Promising Dialogue (Update)
At the conclusion of the historic “Catholic-Muslim Forum” held these past two days at the Vatican, Pope Benedict addressed the participants.
I am well aware that Muslims and Christians have different approaches in matters regarding God. Yet we can and must be worshipers of the one God who created us and is concerned about each person in every corner of the world. Together we must show, by our mutual respect and solidarity, that we consider ourselves members of one family: the family that God has loved and gathered together from the creation of the world to the end of human history.
I was pleased to learn that you were able at this meeting to adopt a common position on the need to worship God totally and to love our fellow men and women disinterestedly, especially those in distress and need. God calls us to work together on behalf of the victims of disease, hunger, poverty, injustice and violence. For Christians, the love of God is inseparably bound to the love of our brothers and sisters, of all men and women, without distinction of race and culture. As Saint John writes: “Those who say, ‘I love God,’ and hate their brothers or sisters are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen” (1 Jn 4:20).
[skip]
I pray that the “Catholic-Muslim Forum”, now confidently taking its first steps, can become ever more a space for dialogue, and assist us in treading together the path to an ever fuller knowledge of Truth. The present meeting is also a privileged occasion for committing ourselves to a more heartfelt quest for love of God and love of neighbour, the indispensable condition for offering the men and women of our time an authentic service of reconciliation and peace.
Dear friends, let us unite our efforts, animated by good will, in order to overcome all misunderstanding and disagreements. Let us resolve to overcome past prejudices and to correct the often distorted images of the other which even today can create difficulties in our relations; let us work with one another to educate all people, especially the young, to build a common future. May God sustain us in our good intentions, and enable our communities to live consistently the truth of love, which constitutes the heart of the religious man, and is the basis of respect for the dignity of each person. May God, the merciful and compassionate One, assist us in this challenging mission, protect us, bless us and enlighten us always with the power of his love.
Update:
At the conclusion of the Forum a joint statement was released, containing fifteen points. Tomorrow’s L’Osservatore Romano will publish an unofficial Italian translation. I have not yet been able to locate the original text (presumably in English), but if past practice is a guide, it may appear first on the Vatican Radio Website.
Here is one of the propositions as given by L’Osservatore Romano:
11. Professiamo che cattolici e musulmani sono chiamati a essere strumenti di amore e di armonia tra i credenti e per tutta l’umanità, rinunciando a qualsiasi oppressione, violenza aggressiva e atti terroristici, in particolare quelli perpetrati in nome della religione, e a sostenere il principio di giustizia per tutti.
We hold that Catholics and Muslims are called to be instruments of love and harmony between believers and all humanity, renouncing all oppression, aggressive violence and terrorist acts, in particular those perfomed in the name of religion, and to uphold the principle of justice for all.
I am surprised to hear the Holy Father not only call for both Muslims and Christians to worship the one God, but to describe God in the Muslim words for Allah, “the merciful and compassionate One.”
It seems obvious from all his talks and writings that if you asked this Pope, who is God? he would answer, “The God of Jesus Christ.” That’s his very bottom line, if I’ve been reading right.
So there is one God, and that God is the God of Jesus Christ, who made us, and we all need to worship Him. Is this correct?
Fr. Imbelli, thank you for posting this. This forum seems to be a great sign of hope.
Jews, Christians and Muslims believe creation is a free gift from a free and single Creator.
From his lips to God’s ears… B’ezrat Hashem… Inshallah!
(ETA: I almost forgot — Speriamo!)
As most here note, a fine beginning to what we all hope will be continued fruitful dialogue; perhaps a new better model of dialogue with our non-Christian neighbors.
This is a great happening and long in coming. Maybe the job changes the person. Certainly, Ratzinger resisted this for a long time. Yet many Catholic theologians have been clamoring for such a meeting of minds for a long time. No one more than Hans Kung who made this a major effort post mandatum. Sadly the Vatican will probably not acknowledge what Kung has done though such a meeting would hardly of happened without Kung’s effort.
This reminds of the historic agreement between the Vatican and Lutherans on justification, efforts towards which Kung was given a dossier number in the Holy Office, now CDF. Yet that agreement on justification does not happen with the Kung contribution.
Which is a heads up for those of us who discount some great theologians of our time. Much of their work eventually gets adopted by the Vatican. Then it becomes: “As the church has always taught.”
Great news. At the same time it may be incumbent upon us to acknowledge those whose blood is all over such great events.
As monotheistic faiths Islam and Christianity share a belief in one God. Unfortunately Islam’s concept of the one God, and Christianity’s concept of the one God, are not one and the same. Islam holds that God is absolutely transcendent. He is so great he exists beyond humanity’s capacity to know him. Christianity holds that man can come to know God and even have a personal relationship with him; God is interactive. Muslims reject the Christian concept of the Holy Trinity and therefore the divine nature of Jesus Christ [not to mention the Holy Spirit]. Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet and a great guy, but not heaven on earth. The fundamental differences between Islamic and Christian views of the creator are irreconcilable. While we cannot ignore these differences, they can be overcome. In possession of a clear understanding of our respective views of the creator, and in the different ways in which we relate to him, productive dialog is possible, and common solutions to taming extremism can be found. I’m heartened by the fact that, in practice, faithful Muslims and faithful Christians behave in ways that are strikingly similar. On this basis, it’s possible to achieve universal agreement on what it means to be faithful to God, however one chooses to define his true nature. Whether God is absolutely transcendent or interactive, unknowable or knowable, we can observe certain actions and know that they are agreeable, or disagreeable, to God. Unfortunately, we seem unable to acknowledge the important differences in our respective views. Until we can, I expect this dialog will be ignored by the media and by the individuals who could benefit from it – like all the well-meaning interfaith conferences that preceded it. Our religious leaders, while very good at religion-speak are often very poor at real-speak. It’s time to get real. The joint declaration can be found at AsiaNews.it.com.
