward if they run away in a debate in front of people or a false prophet if I prove them so. Is this correct?

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I do not know Italian, but that wording struck me enough to give it a shot. It just didn’t sound like John Paul II, if you know what I mean. I came back with something rather interesting. Here’s the entire sentence: In questo spirito rifiutiamo ogni forma di proselitismo, ogni atteggiamento che sarebbe o potrebbe essere percepito come una mancanza di rispetto.

Babelfish, in its ever-charming way, returns this: In this spirit we refuse every shape of proselytism, every attitude that would be or could be perceived like one respect lack.

Note the rest of the context! It’s clumsy from the automatic translation, but it’s pretty easy to see what JP was getting at: be respectful of others’ persons and beliefs in your evangelization. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

So Steve, may I ask why you only translated the first part of the sentence?

I translated only the first part of the sentence for this reason: the second direct object is unnecessary for understanding the main point of the sentence.

Nonetheless, to make an issue of the second direct object may make Pope John Paul II’s erroneous and scandalous declaration even worse–provided that we understand the second concept as describing the nature of the first concept. If John Paul II meant that "every form" of proselytism (i.e., the desire to spread the Faith to non-Catholics) is not only something to be rejected but is also an ***“attitude that would be or could be perceived to be a lack of respect,” ***then, in the objective sense, his statement would be blasphemous.

It would be blasphemous because it would imply that Jesus’s command to “proclaim the gospel to every creature” (*Mk *16:15; 1986 NAB) ) manifests a sinful lack of respect for those who do not believe in the Gospel.

This is ***not ***to say that Pope John Paul II intended to commit blasphemy or that he was subjectively guilty of that sin. It is to say this: by repudiating proselytism, he made a mistake arising from confusion surrounding the authentically Catholic concept of ecumenism as taught in Vatican II’s Unitatis redintegratio and his own CCC.

While uncompromisingly accepting the primacy and infallibility of the successor of Peter in the senses defined by the Catholic Church, Catholics should avoid the confusion that characterizes this statement of John Paul II. In such an instance, we must acknowledge that a Pope can make a mistake.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Mirdath]

I translated only the first part of the sentence for this reason: the second direct object is unnecessary for understanding the main point of the sentence.

It’s a common rhetorical device to give a simple form and then expand upon it. The object of the sentence is not merely ‘proselytism’, it’s ‘proselytism and attitudes’ which ‘could show a lack of respect’. All he’s saying is that tactless evangelization is to be avoided.

Accusing the pope of scandal or blasphemy is quite a reach, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

So he essentially was saying that proselytism was wrong if we disrespected the person. Which I as a Catholic would affirm. I cannot disrespect the person by forcing them, hurting them or abusing them, uncharitably.

Now this would not mean that I cannot call them a liar if they prove themselves a liar, a coward if they run away in a debate in front of people or a false prophet if I prove them so. Is this correct?

In Christ
Scylla

No, John Paul II said that he rejected "every form" of proselytism.

A non-confused Catholic cannot say this, for the one true Faith must be spread to all those who do not yet possess it. Consequently, non-Catholics should be persuaded to convert (of their own free will and with the help of actual grace) to Catholicism. This promotion of conversions to the Catholic Church is a form of proselytism.

Calling one’s opponent in an apologetic dialogue a liar, coward, or false prophet is a separate issue. On both principled and pragmatic grounds, such words should be avoided; this is not the way to defend and spread the Faith. I respectfully suggest this source: Vatican II’s Gaudium et spes 28.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[porthos11]

No, John Paul II said that he rejected "every form" of proselytism.

A non-confused Catholic cannot say this, for the one true Faith must be spread to all those who do not yet possess it. Consequently, non-Catholics should be persuaded to convert (of their own free will and with the help of actual grace) to Catholicism. This promotion of conversions to the Catholic Church is a form of proselytism.

Calling one’s opponent in an apologetic dialogue a liar, coward, or false prophet is a separate issue. On both principled and pragmatic grounds, such words should be avoided; this is not the way to defend and spread the Faith. I respectfully suggest this source: Vatican II’s Gaudium et spes 28.

Keep and spread the Faith.

Are you absolutely certain you’ve translated the Italian absolutely correctly? Just making sure.

