“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 (Vatican: 1965). Inter-religious dialogue is an important part of the Church’s mission. It is not optional; it is obligatory for her existence. Indeed, not only does it support the Church’s mission to proclaim the truth, it has always been a part of how she does so. “Inter-religious dialogue is a part of the Church’s evangelizing mission. Understood as a method and means of mutual knowledge and enrichment, dialogue is not in opposition to the mission ad gentes; indeed, it has special links with that mission and is one of its expressions” John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (Vatican: 1990), 55.
The Church, the pillar and ground of the truth, is required to proclaim what she knows to others. While she must use words to do so, we must understand what this means; we must not believe that any one statement can declare the fullness the truth. This is simply because the human intellect cannot fully comprehend the truth, and our words can only be, at best, either pointers to the truth or analogous representations of that truth. Thus, we must understand that the formulae she uses to declare the truth can be improved upon. She always states what she believes, but she will say it according to the needs and abilities of the people she encounters as well as according to the abilities of the people who are doing the proclaiming. This means, when there is some improvement of human ability to understand some aspect of truth, or some improvement in the human ability to declare something about the truth (and the two usually go hand in hand), the Church’s formulation about the truth improves in kind. Just looking at early Christological controversies can show how this has played out in history: compare St Cyril of Alexandria’s Christology with the more precise formulation of St Leo the Great; both are valid, both are true, but one is clearly more precise. Moreover, we can see how the Schoolmen’s interest in Aristotle allowed them to have greater precision in theological declarations. This means, of course, that in the development of her proclamation, the Church has had to reflect upon what others outside the confines of the historical Church have said, and she has been enriched by them, learning from them. Thus we can see in her history that she has constantly improved upon the way she declares the truth, without it being any change in what that truth actually is. “For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her” Dei Verbum (Vatican: 1965).
The Church certainly is called to send missionaries out into the world to proclaim the truth, but this proclamation requires dialogue; to be effective it can never be a pure monologue. St Paul went to Mars Hill and said that he worshiped the “Unknown God” of the Greeks; he didn’t go to tell the Greeks they were wrong about everything they believed. He set out to understand their beliefs, and said that much of what they believed was good and true. He showed them respect, and that respect has led, as a result, to many great benefits for the Catholic faith. Many great saints were converted by the respect the Church showed to them, and they brought with them their keen insights and abilities. Moreover, missionaries have long found themselves enriched in their faith and understanding by their dialogue with non-Christians. Both sides, the missionaries and their dialogue partners, have always had something to learn from each other. We can see that in the long history of missions that many missionaries have incorporated non-Christian insights into their proclamation, despite the criticisms they faced for doing so. Of course, the way one incorporates non-Christian values and ideas into the Church is difficult and problematic, and can never be done haphazardly. This is a serious issue which many theologians who have done something similar in their theology have had to face. Without any great surprise, we can see that they were criticized for this work, as for example, the criticism St Thomas Aquinas was given by well-meaning people: “Don’t you believe the Catholic Church already has the fullness of truth? What need is there for you to study Aristotle and his Arabic commentators?” Yet, like St Paul, theologians like St Thomas Aquinas and missionaries such as Matteo Ricci understood that truth did not contradict truth, and wherever truth is to be found, it has the Catholic Church as its proper home. They also understood that to proclaim the truth we can’t ignore what others understand, but we must learn from them. This explains why inter-religious dialogue has always been an important, indispensable part of any proper missionary activity, as Pope John Paul II said to the members and staff of the Secretariat for Non-Christians (4-28-1987) “Your assembly must thus reaffirm the commitment of the Catholic Church both to dialogue and to the proclamation of the Gospel. There can be no question of choosing one and ignoring or rejecting the other.”
Yet inter-religious dialogue is not only for missionaries, or ecclesiastical authorities such as the Pope. Time and time again, we find it said that inter-religious dialogue is a duty that everyone has, and, with it, we must understand that in our inter-religious dialogue, we are called to engage others and engender true respect for Christians by non-Christians, while at the same time developing the same respect for them that we want from them. Pope Benedict certainly makes it clear that there is a great need for Christians to engage in dialogue with Muslims. “Interreligious and intercultural dialogue between Christians and Muslims cannot be reduced to an optional extra. It is in fact a vital necessity, on which in large measure our future depends” Pope Benedict XVI, Apostolic Journey to Cologne on the Occasion of the XX World Youth Day: Meeting with Representatives of Some Muslim Communities (Cologne; 8-20-2005). Pope John Paul II, before Benedict, pointed out that this dialogue is necessary because we can use it to overcome the misunderstandings between Muslims and Christians which provoked them to hate each other and act violently towards each other. “It is important that Muslims and Christians continue to explore philosophical and theological questions together, in order to come to a more objective and comprehensive knowledge of each others’ religious beliefs. Better mutual understanding will surely lead, at the practical level, to a new way of presenting our two religions not in opposition, as has happened too often in the past, but in partnership for the good of the human family” John Paul II, Address at Omayyad Mosque of Damascus (Damascus: 5-6-2001).