Thanks to Michael Gonyea for the reference to Asia News. Here is the link: http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=13687&size=A
I would be interested if he would care to develop what he means when he ends by saying “it’s time to get real.” What would that mean in this regard?
On May 13, 2007, theologian James Alison spoke at the London Centre
for Spirituality. It was a day of ecumenical discussion and
exploration about the use of the word ‘spirit’. It was organized by
the Quaker Retreat Group of London. Alison along with Timothy Peat
Ashworth (tutor in Biblical Studies at Woodbrooke Quaker study
centre) gave short presentations to begin the day.
I want to summarize a little of what James Alison had to say. He
realized after he read Ashworth’s handout that he actually was going
to say about the same thing but in different language. To be
original Alison decided to let his Catholic systematic theologian
come out. Alison admitted to having a “little Ratzinger within” who
really always wants to come out. He is not talking about Ratzinger
the Pope but before Ratzinger became the Pope. Alison’s Ratzinger
who wants to come out is a Germanic systematic theologian. So
Alison decided to make more systematic “points” about the Holy Spirit.
Alison reminds us than we are talking about the Holy Spirit we are
not talking about an ‘add on’. When we talk about the Holy Spirit we
are talking about God. We are often betrayed by little bits of
grammar and think of the Holy Spirit as an “it”. Alison tells us
that the Holy Spirit is ‘I AM – a quality of I AM’. He wanted to
make this point clear.
Now, God doesn’t have qualities – any quality of God is God. He
asks us to think of God as a verb and the adverb is the Holy Spirit.
“Because we’re talking about ‘I AM’, and the whole point of ‘I AM’ is
that it’s not a ‘he’ or an ‘it’ or a ‘she’ that can be grasped, but
is a coming-towards-us-out-of-nowhere, and we are the peripheral
bits, if you like. We’re the object, not the subject…When we’re
talking about God we’re talking about the protagonism, the real
protagonism, behind everything that is, and of which we are the
symptoms – rather than an object within our field of vision…”
http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng47.html
It’s pretty clear I’m in over my head here. Undaunted, I soldier on. My background/expertise is communications. I’m the product of 11 wonderful years of fine Catholic schooling, but I’m not a theologion or a scholar. I have a bachelor’s degree in advertising. “It’s time to get real” was a much-too-cute attempt to convey my belief that religious leaders of all faiths tend to talk mostly among themselves, in language only they can understand. I’m certain that the great majority of people haven’t a clue as to what is really happening at this very important forum. “It’s time to get real” is nothing more than a reflection of my wish that religious leaders might do a better job of communicating to regular folk like me. I humbly submit that the stakes are too high for religious leaders to continue conducting business as usual.
I’ve always been fascinated by what motivates Catholics to “dialogue” with other faiths in the first place.
The point of such talks, as far as I can see, is never to reconsider Catholic doctrine in light of what other faiths say about God–if it is, correct me please!–but only to a) clarify points of commonality and difference for the Catholic faithful and b) to reduce long-standing historical tensions, as when Pope John Paul II met with Jewish leaders.
I’m that’s a fair read, how is this particular dialogue “promising”? What does it promise?
I think Fr. Leo D. Lefebure has some interesting things to say about religions in his book “Revelation, the Religions, and Violence.” This is book review of this book. I think a lot of interreligious dialogue is becoming something different than just “dialogue.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_8_118/ai_72094677
For over thirty years Benedictine and Cistercians monks (gender inclusive) have been dialoging with Buddhists, Hindus and other members of non-Christian traditions. At the following site there are bulletins that go back to 1977.
http://monasticdialog.com/bulletins.php
“I’ve always been fascinated by what motivates Catholics to “dialogue” with other faiths in the first place.
“The point of such talks, as far as I can see, is never to reconsider Catholic doctrine in light of what other faiths say about God–if it is, correct me please!–but only to a) clarify points of commonality and difference for the Catholic faithful and b) to reduce long-standing historical tensions, as when Pope John Paul II met with Jewish leaders.”
Hi, Jean,
I think you’re basically right. Dialogue comes about because, in a sense, the Church really has no choice but to communicate, considering that we’re living cheek-by-jowl with people of other faiths. That being the case, communication will happen, no matter what; and it hasn’t always been peaceful; but since Vatican II, the Church has been taking a positive approach to the exercise.
I think it goes further than that, too. At its root, the Church has an outward-facing aspect. Her goal in life isn’t simply to mind its own business and hope others do the same; it’s to spread the Good News to the ends of the earth. That’s not to say that these dialogues have a primarily evangelizing goal. But the church’s evangelizing activities understandably lead to tension and conflict, and these dialogues are meant to ease some of the tension and achieve peace.
‘I think it goes further than that, too. At its root, the Church has an outward-facing aspect. Her goal in life isn’t simply to mind its own business and hope others do the same; it’s to spread the Good News to the ends of the earth. That’s not to say that these dialogues have a primarily evangelizing goal. But the church’s evangelizing activities understandably lead to tension and conflict, and these dialogues are meant to ease some of the tension and achieve peace.”
Jim,
Unfortunately, too often evangelizing is a euphemism for imposing our culture on another group. Today we are much more appreciative of the good in other religions without refusing to acknowledge where we differ. Sometimes they are much better off not ‘converting’ since the example of goodness is too often lacking in the evangelizer. Remember the native Indian who refused baptism while he was sentenced to death by evangelizing Christians. “I would not take baptism from a God who has such evil Representatives.”
The “promise” is always to avoid these terrible wars which too often have had a religious basis. At its best to convince all that we are one world under one God and that we are indeed killing our brother when we go to war.
