|
Edmund
Chia, FSC Edmund Chia is a De La Salle Brother from Malaysia but works in Thailand as Executive Secretary of the Office of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences. 1. Dominus Iesus and the Sensus Fidelium The Vatican Declaration Dominus Iesus, released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in September 2000, became the most "talked about" Vatican document in recent Church history. A significant criticism of the document is that it does not resonate well with the ground realities of the Church’s relations with persons of other religions. In an article written for an issue of an Indian theological journal specifically dedicated to Dominus Iesus, American theologian Paul Knitter even suggests that, on the basis of these many and varied criticisms, "the ‘sense of the faithful’ (sensus fidelium) in regard to other religious believers has been clarified, thanks to the CDF’s declaration".1 Knitter then went on to specifically point out that among the issues raised and clarified is the issue of "the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the one redeemer and mediator of salvation for humankind." He was actually quoting from an article by his fellow American Richard McBrien who in his article also advanced the thesis that among the Asian theologians there is the possibility that some may have erred: "In two or three cases, theologians may have gone too far in collapsing any meaningful distinction between Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ of faith and other so-called ‘Christ figures’".2 Knitter agreed with McBrien that the issue of the uniqueness of Jesus was a point of controversy but disagreed with the latter’s suggestion that this had arisen as a result of the work of "two or three" theologians. Knitter, who himself has been very much engaged in interreligious dialogue and is also a keen observer of Asian theology, asserts: "I find that there are many Catholics who are painfully struggling with the traditional teachings that Jesus is the one and only savior of all other people. In view of their encounter with the depth of religious experience in their non-Christian friends, many Catholics, both Asian and American, find it difficult to continue insisting, to these other religious friends and to themselves, that a saving experience of God must come only through Jesus and find its fulfilment only in him and his church".3 Even if McBrien’s "two or three" is not taken literally but understood to mean that an insignificant number of Asians have "denied the uniqueness of Jesus Christ",4 one wonders how he arrived at such a conclusion. Has he met enough Asians to come to that conclusion? Has he read enough Asian books — not only those available in the West, but also those by Asian publishers — to surmise that only very few Asians have problems with Jesus’ uniqueness? On the other hand, one can also ask how Knitter arrived at his own conclusion that McBrien is probably wrong? Does he have any data to substantiate his claims that "many" Catholics in Asia find it difficult to profess Jesus as the one and only saviour? Does he know anything about what the ordinary lay Catholic on the pews of Asian churches — not just Asian theologians — believe? These questions, asked of McBrien and Knitter, could also be posed to everyone else writing on Asian theology. Few, if not none, of the Asian theologians actually have any data to substantiate their hypotheses, be it in support of McBrien’s position or Knitter’s, or the CDF’s, for that matter. At best, theologians project their personal theological orientations onto their Catholic brothers and sisters and suggest it to be the sensus fidelium of the People of God in Asia. This "false consensus bias" influences much of the theological writings of Asia, especially when one attempts to speak on behalf of the Church in Asia. Moreover, many Asian theologians do not have too much contact with the Church and Christians living in other Asian countries other than their own. In fact, it is not surprising to find more Asian theologians who have visited and/or lived in European and American cities as compared to those who have done the same in another Asian City. Consequently, when the Indian theologian speaks of "Asian theology" s/he is in fact speaking from her/his own experience of India rather than of Asia as a whole. Likewise, when a Taiwanese theologian claims something to be "not in harmony with Asian beliefs", chances are that s/he has never ever been to Manila, Delhi, or Jakarta but has often visited Paris, New York, or Rome. In a way, theirs is really a comparison between the West and their experience of their own particular country rather than the West and Asia as a whole. To confound the problem, there is little valid data on what Catholics in Asia believe, just as there is little literature written from a truly pan-Asian experience.