If you don’t mind, could you translate the whole sentence, please?

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Are you absolutely certain you’ve translated the Italian absolutely correctly? Just making sure.

If you don’t mind, could you translate the whole sentence, please?

After citing *Eph *5:29, Pope John Paul II says:

"In questo spirito rifiutiamo ogni forma di proselitismo, ogni atteggiamento che sarebbe o potrebbe essere percepito come una mancanza di rispetto."

"In this spirit, we reject every form of proselytism, every attitude that would or could be perceived as a lack of respect."

I invite native speakers of Italian to revise my translation.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Black_Knight]

The English verb “to induce” is derived from the Latin verb ducere, which means “to lead.” When we proclaim the Gospel, we are inducing-- i.e., leading–non-Catholics to convert (of their own free will and in cooperation with God’s actual grace) to the one true Faith.

The above understanding of proselytism is the official teaching of the Catholic Church:

"The transmission of the Christian faith consists primarily in proclaiming Jesus Christ in order to lead others to faith in him" (CCC* 425; my emphasis).*

Regrettably, Pope John Paul II, by repudiating proselytism, implicitly denied the truth taught in CCC 425.

Keep and spread the Faith.

After citing *Eph *5:29, Pope John Paul II says:

"In this spirit, we reject every form of proselytism, every attitude that would or could be perceived as a lack of respect."

I disagree with you.

The last line says it all, and those last 4 words are the crux of the whole matter.

Semantics aside, proselytism carries the connotation of force or coercion or bullying and is not valid evangelism.

I doubt I know a Catholic who is a better soul winner than John Paul II and even in his death he was used by God to bring many into the faith.

This is the same sort of fundamentalist thinking that so many non-Catholics have today that encourages them to draw errant conclusions from passages of scripture and attempt to make a case for (or against, in the case of anti-Catholics) something that is not really there.
Blackie

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I disagree with you.

The last line says it all, and those last 4 words are the crux of the whole matter.

Semantics aside, proselytism carries the connotation of force or coercion or bullying and is not valid evangelism.

I doubt I know a Catholic who is a better soul winner than John Paul II and even in his death he was used by God to bring many into the faith.

This is the same sort of fundamentalist thinking that so many non-Catholics have today that encourages them to draw errant conclusions from passages of scripture and attempt to make a case for (or against, in the case of anti-Catholics) something that is not really there.
Blackie

The thinking defended in my posts on this thread is Catholic, not “fundamentalist.” This is confirmed by the citations from authoritative Catholic sources (Scripture, Vatican II, and the CCC).

Pope John Paul II made his anti-proselytism statement jointly with the Easter Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Dimtrios I. Since Eastern Orthodox churches strongly object to ***any ***attempts to persuade their members to return to Catholic unity–whether or not those attempts involve coercion–it was John Paul II’s obligation to specify that he was rejecting only coercion if that was in fact what he meant. John Paul II, however, made no such distinction, but instead repudiated "every form" of proselytism. In the light of Catholic doctrine, he ought not to have done this.

Secondly, anyone who checks the Merriam-Webster online dictionary will see that proselytism is defined simply as the attempt to persuade someone to convert to one’s religion. This kind of apostolate is exactly the kind in which Catholics should enage, since their religion is the true religion and their Church is the one Church of Christ (*CCC *2105). Consequently, we cannot “reject every form of proselytism.”

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Tigerhawk]

Secondly, anyone who checks the Merriam-Webster online dictionary will see that proselytism is defined simply as the attempt to persuade someone to convert to one’s own religion. This kind of apostolate is exactly the kind in which Catholics should enage, since their religion is the true religion and their Church is the one Church of Christ (*CCC *2105). Consequently, we cannot “reject every form of proselytism.”

Keep and spread the Faith.

Jimmy Akin was asked the difference between evangelize and proselytize on today’s Catholic Answers Live show.

catholic.com/radio/event.php?calendar=1&category=&event=4639&date=2007-05-31

It isn’t uploaded yet as of this posting, but I am sure it will be shortly.

The short answer is that it depends on who you ask, but most everybody agrees that proselytizing is bad and evangelizing is good, and that generally proselytizing has the connotation of converting by force or deception.