Jean,
One of my professors (not originally, I think) put Christian interreligious dialoguers (?) into 4 groups: inclusivists, exclusivists, pluralists (and one other -ist I can’t remember offhand.) He drew Wenn diagrams to show that inclusivists think others are included in their salvation, exclusivists think others are outside of their salvation, and pluralists think there are many paths, all of which are good paths and lead to salvation. There are actually a number of prominent theologians who say that Christianity is not only inclusive of the adherents of other religions, but one religion among many. A pluralistic outlook has naturally resulted in re-examinations of Christology; in my view this is because soteriology always, always precedes soteriology. The CDF under Card. Ratzinger was especially concerned with these re-investigations of Christology by those influenced by pluralist or strongly inclusivist outlooks, for example, those of Dupuis, Haight, and Pham.
I thought the stated goals of this dialogue were more modest than self-reappraisal. I thought the main concerns were peaceful coexistence and mutual understanding.
Buddhist Perceptions of Jesus
http://monasticdialog.com/a.php?id=637
Sorry, but I see I’ve left an antecedent unclear in the above comment. I did not mean to say that Dupuis, Haight and Pham were pluralists or strong inclusivists, but that they wrote Christological treatises influenced by those outlooks.
Jesuit priest and theologian Jacques Dupuis, SJ (1923-2004 CE) wrote a
book that was published in 1997 with the title “Toward a Christian
Theology of Religious Pluralism.”
There are few issues that have been as controversial during the past
three decades as the questions that have been stimulated in the West
by the heightened awareness of “other religions.” There is an
expanding literature on the subject with many different positions.
The greatest volume of literature, as well as some of the most
creative and penetrating, have come from Roman Catholics, with
mainline Protestants also giving increased attention to the issues.
Evangelicals have entered the discussion mainly by responding to
Roman Catholic and liberal Protestant positions.
There has been the need of a single volume that can serve as a guide
for this increasingly complex field. For now Dupuis’ book is that
book. Dupuis’ book has flaws but on the whole introduces issues and
perspectives in an accessible manner. Dupuis taught theology in
India for four decades and also for many years at the Gregorian in
Rome.
Dupuis gives a helpful examination of the often quoted axiom “extra
ecclesiam nulla sallus” (no salivation outside the church) that was
formulated at the Council of Florence in 1442 and directed
mainly at schematics and heretics they were having “problems” with at
the time. However just 50 years after the Council of Florence, the
discovery of the New World dramatically changed things, “It became
impossible to continue to believe in any guilt on the part of entire
masses of people who had failed to join the Christian faith.”
Catholic thinkers from the fifteenth through the early twentieth
centuries tried to soften the stance of the Catholic Church through
such theories as limbo, implicit faith, baptism by desire, etc.
The dramatic shift in Catholic thinking on religious pluralism that
started at the end of the 20th Century was actually the product of
thinkers and movements at work for several centuries. Catholic
scholars gave considerable attention to the question of adherents of
other religions even before Vatican II.
By 1960 there were two distinct paradigms to be found among Catholic
theologians. The “fulfillment theory” gives other religions the
legitimacy as “natural religion” and it gives only Christianity the
legitimacy of a “supernatural religion.” Meaning that other
religions find their “fulfillment” in the self-revelation of God in
Jesus Christ.
By contrast the “theory of the presence of Christ in religions” holds
that the various religious traditions “represent in themselves
distinct interventions of God in salvation history…by virtue of the
operative presence in them…of the saving mystery of Jesus Christ.”
In the first theory, human beings are saved by God’s grace in spite
of their religious tradition. In the second theory God’s saving
grace is mediated precisely through such religious practice. Both
the “fulfillment” and the “presence of Christ” theories find
expression in Vatican II documents.
Example of theologians associated with the “presence of Christ”
theory are Karl Rahner, Raimon Panikkar and Jacques Dupuis.
The possibility of salvation outside the Catholic Church had been
recognized by Catholic tradition long before Vatican II. “If Vatican
II innovates in any way on this account, the newness must be seen in
the optimistic way in which the council looks at the world at large,
as is best exemplified by the pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes.”
This is a summary of a book review that appeared in “Trinity
Journal,” Spring 1999, written by Harold Netland. The following link
is to the entire review
In 1997 Dupuis was censured by the Vatican when this book came out.
It is well known that he was grilled mercilessly by Vatican hacks.
He was not disciplined. A few minor changes were made to the book.
In 2001 Pope John Paul II acknowledged Dupuis’ “pioneering” work on
the meaning of other religions in “God’s plan of salvation of
mankind”.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3803/is_199904/ai_n8843051
/pg
Perhaps Catholicism is so reasoned, so based on the Greek concept of logos, that its thinking will always move at a snail’s place. When I would complain to my mother about the Church’s inability to change to meet changing reality, she would caution that while the Church moves slowly, it’s probably good that it does. Her point was well taken. The Church is a counterbalance to societies trying to deal with the ever-accelerating pace of change. I suppose a delicate balancing act is required. The Church is a source of consistency [and solace] in a rapidly changing world, But if it is not careful it will become an anchor – archaic and with little appeal to its contemporary adherents. Some would argue that it already is. I was taught by a progressive brother James [I think he was of the Holy Cross order] that it’s philosophically unsupportable to describe Catholicism as the one true church, its God as the one true God, and its way the only path to eternal salvation. I remember him opining that God has bestowed upon his human creation the gift of intellect. He knows therefore that our understanding of him will evolve. Put another way, God gave us brains and he knows we will use them. I thought John Paul II had made the church’s position on the one true God/one-true path issue clear. It seems I was wrong. My-God-is-better-than-your-God fighting continues to be the rule, not the exception.
“When I would complain to my mother about the Church’s inability to change to meet changing reality, she would caution that while the Church moves slowly, it’s probably good that it does…”
This asks the question of what “church” is. We know it is the people and officials of the church, certainly part of the church, have argued that it is the officials of the church. The official’s position is hardly tenable, it seems to be. It causes impossible supposition and insupportable claims. Which gets us into continuity and discontinuity when we need not. The only reason is to justify positions of power. Any pope who has tried to stress service over hierarchy has either been harassed or ignored.
We do need people in charge but to ascribe divine powers to them does more harm than good.
