Benedict on interreligious dialogue: How religions talk with each other
Print Friendly Version| All Things Catholic by John L. Allen, Jr. | |
| Friday, November 28, 2008 - Vol. 8, No. 10 |
Any literary scholar will tell you that the key to interpreting a text is identifying its genre. It’s a point clearly applicable to news this week that Pope Benedict XVI has said that “interreligious dialogue, in the strict sense of the term, is not possible” -- a statement which, at face value, would seem to undercut 50 years of official dialogues with other faiths sponsored by the Catholic church, not to mention the theological vision of Nostrae Aetate, the document of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) on relations with non-Christian religions.
Among other things, the Vatican actually has its own Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, whose personnel may be surprised to learn that their work, according to the boss, is a logical non-starter.
Faced with such a puzzling declaration, the first thing to ask is, “What was its genre?”
For the record, Benedict’s line came as part of a brief letter to an old friend, Italian senator and philosopher Marcello Pera, which serves as the introduction to Pera’s new book, Why We Must Call Ourselves Christians. It went on sale Tuesday from the Italian publisher Mondadori. (In 2004, Pera and then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger coauthored a book about Europe titled Without Roots; Pera is perhaps the leading example of a peculiar phenomenon on the cultural right in today’s Europe, a self-professed atheist who nevertheless supports a revival of the Christian identity of the Old Continent on the grounds that it’s the only way to defend Europe’s humanistic values.)
In other words, the literary genre for the pope’s line is basically advertising copy. The letter was intended to generate a market for Pera’s book, and at that level, it has been an undeniable success. The book has elicited news coverage and editorial comment around the world, because Benedict said something juicy on its behalf.
(By the way, Joseph Ratzinger is hardly a novice at this sort of thing. Back in 1993, he penned a 27-line preface to the book Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Monsignor Klaus Gamber, which among other things called for turning altars back around. In support of Gamber’s analysis, Ratzinger wrote that post-Vatican II innovations in the liturgy had resulted in “a banal on-the-spot product.” In that instance too, Ratzinger’s punchy intro created an audience for a book that otherwise might have languished in obscurity.)
The obvious corollary is that a bit of literary PR is probably not the best place to go for a developed version of the pope’s attitude towards anything, especially a complex subject such as dialogue with other faiths. Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesperson, more or less conceded the point, saying that the pope’s comments were intended “to draw interest to Pera’s book,” not to call into question the many on-going dialogues sponsored by the Vatican with other religions.
Granted, therefore, that it would be a mistake to put too much weight on the pope’s line, what sense ought we to make of it?
Here’s the full version of what Benedict XVI wrote, in a letter styled as a reaction to Pera’s book:
“You explain with great clarity that an interreligious dialogue, in the strict sense of the term, is not possible, while you urge intercultural dialogue that develops the cultural consequences of the religious option which lies beneath [a given culture]. While a true dialogue is not possible about this basic option without putting one’s own faith into parentheses, it’s important, in public exchange, to explore the cultural consequences of these religious options. Here, dialogue and mutual correction and enrichment are both possible and necessary.”
Put in sound-bite fashion, the pope’s line boils down to this: interreligious dialogue no, intercultural dialogue yes.
To be clear, this is not a judgment on whether religions should be talking to each other, but rather what they should be talking about. In the pope’s mind, the point of inter-faith exchange is not to seek a lowest-common-denominator shared theology, but rather to find ways that cultures shaped by strong religious commitments can nevertheless live in mutual respect.
Phrased that way, his comment to Pera is consistent with the approach to inter-faith relations Benedict has taken since his election to the papacy. By naming Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran as President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, for example, Benedict opted for a professional diplomat over a theologian -- the idea being that he wanted to reorient inter-faith exchange away from speculative theology, and towards more concrete questions of co-existence and cooperation.
Islam is probably where one sees the difference most clearly. Benedict is committed to the relationship; that was the spirit of his November 2006 trip to Turkey, and it was also obvious from his remarks on Nov. 6 to the new “Catholic/Muslim Forum,” a vehicle for dialogue launched in the wake of Islamic reaction to the pope’s September 2006 lecture at the University of Regensburg.
On Nov. 6, Benedict expressed hope that “the reflections and positive developments which emerge from Muslim-Christian dialogue are not limited to a small group of experts and scholars, but are passed on as a precious legacy to be placed at the service of all, to bear fruit in the way we live each day.” These are clearly not the sentiments of a pope who wants to shut down inter-faith exchange.
