Interfaith Dialogue, A Point

The young miss was running late this morning, so on the drive to school I heard NPR’s spot on Pope Benedict’s letter to an Italian conservative author casting doubt, supposedly, on interfaith dialogue. The NYT has a cryptic summary, and David Gibson already has a post up at dotCommonweal.

I wasn’t sure what this story was about. The pope continues to meet and make nice in public in synagogues and with Muslims. Is this just JPII drift? Is a pope now expected to play interfaith politician, masking his real views until he starts chatting up the Right?

Mr Gibson asks, “What is, or should be, the point of interfaith dialogue?”

This may be less a task of answering off the cuff from our feelings and/or fears, and more turning to Nostra Aetate, the Vatican II “Declaration On The Relation Of The Church To Non-Christian Religions.” Naturally, Neil and I have been all over it on this site.

Nostra Aetate 1 suggests the mysteries of life which we hold in common with all religious seekers (and some non-religious people) are good starting points: Who are human beings? What is our purpose? What is moral good and bad?

I think some of the Catholic Right, perhaps including the pope, have lost their way with Church teaching with regard to dialogue with non-Christians. (I hope we all realize we’re not framing this discussion as Catholics versus the rest of the world, right?) Nostra Aetate 2 sums the expectation of the world’s bishops back in the sixties, and I read nothing here that’s not even more applicable today:

The Church, therefore, exhorts her (daughters and) sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these (people).

Dialogue alone isn’t enough; the council bishops advocate collaboration with non-Christians, and they give good reasons for doing so, including a discussion on the basic problems of belief in what the pessimists among us would characterize an unbelieving world. What would collaboration consist of? Muslims have problems in Hindu India, too, don’t they? Muslims fled post-WWII India in great numbers if I recall. Part of the gospel witness of the Church would extend to assisting in charity and perhaps justice in places where we can join with other non-Christians to alleviate suffering and attempt to right wrongs. Collaboration: not just a party, but a way of getting things done more easily with more people working together.

Nostra Aetate 3 devotes itself exclusively to Christian-Muslim relations. It’s worth re-reading; heck, the whole document is the shortest of the Vatican II oeuvre. It would take less than an hour to read and reflect with some little depth. One bit of Muslim-Christian dialogue might center on the nature of orthodoxy and orthopraxis and how these play out in religious Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Christians have not always practiced what they preach; and our image has been tarnished when deeds mismatch the “doxy.” Things like that aren’t unknown in Islam or Judaism, but those faiths place greater emphasis on “right action” above “right belief.” How did that happen? Is it an accident of geography or culture that Europe, perhaps, is a continent of orthodoxy (or those who strive toward it or are defined by it) and that the Middle East is the center of orthopractic monotheism? If it is culture, what might that mean for the future of Muslims in Europe and Christians in places like Africa and Asia?

Even if Pope Benedict and his conservative sympathizers are heated up about Muslim inroads in Europe, it might do Christians well to ponder how close to our own compass of faith we stand. If orthopraxis gets a better credibility because Christian belief and actions sometimes diverge, there’s a lesson to be learned, right?

Bishops act with secrecy to hide sex predators, obstruct a fair hearing of victims, and isn’t this connected somehow to the tradition of secrecy of the curia dealing with theologians? This would seem to fall under the basic human mystery: we know the good, yet we continue to choose the wrong. Nobody is exempt from it, and the pope himself has been damaged politically, if not morally by it.

I would be curious to know what passes for dialogue in these papal visits. Does the Holy Father read the Koran? Does he re-read Nostra Aetate? Do curial officials and other representatives? Do Catholics join with other Christian leaders to present Christianity with a certain unity? If Catholic-Muslim dialogue is all about sharing kuchen and falafel over soft drinks, then sure, the pope is right to question what’s going on.

I’m still not sure if the pope’s letter is a real story with legs, or just a bit of gossip pried out at the end of a lazy weekend. I’m not heartened that Pope Benedict has shown little acumen on the interfaith front. If he’s genuinely concerned about the erosion of Christianity in Europe, he would do better to get serious about conciliar reforms as a central plank for a more serious course of evangelization. In other words, strengthen the faith by building it up, not by tearing down the “not-faith,” the common practice on the Right these days.

Europe’s Christian apathy is rooted in the tragedy of the continent from about the mid-19th century on, culminating in devastating wars up to about 1990. The Church may be relatively clean of serious wrongdoing, but the fact remains that it offered very little to Europeans looking for heroic witness and leadership. Playing it safe with the fascists was a middle road. Joseph Ratzinger’s own choices mirrored the Church: stand with martyrs like Kolbe or Jägerstätter or march with Nazis? He took a middle road. Safe, but not the substance of liturgical red, or even white.