On the note of authority in the church it amazes me how we readily accept the pope as head of state when that is so foreign to the way of Jesus. We need to reexamine our history and get the kinks out.
It seems to me that there are some important differences in the ordinary, everyday meanings of “dialogue”, “evangelize” and “evangelization”, meanings with different images attached to the words, They’re the meanings which Catholics like me who know little theology associate with the words..
“Evangelization” is what missionaries do in foreign countries with exotic cultures. It requires great self-sacrifice, and even a willingness to die for the message. Also much study and prayer.
We think of evamgelization as the function of the universal Church, but when we think about it a bit more deeply, we realize that we also are called to do it in our own communities. Then we call it “to evangelize”, to make the Gospel known to people in our own culture. It requires a good bit of study and sometimes a lot of nerve. Protestants evangelize a lot, and some non-Protestants resent it.
“Dialogue” is what we do in our own dioceses, in our own neighborhoods, with believers, mainly Jews and other Christians. All it requires sometimes is a willingness to chat. It’s often a sort of negative undertaking — explaining to others what we *don’t* believe, for instance that everything that the Pope says is true, that we do not have cleft feet, etc. It also has aa positive function — to learn what the others believe. plus we explain our own beliefs. Dialogues often have an undertow — the sneaking suspicion that the each side is really trying to evangelize because the opposide side doesn’t actually understand what it’s talking about.
This morning (Friday’s) New York Times reports on the meeting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/europe/07pope.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin
“English scholar, Cyprian Rice, in the 1930s, showed that following
upon the Muslim conquest of the lands of Syriac Christianity in the
seventh century, the teachings of the Catholic monk, Evagrius Ponticus,
which had been translated into Syriac from the Greek, influenced the
character of Sufi spiritual teaching….”
~ Dom John Eudes Bamberger, OCSO
http://www.abbotjohneudes.org/c06nov07.htm
However one slices it this is still a great event. As the times points out, one year after slamming Islam the pope has a watershed meeting like this. The God of Jesus Christ belongs to the whole world. Not just Catholics. We rightly rejoice in our singular blessings. But that gift should bring magnanimity. Not hatred, contempt and warfare.
Michael,
thank you so much for the link to Father Bamberger’s article. It is a most concise and helpful discussion of Christian mysticism.
Bill,
This is the question: would this dialogue have happened without the catalyst of the Regensburg?
First, it strikes me that Michael, despite his neat modesty, continues to make important contributions to discussion here.
About dialogue, as Ann points out, there are several meanings to the term based on several understandings – too long to deal with in one post here to say the least.
It’s clear that the notion of “dialogue” came late to Catholicism, after the World Counci lof Churches had embarked on various projects under that rubric.
At minimum, we need to distinguish among dialogues with non-Christians, with Jews (who we have a special relationship bibblicaly), with other Christians, with the Orthodox, and within the Church and with various levels within that.
The goals and practices of dialogue may also be seen in different ways: not only ecclesiology but the way in which one views (a term often glibly thrown around her) the Truth, remains another fault line in the divide acros Catholicism.
The lovely attempt to unite, for example, liberals and conservatives in the church by dialogue in NPLC’sCommon Ground initiative and the diffuculties that encountered underscore the divide.
Personally, I continue to beleive in the old courtyard analogy as a good way to start dialogue: viz. each of us looks at the same thing from a different (window) frame of the courtyard with a differnt light upon it and even a different size window.
If we can respect that and listen, we ca begin to come together.
If we start with only one frame, the division remains.
I know some here will surely not agree, but that’s my perspective, if you’ll pardon the expression.
At any rate, I recommend Hinze’s 2006 book on Practices of Dialogue in the Roman Catholic Church, which discusses the diffent kinds of dialogue, their history and the problems still extant.
Finally, I think BXVI is to be congratulated for his sensitivity at his presentation and the discussion is off to a good start, from which we all, I hope, will continue to draw hope.
Everyone, thanks for the nickel lessons on Catholics in dialogue, if that’s even the right word to use.
Also thanks to Father Imbelli for the link to the NYT article.
The paper is pitching this as an effort in tension reduction:
“Catholic and Muslim leaders worked on Thursday to deflate suspicion between their two faiths, pledging at a high-level seminar here to work together to condemn terrorism, protect religious freedom and fight poverty. … both sides said they hoped that the seminar would open a new and much-improved chapter in Catholic-Muslim relations, as the two groups said they might establish a committee that could ease tensions in any future crisis between the two religions.”
Interesting development, but I’m still trying to get at the ramifications.
Perhaps in the short-run, clerics on both sides will be more circumspect/respectful in their comments?
Might this be a first, tiny step toward getting Muslim clerics to advocate decriminalizing evangelization efforts? Or at least tolerating Muslim converts to Christianity in countries where this is outlawed?
Might it also herald a re-examination of the way Catholic organizations could operate in the Middle East? Though, as I understand it, Catholic groups respect laws that prohibit evangelizing Muslims and work largely with existing Christian minority populations. (Many existing Christians are not, of course, RC, but Orthodox, and I wonder to what extent that creates tensions with the Orthodox Churches.)
Certainly brings to light, if nothing else, the fairly complicated issues the Vatican, as a political and theological entity, facs with Islam and Muslim countries.
Jean,
I’m out of nickels, but just to add in two more cents…
The books of Phan, Dupuis and Haight that all prompted CDF investigations have something else in common: all were published by Orbis Books, the publishing arm of the Maryknoll missionary fathers and brothers.
My sense is that the questions of how to handle ourselves interreligiously have prompted overly scrupulous questionings about the meaning of our self-identification as Christians.
With all due respect, you are talking to yourselves in language only you [the top 2%] can understand. You would be well-served, I believe, to think about how to best deconstruct religion-speak so that, while remaining true to its philisophical underpinnings, it is meaningful to Joe-the Christian. If anyone has the link to God for dummies [me], I would be grateful for a redirect back to the real world.
