The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF version'Remarkable congruence' between pope and president on Islam
by John L Allen Jr on Jun. 05, 2009
If anyone is still puzzled about why the Vatican sat out the fuss over President Barack Obama's appearance at Notre Dame -- and more generally, why the Vatican has refused to allow its relationship with Obama to be defined by obvious differences over abortion -- the president's speech to the Muslim world yesterday in Cairo should go a long way toward clearing things up.
Seen through Catholic eyes, perhaps the most striking thing about Obama's speech is what Fr. James Massa, the U.S. bishops' top official for inter-faith dialogue, called its "remarkable congruence" with Benedict's own message to Muslims during his May 8-15 trip to Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian Territories.
The coincidence of Benedict and Obama both visiting the Middle East at roughly the same time, and both delivering much the same pitch, hints at a beguiling geopolitical prospect: That just as John Paul II and Ronald Reagan joined forces a quarter-century ago to vanquish Communism, so a pope and president might stand shoulder-to-shoulder once again, this time to engineer a historic rapprochement between Islam and the West.
Despite differences in frame of reference and rhetorical style (and despite the fact that Obama erroneously situated the Inquisition during the period of Muslim rule in Spain, a mistake Benedict presumably would not make), Benedict’s message to the Islamic world three weeks ago and Obama's speech yesterday nonetheless intersect on several important points:
- Urging dialogue with Islam, calling for a new start after the divisions of the past;
- Proposing the Holy Land as a place of peaceful co-existence among Jews, Muslims and Christians;
- Seeing violence and extremism as a perversion of Islam;
- Backing the two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem;
- Calling for the protection of religious freedom and other human rights in Islamic societies, including greater scope for democracy and empowering women;
- Acknowledging that some corrosive features of Western modernity have given Muslims legitimate reason to be suspicious;
- Opposing militarism and the use of force to resolve disputes.
What difference can such a tone from the world's most important spiritual and political leaders make? Thursday night, I tracked down Bishop Thomas of the El-Qussia and Mair diocese of the Coptic Church in Upper Egypt, who had been in the audience for Obama's speech at the University of Cairo, to ask what the impact has been in his part of the world. Referring to the combined effect of the pope's trip and Obama's speech, he was succinct: "It's made the atmosphere much lighter."
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Bishop Thomas, by the way, is no naïf about Islamic extremism. Last year he delivered a speech pointing out that there was a Coptic culture in Egypt long before Islam and the Arab language arrived, unleashing ferocious criticism that the bishop had attacked the Arab and Islamic identity of Egypt. One news service demanded that he be tried for sedition.
While Obama's outreach to Islam flows both from his biography and from his politics, Benedict XVI's approach has been progressively refined since his controversial speech in Regensburg three years ago, which cited a Byzantine emperor linking Muhammad and violence. Although the pope has not backed away from his challenge to Muslims on terrorism and religious freedom -- in theoretical terms, the need to integrate reason and faith -- he's far more adept at expressing a positive vision of an "alliance of civilizations" with Islam, which has become his top inter-faith priority and the leading example of his shift from "inter-religious" to "inter-cultural" dialogue. Benedict's emphasis on Islam was palpable during his Middle East trip, which featured repeated expressions of "deep respect" for Muslims and the pope's second visit to a mosque in four years.
The intersection between pope and president helps explain rave Vatican reviews for the Obama speech.
The president hadn't even left the building in Cairo before the Vatican spokesperson, Fr. Federico Lombardi, expressed "great appreciation" for the speech back in Rome. Lombardi called it "very important," not just for relations between the United States and Islam, but for international peace. Meanwhile, L'Osservatore Romano called the speech "a new beginning in relations between the United States and the Arab world," and Vatican Radio enthused that the speech "exceeded expectations" and created "the foundation of a real common platform."
Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Atlanta, Georgia, who heads the U.S. bishops’ committee for inter-religious affairs, was equally upbeat, highlighting similarities between Obama and Benedict.
"The president's address touches on many important points that were made by Pope Benedict XVI during his recent visit to the Holy Land,” Gregory said in a written statement to NCR. "Both the pope and president concur that a dialogue of civilizations must supplant the specter of a clash of civilizations ... All Catholic Americans who hope for a more secure world, and peace among the religions, can feel grateful that the president underscored the indispensable role of religion in advancing educational, economic, and scientific goals."
Several experts sense something important afoot.
"This clearly seems to be a turning point," said John Esposito, director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. "You've got the head of the largest Christian church in the world, and the most powerful nation in the world, both offsetting the strong sense among Muslims that they're not respected as equal partners."
"That's a pretty impressive one-two combination," Esposito said.
To be sure, Benedict and Barack are not entirely singing from the same hymnal. For Benedict, one primary objective of an "alliance of civilizations" is for Muslims and Christians to join forces against Western secularism. In part, that means joint opposition to some of the liberal social policies Obama embodies -- on abortion and contraception, on gay rights, and so on. Any partnership between pope and president, therefore, may have a limited shelf life.
