Meanwhile, on the inter-religious front...

An October 20th story in the Los Angeles Times reports that Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim scholars recently met together in an attempt to "reconcile problematic texts" from "the Hebrew Scripture, the New Testament and the Koran that  assert the superiority of one belief system over others."

As an example, the Rt. Rev. Alexei Smith, ecumenical and interreligous official of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, quoted from the Gospel of Mark: "Go into the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

Rabbi Reuven Firestone, director of the Institute for the Study of Jewish-Muslim Interrelations at Hebrew Union College in Los Angeles, mentioned a series of texts, including a verse from Deuteronomy: "For you are a people consecrated to the Lord your God: of all the peoples of the earth the Lord your God chose you to be His treasured people."

And Muzammil H. Siddiqi, chairman of the Fiqh (Islamic Law) Council of North America, quoted from the Koran:

"You who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as allies: they are allies only to each other. Anyone who takes them as an ally becomes one of them -- God does not guide such wrongdoers."

In explaining the passage from the Gospel of Mark, Smith said that the troubling portion was appended a century after it was written -- when the four Gospels were compiled.

He said the longer ending, which added 12 verses, was written at a time when Christians either were questioning their faith in the resurrection of Jesus or defending it against skeptics and nonbelievers.

One should, of course, always take MSM reporting of religious issues with a huge grain of salt, and any sort of commentary would require having a far more detailed report of what was said at the conference. But if the report is accurate, the explanation offered by Fr. Smith is puzzling. The New Testament is filled with all sorts of "troublesome" statements about the superiority of faith in Christ, and the Catholic Church has never wavered in proclaiming this belief, even as she has grappled with the issue (to take one example) of those who have never heard the Gospel. Surely Fr. Smith—a well-educated man—knows that Mark 16:15-16 is part of the New Testament canon, regardless of whether it was penned in, say, A.D. 60 or A.D. 90 or A.D. 150 (see footnote #2 on this page). Which means that it cannot be excused simply for being a later addition (as many scholars agree is likely the case). After all, the Catechism of the Catholic Church has Mark 16:16 in the footnote to paragraph 846, which contains this quote from paragraph 14 of Lumen Gentium:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

One irony of trying to soften Mark 16 by arguing (in the words of the report) that it "was written at a time when Christians either were questioning their faith in the resurrection of Jesus or defending it against skeptics and nonbelievers," is that many Christians in the modern Western world have been questioning the resurrection for many centuries now, while others have been defending it against skeptics and nonbelievers. Why that makes Mark 16 unique, I'm not sure. Again, further details are needed before much more can be said about those specific remarks.

Finally:

Rabbi Mark S. Diamond, executive vice president of the Board of Rabbis of Southern California, which co-sponsored the event with Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn., said all people of faith need to "take ownership of their most difficult texts, wrestle with them -- not run away from them -- but confront them, where appropriate, set them in their proper historical context.

"After wrestling, I hope people can understand these texts in the appropriate contexts and realize that not all of them, but many of them, are bound by conditions of social milieu, of culture, of historical context."

In some instances, he continued, people of faith need to say to themselves, "This is part of my sacred tradition, but I reject it. I find this text offensive. It goes against my own morality, and it goes against what I believe God expects of me in the world today."

There is  much good in Rabbi Diamond's initial remarks, but the final paragraph does make one wonder: what are "some instances"? Who decides? How? This point is brought home by a short CWNews piece about the difficulties of inter-religious dialogue between Catholics and Muslims:

Responding to an initiative by 138 Islamic officials, the president of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue has welcomed a bid for talks between Christian and Muslim leaders, but warned about inevitable difficulties in that dialogue.

In an interview with the French newspaper La Croix, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran pointed out that Muslims do not accept the sort of inter-religious dialogue that Christians have come to expect. For example, he said, Muslims "will not allow in-depth discussion of the Qu'ran," since they believe that the words were literally dictated by Allah, and any questioning of the text borders on blasphemy.

Because Islamic leaders refuse to discuss the fundamental basis of their beliefs, the French cardinal said, "it is difficult to discuss the content of their faith."

Cardinal Tauran said that insofar as talks with Muslims can be pursued, Christian leaders should insist that Islamic societies respect religious freedom, in the same way that the western world respects the rights of Muslims. Specifically, he said, "if they can have mosques in Europe, it is reasonable to expect them to allow churches built in their countries."

Yes, it does seem reasonable. Which is probably one of many reasons why Pope Benedict's Regensburg Address was about...the nature of reason. Stay tuned. I suspect these issues aren't going to be resolved anytime soon.

Comments

[Dan]

If the "offensive" Old and New Testament passages cited in the article were excised, what would be left of Judaism and Christianity? We would be left with a history of Israel that has no more religious significance than the history of the Hittites and a Jesus who is entirely dispensable insofar as salvation is concerned.

[LJ]

"In some instances, he continued, people of faith need to say to themselves, "This is part of my sacred tradition, but I reject it. I find this text offensive. It goes against my own morality, and it goes against what I believe God expects of me in the world today." --Rabbi Mark S. Diamond.

With all due respect Rabbi Diamond, whatever do you mean? Those problematic texts that assert the superiority of one belief system over others?

Here's a suggestion. Let each and everyone decide, free of coercion (Dignitatis Humanae) which superior belief system is the truth and let the chips, or converts shall we say, fall where they may. The only reason this kind of dialogue is happening is because of the tendency of certain adherents to a certain religion to enforce their religious beliefs by violence, on their own people and on others, permitting no freedom of religion.

Any religion is not worth the trouble if it does not claim to be the truth exclusively and completely. But that fact alone does not imply coercion. Why should Jews or Christians deliberately become indifferentists to placate violence?

If I didn't think that it mattered, I probably wouldn't be Catholic. There are much easier ways to be religious.

[MMajor Fan]

The methodology to "reconcile problematic texts" is invalid and inherently flawed. For example, if one only discusses a passage such as the one in the Qur'an against alliance with other faiths, one is then ignoring the passages in the Qur'an that instruct how to co-exist with those faiths. It is fine to cite from the Bible and Qur'an (indeed it is necessary) but one loses the attempt before one even starts when it is done on a line by line isolated basis. God provided a body of text, not a series of spread sheet rows and columns to be added up, and then audited for discrepancy. In order to succeed one must first illuminate the vast areas where there are agreement and fully understand them. Line by line is a lost cause and not illuminating. God would not have provided Muslims with instructions about interactions if he meant for them to be totally at odds, as isolation of that one line incorrectly implies. One must also understand what alliance would mean in that context, and how to contrast that with peaceful co-existence. There is a huge difference and one that is quite illuminating.