Kathy, I’m not really asking HOW I should view Catholic-other talks/dialogues in general, though you are free to reiterate your own notions about this here as on previous threads.
I’m simply interested in why others who have expressed positive ideas about this confab feel that it is “promising,” and whether I’m pulling the same things out of the story that they are.
Michael, I think we’re on the same page. Those of us who have to look up big words like “soteriology” need to holler up the Ivory Tower every once in a while to ask, “So this affects me how?”
Thanks Jean. I agree. I hope that in the process of bringing this discussion down to earth we haven’t alieneted Father Imbelli and Michael E. Miller, among the other super smart people who have commented.
Just want to add I thought the NPR synopsis this morning summarized well.
I hope Michael would find it helpful.
I thought the discussio nand joint declaration was hopeful because:
-BXVI took a “positive” approach in his presentation;
-there will be regular continuing dialogue
-it’s likely a joint task force wil be formed to deal with “urgent” issues as they arise.
Everyone knows it’s a first step and not to expect all issues to be dealt with immediately.
P.S. Dialogue requires patience; what is hard to see if they will realistically kep up with the pace of change.
Now I’m lost. Is the problem a matter of vocabulary, or of relevance? Because it seems to me that Joe the Christian, even if he doesn’t know the word soteriology, should care about Who Jesus is, and what salvation is. It seems to me that these are the nitty-gritty daily concerns of Catholicism, as urgent and as fundamental as what’s for dinner and where are my socks.
My own interreligious dialogue has been mainly with Buddhists. Primarily what prompted me to seek out this dialogue with Buddhists was the possibility that I could be helped by this tradition. My first contact with Buddhism was when I attended a Benedictine (Camaldolese Benedictine) and Buddhists symposium that lasted a long weekend a few years ago. At that symposium I asked a young Buddhist practitioner what Buddhism was for him. He told me that for him Buddhism was about mindfulness. That idea grab me and I have been very interested in Buddhism since them. Frankly Buddhism has helped me and I am sure many other Benedictine monks and oblates would tell you the same thing.
The wisdom of non-Christian traditions can help Catholics. This is something that should not be overlooked when we discuss interreligious dialogue.
I heard once that the Chinese character for chaos is also the same character for opportunity. The Catholic Church might discover new opportunities for wisdom and compassion because of today’s misunderstandings and violence among religions. Perhaps our hearts have already been penetrated a little by new and more promising possibilities. Perhaps Pope Benedict’s heart has been penetrated by some new things.
Like psalmist tells us, each day creation waits at the threshold to be born again.
Living Buddha, Living Christ, by the zen monk Thich Nhat Hanh is a good reflection on Christ from a Buddhist perspective and certainly helps to open one up to the potential for fruitful interreligious dialogue. The author was instrumental in the development of engaged Buddhism and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Given Nostra Aetate and Pope JPII’s address in India in 1986 (worth reading for those not that interested in dialogue with other faiths), I think it is easy for those drawn to “the other” to appreciate the idea of many religions centered on the same truth and mystery, although expressing it in different ways.
“The wisdom of non-Christian traditions can help Catholics. This is something that should not be overlooked when we discuss interreligious dialogue.”
Michael M., interesting idea.
I was raised a Unitarian-Universalist, and we believed that God lives in the commonalities of all religions. U-Us respect Jesus as one prophet among many.
As a trinitarian Christian, I believe that Christ is at the center of religious truth, and that it is possible for the light of that truth to shine in the faith of people who have never heard of Jesus. I don’t know whether Catholic teaching would uphold my notion, I hasten to add.
I think it’s also possible that non-Christians can remind us of elements or wisdom in our own faith that we have forgotten. Years ago in grad school, when “The Great Gatsby” came up in our lit seminar, a devout Buddhist student talked about her inability to understand notions of American success and materialism. It struck me then that Jesus Christ would have pretty much the same response.
I also have to say that my notions of repentance, particularly in the idea of finding joy in penitance, were hugely influenced by conversations with a Jewish co-worker about Yom Kippur.
These experiences didn’t make me feel that Christianity was wrong; on the contrary, they enlivened my faith and reminded me of what was already there.
On the other hand, you could argue that if I were more committed to dipping into Catholic thought and teaching in a serious way, I wouldn’t need to get these jolts of faith from Buddhists and Jews.
In any case, I don’t think ecumenical insights are what the Muslim-Catholic confab is all about.
Some may be interested in reading the musings of Fr. Francis X. Clooney, who is an occasional contributor at the America blog. Most of his contributions in that forum focus on interreligious dialogue, especially on Hinduism, though he is clearly knowledgeable about a wide variety of religions. I’ve had substantial exposure to Hinduism, so I enjoy his efforts at finding common ground between the pantheism of Hinduism and the monotheism of Christianity. He even draws some parallels between the Hindu Vedic literature and the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius. If nothing else, he makes clear that mutual respect is the first principle of interreligious dialogue.
Kathy. Don’t worry about being confused. I am too. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I’m no scholar, but I do have some experience/expertise in communication. I think we tend to read these posts with an eye toward whether they are consistent, or not, with our own thinking. It’s natural that we would. But I think it’s important to try to read each post as if one were joining the conversation for the first time. At least that’s what I try to do. For what it’s worth, I think that miscommunication among like-minded people like us proves that interfaith communication/dialog is extroardinarily difficult. I guess that’s why I’ve suggested that it would be nice if “super smart” people could try harder to communicate effectively with “normal smart” people like me. If our theologians and scholars could try a little harder to use “real-speak” they would have more success communicating with those of us who could benefit from what they have to say
Jean, Thanks for all the times you have posted messages. It is helpful to read them. I also have been influenced by Jewish thought. I have found things in this tradition that I have not found elsewhere.
