Pope Questions Interfaith Dialogue

[Ahimsa]

ROME — In comments on Sunday that could have broad implications in a period of intense religious conflict, Pope Benedict XVI cast doubt on the possibility of interfaith dialogue but called for more discussion of the practical consequences of religious differences.

The pope’s comments came in a letter he wrote to Marcello Pera, an Italian center-right politician and scholar whose forthcoming book, “Why We Must Call Ourselves Christian,” argues that Europe should stay true to its Christian roots. A central theme of Benedict’s papacy has been to focus attention on the Christian roots of an increasingly secular Europe.

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.”

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the pope’s comments seemed intended to draw interest to Mr. Pera’s book, not to cast doubt on the Vatican’s many continuing interreligious dialogues.

“He has a papacy known for religious dialogue; he went to a mosque, he’s been to synagogues,” Father Lombardi said. “This means that he thinks we can meet and talk to the others and have a positive relationship.”

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Ahimsa:
Undoubtedly a lot of folks will draw whatever extraordinarily broad conclusions they want from Benedict’s letter to Pera.

However, the point is a very, very specific philosophical one. When people talk about “dialogue” between “religions”, they usually mean a discussion to determine which religion has it right on what subject. Since each religion believes it is right about everything it addresses, such a discussion is impossible. It’s like trying to have Euclidean and nonEuclidean geometry discuss who’s got the fifth postulate right. There is no basis for discussion.

There is no implication here for talks between members of different religions, either to pursue mutual goals or for proselytization purposes. Nor is there any implication for communication between variations of a single religion.

However, because it can be phrased simply, it sounds like a very broad statement. So there will undoubtedly be lots of bloviating about what is actually a very simple and obvious point.

 

[Sister_Amy]

I seem to find myself in a minority, that thinks “Interfaith Dialogue” doesn’t attempt to meld or integrate various religious traditions. I’ve always understood it to simply be good-natured discussion to promote understanding more than doctrinal acceptance of religious differences.

For instance, as a Muslim, I hold beliefs about Jesus which are contradictory to the beliefs of Christians. I have no intention of accepting the beliefs of Christians, but what harm does it do me to listen to Christians talk about them, and to improve my own discussions so they are less offensive towards Christians?

Likewise, there are some beliefs Christians have which are contradictory to Islam–but what harm does it do for Christians to listen to those beliefs with no intention of adopting them?

In both cases, though, it ought to make getting along quite a bit easier.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

In both cases, though, it ought to make getting along quite a bit easier.

sometimes getting along leads to indifference. Jesus did not bring peace but brought a sword. i’m not a big fan of interfaith dialogue. i think it leads to relativism in a relativistic culture. after all, the antichrist is the ecumenist, pacifist and ecologist.

 

[Sister_Amy]

And he who lives by the sword dies by the sword, eh?

Would you rather to simply destroy people who disagree with you? Instead of talking to them, that is?

Whatever is wrong with ecology, I wonder?

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

Would you rather to simply destroy people who disagree with you? Instead of talking to them, that is?

no not destroy them in terms of killing, that would be very much like islamic fundamentalism, but to have a vigorous debate and within a catholic state, just discrimination against islam and other dangerous errors in faith. Christ is king of the universe and should be king of any just society, including one that tolerates islam.

nothing wrong with ecology as long as it respects the dignity of man which it frequently tends not to today.

 

[Sister_Amy]

no not destroy them in terms of killing, that would be very much like islamic fundamentalism, but to have a vigorous debate and within a catholic state, just discrimination against islam and other dangerous errors in faith. Christ is king of the universe and should be king of any just society, including one that tolerates islam.

nothing wrong with ecology as long as it respects the dignity of man which it frequently tends not to today.

(1) What do you know about Islamic fundamentalism?

(2) Do you think discrimination based on religion can ever be just?

(3) How does ecology not respect the dignity of man?

All sincere questions–thank you for response above, and I look forward to hearing more about your point of view.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

(1) What do you know about Islamic fundamentalism?

it has been the enemy of christendom since islam sacked catholic north africa.

(2) Do you think discrimination based on religion can ever be just?

absolutely, just like islam does. but not just for the reason that the bible says so, but because catholicism is the truth and all people in a just catholic state should be evangelized. certainly there should be no forced conversions. but at the same time, i don’t think a religion where it contradicts the natural law should be tolerated.

(3) How does ecology not respect the dignity of man?

not saying it doesn’t. it may or may not. but there are certain elements within the environmental movement that look at man as being a disease on the planet. they worship cockroaches and fleas.