2. An empirical survey It is in view of this absence of data that an empirical survey was conducted to get a feel of the sensus fidelium of the Asian Church on the issues raised by Dominus Iesus. Thus, a questionnaire survey was sent out by means of email to persons from all across Asia. For a period of 8 weeks between January and March 2002, a total of 394 responses were received from nearly twenty countries, from as far West as Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka to as far East as Indonesia and the Philippines to as far North as Japan, Korea and even Mongolia and China. 2.1. Analysis: in light of Dominus Iesus A descriptive analysis of the data of the survey, in light of the themes raised by Dominus Iesus (DI), is as follows: First, Dominus Iesus insists on the fullness and definitiveness of the revelation of Jesus Christ (DI, 5-6). The survey showed that out of a total of 394 respondents, 97% believe that Jesus is God’s revelation, while only 72% believe that he is indeed the "fullness" of God’s revelation. However, 44 % of these respondents believe on the one hand that Jesus is the fullness of God’s revelation and believe, on the other hand, that revelation is also given elsewhere, for example, in the other religions. Only 17% of the respondents who believe in the fullness of Jesus’ revelation assert its definitiveness in that they believe this revelation is given "only" in Jesus and not anywhere else. Whereas, 62% of the respondents believe not so much in the "fullness" or "definitiveness" of Jesus’ revelation but that revelation is given in Jesus as well as in the other religions. Second, Dominus Iesus postulates the unicity and universality of the salvific mystery of Jesus Christ (DI, 13-15). The results of the survey showed that out of a total of 394 respondents, 91% believe in Jesus as saviour of Christians as well as saviour of humankind. However, only 50% claim the unicity of this belief, asserting that Jesus is indeed the "only" saviour for all of humankind, while 25% of the respondents believe in Jesus’ universality as well as the possibility of other saviours for humankind. Third, Dominus Iesus insists on the necessity of the Church for salvation (DI, 20-21). This does not mean, however, that everyone has to be baptized, as the document also states that those who do not belong to the Church can still be saved through the Church, even if it is not known how that happens (DI, 20). Not taking into account the apparent ambiguity these statements raise, the survey, nevertheless, showed that 84% of the respondents believe the Church to be a means of salvation. However, only 36% of the respondents believe in the "necessity" of the Church for salvation. Of these, only 12% would rule out absolutely the possibility of salvation through other religions. On the other hand, 20%, while believing in the necessity of the Church for salvation, also admit that other religions could be means of salvation. More significant is that 58% of the respondents hold that the Church is indeed a means of salvation — albeit not a "necessary" means — and at the same time hold that other religions could also be means of salvation. Fourth, Dominus Iesus asserts that those who are in the Church have the fullness of the means of salvation (DI, 22). 62% of the respondents believe in this assertion, while 24% oppose it. The document then goes on to contrast this with the followers of other religions who are regarded as being in a gravely deficient situation. Of those who believe the first assertion that those who belong to the Church have the fullness of the means of salvation, 35% also believe in this second assertion that the followers of other religions are indeed in a deficient situation, while another 35% disagree with this second assertion. Fifth, Dominus Iesus posits that the Church reserves the designation of inspired texts only to the Bible (DI, 8). Of the 394 total respondents, 92% believe the Bible is indeed the inspired Word of God. However, only 22% would go as far as Dominus Iesus to insist that the Bible is the "only" inspired text or sacred Word of God. Whereas, 47% accept the Bible as God’s Word and at the same time accept the possibility of other sacred scriptures as God’s Word. Sixth, Dominus Iesus asserts that the true religion exists in the Catholic Church (DI, 23) and distinguishes this as "theological faith" as compared to other religions which are regarded only as mere "beliefs" (DI, 7). The results of the survey showed that 91% of the respondents believe Christianity to be indeed a true religion. However, of these, only 30% would assert that there can be no other true religions while 45% subscribe to the view that there can be other true religions, just as Christianity is a true religion. Seventh, Dominus Iesus warns against the spirit of indifferentism characterized by a belief that "one religion is as good as another" (DI, 22). The results showed that 36% of the respondents are indifferent and subscribe to the idea that belonging to one religion is as good as belonging to another, while 48% of those who responded disagreed with the idea. Eight, Dominus Iesus warns against relativistic theories which seek to justify that it is indeed within God’s plan that different religions exist de jure [in principle] (DI, 4). The results of the survey revealed that 49% subscribe to the notion that religious pluralism exists de jure while 20% disagreed with the notion. Ninth, in keeping with the advances made by the Second Vatican Council, Dominus Iesus insists that interreligious dialogue "retains its full force and necessity" (DI, 22). Of the 394 respondents, 95% agreed that Catholic in Asia should be engaged in interreligious dialogue with their neighbours of other religions, while only 1% disagreed with the idea. A summarized version of these results are presented in Table 1 as follows: (Table 1)
