By Thomas Storck | July-August 2023 | New Oxford Review |

I have long felt a certain disquietude about writing this article. As a mere foot soldier in the Church militant, I hesitate to question publicly something that is supported so strongly by those who are set over the Church of God. Pope St. John Paul II wrote in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint (1995), “At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed herself irrevocably to following the path of the ecumenical venture” (no. 3; emphasis in original). But, as I hope will become clear, a commitment to the ecumenical movement is not, and cannot be, a doctrine of the Church but merely a policy.

If we consider the many varying and even conflicting policies proposed or undertaken by numerous pontiffs through history — such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, the excommunication and deposition of Protestant rulers, the suppression and then restoration of the Jesuits, and even ecumenism itself — it is obvious that a Catholic has no obligation to agree with any of these mutable policies. Moreover, in the words of the Code of Canon Law, the laity may “manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church [and also] make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful” (can. 212:3).

The visible unity of all Christians is something every Catholic should desire. The Second Vatican Council’s “Decree on Ecumenism,” Unitatis Redintegratio (1964), which gave birth to the Church’s continuing involvement in the ecumenical movement, states that the Church is undertaking merely another way of achieving the old and honorable purpose of “the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ” (no. 24).

Although the means are different, the intention is something the Church has sought since the Protestant Reformation and, in fact, since the earliest schisms that separated Christians from the unity of the Church. If this is the case, then why do I have misgivings about ecumenism? What possible objection could I have? Why, in fact, do I see ecumenism as a danger and as having actually inflicted damage on the Church? To begin to answer these questions, let us look briefly at the history of the ecumenical movement and the Church’s stance toward it.

There is, as many have noted elsewhere, a fissiparous tendency in Protestantism — which, over the centuries, has splintered into thousands of denominations, sects, and independent congregations — born of differences in doctrine, biblical interpretation, worship practices, and even the personalities of ministers. Although there were efforts at unity on the part of Protestants off and on from nearly the time of their break from the Catholic Church in the 1500s, it was shortly after 1900 that many Protestant denominations began to exhibit more serious signs of such a desire. Without recounting the entire history of the ecumenical movement, we may note that in 1910 the first major ecumenical gathering was held in Edinburgh, Scotland, an event that eventually resulted in the formation of the World Council of Churches. This movement was the result of three primary causes.

First, the numerous points of doctrine over which Protestants had differed were coming to lose their importance in the eyes of those who now held leadership in the many Protestant bodies. Second, the desire for unity was, in part, an attempt to present a united front in response to the increasingly obvious fact that Christianity was losing its hold over the public and private lives of so many once-Christian nations. And third, differences in doctrine and practice among Protestant denominations presented serious obstacles to their missionary activity.

Not too long after, the Catholic Church, in the person of Pope Pius XI, took note of, and set forth a response to, organized Protestant ecumenism. In his encyclical Mortalium Animos (1928), Pius XI pronounced a decidedly negative judgment on Catholic involvement. The fundamental point of his argument rests on the Catholic Church’s understanding of herself as the one Church established by Christ. Because of this, the logical conclusion follows that “the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it” (no. 10).

Pius XI likewise noted that although those “who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith?” (no. 9). This is a sound psychological insight on the part of the Pope, for the desire for Christian unity can assume such importance that insistence on points of doctrine comes to be regarded as inconvenient or divisive. Truth is then compromised in pursuit of a false charity. This is especially true in our age, when clear thinking and logical distinctions are becoming rarer and rarer.

In the decade and a half after World War II, the attitude of the Catholic Church toward ecumenical activity continued to be cautious, as evidenced by an instruction from the Holy Office, “On the Ecumenical Movement” (1949), which warned that “some of the initiatives that have hitherto been taken by various individuals or groups, with the aim of reconciling dissident Christians to the Catholic Church, although inspired by the best of intentions, are not always based on right principles, or if they are, yet they are not free from special dangers, as experience too has already shown.” One can see the state of things on the eve of Vatican II in a book by the Protestant theologian Robert McAfee Brown and the Jesuit priest Gustave Weigel titled An American Dialogue: A Protestant Looks at Catholicism and a Catholic Looks at Protestantism (1960).

In the section written by Fr. Weigel, who was considered at the time one of the principal Catholic experts on ecumenism, the Church’s position remains unshaken. His analysis of Protestantism is one of the most incisive I have read, worthy of the tradition of inter-war Catholics such as Hilaire Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, and Msgr. Ronald Knox. Fr. Weigel unequivocally sums up the Catholic position:

Once you persuade the Catholic Church to enter into a genuine ecclesiological union with some other unconverted church, you will have no Catholic problem, because Catholicism would be dead…. If Catholicism drops the Catholic principle which includes the dogma of her own exclusive function to mediate between God and man…she certainly would no longer be Catholic.

Only a few years later, however, came Unitatis Redintegratio (UR). As I have already stated, UR proposes no new doctrine; rather, it embraces a new strategy to achieve “the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ.” But UR, and even more the activities subsequently undertaken in fulfillment of it, sets a different tone from the previous stance of the Church. Instead of recognizing, as had Pius XI, that ecumenical activity often leads to a false sense of charity that downplays the importance of faith, the Council Fathers optimistically chose to involve themselves in what they called the “movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians” (no. 1), begun by those separated from the Catholic Church. It is true that the Council Fathers expressed an awareness of the dangers associated with ecumenical activity: “Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism which harms the purity of Catholic doctrine and obscures its genuine and certain meaning” (no. 11). But, obviously, they considered this danger to be worth the risk. Hence, the real significance of UR was its naïve trust that Catholics could involve themselves in the ecumenical movement without too much danger to their faith. In other words, it was a judgment about the suitability of a strategy and an optimistic assessment of the possible dangers of indifferentism.

Although UR sets forth an entirely orthodox aim in its desire for unity, soon after it was approved Catholics began to exhibit hesitation about stating the Church’s claims as unambiguously as they had in the past. In other words, they succumbed to the very danger to the faith about which Pius XI had warned. I will instance only a very few of these. For example, shortly after the Council, Pope St. Paul VI met with the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey, and the two issued a “Common Declaration” (1966). One would never suspect from the text that, according to Catholic teaching, Anglicans are members of a man-made structure that lacks a tradition of valid sacramental orders. The declaration speaks of “a new atmosphere of Christian fellowship between the Roman Catholic Church and the Churches of the Anglican Communion.” Also of note, the declaration consistently refers to the Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church, a term many Anglicans and other separated Christians use with the intent of limiting the universality contained in the term Catholic and denying the identity of the Catholic Church with the Church of the Creeds.

The declaration also refers to the Catholic Church and Anglican bodies as “two Communions,” suggesting that they are two equal parties. It claims, moreover, that their negotiations aim at a “restoration of complete communion of faith and sacramental life,” suggesting the possibility of some kind of merger. This is quite far from simply stating the truth Pius XI spoke in Mortalium Animos that “the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it.”

Moreover, the apparent limiting of Catholic universalism by the adjective Roman is a common feature of post-conciliar ecumenical endeavors and pronouncements. It appears, for example, in the “Common Declaration” of Paul VI and Archbishop of Canterbury Donald Coggan (1977) and in the “Common Declaration” of John Paul II and Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie (1989).

The reason for this implicit downplaying of the Catholic claim to be the exclusive Church of Christ is, I think, easy to discover. It is psychologically difficult for most people to join activities the object of which includes the promotion of goodwill and fellowship, while at the same time saying things that are irritants to the other party. Hence, the temptation to water down one’s position, to “injure faith” in the interests of a supposed charity.

Since Vatican II, there have been thousands of ecumenical meetings, joint services, common statements, and the like, and, in general, the actual words, and more often the symbolic significance, of these happenings seem to minimize or even deny the seriousness of the schism or heresy of separated Christians. In fact, one could infer from not a few of them the notion that the Catholic Church and other Christian bodies are merely different manifestations of Christianity, each with unique theological emphases. One seldom comes away with the impression that the Catholic Church officially holds herself to be the “Church which Christ founded and which is governed by the successors of Peter” (Mysterium Ecclesiae, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1973). Indeed, this is a truth that Catholics seem uncommonly shy about acknowledging anymore.

In the current pontificate, ecumenical gestures have gone even further. I cannot forebear to mention the extremely unfortunate Vatican postage stamp released in 2017 showing 16th-century Protestant reformers Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon kneeling reverently before Our Lord on the Cross, Luther holding a copy of his translation of the Bible, and Melanchthon a copy of the Augsburg Confession. Then there’s the statue of Luther erected in 2016 that is now apparently a permanent fixture at the Vatican.

The most complete discussion of ecumenism since UR is, undoubtedly, Ut Unum Sint. In it, John Paul II, a pontiff of obvious intelligence, holiness, and love for the Church, attempts to justify Catholic involvement in ecumenism. His heartfelt desire for the unity of Christians, something for which no Catholic could possibly not be eager, is clearly evident. Nor is John Paul II unaware of the danger of watering down Catholic doctrine. “In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth,” he writes (no. 18). Nor does he obscure the fact that “the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is — in God’s plan — an essential requisite of full and visible communion” (no. 97). But whatever care with which he offers these truths, the elephant in the room is the failure of the Catholic Church to make it clear to our separated Christian brethren that, in the end, they must become Catholics if we are to have Christian unity according to the mind of Our Lord.