 

[Bennie_P]

I seem to find myself in a minority, that thinks “Interfaith Dialogue” doesn’t attempt to meld or integrate various religious traditions. I’ve always understood it to simply be good-natured discussion to promote understanding more than doctrinal acceptance of religious differences.

For instance, as a Muslim, I hold beliefs about Jesus which are contradictory to the beliefs of Christians. I have no intention of accepting the beliefs of Christians, but what harm does it do me to listen to Christians talk about them, and to improve my own discussions so they are less offensive towards Christians?

Likewise, there are some beliefs Christians have which are contradictory to Islam–but what harm does it do for Christians to listen to those beliefs with no intention of adopting them?

In both cases, though, it ought to make getting along quite a bit easier.

Are you really talking about intereligious dialogue or interculture dialogue?

For your examples is more about mutual knowledge and general respect of each other, not mutual acceptance of each other’s beliefs.

There is really no reason for having intereligious dialogue unless your intent is to prove your own religion to be the correct one and your intent is to convert the other, but having interculture dialogue could result in mutual agreement on perhaps politcal issues and issues in which neither would have to comprise their own beliefs. I don’t know if that makes since to you, or not?

For example knowledge of certain aspects each others faith, such as what day is your sabbath, so I wouldn’t interfer with your observance of it, or food restrictions so I would not offer you to share a meal that would be offensive, that would be in the area of interculture understanding, but debate of theological points of each other religions could either result in the conversion of one, the deluting of the each others beliefs, or mutual animostity toward each other. The later we see many times right here on these forums at CAF. For instance many come to CAF and seem to have the idea not to learn more about the Catholic faith but to challenge it, change it or provoke others into an angry diatribe(which for too many of us, myself included , are willing to oblige).

Myself, I shooting to promote conversion, though many times I find myself going off into a protracted diatribe…

From the Pope’s letter

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.

This might be a good book to read…

 

[bpbasilphx]

**And he who lives by the sword dies by the sword, eh?

Would you rather to simply destroy people who disagree with you? Instead of talking to them, that is?**

**Like Mahomet?

ISA AKBAR!

ISA AKBAR!

ISA AKBAR!

I bear witness there is NO GOD but Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and Jesus is God Incarnate risen from the dead!**

 

[Sister_Amy]

Thanks Dee Dee King for your responses. I really appreciate the time you took to answer.

it has been the enemy of christendom since islam sacked catholic north africa.

Have you ever studied it?

absolutely, just like islam does. but not just for the reason that the bible says so, but because catholicism is the truth and all people in a just catholic state should be evangelized. certainly there should be no forced conversions. but at the same time, i don’t think a religion where it contradicts the natural law should be tolerated.

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint. I largely agree with you, except I think Islam is the truth and I don’t think people should be “evangelized” but I do think that people should always be given the opportunity to choose their religion.

not saying it doesn’t. it may or may not. but there are certain elements within the environmental movement that look at man as being a disease on the planet. they worship cockroaches and fleas.

Thanks for sharing that.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Are you really talking about intereligious dialogue or interculture dialogue?

Quite possibly both.

For your examples is more about mutual knowledge and general respect of each other, not mutual acceptance of each other’s beliefs.

That is precisely what I intended to describe as the benefit of such dialogue–mutual knowledge and general respect of each other.

There is really no reason for having intereligious dialogue unless your intent is to prove your own religion to be the correct one and your intent is to convert the other, but having interculture dialogue could result in mutual agreement on perhaps politcal issues and issues in which neither would have to comprise their own beliefs. I don’t know if that makes since to you, or not?

I have found that inter-religious dialogue is a good platform to talk about political issues. At one inter-religious forum we had a lively discussion about Israel/Palestine between Jews, Christians, and Muslims. A political issue mostly but it helped a lot for the Palestinian Muslims to see the viewpoint of the American Jews in this instance, and vice versa.

But I was talking about inter-religious dialogue specifically. The dialogue shouldn’t be an effort to compromise anyone’s beliefs, in my view, just to promote their general understanding.

For example knowledge of certain aspects each others faith, such as what day is your sabbath, so I wouldn’t interfer with your observance of it, or food restrictions so I would not offer you to share a meal that would be offensive, that would be in the area of interculture understanding, but debate of theological points of each other religions could either result in the conversion of one, the deluting of the each others beliefs, or mutual animostity toward each other. The later we see many times right here on these forums at CAF. For instance many come to CAF and seem to have the idea not to learn more about the Catholic faith but to challenge it, change it or provoke others into an angry diatribe(which for too many of us, myself included , are willing to oblige).