3. Discussion on the results 3.1. The Statistics Speak From the results of the survey, a few observations can be made. Firstly, it is clear that the following items yielded very high percentages, viz. more than 90%: no.1, no.6, no.7, no.19, and no.22. In other words, more than 90% of the 394 respondent sample affirm the theological assertions of the numbered items concerned. Specifically, they affirm that Jesus is God’s revelation (97%), that Jesus is saviour for Christians (91%), that Jesus is saviour for all humankind (91%), that the Bible is God’s Word (92%), and that Christianity is a true religion (91%). Since these are the most fundamental and basic faith affirmations which distinguish Christians from those who are not Christians, it is safe to say that more than 90% of the respondent sample are believing Christians. The remaining who did not affirm these fundamental Christian beliefs are probably nominal Christians, skeptics, and/or people who project themselves as agnostics for the purpose of the present survey. In any case, since these latter didn’t seem to identify with Christianity’s basic beliefs, their responses in the survey were discounted. For, it would make no sense to include a response from them which claimed that other religions are not true if, in the first place, they also do not believe in Jesus or the Church either. That only five of the numbered items received such unanimous affirmations speaks volumes of the sensus fidelium of the People of God in Asia. In particular, it reveals that amongst Asian Catholics, only these five doctrinal assertions are widely adhered to. In a way, if Dominus Iesus was re-written for Asian Catholics, this is probably how it would begin its first article: "The fundamental contents of the profession of the Christian faith for Catholics in Asia are expressed thus (cf. DI, 1): I believe in one God, the Father, Almighty. I believe in the Lord, Jesus Christ, who is God’s revelation and who is saviour for Christians as well as for all of humankind. I believe that the Bible, the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, is the sacred Word of God. I believe that the true religion exists in Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular". That’s it. There will probably be no affirmation of Jesus as the only saviour or of the Church as necessary for salvation. On the other hand, of course this does not suggest that Asian Catholics do not affirm other doctrines of faith. It only implies that as far as the theological themes raised by Dominus Iesus are concerned, these are the only ones which they overwhelmingly subscribe to. A second observation is that even if more than 90% of the respondent sample are decidedly Christian, a significant proportion amongst this same 90% are also decidedly open to and receptive of other religions. For example, 62 % believe God’s revelation is also given in other religions (no.5), 25% allow the possibility of other saviours (no.9), 58% acknowledge that other religions could be means of salvation (no.14), 35% do not believe persons of other religions are deficient as compared to Christians (no.18), 47% allow for other scriptures as God’s Word (no.21), 45% believe that there could be other true religions besides Christianity (no.24), and 49% accept religious pluralism as within the plan of God (no.27). Averaging these seven percentages would give a figure of between 40 and 50%. Hence, in very general terms, one can say that about 40-50% of Asian Catholics have a sense of openness to other religions. Indeed, contrary to the presuppositions and demands of Dominus Iesus, this significant proportion of Asian Catholics do not believe that either Jesus, the Church or Christianity is the sole, unique or normative repository of truth. It is important to be reminded that these same respondents also affirm the basic beliefs which Dominus Iesus postulates, except that they reject some of the more extreme and exclusive assertions, especially those which seem to question the integrity and authenticity of the other religions. Thus, if Dominus Iesus were to be re-written for Asia, it would probably not begin — as does DI, 1 — with the mission mandate: "Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk 16:15-16). Instead, it would probably begin with: "Stop judging, that you will not be judged" (Mt 7:1) or "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you" (Mt 7:12). Such is the respect Asian Catholics have for their neighbours of other faiths and such is the respect they expect others to have for them in their believe of Jesus, the Church and Christianity. A third observation is that a very small percentage of the respondent sample affirmed the more exclusivistic assertions of Dominus Iesus. Specifically, only 17% of the 394 respondents affirm that God’s revelation is given only in Jesus and not in the other religions (no.4), 50% affirm that Jesus is the only saviour and that there can be no other saviour figures (no.8), 12% affirm that the other religions are not means of salvation (no.12), 35% affirm that the other religions are deficient as compared to those in the Church who have the fullness of the means of salvation (no.17), 22% affirm that the Bible is the only Word of God and that other scriptures are not God’s Word (no.20), 30% affirm that Christianity is the only true religion (no.23) and 20% affirm that it is not within God’s plan to have many religions (No.28). Leaving aside No. 8, where a significant 50% of the respondents affirm Jesus as the only saviour, the percentages of the other six items average about 20-25% of the respondent sample. In other words, in very general terms, only about 20-25% of Asian Catholics would subscribe to the very exclusivistic aspects advanced by Dominus Iesus which do not acknowledge that truth can also be found in other religions. It cannot be glossed over that a significant 50% of the respondent sample affirm the assertion that Jesus is indeed the one and only saviour for all of humankind. To be exact, it was 49.7% as 196 out of the total of 394 respondents affirm this theological doctrine. On the other hand, 198 (50.3%) did not affirm the doctrine. This, however, does not mean they reject the doctrine. Out of this 50.3%, about half or 25% affirm the possibility of other saviour figures while the other half are undecided on the issue. The finding is significant as it is primarily this issue of the possibility of other saviours which has been most sensitive