Catholics in Asia

The Vatican Declaration Dominus Iesus, released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in September 2000, became the most “talked about” Vatican document in recent Church history. A significant criticism of the document is that it does not resonate well with the ground realities of the Church’s relations with persons of other religions. In an article written for an issue of an Indian theological journal specifically dedicated to Dominus Iesus, American theologian Paul Knitter even suggests that, on the basis of these many and varied criticisms, “the ‘sense of the faithful’ (sensus fidelium) in regard to other religious believers has been clarified, thanks to the CDF’s declaration.”[1]  Knitter then went on to specifically point out that among the issues raised and clarified is the issue of “the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the one redeemer and mediator of salvation for humankind.”  He was actually quoting from an article by his fellow American Richard McBrien who in his article also advanced the thesis that among the Asian theologians there is the possibility that some may have erred: “In two or three cases, theologians may have gone too far in collapsing any meaningful distinction between Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ of faith and other so-called ‘Christ figures’.”[2]

Knitter agreed with McBrien that the issue of the uniqueness of Jesus was a point of controversy but disagreed with the latter’s suggestion that this had arisen as a result of the work of “two or three” theologians.  Knitter, who himself has been very much engaged in interreligious dialogue and is also a keen observer of Asian theology, asserts: “I find that there are many Catholics who are painfully struggling with the traditional teachings that Jesus is the one and only savior of all other people.  In view of their encounter with the depth of religious experience in their non-Christian friends, many Catholics, both Asian and American, find it difficult to continue insisting, to these other religious friends and to themselves, that a saving experience of God must come only through Jesus and find its fulfillment only in him and his church.”[3]

Even if McBrien’s “two or three” is not taken literally but understood to mean that an insignificant number of Asians have “denied the uniqueness of Jesus Christ,”[4] one wonders how he arrived at such a conclusion. Has he met enough Asians to come to that conclusion?  Has he read enough Asian books – not only those available in the West, but also those by Asian publishers -- to surmise that only very few Asians have problems with Jesus’ uniqueness?  On the other hand, one can also ask how Knitter arrived at his own conclusion that McBrien is probably wrong?  Does he have any data to substantiate his claims that “many” Catholics in Asia find it difficult to profess Jesus as the one and only savior?  Does he know anything about what the ordinary lay Catholic on the pews of Asian churches -- not just Asian theologians -- believe?

These questions, asked of McBrien and Knitter, could also be posed to everyone else writing on Asian theology.  Few, if not none, of the Asian theologians actually have any data to substantiate their hypotheses, be it in support of McBrien’s position or Knitter’s, or the CDF’s, for that matter.  At best, theologians project their personal theological orientations onto their Catholic brothers and sisters and suggest it to be the sensus fidelium of the People of God in Asia.  This “false consensus bias” influences much of the theological writings of Asia, especially when one attempts to speak on behalf of the Church in Asia.  Moreover, many Asian theologians do not have too much contact with the Church and Christians living in other Asian countries other than their own.  In fact, it is not surprising to find more Asian theologians who have visited and/or lived in European and American cities as compared to those who have done the same in another Asian city.  Consequently, when the Indian theologian speaks of “Asian theology” s/he is in fact speaking from her/his own experience of India rather than of Asia as a whole.  Likewise, when a Taiwanese theologian claims something to be “not in harmony with Asian beliefs,” chances are that s/he has never ever been to Manila, Delhi, or Jakarta but has often visited Paris, New York, or Rome.  In a way, theirs is really a comparison between the West and their experience of their own particular country rather than the West and Asia as a whole.  To confound the problem, there is little valid data on what Catholics in Asia believe, just as there is little literature written from a truly pan-Asian experience.

2. AN EMPIRICAL SURVEY

It is in view of this absence of data that an empirical survey was conducted to get a feel of the sensus fidelium of the Asian Church on the issues raised by Dominus Iesus.  Thus, a questionnaire survey was sent out by means of email to persons from all across Asia. 
For a period of 8 weeks between January and March 2002, a total of 394 responses were received from nearly twenty countries, from as far West as Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka to as far East as Indonesia and the Philippines to as far North as Japan, Korea and even Mongolia and China.

2.1 Analysis: In light of Dominus Iesus

A descriptive analysis of the data of the survey, in light of the themes raised by Dominus Iesus (DI), is as follows: 

First, Dominus Iesus insists on the fullness and definitiveness of the revelation of Jesus Christ (DI, 5-6).  The survey showed that out of a total of 394 respondents, 97% believe that Jesus is God’s revelation, while only 72% believe that he is indeed the “fullness” of God’s revelation.  However, 44 % of these respondents believe on the one hand that Jesus is the fullness of God’s revelation and believe, on the other hand, that revelation is also given elsewhere, for example, in the other religions.  Only 17% of the respondents who believe in the fullness of Jesus’ revelation assert its definitiveness in that they believe this revelation is given “only” in Jesus and not anywhere else.  Whereas, 62% of the respondents believe not so much in the “fullness” or “definitiveness” of Jesus’ revelation but that revelation is given in Jesus as well as in the other religions. 

Second, Dominus Iesus postulates the unicity and universality of the salvific mystery of Jesus Christ (DI, 13-15).  The results of the survey showed that out of a total of 394 respondents, 91% believe in Jesus as savior of Christians as well as savior of humankind.  However, only 50% claim the unicity of this belief, asserting that Jesus is indeed the “only” savior for all of humankind, while 25% of the respondents believe in Jesus’ universality as well as the possibility of other saviors for humankind. 

