NEWS RELEASE
Mennonite World Conference (MWC)
November 2, 1998
STRASBOURG, France – Why would representatives of the Vatican suggest a meeting with Mennonites? Where might the conversation begin?
From October 14-18, a delegation of Mennonite leaders sat down with a delegation of Roman Catholic leaders to talk about relationships between the two church bodies, today as well as historically. The meeting was a first. What prompted the conversations, and why did they happen now?
The discussions did not come about without serious forethought. With a history of martyrdom (sometimes at the hands of Roman Catholic officials) well imprinted on their collective memory, Mennonites have had a degree of suspicion, or, at least, ambiguity, toward the Roman Catholic Church. Many contemporary Mennonites live as minorities next to substantial majorities of Catholics. Many times their relationships are uneasy at best.
The Mennonite World Conference (MWC) Executive Committee weighed the Vatican’s invitation at their July 1998 meeting, taking into particular account the opinions of its members from countries with a strong Catholic presence. The MWC group endorsed the conversation, especially because of the nature of the Catholic Church’s invitation and the growing number of mutually helpful relationships between Catholics and Mennonites worldwide.
The Pontifical Council’s spokesman John Radano proposed that the title and framework be “Toward a Healing of Memories.” Larry Miller, MWC Executive Secretary, who has learned to know Radano at Christian World Communion meetings, pointed out that the Vatican is systematically working to be reconciled with various churches. The emphasis of the initial talks was to be on reconciliation rather than doctrinal differences.
For five days in mid-October, seven Mennonites sat face-to-face with six Roman Catholics. There were no observers at the meetings which took place in Strasbourg, France, in the building where Mennonite World Conference has its offices.
Larry Miller served as co-secretary of the event. He answers, here, questions about the nature and the possible future of the historic exchange. Helmut Harder (theologian and general secretary of the Conference of Mennonites in Canada) was co-chair of the discussions. He adds his views about the presentations that were made.
WHY DID THESE CONVERSATIONS HAPPEN? MENNONITES ARE SUCH A SMALL GROUP; WHY DID THE VATICAN MAKE THIS EFFORT? OR DID MENNONTES DO SOMETHING TO INITIATE IT?
MILLER: I like to think that the conversation is happening because God wants it to!
Leaders of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity participate in the annual meetings of leaders of Christian World Communions, as do I, representing Mennonite World Conference. We have had friendly chats there – at lunch and otherwise – for the past six or seven years, about Catholics and Mennonites, about our relations historically and today in various parts of the world, about points of divergences, about areas in which we may have something to learn from each other.
When MWC invited many Christian World Communions to send observers to our world assembly in Calcutta, the Pontifical Council was one of the few which actually sent a representative – and he stayed the entire week with us. That representative carried a letter from Cardinal Cassidy, head of the Pontifical Council, which expressed the Pontifical Council’s “sincere hope that there will be other contacts between the Mennonite World Conference and the Catholic Church.”
But why did the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity send someone to Calcutta and why were they ready to send a delegation to Strasbourg? I think the fundamental reason is that the Catholic Church cares theologically and deeply about the unity of the church.
The leaders of the Pontifical Council really believe that it is the will of Christ that his disciples seek better relations, that division among Christians is a stumbling block to the world. For someone with those theological convictions, the size of the other Christian group is not a primary issue. I’ve learned as I represent Mennonites and Brethren in Christ to leaders of other world federations of churches, that some demonstrate little interest in conversation with us because we seem too small to deserve more than a footnote in church history. But that is not the point of view of these Catholic leaders. The problem for them is division in the body of Christ, not the size of any one of its members.
WHAT SORTS OF PERSONS SPOKE ON OUR BEHALF, AND WHY WERE THEY CHOSEN?
MILLER: The people composing the MWC delegation are significant leaders and teachers in MWC member churches. Each one was chosen because each has demonstrated strong commitment both to historic Anabaptist-Mennonite convictions and to conversation with other Christians. In addition, each one brings a particular gift, perspective, or training to the table. For example, the subject of the first conversation was primarily history – Catholic and Anabaptist relations at the beginning of the Anabaptist movement – so we needed a Mennonite historian of early Anabaptism (Neal Blough) in the delegation. Another example: one place where Mennonite and Catholic relations are often difficult – and sometimes promising – today is Latin America, so it seemed vital to appoint a Latin American Mennonite leader (Mario Higueros) to the team.
Other Mennonite participants were Andrea Lange (Germany), Howard J. Loewen (USA), Nzash Lumeya (Congo), and the two of us (Helmut Harder and Larry Miller).
WHO WERE THE PARTICIPANTS FROM THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, AND WHY WERE THEY CHOSEN, DO YOU SUPPOSE? WAS THEIRS A GLOBALLY REPRESENTATIVE GROUP? AT WHAT LEVEL WITHIN THE VATICAN DID THIS EXCHANGE HAPPEN?
MILLER: The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity is the highest body in the Catholic Church which carries responsibility for relations with other churches. Thus, whenever the Catholic Church enters into official dialogue with other churches, it does so through this Pontifical Council.
Final reports from official dialogues are submitted for review by the Pontifical Council to those whose task it is to oversee Catholic doctrine and, ultimately, to the Pope. Then, assuming approval from all quarters, final reports are normally sent to all bishops around the world. The auxiliary bishop of Philadelphia, Bishop Joseph Martino, chaired the Catholic delegation. He is one of the few participants who lives near a substantial Mennonite community. In fact, Bishop Martino prepared himself for the Strasbourg conversation in part by visiting leaders of the Franconia Mennonite Conference.
