The April 1982 edition of the journal Ecumenism (#65), published a report outlining the group’s understanding of its mandate, the dialogue process adopted to achieve its goals, and an expression of its hopes for greater unity. According to the 1982 report, dialogue members included men and women, lay people and ordained clergy, French and English speakers, and specialists as well as non-specialists in theology. One distinctive feature of the dialogue was its commitment to involving persons from local congregations: meetings were often scheduled to include an evening session at a neighbourhood location, where small groups from local UCC and Catholic congregations were invited to participate in the discussions. Reflection throughout the 1970s focussed on the topics related to the divisions of the Reformation era: unity, baptism, eucharist, ministry, authority, and spirituality. A summary of the group’s findings on these issues concludes: “We expect that as we study these questions more closely in the light of our distinctive Christian convictions, we will be led to assist one another more tangibly and respect the fact that we may not always agree” (p. 9).

In the early 1980’s, the Dialogue Group ventured further afield, preparing a Response to the World Council of Churches’ (WCC) Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry Text (1983), and a reflection on Questions of Theological Anthropology (1984), possibly stimulated by a 1980 UCC study document on human sexuality. In 1985, the group began a four-year dialogue on abortion, partly in response to media reports which tended to present Roman Catholic and United Church positions as diametrically opposed. As both churches insist their positions arise from a fundamental commitment to the Gospel, the group sought to understand how similar values can lead to dissimilar outcomes. Perhaps the greatest challenge to the dialogue participants lay in their efforts to uncover, recognize, and affirm the core values at the root of each church’s position.

Here, the dialogue process employed by the group was very helpful. They developed the practice of meeting in full sessions with the entire group and then to break into separate Roman Catholic or United Church caucus groups. This method proved particularly useful because it enabled the members of the dialogue to check on the accuracy of what they thought their partners had said. As the dialogue began, participants presented their churches’ official positions on the topic. This is an essential step because the purpose of a bilateral dialogue is to bring churches together, not simply to examine the views of individual members of a particular church.

As the group followed its usual practice of alternating between full and caucus groups, an interesting phenomenon emerged. When United Church participants returned from their caucus group and reported what they had heard of the views expressed by the Catholic participants, there was often surprise on the part of the Catholics who thought they had said something quite different. For the United Church participants, there was often similar surprise at what the Catholics thought they had heard of the United Church’s positions. What the group discovered was just how hard it is to hear what another person is saying, especially if you think you already know what they are going to say. In this dialogue experience, all of the participants learned a good deal about the discipline of careful listening. This dialogue did not reach consensus: given the clear differences between the two churches, that would have been highly unlikely. What the dialogue did achieve, however, was a strong commitment to move beyond stereotypes, and a greater understanding of the reasons for the two churches’ differences on this topic.

At the conclusion of this dialogue in 1988, the group submitted its report to the two sponsoring bodies for publication. When the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) did not agree to publish the text, the group faced a new set of difficulties. They felt a sense of disappointment, even dismay, and questioned the future of the dialogue. This experience gave members of the RC/UC dialogue a first-hand encounter with the challenge of “reception” by individual churches. The Promoting Christian Unity’s 1993 Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism acknowledges that statements produced by dialogue groups “have intrinsic weight because of the competence and status of their authors” (#178). However, it carefully notes that they are not binding “until they have been affirmed by the appropriate ecclesiastical authorities” (ibid.). Reception is a complex process involving both the churches’ official response to the dialogue results and the integration of these results and insights into the life of the churches. Since the ultimate goal of reception is to bring separated churches into full unity, official responses from the churches are of particular concern to dialogue groups. Yet, from the perspective of a dialogue participant who may have spent years in conversation with an ecumenical partner, these official responses often seem unduly critical and unappreciative of the new understandings expressed in an agreed statement.