Conceded, it would have taken immense, if not saintly, heroism for a teen to stand against the Nazi drift in Europe. But Anne Frank did it.

Even if Pope Benedict is unread or unconvinced on interfaith dialogue, the council witness alone should be enough to suggest he need not be the point man on this for the Church. Other prelates, if not lay people, are educated, formed, experienced, and willing to serve: this work, this ministry should be delegated to them with full papal endorsement and support.

Before my sister and brother Catholics attempt a public word on this, perhaps a consultation of what the Church actually teaches would be in order. Even if Europe were being overrun, our faith would insist upon it. In fact, that’s the problem of the Great War, WWII, and the Cold War: that Christians, Catholics included, were too eager to set aside core teachings of our faith in face of what admittedly, was a very stern moral test. Do you think Christianity would be in “trouble” if it had taken a fearless stand against fascism, or against the insanity of the Great War? Millions of European Christians, and how few martyrs gave witness.

Rome built its primacy and orthodoxy not necessarily on the culture of the mind, but on the saintly witness of its martyrs. Rome missed a twentieth century opportunity, and should we be surprised we’re tracking low on some important indicators? In the face of it, interfaith dialogue might well do us more good than we realize. Too bad the pope doesn’t seem to agree.

 

From the Archives of the Catholic World: Nostra Aetate, 1965

I hope that you’ve noticed that the Paulist Fathers have decided to continue the interrupted second century of publication of the Catholic World in an online format. One of their sections involves reprinting articles from the long past of the magazine. Currently, they feature an older article by Fr John Basil Sheerin, CSP, about Nostra Aetate – the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, and, more specifically, Catholic-Jewish relations. The article, originally published in December, 1965, is remarkably frank about the need for ecclesial “self-reform” (“the central theme of the Council”), the tragedy of the “course of history” in previous decades, and the unsurprising political context of the declaration. It is, I think, rather interesting.

Here, then, is an excerpt:

In the case of the Jews, we have a sad record of violence. Catholic prelates launching pogroms, Catholic laity persecuting their Jewish neighbors, Catholic preachers spreading the myth of “deicide” – comprise a dark page in Catholic history. There was no anti-Semitism among the authors of the New Testament. They castigated certain Pharisees as blind guides of the people but they loved the people. A pagan element, however, began to creep into Christian writing and preaching after the time of Constantine who made paganism respectable among Christians. Today we blush to shame to read some of St. John Chrysostom’s diatribes against the Jews, especially against the synagogue, or to read St. Ambrose’s injustice to them when a synagogue was destroyed by Christian vandals and Ambrose threatened with excommunication the emperor who demanded restitution from the hoodlums.

In the Middle Ages, anti-Jewish violence was fed by popular preachers who pounded pulpits to denounce the Jews as a people under God’s curse, a deicide race, an immoral and treacherous band of social outcasts. How many lying fables about the Jews were seriously believed by devout Christians in the Middle Ages and later, both by Catholics and Protestants. Down to our own century, we find anti-Semitism in catechetical texts, in Catholic devotional manuals, in theological treatises and popular sermons. Until Pope John deleted it, there was even in the liturgy a reference to the “perfidious Jews.” Only God knows how much all this rancor contributed to the butchery of the Jews under Hitler. Said Cardinal Bea in introducing the Jewish statement at the third session, “In this age how many suffered. How many died because of the indifference of Christians, because of silence. There is no need to enumerate the crimes committed in our time. If not many Christian voices were raised in recent years against the great injustices, let our voices cry out humbly now.”

The Jewish declaration is then, as M. Abram, head of the American Jewish Committee, has said, “a long awaited act of justice.” At the same time, it represents the Church’s efforts to purify itself by getting the virus of violence out of its system. To most Americans the discussion about the “deicide” clause was puzzling. It is a term that is almost unknown in the United States but it seems to have been at the root of historical anti-Semitism, especially in Europe. I confess, however, that the Council debate on the “deicide” clause was mystifying and confusing. The 1963 text had said that it would be an injustice to call the Jews a “deicide people.” The 1964 text omitted “deicide” and simply forbade preacher and catechists to present the Jews as “a reprobate people.”

As to the omission of the “deicide” clause, Abbe Rene Laurentin, the distinguished French theologian, remarks that if anti-Semitism disappears, the omission of the word will appear to be only a minor incident in the Council. But if history dredges up a new persecution of the Jews, then the omission will be judged as a grave mistake. To forestall any future anti-Semitism, he asserts that all Christians must be vigilant and that the Church must speed up its efforts to expurgate books that implant in the hearts of children the seeds of contempt and hatred for the Jews.

