Is Pope Benedict XVI against interreligious dialogue?

Here is how it often works out in the reactionary and often off-the-cuff world of cyber discussion:

• The New York Times reports (on November 23rd):

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.”

• Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, takes that news clip and runs with it:

Pope Benedict XVI is at it again - making fine distinctions which create gross problems. He declared to the world that "inter-religious dialogue is not possible in the strict sense of the word...that a true dialogue is not possible without putting one's faith in parenthesis."

As in previous declarations about Islam and secularism, to name just two examples, the Pope uses language that may be helpful in a philosophy seminar, but actually causes real harm to human relations around the world. And that is the generous interpretation of his remarks.

Perhaps Benedict has created a "strict definition" which precludes such conversation because his understanding of dialogue requires a level of spiritual connection/agreement between the conversants, which may not be possible for people who follow different faiths. That might be what he means when telling us that one must "put one's faith in parenthesis" in order to speak with those of other faiths. But that is an odd kind of faith which can only be present among those who share the faith.

The alternative understanding of the Pope's most recent comments is that he actually finds all other belief systems defective and their members best served by only a single outcome i.e. conversion to the Catholic faith.

Can it be that he finds real inter-religious dialogue impossible because at all costs any conversation which accords full and equal dignity to other's faith is impossible for him? That's a pretty scary thought from the leader of a billion human beings backed by real financial and political power.

If I understand Rabbi Hirschfield correctly, he is saying that real interreligious dialogue only takes place when all participants accept the beliefs of others as equally worthy of assent. The use of the word "dignity" is a confused one, I think, because the Catholic position on such dialogue rests on the belief that every man, regardless of their beliefs, has an objective dignity rooted in being created in the image and likeness of God. Having respect for those who hold differing beliefs does not mean having to respect their beliefs in the same way that we respect our own beliefs. A Jew does not believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah; should I accord his (dis)belief about Jesus the same respect as I accord the Church's teachings about Jesus? No. But, of course, that doesn't mean I treat my interlocutor rudely or poorly. Which is one of many reasons that Benedict has emphasized the equal dignity of all men, as when he told Muslims in August 2005, "Only through recognition of the centrality of the person can a common basis for understanding be found, one which enables us to move beyond cultural conflicts and which neutralizes the disruptive power of ideologies."

Regardless, Rabbi Hirschfield is reacting wrongly for at least two reasons. First, anyone who has paid any attention to Benedict's pontificate and his writings prior to becoming Pope knows that he has engaged in substantial conversation with the beliefs of others, including Jews, Muslims, Protestants, and atheists. And yet it seems equally clear that he doesn't put as much stock in interreligious discussions as some do (including his predecessor), perhaps being more realistic and pragmatic about the limits of such encounters. Secondly, the key sentence that Hirschfield and others have reacted to needs to be seen in its entirety. Here it is and here is the key paragraph:

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 emphasis on a dialogue of cultures is hardly new with Benedict; it was one of the key themes of his famous Regenburg address:

While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically falsifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.

Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures.

Finally, Sandro Magister has an English translation of an article, "The religions and the fate of the world," which appeared in the L'Osservatore Romano last Sunday, written by Khaled Fouad Allam, a Muslim. Allam writes:

We are living through a global crisis, and for this very reason reflection on dialogue between Islam and Christianity deserves to be re-proposed from a new perspective. Obviously, relations between these two great religious are ancient, not only because of their geographical proximity but also because of the history of the two spiritual traditions. For decades – in many regards, since Vatican Council II – relations between Muslims and Christians have involved various dimensions, including encounter on the religious level, although this rarely makes it possible to get to the heart of the matter, to highlight its ups and downs, and often it accentuates our inability to broaden our thinking.

Precisely because of this generalized crisis, dialogue between Christianity and Islam must be considered in its philosophical dimension, meaning research and analysis of what can help us to identify the dangers of this crisis, and how to overcome it. It is always in the experience of pain, evil, and suffering that human beings are called to their responsibilities before history and eternity. The catastrophe of the past twenty years, the radicalization of consciences, the attack on the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, the return of intolerance toward certain faiths, are signs of an evil that humanity is now living through.

But it is precisely the experience of suffering, individual and collective, that makes possible the encounter with the other, even if the suffering remains intact and unavoidable. It is therefore no coincidence that, again, in the search for a new international order and peaceful coexistence among peoples and cultures, the very notion of dialogue should involve, as is obvious, areas not included in the traditional religious questions.

Read the entire column.

• Are Truth, Faith, and Tolerance Compatible? | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Dialogue Is Never Enough | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• Why Do We Need Faith? | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Is Dialogue with Islam Possible? Some Reflections on Pope Benedict XVI's Address at the University of Regensburg | Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.
• The Regensburg Lecture: Thinking Rightly About God and Man | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• The Spirit of Assisi: On Praying With Other Religions | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.

Comments

[Evan]

Thankfully, Reuters was very quick to counter any confusion caused by the NYT article, and their writers were even pushing for such understanding in the blogosphere. Here is their response:

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/11/25/confusion-over-popes-letter-saying-interfaith-talks-impossible/

...and for those who are interested, I commented last week on a possible Protestant contribution to the understanding of religion and culture attempted by Benedict XVI:

http://nondefixi.blogspot.com/2008/11/pope-benedict-xvi-on-religion-and.html

[Jackson]

"Democratic dialogue and compromise, it is said, depend on the absence of any theoretic grounding for either what is true, right or good. 'Democracy in fact is supposedly built on the basis that no one can presume to know the true way, and it is enriched by the fact that all roads are mutually recognized as fragments of the effort toward that which is better.' All positions depend on historic situation, not on philosophical grounding. No political opinion can be 'correct.' Thus a place for contradictory and morally incoherent systems exists by right in any democracy. The relativist sees any claim to be correct or to truth to be the error of Marxism and all dogmatic religion."

James V. Schall, Ratzinger on the Modern Mind,
http://www.ignatius.com/Magazines/hprweb/schall_10-1997.htm