After considerable conversation about the future of the dialogue, the group agreed to continue, and decided to take up the topic of the role and exercise of authority in the church. Building on the experience of earlier dialogues, a case study approach was used. This allowed participants to identify similarities which underline the exercise of authority in quite different structures and to examine structures that have similar functions in the two churches. In both churches, new questions are being raised about how authoritative teaching is expressed whether through Scripture in the United Church or papal infallibility in the Roman Catholic Church. In both churches, the role of reception and what happens when authoritative statements are not received by the faithful remain ongoing questions. In 1990, the group forwarded its report, The Role and Exercise of Authority in the Church, to the two sponsoring bodies. It offered a summary of learnings, a reflection from the Anglican observer to the dialogue, an outline of authority structures, and a selection of papers presented in the course of the dialogue.

From 1990-1995, the group reflected on the meaning of evangelism/evangelization in the two churches, identifying a number of shared perspectives on the importance of witnessing to the Gospel in today’s world. In brief, “We share an understanding that to be a follower of Jesus is to want to share with others freely and lovingly what Jesus means to us” (p. 7). It found divisions in both churches between those who saw evangelical activity as a straightforward process of challenging persons to repent and live more spiritual lives, and those who claimed that evangelistic activity must also involve concerns for social justice.However, the dialogue affirmed that “evangelization should be holistic in nature, both ‘serving the faith and promoting justice’ (Pedro Arrupe, SJ). To overlook either aspect is to create an imbalance in our theology and faith” (p. 9).

Further, “every aspect of ecclesial life (conversion, catechesis/education, community celebration, witness, the struggle to promote justice and peace, inter-faith dialogue) contributes in some way to the evangelization in which the Church is engaged” (p. 5). The group also agreed that “all Christ’s followers are called to evangelize according to their particular vocation within the Christian community” (p. 18). The report of this dialogue was published as a booklet, Sharing the Good News Today, for use in promoting dialogue in local parishes and congregations. (Also see Ecumenism, #118, June 1995.)

In 1996 and 1997, the dialogue’s responses to the UCC’s Towards a Renewed Understanding of Ecumenism and the Vatican’s Directory for the Principles and Norms in Ecumenism were forwarded to the groups that produced them.

Responding to a proposal from the UCC’s Inter-Church and Inter-Faith Relations Committee, the group began its study of the use of the Trinitarian formula in the baptismal liturgy in the fall of 1995. Since both the CCCB and the UCC are signatories to an ecumenical agreement on the mutual recognition of baptism (1975), which specifies the use of the traditional formula of Matthew 28:19 (“in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”), the question of an alternate formula was of pastoral concern. After an initial review of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity and a summary of questions raised in feminist discussion of this doctrine, participants gave careful thought to “what’s at stake in Trinitarian belief and language.” Taking account of personal experience as well as biblical, historical, and theological positions, the group considered some criteria for proposing or recognizing alternative baptismal formulas. The dialogue ultimately discerned that they could not develop an inclusive-language formula that met the necessary doctrinal criteria. However, it offered options for an ecumenically sensitive response to feminist concerns, and made recommendations specific to each of the sponsoring churches. Edited in November 1999, the report, In Whose Name? The Baptismal Formula in Contemporary Culture, was published electronically in 2001. It included a brief study guide and an invitation to members of the two churches, as well as ecumenical partners and theological colleagues to join the dialogue. It is noteworthy that this dialogue was a factor in the UCC General Council’s decision not to include any alternate formula in its new service book.

21st-Century Challenges and Opportunities

By the turn of the millennium, Canadian society was growing increasingly aware of churches’ involvement in the Indian Residential School system. Both United and Roman Catholic churches sought to respond to calls to apologize for these past failings. The dialogue between them began to explore similarities and differences in the two churches’ understandings of sin and reconciliation, and in how their approaches to corporate and historical responsibility express their senses of ecclesial identity. Dialogue participants were aware of the distinctive Catholic and Protestant theologies of human sinfulness and the nature of the church that emerged during the Reformation. They therefore expected to find essential differences in each church’s self-understanding, and in its means of defining and dealing with sinfulness, especially concerning the whole body of the church. Yet, they found evidence of contemporary culture pointing to places where the two churches are moving closer together or are being confronted by similar challenges. Some examples of these challenges are increasing secularism, violence and polarization in civil society, and diminishing church membership and commitment. They had already named some of these issues in the dialogue on Evangelism/Evangelization in the early 1990s. Its report on Sin, Reconciliation and Ecclesial Identity was submitted to sponsoring churches in 2004.

