The Catholic bishops have provided a gloss on the Vatican declaration titled Dominus Iesus which is evidently intended to assuage offence given to other Christian churches on this island. I belong to what I safely call the uncomfortable majority who would have wished for a more forthright response, such as has been voiced by various church leaders in other countries.

The declaration takes aim in its introduction at a number of what are termed "presuppositions". Those cited include:

"the conviction of the elusiveness and inexpressibility of divine truth, even by Christian revelation";

"relativistic attitudes toward truth itself, according to which what is true for some would not be true for others";

"opposition posited between the logical mentality of the West and the symbolic mentality of the East", and

tendencies to reduce incarnation to a "mere appearing of God in history".

The listing, it seems to me, includes a representative collection of the sorts of issues that a thinking person may become engaged with in these times. Increased interaction between people of diverse cultures, easier travel and the digital revolution, along with a general climate of questioning, inevitably give currency to questions about the claims that are made for one's own belief system.

Even those increasing numbers who do not acknowledge any particular religious identity will usually be prepared to acknowledge some sense of the transcendent, often combined with a negativity towards what may be seen as formalistic religiosity. Thus one may hear it said that a person must speak his or her "own truth". People will describe themselves as "spiritual" but not "religious".

The opening of psychological perspectives on the spiritual gives rise to what may be termed a language of "soul" (and soul friends, or the Anam Chara phenomenon).

Disciplines which owe their origins to the East, such as meditation and yoga, are seen as valuable antidotes to dehumanising tendencies in Western living and current patterns of working, getting and spending.

The Christian who recites a Zen meditation chant for the first time may wonder whether any faith statement is implied.

The question is afloat as to whether what is described as "spirit" can have more than one name. Jacob Needleman (Money and the Meaning of Life) sees "spirit" as involved in the reconciliation of physical and material needs and desires on the one hand and higher nature on the other.

He says the very experience of these different forces within the human is itself an abundance which, if consciously received, will cause the universe to pour into that person "what is called life in Judaism, spirit in Christianity, light in Islam, power in Taoism . . ."

Setting up what are no more than reasonable questions as "presuppositions" opens the way in this declaration to treating them like skittles.

David Ford (Self and Salvation) also recognises that rejections of the Christian testimonies are based on presuppositions - "presuppositions about what creation is like, what is likely to happen in history and whether this sort of God is credible".

Working "within a framework of basic trust in the testimonies", he finds such issues raising radical questions for "believers as well as unbelievers" so that "developments in philosophy, the sciences, the arts and history have to be engaged with more fully as a result".

He adds that "it would be odd if this were not the case for an event [the resurrection] claimed to be as fundamental as creation".

The content of Dominus Iesus offers little engagement with a reader who chooses to sit with any such questions. A tight series of assertions is frequently laced by the phrase "must be believed" or a variant. "There is a single divine economy" within which the spirit is to be found.

What does it mean today to tell anyone that anything "must be believed"? Can belief be commanded in the divine economy? Or is it a case that you don't belong if you don't? Is the target audience primarily those in office or ministry, for whom the message may be that you cannot justifiably hold the position you have or do the work you want to do, if what you say is not fully onside with this document?

Its path leads from assertion of Catholic primacy to ill-judged remarks about other belief systems. There is abundant evidence that these remarks, whatever be the legalistic constructs on which they are founded, are in collision with the good sense of the faithful. They do violence, moreover, to the core message.

The 13th stroke of the clock, in addition to being wrong in itself, casts doubt on the preceding 12. I do not think this document gives support to those of us who blunder towards a personal sense of cosmic significance in the Christ event.

Its grinding, coercive tone and texture leaves orphans in its wake. It renders more necessary the contribution of other Christian churches in engaging minds and hearts with the good news.

Fergus Armstrong is a lawyer practising in Dublin