Intervention that the Secretary for Relations with States, H.E. Msgr. Paul R. Gallagher,?pronounced at the United Nations Building in New York, ?during the 72nd Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations,?on the protection of religious minorities in conflicts:

September 22, 2017
Your Excellencies, Distinguished Fellow Panellists, Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is an honour to participate in this morning’s side event on the Protection of Religious Minorities in Conflict, sponsored by the Permanent Mission of Hungary in collaboration with the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See and the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy.

The need to focus on safeguarding religious minorities in situations of war and conflict arises from the revolting reality that, as all of us have seen in the last several years in various blood-drenched parts of the world, war and conflict often provide the backdrop for religious minorities to be targeted for persecution, sexual and all forms of physical violence, subjugation, false detention, expropriation of property, enslavement, forced exile, murder, ethnic cleansing and other crimes against humanity.

Recent experience makes the protection of religious minorities one of the most urgent responsibilities of the international community. Such protection must extend beyond merely preventing the intended or actual annihilation of minorities, but must include examining and addressing the root causes of discrimination and persecution against them and spur the vigorous defence and protection of their human dignity, the rights to life and to freedom of conscience and religion.

When we survey the world situation, we see that persecution of religious minorities is not a phenomenon isolated to one region, like, for example, the barbarities committed by ISIS in the Middle East. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom in its 2016 Annual Report said that there are severe systematic ongoing and egregious violations of religious freedom happening in 27 different countries. The 2016 Religious Freedom in the World Report by Aid to the Church in Need said that 38 of the world’s 196 countries showed unmistakable evidence of significant religious freedom violations, with 23 amounting to outright persecution. The 2016 Interim Report of Mr. Heiner Bielefeldt, then Special Rapporteur of the United Nations on Freedom of Religion or Belief, described that violations of religious rights of minorities exceed the methodical, continuous and appalling violations committed by state and non-state actors such as terrorism, vigilantism, mass and individual killings, forcible deportations, ethnic cleansing, the rape and kidnapping of women and selling them into slavery, destruction and confiscation of property, attacks against converts and those who are alleged to have induced them, and encouraged or condoned violence against non-believers and persons belonging to religious minorities. They also include, he said, anti-apostasy and anti-blasphemy legislation, bureaucratic harassment and administrative burdens with regard to building houses of worship and schools, discriminatory structures in family law and education, and stigmatization of people as unbelievers or heretics.

In short, these three extensively researched reports of last year show that attacks against religious minorities are rather widespread. While almost every identifiable faith group experiences some degree of persecution somewhere in the world, Christians remain the most persecuted. Furthermore, there has been an upsurge of anti-Semitic attacks, notably in parts of Europe, and Muslims face serious persecution, often from fundamentalist groups who do not share the same interpretation of the tenets of their faith.

In this context, what is needed to protect religious minorities? I would like to mention briefly seven essential elements.

First, there is the need for action. The recent examples of savagery against religious minorities must shake the international community from any and all inertia. Those who are entrusted with safeguarding respect for fundamental human rights must fulfil their responsibility to protect those in danger of suffering atrocious crimes. We must raise awareness of humanitarian emergencies and respond generously. Similarly, with regard to the situation in the Middle East, the conditions for religious and ethnic minorities to return to their places of origin and live in dignity and safety, and with the basic social, economic and political frameworks necessary to ensure community cohesion, must be provided and ensured. It is not enough to rebuild homes, which is a crucial step, as is happening in various towns in the Nineveh Plain thanks to the generosity of governments like Hungary or charitable organizations like Aid to the Church in Need or the Knights of Columbus. What is also needed is to rebuild society by laying the foundations for peaceful coexistence.

Second, the rule of law and equality before the law based on the principle of citizenship, regardless of one’s religion, race or ethnicity are essential to establishing and maintaining harmonious and fruitful coexistence among individuals, communities and nations. The law must equally and unequivocally guarantee every citizen’s human rights, among which is the right to freedom of religion and conscience, which involves the right to change freely one’s religion without suffering discrimination or being marked out for death. Even in places where one religion is accorded special constitutional status, the right of all citizens and religious communities to freedom of religion, equality before the law, and appropriate means for recourse when their rights are violated, must be recognized and defended. A properly functioning State that works for the common good is a prerequisite for protecting religious minorities and ensuring their future.

Third, there should be both mutual autonomy and positive collaboration between religious communities and State. They, in their own fields, are autonomous and independent from each other. Yet both, under different titles, are devoted to the wellbeing of the same person who is both faithful and citizen. The more both foster sounder cooperation between themselves while respecting each other’s autonomy, the more effective will their service be for the good of all. When religious communities and State becomes confused or conflated, as Pope Francis said this April at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, “religion risks being absorbed into the administration of temporal affairs and tempted by the allure of worldly powers that in fact exploit it.”

Fourth, religious leaders have a grave and specific responsibility to confront and condemn the abuse of religious belief and sentiment to justify terrorism and violence against believers of other religions. They must constantly affirm that no one can justly kill the innocent in God’s name. As Pope Francis said in Egypt, and before that in Albania and in many other settings, there must be a “firm and clear ‘No!’ to every form of violence, vengeance and hatred carried out in the name of religion or in the name of God.” Social, political and economic issues that demagogues can exploit to incite violence must also be tackled.

Fifth, there is an urgent need for effective interreligious dialogue as an antidote to fundamentalism with the aim to overcome the cynical assumption that conflicts among religious believers are inevitable, and to challenge the narrow-minded interpretation of religious texts that demonize or dehumanize those of different beliefs. Effective interreligious dialogue can, ought and often does show the paradigm for political and interpersonal conversations necessary for social harmony.

Sixth, education a good education in general and a solid religious education in particular are key in preventing the radicalization that leads to extremism, persecution of religious minorities and terrorism. Society reaps what it sows. It is key that teaching in schools, in pulpits and through the internet do not foment intransigence and extremist radicalization but dialogue, respect for others and reconciliation. At Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Pope Francis underlined that an education in “respectful openness and sincere dialogue with others, recognizing their rights and basic freedoms, particularly religious freedom, represents the best way to build the future together, to be builders of civility. … The only alternative to the civility of encounter is the incivility of conflict. …To counter effectively the barbarity of those who foment hatred and violence, we need to accompany young people, helping them on the path to maturity and teaching them to respond to the incendiary logic of evil by patiently working for the growth of goodness. In this way, young people, like well-planted trees, can be firmly rooted in the soil of history, and, growing heavenward in one another’s company, can daily turn the polluted air of hatred into the oxygen of fraternity”.

Seventh and lastly, we must block the flow of money and weapons destined to those intending to use them to target religious minorities. As Pope Francis pointedly remarked at the end of his Al-Azhar address, “An end must be put to the proliferation of arms; if they are produced and sold, sooner or later they will be used.” Stopping atrocities not only involves addressing the hatred and cancers of the heart that spawn violence but also removing the instruments by which that hatred actually carries out that violence.

The protection of religious minorities in conflict is, indeed, one of the most urgent responsibilities of the international community today. I thank the Permanent Mission of Hungary, the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, and all of you for coming today to make sure it gets the attention it deserves.

Thank you for your attention.

God the Trinity and the unity of humanity -
Christian monotheism and its opposition to violence

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

INTRODUCTION

 The theological reflection presented here seeks to investigate various aspects of Christian discourse about God which, in the modern context, require specific theological clarification. The immediate reason for this clarification is the theory, variously argued, according to which there is a necessary link between monotheism and the wars of religion. Discussion of this connection has demonstrated a number of misunderstandings of religious doctrine, to such an extent as to obscure authentic Christian thought about the one God.

The purpose of this reflection can be summed up in a two-fold question: (a) How can Catholic theology respond critically to the cultural and political opinion which sees an intrinsic link between monotheism and violence? (b) How can the purity of religious faith in the one God be recognized as the principle and source of love between human beings?

Our reflection takes the form of a reasoned testimony, not an apologetic argument. The Christian faith, in fact, sees the incitement of violence in the name of God as the greatest corruption of religion. Christianity reaches this conviction from the revelation of God’s own life, which is brought to us by Jesus Christ. The Church of believers is well aware that witnessing to this faith demands a permanent readiness for conversion: which also implies a certain parrhesia, a courageous frankness in self-criticism.