Third, Dominus Iesus insists on the necessity of the Church for salvation (DI, 20-21).  This does not mean, however, that everyone has to be baptized, as the document also states that those who do not belong to the Church can still be saved through the Church, even if it is not known how that happens (DI, 20).  Not taking into account the apparent ambiguity these statements raise, the survey, nevertheless, showed that 84% of the respondents believe the Church to be a means of salvation.  However, only 36% of the respondents believe in the “necessity” of the Church for salvation.  Of these, only 12% would rule out absolutely the possibility of salvation through other religions.  On the other hand, 20%, while believing in the necessity of the Church for salvation, also admit that other religions could be means of salvation.  More significant is that 58% of the respondents hold that the Church is indeed a means of salvation -- albeit not a “necessary” means -- and at the same time hold that other religions could also be means of salvation.

Fourth, Dominus Iesus asserts that those who are in the Church have the fullness of the means of salvation (DI, 22).  62% of the respondents believe in this assertion, while 24% oppose it.  The document then goes on to contrast this with the followers of other religions who are regarded as being in a gravely deficient situation.  Of those who believe the first assertion that those who belong to the Church have the fullness of the means of salvation, 35% also believe in this second assertion that the followers of other religions are indeed in a deficient situation, while another 35% disagree with this second assertion. 

Fifth, Dominus Iesus posits that the Church reserves the designation of inspired texts only to the Bible (DI, 8).  Of the 394 total respondents, 92% believe the Bible is indeed the inspired Word of God.  However, only 22% would go as far as Dominus Iesus to insist that the Bible is the “only” inspired text or sacred Word of God.  Whereas, 47% accept the Bible as God’s Word and at the same time accept the possibility of other sacred scriptures as God’s Word. 

Sixth, Dominus Iesus asserts that the true religion exists in the Catholic Church (DI, 23) and distinguishes this as “theological faith” as compared to other religions, which are regarded only as mere “beliefs” (DI, 7).   The results of the survey showed that 91% of the respondents believe Christianity to be indeed a true religion.  However, of these, only 30% would assert that there can be no other true religions while 45% subscribe to the view that there can be other true religions, just as Christianity is a true religion. 

Seventh, Dominus Iesus warns against the spirit of indifferentism characterized by a belief that “one religion is as good as another” (DI, 22).   The results showed that 36% of the respondents are indifferent and subscribe to the idea that belonging to one religion is as good as belonging to another, while 48% of those who responded disagreed with the idea. 

Eight, Dominus Iesus warns against relativistic theories which seek to justify that it is indeed within God’s plan that different religions exist de jure [in principle] (DI, 4).  The results of the survey revealed that 49% subscribe to the notion that religious pluralism exists de jure while 20% disagreed with the notion. 

Ninth, in keeping with the advances made by the Second Vatican Council, Dominus Iesus insists that interreligious dialogue “retains its full force and necessity” (DI, 22).  Of the 394 respondents, 95% agreed that Catholic in Asia should be engaged in interreligious dialogue with their neighbors of other religions, while only 1% disagreed with the idea.

A summarized version of these results are presented in Table 1 as follows:

  (Table 1)

3. DISCUSSION ON THE RESULTS

3.1 The Statistics Speak

From the results of the survey, a few observations can be made.  Firstly, it is clear that the following items yielded very high percentages, viz. more than 90%: No.1, No.6, No.7, No.19, and No.22.  In other words, more than 90% of the 394 respondent samples affirm the theological assertions of the numbered items concerned.  Specifically, they affirm that Jesus is God’s revelation (97%), that Jesus is savior for Christians (91%), that Jesus is savior for all humankind (91%), that the Bible is God’s Word (92%), and that Christianity is a true religion (91%).  Since these are the most fundamental and basic faith affirmations, which distinguish Christians from those who are not Christians, it is safe to say that more than 90% of the respondent sample are believing Christians.  The remaining who did not affirm these fundamental Christian beliefs are probably nominal Christians, skeptics, and/or people who project themselves as agnostics for the purpose of the present survey.  In any case, since these latter did not seem to identify with Christianity’s basic beliefs, their responses in the survey were discounted.  For, it would make no sense to include a response from them, which claimed that other religions are not true if, in the first place, they also do not believe in Jesus or the Church either. 

That only five of the numbered items received such unanimous affirmations speaks volumes of the sensus fidelium of the People of God in Asia.  In particular, it reveals that amongst Asian Catholics, only these five doctrinal assertions are widely adhered to.  In a way, if Dominus Iesus was re-written for Asian Catholics, this is probably how it would begin its first article: “The fundamental contents of the profession of the Christian faith for Catholics in Asia are expressed thus (cf. DI, 1): I believe in one God, the Father, Almighty.  I believe in the Lord, Jesus Christ, who is God’s revelation and who is savior for Christians as well as for all of humankind.  I believe that the Bible, the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, is the sacred Word of God.  I believe that the true religion exists in Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular.”  That’s it.  There will probably be no affirmation of Jesus as the only savior or of the Church as necessary for salvation.  On the other hand, of course this does not suggest that Asian Catholics do not affirm other doctrines of faith.  It only implies that as far as the theological themes raised by Dominus Iesus are concerned, these are the only ones, which they overwhelmingly subscribe to.

A second observation is that even if more than 90% of the respondent sample are decidedly Christian, a significant proportion amongst this same 90% are also decidedly open to and receptive of other religions.  For example, 62 % believe God’s revelation is also given in other religions (No.5), 25% allow the possibility of other saviors (No.9), 58% acknowledge that other religions could be means of salvation (No.14), 35% do not believe persons of other religions are deficient as compared to Christians (No.18), 47% allow for other scriptures as God’s Word (No.21), 45% believe that there could be other true religions besides Christianity (No.24), and 49% accept religious pluralism as within the plan of God (No.27).  Averaging these seven percentages would give a figure of between