In the current issue of Commonweal, there is a wonderful review of ” Wrestling with the Other” by Joseph Bones. The review was done by Stephen Peppard. Among other things Peppard tells us, “When God is freed from the burden of moral perfection, the early narratives of the Bible open to new interpretations. God is seen as capable of moral growth, of learning new ways of speaking and acting. The Bible ‘depicts a constant struggle between God and humanity,’ but ‘its sympathies lie with mankind,’ which becomes God’s moral tutor. This upended worldview leads to surprising conclusions: a just world is not achieved by human beings conforming to the will of God, but rather ‘a world of justice’ is ‘achieved by transforming God.’”
I hope in time the relationships between Muslims Catholics will lead to ecumenical insights.
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2363
The author of “Wrestling with the Other, Joseph’s Bones” is Jerome M. Segal.
Michael G,
The reason I’m confused is that you and Jean have both mentioned 2 distinct issues that you are not understanding: 1) exalted vocabulary and 2) exalted ideas.
I would suggest that whatever the vocabulary, simple or scholarly, salvation itself is an urgent, down-to-earth question of daily concern for every Catholic. Questions like this are urgent and concrete Christian concerns: what is salvation? What does it look like? How does it happen? What is next?
I think that the answers to these questions are going to vary widely from person to person, even among Christians–spiritualities are many and varied. But would they even be asked by a Buddhist? Is salvation a Buddhist concern?
Kathy,
I think your message to Michael G. was meant for me. I didn’t write anything about not understanding your vocabulary or your ideas. Go back and check the messages.
Kathy,
Sorry but you did mean to send your message to Michael G.
Kathy. On this point I guess we will have to disagee. I don’t think salvation is an urgent down-to-earth question for Joe the Christian. He may attend Sunday services, but his concern about salvation is left at the church door. That’s just my opinion. I believe that exalted ideas need to be communicated in a way Joe-the-Christian [I think we're related by the way] can understand and apply in his daily life.
Michael G.,
I think you’re right. It’s tragic, but probably true, that salvation is not a concern for most Catholics. And I think you’re right that effective communication is the answer, especially, I think, making use of the proper texts of the liturgy that speak urgently about the human need for help and the mercy of God in Christ.
“God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.” (2 Cor 5:19) This should be (and isn’t necessarily) the central fact and touchstone of the Christian liturgy.
Catholic/Muslim Statement of Concern and Common Understanding
September 28, 2008
Humanity stands in relation to the rest of creation differently from all other creatures and things. (Genesis 2:7) (Qur’an, 2:31; 17:70; 16:78; 55:3-4) Blessed and burdened by a contemplative intelligence embracing both mind and moral discernment, each human person has a destiny shaped by free will and intentional action. (Compendium 114, 131) (Qur’an, 6:161-164; 18:46; 33:71; 84:6; 103:3) Each individual is called to work and service in response to that which gives purpose. (Genesis 9:1; Laborem Exercens) (Qur’an, 2:30; 6:165; 11:61; 51:56-57) The good things that are and can be done in such service can serve as the basis for collaboration in seeking better lives for all human persons everywhere…
http://www.monasticdialog.com/n.php?id=59
I think I understand exalted language and ideas.
What I have difficulty understanding is theological jargon when it comes up on various threads, though not on this one; I was only commiserating with Michael G. in a general way.
When I can’t follow a discussion, I look up the words in the dictionary, but I often feel I’m still missing important shadings of meanings. And, most frequently of late, I lose interest and wander off to find something to dust.
RC attitudes about dialogue with those in other faiths/denominations interests me as a convert, and even though I no longer identify myself as Catholic, my husband and son are still faithful, so I try to keep up, as it were.
Re this discussion, Kathy’s school notes about the four types of dialoguers (well, three that she could remember) were helpful, as well as the link to the NYT story about the upshot of the Muslim-Catholic dialogue.
I agree that God’s reconciliation with his creatures is the pivot point, linchpin, crux of the biscuit, or what-have-you of Christianity.
I’m not sure how a sense of urgency is tied up with that from a RC perspective. (Fundie-vangelists, of course, feel the urgency to get as many people straightened out before the Rapture, which, if you look at Jack Van Impe’s Web page, could be any moment now.)
Nor am I quite able to make the connection between that central idea of Christianity and how that relates to the topic of Muslim-Catholic discussions, which I admit from my own ignorance, and I would be happy to read on if anyone cares to enlarge, though I sense this discussion has about played out.
The urgency of evangelicals is different, I think, than the Catholic urgency. For Catholics, salvation, viewed from the human side of the divine-human cooperative project, is most likely not a one-time conversion but an ongoing conversion or a deepening in faith. So it’s not just a single corner that needs to be turned, but a series, and there is all sorts of freedom and personality and life history involved, etc. So it’s a process.
However, in that process, it seems to me that the Catholic tradition agrees that there is optimally this constant striving to be ever more faithful to the salvation freely offered–to allow God more sway. In the Gospels, people are always asking Jesus for help, and he calls their requests “faith.” St. Paul tells people to pray constantly, making known their petitions with thanksgiving. In his Conferences, John Cassion (4th-5th c.) says that the prayer best suited to every situation is from the Psalms: “God, come to my assistance. Lord make haste to help me.” In the liturgy of the hours, this expression of pleading opens every hour but the first hour of the morning, which begins, “Lord, open my lips, and my mouth shall proclaim your praise.” In other words, the Christian prayer, all day long, is a request for help. The proper texts of the liturgy are constantly repeating these prayers that express very deep and urgent need.
The question is, why? If people have their needs met, and even a surplus for good works, why keep begging God for help? The answer, I think, is that what Christians are truly asking for is much more than basic needs and even for the ability to do good in the world, but for salvation–what St. Paul calls “the revelation of the sons of God.” (Among many other breathtaking expressions, including “the summing up of all things in Christ” and “being transformed from glory to glory.”
I think that interreligious dialogue can be approached very fruitfully if certain not hugely important but somewhat limited goals are sought, such as working towards the common good, seeking peace, mutual understanding. However, my experience has been that most people who work in these dialogues want a greater sense of religious concord than is realistic, or even real, given the very real differences among the religions, if all of them are true to themselves in a theological manner.
