Is it possible that a new dynamism in the area of inter-religious dialogue today could have similar long term effects in Ireland as our ecumenical dialogue has had? 

Within the Roman Catholic tradition, the Conciliar document Nostra Aetate provided a basic framework for inter-religious dialogue.   On the practical level, however, the Church as a whole had to begin from scratch. Nostra Aetate was by nature a pastoral document.   It did not provide the theological foundations for the dialogue.  Indeed the very idea of such dialogue made some Christians feel insecure and feel that in some way the fundamental affirmation of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ in the economy of redemption was being undermined.  In more recent times mentalities have been coloured by such political terms as “clash of civilizations” or “war on terror”.   The result is that there are many forums of inter-religious dialogue, especially of Islamic-Christian dialogue, being fostered by governments, to a greater or lesser extent inspired by fear or anxiety or containment of risk rather than out of mutual appreciation.

I remember that I began working at the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace a few weeks after the gathering of religious leaders held in Assisi 1986, at the request of Pope John Paul II, to pray for peace.  The idea had struck a positive note in world public opinion, almost as a logical continuation of ecumenical gatherings that had become part of the Christian contribution to society.

Pope John Paul’s intuition regarding the Assisi event was inspired above all by a desire for peace.  On many occasions I heard him recall his concern about the extent of the nuclear threat at that moment which could have had catastrophic effects on the earth and its populations.  He felt that the efforts of the international political community were not making their impact and that it was the turn of religious leaders not just to make their voices heard but to give witness to the fact that peace is a gift of God which must be implored.  Indeed he always affirmed that the Assisi event played a significant role in the easing of East West tensions.

Alongside the positive recognition by public opinion, there was a very strong reaction within the Vatican and elsewhere against this event as it seemed to many that it could lead to syncretism, an indiscriminate confusion, founded on a relativistic philosophical understanding, about the distinctive identity and nature of various religions.   At the Assisi event itself Pope John Paul felt the need to reassure his critics and noted:  “The fact that we have come here does not imply any intention of seeking a religious consensus among ourselves or of negotiating our faith convictions. Neither does it mean that religions can be reconciled at the level of a common commitment in an earthly project which would surpass them all. Nor is it a concession to relativism in religious beliefs”. 

Pope John Paul stressed very clearly that at Assisi people of different religions, yes, had “come together to pray”, but had not “come to pray together”.  In fact the sessions of prayer were separate for the different religions and even at the final gathering of all leaders, prayers were said on a rostrum visibly separated from the common platform.  A similar pattern is used at religious sections of official events organized by the Irish government.

Ecumenical dialogue has as its ultimate goal the reunion of all believers in Jesus Christ.  Inter-religious dialogue does not aim at such unity, but has different objectives. At times, with the best of intentions, people prepare inter-religious ceremonies to accompany local events using the model of ecumenical gatherings, without taking into consideration the specific difference of inter-religious dialogue.

For the moment allow me to continue on the path of the problems that inter-religious dialogue must address.  The controversial document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Jesus, set out in the light of developments in the area of inter-religious dialogue to reassert the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ.   It should be noted that the controversy about this document centred mainly on certain expressions regarding relations between the Christian Churches. There were more favourable comments from leaders of various Christian denominations about the principle affirmations of the document, namely the unique role of Jesus Christ in the economy of salvation.

Vatican II had stressed that: “Since Christ died for all and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to everyone the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery”. (Gaudium et Spes, 22)

While not rejecting that affirmation, Dominus Jesus stresses that only the revelation of Jesus Christ introduces into our history a universal and ultimate truth.  It clearly rejected any theory which would consider the revelation of Jesus Christ limited, incomplete, or imperfect, or which would be complementary to that found in other religions.  Such a position, Dominus Jesus asserts, would claim to be based on the notion that the truth about God cannot be grasped and manifested in its globality and completeness by any historical religion, neither by Christianity nor by Jesus Christ.

Is it possible then for us to enter into real dialogue with other religions if we set out from a position which stresses the uniqueness of the role of Jesus Christ in the economy of salvation?

