In Dialogue With The Other, Let Them Proclaim Themselves
When dealing with people coming from non-Christian faiths, we must keep in mind that they will believe doctrines which are either not the fullness of truth or, worse, teachings which are dangerously false. Due to their ignorance, we must not ascribe to their error an evil intent. Of course, some could purposefully teach what is wrong for their own profit, but those who believe what is said will, in the end, believe because they believe it is true and they desire to follow the truth. It is for this reason, when a non-Christian says something about God which is outright false, we should not take it as blasphemy – unless, of course, our interlocutor makes it clear they are trying to offend us and God. Nicholas of Cusa points out that we must be careful when calling heretics blasphemers, because, once again, their intention is likely not to attack God:
Blasphemy with the mouth is when someone speaks insulting words against God, wishing to avenge himself against God, and names members which should not be named.
And it is a very great sin because of the wicked intention of wounding God with one’s tongue, etc. Neither the Jews nor the heretics have such an intention, because they think they do well, etc. It is a very great sin because a lesser man is inclined to this sin; it is against the best, the most noble being. [1]
When dealing with people who believe differently from us, we must be open to them and listen to what they have to say. We must be careful not to implicate on them an evil desire – we must not try to “read into” what they have to say and believe that what they say is being said due to some other, ulterior motive. Of course, if they declare such a motivation we can, and should, mention it and criticize it if the motive is indeed evil. If you go into a conversation and tell someone you disagree with the reason they disagree with you is because of some motive which they do not hold, all you will do is hinder your own case. Christians must be extremely careful when dealing with non-Christian religions and make sure they follow this to the letter. For if Christians, when engaging people of other faiths, make all kinds of accusations about that other faith which its adherents do not acknowledge as being true, all they have done is made sure their dialogue partner will not be open to hearing what Christianity has to teach. Why should they? If someone told you that you did something you did not do, and convinced many people you did it, you would not hold them in esteem and would not likely listen to what they have to say about themselves.
St. Augustine understood this principle. When he engaged the Platonists, for example, he was willing to acknowledge their own use of the word “god” differed from what Christians meant by the same word:
If the Platonists prefer to call these angels gods rather than demons, and to reckon them with those whom Plato, their founder and master, maintains were created by the supreme God, they are welcome to do so, for I will not spend strength in fighting about words. For if they say that these beings are immortal, and yet created by the supreme God, blessed but by cleaving to their Creator and not by their own power, they say what we say, whatever name they call these beings by. And that this is the opinion either of all or the best of the Platonists can be ascertained by their writings. And regarding the name itself, if they see fit to call such blessed and immortal creatures gods, this need not give rise to any serious discussion between us, since in our own Scriptures we read, The God of gods, the Lord has spoken; and again, Confess to the God of gods; and again, He is a great King above all gods. And where it is said, He is to be feared above all gods, the reason is immediately added, for it follows, for all the gods of the nations are idols, but the Lord made the heavens. He said, above all gods, but added, of the nations; that is to say, above all those whom the nations count gods, in other words, demons. By them He is to be feared with that terror in which they cried to the Lord, Have You come to destroy us? But where it is said, the God of gods, it cannot be understood as the god of the demons; and far be it from us to say that “great King above all gods” means “great King above all demons.” But the same Scripture also calls men who belong to God’s people gods: I have said, You are gods, and all of you children of the Most High. Accordingly, when God is styled God of gods, this may be understood of these gods; and so, too, when He is styled a great King above all gods.[2]
It is this spirit which, although never lost in the works of theologians and philosophers, was brought out in the open at Vatican Council II in Nostra Aetate:
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. 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 (NA 2, Vatican Translation).
It is also in this spirit she asks the faithful to encounter people of over faith with good will and to overcome the prejudices of the past. Christians have had a long history with anti-Semitism. Rumors and lies were spread about the Jews. Even though we can find someone like Reuchlin elegantly defending their rights, gossip got the best of many and the Jews were often turned into a scapegoat. The history of such maltreatment by Christians to Jews allowed for generations of Christians to look back and declare their adherence to the past, to tradition, in their assault against the Jews. It became a dark, anti-Christian tradition which had been wed to the hearts of the faithful. It was as if it were some intelligent parasite had gained control over otherwise good men and women, turning them into puppets for its malicious desire. Thus, at Vatican II, the Church made a bold statement against such anti-Semitism, trying to exorcise the control of this parasite from her faithful:
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 (NA 4).