I think that many attempts have been made (published, lauded) by Christian theologians to diminish the value of salvation in Christ, because the unique salvation we have in Christ is seen as a “barrier” to dialogue on a theological level. It is, in fact, such a barrier, because if our prayer is, centrally, “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner,” how many adherents of other religions can honestly pray with us?
“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast,
it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not
easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in
evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts,
always hopes, always perseveres.”
1 Corinthians 13:4-7
Evagrius Ponticus and John Cassian render apatheia by the more Biblical
term, “purity of heart.” Cassian further identifies purity as the love
described in Paul’s 1 Corinthians 13:4-7. For Cassian, purity of heart
is the immediate goal of monastic life, with the ultimate end being the
kingdom of God.
The life of monks [gender inclusive] can include the renunciation of destructive
thoughts that can lead to destructive desires. This is part of the
Hesychast tradition. In Greek hesychast can mean stillness, rest,
quiet, silence. In this tradition the thoughts or preoccupations
monks work on or try to let go of are: food, sex, things, anger,
dejection, acedia, vainglory and pride. This spirituality of the
desert hermits and monks of Egypt was transmitted to us through
Evagrius Ponticus (346-399 CE) and then to the West through John
Cassian (360-435 CE). Traditionally desert spirituality includes
the renunciation of these eight (8) thoughts.
The desert monks tell us that pride is the most deadly of all
thoughts. Hasidic sages tell us God and the proud man or proud woman
cannot dwell together in the same place with God. Prideful thoughts
tell us we can control our destiny and the destiny of others. It
tells us we know what is best for ourselves and for others. Pride
becomes who we are.
Cassian tells us the tell-tale sign of pride is when someone starts
to make judgements about what is good for everyone around them. When
this happens conversation is no longer possible.
There are two kinds of pride. There is spiritual pride and there is
carnal pride. An example of spiritual pride is when a person
believes they can show others the path to great heights of wisdom and
power. Carnal pride is an exaggerated thought of self-importance.
The desert monks and hermits tell us pride can destroy all virtues
and it attacks the whole person. It casts down the whole body, mind
and soul. Pride lacks patience and charity. It is hard to renounce
pride because it feels so good.
Humility combats pride. Humility is not “up” as in vanity nor is
it “down” as in dejection. To be humble someone needs to be mindful
of God. Humility means being watchful over our behavior and inner
thoughts and having a willingness to respond to others with charity.
Spiritual direction is helpful.
Pride deters us from having a spiritual life. We can always make a
new beginning. The desert monks and hermits tell us the journey
without pride requires a simple and profound listening to all that is
holy in this life. There are many guides including scripture,
tradition, friends and elders.
Eventually somebody may enter into what the mystics describe as an
inner friendship or an abiding presence. It is at this point,
language is useless. Renouncing thoughts allows God as God to
emerge.
Forgiveness is foundational because it gives the process the freedom
to get on with things again and again.
Each thought is handled differently in this tradition.
I have learned a great deal about this entire subject from a book a
Benedictine by the name of Mary Margaret Funk, OSB wrote. The title
of her book is “Thoughts Matter: The Practice of the Spiritual Life.”
The ‘The Jesus Prayer’ is part of the Hesychast tradition and had its
beginnings with the monks and hermits of the Egyptian desert in the
3rd and 4th centuries.
The classic wording of the ‘The Jesus Prayer’ is: “Lord Jesus Christ,
Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Some shorten this prayer and
simply say “Lord Jesus” or “Jesus” or “Lord” or whatever.
A wonderful book about the ‘The Jesus Prayer’ is a narrative written
by an anonymous Russian peasant. He tells us about his experience with
‘The Jesus Prayer’. The name of the book is “The Way of A Pilgrim.”
It is considered one of the great classics on prayer. There is also
another wonderful book written by Jesuit Fr. Waltar Ciszek on the
same subject titled “The Way of A Pilgrim & The Pilgrim Continues His
Ways.”
I think many people and probably especially monks (gender inclusive)
in both the churches of the West and in the churches of the East pray
a version of the ‘The Jesus Prayer’.
The following link is to the Wikipedia description of this prayer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Prayer
That our concept of person is central in mysticism will be evident to anyone who considers in detail the teachings of Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu and Taoist mystics. There is no time here, of course, to demonstrate this assertion in detail. Let us consider a statement of one of the representative Catholic theologians of the Middle Ages, Richard of Saint Victor, living in 12th century France. In his work, De Trinitate, ( 3.xiv) he defines person as a Astanding in relationship@; love constitutes the person:=esse ad alios= (>being for others=). He concludes from this concept that God is love, not a single person, monolithic, but shares by nature. Clearly this aspect of God is the enabling reality that makes Him accessible to us in faith and in prayer which is the activation of faith. It is, accordingly, the basis of all true mysticism…
~ Dom John Eudes Bamberger, OCSO
http://www.abbotjohneudes.org/c06nov07.htm
Jean, Michaels, et al,
Please pardon a type in my 4th paragraph above, and strike the word “not” from the 1st line of the 4th paragraph.
Here is a clearer statement of the “urgency” I’ve been talking about, and of the divine/ human cooperation on the salvation project: “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. (Phil 2:12b-13)
Kathy,
I am going to tell you a little secret. At times Christians do pray with people who are not Christian. There are even some Christians who learn from people who are not Christian.
Contemporary Roman Catholic theology tends to avoid the language of
merit and repayment, precisely because of the dangers of
misunderstanding. A monk by the name of Michael has this to
say, “The whole point of St. Paul’s theology, and of all Christian
theology throughout the ages (most significantly St. Augustine),
is that ‘all is grace’, that is, the fruit of the unbounded bounty of
God’s love. Of course, even St. Paul uses ‘banking’ language at times
(e.g. Phil. 4:14ff), as does later tradition; but, I suspect this is
more in the category of what he elsewhere calls adaptation to our
human weakness and understanding. In fact, any ‘merit’ or ‘repayment’
that takes place does not and cannot originate from us, but is simply
the power and consequence of the free gift of God working in and
through us. In that sense, of course, God cannot and need not be
repaid, or, if you will, is repaid only by his own love.”