In 2004, following their two churches submitting contrary briefs to the Supreme Court of Canada on same-sex marriage, the dialogue group decided on marriage as its next topic. In a context of very real and public disagreements, the group discovered: “that we both attach deep importance to Christian marriage, that our wedding services reflect a similar view on its crucial elements, and that we face most of the same issues and problems in wrestling with today’s social issues and in offering pastoral care” (p. 20). The report on this topic, Marriage: Report of the Roman Catholic/United Church Dialogue, was submitted to the sponsoring churches in 2012. Its conclusion states: “As dialogue participants, we are convinced that Roman Catholic and United Church members can, with God’s help, learn from each other’s strengths, even when they differ on issues held to be revealed truth. Our experience has renewed our conviction that ecumenical dialogue – with openness to new insights and in the presence of the Holy Spirit – is an important means by which God’s Church can advance understanding and carry on the work of Jesus Christ” (p. 20).

In 2012, the dialogue group, in collaboration with its sponsoring bodies, discerned its next topic of discussion: the theology of creation, ecology, and the environment. As the conversation began, it became immediately clear that the issue of climate change would provide a useful focus to explore areas of ethical consensus and common mission. Key questions were identified, and input was sought from resource people to help ground the dialogue in the science around climate change and within the history of both churches’ response to ecological issues. As expected, the dialogue participants found little if any disagreement on basic principles of pastoral action in their churches’ approaches to this topic. “We discovered that the hope within us for a restored relationship with creation is deeply rooted in our Christian faith and practice” (p. 2). Consistent with the group=s ongoing commitment to an engaged theology relevant to local congregations, the dialogue concluded with an Earth Hour Vigil to promote compassionate action for creation=s well-being. (pp. 29-36) Its report, The Hope Within Us, along with a study guide and a list of resources, was sent to the sponsoring churches in 2018.

The most recent phase of this dialogue, completed in 2021, offers a statement on Common Baptism, Common Ministry. In light of the 1975 ecumenical agreement on mutual recognition of baptism, the text begins with the assertion that the two churches share a consensus around their common baptism, which includes every member of the church “in the ministry of Jesus Christ as he redeems Creation.” While noting that the two churches have cooperated in ministry over the past sixty years, the statement expresses the hope that mutual recognition of baptism will mean that local communities in both churches will “look to one another as true partners in this ministry to which we are all called as members of the Body of Christ” (p. 8).

For nearly fifty years, through changing membership and ecumenical climate, the RC/UC dialogue has remained faithful to its mandate. Topics are chosen in consultation with the two sponsoring churches, often reflecting issues of concern in contemporary Canadian society. The dialogue process, with its focus on careful listening, has proved particularly helpful in promoting understanding and in countering misinformation, stereotypes, and prejudices. In addition, the group has continued to seek to communicate its findings to members of local congregations, and to invite their responses. Dialogue partners have seen their role as one of service to their churches and to the wider ecumenical community.

The two largest Christian communities in Canada, Roman Catholic and United churches are often portrayed in the popular media as polar opposites. Each holds underlying theologies which are clearly distinct and even divergent. Yet, both also share a commitment to social justice and to having an impact on Canadian society. In this context, dialogue topics have often emerged from current social concerns. Many such topics have been named in earlier dialogue reports, especially those of 1995 and 2021. In fact, the greatest achievement of this dialogue may be the dialogue itself, its finding that difference doesn’t always mean division, that it is possible to respect those who hold opposing positions, and to learn from one another’s strengths. In today’s increasingly divided and polarized world, the discipline of dialogue is a counter-cultural witness to the Gospel imperative to love your neighbour as yourself.

Sr. Dr. Donna Geernaert, SC, served for 18 years in promoting ecumenical and interfaith relations for the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. She has been a staff member, consultant, and member of numerous multilateral and bilateral theological dialogues in Canada as well as internationally.