The Jews are not the only ones Christians have failed to treat with charity. Black legends against other faiths have often found their home in the Christian consciousness, and those who would exorcise such demons are met with violent opposition. Nonetheless, Nostra Aetate makes it clear, Christians have much to answer for in their treatment of others, and they must make amends by overcoming the biases of the past. Muslims, like the Jews, are highlighted as being given similar mistreatment by Christians, acknowledging, however, that Muslims have equally mistreated Christians in a like fashion. Nostra Aetate urges both to overcome what has been falsely said by each other, and rather, come together and actually learn from each other, to come to know each other as they really are, not as provocateurs would have people believe:
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 (NA 3).
This is, at heart, what Nicholas of Cusa wanted when he wrote De Pace Fidei centuries before Vatican II. The violent conflicts between religions hurt them, because it led them to act contrary to the moral truths which they held in common. Although the desire for the truth fueled contentions, the means by which the conflict was waged did not fit such a noble goal; thus Nicholas hoped that God would find a way to ease the tensions and help bring harmony among the peoples of the earth:
For this strife occurs for the sake of You, whom alone all |men| worship in everything they are seen to adore. For no one, in whatever he is seen to desire, desires |anything| except the good, which You are. And in all intellectual inference no one seeks anything other than the truth, which You are. What does that which is alive seek except to continue living? What does that exist seek except to continue existing? You, then, who are the giver of life and of existence, are the one who is seen to be sought in different ways in different rites, and You are named in different names; for as You are |in Yourself| You remain unknown and ineffable to all. [….] Therefore, do not hide Yourself any longer, O Lord. Be propitious, and manifest Your face; and all peoples will be saved, who no longer will be able to desert the Source of life and its sweetness, once having foretasted even a little thereof.[3]
Vatican II helped remind Christians of their common heritage with the whole of humanity. It is not a new teaching, as many tried to claim. It is rather the reestablishment of a truth which had been lost to many Christians in the centuries of war which had taken place after the Reformation.
[1] Nicholas of Cusa, Sermon 21 in Nicholas of Cusa: Writings on Church and Reform. trans. Thomas M. Izbicki (Cambridge: MA: The I Tatti Renaissance Library, 2008), 349.
[2] St. Augustine, City of God IX.23 in NPNF1(2):178.
[3] Nicholas of Cusa, De Pace Fidei I.5 in Nicholas of Cusa’s De Pace Fidei and Cribratio Alkorani. Trans. Jasper Hopkins (Minneapolis: The Arthur J Banning Press, 1994), 35.
Comments are closed.
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.
Even this is a little bit sanitized, don’t you think? I mean, it involves rejecting a significant portion of the Passion Narrative of John, wherein the Jews are explicitly labeled to be Christ’s killers.
Also, you leave out the historic antagonism of the Jews to Jesus Christ himself. Are you unaware of the “false Messiah” charges in the Torah?
Digby
First, of course I know the historical antagonism of Jews to Christians (and Christ), and of course I am sure you mean Talmud not Torah. So, just like with Muslims, obviously Jews also have engaged in unjust rhetoric. I fully agree, though the Christian response should always be to do what is right despite what the other does.
Second, the commentary on the Gospel of John is complex. I know scholars who think we are misreading such texts, ignoring the context, where it is believed that what we see were slogans from the time, rather than the position of John. However, there are, of course, many other ways to interpret the texts. To do so would take a long post.
Yep, I meant “Talmud,” not “Torah,” but the animadversions against Christ as an evil, “false prophet” are very strong, have been completely ignored by historians of anti-Semitism, although the MUST account for much of the early medieval persecutions of Jews.
I’m sure you’re familiar with Carrol’s book, The Sword of Constantine, in which he lays much of the blame for Christian anti-Semitism squarely on the Gospel of John.
Digby
I could go into the long history of Jewish-Christian relations, but the mix up of it is that there are so many levels and issues, that it would not suit well for a post. Christians did many things wrong. Jews did many things wrongs. Christians did many things right. Jews did many things right. However, I think a big part of it is the issue of power and control, especially in later times, where earlier conflicts and struggles were read into for justification of sinful structures which later developed. Clearly, much of the history is one of context.
For example, I do not remember who it was, nor do I know how right it was (I myself question this interpretation) but I do know some scholars suggest what you find in John is not really aimed at Jew, but a subset of Christians who want to be more Jewish-like. It is a distinction which, again, I am not saying I agree with, but I can understand, because there was the struggle between the “Hellenists” and “Hebrews” and so slogans could have been made by both, which was not meant to be taken further (or theologically) as it was.