Kathy, Michael, thanks for more food for thought.
Perhaps the kind of urgency Kathy is getting at can be found in the Book of Common Prayer forms for devotion throughout the day that include, “O God, make speed to save us; O Lord, make haste to help us.”
I have often used that response as a prayer in itself, not as in, “Hurry and save me now, Lord, before I’m Left Behind,” but as a reminder that I stand in need of Christ’s help at all times and mustn’t get complacent. And I suppose any plea to ward off complacency has a kind of urgency.
Or maybe that’s not what Kathy means at all, but thanks for the ecumenical effort.
Jean,
If I understand you and him, the way you pray that response is probably just what Cassian recommended, as a constant refrain throughout the day, in all circumstances.
I apologize that it took me so long to firmly connect the topic of the thread (the interreligious dialogue of this week) to the concern I first voiced many comments ago. I was responding especially to Jean’s question of whether and how such dialogues should lead Christians to re-examine their own doctrine. My sense is that such re-examinations form a thriving, still-fashionable niche market of theological publishing.
Kathy and Jean,
Thanks for reminding me that I stand in need of Christ’s help at all times. Thanks for reminding me about constant prayer. Prayer opens us to God’s endless truth, endless goodness, endless beauty.
“I was responding especially to Jean’s question of whether and how such dialogues should lead Christians to re-examine their own doctrine. My sense is that such re-examinations form a thriving, still-fashionable niche market of theological publishing.”
Yes, well. Without examples, that strikes me as overly cynical and harsh. Though I suppose if one feels one is protecting the truth from ideas that distort rather than elucidate, politeness must take a back seat.
Gotta go get The Boy up for Mass.
Jean,
I gave 3 examples. See above.
You mean here?
“[Not to say that] Dupuis, Haight and Pham were pluralists or strong inclusivists, but that they wrote Christological treatises influenced by those outlooks.”
Sorry. I guess I didn’t realize you were not only criticizing their approach to Christology, but also characterizing them as fashionable, publishing niche-fillers.
Yes, and here:
The books of Phan, Dupuis and Haight that all prompted CDF investigations have something else in common: all were published by Orbis Books, the publishing arm of the Maryknoll missionary fathers and brothers.
That’s enough of this thread for me.
The fact that Phan, Dupuis and Haight were investigated by the CDF does not mean that there is something wrong with their Christology or their theology. In fact the CDF’s recent notification against Jon Sobrino repeats the claim that Jesus enjoyed the beatific vision as a child. The CDF may have fallen into the heresy of doectism.
One of my heroes is Dorothy Day. Robert Ellsberg, who is editor in chief at Orbis Books, tells us about a new book about Dorothy Day’s diaries.
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2182&var_recherche=dorothy
“As a trinitarian Christian, I believe that Christ is at the center of religious truth, and that it is possible for the light of that truth to shine in the faith of people who have never heard of Jesus. I don’t know whether Catholic teaching would uphold my notion, I hasten to add.”
Yes – perfectly Catholic!
Also, the church teaches that people who have never heard of Jesus can be saved, if they follow the promptings that God has placed in the hearts of all humans.
This teaching exists in tension (in a good way) with the great commission to tell all the nations about Jesus and baptize those who believe in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
“The wisdom of non-Christian traditions can help Catholics. This is something that should not be overlooked when we discuss interreligious dialogue. ”
Amen, Michael!
“We think of evamgelization as the function of the universal Church, but when we think about it a bit more deeply, we realize that we also are called to do it in our own communities. Then we call it “to evangelize”, to make the Gospel known to people in our own culture. It requires a good bit of study and sometimes a lot of nerve. Protestants evangelize a lot, and some non-Protestants resent it. ”
Ann, I really think this insight is deserving of a lot more thought and discussion. I agree wholeheartedly that evangelization must – and does – happen within the parish, the family, the workplace, the school – in our own lives.
I think when most of us think of Protestants evangelizing, we think of Jehovah’s Witnesses going door-to-door, or the guy in the seat next to us on the plane who won’t shut up and let us get our work done. My own view is that “evangelization moments” arise in our lives, and we need to be open to them and ready to respond with faith and trust. In my experience, this happens via simple conversation, and never when I am purposely trying to “spread the word”. But people are hungry for the bread of life, and sometimes they ask us for it. At such times, their hearts are open – their hearts are like well-turned soil, ready for the seed to be planted. And all we have to do is affirm and share our faith.
Jim Pauweis,
“Amen” to all three of your recent comments. Your “trinitarianism” is impressive.
Thank you Fr. Imbelli. For my part, I’m grateful to have you back posting here again – I learn a lot about my faith, and also brush up on my Italian :-)
I’m grateful to have you back posting here again
Ditto!
–My own view is that “evangelization moments” arise in our lives, and we need to be open to them and ready to respond with faith and trust. In my experience, this happens via simple conversation, and never when I am purposely trying to “spread the word”.–
I’m not much of a “Word spreader” myself (being cranky, anti-social, and argumentative tends to work against being a bearer of Good News), but I certainly have had the benefit of others. And it’s funny that sometimes you don’t realize that until much–sometimes years–later.
When I was about seven, I was visiting our Catholic neighbors, and the dad saw me eying their crucifix. He took it down and explained the crucifixion and resurrection. I told him I didn’t believe anyone could die and wake up again. He told me that one of Jesus’ friends thought that, too, and that Jesus understood that and let his friend, Thomas, touch the wounds.
That was all that was said.
But it certainly made the story more credible to me–that someone would have sense enough to ask for proof–and later the notion that doubt and faith could co-exist helped me resist rejecting religious ideas out of hand.