and controversial. That 25% of the respondents were unable to declare their position on the issue is also significant. To be sure, the theory of the plurality of saviours remains ambiguous and is not as definitive as Dominus Iesus has made it out to be. The sensus fidelium of the People of God of Asia certainly reveals that. Moreover, even Dominus Iesus is not as definitive as it seems. In fact, article 14 of the document invites the Church "to explore if and in what way the historical figures and positive elements of [the other] religions may fall within the divine plan of salvation" (DI, 14). The findings of the research, therefore, call to question the very strong reprimands — such as "it must be firmly believed" or "it is contrary to the faith" — which Dominus Iesus employs. To be sure, the issues are far from firm and final. Moreover, if the sensus fidelium does not correspond to these doctrinal positions, no matter how insistent the Vatican is about them, such beliefs cannot be forced upon the People of God, especially in Asia, where Christians experience other religions everyday of their lives. In summary, therefore, one can say that amongst Asian Catholics, more than 90% believe in the basic tenets of the Christian faith. Amongst these, about 40-50% also display a theological openness to other religions while only half that number, or 20-25%, harbour theological positions which exclude the viability of the other religions. 3.2. The Respondents Speak One very important statistic not looked at is that only 84% of the respondents agree that the Church is a means of salvation (No.10). Given that more than 90% of the sample are believing Christians, one would have expected many more of the respondents to affirm this fundamental tenet of the Christian faith, viz. that salvation comes through the Church. After all, isn’t that why one is baptized into the Church? On the other hand, it would be presumptuous to imagine all Catholics are aware of this point of catechesis. A comment by an undergraduate respondent captures this well: "I’m guilty of not remembering much from my catechism, so I don’t really understand the full significance of baptism. I guess it is a very important thing — after all, it’s a sacrament — but I’m not sure about this". While this lack of knowledge may be few and far between, others who do understand the significance of the Church and baptism raise questions about the authenticity of the institutional Church, thus clouding their own ecclesiological understandings about the Church in relation to salvation. "Yes, the Church is a way of being and supporting each other and is a means of salvation. However, the Church as an institution is failing I feel to be a true follower of Christ. It has wealth, yet keeps asking for donations. It has fallen sick, since ancient days, from power, wealth, control, ambition, pride, selfishness, and self-righteousness", remarks a young woman who works at management level for a non-profit women’s organization. Thus, if only 84% — and not much more — of the sample affirm the Church as a means of salvation, it could be because of a variety of reasons, ranging from plain ignorance as to what the theological assertion implies to a sincere conviction that the Church is forfeiting its rightful role as a means of salvation. However, on the question of whether the Church is "necessary" for salvation, the majority of Asian Catholics seem quite clear on the matter as only 36% of the respondents insists the Church is necessary. Most of these responses probably did not take into account the subtlety expressed in Dominus Iesus which continues to insist that the Church is "necessary" even if it grants that salvation is also possible for "those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church" (DI, 20). With or without this subtle qualification in Dominus Iesus, Asian Catholics, on account of their lived experience, are generally convinced that baptism is not necessary, just as they feel the Church is not necessary. A self-employed woman from Singapore expressed this conviction thus: "Our God is a kind God and would he neglect those who for some reasons were not baptized? Like my mum who was a very kind soul and passed away without being baptized because no one brought the knowledge and faith to her. But I believe she is now happy with God in eternity". Another respondent, a Malaysian journalist, expressed similar convictions but in question form: "What about Encik Mokhtar, the Muslim man working for the conservation of the Belum Valley forests, because he as a human person is a steward of creation? What about the strong presence of God’s spirit in his actions and words? Is he excluded from salvation just because he is not baptized? [Encik Mokhtar is just one example of a real person. I mention it here because I saw Christ-likeness in his ways and actions and speech on a recent research trip up to the forest]." Perhaps this issue of the necessity of the Church for salvation, in the context of religious pluralism, is best captured by the response of a bishop, who asserted: "The Church is necessary for salvation in the sense that it is a Sign as well as a witness to the invitation for the salvation of all. If one does not recognize this Sign, or does not want to accept the invitation, then it usually means that the person has found some other way meaningful to him/her. Therefore, I don’t think it is necessary for every person to be baptized. But it is necessary for each person to find some Sign or direction in his/her life. As a Christian, I must continue to give witness to the Sign which I think is the correct and true one". This brings the discussion to whether Christianity is indeed the true religion or if Jesus is the fullness of God’s revelation or if Christians have the fullness of the means of salvation. The statistics showed that 91% of the respondents affirm Christianity as a true religion (no.22), 72% affirm the assertion that Jesus is the fullness of God’s revelation (no.2) and that 62% affirm the assertion that, indeed, Christians have the fullness of the means of salvation (no.15). The responses, however, have to be looked at in view of the fact that a great proportion of these respondents — as discussed earlier — had also affirmed the truth of other religions, the possibility of other revelations, and the efficacy of other religions as means of salvation. For those who operate from an exclusive and dialectical either-or philosophical mindset, such a position may seem contradictory and thus untenable. However, for Asians who generally operate from a mutually inclusive both - and mindset of complimentarity, it is all too common for such display of openness to and acknowledgment of two different and perhaps contradictory truths. The comments of a student from Japan captures this spirit well: "For me, Jesus is my only saviour. But I am not sure about others. If there are people who have their own savior, I think we should all respect their faith". Others see this openness as an existential and pragmatic matter. A respondent who works as an administrative assistant described it such: "We are all brought up in a multiracial country. It’s our duty to respect one another regardless of religion. Whether it’s the fullness of the means of salvation or not. This question makes me feel uncomfortable ... Sorry.… If you let others see this, hmmm, you gonna start a fight.… Ten Commandments: Love your neighbour as you love yourself!". Ignoring the fact that this last quote of "love for neighbour" is not really part of the Ten Commandments, the message is clear — our lived reality demands we respect each others’ ultimate commitments, even if we ourselves sincerely believe in our own unique Christian commitment that Jesus is indeed God’s revelation and our saviour. A general manager of a finance company in Indonesia expressed similar sentiments: "I feel very lucky and proud to be a Catholic because according to me Catholicism is the correct and true religion. But it should be noted that other than the Catholic religion, all humankind can be saved too". Yet another respondent, a retired teacher from Malaysia, reconciled this seemingly contradictory dilemma thus: "I’m sure of my own religion and so I follow my religion. Maybe other religions can be true too and I hope other people can be saved by their religion. If there are different roads to go to Kuala Lumpur, I prefer to go the way I’m sure of instead of trying some other ways that I may end up getting lost." Others expressed similar sentiments of openness to other religions but with a certain bias towards that which they themselves adhere to. A pastoral counselor had this to say: "Personally I am biased that the revelation of Jesus seems more wholesome than most others, but again by no means the totality. A bit like the Rolls Royce of automobiles. Most cars can take you to the same destination but some others are more lovely, comfortable and wonderful to ride in". It is not too far-fetched to suggest that the preceding comments and positions taken represent a sort of implicit theology that many Asian Catholics adhere to. A variance of such a position is seen from the response of a male student: "It is very selfish to say that all people of other faiths will not be saved just because they are not Christians. A good and righteous person, just because he isn’t Christian, doesn’t mean that he is condemned to hell". Others may not be as explicit and raised questions about their beliefs as, for example, the response from a senior application specialist: "Although I have heard and believe that salvation is possible only through Christ, but there may be Christians who are bad and there may be non-believers who are good". Of course, those who are uncertain can find recourse in God’s mystery as, for example, a female employee of an MNC from Indonesia, who had this to say: "He is mystery, cannot be comprehended by me. But up till today, I believe I’m on the right track, i.e. Christianity". Yet others are definitely more explicit as, for example, the response of a young female accountant: "As long as I believe that mine is a true religion, it is not important to me whether the rest are true or not". These last comments beg further discussion, especially in connection with Dominus Iesus’ caution on the "mentality of indifferentism ‘characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that one religion is as good as another’" (DI, 22). In fact, in response to the question if other religions could also be means of salvation, the respondent of the last comment also said: "Why not? I believe in one thing but why should everyone be made to believe what I believe?" These comments, it must be reminded, have to be taken in light of the fact that the respondents have also acknowledged the definitiveness of Jesus’ revelation and his salvific role for all of humanity. Thus, in no way does it suggest the theological position taken lacks rootedness, as it would if it were relativistic and subjectivistic. In fact, the same respondent further declared: "Personally, I would not want to belong to any other religion, but if one is already of another, I can’t see why it is less good if the person is not of deviant character". A Filipino teacher expressed rather similar sentiments, but from a hypothetical perspective: "Had I been born to a family where Islam is the known true religion, or Buddhism, I would adhere to it as I do adhere to Christianity as my family’s religion". Another respondent, a Religious Brother of an indigenous tribe living on the Borneo island, had this to share about his own personal life: "I grew up with my Muslim relatives and friends and therefore I have no problem accepting Islam. Each and every person is different and God’s revelation also varies from one person to another. I think everyone has a right to choose a belief system that suits his/her uniqueness". Another respondent, a young female TV producer, advises: "To each his own. I believe if it works for you and makes you a better person, that’s cool". On the other hand, of course, there are those who, like Dominus Iesus, reject such "relativist" theories. One respondent, who works as a Management Support Officer, asserts: "The other religions are man-made religions which may teach their followers to be good, but ours is the true religion where our