In spite of the fact that the document renounces any political purposes of aims, the Arabs opposed it as an endorsement of the state of Israel. One Arab paper, Al Hayat of Beirut, predicted that the approval of the document was the first step toward recognition of Israel by the Vatican. One of the strange elements of the Arab hostility, however, was that many Arabs opposed the text on religious grounds. They held firmly to the position that the Jews were and are guilty of deicide. This contention is refuted even by the Koran itself. It says of the Jews in relation to Christ, “No, they did not kill him, they did not crucify him” (Koran Sourate IV). Some Christian Arabs mixed theological with political objections. La Croix (October 19) reports a Catholic source at Cairo as saying: “The vote on the text gives to the Jews a moral weapon which they can use against the Arab countries. We are sure and certain that the Jews are morally responsible for the death of Christ.”

The Jerusalem Post commenting on the approval of the document, said that the spirit and sentiments of the text have already found a profound echo among the Jews but that the real test will come in the practical application of the text. What does the future hold in store? At the First Vatican Council, two documents had been prepared regarding relations with the Jews, but the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war ended the Council and these documents were not discussed. One of them, a resolution signed by almost half the Council Fathers, recognized the primatial right of the Jews to the love and respect of the Church, in accord with the thoughts of St. Paul. One wonders how radically the course of history would have been changed had the German bishops been able to point to such a document in 1941.

The present document also cites St. Paul’s attitude toward the Jews: “According to the Apostle, the Jews are still dear to God because of their patriarchs and because of the gifts and the call of God are without repentance.” God has called the Jewish people in a special way and even though some have rejected his call, this people is still dear to God for he never withdraws his gifts or invitations.

 

Nostra Aetate and the Jews

I hope that you’ve been carefully reading Nostra Aetate along with Todd. Midstream: A Jewish Monthly Review held a panel on Nostra Aetate, printed in its September/October 2005 issue. Dr Eugene Fisher, associate director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, was asked, “What were the most revolutionary teachings of Nostra Aetate?”

Here’s his response:

The ancient Christian polemics of contempt against Jews and Judaism became so pervasively accepted by the Church Fathers and later Christian theologians that no one for almost two millennia ever thought to question its basic notions: collective guilt, divine punishment, replacement of the Jewish covenant with the Christian one, etc. Since there were no effective challenges to the polemics, no formal Council of the universal Church ever debated them in a systematic way. Thus, Nostra Aetate, distinctive among the Conciliar documents, does not cite previous Councils of the Church, nor the Church Fathers, nor even theologians of the stature of Augustine and Aquinas. It was, as Cardinal Walter Kasper of the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews has said, the very “beginning of the beginning” of the Church’s official understanding of its relationship to Jews.

Nostra Aetate begins by noting that unlike its reflections on other world religions, the Church encounters the mystery of Israel when she delves into her own mystery, since the Church is foundationally Jewish in its origins and in its faith. St. Paul, in the only passage where he looks at whether his arguments against requiring Torah observance of gentile converts lead to the conclusion that God has revoked his Covenant with the Jews, emphatically answered that it could not: “Theirs is the sonship, the glory and the covenants” (Romans 9:4). Note the present tense. By the time of the Council, it had become conventional to translate this passage in the past tense, contrary to the obvious intent of the author. Here, a simple correction in translation of a single word opened profound new vistas of Catholic theological exploration.

If God’s Covenant with the Jews “is” rather than “was,” then supersessionism (replacement theology) falls. With it falls the notion that God has rejected His People, Israel. And with that falls the theological necessity of the collective guilt of Jews for the death of Jesus, which becomes merely an historical issue of the few leaders of the Temple priesthood actually involved.

 

Nostra Aetate 5

Nostra Aetate 5

NA 5 concludes the decree:

We cannot truly call on God, the Father of all, if we refuse to treat in a brotherly way any man, created as he is in the image of God. Man’s relation to God the Father and his relation to men his brothers are so linked together that Scripture says: “He who does not love does not know God” (1 John 4:8).

No foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between man and man or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned.

The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion. On the contrary, following in the footsteps of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, this sacred synod ardently implores the Christian faithful to “maintain good fellowship among the nations” (1 Peter 2:12), and, if possible, to live for their part in peace with all men, so that they may truly be sons of the Father who is in heaven.

This notion of religious freedom would be astounding to previous generations, I suppose. It has been so much a part of the social understanding of my life, I cannot imagine living in a society or a Church without it.

