Opinion: The Real Threat is Not the Use of BCE, but the Catholic Response to It

The Vatican’s recent decision to employ the term “Before Common Era” (BCE) in place of the traditional “Before Christ” (BC) in an official English translation of a papal letter has triggered a wave of outrage among certain Catholics. Headlines proclaim a “betrayal” of the faith, and figures likeAnn Widdecombe have called it a “complete betrayal” of the Church’s identity. Yet, upon deeper reflection, it becomes clear that the more significant danger lies not in the adoption of BCE, but in the reaction it has provoked. It is this response that may prove far more damaging to the Church’s mission than the terminology itself.

Indeed, there may come a time when the Vatican will return to using BC, reaffirming the explicit proclamation of Christ in the very structure of our calendar. For now, however, this method aligns more closely with contemporary culture, reflecting a pastoral sensitivity to the pluralistic context in which the Church operates. Furthermore, this is not a universal change, rather just a regional adaptation. The Vatican’s decision to use BCE is specific to certain contexts, particularly within English-speaking regions where the term “Common Era” has gained traction in academic and secular settings. In many other regions, “Before Christ” (BC) and “Anno Domini” (AD) remain the standard. The reaction should, therefore, be tempered with the understanding that this adaptation is a pastoral accommodation for particular circumstances, not a universal decree. Yet, the Church must not lose sight of its mission, a mission that extends far beyond the labels we use to mark history.

The Core Concern: Christ’s Centrality or Terminological Rigidity?

For many Catholics, the shift from BC to BCE appears to obscure Christ’s central role in human history. The concern is understandable, but it necessitates a broader question: Are we as Catholics more concerned with how we label the passage of time, or with how we lead souls to Christ? Is it possible that an emotional attachment to a traditional terminology might, in fact, hinder our ultimate goal of evangelization? The essence of the Church’s mission is not to protect certain words, but to proclaim the living Christ. If our reaction to a relatively minor shift in language results in division or distraction, we must reconsider whether our response truly serves the cause of Christ.

Fostering Division or Unity within the Church

The heated reaction to the adoption of BCE risks fostering unnecessary division within the Church. For some, the shift represents a retreat from the explicit proclamation of Christ, a concession to secularism that dilutes the Church’s witness. For others, it reflects a pragmatic adaptation to a pluralistic world in which many, whether Jews, Muslims, or atheists, do not share the Church’s theological worldview but do share a common human history.

This division, however, is deeply counterproductive. Rather than fostering productive dialogue about how best to evangelize in the modern world, Catholics find themselves embroiled in debates over language. Such disputes, though well-intentioned, risk distracting from the Church’s real mission: to proclaim the Gospel and unite believers in Christ. The energy expended on these debates weakens the Church’s internal unity and signals to the world that it is more focused on preserving terminology than on living out Christ’s command to make disciples of all nations.

A Missed Opportunity for Evangelization

Moreover, the strong reactions to the use of BCE risk alienating non-believers and those on the margins of the faith. Many outside the Church already perceive its use of explicitly Christian terms in academic and cultural settings as exclusionary. The Vatican’s decision to use a more neutral term in certain contexts can be seen as an attempt to foster dialogue, to show that the Church can engage with contemporary culture while maintaining Christ as the true center of human history.

When Catholics respond to such a change with outrage, the message to the outside world is one of inflexibility and defensiveness. It reinforces the stereotype that the Church is rigid and unwilling to engage with a diverse and changing society. This can close the door to potential conversations with those who might otherwise be curious about the faith. In seeking to defend traditional terminology, Catholics risk alienating precisely those who might be open to learning more about Christ.

The Distinction Between Tradition and Terminology

Catholic tradition is far more profound than the terms used to measure time. The Church’s understanding of history rests on the belief that Christ is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end of all things. This fundamental truth is not diminished by the use of “Common Era” in specific contexts. The essence of the faith, that Christ’s Incarnation is the pivotal event in human history, remains unchanged.

The emotional reaction against BCE risks conflating a minor and adaptable practice, such as naming conventions, with the core tenets of the faith. This confounding of essentials with peripherals can present Catholic tradition as rigid and unyielding, rather than living and dynamic. The Church has a long history of adapting to different cultures and languages without compromising the essence of its message. From St. Paul’s evangelization in Athens (Acts 17:22-31), where he referenced Greek philosophy to speak to his audience, to the Church’s embrace of local languages in missionary work, Catholicism has always found ways to engage with the world while remaining true to its doctrinal foundations.

The Church’s True Focus: Christ at the Center

Ultimately, the Vatican’s decision to use BCE does not alter the truth of the Incarnation or the Church’s proclamation that Christ is the center of history. Rather, it provides an opportunity for the Church to engage in academic and secular contexts where explicitly Christian terminology might create unnecessary barriers to conversation. For now, the use of BCE fits within the contemporary cultural milieu, allowing the Church to interact meaningfully with a pluralistic world without compromising its core teachings. It is entirely possible that the Church will return to the use of BC in the future, when such a terminology better serves its mission.

The more pressing issue, however, is not the terminology, but the manner in which Catholics respond to it. When the faithful react with disproportionate alarm to a matter as peripheral as dating conventions, they risk losing sight of the Church’s larger mission. The Church’s task is not to defend “BC” and “AD” at all costs, but to proclaim Christ crucified and risen. The way in which this message is communicated will vary according to context, just as St. Paul adjusted his approach when preaching to different audiences.

Overall, it is not the use of BCE that poses a true threat to the Church’s mission, but rather the way in which Catholics respond to this change. The Church must remain focused on what truly matters: the proclamation that Jesus Christ is Lord of history, regardless of how time is labeled. A response that is thoughtful and rooted in both faith and reason will ultimately do far more to bring non-believers into the Church than any defense of tradition that descends into reactionary rhetoric. The focus must remain on inviting all people to encounter the living Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever.