What is the point of interfaith dialogue?
Pope Benedict XVI gave an insight into his thinking on this topic in a letter to a friend and co-author, Marcello Pera, a philosopher and former president of the Italian senate and an agnostic (perhaps even an atheist) who has nonetheless been a great champion of Benedict’s project to protect Europe’s Christian cultural heritage. Pera is one who has responded positively to the pope’s call for unbelievers to “act as if God exists.”
Benedict’s letter to Pera was written up in the Italian papers, and now on the English-language wires and in The New York Times.
In quotations from the letter that appeared on Sunday in Corriere della Sera, Italy’s leading daily newspaper, the pope said the book “explained with great clarity” that “an interreligious dialogue in the strict sense of the word is not possible.” In theological terms, added the pope, “a true dialogue is not possible without putting one’s faith in parentheses.”
But Benedict added that “intercultural dialogue which deepens the cultural consequences of basic religious ideas” was important. He called for confronting “in a public forum the cultural consequences of basic religious decisions.”
In effect, Benedict is saying the point of interreligious dialogue is to promote peace and other pragmatic steps, rather than engaging in theological give-and-take that would go beyond presenting and arguing and defending the truths of Catholicism. This position is nothing new for Benedict; he has never been a fan of interreligious dialogue as it has been construed since Vatican II, and especially under John Paul II. (Hence Ratzinger’s longstanding suspicions and crackdowns on theologians engaged in this field.)
Ratzinger/Benedict’s view of interfaith dialogue has always seemed to me rather constricted, an “either/or” proposition that leaves little room for learning from others or truly engaging the “other,” in ways that expand one’s own faith without diluting it, and also expand one’s appreciation of God’s creation and its desire for Him. And it can, I think, lead to a kind of parochialism that sees Jesus as a “Catholic.” (Italian, of course.) John Allen calls this “dialogue with teeth.” Interlocutors on the other side of the dialogue can see it as a bared smile, not quite inviting, yet not altogether irrelevant, given the state of the world.
Thoughts from the gallery? What is, or should be, the point of interfaith dialogue?
on November 24th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Religious and theological people within the Christian tradition often
talk about he need for “dialogue.” Often those who support dialogue,
including myself, have a deceptively simple idea of what dialogue is.
Actual dialogue is a rare phenomenon in anybody’s experience.
Dialogue demands that we struggle to hear and respond to another
other. This does not mean a projected other. This means the real
other.
The Jewish-Christian dialogue in a post-Holocaust age has needs not
met yet. We can’t take history with theological seriousness and
ignore the Holocaust. It is our responsibility to admit and reflect
on not just the “good” parts.
Dialogue with the Buddhist tradition has caused Christianity to
reconsider her more radical apophatic mystics more seriously such as Meister Eckart.
Our only hope is to hear one another amid the differences and
conflicts that dialogue demands. We know now that there is no
innocent tradition, no innocent classics (including the scriptures)
and no innocent reading (including ours). Lets hope that real
dialogue leads to solidarity.
Let us hope that we learn from each other through all our honest
confusions.
on November 24th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Recently I received the following message from a practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
michael…
i very much appreciated your post.
i often imagine this film of humanity, extended in time and space
across this earth, as a sort of spiritual parallel processor. every
people begin with the same birthright. we can all this many things.
immortal soul. buddha nature. we are also thrown into the same
challenges– birth, old age, sickness and death… love, loss and a
search for meaning. life is hard, and we are adaptive by nature. we
converge on meaning, with the grace of something unseen.
i guess at some point in time, the picture was all much simpler. we
knew only one trajectory towards spiritual meaning. today, the world
is smaller. those trajectories crisscross our experience whether or
not we take notice.
i personally find that spiritual richness compelling. we see that all
peoples have converged upon many of the same truths. at least the
contemplatives. there is something sacred to life. love each other.
don’t be self centered. clean up after yourself. there is something
larger than you. life is mysterious. get out of your head and open
your heart to other ways of knowing. i have more confidence in
following a spiritual life looking at this richness in a wide
panorama… than i do, focusing entirely on my own path.
this is why i value interfaith dialog. especially if it is very open,
honest and simple. it is a reality check to come back to *essence*, a
reminder to not neurose about the details of *form*.
my challenge in interfaith dialog is having a conversation without
jargon. if we have to be specialists in two traditions to have an
“interfaith” dialog, then our opportunity for mutual support and
sharing is quite limited. it’s spontaneity and innocence is certainly
lost. however, if we talk mostly from the fire in our belly and the
juice in our veins– our actual experience– then there is great hope
and room for a meta-community of spiritual seekers.
-e
on November 24th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Yesterday’s gospel clearly puts Benedict to shame. Jesus does not ask the sheep or goats, what their doctrinal stance was, whether they were baptized or indeed had all the sacraments or which Eucharistic prayer they prayed. Clear and simple; I was hungry, in prison, sick ….and you helped.
Who else can speak better to the restorationist Benedict but the great Congar? http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_/ai_62741542
on November 24th, 2008 at 10:44 am
The New York Times writer quoted Benedict as saying that, “in theological terms; ‘a true dialog is not possible without putting one’s faith in parentheses.’”
The editor responsible for the headline got it wrong. The same article went on to say “Benedict added that: ‘intercultural dialogue which deepens the cultural consequences of basic religious ideas’ was important.’”
Benedict is not questioning the potential value of interfaith dialogue, he’s simply saying the way it’s been done in the past doesn’t work. When forced to “put one’s faith in parentheses” dialogue lacks authenticity. Benedict is bemoaning the fact that dialogue with Islamic leaders can’t start with a frank but respectful discussion of “creedal” differences.
Until it can, it won’t be very productive.
on November 24th, 2008 at 10:59 am
When forced to “put one’s faith in parentheses” dialogue lacks authenticity.
Am I misunderstanding something? By “putting one’s faith in parentheses” does he mean that going into dialogue requires a “willing suspension of belief”? That is, do you say to yourself, “Of course, my faith tells me that I am 100 percent right about everything, so in order to enter into dialogue, I have to pretend that I don’t know everything in order to talk to somebody else?” That seems awfully arrogant even given the fact that the Catholic Church believes it’s the one true church. Obviously Catholics and Muslims will not enter into dialogue each with the objective of converting the other. But isn’t it possible each has something to share with the other that the other will find valuable?
on November 24th, 2008 at 11:50 am
The pope’s attempt to address differences between faiths in his Regensburg speech resulted, not in dialogue about differences, but in violence. Reading between the lines, Benedict is bemoaning the fact that dialogue with Islamic leaders can’t start with a frank but respectful discussion of important doctrinal differences. In order to enter into productive dialogue, one must first understand as much as they can about somebody else. Otherwise ensuing discussions will be unproductive.
on November 24th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
A few thoughts:
1) I would not want to diminish even the constricted view of interfaith talking with each other that is defended by the Pope. In a religiously charged world, it is important to know the concerns of other groups, the possible misunderstandings at play, and ways to improve cooperation in areas of ethical convergence (e.g., anti-poverty efforts).
2) That said, I would be inclined to support a much fuller idea of inter-religious dialogue along the lines of what Paul Griffiths has called (something like) taking “Egyptian gold” a reference to what the Jews did as they fled Egypt. There is no reason why a religion must put its claims in parentheses in order to learn from the insights of other religious traditions. On the assumption that even highly orthodox views of faith would still grant that there is room for the Christian vision of the world to grow, that growth may be stimulated by encounters with other religious traditions.
3) That said, I think such a position would be difficult to take by someone who has a constricted view of what Christianity is actually all about. If one has an exclusivistic understanding of salvation as being found only in faith in Jesus Christ, and one thinks that to engage other religious traditions in dialogue would somehow imply a soteriological legitimacy to those traditions, then one might hesitate to search even for Egyptian gold. Now, one might have an exclusivistic understanding of salvation and yet still have an interest in search for Egyptian gold, but I suspect that such individuals would be the exception rather than the rule.
4) Lastly, as I have argued many times before on dotComm, I think Christianity is in the throws of a credibility crisis brought on in no small measure by both Copernican and historical-critical turns in human thinking. There is likely no center stage in the cosmic drama, and the deliverances of the past cannot simply be defended by appeals to authority. Additionally, many of the reasons given by authorities in the past are just not compelling for many people. This credibility crisis is perhaps most severe on the very issue that would differentiate Christianity from other religions; namely, the uniquely salvific role of Jesus Christ in human history. I think Christianity is having a difficult time getting beyond just repeating old rationales for this claim, rather than giving these old rationales the kind of contemporary defense that they require. If I am correct about the credibility crisis, then it would not be surprising if some Christians preferred not to put themselves in positions where they would be asked to explain their central claims rather than simply affirm them.
on November 24th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Bill M
Thanks for the Congar link. Sadly nothing much has changed.
David G I think we can learn from each other. It is as simple and as difficult as that. It is in the nature of human understanding that we never fully understand anything. Others can help.
By the way, how do you “act as if God exists”? Does that mean that you should pretend there is a great all-knowing policeman and act accordlingly? How do you know what the policeman’s rules are? Or does it mean that you should listent to the pope’s every word because if there is a God, the pope is his spokesman? Or what?
on November 24th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
In a sense this is an extension of Joe Pettit’s point and I realize this thread is about “Interfaith dialogue” but given recent discussion about Church pronouncements by its clergy and action within all of society’s political domain, I think we need to include dialogue with atheists. They are talking about us.
For a good example take a look at the topic Kathleen just closed (Prophetic rhetoric..) at the Daylight Atheism blog. The original post speaks to reality in ways we tend not to and the comments raise some interesting speculative insights.
I found this one very interesting (by Tommykey dated today)
on November 24th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Sorry forgot to enclose the link:
http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/11/catholic-church-in-decline.html
on November 24th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Bill-
“Yesterday’s gospel clearly puts Benedict to shame. ”
Is it possible to engage an idea without first attacking the speaker? You really do yourself and the argument you are putting forth a great disservice by doing this. Honestly, so often I skip over your posts because of this. You might try to use a bit more honey rather than gallons of vinegar. You actually may get a fair hearing from others but engaging in a bit of graciousness.
Just a friendly recommendation.
Peace,
Anthony
on November 24th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Maritain discussed the subject quite thoroughly and quite solidly in THE PEASANT FROM THE GARONNE.
There are natural laws which hold for all human beings: respect for life, the demands of charity, the unavoidable belief in a greater power than our own. The Holy Father is simply pointing this out. If there is a fire in the neighborhood, all may be expected to help quench it. This is practical action based on our shared human nature. But it is not all that there is to human life.
He goes on to warn that “we must refuse to transform Christianity into a kind of theocratic agency charged with assuring the well-being of the world, universal peace, pay raises, and free room and board for all”.
The message of the Church is the message of Our Lord. We are not meant for this world; it is our enemy [John7:7]. One has but to consider the inroads made by comfort into our religion. Maritain notes how much we have bent the knee to the world, and warns against the dangers of going backwards to the world of antiquity, and of its gods and godlets.
on November 24th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Back to the article itself, and B16… can anyone find the actual article? I checked out the NYT link and it was just the newspaper’s homepage in translation (thanks, Google). When I tried to search, I couldn’t find any articles on Benedict/Pera, although I don’t know ANY Italian (so I could only look at the translated pages). Anybody have a link they can post?
I’m curious to hear the context… always seems to be important w/ B16…
on November 24th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
To disagree with Gabriel,
That fear of the dialogue with the world was not the dream or intent of Vatican II.
Since the death of John XXIII—we have had nothing but conservative Popes (maybe with the exception of John Paul I—who only had about a month in office), who were down-right fearful of the changes that Vatican II spelled out and have worked endlessly to reduce the changes–
by stating that “Vatican II” didn’t mean all those changes or that people wrongly attribute more changes than Vatican II included. So what do we have today? And what do we have as
far as Interfaith Dialogue?
Forty years after this Council, there is no meaningful collegiality in the Church at any level. The laity who attend Church seem content with this; apathetic, unwilling to join resistance or reform movements. Only a shell and a bit of rhetoric remain of the collegiality that was at the very core of Vatican II.
The quality of pastoral charisms among priests and bishops has declined. One is now astonished to find a Church administrator eager for dialogue, open and fair. The claustrophobic ideology of John Paul II has been cloned and replicated.
There have been liturgical retrenchments, rejection of a pastoral sexual ethic, of an inclusive ordained ministry, of accountability for all Church administrators.
Ecumenical progress has been stalled for decades. Even with substantial doctrinal agreement among a number of Churches, Rome refuses to act. Interreligious dialogue has been oppressed by recent Church teaching.
Of the six great documents of Vatican II (Church, Liturgy, Revelation, Modern World, Ecumenism, Religious Freedom), only Revelation or biblical renewal continues to show life. The document on the Church has been shattered by papal monarchy, the Pastoral Constitution on the Modern World by flawed sexual norms and servile lay theology, Ecumenism by a denial of inter-communion, Religious Freedom by the denigration of conscience. Authority and canon law have become normative. This is not what Vatican II intended!
on November 24th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
“What is, or should be, the point of interfaith dialogue?”
Didn’t Nostra Aetate (Vatican II) already cover this? Human beings share basic mysteries: why are we here, what are we supposed to do–things like that. NA also suggests collaboration in union with dialogue. One would think that would mean working together on projects mutually interesting: the secularization of society, the religious response to runaway economics, points of agreement on moral good and evil. I would hope that Pope Benedict’s meetings aren’t just a chance to deliver papers over kuchen and falafel–that substantive issues and any of the world’s many potential projects are being discussed.
Muslims have not fared particularly well in India, for example. Would Christian-Muslim dialogue address the reality of shared religious persecution in South Asia?
David’s assessment of the pope seems spot on. It’s also a bit of a mystery. If interfaith effort isn’t his “thing,” he can just delegate it to those better equipped for dialogue and collaboration while giving his unconditional support. One momentum I see is the pope-as-interfaith diplomat: something JPII was very good at, and which our current pope seems not to be as good. Another is the theologian surfacing in the pope: the constraint that every problem is a nail and all you need is a good hammer.
Islam, for example, is a religion of orthopraxis as opposed to the Roman (and Christian) tradition of orthodoxy. It’s a difference of doing the right thing versus believing in the right thing. If Christian erosion in Europe is so much of a problem, how much does that divide inform the apparent loss of faith and Christian culture? Interfaith dialogue may well point out those areas in which Christianity struggles. And if the search for the Truth is paramount, we can’t afford to plug our ears on those discussions.
on November 24th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Todd, the loss of Faith is due to not being Faithful to the Word, who IS the Truth.
on November 24th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Interesting post, Mr. Gibson. Like Mr. Borst, I link some of my thoughts to the prior post on the correct role of prophecy. (BTW – the Canadian catholic bloggers have nominated Mr.Borst’s blog, “Tomorrow’s Trust” for an annual award – congrats)
Many visionaries today see the world in the midst of a gigantic paradigm shift. We either learn to work, play, and pray together respecting each other’s individual expressions of faith, government, race, cultures, etc. or we face extinction. This emerging global consciousness is an absolute necessity if we are to survive as a species.
Many of us grew up with the hope that Christianity, at least, could re-unite. Not only has that not progressed but we realize now that this global community demands that all religions cooperate, collaborate, and support one another – this historical failure only highlights our failure to call ourselves “people of God.”
So, when I read or hear about B16’s predictions, approach to other religions, etc., here is what I think:
a) maintaining the status quo will only lead to disaster;
b) dogmatic self-righteousness, like brute force, will only hasten our demise;
c) the challenge is to undertake an urgent task together as believers (irrespective of denomination) – this task is to build an alternate vision of the future of community and compassion;
d) this task will take leaders who are not afraid to relate to all vs. separateness, difference, alienation;
e) when we look to the future of inter-religious dialogue – we need to remember the brokenhearted, the disenfranchised, the suffering poor – not dogmas; not denominational truths;
f) as Paul said to the Romans – “all of creation is groaning in one great act of birthing; in fact, we are groaning.” Our religious leaders need to be totally committed to making connections, building bridges across all religious, cultural, racial, and sexist divisions;
g) statements or actions that keep us self-compartmenalized or self-righteous (for whatever justifiable reason) keep us from our communal, world mission….we must commit to relationships rather than winning arguments; commit to forgiveness rather than be defensive; commit to being available rather than allowing fear to capitalize.
Would strongly encourage our leaders to use the model proposed by Hans Kung based on the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mankind. Our beliefs in Jesus Christ will not disappear nor be threatened by connecting to all peoples in the world. He died for all not just catholics….it is time for trust not fear.
See link to Donna Markham’s paper on “Creating Connection in Chaotic Times” – Shortcut to: http://www.westernprovince.org/docs/HD%20winter06_Markham_CreatingConnectionInChaoticTimes.pdf
on November 24th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
“He died for all, not just Catholics”
Bill, this is True, which is why He said to His Apostles, ” Now, go, and make Disciples of all Nations, baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
on November 24th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
If you Love someone, you do not compromise the Truth, you tell them the Truth.
on November 24th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Nancy, I guess you have have to say by-and-large we the heirs of the Apostles have not been particularly successful since Catholics (assuming it is the only TRUE heir to what Jesus left us) have only managed after some 2000 years to have about 1/6th of the world’s population as followers and as you point out the majority of them as suspect.
As you keep saying if only, if only, if only…
Now back to why I came back to post what I was originally going to say: I came here to try and answer the question What is the point…?
I had just been reading in Harpers (Dec 08)about the New York Philharmonics trip to North Korea and when asked why go, one of the people interviewed said Peace! It struck me ya, that is why we need interfaith dialogue; then I got here and B16 has shot that down via Gabriel Austin as “theocratic agency”. Balderdash!
As others have already stated better than I …you would think as a European especially a German would remember how Europe once fought wars over religion. But I guess the desire to be sure he has the one and only TRUE religion is enough motivation to ignore the reality that today we can destroy ourselves out of existence in a matter of minutes.
And the leaders of such a Church think that they are Pro-life—uhg. So B16 there is a good reason for inter-faith dialogue..eh!
And Bill, thanks for the plug for Tomorrow’s Trust.
on November 24th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Our finite, human propensity desires to ensure ourselves, to clearly map out our territories, to fill all the gaps of our existence…
But I believe that if there is a place of the divine Presence, that space is nowhere and everywhere, it is a vacant, void space, free from management and measurement…
Maybe that means a kingdom of grace, the possibility of an unpredictable event…
Maybe that means to be illuminated by something that doesn’t let itself be seen, to be moved by something that doesn’t let itself be grasped, to be filled with love by something that doesn’t let itself be seized…
Maybe it means to welcome the Life-Source as an unbalancing flow of our yearning for sureties or satisfying answers…
Maybe it means to learn to live in a trusting and inventive way in the conditions of uncertainty, incompleteness, disorder, suspension, ambivalence, disproportion, confusion… where every kind of thing cohabits…
Maybe it means to let the Wellspring spread as astonishment, surplus, gratuitousness, excess, delight, irreducibility, consumption, prodigality…
… What about God?
Could God be:
Everything that in me overhangs the abyss, staying out of my reach
Everything that doesn’t suffice and keeps me opened to other
Everything that is needy in me
Everything that in me weeps and will weep to the end
Everything that brings me to depend on
Everything that doesn’t allow me to shut the other persons in the limits of their faults,
but keeps me suspended to the surprise that something more may happen in them
Everything that opens, being God the wide, bottomless Opening or the possibility that the world be: “Not how the world is – exclaims Ludwig Wittgenstein – but that it is, is the Mystic”.
~ Br. Ivan Nicoletto, OSB, Cam
on November 24th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I was out all day and am now just checking in, so a few late answers to earlier question:
First, David Budiash, here is the text of Benedict’s letter, in Italian:
http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2008/novembre/23/Dialogo_tra_Religioni_non_Possibile_co_9_081123040.shtml
I believe this is the article, or extract of Pera’s book:
http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2008/novembre/23/Non_liberalismo_senza_Dio_co_9_081123039.shtml
I haven’t read the pope’s entire text, so can’t say whether the redaction is correct or not, but what the Times and others wrote resonates with what ratzinger has said before.
In a sense we are discussing (at least when not off on tangents) two different things: dialogue with other believers and dialogue with non-believers. (It is interesting that the Pontifical Council for Dialogue with Non-Believers was merged–in the 1980s I think–with the Pontifical Council for Culture. Not sure what that says about the Vatican’s view of culture, but I too digress.) Interestingly, Benedict/Ratzinger is much more comfortable dialoguing (yes, I hate that as a verb) with atheists than with other believers. Atheists and agnostics do not threaten with another (presumably false) belief, which is the greatest peril to Christianity.
Ratzinger’s project, or proposal, to live as if God existed, “si Deus daretur,” was (I believe) first enunciated during a talk he gave at while receiving an award at Mount Subiaco on April 1, 2005, the day before John Paul II died.
Here is a link to the ZENIT translation: http://www.zenit.org/article-13705?l=english
And in the relevant passage he outlines his proposal as a reversal of Enlightenment secularist approach, something he attributes to Pascal–I presume the famous wager:
“But at this point, in my capacity as believer, I would like to make a proposal to the secularists. At the time of the Enlightenment there was an attempt to understand and define the essential moral norms, saying that they would be valid “etsi Deus non daretur,” even in the case that God did not exist. In the opposition of the confessions and in the pending crisis of the image of God, an attempt was made to keep the essential values of morality outside the contradictions and to seek for them an evidence that would render them independent of the many divisions and uncertainties of the different philosophies and confessions. In this way, they wanted to ensure the basis of coexistence and, in general, the foundations of humanity. At that time, it was thought to be possible, as the great deep convictions created by Christianity to a large extent remained. But this is no longer the case.
The search for such a reassuring certainty, which could remain uncontested beyond all differences, failed. Not even the truly grandiose effort of Kant was able to create the necessary shared certainty. Kant had denied that God could be known in the realm of pure reason, but at the same time he had represented God, freedom and immortality as postulates of practical reason, without which, coherently, for him no moral behavior was possible.
Does not today’s situation of the world make us think perhaps that he might have been right? I would like to express it in a different way: The attempt, carried to the extreme, to manage human affairs disdaining God completely leads us increasingly to the edge of the abyss, to man’s ever greater isolation from reality. We must reverse the axiom of the Enlightenment and say: Even one who does not succeed in finding the way of accepting God, should, nevertheless, seek to live and to direct his life “veluti si Deus daretur,” as if God existed. This is the advice Pascal gave to his friends who did not believe. In this way, no one is limited in his freedom, but all our affairs find the support and criterion of which they are in urgent need.”
END EXCERPT
on November 24th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Wow. I did something funky to the right margin with that last blast.
on November 24th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
On Islam, Christianity and irreconcilable differences…
On the same day voters elected Barack Obama the 44th president of the United States, Pope Benedict XVI convened the inaugural Catholic-Muslim forum. To no one’s surprise the pope’s forum, lost in the Election Day media frenzy, was largely ignored.
Benedict created a media frenzy of his own when in a 2006 speech at the University of Regensburg he referenced an obscure Byzantine emperor’s statement: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman.” Continuing to quote the emperor, Benedict went on to say, “For Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even rationality.”
While these references comprised only a small portion of a lengthy and scholarly speech on faith and reason, the media pounced. Benedict was derided for implying Islam is violent and irrational. Just one of many headlines of a similar ilk, the Toronto Star reported: “Pope makes mockery of engaging Muslims.”
The reaction on “the street” was swift and angry. Churches were firebombed in the West Bank and Gaza. Banners calling for his execution, “Pope go to Hell” and “Jesus is the slave of Allah” were on display in London. And in Somalia, a 65-year-old Italian nun was shot and killed as she left her job at a children’s hospital.
To his credit, Benedict quickly issued a formal apology – a rarity for any pope. “In no way did I intend to make the words of the medieval emperor my own,” he said. “I wished only to help explain that not religion and violence but religion and reason go together.” He then reiterated his “profound respect for world religions and for Muslims.”
Some observers, pointing to the violent reaction to his remarks as evidence of their veracity, argued that Benedict does believe Islam is violent and irrational. It’s doubtful Benedict, a renowned scholar, would intentionally paint Islam with such a broad brush. Still, his comments clearly touched a nerve.
In response to his Regensburg speech, 138 Muslim clerics, scholars and intellectuals sent an open letter to Benedict and the leaders of other Christian denominations titled “A Common Word Between Us and You.” It said, in effect, “We need to talk.”
Absent in Islam are the established hierarchies found in Christian religions. As a result, many in the West have complained that it’s difficult to know where the Muslim middle stands on a given issue. The fact that a diverse group of Islamic leaders came together for the first time to speak to Christianity with a unified voice was, at the very least, encouraging.
When the Vatican announced the formation of the Catholic-Muslim forum in March 2008 it was described as “landmark”, and the Muslim leaders’ audience with the pope “unprecedented”. It raised hopes that a new era in the long-troubled relationship between Christianity and Islam might finally be at hand.
In the wake of the announcement however the Vatican decided to downplay the forum’s significance. In late October Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, the pope’s point man on inter-religious matters, seemed to shrug off the forum’s significance when he underscored to the Synod of Bishops that this was not the first time the Vatican has held an important dialogue with Muslims.
Perhaps Benedict is still smarting from the violent reaction to his Regensburg speech. If the Vatican wanted to keep the Catholic-Muslim forum out of the headlines, scheduling it to coincide with the most important election in U.S. history was a good way to do it.
Press reports [most were from the wires] described the closed-door sessions of the forum as frank. But the joint declaration issued at its conclusion, while condemning terrorism and calling for religious freedom, was what most have come to expect from interfaith dialog – religious leaders talking among themselves in language the press, and most of the laity, found easy to ignore.
It’s doubtful that those who happened to stumble upon one of the wire service reports found anything tangible to take away. The forum’s participants made only vague references to the important doctrinal differences that have been impediments to productive dialog in the past. The potentially historic Catholic-Muslim forum ended up being a non-event.
Monday’s New York Times reported that Benedict, commenting on a recently released book by Italian politician and scholar Marcello Pera titled “Why We Must Call Ourselves Christians”, told Perra his book “explained with great clarity…a true dialogue is not possible without putting one’s faith in parentheses.”
The Times article seemed to imply that Benedict questioned the value of interfaith dialogue. If he does it’s probably due to the fact that that when he attempted to address important differences between Islam and Christianity at Regensburg, all hell broke loose.
More likely is that Benedict was simply bemoaning that interfaith dialogue with Muslim leaders can’t begin with a respectful discussion of important doctrinal differences. Putting one’s faith in parentheses means dialogue will necessarily lack authenticity.
As monotheistic faiths, Islam and Christianity share a belief in one God. However Islam’s definition of the one God, and Christianity’s definition of the one God, are not one and the same. Certain convictions regarding the true nature of the one God are unique to each faith.
For starters, Muslims reject the Christian concept of the Holy Trinity and therefore the divine nature of Jesus. Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet [and a great guy] but not God on earth.
Islam holds that God is absolutely transcendent. He is so great he exists above and beyond humanity’s capacity to know him. Muslims know God only through his actual words as recorded in the Qur’an, and through the words and deeds of Muhammad and his followers as recorded in the Hadith.
Christianity holds that man can come to know and even have a personal relationship with God. In his closing remarks at the forum, Pope Benedict declared: “God became visible, manifested fully and definitively in Jesus Christ. He thus came down to meet man, and while remaining God, took on our nature.” For Christians, the one God, a trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is interactive.
Christian scholars have argued that because God is absolutely transcendent, and the Qur’an his actual words, there’s little room for reason in the practice of Islam. Australian Cardinal George Pell has said: “In the Muslim understanding, the Qur’an comes directly from God, unmediated. Muhammad simply wrote down God’s eternal and immutable words as they were dictated to him by the Archangel Gabriel. It cannot be changed, and to make the Qur’an the subject of critical analysis and reflection is either to assert human authority over divine revelation (a blasphemy), or to question its divine character.”
Islamic scholars point out that while Muslims believe the Qur’an contains God’s actual words, they do in fact interpret the Qur’an through a historic lens that takes into account the language, culture and society of the time. Aref Ali Nayed, the chief spokesperson on behalf of the A Common Word [ACW] open letter explained: “Muslim scholars were always aware of the fact that the activities of interpretation, understanding, and exegesis (of God’s eternal discourse) are forms of human strenuous striving that must be dutifully renewed in every believing generation. Solemn belief in the eternity and divine authorship of the Qur’an never prevented Muslim scholars from dealing with it historically and linguistically.”
Even strict literalists, for whom sacred scripture cannot be “re-interpreted” in any context, have schools of thought that offer differing takes on its original meaning. This is true whether one reads the Gospel, Torah or Qur’an. All religions have fundamentalist factions, but no religion is devoid of reason.
Religious fundamentalism – defined here as the belief that sacred scripture contains the literal word of God as it was originally recorded — is not in and of itself problematic. When read fully, the sacred scripture of the three Abrahamic faiths all extol peace. In the case of the Qur’an, jihad is essentially a spiritual struggle for the eternal soul and justifiable as a physical war only in self-defense.
Fundamentalism becomes a serious problem however when scripture deemed literal is read selectively. A small but significant population of Muslim fundamentalists select passages from the Qur’an that support what they want to believe to be true, ignore the passages that don’t, and use the concept of God as absolutely transcendent to fend off any who might question their selective interpretation of God’s perfect word.
Especially troubling is that many of these radicals are among Islam’s learned – its clergymen, scholars, professionals and the like. The extent to which their motivations are political, religious, or some combination of the two, is unclear. What is clear is that they’ve convinced their followers [and apparently themselves] that the God of Islam is the one true God, and that violent jihad against all non-believers is God’s unquestionable will.
The issues raised by Pope Benedict at Regensburg were important ones; foremost among them was the true nature of the one God. Now is not the time to shy away from discussing differences. It should be possible to be steadfast in defense of doctrine and still reach out to leaders of other faiths.
Because monotheistic religions hold that there is one God, faithful Muslims, Christians and Jews, by definition, worship the same God. However, certain convictions about the nature of the one God are unique to each faith. These differences are irreconcilable.
The question then is whether or not religious leaders can believe that their faith is the one true faith and their God the one true God, and at the same time accept that there can be more than one path to heaven. That the answer should be “yes” is a no-brainer for most. The idea that a just God would damn good people to hell simply for choosing [or being born into] the wrong faith is anachronistic.
Benedict has been lauded for his ability to take either/or propositions and turn them into and/both ones. But this and/both is a tough one to navigate. How a given religion defines the true nature of the one God determines the correct path to heaven. In theory, when these paths are parallel peaceful co-existence is possible, but in the real world where these paths inevitably intersect, conflict ensues.
For as long as there has been religion, there have been people who manipulate it to serve their own interests. Those that are so motivated will ensure that their path intersects with parallel paths seen as a threat. Religious fundamentalists are their enablers. Fundamentalist Christians and Jews tend to reside in secular states where religious pluralism is the norm. Islamic fundamentalists tend to reside in theocratic states where sharia law is the norm. Religion and state are not separate. Islam is the state. Religious fervor is not only encouraged, it is required by law, and the public practice of religions other than Islam is against that law.
Fundamentalist Muslims will ultimately determine the outcome of the “war against terror.” Religion, while not the only factor in the growth of extremism, is at its core. The leaders of Islam’s fundamentalist schools of thought have a decision to make: Do they continue to lock arms against the evil West and look the other way when the radicals in their midst murder innocents in God’s name? Or do they recognize that there is indeed an aspect of Islamic doctrine that leaves it open to manipulation by extremists, partner with progressive Muslims, and challenge those who desecrate Islam with twisted logic?
If Benedict and his Muslim counterparts were to “agree to disagree” on the nature of their shared God, and set the my-religion-is-better-than-your-religion argument aside once and for all, they would be on separate but parallel paths that would resist intersection and enable active cooperation in the “war” against religious extremism.
Within this construct [multiple paths to one heaven], the ability to practice religion freely is a given. Despite agreement that “there can be no compulsion in religion”, the leaders of Islam’s fundamentalist schools of thought have been unwilling to clearly state that the persecution of those who practice a minority faith is sinful or that apostasy is not a criminal act.
While the irreconcilable differences between Muslim and Christian views of the creator can’t be ignored, they can be overcome. In practice, peaceful Muslims and peaceful Christians [and Jews], whether progressive or fundamentalist in orientation, behave in ways that are strikingly similar. However the true nature of the one God is defined, it should be possible for all to agree that he would never sanction violence committed in his name.
When conservative Christians [and Jews] dismiss Islam as inherently violent and irrational, they are playing into the extremists’ hands. Interfaith cooperation is the extremists’ worst nightmare. They have so far succeeded at driving a wedge between progressive Islam and fundamentalist Islam, and between Islam and its sister monotheistic faiths, Christianity and Judaism. They will undoubtedly continue to do everything in their power to derail interfaith cooperation.
The collective inability of religious leaders to openly discuss irreconcilable differences continues to impede progress in the fight against extremism. If the recent Catholic-Muslim forum is any indication, religious leaders aren’t close to being on the same page. It’s time for them to step up and “lead”.
In Monday’s New York Times article George Weigel, a noted Catholic scholar, said: He [Benedict] is trying to get the Catholic-Islamic dialogue out of the clouds of theory and down to brass tacks: how can we know the truth about how we ought to live together justly, despite basic creedal differences?”
Respectfully spelling out these differences in practical terms and “agreeing to disagree” on the true nature of the one God seems like a good place to start.
Agreeing that the one God is just, and that no just God would not deny salvation to a person who lives a good life simply because s/he chose the wrong faith should directly follow. It’s doubtful that Islam’s political leaders can get there any time soon, but the religious leaders involved in the ACW initiative can take an important first step by agreeing that the right to practice one’s religion freely is universal.
Because he is singularly positioned to do so, the leadership onus is largely on the shoulders of Pope Benedict XVI. May the one God, whoever he is, be with him.
on November 24th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Michael Gonyea: I know my previous post was a bit long, but yours above is just too much text. That also reads like an essay from someplace. Is there a link to it you could use instead?
I think the read you posted above is questionable, but it is really an opinion more than an argument so one doesn’t really know where to start.
on November 24th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
http://tomorrowstrust.ca/?p=1136
on November 24th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Interesting comment, David, especially the observation about Benedict’s constricted view of dialogue. I think the NYT story went astray by presenting a restatement of his long-held philosophical view of dialogue as something of a new twist to his practical approach to talks with other faiths. The Reuters religion blog FaithWorld goes into this in much greater length today at http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/11/25/confusion-over-popes-letter-saying-interfaith-talks-impossible/
on November 24th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
John Borst, now I understand why you are attacking the Catholic Church.