Yet Benedict does not understand the relationship with Islam in terms of theological exploration: how the Qur’an, for example, might inform new approaches to Christology. Rather, he’s focused on more practical questions, above all what the Vatican calls “reciprocity.” The question is, if Islamic immigrants in the West can claim the protection of the rule of law and of religious freedom, shouldn’t religious minorities in majority Islamic states get the same deal? The equal-and-opposite form of that question in the West, especially Europe, is how Western societies can express respect for religious diversity without cutting themselves off from their Christian roots.
More broadly, Benedict wants to emphasize how the world’s religions can collaborate in defense of common values, beginning with a robust public role for religious believers and extending into efforts on behalf of greater peace and justice. On that score, Benedict believes in a two-way exchange; that was the point of his reference to “mutual correction and enrichment” in his letter to Pera.
That said, it’s still a perfectly fair question to ask whether the pope might find a less ambivalent way of making his point -- one that’s not demoralizing for the church’s experts on interreligious dialogue, and that doesn’t send the wrong signal to the outside world about the church’s commitment to good working relationships with other religions.
Here I suspect the European context is crucial. For Americans, “interreligious dialogue” seems an almost unquestionable good; it conjures up images of rabbis, pastors and imams standing shoulder-to-shoulder after 9/11, for example, rejecting religious justifications for violence.
For many Europeans, however, the term “interreligious dialogue” has come to be understood in the context of “multiculturalism,” meaning an ideology of tolerance for cultural diversity, with no one culture predominating. In today’s Europe, “multiculturalism” is seen by its critics essentially as code language for the construction of a post-Christian society in which various lifestyle options sit side-by-side on a sort of cultural smorgasbord, with the state officially neutral among them.
At least to some European ears, the phrase “interreligious dialogue” thus implies throwing in the towel on Europe’s Christian roots. Benedict XVI shares an aversion to that prospect with Pera -- who, in his new book, argues that Western liberalism shorn of its basis in Christian values inevitably collapses under its own weight.
It’s the defense of that set of transcendent values Benedict had in mind by calling interreligious dialogue “impossible” in the strict sense.
Of course, a pope is supposed to be a universal pastor, not a European cultural critic, and one might legitimately wonder if the rest of the world ought to be expected to automatically situate his declarations in the context of European cultural debate. Despite the Vatican’s insistence that Benedict is not “Euro-centric,” this week’s episode offers a reminder that those declarations sometimes ring hollow.
On the other hand, if you’re Marcello Pera, riding a wave of free publicity for your new book, you’re probably grateful that at least in this one instance, the pope didn’t choose a more delicate way of expressing himself. To paraphrase the argot of American politics, “It’s the genre, stupid!”
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
Very insightful Mr. Allen.
Very insightful Mr. Allen. However, I may be reading the Pope's comment, which you repeated verbatim, quite variably. At Regensburg, the Pope drew sonorous reactions for "neutrally" quoting something which in effect wasn't really neutrally received, saved some informed and open-minded scholars. The Pope's preface to Pera's book is sort of a repetition of such a risky skill.
"Particularly meaningful for me too is your analysis of interreligious and intercultural dialogue. You explain with great clarity that an interreligious dialogue in the strict sense of the term is not possible, while you urge intercultural dialogue that develops the cultural consequences of the religious option which lies beneath. While a true dialogue is not possible about this basic option without putting one’s own faith into parentheses, it’s important in public exchange to explore the cultural consequences of these religious options. Here, dialogue and mutual correction and enrichment are both possible and necessary."
The word "meaningful" here does not obviously suggest or mean affirmation nor agreement. It is fairer to imagine it is something worthy of reflection probably by virtue of its cogent depth. Following that statement is a paraphrase of what is meaningful in Pera's thought. The Pope repeatedly used "Your" and "you" if you notice. The Pope can certainly do that as a Pope to commend an erudite person.
I haven't read Pera's definition of Interreligious Dialogue but it seems to me, from the Pope's paraphrase, that Pera thinks of Interreligious Dialogue as eventual coming to a "religious option" which the Pope repeated as "basic option." I therefore conclude that it is not the Pope's definition, rather he was, as a deep theologian himself, just appreciating the effort of another impressive theologian , and at that, a former literary colleague of his.