Perhaps that isn’t the definition listed in Webster’s but the Church defines its own terms and I think if he had intended proselytize to mean evangelize he would have used the work evangelize. I think it is clear from the rest of the sentence that was left out of the original post that in his mind proselytize clearly means something different. Also, if the proselytize means what you argue it to mean then Patriarch Dimtrios I must also be against evangelization. I would think that between the two of them and the dozens of theologians they probably had review the statement that at least one of them would have realized that we are called to evangelize and proselytize means the same thing so maybe we shouldn’t condemn it.

A side note: it is a fundamentalist tactic to run to dictionaries for the definitions of words. The Church has the both the authority and the right to define words however it pleases without regard to secular and Protestant dictionary publishers.

Also keep in mind that this is the Pope that called the Church to a “New Evangelization”. As another poster said if proselytize means evangelize that sure doesn’t sound like Pope John Paul II.

A note on the CCC references: neither 425 or 2105 use the word proselytize. 2105 does use the word evangelizing. Also, the index does not have an entry for proselytization. However, it does have one for evangelization. Do you have a single reference from a Catholic source that says we should proselytize (the actual word itself) or that has a definition of proselytize specifying it as synonymous with evangelize?

If not, I think we should all assume based on popular connotation and the clear indication from the full context of the statement and the review that the statement under went that what is meant by proselytize is not evangelization.

On both principled and pragmatic grounds, one should not accuse the Pope of blasphemy when there is much room for benefit of the doubt as there is here when the full context of the statement is provided.

Finally, I would like to see the rest of the list of reason’s “why the Church cannot and will not canonize” Pope John Paul II. Another statement which probably should be kept to oneself on both principled and pragmatic grounds.

 

[Church_Militant]

The thinking defended in my posts on this thread is Catholic, not “fundamentalist.” This is confirmed by the citations from authoritative Catholic sources (Scripture, Vatican II, and the CCC

).

Pope John Paul II made his anti-proselytism statement jointly with the Easter Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Dimtrios I. Since Eastern Orthodox churches strongly object to ***any ***attempts to persuade their members to return to Catholic unity–whether or not those attempts involve coercion–it was John Paul II’s obligation to specify that he was rejecting only coercion if that was in fact what he meant. John Paul II, however, made no such distinction, but instead repudiated "every form" of proselytism. In the light of Catholic doctrine, he ought not to have done this.

Secondly, anyone who checks the Merriam-Webster online dictionary will see that proselytism is defined simply as the attempt to persuade someone to convert to one’s religion. This kind of apostolate is exactly the kind in which Catholics should enage, since their religion is the true religion and their Church is the one Church of Christ (*CCC *2105). Consequently, we cannot “reject every form of proselytism.”

Keep and spread the Faith.Oh but we can…and I will. What you espouse is about the same as the “evangelism” that so many a-Cs attempt to dump on Catholics, and it’s just as wrong for them too.

His Holiness made a good statement and I agree with it whole heartedly, not to mention that I have probably been instrumental in winning more souls to our most holy faith than even I realize. I do know of many, and not one did I have to coerce or proselytize.

Tell me. Do you see any of the kind of “evangelism” you are pushing for in the Gospels? Or anywhere in the New Testament? How about in the lives of any of the holiest of saints on record?

St. Francis of Assisi maybe? No?
St. Maximillian Kolbe perhaps? No?
St. Polycarp? No again?
St. Ignatius of Antioch? Really? No?

Nah man, Blackie’s right. You’re forcing your own interpretation onto the text of His Holiness’ statement, in much the same way that n-Cs and a-Cs force their interpretations onto passages of scripture when the text doesn’t really support their beliefs.

I fully agree with Vatican II’s Unitatis redintegratio 4.

“However, it is evident that, when individuals wish for full Catholic communion, their preparation and reconciliation is an undertaking which of its nature is distinct from ecumenical action. But there is no opposition between the two, since both proceed from the marvelous ways of God.”

Where do you see anything that might even imply proselytizing by coercion?

I think St. Peter had something even more relevant to say on this matter. (1st Peter 3) 13: Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is right?
14: But even if you do suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,
15: but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;
16: and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
17: For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God’s will, than for doing wrong.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

The short answer is that it depends on who you ask, but most everybody agrees that proselytizing is bad and evangelizing is good, and that generally proselytizing has the connotation of converting by force or deception.