Why would anyone want to encourage someone to be involved in a sexual relationship that does not respect the Sacredness and Dignity of the Human Person? We are all called to have Holy and healthy relationships and friendships in communion with God.
on November 24th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Love is not possessive nor does it serve to manipulate. That is why God, who is Love, would never coerce someone to Love Him. Christ defines the God of Love, not the God of coercion.
on November 24th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
David Gibson. I’m sorry this post is so long. Thers’s no link to which I can refer you. If you think my read is questionable, start wherever you see fit.
on November 24th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Nancy,
You are way off topic, as usual. I tried to contact you privately, but you have not replied. I advise taking a break from the blog for a little while. On one of the recent Stafford threads, you posted roughly one-quarter of the comments.
on November 24th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Actually, 22 out of 69 – closer to 30% but thanks. I stopped contributing to two blogs because of the incessant mantras from folks like Nancy who do not follow the thread; do not choose to contribute their own thoughts but rely on one or two liners from the 1950’s Baltimore Catechism; and seem completely oblivious to how ridiculous their comments are. It is a form of passive-aggressive rudeness.
on November 24th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Michael, no problem–I’ll try to get to something substantive later. is that a piece of yours? Very cogent, even if I’d disagree on several mpoints. It looked like something that may have been posted from elsewhere, hence my question.
Nancy, I do appreciate your presence, and conviction, and general sense of decorum, but I have to agree with Grant that you are often not even in the same ballpark with your comments. I’d like to stay focused as much as possible, or follow threads that lead somewhere.
on November 24th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Michael – guess I understand where Mr. Gibson is coming from but I appreciated your thoughts and comments. Again, interfaith dialogue extends well beyond just the muslim faith; you have the eastern orthodox, various christian denominations, buddhism, taoism, jewish outreach.
In fact, some of the most interesting interfaith outreachs are currently happening under the auspices of the Asian bishops’ conferences and communities such as the Jesuits in Japan.
You did a good job of simlifying it – my earlier point was that many understand the grave need to reach one consistent ethic of life (Hans Kung – UN Declaration) and whether this can be linked to belief in one creator or to “natural law” or to human history and experience vs. the Enlightment. Agree that it works when denominations/religions can agree on the overall ethic, need to support or fix global warming, poverty, starvation, disease but it appears to break down when specific religions attribute this to their particular belief system.
Again, my point is that world religion leaders who start with the belief that their religion is correct stop all connectivity, relationship, and bridge building. Not sure that we learned that from Jesus.
on November 24th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
It seems to me that Benedict XVI is favouring inter-religious dialogue framed along the issue of the cultural consequences of religious ideas as opposed to evaluating truth claims of religions.
I have to agree that this is a sounder way to proceed. The Dali Lama was once asked about Christianity and Buddhism and he said that at a certain level you can see similarities but as you go deeper you see that there is a basic incompatibility between them. In buddhism there is no Absolute.
I think that there is no question that the West (influenced by Christianity) has advanced technologically, politically and economically in a way that we do not see in Asian (influenced by Buddhism) countries. While Christianity has had its Quietist impulses, historically it has been an active force in shaping culture – or at least this is how it has understood itself in the West (less so in its Eastern form which gives the Church its s more sophiotic and mystical bent).
Islam as a religion is facing its own “Modernist” crisis. How will it shape the culture where it is dominant. How will it interpret its relgious texts?
I think that on the level of religious interpretation, inter-religious dialogue is fruitful. Martin Buber, for example, was clearly aware of the New Testament and respectfully listened to Christianity. He didn’t have the visceral, knee-jerk negative reaction to Christianity that other Jewish intellectuals sometimes do. As a result he is one of the most influential Jewish philosphers of our time. But Buber’s influence was most profoundly felt on the level of culture, on community development ideas and education.
on November 24th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Several simple points:
-interfaith dialogue or even dialogue inside the church is not a univocal idea .
-dialogues with other faiths is a notion less than a centurry old within our faith and will continue to deveolop-in the current regime, the thrust is on pragmatic cooperation, but just this past year, there was some hope expressed in Roime for reunion with say the Anglican Communion within the 21st century;a corrolary of this is quotin ga contemporay statement as a FInal Word is less than helpful.-Wherther ecumenical dialogue will help to make posible “all may be one” wil ldepend on the openness of the folk involved, not parathesizing ,whateve rthat truly means.
Finally, it would be nice if all of us in the dialogue process (from BXVI on down) started with the notion that we have much yet to learn as we try to understand, with the spirit’s help. how the Kingdom is breaking in in this complex world.
on November 24th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
David G. Again, I apologize for the length of my post. The words are mine – not picked up from anywhere but between my ears. Thanks to you and the others who took the time to wade through my ramblings. I enjoy reading everyones’ comments.
on November 24th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Tom, thanks for the link to your blog post–excelent, as always, and I’d recommend everyone to read it. I agree the Times story could be construed as pushing the point, but I’d also argue that the point of the story–and the issue of the pope’s comments–as the point of dialogue, is that there are two parties involved. The Pope and Pera may know what he is talking about, and understand distinctions (though I think the pope uses dialogue in the popular manner as well) but their interloctuors may not, and may be (perhaps rightly) that this is a statement of Roman superbia once again, and a diminishment of the regard for interreligious dialogue. In a sense, Benedict is dictating the terms of the conversation, so his conversation partners get anxious.
There is of course sensitivty because of the Regensberg affair, and Benedict does not like to mince words when it comes to these issues. John Paul’s persona could obscure as much as it could reveal, and he was no more ready to compromise on beliefs than Benedict. But Benedict is putting it out there for all to see and understand, what interfaith dialogue is and what it is not. That is a bit of a cold shower to many, not the least a large segment of Catholic theologians and lay people who see in interfaith dialogue a way to strengthen their faith, not weaken it.
Again, my initial question holds, as I geuinely want to know what the purpose of the dialogue is. I think it’s not always obvious, and it is complex, and there have been many thoughtful responses here. I think one risk in Benedict’s apporach is that “dialogue” becomes a way to define ourselves over and against the other.
on November 24th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Michael G–Pardon my questions. You write better posts than most people do published columns.
on November 24th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Just another thought, off George D’s comment–is theological dialogue always about “merely” truth claims? Could it not be more than that?
on November 24th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
More on Congar and episcopal irrelevance. Here is a time when the shame of the “Final Solution” was spreading over Europe yet Rome stresses orthodoxy forever. The need to keep the bishops straight has never been greater.
As a military chaplain during WWII, Congar was a prisoner of war for five years:
In 1939 Chenu and Congar were both called to Paris by the Master General of the Dominica Order and warned that serious difficulties had arisen from their theological writings. Congar¢s book Divided Christendom had raised concerns at the Holy Office, though it was not made clear to him precisely what the problem was. In that same year Congar was drafted as a military chaplain and spent 1940-1945 as a prisoner of the Germans in Prussia, Saxony and Silesia. In March 1942, during his interment he was publicly criticized by a high-ranking though unnamed Vatican official in the pages of L¢Osservatore Romano, the official organ of the Holy See. More bad news arrived in letter from friends in the spring of 1942 when he learned that his Dominican colleague Chenu had been dismissed as rector of the seminary at Le Saulchoir and his book, whose theological vision and method Congar shared, had been put on the Church¢s Index of Forbidden Books. Congar felt that it was only the fact of his being outside the country that he himself remained unscathed.