In Chapter I, we seek to clarify the theme of religious “monotheism” as it is understood in various contexts of modern political philosophy. We are aware of the evolution that has resulted in a highly differentiated spectrum of theoretical positions nowadays, ranging from the classical background of so called humanistic atheism to more recent forms of religious agnosticism and political laicism. Our reflection seeks first of all to show that the notion of monotheism, which is certainly significant in the history of our culture, is nevertheless too generic when it is used as an indication of equivalence between the historical religions which confess the oneness of God (namely Judaism, Islam and Christianity). Secondly, we formulate our critical reservations with regard to a cultural simplification which reduces the alternatives to a choice between a necessarily violent monotheism and a presumptively tolerant polytheism.

In this reflection, we are sustained throughout by the conviction, which we believe is shared by the vast majority of our contemporaries, both believers and non-believers, that inter-religious wars and also wars in the name of religion are simply senseless.

As Catholic theologians, we then seek to illustrate, on the basis of the truth of Jesus Christ, the relationship between the revelation of God and a non-violent humanism. We do so by reconsidering various aspects of Christian doctrine particularly helpful for illuminating the modern discussion: regarding the proper understanding of the Trinitarian confession of the one God, and regarding the implications of the revelation of Christ for the redemption of the bond between human beings.

In Chapter II, we interrogate the biblical witness, with particular attention to the issue of its “difficult pages”: in other words, those in which the revelation of God is involved with forms of violence between human beings. We seek to identify the reference points which the same scriptural tradition highlights - within itself – for the interpretation of the Word of God. On the basis of that investigation, we offer an outline of an anthropological and Christological framing of developments of interpretation that were driven by the actual historical circumstances.

In Chapter III, we propose a deeper understanding of the event of the death and resurrection of Christ, as the key to the reconciliation of human beings. Oikonomia is essential here in the determination of theologia. The revelation inscribed in the event of Jesus Christ, which universally manifests the love of God, enables the religious justification of violence to be neutralised on the basis of the Christological and Trinitarian truth of God.

In Chapter IV, we strive to illustrate the approximations and philosophical implications of thought about God. Various points of discussion with modern atheism, broadly channelled into the theses of a radical anthropological naturalism, are considered first of all. Then – also for the benefit of interreligious comparison with regard to monotheism – we offer a sort of philosophical-theological meditation on the integration of the revelation of the intimately relational disposition of God and the traditional conception of God’s absolute simplicity.

Finally, in Chapter V, we summarise the specifically Christian elements which determine the Church’s task of witnessing to the reconciliation both of God and humanity and of human beings with one another. Christian revelation purifies religion, by restoring to the latter its fundamental role in the human search for meaning. For that reason, in our invitation to reflection we are very conscious of the particular need - especially in today’s cultural context – always to treat together the theological content and the historical development of the Christian revelation of God.

CONFERENCE PROMOTED BY THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT OF GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE AND WORLD AFFAIRS
INTERVENTION BY H.E. MSGR. DOMINIQUE MAMBERTI, SECRETARY FOR RELATIONS WITH STATES Friday, 13 December 2013

Distinguished Speakers,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I should like first of all to thank Professor Thomas Farr, Director of the Interreligious Project at Georgetown University, for his kind invitation to open this morning’s session with a brief introduction to the main theme of the Conference: namely, the relationship between Christians and religious freedom. The theme is an important and complex one, made all the more timely by our present historical context of globalization. The Church’s recent magisterium has been particularly attentive to this context, from the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae of the Second Vatican Council to the teaching of his Holiness Pope Francis, who has asked me to convey to you his greetings and his blessing.

In speaking of Christians and religious freedom, it is easy to bring up the all too frequent cases where that freedom is violated as a result of intolerance or discrimination – we can think of the recent case of a television journalist who was removed from her job because she wore a small cross around her neck – or the more serious situations of actual persecution. Sadly, we have to acknowledge that in many parts of the world Christians have become a target of violence and are often forced to abandon their culture and the lands where in some cases they have been living for centuries, not infrequently because they are deprived of their civil rights and even threatened with physical harm.