See, I am not one who thinks criticism of the Jews is necessarily anti-Semite, nor critism of Islamic thought anti-Muslim, as long as it is done 1) in charity 2) and not being used to scapegoat something else, something worse. Of course I think Muslims need to deal with their own history, their own faults in history, just as Christians need to. On the other hand, as a Christian, I think the imperative is further for many reasons, including the fact that “the more is given, the more responsible one is.” So my post is aimed mostly at the Christians. If I were to write to Jews or Muslims, I would still point out how Christians have had to come to terms with their own mixed history, and they need to do likewise. Of course I would also point to those who have already done such work (like Badshah Khan) as a foundation for this development and work for peace — to point out it is not something being externally imposed upon Islam, but within its foundations and principles. Same with Jews (especially in discussion of the way things happen in Israel; on the one hand, I oppose anti-Semitism based upon it, but on the other, I do not think it gives Israel a free card to do what they want). But again, as a Christian, I think we must follow Christ and take the stand whether or not others do; I also think if we do, truly do, it will influence the rest.
Second, the commentary on the Gospel of John is complex. I know scholars who think we are misreading such texts, ignoring the context, where it is believed that what we see were slogans from the time, rather than the position of John.
Henry,
Isn’t the whole premise of Christianity that Jesus was the Messiah promised to the Jews, yet the Jews did not accept him? John 1:11 “He came to what was his own, but his own people did not accept him.” Is there any other way to interpret Christianity?
David
It is one thing to say they did not recognize him, it is another to use that as a basis for unjust treatment of them.
Having lived in Asia, in countries with huge Muslim minorities, Henry, I do not expect the moderate Muslims to be able to prevail upon the exponents of Islamic fundamentalism any time soon, but this is not because there isn’t a legitimate basis for an exegesis of the Islamic texts that is “liberal” or “moderate.”
It is, instead, because civilizations that are extremely proud are still recovering from a colonialist past (and one that is being recapitulated by America) which still burns in the collective memory of those peoples. They still, to this day, perceive that their religion has suffered terrible insults at the hands of the “crusader” and the colonizer.
It may shock most Americans that there are people in the world who consider their military “missions” to the countries of the Muslim Third World to be repetitions of the Crusades, but maybe they wouldn’t be surprised if they knew what enormous resources American Protestant fundamentalists are pouring into certain countries in South Asia, to turn their peoples against their traditional faith practices. I saw it as a Peace Corps Volunteer, on a regular basis–clothing and food being offered for attendance at church services, and for promises not to “mix with the pagans.” It is aggressive, contemptous of “heathen ways,” and perceived locally as a “war on indigenous culture”–and it is well known that most of the funding comes from America. These people are not Bede Griffiths or Mother Teresa.
Digby
I know quite a bit of what is going on. Yes, the effects of colonialism is still coming to roost, and it is causing all kinds of uproar. Moreover, we are still seeing the effects of orientalism, which has reinforced certain traditions as being “authentic” — “See, even the enemy knows this is true Islam.” Nonetheless, again, I would say if you looked to Badshah Khan, there is still a chance for that voice. And yes, the Protestant missions have done great harm between Christian relations to Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and others.
Thank you for this post, Henry. It articulates some things that have been bothering me about the tone and tenor of conversation around Catholic blogistan.
There seems to be a human tendency to need to create an Other.
Within certain limits, this is obviously necessary. There are, after all, people in the world that really *do* mean us harm. The sin of it is when we make that Other too absolute – when we forget that “we” and “they” are closer than we are separate.
It is when you make the Other too absolute that you start doing things like torturing prisoners and incinerating their cities.
Matt
Right. I think you got one of the points which I wanted to express with this entry (the other is to point out that what we find in Nostra Aetate can be found in tradition). Obviously we need to try to understand the other; the problem is when we try to put our understanding as the ultimate truth of the other so that we ignore what the other says in contrast to it (to the point of saying they are trying to deceive us when they reject our interpretation). One of the things I hold to is that I can find something good in the other (even those I don’t always respect or disagree with). When I write criticism, it is usually based upon what I see as the failings based upon an imperfect grasp of the truth. Yes, I can be (I am the first to admit) easily annoyed in “comment box debates.” My weakness here is my own, and I know where it comes from (I’ve discussed it before: my aspergers combined with my continuous fatigue — they fight against my desires to be better than I am).