From R. Nugent’s work.
on November 24th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
There are some truly impressive posts here, but I wonder if we (and the Times) might be reading too much into Benedict’s comments. Under Benedict’s leadership, the Vatican is clearly engaging in what is commonly called inter-religious dialogue, especially through the recent meeting with Muslim scholars. Benedict concluded the meeting with some hopeful comments.
What does Benedict mean by now saying, “an interreligious dialogue in the strict sense of the word is not possible”? I assume his “strict sense” refers to what is actually a secondary meaning of “dialogue,” which, according to Merriam-Webster, is “a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution.” (And what shades of meaning does the word `dialogo’ have in Italian?)
No one expects a resolution to the doctrinal differences between Islam and Christianity, nor is one being sought. So in that “strict sense,” it isn’t a dialogue.
It is difficult to read Benedict on this subject. He opposed John Paul II’s “spirit of Assisi” inter-religious fest in 1986, but when visiting Assisi as pope in 2007, said the 1986 event was “a prophetic intuition and a moment of grace.”
on November 24th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Mr. De Haas: You wrote: “my point is that world religion leaders who start with the belief that their religion is correct stop all connectivity, relationship, and bridge building. Not sure that we learned that from Jesus.” But unless one reduces faith to sentiment or trust, is not faith also belief that certain things are true? E.g., to use primitive creedal formulae, that “Jesus is Lord”; that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself”; that “the Word was made flesh.” that “God is love.” I have never thought that dialogue with anyone else required me to surrender the conviction that these statements are correct, that is, state great truths about God and his mercies to the world. I don’t know why such a conviction should imply denying connections and relationships or prevent bridge-building. A bridge has to be anchored on both sides.
You seem to be agreeing with the Pope that dialogue requires placing one’s faith in parentheses, or am I misunderstanding you?
on November 24th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Thanks, Fr. K. Good point. Not sure I can completely answer your question. Some of my analysis has been influenced by my work in behavioral health and moral development especially Stages of Faith by James Fowler….to quote his last two stages:
“Stage 5 can appreciate symbols, myths and rituals (its own and others’) because it has been grasped, in some measure, by the depth of reality to which they refer. It also sees the divisions of the human family vividly because it has been apprehended by the possibility (and imperative) of an inclusive community of being. But this stage remains divided. It lives and acts between an untransformed world and a transforming vision and loyalties. (I would place B16’s recent/current outreaches at Stage 5.
In some few cases this division yields to the call of the radical actualization that we call Stage 6.
Stage 6 is exceedingly rare. The persons best described by it have generated faith compositions in which their felt sense of an ultimate environment is inclusive of all being. They have become incarnators and actualizers of the spirit of an inclusive and fulfilled human community.
They are “contagious” in the sense that they create zones of liberation from the social, political, economic and ideological shackles we place and endure on human futurity. Living with felt participation in a power that unifies and transforms the world, Universalizers are often experienced as subversive of the structures (including religious structures) by which we sustain our individual and corporate survival, security and significance. Many persons in this stage die at the hands of those whom they hope to change. Universalizers are often more honored and revered after death than during their lives. The rare persons who may be described by this stage have a special grace that makes them seem more lucid, more simple, and yet somehow more fully human than the rest of us. Their community is universal in extent.”
I would place Ghandi, deChardin, some of the world’s great poets, writers, painters, and composers at Stage 6.
So, I guess I do see faith as Trust! Personally, my faith is based on my family, my history, my own reasoning, my own faith journey and is anchored in the belief that Jesus is Lord. But, I also understand that others may have just as strong a belief in a different faith journey. My point is to start with respect for the other’s faith, history, journey – not to surrender my own or for them to surrender theirs. So, guess my comments are more pragmatic – using our own faith journeys, can we support each other, can we support a consistent ethic of life? When push comes to shove, not sure that I can reach Fowler’s Stage Six.
Not sure I answered your question.
on November 25th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Bill, your pragmatic approach is persuasive.
These ideas posted above also caught my interest:
1) It is not necessary to put one’s religion in parentheses for genuine dialogue to occur, indeed doing so insures the opposite.
2) B 16 hints that such dialogue cannot occur at this time with Islam because of the necessity of engaging first on cultural matters. “Reading between the lines, Benedict is bemoaning the fact that dialogue with Islamic leaders can’t start with a frank but respectful discussion of important doctrinal differences. In order to enter into productive dialogue, one must first understand as much as they can about somebody else.” …The same article went on to say “Benedict added that: ‘intercultural dialogue which deepens the cultural consequences of basic religious ideas’ was important.’” From Michael Gonyea
This thought comes to mind: Because Islam has no separation of church and state, theological points automatically become political issues that find expression in politics, with all that implies about secular power.
Theological controversies in the West typically do not play out in the same way (any more, thank God), where religious law rules all. Freedom of conscience and worship pertain in the practice of religion in a pluralist society. And it matters whether religion adopts a triumphalist versus relativist approach.
The great scholar Bernard Lewis wrote a probing article in the Atlantic in 2003: “I’m right, You’re Wrong, Go To Hell” (Religions and the meeting of civilization) See http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200305/lewis .
He notes that originally, Christian and Muslims, “shared the conviction that there was only one true faith, theirs, which it was their duty to bring to all humankind. The triumphalist view is increasingly under attack in Christendom, and is disavowed by significant numbers of Christian clerics. There is little sign as yet of a parallel development in Islam.
Tolerance is, of course, an extremely intolerant idea, because it means “I am the boss: I will allow you some, though not all, of the rights I enjoy as long as you behave yourself according to standards that I shall determine.”
That, I think, is a fair definition of religious tolerance as it is normally understood and applied. In a letter to the Jewish community of Newport, Rhode Island, that George Washington wrote in 1790, he remarked, perhaps in an allusion to the famous “Patent of Tolerance” promulgated by the Austrian Emperor Joseph II a few years previously, “It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.”
At a meeting of Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Vienna some years ago the Cardinal Archbishop Franz Koenig spoke of tolerance, and I couldn’t resist quoting Washington to him. He replied, “You are right. I shall no more speak of tolerance; I shall speak of mutual respect.” There are still too few who share the attitude expressed in this truly magnificent response.
For those taking the relativist approach to religion (in effect, “I have my god, you have your god, and others have theirs”), there may be specific political or economic reasons for objecting to someone else’s beliefs, but in principle there is no theological problem. (italics added) For those taking the triumphalist approach (classically summed up in the formula “I’m right, you’re wrong, go to hell”), tolerance is a problem.
Because the triumphalist’s is the only true and complete religion, all other religions are at best incomplete and more probably false and evil; and since he is the privileged recipient of God’s final message to humankind, it is surely his duty to bring it to others rather than keep it selfishly for himself.
Now, if one believes that, what does one do about it? And how does one relate to people of another religion? “
Lewis also wrote in The Atlantic in 1990 about “The Sources of Muslim Rage” in which he clarified the bitterness of Islamic countries at their reduced status and loss of world power. As holders of Truth, they were meant to be world leaders and resented the West’s ascendancy. Muhammad was a great conqueror, while Moses never saw the Promised Land, and Jesus was executed.