Pope Benedict XVI spoke precisely about this topic on the twentieth anniversary of the Assisi event.  He noted that “when the religious sense reaches maturity it gives rise to a perception in the believer that faith in God, Creator of the universe and Father of all, must encourage relations of universal brotherhood among human beings”. 

 “Despite the differences that mark the various religious itineraries”, Pope Benedict stressed, “recognition of God’s existence, which human beings can only arrive at by starting from the experience of creation (cf. Rom 1: 20), must dispose believers to view other human beings as brothers and sisters”.

In recognizing God’s existence believers of all faiths open themselves then to the affirmation of the fundamental unity of all humankind and recognize that God is the Father of all and that therefore the entire human race shares a common origin and a common destiny: God, our Creator and the goal of our earthly pilgrimage.

This affirmation that God is the Father of all is therefore the theological foundation for the affirmation that it is not legitimate for anyone to espouse religious difference as a presupposition or pretext for an aggressive attitude towards other human beings.   Demonstrations of violence cannot therefore be attributed to religion as such but to the cultural limitations with which it is lived and develops in time.

A vision of inter-religious dialogue based on the human and spiritual unity of our origins and our destiny will obviously be focused on our contribution as believers to the quest for fundamental values, especially those characteristic of our time.   These values must include the widespread longing for justice, respect for human rights, development, solidarity, freedom, the defence of life, security, peace protection of the environment and of the resources of the earth.   While respecting the legitimate autonomy of temporal affairs, all believers in God have a specific contribution to offer in the search for proper solutions to these pressing questions.  

In an increasingly pluralist Ireland, inter-religious dialogue can reinforce the fact that pluralist does not mean secularist and that citizens who are believers have the right to bring the values which spring from their belief into the public square of debate on society.   At times where there is the fear of a clash of cultures, politicians tend to “hire” religion and faith leaders to enhance a political agenda, rather than attempting to see how precisely the religious agenda of faiths can bring a positive contribution to cohesion within society.

Believers from all religions in Ireland today are called in a special way to bring credible witness to the question about the meaning and purpose of life, for each individual, for Irish society and for humanity as a whole. In today’s successful Ireland there are also many signs of emptiness. Behind the outward face of self confidence in the new Irish prosperity there are many signs of fragility, especially among the young; the outward clothes and culture of success all too often serve to hide signs of disillusionment and despair; there are signs of a desire for wealth and possession which fails to fill the hunger for self esteem and value.

A dialogue between all believers should aim to work together, so as to help society to open itself to the transcendent.  Such a dialogue, if it is to be effective, must be based on an honest search for the truth and inspired by a sincere wish to know one another better, respecting differences and recognizing what we have in common. In Ireland today there is still a huge deficit in mutual knowledge about religions.  Even those who look on the presence of other religions benignly would probably not do well in an examination about the content and traditions of each other’s belief!  This is in fact not a healthy situation as it could easily drift into the “tolerance of simple politeness” which is embarrassed by difference, rather than into the rigorous investigation and honesty which alone can build true respect in the face of difference. 

Inter-religious dialogue has as its aim the seeking of both the truth and of peace.   It is not easy to combine these two aims in a world in which we are fighting a “war on terror” and where we are told to await a “clash of civilizations”.  Fear of the other does not create an appropriate climate for fruitful dialogue.  Inter-religious dialogue must be carried out in a spirit which fosters a search for truth in a climate of understanding and respect.  It must foster a search for truth which does not paper over differences and wish them to disappear so that we can all be polite and go home.  Over the past months, for example, there has been a great interest in books on Islam. It is important that the interest in knowledge of each others position be one which springs from a dialogue of respect and love and not one which emerges from fear. 

In this sense inter-religious dialogue offers a unique opportunity for Ireland.  Ireland is going to have a very different religious demography in the years to come. It is especially important that young people can face that situation with a sense of mutual knowledge and respect.  I am very pleased to find such respect developing from an early stage in primary education in schools around Dublin, and particularly, I have to say, in the Christian denominational schools which offer a welcome to children of many religions.

Pluralism in religious belief has now entered into a new chapter in its history in Ireland.  In this new reality the school must become a primary focus for fostering a climate of knowledge about various religions and about dialogue and mutual respect among different religious traditions. But to do that there must also be the possibility of fostering rootedness in one’s own tradition.