Monsignor John Radano served as the main organizer of the dialogue on behalf of the Pontifical Council. (Radano is the lead staff person for Pontifical Council relations with “Western” churches; another staff person serves as lead staffer for relations with “Eastern” churches.) Monsignor John Mutiso-Mbinda, another Pontifical Council staff member, represented the Council at “India 1997.” Dr. Peter Nissen is a lay Catholic, on the team as the Catholic historian. He is professor of church history in the University of Njmegen (Netherlands), wrote a doctoral thesis on the Catholic-Anabaptist conflict in the 16th century, and continues to follow Anabaptist research closely (and sympathetically).
The other two Catholic theologians represent orders or movements within the Catholic Church which seem to have some affinity with or at least openness to Anabaptist-Mennonite perspectives. Father James Puglisi comes from the Franciscans. Dr. Joan Bach is active in the Focolare Movement. In other words, the Catholic delegation was composed of people who came sympathetically, inclined to cooperation, not conflict.
The Catholic group was less globally representative than was the Mennonite group but, given Catholic structures, able to speak with more representative authority than Mennonites probably can.
CHARACTERIZE THE CONVERSATIONS. WHAT WAS THEIR NATURE? FORMAT? WERE THEY ABSTRACTLY THEOLOGICAL? CONFESSIONAL (ON BOTH SIDES)?
MILLER: The conversations were the sort you have when sitting around the table with friendly people of conviction who are learning to know one another. They were mutually respectful, simply spoken, honest, occasionally confrontational, sometimes moving.
Bishop Martino, head of the Catholic delegation, expressed his great sorrow as we listened to the historians tell us about the role of the Catholic Church in delivering Anabaptist Christians to the executioner, or as we together read stories in the MARTYRS MIRROR which witness to the deep faith of those same women and men.
I felt uneasy when we together read Anabaptist texts full of violent language against the Catholic Church. I found myself thinking that our occasional verbal violence was understandable in the 16th century context – obviously not at all the same violence as executing someone – but perhaps still some distance from the model offered by Jesus Christ.
HARDER: The presentations were not abstract or overly academic. We began with a paper that characterized the present-day faith and life of the Mennonites by Howard Loewen, with additional comments by the other Mennonite participants.
I would say the conversations were confessional in two senses:
There was an effort to identify the distinctives as well as the convergences in our two “confessions;” and
There was a readiness to “confess” our prejudices toward the other church and to seek understanding and reconciliation where this was needed.
WHAT DID YOU LEARN?
MILLER: That the conversation has only begun, that a few days of conversation is barely the first sentence of what Catholics and Mennonites might need and want to say to each other in the years ahead, both in a more official international dialogue like the one started in Strasbourg and in local face-to-face exchanges in many settings around the world.
I learned that some of the core theological divergences of the 16th century are still among the main points of divide. But I learned also that both Mennonites and Catholics find themselves in a whole new world today, not only because the world around us has changed, but also because both churches have changed, not least as a result of mission and the shifting center of gravity in Christianity – to Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
I learned too that the very fact of the meeting in Strasbourg manifests a significant official position of the Catholic Church in respect to Mennonite and related churches. When some members of the MWC delegation reported that Anabaptists/Mennonites in various parts of the world are sometimes viewed and treated as a “sect” by other Christians, Pontifical Council representatives underlined the Council’s policy not to enter into conversation with a group considered by the Catholic Church to be a sect; official Pontifical Council dialogue takes place only with other Christian churches.
HARDER: I learned that our Catholic partners in conversation have a keen appreciation for and interest in Mennonite theology of peace.
I learned that without hesitation or reservation our Roman Catholic partners in dialogue accept us as Christian brothers and sisters and regard the Mennonite communion (MWC) as “church” as well.
WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY LEARNED?
MILLER: I think they learned, too, that the conversation has just begun and that it is worth pursuing.
Their expressed hope – shared by the Mennonite delegation – is that we can have four or five years of annual exchange which contributes something to the “healing of memories” transmitted from the 16th century onwards. Those conversations should ideally contribute also to a fair understanding of one another today, and thus open wider the doors of continuing fraternal address and mutual learning in many places around the world.
All of this would lead to the production of a joint Mennonite-Catholic report which would be distributed to all Catholic bishops worldwide for use in their churches, as well as be made available to MWC member churches.
HARDER: Some of them became aware of the story of martyrdom with respect to Anabaptists/Mennonites in the 16th century-the reasons for it and the unreasonableness of it. Some learned of the persistence of the Anbaptist/Mennonite peace witness over the past 475 years. Some learned of the Anabaptist/Mennonite theological distinctives when compared with mainline Protestant and evangelical emphases; for example, the concept of grace, the nature of the church.
WHAT CHANGED AS A RESULT OF THE CONVERSATIONS?
MILLER: Can a few days of conversation and worship between 13 people effect change between two world churches whose relationship is rooted in ancient conflict and marked by continuing hostility or ignorance? God’s miracles sometimes do take place on the third day, but they often need more than three, four or even five days.
What is objectively new is the stated commitment on the part of the Catholic Church to sustained conversation with Mennonite World Conference as a representative of Anabaptist/Mennonite churches. I believe MWC is ready to make a similar commitment. But we will want to proceed in a way which honors the Anabaptist/Mennonite conviction that fraternal address, just like all church activities, involves as broad a participation of the membership as possible.
HARDER: While at the beginning we had some significant anxiety about the conversation and its process, in the course of the dialogue our fears were removed and we saw the urgency and timeliness of this effort. While at the beginning we did not assume the conversation would go beyond a first meeting, in the end, we saw that continuing was desirable and good.
–Phyllis Pellman Good for Mennonite World Conference News Service