Fair enough. But as I read this article on the USCCB website, I was struck by this section attributed to keynote speaker Jesuit Father Tom Michel:
Now, is that what the good Father is thinking when he says this? Is he making a statement of fact, that the best way to dialogue is for Muslims to glory in the Prophet Muhammad? Is he saying that's the same as when Christians glory in the cross of Jesus Christ? It looks like it to me. Maybe he isn't. I don't know.
I know this is why I think there is so much confusion, and quite frankly, so little fealty to Catholic teaching among so many Catholics. It's a known problem, and most Catholics admit it's a problem. But when you see something like this, you have to ask what it means. This is posted, and apparently endorsed, by the USCCB. Are they OK with this? Is this the Bishops' view? Have I gotten it all wrong? If I have, then what does this mean? Are they saying different paths lead equally to God? God doesn't care what you believe as long as you are a good person?
I know this was an inter-faith conference, and I understand that it's not a place for a rousing fire and brimstone tent meeting. But still, words mean things. Is dialogue that important that issues that could lead to salvation are put on the back burner? Or am I to assume that salvation no longer depends on such things as what you happen to believe? Or maybe a combination, or neither? Again, whatever the answer, I'm increasingly sympathetic to Catholics who scratch their heads and can't figure out where the historic Catholic faith fits with the new Catholic faith. I know some Catholics will say 'whatever the Church says now is the truth through the development of doctrine', but others will wonder just how far you can go before it's no longer the development of doctrine, but simply brand new doctrines replacing the old.