On the other hand, the fact that Benedict and Obama represent such different faces of the West -- Obama the ultra-chic progressive, Benedict the voice of traditional religious and moral conviction -- may offer the best possible proof that their opening to Islam is not a fad, or a partisan wedge issue, but rather a deep movement of the historical plates.
Jesuit Fr. Daniel Madigan, an Australian and longtime veteran of Catholic-Muslim dialogue, says there are intriguing signals that mainstream Muslim leaders are willing to meet the pope and president halfway. He pointed to the "Common Word" initiative spearheaded by Jordan, in which a cross-section of Muslim scholars and clerics responded positively to Benedict XVI's controversial lecture in Regensburg, and to a recent inter-faith summit in Madrid organized by the Saudi-based Muslim World League, which brought together Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs.
Putting it all together, Massa suggested the parallel with John Paul and Reagan.
"The last time a pope and a president were allies in one of these titanic shifts going on in the world, it was Reagan and John Paul II vis-à-vis communism," Massa said. "That alliance proved to be very, very effective."
Imam Yahya Hendi, a native Palestinian who serves as the Muslim chaplain at Georgetown, agreed.
The outreach from Benedict and Obama "may not change the minds of the terrorists," Hendi said, "but it will influence young Muslims who aren't sure what to think," and it "gives the moderates in the Islamic world some ground to stand on."
Hendi said that he paid careful attention to Arab discussion following both the pope's trip and the president's speech, and in both cases he found that even hard-line Muslim clerics, traditionally skeptical of both the Catholic church and the United States, praised what they called a "tone of reconciliation."
Of course, whether Benedict and Obama will actually trigger a "velvet revolution" in Islam remains to be seen. Already, some observers have warned that momentum will be wasted if it isn't matched by progress on the ground, especially on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That was the gist of a June 4 letter to Obama signed by a cross-section of American Christian leaders, including five Catholic bishops and the heads of the major umbrella groups for men's and women's religious orders in the country.
"The window is rapidly closing" for a peaceful resolution, the letter warned, asserting that among other things, prolonged conflict threatens the viability of Christianity in the Holy Land.
At a minimum, however, the tantalizing prospect of a partnership between the pope and the president on Islam helps explain why the Vatican isn't ready to join the most ardently pro-life Catholics in America on the anti-Obama barricades. When a President of the United States travels to the heart of the Muslim world and essentially echoes the pope, or so the thinking seems to go, he can't be all bad.
* * *
On Tuesday, I spoke to a day-long gathering of priests in the Chicago archdiocese. The event was held in a big dining hall, and I was feeling fairly good about the turnout until someone showed me a letter of invitation the priests had received from their boss, Cardinal Francis George.
"Your presence and participation are very important," George had written, "and I expect that you will make every effort to attend."
Alas, the crowd size thus probably had more to do with George's not-too-subtle exhortation than my meager star power.
For the record, the priests couldn't have been more gracious, whatever they may have thought privately about giving up a morning to listen to me pontificate. While the bulk of my presentation was devoted to a review of major trends shaping the Catholic future, I began with a note I always try to strike when speaking to priests, and which I'll repeat here.
It's no secret that these are not the easiest of times to be a Roman Catholic priest. Clergy shortages mean priests are pulled in a thousand different directions, the sexual abuse crisis has given the priesthood a black eye, and on and on. Despite all that, what I pick up repeatedly as I move around the Catholic world is a deep sense of gratitude for the service and sacrifice that so many good priests provide. People know that despite all the challenges, the vast majority of priests still get out of bed every morning and try to do God's work, and they're more grateful than they sometimes are able to articulate.
George's remarks at the end of the day were off the record, but I don't think I'm betraying any confidences by relaying one point he made: Most activism in the church, including all the ways that Catholics contribute to building a better world, begins with a good foundation in the parish. The parish priest may not always be the star of the show, but without good pastors none of the rest of it is possible.
Pope Benedict has announced a Year of Priests to begin on June 17, the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. To mark the occasion, I'd like to offer a simple two-word message to all the priests out there, two words I suspect most of them don't hear often enough: "Thank you."
It may not be especially profound, but at least it has the virtue of sincerity.
John, thanks for yet another
John, thanks for yet another great column. I too heard Obama's speach and thought it a masterpiece, even by his standards. It is a big change from the "bomb and torture first, ask questions later" policy of the Bush-Cheney administration. Imagine a president who opens a speech in Arabic and quotes from the Koran!
You are right. Republican Catholics here lack vision. They either do not see or care about the possibility of peace in the Holy Land. I am happy to know Vatican leaders are too smart to play their game
Steve
Bush quoted from the Koran.
Bush quoted from the Koran.
"Bush quoted from the Koran."