Here, however, I would like to move beyond a mere presentation of cases and examples, which ultimately does no more than cast blame on those responsible. Certainly "a disciple is not above the teacher" (Mt 10:24) and Christians cannot expect to be spared anything that the Lord did not himself experience (cf. Jn 15:20). Rather, I would like to address the relationship between Christianity and freedom, not least with the aim of discrediting the erroneous and outdated notion that Christianity is the enemy of personal freedom and conscience, and that its claim to truth surely leads to violence and oppression. Nothing could be historically less accurate than statements such as these. Indeed, the concept of "human rights" itself originated in a Christian context. We think of that great statesman, Saint Thomas More, who at the price of his own life bore witness to the fact that Christians, in the light of reason and by virtue of their freedom of conscience, are called to reject every form of oppression.

The link between Christianity and freedom is thus original and profound. It has its roots in the teaching of Christ himself and Saint Paul appears as one of its most strenuous and brilliant defenders. Freedom is intrinsic to Christianity, for it was, as Paul says, for freedom that Christ set us free (cf. Gal 5:1). The Apostle, of course, was referring primarily to the interior freedom enjoyed by Christians, but this interior freedom naturally also has consequences for society. This year marks the one-thousand-seven-hundredth anniversary of the Edict of Milan, which crowned the expansion throughout society of that interior freedom of which Saint Paul spoke. At the same time, from an historical and cultural standpoint, the Edict represented the beginning of a process which has marked European history and that of the entire world, leading in the course of the centuries to the definition of human rights and the recognition of religious freedom as "the first of human rights, for it expresses the most fundamental reality of the person" [1] and as "the litmus test for the respect of all the other human rights".[2]

Constantine saw that the growth of the Empire depended on the ability of each individual to profess freely his or her religious beliefs. The Edict of Milan was something more than the result of a clever political calculation; it was a significant step forward for civilization. Not only did it recognize a fundamental right, since it was not limited to granting Christians the freedom to worship, but first and foremost it declared religious freedom to be a factor of civil stability and social creativity. "Strengthening religious freedom" – as Benedict XVI has pointed out – "consolidates social bonds, nourishes the hope of a better world, creates favourable conditions for peace and harmonious development, while at the same time establishing solid foundations for securing the rights of future generations".[3] For "the right to freedom of religion, both in its private and its public dimensions, manifests the unity of the human person who is at once a citizen and a believer".[4]

History shows that there is a virtuous circle between that characteristically human openness to the transcendent and the growth of society. It suffices to consider the great patrimony of the world’s art, not only that of Christian inspiration, in order to appreciate the inherent goodness of this relationship. The restriction of religious freedom thus proves harmful to society, as well as to individual men and women in their deepest needs and aspirations for what the medievals called the transcendentals of being: truth, goodness and beauty. The exercise of religious freedom is inseparably linked to these. Indeed, whenever human beings cannot be open to the infinite in accordance with their own conscience, truth yields to a mendacious relativism and justice to the oppression of the prevailing ideology, whether it be atheistic, agnostic or even overtly religious.

At this point, however, there is a need to avoid possible misunderstanding, since the word "freedom" can be interpreted in many ways. Freedom cannot be reduced to mere caprice, or understood in a purely negative sense as the absence of constraint, as is often the case in today’s culture. Here we can recall the words of Benedict XVI: "A freedom which is hostile or indifferent to God becomes self-negating and does not guarantee full respect for others. A will which believes itself radically incapable of seeking truth and goodness has no objective reasons or motives for acting save those imposed by its fleeting and contingent interests; it does not have an ‘identity’ to safeguard and build up through truly free and conscious decisions. As a result, it cannot demand respect from other ‘wills’, which are themselves detached from their own deepest being and thus capable of imposing other ‘reasons’ or, for that matter, any ‘reason’ at all".[5] Consequently, the proper exercise of religious freedom cannot prescind from the interplay of reason and faith, which ensures that there is a correspondence between the "corrective role of religion vis-à-vis reason" and "the purifying and structuring role of reason within religion".[6] This also provides a bulwark against both relativism and against those forms of religious fundamentalism which, like relativism, see in religious freedom a threat to their own ideological dominance.

