From an article in Commonweal called Praying to Buddha by the wonderfully named Peter Phan from Georgetown the theoretically Catholic University.
For example, Dominus Iesus, the declaration issued in 2000 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, asserts that “if it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.” As I was writing this essay, meanwhile, the Washington Post reported that official Saudi first-grade textbooks for Islamic studies affirm that “every religion other than Islam is false.” My point is not that Dominus Iesus and Saudi religious textbooks are parallel. Rather, it is that the Dominus Iesus statement will be read and understood one way in the corridors of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and in another, quite different way in the context of a dialogue with Islam-and specifically in a contemporary geopolitical context inflamed by the notion of a “clash of civilizations” that pits Muslim against Christian. Furthermore, it is only after serious and prolonged dialogues of life, action, and religious experience that one can say with any degree of certainty whether a devout Muslim is always and “objectively speaking” in “a gravely deficient situation” and necessarily worse off than a Catholic who has at his or her disposal “the fullness of the means of salvation.”
I also bet that Dominus Iesus will be read one way in the "corridors of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and in another, quite different way" in the corridors of Commonweal.
I would think that a truly devout Muslim compared to a devout Catholic would still be objectively deficient. They might both make it to heaven, but in their life other believers are still handicapped as compared to a Catholic that avails themselves and lives the teachings of the Church and the sacraments. For example MacGyver might be able to easily get himself out of a burning room with some duct tape and a Swiss Army knife and whatever he finds available in the room. As for myself I would much prefer access to an oxygen mask and the switch to trigger a Halon system. Being faithful and living the sacraments is a surefire way to avoid fire.
The article starts off by talking about his Catholic mother who once would have totally segregated herself from for example Buddhists and is now willing to give money to Buddhists nuns and call Buddha a holy man. The contention is that in her youth she was taught "Catholicism-was the true religion, and all other religions the work of the devil."
How, then, could an old woman like my mother, God-loving and church-fearing, a twice-a-day churchgoer raised to believe that no one except Catholics can be saved, do what she did that day in that pagoda? And what, exactly, happened between the 1960s and 2000 that enabled her to honor the Buddhist nun, pray to the Buddha, and contribute money to the maintenance of the pagoda? The answer lies in the dramatic expansion during our era of interreligious dialogue, particularly as it has been espoused by the church since Vatican II.
I think he is just building up a straw man. While it is quite possible that she might have been taught this, you can’t really say this is what the Church has taught. For example before Vatican II Fr. Feeney S.J. was excommunicated in 1953 for having a rigid interpretation of the Catholic doctrine extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or "outside the church there is no salvation", denying baptism of blood and baptism of desire as "heretical innovations" and believing that all unbaptized human beings were not saved.
Now as to praying to Buddha. I guess it is possible to pray to him in a fully Catholic sense in the same way that you might ask a relative who has passed on to pray for you. You have no guarantee that they are able to pray for you, but there is really nothing wrong with this practice and a lot of good to recommend it. If you personally believe that Buddha is now part of the Communion of Saints and want to specifically ask for his intercession with Jesus off the top of my head I wouldn’t raise an objection. Though of course there is a truly a danger to praying to him outside of a Catholic sense. With so many sure saints surely it is much better to seek their intercession.
14 comments
Of course she should pay for pagoda maintenance. We want it to be in good shape when it becomes a church. 🙂
Pretty soon Commonweal will be calling Buddha the new Blessed Mother…I mean – we don’t pray TO her, we just ask for intercession….
Ow! Holy cow! My eyes rolled so hard they practically fell out of my freaking head!
Don’t ever quote from Commonweal again!
Ah…..
I was taught that Buddha was a man who attained englightenment, not a deity. That for a Buddhist, praying to Buddha is not only mistaken but useless.
But maybe Phan knows something I don’t.
Since in Buddhism, there are a multitude of Buddhas like Siddharta, Amitabha, Bhaisajyaguru and Vairocana (plus Maitreya, who is believed to come in a time when Buddhism is no longer present in this world to re-teach the Dharma), which buddha is referred to there? Are they all in the Communion of Saints? 😀
I’m afraid my immediate response to the question, “How could an old woman like my mother…. pray to Buddha” etc. wasn’t exactly charitable. (Senile dementia, to be precise.)
Honestly, I think the key to his mother’s openness is contained in the first paragraph: His mother returned to her home country of Vietnam. It was, as he says, “a nostalgic trip”. She is 82, so it may also have been the last time she’ll see Vietnam. Sentimentalism may be a better explanation of her actions than interreligious dialogue.
Well, if they truly gained enlightenment, wouldn’t the Buddhas be CATHOLIC now? 😉
Wow.
That’s two really, really godawful articles about “dialogue” (read: apologias for indifferentism or syncretism) in a row. If there’s a third this year, I’m going to drastically revise my opinion of Commonweal downward. [For the record: no, I don’t think it is as awful as America or the Reporter at their cringe-inducing worst.]
Real Buddhists don’t believe in God. They credit themselves with becoming better people heading for some kind of enlightenment.
Real Catholics believe in God. By accepting God’s Grace we become closer to God (holier people) and hopefully headed for Heaven.
Big difference.
I never understand why being devout would help a moslem be saved. A moslem can be saved by connecting with the grace of God as revealed by Jesus Christ. Being a good moslem might do that but it is not at all obvious to me that it would even be helpful. My guess is bad moslems might have an easier time connecting with the true God.
In the Middle Ages, the Christian calendar began to mention a Saint “Josaphat” or “Iodasaph.” Historians now acknowledge that these references in Latin documents are garbled forms of “Bodhisattva” – that is, Gautama the Buddha.
This is a quote from the Commonweal article which was featured in Cathnews (Catholic in name only) in Australia. I thought that St Josaphat
was an Eastern Rite bishop. Does anyone know anything about this?
Sharon,
Probably you’re reffering to a different Saint Jehosaphat (Saint Josaphat Kuncewicz, born in the 1580’s and died in 1623). The Saint Josaphat you refer to is said to be a hermit in 3rd-4th Century India.
Usually supporters of the theory you stated above point out the similarities between the Buddha’s story and that of Saint Jehosaphat (young Indian prince has his birth foretold, father becomes angry with this prophecy and tries to shield his son away from things that might trigger it, but the son still renounces his wealth and becomes a hermit in the desert).
I would just like to revise the above sentence i made:
‘young Indian prince has his birth foretold’
Young Indian prince was born to walthy parents and holy men then prophesy something about the child that upsets his father (In the Buddha’s case, the Sages told the buddha’s father that he will either become a great king or a great holy man. One sage even proclaimed that he will even become a Buddha (an enlightened being) ; In Saint Jehosaphat’s case, the astrologers predicted that he will become a Christian)
I think Thomas A. Gill is right, but I’d go one step further and suggest that perhaps Buddhism is not as coherent as some apologists for it — and some Commonweal contributors– would like to believe. Example: Thich Nhat Hanh did not convince me otherwise.
Comments are closed.