I believe this is another case of "risky quoting and paraphrasing" as a Pope. I agree, his choice of quotation as well as words to express them says a lot about the Pastor's attitude toward Interreligius Dialogue.
But in this one, he is worth some semantic defense from opportunistic stereotyping of the kind of Pope we have.
Enno Dango
Chicago, IL
I'm sorry. I saw Michael
I'm sorry. I saw Michael Gonyea's Post here and I thought mine wasn't posted, but it was posted on the other thread about this subject. Sorry.
God's blessings be with us all.
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
Michael what an excellent
Michael what an excellent post. This is my second attempt at posting this response. It didn't pass the censors the first it seems or maybe there were technical problems.
I think you outlined the problem very well. I’d like to see if I can juxtaposition points of resolutions in contrast to the irreconcilable differences you have so excellently presented.
Irreconcilable differences among three “one true” Gods. – Thank God, Allah, Yahweh that the “one true” God we ALL believe from three varying perspectives is held as the “One True” God, Allah, Yahweh by US ALL. That’s something we hold in common DESPITE the differences.
To no one’s surprise the pope’s forum, lost in the Election Day media frenzy, was largely ignored. - To those who seek inter-religious tolerance, the progressives of all three Abrahamic traditions, I’m sure would find that fact lamentable..
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. – Again to those seeking resolution tolerance of the position of each of the three Abrahamic traditions, would probably all agree “rubbing salt” into old wounds would by ill advised even if meant as a stepping stone to a higher conceptual level. Seek a less inflammatory path to reach that higher level.
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. - Again most likely among progressives of the three Abrahamic religions a unanimous WRONG APPROACH!
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.” - a unanimous RIGHT APPROACH!
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. – for the progressive of the three diverse sects, a unanimous sigh of relief that this is FINALLY seen and recognized! It only hard to see for those who are looking for differences rather than things held in common.
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. – most likely Agreeable to the peace seekers of the three sects.
In late October however, 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 had held an important dialogue with Muslims. – I’m sure REAL enthusiasts of peaceful coexistence, tolerance of individualistic worship and beliefs, would agree to the continued hindrance to peace perpetuated by those who REFUSE to SEE the impetus of their OWN GOD regardless of sect! And those who refuse to follow the teachings of even THEIR CHRIST! “Peace be unto ALL humankind.” “Blessed are the PeaceMakers!”
The potentially historic Catholic-Muslim forum ended up being a non-event. – Again I believe adherents to God’s Love for ALL his human children from ALL three sects would be disappointed but no less deterred from the eventual realization of God’s Will of Love and tolerance between all our brothers and sisters in humanity, regardless of faith.
A week after the conclusion of the forum, the New York Times reported that Benedict had praised Italian author Marcello Pera who, in a recently released book, “explained with great clarity” that “an interreligious dialog in the strict sense of the word is not possible…without putting one’s faith in parentheses.” - I’ll bet progressives of all three would agree this is a short sighted mistake of being unable to see all three Abrahamic sects can live in Peace without the necessity of converting all three sects to ONE RELIGION or the other.
With all due respect to the pope, whether dialogue is positioned as inter-religious or intercultural, putting one’s faith in parentheses all but guarantees that the ensuing dialogue will be unproductive. - I’m sure all three can agree with that.
As monotheistic faiths, Islam and Christianity share a belief in one God. …For starters, Muslims reject the Christian concept of the Holy Trinity and therefore the divine nature of Jesus- Even Roman Catholic Christians rejected the divine nature of Jesus in 350AD following the belief of Arius until Athanasius’ belief of Christ’s divinity won out after 100 years of struggle. The divine Nature of Jesus has long been in contention by many religious. In the long run what we believe about Jesus and God doesn’t matter. What they are ONLY THEY CAN KNOW. We can only surmise. While it’s important to us individually, what another individual believes is their responsibility NOT OURS. Our responsibility is to LOVE THEM as God loves us. I’m sure all three sects can agree on that.
…Islam holds that God is absolutely transcendent. … 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…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. Islamic scholars argue that 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
Even strict literalists, for whom sacred scripture cannot be “re-interpreted” in any context, have schools of thought that offer differing takes on their 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. - exactly
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, sacred scripture of all three Abrahamic faiths extol peaceful behavior. – True
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. - Yes it is. It’s time to search for beliefs held in Common. Beliefs held in general. What can we embrace jointly in all three religions. How can we interpret things generally and liberally enough to embrace each other as Children of God.