Does it really help matters to avoid uttering this truth clearly? Is it really a service to our separated brethren to obscure it? Catholic doctrine does not need to change, even if its presentation could sometimes be made clearer. If this fact is not made evident to all involved in ecumenical activity, then it seems to me that any effort toward the “reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ” will be in vain, and that the effect of ecumenism will be the weakening of the faith of Catholics, the raising of false hope among Protestants, and the general muddling of clear thinking, which is already too common in our age.

Although the Church continues to insist on her traditional claims in her official teachings, for example, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (cf. nos. 816-822), we are entitled to ask whether, in fact, many of those involved in ecumenical activities really believe them anymore. If they do, they seem blind to the fact that, on the level of popular understanding, and especially of symbolic significance, they have abandoned those claims. The post-conciliar period in the Church’s history seems to be one in which professed doctrine and the embodiment of that doctrine in concrete practices and institutions and its application to the life of the faithful suffer from a curious disconnect. Yet it is in matters ecumenical that this disconnect seems to have gone the furthest.

Although most ecumenical activity is conducted on the level of the hierarchy, or various official dialogue committees, I must mention the ecumenical activity of those whom it is usual to call conservative Christians, both Catholics and Protestants, for example, in the initiative called Evangelicals and Catholics Together or Touchstone magazine. These Christians recognize that many who are involved in official ecumenical dialogues appear to have abandoned the historic creeds or confessions of their respective religious bodies and are united mostly by a liberal understanding of Christianity at odds with both Catholic and historic Protestant teaching. But for these conservative ecumenists, doctrine also seems to be of comparative unimportance. What seems to matter for most of them is agreement on certain cultural or even political issues. They are united by a robust opposition to such high-profile evils as abortion, same-sex unions, and, lately, the transgender phenomenon. This is all to the good, as far as it goes. But can we forget that morality flows from doctrine? In the past, when Catholics prided themselves on clear thinking, they recognized that Protestantism, even at its best, led inevitably to the many errors and evils our civilization has embraced during the past few centuries. Catholics who ignore or downplay real doctrinal differences on the basis of a superficial agreement on a limited range of hot-button issues misunderstand the connection between doctrine and morality.

Moreover, these ecumenists appear unconcerned about those points of Catholic moral teaching, such as on contraception or divorce, which almost all Protestants, however conservative, abandoned decades ago. How can we forget that the acceptance of contraception leads logically to acceptance of homosexual relations? In both cases, the natural connection between sex and procreation is broken. I do not deny the possibility or even desirability of working with likeminded groups on particular issues. This can be done with almost anyone on an ad hoc basis. The problem arises when we regard certain non-Catholic groups as in a quasi-permanent alliance with us based on agreement about a set of current issues, while forgetting or downplaying the theological and moral issues that divide us from them.

In her involvement with the ecumenical movement, the Church has rarely emphasized the intention stated so clearly in UR of the necessity of finding Christian unity in “the one and only Church of Christ.” Nor have the numerous joint statements purporting to show that the Catholic Church and various non-Catholic bodies really believe the same things on a variety of topics helped lead our separated brethren to a realization that their only course is to return to the Church their ancestors left. If ecumenism is a strategy, it is fair to ask how well it has succeeded: whether the number of converts has increased, and whether whole bodies of non-Catholics have returned to the Church as a result of Catholic involvement in ecumenical activities.

Ecumenism is only one among the many things that have harmed the Church in the past 50-plus years. Compared to clerical sexual misconduct and corruption, banal liturgies, bad catechesis, and toleration of error in Catholic educational institutions, ecumenism does not rank first. But neither has involvement in ecumenical efforts helped Catholics recover and retain a robust sense of religious identity or a commitment to the truth that “Catholics are bound to profess that through the gift of God’s mercy, they belong to that Church which Christ founded and which is governed by the successors of Peter” (Mysterium Ecclesiae).

Let us, if we want, continue our ecumenical conversations. But in doing so, it would be wise to clear the air, to restate with charity and humility but without embarrassment the words with which Pius XI concluded Mortalium Animos:

Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is “the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,” not with the intention and the hope that “the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. (no. 12)

Statements such as this could not but restore an element of reality to ecumenical endeavors, which are sorely in need of some plain-spoken truths.

©2023 New Oxford Review. All Rights Reserved.

Thomas Storck, a Contributing Editor of the NOR, has written widely on Catholic social teaching, Catholic culture, and related topics for many years. His latest book is The Prosperity Gospel: How Greed and Bad Philosophy Distorted Christ’s Teachings (TAN Books, May 2023). An archive of his writings can be found at thomasstorck.org.

+ Dr. Ralph Martin on “Where We Are Being Led”

+ Fr. Gerald Murray: Why the Upcoming Synod is Causing Concern