God comes down to mankind to live as one of us, to show us the way and to die in order to save us. No other religion can boast of this and that He rose again, which proves His divinity". Another, a General Project Manager of two Industrial Estates and a Freelance Architect, shared similar sentiments: "Not because I am a Catholic, but as far as I know there’s no quote nor word in any other religion which guarantees people salvation. It’s only Jesus Christ who taught and guaranteed our salvation". A woman, who works in customer service, shares similar sentiments but expressed it a little differently: "I don’t mean to sound fanatical, but in my findings on other religious teachings, there’s no God so loving, forgiving, so close to men as in Christianity. A God who loved people so much that He allowed His only son to experience death in the most disgraced form. A God I can call Father!" The response of a middle-aged businessman is even more specific in this affirmation of faith: "Only in the Roman Catholic Church the means are complete with the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist and the Pope that can be traced back to St Peter". Another respondent, a Religious retired from active high-school teaching, suggested why the relativist theory could be problematic: "There could not be more than one saviour as that would imply different teachings and paths of salvation. Since truth can only be one and so there can be only one religion that is the true religion". Yet another respondent, a young priest from the Mekong valley, personalized this affirmation of faith. When asked if Christianity is the true religion, he responded: "Yes, I certainly believe. If I do not believe it why can I totally give my whole life to God and for God". Others rejected the relativist hypothesis by appealing to hypothetical situations, as for example, the response of a young woman who was an Electronic Publisher before but is now a homemaker: "If we believe that truth is revealed in other religions, then we might as well say that salvation and truth can be via the other religions. When that happens we might as well worship other gods and forget about ‘I believe in one God’. And when you believe in other religions you might as well believe and practice the things condoned by the other religions — if they teach the principles of Christianity [believe in one God, love thy neighbour, forgiveness, thou shall not kill, etc.] then Yes. However, if they teach these and then something else contradictory, then No". Along similar orientations, to the question if interreligious dialogue is essential for Catholics in Asia, one respondent, a computer operator, responded: "It creates confusion and even sometimes is a scandal to other Catholics. In our secular lives we normally have dialogues with others [Catholics and Non-Catholics], but when it comes to religious matters, we need to convert them. What did our Lord command us to do — isn’t it to convert non-believers to believe what He taught us? Go, convert them and baptize them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Didn’t He say this?". Of course, as is evidenced from the statistics, only 1% of the sample respondents rejected the need for interreligious dialogue. 95% affirmed it wholeheartedly while the remaining did not express an opinion. Needless to say, the reasons for interreligious dialogue are also varied. An undergraduate female suggested one: "I myself am largely ignorant of other religious practices and beliefs. I think it is necessary so that we can work together toward a common good and have respect for one another without overtly trying to convert them... yet... that will come in His own time — maybe weeks, months, years, or at the end of our lives". Others do not harbour such explicit ulterior motives but see dialogue as a process for self-enrichment, as evidenced in the response of another female student: "There is so much that we do not know about other religions. How can we even start to understand what we do not know? It’s about time we got to it rather than making wild guesses and condemning each other’s religions, as we Asians are so fond of doing". There are also those who see interreligious dialogue as essential in view of Christianity’s minority status as, for example, the response from a young journalist: "Since Catholicism is a minority religion in Asia, it’s best that Catholics engage in interreligious dialogue to foster better understanding with our neighbours of other religions. This will certainly help create an environment where people of all religions can co-exist peacefully." These last comments of interreligious dialogue being a means for peace resonate well with another response, from an MNC employee in Indonesia: "Look at Indonesia, where I belong. This idea would help a lot". Another respondent, an employee in a shipping company also from Indonesia, confirmed the need for interreligious dialogue: "Yes, very important. However in my country it never works, because we are being slaughtered, our churches are burned and the environment is hostile everywhere". Others speak of the existing culture of enmity and isolation in different terms as, for example, the response of a female business manager: "It might do us all good to have a wider perspective of things so that we can live in the real world. Right now too many of us are living in cloistered homogenous communities and not only that, having blinkers on as well". A student formator from the Philippines is more positive and sees interreligious dialogue as more for mutual enrichment: "We have to engage in interreligious dialogue so that people with different faiths, beliefs and religious practices could somehow be enriched and enhanced in their being Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, etc. And at the same time able to appreciate the beauty and wonder of one’s religion." Another such response came from a Consultant of Corporate Strategy, E-business & Development: "Yes, by understanding each other makes the environment a better place to live in. Even in my career, understanding customers’ needs and wants are important for corporate strategies and marketability too".