What Pope John Paul II and Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I meant in 1987 when they repudiated proselytism can be seen in section 22 of the 1993 Balamand Statement, which was published by the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church:

“Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Oriental, no longer aims at having the faithful of one church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful, and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church.”

Pope John Paul II commended the Balamand Statement in section 60 of his 1995 encyclical Ut unum sint; consequently, it has to be concluded that that he accepted the above definition of the word “proselytism.” This definition, which does not include coercion or deception, does reject the obligation to attempt to persuade Eastern Orthodox Christians to return to Catholic unity by establishing communion with the successor of Peter, i.e., by converting to the Catholic Faith. No Catholic can reject this obligation, which is an integral component of spreading the one true Faith.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Vincent]

The proselytizing activity of the sects and new religious groups in many parts of America is a grave hindrance to the work of evangelization. **The word “proselytism” has a negative meaning when it indicates a way of winning followers which does not respect the freedom of those to whom a specific kind of religious propaganda is directed. **(280) The Catholic Church in America is critical of proselytism by the sects and, for this reason, rejects methods of this kind in her own evangelizing work. Presenting the Gospel of Christ in its entirety, the work of evangelization must respect the inner sanctuary of every individual’s conscience, where the decisive and absolutely personal dialogue between grace and human freedom unfolds.
[Footnote 280: Cf. *Instrumentum Laboris, 45]

John Paul II, Ecclesia in America 73

 

[Tigerhawk]

“Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Oriental, no longer aims at having the faithful of one church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful, and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church.”

Another of the negative connotations of the word proselytize is the disrespecting of another religion by specifically targeting its members in this case the Eastern Orthodox.

No where does that statement say that we as individual Catholics cannot and should not evangelize. It does not say that the Catholic Church as a whole should or will not evangelize.

It says the Catholic Church respects the Orthodox Church and will not specifically target its members.

The Catholic Church is attempting to reconcile with the Orthodox Churches and bring them in their entirety into union with us.

Again proselytize in this context is not synonymous with evangelize.

Can you show me a single Catholic source that says evangelize and proselytize are synonymous?

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

The proselytizing activity of the sects and new religious groups in many parts of America is a grave hindrance to the work of evangelization. **The word “proselytism” has a negative meaning when it indicates a way of winning followers which does not respect the freedom of those to whom a specific kind of religious propaganda is directed. **(280) The Catholic Church in America is critical of proselytism by the sects and, for this reason, rejects methods of this kind in her own evangelizing work. Presenting the Gospel of Christ in its entirety, the work of evangelization must respect the inner sanctuary of every individual’s conscience, where the decisive and absolutely personal dialogue between grace and human freedom unfolds.[Footnote 280: Cf. *Instrumentum Laboris, 45]

John Paul II, Ecclesia in America 73

Clearly, a Pope–in fact, every Catholic–must object to the efforts of Protestants who attempt to persuade Catholics to become members of Protestant ecclesial communities. One must never abandon the Catholic Church, which is the one true Church outside which there is no salvation (*CCC *2105, 846).

Nevertheless, no Catholic can object to the efforts of Catholics who attempt to persuade Protestants to make a free decision to become members of the Catholic Church. In other words, Catholic efforts to proselytize among Protestants by encouraging uncoerced conversions to Catholicism are not only valid but also necessary in the light of Jesus’s command to “proclaim the gospel to every creature” (Mk 16:15; 1986 NAB). Only the Catholic Church teaches the fullness of the Gospel (CCC 816).

By the same token, no Catholic–not even a Pope–can object to the efforts of Catholics (either Latin-rite or Eastern Catholics) who attempt to persuade Eastern Orthodox Christians to make a free decision to become members of the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately, Pope John Paul II, by commending the 1993 Balamand Statement in section 60 of his 1995 encyclical Ut unum sint, implicitly repudiated the obligation of Catholics to encourage conversions to Catholicism among Eastern Orthodox Christians. This repudiation worsened the scandal that he had created by joining the Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I on December 7, 1987, in rejecting “every kind of proselytism.” No Catholic can reject the proselytizing efforts of Catholics among either Protestant or Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Keep and spread the Faith.