I don’t think that dialogue necessitates any sort of debate. Mostly what happens here on the forum isn’t very civilized in my opinion, as far as the presentation of various beliefs. Those who engage in such debates don’t care at all for the opinions of their opponents.

Myself, I shooting to promote conversion, though many times I find myself going off into a protracted diatribe…

I try to remind myself that it is God who has the power to guide people, not myself.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

I seem to find myself in a minority, that thinks “Interfaith Dialogue” doesn’t attempt to meld or integrate various religious traditions. I’ve always understood it to simply be good-natured discussion to promote understanding more than doctrinal acceptance of religious differences.

That’s the normal, conversational, nontechnical meaning that most people hold. Just people of different religions talking, and not necessarily about religious differences.

Religious people in particular instinctively understand the benefits and limitations to this sort of conversation. Benedict, however, has to deal with a highly secularized Europe. When nonreligious people hear “interfaith dialogue,” they are thinking of it quite differently. They see Enlightenment Rationalism as the basis on which the discussion ought to take place (to decide who’s right). They see secular thought patterns as playing the mature, gentlemanly referee to the squabbles of immature, irrational children. That’s the sort of mindset Benedict was challenging, not the notion that Christians and Muslims can have mutual beneficial dialogue.

My apologies for my (apparent) sister Dee Dee King’s rash, bizarre, incoherent statements. Your tone and thoughtfulness show you deserve better on this forum.

P.S. I once studied to be an ecologist. I saw enough fudging of data and strangley designed studies to question how strictly scientific principles were being applied. They’re not bad folks, but they do tend to push their data beyond its limits.

 

[mark_a]

but I do think that people should always be given the opportunity to choose their religion.

Do you understand Pope Benedict’s concerns about the lack of reciprocity within Islam in general?

 

[Bennie_P]

Quite possibly both.

That is precisely what I intended to describe as the benefit of such dialogue–mutual knowledge and general respect of each other.

I have found that inter-religious dialogue is a good platform to talk about political issues. At one inter-religious forum we had a lively discussion about Israel/Palestine between Jews, Christians, and Muslims. A political issue mostly but it helped a lot for the Palestinian Muslims to see the viewpoint of the American Jews in this instance, and vice versa.

But I was talking about inter-religious dialogue specifically. The dialogue shouldn’t be an effort to compromise anyone’s beliefs, in my view, just to promote their general understanding.

I don’t think that dialogue necessitates any sort of debate. Mostly what happens here on the forum isn’t very civilized in my opinion, as far as the presentation of various beliefs. Those who engage in such debates don’t care at all for the opinions of their opponents.

I try to remind myself that it is God who has the power to guide people, not myself.

I am afraid what you consider inter-religious dialogue, I see it is inter-culture dialogue, but that is maybe because our world is different and our understanding of those words are different also, but that is OK, as long as show each other mutual respect… .

What happens on the forum is that some are trying to change others, while others are just trying to rile others and then there those that just pretending, thinking it is fun, but they are as transparent as 3M Scotch Brand cellophone tape. And of course we have many that are truly looking for answers.

And I agree, God is the one that has the only power to change one, it is up to us to submit to Him when we are prompt, or called

 

[Peter_J]

Undoubtedly a lot of folks will draw whatever extraordinarily broad conclusions they want from Benedict’s letter to Pera.

However, the point is a very, very specific philosophical one. When people talk about “dialogue” between “religions”, they usually mean a discussion to determine which religion has it right on what subject. Since each religion believes it is right about everything it addresses, such a discussion is impossible. It’s like trying to have Euclidean and nonEuclidean geometry discuss who’s got the fifth postulate right. There is no basis for discussion.

I don’t agree with your interpretation. Benedict specifically said that “inter-religious dialogue” (i.e. dialogue between members of different religions) is impossible, thus allowing that dialogue is possible between members of the same religion, e.g. Catholic-Orthodox dialogue or Catholic-Lutheran dialogue. In other words, the fact that Catholics and Orthodox each believe that they are right about all the disputed points, does not preclude dialogue between the two groups.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

I don’t agree with your interpretation. Benedict specifically said that “inter-religious dialogue” (i.e. dialogue between members of different religions) is impossible, thus allowing that dialogue is possible between members of the same religion, e.g. Catholic-Orthodox dialogue or Catholic-Lutheran dialogue. In other words, the fact that Catholics and Orthodox each believe that they are right about all the disputed points, does not preclude dialogue between the two groups.

Hmmm… I guess we’ll have to read Pera’s book and figure out exactly which version Benedict is endorsing.