4. Discussion on the survey A final area which needs to be discussed is the feedback received on the survey itself. To be sure, many of the respondents expressed surprise at a survey of the present nature. This is in part because academic surveys are not as common a feature in Asian cultures as they are in the West. Moreover, surveys which deal with religious questions are even more atypical. Thus, it did not come as a surprise that many of the respondents sent additional email messages expressing their fascination at the nature of the survey. One message read: "I'm interested in these sort of surveys. Do forward me more if any. Just wondering if there are any these type of on-line questions and answers in regards to the Catholic faith." Aside from those who found the survey interesting others were so interested that they asked that the results be shared with them. One respondent even asked: "Do you have ‘model’ answers? If you have I like to have them". A few of the respondents asked why the study was being done and how the questions came into being. Some shared that even if this was the first time ever that they had come across questions such as those asked in the survey, they found them thought provoking. Some wanted to know if they were the only ones responding the way they did as, for example, a message which read: "I hope I do not scare you with my ‘radical’ way of thinking. I would be interested to be kept informed of the consolidated results of your survey to see if my thinking is ‘average’". A few wrote back to request for more time to work on the survey, saying something to the effect that "I want to reflect carefully on the questions because I think they will help me to work through my beliefs". One person said she was making photocopies of the survey and would request her parish priest to distribute it to all the parish-council members, for "it will be good for them to do". On the basis of some of these feedback, it looked as if the survey had become more than a statistical instrument to measure Asian Catholics’ beliefs as it had also taken on the function of a formation tool. These observations beg three points. Firstly, if many of these respondents expressed surprise at the nature of the questions it is because they had not come across the document Dominus Iesus. If they had, they would have recognized that the issues raised in the survey were really those of the document. Of course, a few respondents did recognize the document when they wrote to say, "Looks like you are working on Dominus Iesus!". The majority, however, had no idea where the issues came from or why they were being discussed because they had equally no idea of the existence of Dominus Iesus. Given that the survey was conducted more than a year after the document was officially issued, it only suggests that the Vatican document had not trickled down to the masses. Perhaps the bishops of Asia found the document too complex and technical and so decided that it should remain on the shelves of libraries rather than being disseminated. Perhaps the bishops found the issues raised by Dominus Iesus simply unimportant or irrelevant to the peoples of Asia and so decided against passing it on to their parishes. Whatever it is, these facts speak volumes of the reception of the document, which is supposed to have the status of "Universal Magisterium". Secondly, if the Asian bishops had decided that the document Dominus Iesus was irrelevant it is more because the "answers" were so, but by no means the questions. One respondent, a parish priest from Japan, who left many of the questions unanswered, commented: "I found that most of the questions if answered with A, B, or C, are too black and white and do not give a true reading of what a lot of us are thinking along these lines". Another respondent, also a priest but from India, who refused to accomplish the entire questionnaire, expressed similar sentiments: "I found the questions rather tricky especially since I strongly feel that we are caught in our own language game". Thus, if Dominus Iesus was deemed irrelevant it could be because it attempted to provide too many "black and white" answers which had to be "firmly adhered to," without taking note of the "language games" which we trap ourselves into. A third point which the observations raise is that even if many of the respondents were unfamiliar with the nature of the questions asked, they found the questions truly interesting. To be sure, the questions were not only interesting, but also thought provoking and for some even bothersome or at least bordering on the sensitive. A Religious Sister from the Mekong Valley had this to say: "May I not answer the questionnaire. It’s very catching. My superior in the house told me in a joking manner she is afraid she might lose her faith while reflecting on the questions asked!". A few more messages which expressed similar sentiments were equally friendly. Other friendly messages also advocated caution as, for example, one message which read: "This could be controversial so brace yourself for some negative feedback by some well meaning Catholics". Two messages, however, were particularly pointed. The first, which had responded to the questions half-way, had this to say: "I don’t like to answer your questions anymore. If you like to know more, it is better you ask the bishops, especially those who have doctorate degrees. Please excuse me if I am too rude". The second, with a similarly angry tone, was even more direct in his challenge to me: "To Edmund. I come straight to the point. Why are you doing this survey? Why is it necessary for you to do this survey? Why are you targeting Catholics? Who authorized you with those questions in your so-called survey? Are you trying to doubt the Catholics’ faith, or create confusion? What’s your objective?". As can be seen from the preceding comments, the questionnaire was not only thought provoking but viewed with a certain degree of suspicion as well, in view of the questions which seemed to have hit at the core of the Christian’s being. In fact, the questions seemed to have caused much tension as they questioned the respondent’s faith, especially in relation to her/his lived reality of religious pluralism. Of course, one way to deal with such tension is to block out the lived reality and act as if persons of other religions did not exist. Another way is to simply relegate them to the "unsaved" and be contend that Christianity is the superior and only true religion. The sincere seeker, however, will find such strategies of dealing with the tension untenable and could end up being even more confused and vulnerable. An emotive comment from one respondent captures this sense of vulnerability well: "I believe that only Christianity is for me, and it is different from the rest in a special way. However, I feel uncomfortable in saying my religion is the best, simply because that would imply that the other religions are not good and doing something wrong. That is difficult to say because a lot of religions preach goodness, and it is difficult to say goodness is wrong, just because it is of a different religion. Yet, I also am torn by the fact I’ve learnt all the time in Sunday School that Christianity is the true religion. It is true, but does it necessarily mean that others are not? What is religion anyway? Common beliefs? Ultimate truths? Argghh ... this is confusing". Another response, which expressed a similar dialectical tension, had this to say: "This is what I believe, although deep in my heart wish this is not 100% right, so more people can be saved from hell".
