The night before Jesus died he prayed. Interestingly, however, he did not pray for himself. With his death imminent, his thoughts were with those who would remain behind. And so he prayed for his disciples. "Abba, may they be one even as we are one: You living in me and I living in you. May they be one in us."

Over the centuries we have drifted far from Jesus' dying prayer for a unified body of believers.

The Body has been torn apart by doctrinal disagreements, by self-righteousness, by hierarchical in-fighting. Caught in the middle have often been the faithful, who kept the Church alive by cooperating with the Holy Spirit when the institution had failed them.

In our time the Church is engaged in a mission: to seek the reunification of all those who profess faith in Jesus as Lord. This effort is predicated on our ability to agree, as believers, upon certain fundamental tenets. Some would feel that achieving this agreement is a simple matter. "Accept everything that I believe, and then we can have unity." These might opt for a naive fundamentalism which denies the historical development of doctrine under the guidance of the Spirit, or for a mindless traditionalism divorced from the sources. Others would feel that the issues which divide us are far too complex to allow a facile solution. Others still, like many televangelists, feel that ecumenism is a dirty word. For all their dedication to the literal interpretation of the Scriptures they reinterpret Jesus' dying call to unity.

This paper attempts to answer the question, "What must we profess if we are to maintain our Catholic identity?" It will examine areas where we might feel comfortable with compromise and others where the line must be drawn. It will be my suggestion that very few lines need to be drawn and that there are many areas for compromise.

In paragraph 92 of the Vatican Council document The Church in the Modern World, the Council Fathers stated, "Let there be unity in what is necessary, freedom in what is unsettled, and charity in any case."

Over the years, however, we have seen an attitude of belligerence developing toward anyone who strays from the narrow path. The line between dogmatic theology and speculative theology has disappeared. No longer do those in charge ask themselves "What can I learn from this new theological insight?" but rather, "Where are the errors?" This has led to what some are calling a new Inquisition masterminded by people like Cardinal Ratzinger.

Church teaching changes. Of this there can be no doubt.

Jesus was Jewish; he spoke in a Jewish milieu. But the Jesuses of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and "Q" differ: they use different titles for Jesus and provide different emphases.

It is virtually undeniable that Jesus proclaimed the Reign of God and that he called God "Abba". It is likewise incontestable that the Apostles had a sense of Jesus alive beyond the grave in their own sense of forgiveness by, and solidarity with, him. Only this would account for the new-found courage which accompanied them to their deaths.

The gospels reveal, ultimately, more how Jesus was perceived than who he was. Details concerning Mary's perpetual viriginity and Jesus' birth are presented and must be examined more for their intent than their content.

Paul had to translate this message for a Gentile world. Nicea and Chalcedon had to choose between varying Christologies.

Early Christian converts were told that they must be circumcised before they could become part of the community.

Infallibility and birth control were not even issues before this century, yet now they have become litmus tests of loyalty. In the past, usury was condemned and slavery defended.

I think we must ask ourselves today, "Can I adequately define myself as a Catholic Christian without this particular teaching?", and if our answer is "Yes" then we must be willing to re-examine the teaching honestly.

*************************************