I think Cusanus in these quotes is being a true follower of Plato, in that Plato believed that all evil was the result of ignorance and not malice per se. How this is to be reconciled with the Christian theology of original sin is something that I would leave to another time. But in the epoch in which Cusanus lived, such figures as Pico della Mirandola and Ficino actively saw Christianity as one of many religious systems pointing to the same truths. Pico’s famous 900 theses, condemned by the Pope himself, were devised to reconcile all known human forms of knowledge at the time, showing that they all pointed to Christ and His Church.
The Counter-Reformation changed all of that, and with the advent of Protestantism, a “heresy” in its midst, the Church became very wary of anything that smacked of perrenialism. I wonder if our context is different from Cusanus and St. Augustine, for that matter. Modern ecumenism takes place in the context of an inorganic, secularist situation for contemporary believers. More often than not, it seems, ecumenism results in a bunch of foward-looking clergy admiring the quaint superstitions (oops, I mean, “traditions”) of other faiths, all the while having radically questioned or disposed of our own under the guise of “reform”. In other words, it is hard to have a dialogue if you have nothing to say, or if your brain is filled with subjectivist mush.
I have always thought that the problem with ecumenical sharing is not with the other side, but with us Catholics. Catholics don’t even know their own tradition, or bow to facile interpretations of it. They are too enamoured with the latest fad, the easy slogans, the causes celebres that no one on the outside cares about. If we don’t even know our own idenity, how can we appreciate others? It seems like any engagement with any other faith is just consumeristic window shopping by people who deep down don’t believe in anything themselves.
Arturo
There are many forms of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue. I think there is, to an extent, a false understanding of what is going on spread by by secularists and those who disagree with any inter-religious work at all (I am not saying you). Some people do get involved with it because they have a lack of faith and are just looking for one mystery after another, one mystical experience after another, without any solid grounding. Some involved with the work indeed are smart, and provide some good insights, but because they lack some inner spiritual cohesion, the result of what you describe certainly happens, and they are often the ones people know about and so the whole affair is looked at like that.
However, as one who works with comparative theology, many others are doing spectacular work, I would say even in the line of a Cusa, Ficino and Pico. Paul Griffiths, for example, is one such person; he started with more inter-religious work and has moved on, but his earlier work clearly is influencing him. Francis Clooney is excellent when dealing with Hindu-Christian ideas, and trying to really engage issues on theological/rational grounds. John Keenan I think has done excellent Buddhist-Christian work (even if he is a non-Catholic, and I do find some of his work to be more on the liberal-Protestant side when dealing with Christian thought, his Buddhist studies are excellent). The now late Raimon Panikkar really reminds me of a Hindu-Christian version of Pletho to some extent. Bede Griffiths, though more spiritual, and certainly more “popular” I think hit on a good tradition based upon his studies of myth with C.S. Lewis.
Nonetheless, yes, before one engages dialogue, one should have a good foundation of one’s own tradition. Again, because it is dialogue, we need to point to what our faith says, to know it well enough to explain it, and not just hide the things which we think the other would not like to hear. This is what was exceptional about Panikkar’s Intra-Religious Dialogue. He detested such lapses in dialogue because they make the dialogue dishonest. And so, if you don’t have this aspect of it, you are right, it really is pick-and-choose religion which is indeed a part of the consumer world of modernity (and what Zizek thinks is going on with the “revival” of religion; he sees this is exactly what will end up destroying religion from within).
Oh, and I think the greatest sin of the Reformation was it broke humanity down, when unity was beginning to come forward. The response to it, of course, just helped the break down. Sad.
As a side note, and something you might find amusing, Arturo:
When I visited Italy in 2000, the original reason I went is that I decided I wanted to go to Florence and visit the tombs of Ficino and Pico. Then, I decided I would add Nicholas of Cusa in Rome. Of course, I then added more traditional pilgrimage elements, but the initial incentive was to find a way to connect to Ficino and Pico (I also wanted to visited the tomb of Bessarion, but I couldn’t find it, I got lost trying to find it).
Henry,
I am curious what you make of Robert Reilly’s new book, “The Closing of the Muslim Mind”?
So it would be wrong to posit, for example, that those who support Republican candidates (or refuse to support Democratic candidates) because of the partys’ position on abortion, was really just a racist?