It should be possible to remain steadfast in defense of doctrine and still reach out to leaders of other faiths. - This should be restated to say, "It should be possible for one to have his own doctrine without negating the doctrine of another and reach out to leaders of other faiths in this manner."
If only one can exist, 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 doctrinal differences are irreconcilable. - Wrong. They are reconcilable in the fact that they need not be reconciled to one doctrine they can we accepted as multiple doctrine honoring a belief in God and respect for each other.
The question then is whether 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
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. How a given religion defines the true nature of the one God determines its correct path to heaven. In theory, when these paths are parallel, peaceful co-existence is possible, but in the real world, where these paths invariably intersect, conflict ensues. – Why must they intersect in conflict? Why can’t they maintain autonomy weather they intersect of not?
If Benedict and his Muslim counterparts were to “agree to disagree” on the nature of their shared God, and set the one true God 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. - True
Agreeing that the one God is just, and that no just God would deny salvation to a person who lives a good life simply because s/he chose the wrong faith provides a philosophical construct that would allow for peaceful co-existence. -True
Within this construct
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
Can fundamentalists recognize that there is indeed an aspect of Islamic doctrine that leaves it open to manipulation by extremists, partner with progressive Muslims who strenuously strive to update their interpretation of the Qur’an, and call out the extremists whose regressive and sophistic interpretation of the Qur’an desecrates their faith? – Equally can Christian fundamentalists recognize that there is indeed an aspect of Christian doctrine that leaves it open to manipulation by extremists, partner with progressive Christians who strenuously strive to update their interpretation of the Bible, and call out the extremists whose regressive and sophistic interpretation of the Bible desecrates their faith? And the same with Judaism.
It’s doubtful that Islam’s political leaders can get there any time soon. Islamic fundamentalists tend to reside in theocratic states where sharia law is the norm. But the religious leaders involved in the ACW initiative, by agreeing that the right to practice one’s religion freely is universal, can take an important first step. - Just as it is doubtful that Christianity’s political leaders can get there any time soon. Christian fundamentalists tend to reside in theocratic states where mosaic law is the norm. But the religious leaders involved in progressive Christian and Jewish initiatives, by agreeing that the right to practice one’s religion freely is universal, can take an important first step. We MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY to take those steps in our own faiths ALSO!
When conservative Christians
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. - Exactly.
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. - I don’t think spelling out the differences is the way to start. You start by finding Common Ground. Period. If you accept you have differences But that they aren’t as important as what unifies you behind the God of faith. You have a unified basis to proceed from and you don’t really need to know the differences.
If the recent Catholic-Muslim forum is any indication, neither Benedict nor his ACW counterparts possess the will to do so. - If neither side is willing, what’s the difference between them? If Both were willing No difference would matter!
Thank You Michael Gonyea for your great post. joer
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
joer, your comment is
joer, your comment is brilliant and thought-provoking and unifying for people of all faiths, under one God. Religions too often in time become prideful and the energy within from such pride begins to become a weight rather than a bridge to God, a burden for others rather than a joy to share, a despairing form that becomes more narcissistic or egotistical towards those who are outside its own inner circle or sphere of ultimate perfect compatibility.
The truth is that if any of the religions were perfect or a perfect reflection of mankind's understanding of God, we would now be living in a perfect world. We are far from that perfection, which is to say then that is a reflection that we are far from God, at least institutionally and in understanding. It seems that religions, if they truly seek God and His perfection and to manifest His perfect love in the world, the bridge is to transcend previous perceptions of His divinity and to realize that any pride or narcissism stands out as the flaw, the stumbling block to overcome.
I cannot add more to what you have brilliantly put forth here for us. I hope that the Pope and others in the hierarchy are reading your comment here. It makes such perfect sense that the view you have is the approach that can unify peoples of different religions.
Someone in what Mr. Allen
Someone in what Mr. Allen considers "a high place", a valuable "source", must have delivered a message and we consumers get a classic case of back-pedalling. Once again, it seems he demonstrates that NCR should rename his colmumn: "All things vatican".
First he writes a column quoting, and explaining the pope saying that interreligous dialogue is not possible but that some gobble-d-gook cultural consequence conversation may be okay, which is like saying dialogue is sin, fraternization is an occasion of sin.
