It is not enough to imitate what is being done elsewhere. We must be realistic and creative. Where there is proselytism, apologetics; where dialogue is accepted, ecumenism.

Different Situations

Not all those who do not share our faith have the same attitude toward us. Some are open to dialogue and understanding, and others are not. Among the latter there are those who have an openly aggressive and proselytizing attitude.

Well then, how should we react in the face of such different situations? Is the recipe of dialogue, tolerance and good faith enough? Would this not be a sin of naivete, mental laziness and lack of responsibility toward the “weak in faith,” who are easily dragged away by “ravenous wolves”?

Ecumenism

Already by the end of the nineteenth century, missionary experience in Africa and Asia had brought to light the negative effects of the “scandal of division”: everyone speaking of the same God and using the same Bible, but divided among themselves, in an attitude of open opposition of one group against another.

For this reason many remained skeptical about the goodness and effectiveness of the new creed. “First come to an agreement among yourselves,” they thought, “and then come and teach us ‘your Gospel,’ which evidently does not represent any good news for us, since it carries within itself the seeds of division among families and throughout society.”

To overcome this scandalous situation and present a common front before the non-Christian world, at the beginning of the twentieth century people began to speak of “Ecumenism,” until the World Council of Churches was formed in 1948. Well then, with the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (1962-1965) the Catholic Church entered into this new order of ideas, gradually becoming the standard-bearer of this great ideal of Christ: “That they may all be one” (John 17:21).

Interreligious Dialogue

Soon the dialogue with the “separated brethren” went beyond the borders of the Christian world, reaching the Jews, “our elder brothers,” and all men of good will, belonging to the most varied religious expressions: Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, etc.

The foundation: the unity of the human race and of the plan of salvation, which embraces all men (1 Tim 2:3); therefore, in all men and in all cultures the saving action of God is already present, and we must know how to discover, appreciate and respect it.

Eastern and Muslim Counter-Mission

While Europe, weary from the devastation of the Second World War, caused by the fanaticism of ideologies, was turning toward the ideals of understanding and unity, the Eastern world and the Muslim world, setting foot on European soil because of the same war, began to glimpse the possibility of an “ideological-religious conquest of the Western world.” Thus arose the Eastern counter-mission and the various Islamic fundamentalisms, directed toward the affirmation of their own cultural identity, in an attitude of rejection toward everything Western and of conquest in relation to the Christian world.

Explosion of the Sects

Within Christianity itself there already existed separated groups that were deeply proselytizing: Baptists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists and the evangelical-Pentecostal line, subdivided into countless small groups.

Well then, after the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, with the rise of liberation theology, these groups received strong support from the governments of the United States and the other countries of Latin America as a means of restraining the action of the Church, which was very committed to popular causes, and of redirecting to a spiritualist plane the dissatisfaction of the masses, caused by their marginalization at the social, political and economic levels.

One of the causes of the advance of these groups in Catholic-majority countries has been the desire to apply the “ecumenical” recipe in relation to them. Results: instead of softening in the face of the Church’s conciliatory attitude, they became even bolder, achieving unsuspected proselytizing successes. What happened was that the European vision of the problem of division imposed itself, preventing the local churches from clearly perceiving their real problem and from seeking the appropriate means to face it.

Apologetics and Ecumenism: Two Sides of the Same Coin

At bottom, it is a question of the problem of unity: a unity that must be preserved (apologetics) and a unity that must be restored (ecumenism). Apologetics is directed essentially toward those who are inside the Church, so that they may feel secure in what they profess and not leave; while ecumenism is directed essentially toward those who are outside, so that they may enter into a process of seeking unity (John 17:21). Nevertheless, in practice many saw in apologetics a “holy war,” and therefore discarded it; and in ecumenism they saw the only way to face the problem of religious division. Unable to dialogue with proselytizing groups, they remained with their arms crossed, leaving the “weak in faith” without any kind of protection against the aggression of the sects, at the mercy of the “ravenous wolves.”

What we who are struggling to “revive sound apologetics” intend is that we be more realistic, seeing what our people truly need and trying to help them, without harming the cause of ecumenism, which has its reason for being.

Would that everyone were sincere and open to dialogue! But this does not correspond to reality. The fact is that there are concrete plans for the “conquest” of the Catholic world on the part of evangelicalism. In the face of the advance of an invading army, one cannot simply speak of peace and nothing more, letting it advance at will. First it must be stopped. Only afterward will it be possible to make it sit down at the negotiating table.

Priorities

It is a fact that the Catholic world is being profoundly disturbed by the sectarian phenomenon. Therefore, action aimed at strengthening the faith of its members is urgent, emphasizing their own identity and insisting on the great values of unity, truth and fidelity: elements that only sound apologetics can offer.

Where the presence of separated churches that are at the same time open to dialogue is decisive, there it will be necessary to insist on ecumenical dialogue as a means of favoring mutual understanding and taking concrete steps along the path of full unity.

In other places the presence of the great non-Christian religions prevails: Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Hinduism, etc. There it will be necessary to attempt interreligious dialogue, in the search for the values present in each culture and religious expression, capable of leavening society and guiding it toward the realization of the Kingdom. What is happening now is that everywhere people want to do the same thing, without realizing that these are different realities, which deserve very particular attention, case by case. Where proselytizing groups prevail, apologetics evidently has to be established; where the separated historic churches prevail, ecumenism has to be promoted more; and where the presence of the great non-Christian religions is decisive, the problem of interreligious dialogue has to be faced with complete seriousness.

Now, what specific contribution, concretely, could the Latin American experience offer to the Catholic world, attacked by the action of the sects? A good handling of the principles of sound apologetics, carried out without fanaticism, with the sole concern of strengthening the faith of the weakest (Ezek 34; John 10).

And this is what in practice is not being done, because of a misunderstood ecumenism and an inferiority complex in relation to the European problem and to the overwhelming role of the Holy See, directed essentially along the lines of ecumenism and interreligious dialogue.

Sound Balance

When speaking of priority, one is not speaking of exclusivity. It is not that in Latin America we have to concern ourselves “only” with apologetics. We must be prepared for everything and, when the opportunity presents itself, we must know how to dialogue with those who are open to dialogue. What we mean is that in our environments, so attacked by sectarian proselytism, what is most urgent is to ground the Catholic’s faith in such a way that he becomes “impermeable” to their solicitations. It is here that we must “send off sparks,” so that afterward we may communicate our experience to others.

Now, wanting to shut oneself up in ecumenical dialogue, without even trying to seek another path to face the problem of the sects, allowing entire Catholic communities to be ruined, is a sign of narrow-mindedness and pastoral irresponsibility. One day an account will have to be given for this before God and history.

Conclusion

Medicine is not always pleasant to the eye and tasty to the palate. And in any case, it must be taken if one wants to be healed. The same happens with apologetics: although it may not be to everyone’s taste, one must know how to handle it if one wants to face the problem of the sects seriously.

On the other hand, is it not always better to be prepared to defend one’s own faith and dialogue with others? Or is it preferable to “throw” Catholics out there without awareness of their own identity? It would be like sending soldiers to war without weapons. Better to be well grounded in one’s own faith and thus be prepared to dialogue with everyone and, in case of need, to be capable of “giving a reason for one’s own hope” (1 Pet 3:15).

Author: Fr. Flaviano Amatulli A.P.