A chara, - Thank you for your coverage of the recent document by Cardinal Ratzinger, highlighting phrases which you fear may presage an "unravelling decades of ecumenical endeavour and dialogue" (Editorial, September 8th).
The sad thing is that the ecumenical movement, as it has developed in the past 30 years, was always going to come to this crunch sooner or later. I lived in Australia in the 1970s and we Roman Catholics were told very definitely that the changes in Catholic liturgy and practice were designed to remove unnecessary barriers to the return of post-Reformation communities to the Catholic Church. In the documents of Vatican II may be seen the paragraph. "Nothing, however, could be more foreign to the spirit of true ecumenism than a false irenicism which seeks to obscure the position of the Catholic Church."
In a very short time, however, the goalposts started moving. It has never been possible to get a straight answer to the question, "Where are we all going?" There has been a benign but woolly feeling that, if we only work together, the differences separating us will somehow evaporate. Any objections to this were treated as a lapse of charity.
Yet the more clear-headed, I respectfully submit, saw from the very beginning that, in the very nature of things, where two sides take opposite positions, the only way to unity is for one or both to renounce their position. Taking one of your own examples, unbroken episcopal succession from the Apostles either is or is not an essential criterion for membership of the Universal Church founded by Christ. Nothing will ever be gained by simply declining to discuss this proposition; rather the day of true unity will be indefinitely postponed.
There was never any excuse for Christians to treat each other - or any other fellow-human - uncharitably; our Founder had particularly hard things to say on this subject. But this does not excuse us from the duty of seeking the truth. And Christ founded one Church, not churches. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and cannot, of its nature, be divided, although individuals can detach themselves from it.
I can only suggest that we continue our endeavours to work together for common good without, however, entertaining unreal hopes that certain fundamental differences will simply go away. Actually, we cannot expect all to agree on what, in fact, is the "common good" without more progress, involving settling certain doctrinal issues, by which, one side or both will inevitably have to renounce its position - for example, whether divorce, or women priests, can ever be entertained.
False hopes lead to despair in the end. I thank you for your statement that "no-one should expect a church to do anything but assert its own claims: a church that is not missionary is a church that faces extinction". Yet the perpetuation of an organisation is still only a sideissue; we must seek the Divine Truth without fear or favour. It will hurt at times. There will be sacrifices. There is no other way. - Is mise,
M. O Fearghail, Glanmire, Co Cork.