Now, we are to told that he didn't really mean what he said. Well yes maybe he did but not what we might think he said, but somethng more complex, more subtle. He then begins to educate we simple servants so that we might be literary analysts and political scientists and/or diplomats who should be able to discipher the code and not fall prey to misinterpretation as he, himself, might have....or might have appeared to. Oh darn if only those people knew how to interpret properly?
Rudimentary lesson one, first we must appreciate "What was its genre?". For heaven's sake! Yes, "...the literary genre for the pope's line is basically advertising copy...to create a market..." for (his athiest) friend's book. Why in the name of heaven didn't I think of that in the first place? But maybe I didn't realize that the pope has time to go about sensationalizing a book or author to help sell more copy. We should have put two and two together, he has done this many times before for other author buddies, like Hans Kung, Sorbino, Charles Currin, etc.,etc. He certainly had the Catholic book stores humming then and his theologian buddies raked in the royalties and got better jobs in other universities. Wow.
Second rudimentary lesson: he didn't mean what he said, sorta. It's not that they shouldn't be talking to each other, "...but rather what they should be talking about". Uh? This lesson is going to take some thinking. Maybe it means that Catholics and Muslims should only talk about, well the weather, or maybe just war theory or maybe just the consequences of the weather or war's equivalent, collateral damage? No stupid, he means that "...the point of inter-faith exchange is not to seek a lowest-common-denominator shared theology, but rather to find ways that cultures shaped by strong religious commitments can nevertheless live in mutual respect." Ah!!!
(Actually I still don't get it. In my simple mind,if that was the message maybe why didn't he say it? I will never pass this course.)
Rudimentary lesson three: "In the pope’s mind, Here I suspect the European context is crucial." Damn! I should have known that. John Allen writes in english for a North American audience (I think, let me go back in my notes on interpretation) so I should have picked up that he was.... Pay attention stupid: "For Americans, “interreligious dialogue” seems an almost unquestionable good; it conjures up images of rabbis, pastors and imams standing shoulder-to-shoulder after 9/11, for example, rejecting religious justifications for violence." (Yeh, the simple student thinks, like what Sr. Joan Chittister did with all those other religious guys and girls at the happy camp that she wrote about in her last column....)
Professor Allen continues, "At least to some European ears, the phrase “interreligious dialogue” thus implies throwing in the towel on Europe’s Christian roots." So, is it me who'se stupid or those Eureos"? What does the prof. or the pope mean by "some"? Now he's got me paranoid. Maybe he means me and he's encrypting a message of warning in some Italian's book which I won't have read, or something.....
And then comes the zinger, right at the end: "Despite the Vatican’s insistence that Benedict is not “Euro-centric,” this week’s episode offers a reminder that those declarations sometimes ring hollow." Ah, did vatican souce let you have a little counter-jab as a reward for throwing in the journalistic towel?
Forget the ratings system.
Forget the ratings system. Standing ovation Dennis. This is exactly how I read this missive from John Allen. Since when has the Pope added advertising copy writer to his resume?
Benedicts' behavior with cultural Islam smacks to me very much of Archbishop Neideraur's little dance with cultural Mormonism over prop 8. Apparently God can be put to the side when it comes to patriarchal dominion. All these strange intercultural religious exchanges do have that in common.
Personally I prefer Sr. Joan's happy camp fraternization strategy. It beats sitting in some class room listening to the same folks drone on and on and on and on.
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
With respect to the supposed
With respect to the supposed "eurocentrism" of Benedict XVI's remarks, the context must be seen, not only in terms of the European cultural debate, but, in fact, worldwide. It's a question of Catholic values, not of multiculturalism or "tolerance." Interreligious dialogue is a parlor-game, which cannot admit of resolution if one is sincere in one's convictions. However, intercultural dialogue, which is not limited to Islam, is possible. By the way, this is the same kind of dialogue that the Pope is carrying on with evangelical Protestants in Brazil - he set the same restrictions on it that he is setting for non-Christian religions - no compromise on the faith, but cooperation, where possible, on social issues (see his addresses for his apostolic visit to Brazil). So I don't see the European context as "crucial" here. Benedict has in mind the entire Catholic community and is setting parameters for any discussions that go on. Multiculturalism (or religious pluralism) is no more justified in the non-European Catholic world than it is in Europe or the US. And toleration only goes so far.