5. Win-win conclusion These last two comments seem to indicate that there are some Asian Catholics who have to struggle with their contextual reality of the experience of truth and beauty in the other religions which is then juxtaposed against their catechism which insists that these are not from God. It is as if their experience and heart seem to be perceiving reality one way while their knowledge and head suggest otherwise. This is probably what Paul Knitter was referring to when he said many Catholics are "painfully struggling" with the dichotomy between the teachings of their faith as against their day-to-day experience of very positive relations with persons of other religions. This struggle adheres as the catechism and theological formation imparted in most Asian seminaries and Sunday Schools continue to be those which are borrowed from the West, where the phenomenon of religious pluralism is absent or ignored. Hence, it comes as no surprise that the masses, the grassroots, are in the main indoctrinated with theologies which are alien to their contextual experience and which do not resonate with their lived realities. This is not to suggest that contextual theologies are not being developed in Asia. To be sure, they are, but have remained primarily in the academic realm, and hence influence only the intellectuals and the theologians. A comment by Indian theologian Michael Amaladoss captures the current predicament well: "If contextual theology is not being taught in the seminaries and formation houses, then it will continue to remain mainly in theological journals." These final comments seem to suggest that perhaps Richard McBrien was also accurate in his assertion that only an insignificant number of Asians are involved in advocating what is seen as "relativistic" theories which attribute as much value to other savior figures as to Jesus Christ. These are mainly the theologians and scholars who constitute a tiny minority of the Catholic community in Asia. The others, and especially the grassroots, have practically no access to contextual theologies which could help them apprehend the religious pluralism of the Asian context. These latter group have only Western theologies such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Dominus Iesus to go by and hence experience a dialectical tension between what they believe on the head level and what they experience at the heart level. Thus, on the theological and cognitive levels they might articulate theologies which assert the superiority of Catholicism, but on the affective and experiential levels, they might be convinced that this could not be. In other words, if there are only a few Asians who can dogmatically pronounce the possibility of other saviors and the truth of other religions, there are many who actually feel and experience such a reality from the depths of their being even if they may not be able to intellectually assert that conviction. Be that as it may, the conclusion one draws from these discussions is that while Knitter is correct in his assertion, McBrien is also correct in his own assertion. Both, therefore, are right. This win-win conclusion, of course, is true to the Asian spirit of yin-yang complimentarity and mutual inclusion. Notes 1 Paul knitter, "Dominus Iesus and the Hermeneutics of Reception", Jeevadhara: A Journal of Christian Interpretation, Vol. XXXI, n. 83, May 2001, p. 183. 2 Richard McBrien, "'Finding' Christ in Other Religions", National Catholic Reporter, 22 December 2000. 3 Ibid. 4 Knitter argues that Asian theologians do not actually "deny" Jesus' uniqueness. To be sure, they have no difficulty accepting Jesus as saviour. They only ask if Jesus is indeed the "only" saviour. "Truly but perhaps not only", is Knitter's mantra. 5 Private conversation between Fr Michael Amaladoss and the author on 20 February 2002 at Nijmegen. The Netherlands. This conversation is in relation to a recently-conceived long-term project to evaluate and develop a more integrated and contextual curricula for the teaching of theology in Asian contexts.
The full report of the survey is available upon request. If you wish to re-publish this article in a journal, kindly contact edchia@pc.jaring.my. Also, Criticisms, Comments and Feedback are very welcome. Thank you.
Ref.: Text from the Author. March 2002.
|