When the Second Vatican Council set forth the principle of religious freedom it was not proposing a new teaching. Rather, it was restating a common human experience: namely, that "all human beings, because they are persons, that is, beings endowed with reason and free will, and therefore bearing personal responsibility, are impelled by their nature… to seek the truth".[7] At the same time it restated an ancient principle: namely, that human beings must be "immune from coercion by… any human power".[8] This, then, is the basis of religious freedom. But this is also the reason why religious freedom represents a "problem" in international debates, where it is frequently reduced to a matter of examining individual cases as they emerge, rather than being put on the same level as other fundamental freedoms. Underlying such an approach is the deliberate refusal to acknowledge any possible truth claim in human existence. Whether this rejection is based on relativism or fundamentalism matters very little, since both have a single common denominator: fear, which arises from the iniquity which obscures what is good (cf. Wis 4:11-12) and corrupts the heart. As I mentioned above, the Christian vision is radically different. It is not dominated by fear, but rather by the joy of that truth which sets us free (cf. Jn 8:32). It is in the truth, seen not so much as an absolute which we already possess, but as the potential object of rational and relational knowledge,[9] that we encounter the potential for a sound exercise of freedom. And it is precisely in this connection that we discover the authentic dignity of the human person.

[1] BENEDICT XVI, Address to Members of the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See, 9 January 2012.
[2] JOHN PAUL II, Address to Members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE, 10 October 2003
[3] BENEDICT XVI, Homily in Plaza de la Revolución, Havana, 28 March 2012.
[4] Ibid.
[5] BENEDICT XVI,. Message for the 2011 World Day of Peace, 1 January 2011, No. 3.
[6] BENEDICT XVI, Meeting with the Civil Authorities of the United Kingdom, Westminster Hall, London, 17 September 2010.
[7] SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae, 2.
[8] Ibid.
[9] FRANCIS, Letter to a Non-Believer, 4 September 2013.

Educating to Intercultural Dialogue in Catholic Schools:? 
Living in Harmony for a Civilization of Love
Congregation for Catholic Education

Culture and Religion

7. Another aspect to be considered is the relationship between culture and religion. “Culture is broader than religion. According to one concept religion can be said to represent the transcendent dimension of culture and in a certain way its soul. Religions have certainly contributed to the progress of culture and the construction of a more humane society.”[4] Religion is incultured, and culture becomes fertile ground for a richer humanity that measures up to its specific and profound vocation to be open to others and to God. Therefore, “it is time … to understand in a more profound way that the generating nucleus of every authentic culture is constituted by its approach to the mystery of God, in whom alone does a social order centred on the dignity and responsibility of the human person find its unshakeable foundation.”[5]

8. In general, religion presents itself as the meaningful answer to the fundamental questions posed by men and women: “Men expect from the various religions answers to the unsolved riddles of the human condition, which today, even as in former times, deeply stir the hearts of men.”[6] This characteristic of religions demands that they dialogue not only among themselves, but also with the various forms of atheistic, or non-religious, interpretations of the human person and history, since these latter are also faced with the same questions about meaning. Today, states and civil society, too, see how fundamental is the need for interreligious dialogue – meaning the broadest exchange among both individuals and communities, each with a different viewpoint. To avoid facile reductions and distortions in this sensitive field, it is opportune to highlight the following considerations.

9. Western society, which is ever more marked by multiculturalism, has an accelerating process of secularization, with the danger of an extreme marginalization of religious experience, seen as only being legitimate within the private sphere. More generally, in the dominant mindset, the anthropological question is quietly eliminated, i.e. the question about the full dignity and destiny of human beings. Thus, the aim is pursued of eradicating from culture all religious expression. However, awareness is lacking of how precious the religious dimension is for fruitful, proficient intercultural dialogue. In addition to this general mindset, there are other notable phenomena that also risk undervaluing the importance for culture of the religious experience. One can think of the spread of sects and of New Age, the latter being so much identified with modern culture that it is almost no longer considered a novelty.[7]

10. Religion emphasizes ultimate and definitive truths and, therefore, truths that lie at the basis of meaning, from which the prevalent Western culture seems to be distanced. In any case, religion is a decisive contribution to the building up of social community, in respect for the common good and with the intention of promoting every human being. Therefore, those who wield political power are called to judge carefully the possibilities for emancipation and universal inclusion demonstrated and effected by each culture and each religion. An important criterion for such evaluation is the effective capacity that the religions have for showing the worth of the whole person and of all people. Christianity, the religion of God with a human face,[8] carries a similar criterion within itself.