Pope Benedict XVI is to
Pope Benedict XVI is to visit Israel next May, the Jewish Chronicle reports in London:
http://www.thejc.com/articles/pope-visit-israel
Though a visit to Yad Vashem is “a permanent fixture in every official visit to Israel by a head of state,” in the JC’s words, Benedict will apparently give it a miss because of a contentious caption concerning Pius XII. “The compromise that is being worked on is that the Pope will visit only the memorial shrine at Yad Vashem but not tour the museum,” the JC says.
Good Papal PR Recovery. I
Good Papal PR Recovery.
I guess the papacy CAN do no wrong.
Love,
John
Thanks for your usual
Thanks for your usual well-reasoned, well-written explanation. Very helpful.
http://meredithgould.blogspot.com
http://www.meredithgould.com
Irreconcilable differences:
Irreconcilable differences: three “one true” Gods
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 late October however, 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 had 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 [mostly 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, find easy to ignore. The potentially historic Catholic-Muslim forum ended up being a non-event.
A week after the conclusion of the forum, the New York Times reported that Benedict praised Italian author Marcello Pera who, in a recently released book, “explained with great clarity” that “an interreligious dialog in the strict sense of the word is not possible…without putting one’s faith in parentheses.”
If Benedict questions the value of interfaith dialogue it’s probably due at least in part to the fact that when he attempted to address the important differences between Islam and Christianity at Regensburg all hell broke loose.
Benedict seems to have concluded that doctrinal differences must be set aside for dialogue to be possible. His fallback position is to re-brand the dialogue as being “intercultural dialogue which deepens the [understanding of] cultural consequences of basic religious ideas.”
With all due respect to the pope, whether dialogue is positioned as inter-religious or intercultural, putting one’s faith in parentheses all but guarantees that the ensuing dialogue will be unproductive.
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 heaven 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 argue that 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 their 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 all three Abrahamic faiths extol peaceful behavior. 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 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 remain steadfast in defense of doctrine and still reach out to leaders of other faiths.
If only one can exist, 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 doctrinal differences are irreconcilable.
The question then is whether religious leaders can insist 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. How a given religion defines the true nature of the one God determines its correct path to heaven. In theory, when these paths are parallel, peaceful co-existence is possible, but in the real world, where these paths invariably intersect, conflict ensues.
If Benedict and his Muslim counterparts were to “agree to disagree” on the nature of their shared God, and set the one true God 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.
Agreeing that the one God is just, and that no just God would deny salvation to a person who lives a good life simply because s/he chose the wrong faith provides a philosophical construct that would allow for peaceful co-existence.
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.
Can fundamentalists recognize that there is indeed an aspect of Islamic doctrine that leaves it open to manipulation by extremists, partner with progressive Muslims who strenuously strive to update their interpretation of the Qur’an, and call out the extremists whose regressive and sophistic interpretation of the Qur’an desecrates their faith?
It’s doubtful that Islam’s political leaders can get there any time soon. Islamic fundamentalists tend to reside in theocratic states where sharia law is the norm. But the religious leaders involved in the ACW initiative, by agreeing that the right to practice one’s religion freely is universal, can take an important first step.
When conservative Christians [and Jews] dismiss Islam as inherently violent and irrational, they are playing into the extremists’ hands. Interfaith cooperation is the terrorists’ 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. 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. If the recent Catholic-Muslim forum is any indication, neither Benedict nor his ACW counterparts possess the will to do so.
Michael Gonyea
Quite by accident I came
Quite by accident I came upon a passage from Thomas Merton's journal ("Turning Toward the World", Vol.4,p.5)which might be worth reflecting on: "L.M.(Louis Massignon) is a man with an unusual and important vocation: the dialogue with Islam. Not the prissy, dressed-up dialogue over teacups of a bunch of dilletantes, but a real understanding of the greatness of Islam and of the problems and sorrowsof the peoples of Africa and the Near East."
I sort of doubt that Merton puts his "faith in parentheses" or is threatened by the possibility of change within himself for the good from listening, really listening. He continues: "Difficulty of our apostolate which bursts in without understanding and asks the Moslem, whithout further understanding, to betray the brightest conception he has of God and the Holy. For we do not present him with what seems to him to be better or more Holy. As long as he does not understand, we are wanting him to be, he thinks, a traitor to his truth".