(Bill) Phipps, (Michael) Ingham and Catholic ecumenism.

Ecumenism is the search for unity among Christians. As has been repeated by the Holy Father and Church authorities time and time again, dialogue and ecumenism for Catholics with other Christian confessions is a necessity. The ecumenical movement is "irreversible." (Ut Unum Sint, 1996) This then is a "given" task from which Catholics cannot and may not withdraw.

In his message on behalf of the Canadian episcopacy at the Synod of the Americas in Rome in November 1997, Bishop Anthony Tonnos of Hamilton reported that the Canadian experience of ecumenism has been "a positive one," marked by "openness, cooperation and honesty." We have various forms of shared prayer and bible study, he said; there are areas of practical collaboration, especially on social issues; and there is theological dialogue both formal and informal, with individual faith groups as well as through the Canadian Council of Churches (CCCB press release, Nov. 24, 1997).

Earlier, in October, at their national meeting in Cap-de-la-Madeleine, PQ, the Canadian bishops discussed the possibility of some sort of ecumenical meeting for the year 2000, whether with the Anglican bishops, or with a larger group in honour of the Third Millennium. It seems appropriate to raise some questions at this time especially in the light of recent events surrounding the moderator of the United Church, Bill Phipps, and the Anglican bishop Michael Ingham, both of whom deny that "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12; see News in Brief, pages 19-20).

As explained in December (page 20), Bill Phipps is not a Christian. He may be a nice man with special skills, but he is not a Christian. Nor can the leadership in the United Church be considered to be Christian. They have endorsed and confirmed Phipps' views as "normal" for today. Yet some of them form the UC delegation which is represented in the Council of Christian Churches. The Mormons are not members because they, too, are not Christians. Why should the non-Christian members of the United Church be allowed in?

For the CCCB to say that "the Canadian experience has been a positive one," can be true, yet be of limited significance. To share a church building, or participate in a local clergy meeting, or combine efforts in a food drive are positive actions. Such events do much good and have ended mutual recriminations on the local level. But on the national level, matters have gone from bad to worse.

As this magazine has pointed out in the past, over the last 30 years Catholics on the one hand, and so-called mainline Protestant churches on the other, have not come closer in their religious thinking; rather they have grown further apart. The cause is permissive thinking in morality and dogma among Protestant leaders.

However, moral permissiveness on contraception, abortion, divorce, marriage and homosexuality, and denominational-wide dissent from basic points of faith such as the divinity of Jesus, or the nature of the priesthood, have had their greatest impact on these communities themselves. As well as causing schisms, both the United and Anglican Churches have now within themselves, groups or associations which are trying to oppose or reverse this decline of traditional beliefs caused by the liberal managers or bishops at the top.

What is the Catholic stand towards these developments? Are we allowed to shrug our shoulders and keep silence, claiming it is not our business? This would be wrong. Catholics are partners in the ecumenical dialogue. In 1997 our bishops became full members of the Canadian Council of Churches. This requires them to exercise a measure of coresponsibility. In other words, Catholics cannot stand by in silence when leaders of the United Church and the Anglican faith communities - even in opposition to significant bodies of their own followers - publicly say things which are theologically and scripturally unacceptable.

At best silence would betoken indifference, and at worst, agreement. If the relationship between the groups is really positive, as Bishop Tonnos says it is, then Catholics should accept moderator Phipps' claim that he is entering upon a theological debate, and respond to it. If discussions are to be really "honest" and "open," Catholics should take note of the groups in the other communities which are struggling to resist the type of trendy thinking expressed by Bill Phipps and Michael Ingham. We should extend dialogue to them as well, encourage them wherever we can, or suggest other avenues. But to sit back, shrug our shoulders and say nothing is unacceptable and irresponsible.

We believe there should be a formal response from the Catholic bishops explaining the Divinity of Christ and His role as sole Redeemer of the world. Individual Catholics involved in ecumenical discussions should also respond directly to the United Church and to Anglican groups and individuals.