The Church in Dialogue: What Approach? And With Whom?

The Second Vatican Council’s Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes says that the Church has the duty of responding to “the perennial questions which men ask about this present life and the life to come, and about the relationship of the one to the other,” in “language intelligible to each generation.” So too, one often hears that the Church should be “in dialogue” with the modern world. This is not the same as “accompanying” people, which presupposes no disagreement.  In dialogue, the parties can disagree in hopes of coming to a better understanding of one another.

So, let’s accept for the moment the notion that it is good that the Church sets itself the goal of entering into a dialogue with this generation. But a dialogue with whom? And what language would be intelligible to them?  “Modernity” is not a monolithic entity.  The Church does not have merely one dialogue partner, but a host of them, each with its own presuppositions and its own “language.” So the Church must learn to speak in multiple languages to different audiences. To be effective, the approach they must take will differ depending on the group they are addressing.

Some of the Church’s dialogue partners, for example, still accept the old Enlightenment dichotomy between reasonable “science” and unreasonable “faith.” The Church addresses this group by trying to show the reasonableness of the faith. These texts tend to be more densely “philosophical.”

When the Church tries to show that the tenets of the faith are as reasonable as any philosophy, there will be “Bible Christians” who accuse the Church of subjecting the Scriptures to human reason and creating an “unbiblical theology.”  When the Church works to show how her positions are well supported Biblically, the Enlightenment group accuses her of believing in the authority of an outdated, archaic text.  So the situation is even more complicated than having to learn to speak multiple languages.  Speaking “intelligibly” to one group can alienate the others.

There are some who find the language of Enlightenment science and reason too restrictive.  They prefer the language of passion and beauty.  For them, the philosophical language the Church uses in her conversation with scientists is too “logical,” too “deductive,” too bound up with philosophical categories.  The Church, they say, needs to be more “pastoral,” by which they mean more “open,” more attentive to people’s emotions and their “lived experience.”  That’s fine, but it’s not an approach that works well with everyone, especially hard scientists and serious philosophers for whom such “emotional appeals” seem like manipulation of the ignorant.

Some, like the Marxists, criticize the Church for being overly concerned with the things of Heaven and not sufficiently concerned with the injustices found on earth.  They call the faith “the opiate of the masses” because the hope for Heaven, they believe, anesthetizes the faithful to the abuses they are suffering now, especially from political and social injustices.  This is obviously an unfair criticism, since the Church has never been shy about fighting human injustice, and no group has done more to help the poor and the working classes than the Church.  So the Church makes statements about political, social, and economic injustice.

When it does, however, other groups will criticize it for being “too political,” insisting that the Church should be laser-focused on “getting people into Heaven.”  And when the Church defends the poor and the weakest in society, followers of Friedrich Nietzsche accuse the Church of supporting a “slave morality,” undermining the strength, drive, and “manliness” of the culture.

The Church needs to dialogue with all these different groups. But the “language” and the approach with which the Church addresses one group will not necessarily work with the others.  For some, Church documents are based too much on the Scriptures.  For others, there’s not enough Scripture. For some, there’s not enough social concern. For others, there’s far too much.  Some criticize the Church for being “undemocratic” and “monarchical.”  Others condemn the Church for being “socialist.”  Some complain there should be more condemnation of politicians. Others insist that there should be none.

Have you ever been in a one-on-one conversation with someone when a third person, not understanding the history and context of the conversation, breaks in with a comment, criticism, or question that has little or nothing to do with the conversation you’ve been having? Do you find that annoying?  Have you ever wanted to say: “Hey, figure out what conversation is going on before you break in; you totally misunderstood what we were saying”?

If so, then perhaps you might say to yourself, when you’re reading a Church document whose style and tone aren’t to your liking, something like this: “You know, maybe this document isn’t for me.  Maybe I’m not the one this document is in conversation with. Maybe it’s meant for someone else with different concerns.” There are other people in the world, after all, and not all of them are just like you. The Church tries to address everyone.  But she can’t always address everyone in one and the same document, using the same language and approach.

There’s also this. I learned as a student that when a wise teacher speaks, you listen.  I had teachers who were brilliant scholars and great lecturers, and others who were brilliant but not great lecturers.  Some were superb at Socratic questioning, but most were not.  And there was one who mumbled quietly sitting at a desk, but if you listened closely, you found out not only that his knowledge was amazing, but he also had a hilarious dry wit.

The point is, if you know they have that gift of wisdom, you listen with all your mind and heart, however they impart it. Otherwise, it’s like having someone serve you the best, most nourishing meal you’ve ever had in your life, but you reject it because you don’t like the style of the plate it is served on.

You don’t get fed that way.