Dr Empey finds Vatican document confusing

The Archbishop of Dublin, Most Rev Walton Empey, has said the Vatican's controversial Dominus Iesus document was a "most confusing document".

Interviewed in a book to be published next week, The Irish Soul: In Dialogue, the Church of Ireland Archbishop referred to "theological inconsistencies" in the Vatican's controversial document that was published last year. In it the Vatican asserted that true faith subsists in the Catholic Church, while other Christian denominations were not proper churches and all other religions were seriously deficient.

"Every baptised Christian - baptised in the Holy Trinity - was a full Christian (where the Catholic Church is concerned) and yet the Church to which you belonged was not. I fail to understand how you can be two-thirds Christian or 99 per cent a Christian! It was a confusing document," he said.

He agreed with the interviewer that "the vast majority of Catholics tend not to read these documents, or they dismiss them anyway". That "is what I find," he said, "I have been invited to (the) annual meeting of the National Council of Priests in Ireland every year for the last five years and I find it a most exciting place to be - there's a huge wealth of talent, experience and a good deal of scholarship right there, and I don't think it ruffled their feathers too much."

He agreed also that many Catholics "simply don't toe the papal line on divorce, homosexuality, premartial sex, contraception, etc. They are more Protestant in their thinking."

He said, "that's that liberal wing ... It really is a mirror image of ourselves, in many ways."

Where the presence of Christ in communion is concerned he was not going to apply the categories of Greek philosophy. "No, I am not. We will not and have never attempted to do that." He referred to a radio discussion on Dominus Iesus between a Catholic priest and Canon Ian Ellis. The C of I Canon said: "I was very surprised to hear Seamus (the Catholic priest) say the foundation for theology is philosophy. We would believe that the foundation of theology is the New Testament."

Dr Empey said, "That put it in a nutshell. That's the difference between the two traditions. You should have spoken to my predecessor, Donald Caird. He's a philosopher, which I never was and never will be. Himself and Des Connell used to go off into corners and talk philosophy."

Dr Empey was forthright on the issue of the papal authority. He didn't believe "for one minute" that Christ appointed Peter as Pope, "because subsequently, when the first council was held in Jerusalem, James seemed to be the senior there". The "rock" was "the rock of faith, the rock of Peter's faith. That's the way we read it. I think it's a huge step to move from that into primacy and the next step into infallibility," he said, and he knew "many Roman Catholic priest friends would say that too."

He said "papal infallibility is very suspect," while most Anglicans would regard the Pope "as first among equals in terms of Christian leadership".

He saw the controversy over President McAleese receiving communion in Christchurch Cathedral as "a problem for the Roman Catholic Church".

"We have bitter pills on our side too, who will take the letter of the law for everything rather than what lies behind it," he said.

He referred to himself in modest terms during the interview, beginning one answer with "to my simple mind ...", and said the interviewer could speak to "far more erudite people than I am".

He continued: "I am no scholar. In fact, it's one of the things I find difficult about my position. Whatever gift I may have, I am afraid it's rather pastoral more than scholarly and I do find that to be, quite frankly, a drawback."