11. Religion can make its contribution to intercultural dialogue “only if God has a place in the public realm.”[9] “Denying the right to profess one's religion in public and the right to bring the truths of faith to bear upon public life has negative consequences for true development. The exclusion of religion from the public square — and, at the other extreme, religious fundamentalism — hinders an encounter between persons and their collaboration for the progress of humanity. Public life is sapped of its motivation and politics takes on a domineering and aggressive character. Human rights risk being ignored either because they are robbed of their transcendent foundation or because personal freedom is not acknowledged. Secularism and fundamentalism exclude the possibility of fruitful dialogue and effective cooperation between reason and religious faith. Reason always stands in need of being purified by faith: this also holds true for political reason, which must not consider itself omnipotent. For its part, religion always needs to be purified by reason in order to show its authentically human face. Any breach in this dialogue comes only at an enormous price to human development.”[10] Faith and reason, therefore, must recognize each other and enrich each other.

12. In the dialogue between culture and religions, due weight must be given to the discussion between faith and the various forms of atheism and non-religious humanist viewpoints. At the centre of this discussion must be the search for whatever favours the integral development of the whole person and of all people, without becoming bogged down in a sterile partisan clash. It also needs society to recognize the individual’s right to his or her own identity. The Church, for her part, with the love that draws from the sources of the Gospel, following the pattern of the mystery of the Word’s Incarnation, will continue to “proclaim that man deserves honour and love for himself and must be respected in his dignity. Thus, brothers must learn again to call each other brothers, to respect each other, to understand each other, so that man himself can survive and grow in dignity, in freedom and in honour. The more he suffocates the dialogue of cultures, the more the modern world is caught up in conflicts that risk being lethal for the future of the human civilization. Beyond prejudices, cultural barriers, divisions of race, language, religion and ideology, men must recognize each other as brothers and sisters, accepting each other in their diversity.”[11]

The Catholic Religion and Other Religions

13. It is within this context that the dialogue among the various religions takes on a particular shape. It has its own profile, and particularly emphasizes the expertise of each religion’s authorities. Naturally, interreligious dialogue, situated within the religious dimension of culture, touches upon some aspects of intercultural education – though not all, since the two things are not identical.

Globalization has increased the interdependence of peoples, with their different traditions and religions. In this regard, there are those who affirm that differences are by their nature causes of division and, therefore, at the most to be tolerated. Others even believe that religions should simply be silenced. “Rather, [differences] provide a wonderful opportunity for people of different religions to live together in profound respect, esteem and appreciation, encouraging one another in the ways of God.”[12]

In this regard, the Catholic Church feels that the need for dialogue is ever more important. Such a dialogue, starting from an awareness of one’s own faith identity, can help people to enter into contact with other religions. Dialogue means not just talking, but includes all beneficial and constructive interreligious relationships, with both individuals and communities of other beliefs, thus arriving at mutual understanding.[13]

Dialogue with both individuals and communities of other religions is motivated by the fact that we are all creatures of God. God is at work in every human being who, through reason, has perceived the mystery of God and recognizes universal values. Moreover, dialogue finds its raison d’être in searching for the patrimony of common ethical values found within the different religious traditions. In this way, believers can contribute to affirming the common good, justice and peace. Therefore, “since many are quick to point out the readily apparent differences between religions, as believers or religious persons we are presented with the challenge to proclaim with clarity what we share in common.”[14]

Furthermore, the dialogue cultivated by the Catholic Church with other churches and Christian communities does not stop at what we have in common, but tends towards the highest goal of rediscovering lost unity.[15] Ecumenism has as its goal the visible unity of Christians, for which Jesus prayed for his disciples: Ut omnes unum sint, that they may all be one (Jn 17: 21).

14. There are various ways that believers can dialogue: there is the dialogue of life, with its sharing of joys and sorrows; the dialogue of works, collaborating to promote the development of men and women; theological dialogue, when this is possible, with the study of each other’s religious heritage; and the dialogue of religious experience.