Bottom line: Mutual respect recommends itself, and that is something B16 can advance in important ways, if he chooses to focus on the cultural. Asserting truth claims as something another needs to accept is a dubious venture for either side.
on November 25th, 2008 at 1:25 am
The oldest interreligious dialogue of Christianity is that with the Jews. The New Testament gives no unified and coherent account of the relationship between the two faiths, and there are inconsistencies and unresolved questions even within individual strands of NT tradition — Paul, Luke-Acts, John. What is the theological status of Judaism and of the Law? Here is a theme that still presents itself for interreligious dialogue in the strict sense. By Ratzinger’s logic, ecumenical dialogue in the strict sense is also impossible.
on November 25th, 2008 at 1:33 am
What does he mean by saying that the concept of multiculturality is internally contradictory? Is this is the same old Eurocentrism masquerading as a necessary defense against “relativism”?
on November 25th, 2008 at 1:40 am
Little Bear says: “Forty years after this Council, there is no meaningful collegiality in the Church at any level. The laity who attend Church seem content with this; apathetic, unwilling to join resistance or reform movements. Only a shell and a bit of rhetoric remain of the collegiality that was at the very core of Vatican II.”
This is true. The laity and the media are happy with Benedict XVI because he does not pose any challenge.
on November 25th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Just for the record, a flashpoint for some of the discussions regarded the NYT headline. The “official” headline, as it were, in the print version, reads:
“In Letter, Pope Puts a Focus on the Limits of Interfaith Dialogue.”
I think that is a very fair assessment, esp for a hedder.
on November 25th, 2008 at 9:24 am
This may be simpleminded and naive, but why does religion or faith have to be dramatically different from, say, science? We have what we consider to be very solid explanations of reality (the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution, the laws of thermodynamics, and so on). There’s a scientific consensus about a great many things, and although scientists are very conservative when it comes to discarding an established theory or law, it’s nevertheless the case that scientific knowledge is in a way always provisional. Scientists with opposing views don’t have to “put them in parentheses” to talk to each other.
Of course, there can be no dialogue when you are absolutely certain you are right and everyone else is wrong. But it doesn’t seem to me that faith is about absolute certainty but rather about things like trust and hope and personal convictions. The only area I know where you can have absolute certainty is mathematics.
on November 25th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Before I get to my main point let me say that what kind of hubris allows Benedict to suddenly hail Assisi when he out-rightly condemned it when it happened. This is arrogant opportunism and he should be called for it.
Many great posts indeed. But there is a centrality of importance in the dialogue between Joe K and Bill De Haas. The spirit of Christianity is that Jesus is Crucified not that Jesus is Lord. Jesus is only exalted after he is crucified. The Jesus is Lord mentality creates Ratzingers and priest who sit in the rectory saying we dispense the sacraments while substantially lacking in acts of kindness towards the parishioners. They say a quick hello after mass and could not care less what happens to people.
This high Christology has created an elite clergy who stress mixing in with high society and exhibiting airs toward the poor. Revolutionary (non violent) thinking is needed here.
Bill the stages are interesting but Matthew 25 delineates it quite well. It has not yet penetrated the rectory wall.
on November 25th, 2008 at 11:00 am
I’m glad Michael Gonyea brought up Benedict’s reaction to the Catholic–Muslim Forum
held at the Vatican earlier this month, because I think you can see played out on this occasion the practical problems presented by inter-faith dialogue where at least one party feels that real religious discussion would require adopting the attitude Benedict describes as putting one’s faith in parentheses for the occasion.
Two delegations, one Catholic and one Muslim, each including 24 members and 5 consultants, participated in the first seminar of the Catholic-Muslim forum. It was held on November 4-5 at the Vatican, organized by the pontifical council for interreligious dialogue and by representatives of the 138 Muslim leaders who signed the open letter to Christian leaders dated October 13, 2007, one year after the memorable lecture delivered by Benedict XVI in Regensburg.
Chiesa.com did a piece on the meeting stressing that the authors of the letter would have preferred to concentrate the discussion on “theological and spiritual foundations,” while “on the Vatican side “ the “push was to get to concrete matters,” and deal with “human dignity and mutual respect.” As it happened, both subjects were dealt with in the meeting, and the points of agreement developed are interesting both for what they say and what they feel they must carefully avoid saying.
Here is a link to the Chiesa piece describing what happened:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/209230?eng=y
Here is the Pope’s speech to the delegates. (Sandro Magister’s somewhat edgy piece on it notes that earlier that day Benedict had had occasion to complain to the new ambassador from Egypt to the Holy See about the inability of Christian visitors to her country to find adequate places of worship.) In this speech, Benedict does talk quite a bit about dialogue, without raising problems about having to put one’s faith in parenthesis in order to do so. In practice, however, he chooses to stress the importance of carrying out the practical implications of the need to love God and neighbor as found in both traditions, and makes a point of mentioning some areas of current tension regarding freedom of worship.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/november/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20081106_cath-islamic-leaders_en.html
on November 25th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Follow up to Fr. K’s question and Bill’s comments: have continued thinking about your question. If my faith is basically about Jesus’ death, rising, and coming again and realizing that millions of folks do not know Jesus, where does that put inter-faith dialogue?
Started to also think about Rahner’s Anonymous Christian and the Supernatural Existential. Is it arrogance to think that all people must know, believe, and pray Jesus Christ. Is the example of Jesus’ love (Paul’s Kenosis Hymn) not the nub of the argument and that emptying oneself for others can be done across religions, cultures, races, etc.
So, inter-faith dialogue may be focused on mercy and love and its various expressions rather than focusing on absolute dogmas, denominational truths, etc.
on November 25th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Two late great posts : Susan, for her link and update and David, for undescoring the provional nature of how we grasp truths that some think are encapsulated in only one timeless formula.
So dialogue will continue to eveolve and while world citrcumstances may underscore relations with the Muslim communities, will continue to operateon many levels.
on November 25th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
I can see why it might be good to begin interfaith dialogue carefully, with what we all share. Beautiful way to go. But as the discussion goes forward, isn’t it natural, on each side, to share spiritual and theological perspectives, even when it might seem a little risky? Friends of different faiths do this all the time, academic colleagues do it. Even bloggers…. And we are all the better for it.
on November 25th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
FYI: John Allen has the translation of the Pope’s letter, with this headline:
“Interreligious dialogue impossible, pope says, but intercultural dialogue good”
http://ncrcafe.org/node/2298
on November 25th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
If that is his firmly held view, why is there a pontifical council for interreligious dialogue? Or perhaps it is his view but distinctively his personal view, not his view qua pope.
on November 28th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
John Allen’s weekly letter at NCR on this topic today – not sureh ow helpful his understanding of the European vs. American context is on the question at hand.
I thought Susan’s comment of 11/25 was a more trenchant and beautiful sunopsis of where it’s at.
on January 7th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
I think we are missing a crucial point. Interfaith dialog is not dialog between different faiths. It’s a diaog between members of different faiths in order to understand each other in a better way (considering commonalities and differences). In an interfaith dialog, parties stay committed to their respective religions. There is a good article below fo those interested:
http://fethullahgulenconference.org/houston/read.php?p=fethullah-gulen-contribution-muslim-christian-dialogue-abrahamic-cooperation