While current events often highlight the dialogue that Christians need to have with Muslims, our inter-religious dialogue cannot begin and end with Islam. Inter-religious dialogue is to be had with members of all religious traditions. Certainly, we cannot forget the long, often tortured, history Christians have had with the Jews.Because Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the three monotheistic religions, are related to each other in Abraham, it is not surprising that they can have and have had in history fruitful dialogues with one another. But dialogue is being engaged all over the world, and some of the most profound examples of it are not with those who are most similar to us, but those who are quite different from us, such as the Buddhists. This difference should not lead to any less respect for Buddhists or any other religion quite dissimilar to Christianity than to Judaism or Islam. To a delegation of Buddhist monks from Thailand, Pope Paul VI made this clear, “We have a profound regard for the spiritual, moral and socio-cultural treasures that have been bestowed on you through your precious traditions. We recognize the values of which you are the custodians, and we share the desire that they should be preserved and fostered. We hope that there will be increasingly friendly dialogue and close collaboration between the traditions that you represent and the Catholic Church” Pope Paul VI, Address to a Group of Buddhist Leaders from Thailand (Vatican, 6-5-1972). Pope John Paul II saw that, “Contact with the religions of Asia, especially Hinduism and Buddhism, which are noted for their contemplative spirit, their methods of meditation and asceticism, can contribute greatly to the inculturation of the Gospel on that continent. A wise exchange between Catholics and the followers of other traditions can help in discerning points of contact in the spiritual life and in the expression of religious beliefs, without ignoring the differences. Such a discernment is all the more urgent where people have lost their roots in their own tradition and are looking to other sources for spiritual support and enrichment” John Paul II, Address to the Participants of the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Council For Interreligious Dialogue (Vatican: 11-13-1992).
There are two major concerns that Christians and non-Christians have about inter-religious dialogue. The first goes along with the fact that missionary activity contains inter-religious dialogue. If this is the case, then how can it foster mutual respect? Should it not be seen as another form of erroneous proselytism? While all missionary activity engages inter-faith dialogue, not all inter-faith dialogue is for the sake of missionary activity. As Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI have noted, there is a need for inter-religious dialogue because it helps overcome imbalanced, biased, and erroneous assumptions about the beliefs of others. Base proselytism cannot last in such an environment. At its root, it relies upon false presentations of other faiths. Thus, the Catholic Church recognizes that, “Manipulation or base proselytism, at times practiced in the media, is incompatible with the ecumenical task and with the spirit of inter-religious cooperation, as the Word of God indicates and as the decisions of ecclesiastical authorities affirm” The Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Criteria for Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Cooperation in Communications (Vatican: 8-4-1989). Interfaith dialogue is in part aimed at overcoming the errors associated with proselytism, not because it does not think there is no reason for people to convert, but because of the way proselytism engages others. Proselytism degrades the faith and dignity of others. Thus, interfaith dialogue suggests that those involved in the dialogue should be open to what others have to say, and not go in with any predetermined ideas as to what others believe. Moreover, it believes that both sides should be free to proclaim their faith and the reasons why they believe it to be the truth (if this is not allowed in the dialogue, then the dialogue will be incomplete). It is a part of the religious faith to hold itself to be true, and to offer reasons to justify this claim. If in a dialogue this does not happen, is dialogue really happening? As Raimon Panikkar puts it, “To exclude my religious convictions from religious dialogue is like the renouncing the use of reason in order to enter a reasonable encounter” Raimon Panikkar, The Intra-Religious Dialogue (New York: Paulist Press, 1999; revised edition), 81.
The second concern lies in the problems of syncretism. Many people think that the goal of inter-faith dialogue is to create a syncretistic merging of world religions into one super-faith which rejects all the beliefs which they do not hold in common. This of course is non-sense; trying to engage and get to know someone else does not mean you want to merge with them and become someone you are not. Pope Paul VI clearly understood that any Christian attempting to do this would demonstrate their lack of true Christian faith. “An immoderate desire to make peace and sink differences at all costs (irenism and syncretism) is ultimately nothing more than skepticism about the power and content of the Word of God which we desire to preach” Pope Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam (Vatican: 1964). The same, of course, would be true for people of other faiths.
However, there is another problem with syncretism which is important and cannot be easily dismissed. That is the concern that people involved in inter-faith dialogues will seek to adapt what they find in other faiths into their own, even if what the find is incompatible with their own faith. While the concern is there, one of the major problems with syncretism is how it operates: it is very simplistic in its understandings of religious beliefs. This, of course, is incompatible with interfaith dialogue. Such dialogue requires one to appreciate religious beliefs within their proper context, to know where it comes from, how it works within the whole of a religious tradition, and why those beliefs which might at first seem to be the same in different faiths end up being completely different because of the context those beliefs are found in. Interfaith dialogue works to prevent the kinds of equivocations which are needed to give syncretism any sense of validity. This does not mean that there can be no adaptation possible as a result of such interfaith encounters. Fear of syncretism should not cause one to ignore truth when one finds it. However, it means there will be a lot of serious work needed to make this adaptation viable. St Thomas Aquinas’s adaptation of Aristotle included a purifying of Aristotle’s thoughts, correcting it when it contradicted the Christian faith. The same must be true in any interfaith encounter we have. We must understand the other faith in its own context, make sure we are not misunderstanding what they are saying, adapt it with a clear identification of how we are adapting it and what, if anything, we are changing or modifying both in the original source but also in our own thinking because of it. Then we must examine the result of the process: does it still hold in unity with the rest of our faith? We might not be, and probably should not be, the one to answer this last question. We should submit our ideas or suggestions to someone else in authority who then can come back to us with their own response to what we have proposed. They would work to make sure that our presentation is true to our faith without any injustice being done to the idea we are trying to adapt. If we are honest about how human understanding has progressed through the centuries, we can see this process has been done since the very beginning of the Christian faith, and not only in inter-religious dialogue, but also when Christians have encountered other areas of human understanding such as the sciences.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In