15. However, this dialogue is not a compromise, but rather a framework for reciprocal witnessing among believers who belong to different religions. In this way, one gets to know the other’s religion more deeply and better, as well as the ethical behaviours that derive from it. From direct and objective knowledge of the other person, and of the religious and ethical expectations that derive from his or her religious beliefs and practice, grow respect and reciprocal esteem, mutual understanding, trust and friendship. “In order to be true, this dialogue must be clear, avoiding relativism and syncretism, while at the same time it must be marked by sincere respect for others and by a spirit of reconciliation and fraternity.”[16]

16. Clarity in dialogue means especially faithfulness to one’s own Christian identity. “Christianity proposes Jesus of Nazareth. He, we believe, is the eternal Logos who became flesh in order to reconcile man to God and reveal the underlying reason of all things. It is he whom we bring to the forum of interreligious dialogue. The ardent desire to follow in his footsteps spurs Christians to open their minds and hearts in dialogue (cf. Lk 10:25-37; Jn 4:7-26).”[17] The Catholic Church proclaims that “Jesus Christ has a significance and a value for the human race and its history, which are unique and singular, proper to him alone, exclusive, universal, and absolute. Jesus is, in fact, the Word of God made man for the salvation of all.”[18] Therefore, this being the indispensable condition for interreligious dialogue, it is also the indispensable condition for adequate intercultural education which is not divorced from one’s own religious identity.

17. Catholic schools and institutes of higher education are important places for this education. What marks an educational institution as being “Catholic” is its addressing the Christian concept of reality, “its Catholic quality, namely its reference to a Christian concept of life centred on Jesus Christ.”[19] Therefore, “Catholic schools are at one and the same time places of evangelization, well-rounded education, inculturation and initiation to the dialogue of life among young people of different religions and social backgrounds.”[20] Pope Francis, addressing an Albanian school, which “after the long years of repression of religious institutions, resumed its activity in 1994, accepting and educating Catholic, Orthodox and Muslim children as well as several pupils born into agnostic milieus”, declared that “the school is thus becoming a place for dialogue and serene exchanges to encourage attitudes of respect, listening, friendship and a spirit of collaboration.”[21]

18. In this context, “education must make students aware of their own roots and provide points of reference which allow them to define their own personal place in the world.”[22] All children and young people must have the same possibilities for arriving at the knowledge of their own religion as well as of elements that characterize other religions. The knowledge of other ways of thinking and believing conquers fears and enriches ways of thinking about the other person and his or her spiritual traditions. Therefore, teachers are duty-bound always to respect the human person who seeks the truth of his or her own being, as well as to appreciate and spread the great cultural traditions that are open to the transcendent and that articulate the desire for freedom and truth.

19. This knowledge is not sufficient in itself, but opens up to dialogue. The more abundant the knowledge, the more it can sustain dialogue and co-existence with people who profess other religions. In the context of as open dialogue among cultures, different religions can and must make a decisive contribution to forming an awareness of common values.

20. In turn, dialogue, the fruit of knowledge, must be cultivated for people to co-exist and build up a civilization of love. It is not a matter of playing down the truth, but of realizing the aim of education which “has a particular role to play in building a more united and peaceful world. It can help to affirm that integral humanism, open to life’s ethical and religious dimension, which appreciates the importance of understanding and showing esteem for other cultures and the spiritual values present in them.”[23] Within intercultural education, this dialogue aims “to eliminate tensions and conflicts, and potential confrontations by a better understanding among the various religious cultures of any given region. It may contribute to purifying cultures from any dehumanizing elements, and thus be an agent of transformation. It can also help to uphold certain traditional cultural values which are under threat from modernity and the levelling down which indiscriminate internationalization may bring with it.”[24] “Dialogue is very important for our own maturity, because in confronting another person, confronting other cultures, and also confronting other religions in the right way, we grow; we develop and mature … This dialogue is what creates peace”, affirmed Pope Francis.[25]

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
THEOLOGY TODAY: PERSPECTIVES, PRINCIPLES
AND CRITERIA, 29 November 2011

6. In dialogue with the world

 51. ‘The people of God believes that it is led by the Spirit of the Lord who fills the whole world’.[104] The Second Vatican Council said that the Church should therefore be ready to discern in ‘the events, the needs and the longings’ of today’s world what may truly be signs of the Spirit’s activity.[105] ‘At all times the Church carries the responsibility of reading the signs of the times [signa temporum perscrutandi] and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel, if it is to carry out its task. In language intelligible to every generation, she should be able to answer the ever recurring questions which [people] ask about the meaning of this present life and of the life to come, and how one is related to the other. We must be aware of and understand the aspirations, the yearnings, and the often dramatic features of the world in which we live’.[106]