However, I think you’re misreading his definition of “interreligious dialogue.” I don’t believe he thinks of it simply as dialogue between members of different religions. The dialogue is a specific kind: how do we find mutually agreeable beliefs on everything? The dialogue occurs not merely between individual believers, but between the body of religious beliefs themselves. It is in that case that such dialogue is impossible. Secularists believe it is possible, because they see materialistic rationalism as Truth and all other beliefs as departing from it. They want to see religions come together with materialistic rationalism as the judge between them to reach a consensus. Any religious philosopher knows that’s not the way it works. The Vatican spokesman has been at pains to explain that “interreligious dialogue = dialogue between members of different religions” is not what Benedict meant.

Catholics and Orthodox do have a meeting ground upon which each tries to convince the other that they are right. That meeting ground is shared early-centuries Tradition. Catholics and Protestants likewise, but the meeting ground is Scripture. We have mutually agreed upon authorities, so the meeting is possible. No such mutual meeting ground exists between religions, except in the imaginations of material rationalists.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Undoubtedly a lot of folks will draw whatever extraordinarily broad conclusions they want from Benedict’s letter to Pera.

However, the point is a very, very specific philosophical one. When people talk about “dialogue” between “religions”, they usually mean a discussion to determine which religion has it right on what subject. Since each religion believes it is right about everything it addresses,

Not necessarily - it is possible to be firm yet tentative, allowing for the possibility that one may be wrong. Not everyone has the dogmatic, dictatorial attitude typical of Rome at its most back-up-getting.​

such a discussion is impossible. It’s like trying to have Euclidean and nonEuclidean geometry discuss who’s got the fifth postulate right. There is no basis for discussion.

There is no implication here for talks between members of different religions, either to pursue mutual goals or for proselytization purposes. Nor is there any implication for communication between variations of a single religion.

I hope you are right It looks as though the Pope is disowning the policy of Paul VI (& of his own boss). Some people would be only too happy to ditch everything in the Church since October 9 1958. This would reduce several mountains of Vatican ukases to waste paper, & the Church’s credibility to shreds: “Rome has spoken; the matter is ended - until the next U-turn by the Church that’s not for turning” The Church cannot afford to flip-flop - if it does, why should anyone believe it when it speaks “definitively” ? Has it never heard of "the Boy Who Cried “Wolf!” ? If it blows hot & cold, that leaves the rest of us dizzy - because we have no way of knowing what “them up top” want .​

However, because it can be phrased simply, it sounds like a very broad statement. So there will undoubtedly be lots of bloviating about what is actually a very simple and obvious point.

What else are theologians for ? The apparatchiks might have to get a day job otherwise Pity the proles (= us) who have to make sense of their havering.​

The Vatican has the all the faults of of other bureaucracies, & some of its own - it churns out acres of paper for no better reason than to justify its existence. Endless meetings of ecclesiastics - ditto. Just what good do all these tens of thousands of hours of blethering, & these countless millions of words of print,* achieve* ? Why can’t bishops stay in their dioceses, instead of of globe-trotting, & do what they are meant to: teach, sanctify, & rule ? Why should we fork out for them to talk hot air ?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I seem to find myself in a minority, that thinks “Interfaith Dialogue” doesn’t attempt to meld or integrate various religious traditions. I’ve always understood it to simply be good-natured discussion to promote understanding more than doctrinal acceptance of religious differences.

For instance, as a Muslim, I hold beliefs about Jesus which are contradictory to the beliefs of Christians. I have no intention of accepting the beliefs of Christians, but what harm does it do me to listen to Christians talk about them, and to improve my own discussions so they are less offensive towards Christians?

Likewise, there are some beliefs Christians have which are contradictory to Islam–but what harm does it do for Christians to listen to those beliefs with no intention of adopting them?

In both cases, though, it ought to make getting along quite a bit easier.

to all of that ​

 

[Peter_J]

“inter-religious dialogue” (i.e. dialogue between members of different religions)

However, I think you’re misreading his definition of “interreligious dialogue.” I don’t believe he thinks of it simply as dialogue between members of different religions.

Sorry, I guess I was rather imprecise. My point was simply that he’s talking about “inter-religious dialogue”, as distinct from dialogue among members of the same religion. Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Methodists, are all Christians, hence we are all of the same religion.

Catholics and Orthodox do have a meeting ground upon which each tries to convince the other that they are right. That meeting ground is shared early-centuries Tradition. Catholics and Protestants likewise, but the meeting ground is Scripture. We have mutually agreed upon authorities, so the meeting is possible. No such mutual meeting ground exists between religions, except in the imaginations of material rationalists.

When you put it that, I can agree with you.