Part of the search for wisdom of the age is maintaining an authentic understanding of one’s own faith, being able to live that faith in a friendly and attractive way so as to evangelize, yet be able to have the conversation without the sense of superiority.

Best of luck to us all on this.

 

Nostra Aetate 4: Catholics and Jews

Nostra Aetate 4: Catholics and Jews

Addressing the spiritual bond between Christians and Jews, “Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God’s saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham’s sons according to faith–are included in the same Patriarch’s call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people’s exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles. Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.”

Some have argued that this section on Judaism is especially apt for American Catholics. Certainly NA 3′s thoughts on Islam are relevant as are the comments on paganism and other “new age” practices mentioned in NA 2. The unique relationship of Judaism to Christianity should be considered carefully by all Christian worldwide, even if they have little or no exposure to or dialogue with Jews.

“The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: “theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church’s main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ’s Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.”

God does not withdraw his gift, however, mysterious or non-sensical it might seem to us:

“As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation, nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading. Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle. In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and “serve him shoulder to shoulder” (Soph. 3:9).”

The dialogue with Judaism does not end with ethics, morals, or the common search for the Supreme Being:

“Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.”

And indeed, there has been much shared in Biblical scholarship and in other theological studies. We might also have much to learn in the Jewish approach to justice and right actions. It might well serve as a bridge to non-Christians who cannot understand the divorce between right-thinking and right-action they see among some Westerners.

“True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.”

Acknowledges simple truths.

“Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.”

This would still need to be said today.

“Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church’s preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God’s all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.”

An important fact to recall.

 

Nostra Aetate 3: Catholics and Muslims

Affirmation for the followers of Islam:

They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

A Muslim friend once remarked that his faith had more in common with Judaism, in that both emphasized “right action” above “right faith,” orthopraxis over orthodoxy, in other words. This distinction is lost on many Christians, especially those who espouse a “rightness” on the interior, regardless of how that appears to be deficient on the outside.

It’s an interesting development that Catholicism, often criticized for emphasizing “works,” finds itself with an “orthodoxy” movement that emphasizes faith, “right” faith. At least in words.

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

How does this square with our remembrances of Lepanto, the Crusades, etc.? Are Christians called to set an example above and beyond the pack? Or are we content to sit as peers, as our “They started it!” attitude sometimes betrays?

 

Nostra Aetate 2

From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense.

NA, by its nature being a “decree” is more of a statement of affirmations. The arguments I’ve seen printed lately along the lines of “The Muslim God is not the Christian God,” etc. are not supported by the Catholic acknowledgement of the Supreme Being, and the notion that the search for God–the one God, as we believe–is universal.

Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language.

Then the two major Asian religions:

Hinduism: (People) contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust.

Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which (people), in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination.

What NA does not do is endorse the “advanced culture” hierarchy of religions. It gives nod to “other religions,” inclusive of paganism and other less mainstream systems:

Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites.

A worthy quote:

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.”

… suggesting that the proper focus is on Christ, on the building up of the Christian way, and not on the tearing down of others. Critics of non-Christian religions strike me as being among the most faithless of Christians. Lacking the ability or imagination to present Christianity in an attractive way to non-believers, they focus their energies instead on tearing down the beliefs of others. Clearly, Vatican II condemned such an approach:

The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.

 

Nostra Aetate

I’ve missed the anniversary by a few weeks. This shortest of the Vatican II documents, however, is well worth an examination, especially in these times in which some Catholics seek to turn back the clock of reform.

The whole document is here, titled the Declaration On The Relation Of The Church To Non-Christian Religions. It should be noted that non-Christian religions include not only Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism, but also any pagan religion, as well as the world’s minor religions.

In our time, when day by day mankind is being drawn closer together, and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger, the Church examines more closely he relationship to non-Christian religions. In her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship.

A focus on what will follow: what we hold in common, namely morals, values, belief, sacred actions, worship, prayer, and other human efforts to reach beyond ourselves and seek the Divine.

One is the community of all peoples, one their origin, for God made the whole human race to live over the face of the earth. One also is their final goal, God. His providence, His manifestations of goodness, His saving design extend to all men, until that time when the elect will be united in the Holy City, the city ablaze with the glory of God, where the nations will walk in His light.

Men expect from the various religions answers to the unsolved riddles of the human condition, which today, even as in former times, deeply stir the hearts of men: What is man? What is the meaning, the aim of our life? What is moral good, what sin? Whence suffering and what purpose does it serve? Which is the road to true happiness? What are death, judgment and retribution after death? What, finally, is that ultimate inexpressible mystery which encompasses our existence: whence do we come, and where are we going?

The acknowledgement of a common search is just that; nothing more.