 52. As they live their daily lives in the world with faith, all Christians face the challenge of interpreting the events and crises that arise in human affairs, and all engage in conversation and debate in which, inevitably, faith is questioned and a response is needed. The whole Church lives, as it were, at the interface between the Gospel and everyday life, which is also the boundary between the past and the future, as history moves forward. The Church is always in dialogue and in movement, and within the communion of the baptised who are all dynamically engaged in this way bishops and theologians have particular responsibilities, as the council made clear. ‘With the help of the Holy Spirit, it is the task of the whole people of God, particularly of its pastors and theologians, to listen to and distinguish the many voices of our times and to interpret them in the light of the divine Word, in order that the revealed truth may be more deeply penetrated, better understood, and more suitably presented’.[107]

 53. Theology has a particular competence and responsibility in this regard. Through its constant dialogue with the social, religious and cultural currents of the time, and through its openness to other sciences which, with their own methods examine those developments, theology can help the faithful and the magisterium to see the importance of developments, events and trends in human history, and to discern and interpret ways in which through them the Spirit may be speaking to the Church and to the world.

 54. The ‘signs of the times’ may be described as those events or phenomena in human history which, in a sense, because of their impact or extent, define the face of a period, and bring to expression particular needs and aspirations of humanity at that time. The Council’s use of the expression, ‘signs of the times’, shows that it fully recognised the historicity not only of the world, but also of the Church, which is in the world (cf. Jn 17:11, 15, 18) though not of the world (cf. Jn 17:14, 16). What is happening in the world at large, good or bad, can never be a matter of indifference to the Church. The world is the place in which the Church, following in the footsteps of Christ, announces the Gospel, bears witness to the justice and mercy of God, and participates in the drama of human life.

 55. Recent centuries have seen major social and cultural developments. One might think, for instance, of the discovery of historicity, and of movements such as the Enlightenment and the French revolution (with its ideals of freedom, equality and fraternity), movements for emancipation and for the promotion of women’s rights, movements for peace and justice, liberation and democratisation, and the ecological movement. The ambivalence of human history has led the Church at times in the past to be overly cautious about such movements, to see only the threats they may contain to Christian doctrine and faith, and to neglect their significance. However, such attitudes have gradually changed thanks to the  sensus fidei of the People of God, the clear sight of prophetic individual believers, and the patient dialogue of theologians with their surrounding cultures. A better discernment in the light of the Gospel has been made, with a greater readiness to see how the Spirit of God may be speaking through such events. In all cases, discernment must carefully distinguish between elements compatible with the Gospel and those contrary to it, between positive contributions and ideological aspects, but the more acute understanding of the world that results cannot fail to prompt a more penetrating appreciation of Christ the Lord and of the Gospel[108] since Christ is the Saviour of the world.

 56. While the world of human culture profits from the activity of the Church, the Church also profits from ‘the history and development of mankind’. ‘It profits from the experience of past ages, from the progress of the sciences, and from the riches hidden in various cultures, through which greater light is thrown on the mystery of man and new avenues to truth are opened up’.[109]The painstaking work to establish profitable links with other disciplines, sciences and cultures so as to enhance that light and broaden those avenues is the particular task of theologians, and the discernment of the signs of the times presents great opportunities for theological endeavour, notwithstanding the complex hermeneutical issues that arise. Thanks to the work of many theologians, Vatican II was able to acknowledge various signs of the times in connection with its own teaching.[110]

 57. Heeding God’s final Word in Jesus Christ, Christians are open to hear echoes of his voice in other persons, places, and cultures (cf. Acts 14:15-17; 17:24-28; Rom 1:19-20). The council urged that the faithful ‘should be familiar with their national and religious traditions and uncover with gladness and respect those seeds of the Word which lie hidden among them’.[111] It specifically taught that the Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is ‘true and holy’ in non-Christian religions, whose precepts and doctrines ‘often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens’ all people.[112] Again, the uncovering of such seeds and discernment of such rays is especially the task of theologians, who have an important contribution to make to inter-religious dialogue. 

 58. A criterion of Catholic theology is that it should be in constant dialogue with the world. It should help the Church to read the signs of the times illuminated by the light that comes from divine revelation, and to profit from doing so in its life and mission.