"Bush quoted from the Koran." Was that before or after he bombed and tortured them?
God, John . . . You always
God, John . . .
You always make me cry, dude.
Like real good poetry
makes you cry and you don't know why
I mean the second part here. That whole JPII and his sidekick Ronnie killing off Communism I do not buy at all. Unlike many I was awake in the 80's, and read, and travelled, and worked, and still read, and work, and travel, and remember.
When will we see that Baby Bush and his sidekick Dick killed off capitalism in the 00's?
Thanks for the second part, though. I'll figure you were just reporting the party line in the first . . .
Go back and study the history
Go back and study the history of the fall of the Communism and you will see that when PJPII went to Poland and kissed the ground, it gave the Solidarity movement the support and motivation it needed to stay strong. The Solidarity political movement was the impetus, but, they would not have been without the support of PJPII.
Thank You once again, John
Thank You once again, John Allen, for maintaining your undisputed high
standard of journalism. Kudos also to Our Holy Father and the President
of the United States for their combined efforts at diffusing the cultural
and political differences that exist between the Western and Islamic Worlds.
In the final analysis, we are all part of the ONE Humanity created by the
ONE God Almighty. May we re-learn how to live as God's Children.
Thank you!!
Thank you!!
Thanks for a great article
Thanks for a great article John. I couldn't help but wonder as I read your article: does it say something that we have two former university professors on center stage here?
cashelguy2 has said it all.
cashelguy2 has said it all. Amen!
Given Polish Pope John Paul
Given Polish Pope John Paul II's vested interested in the fall of communism for his own country, his unholy alliance with President Reagan is a poor example for comparing the current rapprochement with Islam emanating from the West. Once all the backslapping and knuckle-butting have died down for the current President and Pope being on the same page rhetorically, the Muslim world awaits one thing only: the discontinuation of further Jewish settlements on the West Bank. That will entail undoing many of the agreements promised by the Bush administration to support Israel (right or wrong).
So put the papal pom poms down, Mr. Allen, now that you have apparently discovered your own "meager star power."
I read a definition of
I read a definition of President Obama's use of empathy, namely, something to the effect that he always tries to hold out the possibility that the opposition may have valid points, and he recognizes it. It's sad that, on this website, certain critics of the President (where are you snowdrop, or whatever your name is?) can't empathize with his speech in Cairo which dovetailed so well with remarks by Pope Benedict. Fortunately, Jesus was not a one-issue prophet.
In fact Jesus was a "one
In fact Jesus was a "one issue Prophet." His issue was love, the love of God and neighbor, love that is willing to surrender one's life for the good of another. Who is a nearer neighbor than a baby in the womb, and who more deserving of our love? Obama holds out no possibility that the opposition - those who extend their love to all infants - "may have a valid point." Here he speaks only of "irreconcilable differences," and the Holy Father can no more "dovetail" with such a singular lack of empathy than Jesus could. All other issues dovetail with this one however.
Both the Pope and the
Both the Pope and the President are over-optimistic about the two-state solution. As if Hamas and Hezbollah and other extremists will be satisfied and no longer wish to obliterate Israel with their missiles.
Dear 6/6 Anonymous Today,
Dear 6/6 Anonymous
Today, 6/7, the CBS Sunday Morning Program had a thought provoking segment to the effect that perhaps Palestinians (both Christian and Arab) are losing interest in a two-state solution. It may not be needful in the long-term. It appears from Israeli population data contrasted with CIA figures regarding Palestinian population right now that the latter base has a ratio of 5 to 1, give or take. If population grows from that base in the same degree as in the past in the long term Palestinians will simply overrun Israelis. What then is the need for two states? Why should they worry?
That, of course, brings up a new question. Is it possible that people like Mr. Netanyahu give credence to this theory? Could this be behind the absolute refusal to negotiate enforcement of the ban on illicit new West Bank Settlements by Israelis? Could the rationale be, in the near term, to covertly push out greater and greater numbers of Palestinians by internal displacement or emigration? This would effectively reduce the reproductive base of these human beings and just maybe the supposed crisis of too few Israelis in the future could be postponed.... Has this not been at the crux of many Israeli programs in the near past? the various Walls with its many manned military checkpoints, dis-possession of people's livelihoods, farms, homes, edcation, practical (if not actual) denial of access to maternity and health care, blockading shipments of medicine and sustenance,rendering it impossible to traverse supposedly neutral borders with neighboring counties even for purposes of human welfare and well being. And so on and so on. It's becoming impossible not to see these things as deliberate attempts to eliminate Palestinians from their homelands.
Reagan and John Paul II
Reagan and John Paul II sharerd a genuine mutual fondness and held each other in esteem, in large part because they shared the Catholic view of universal human dignity. Obama is at odds with Benedict XVI on this most fundamental issue of all. It might be said that a certain element of respect exists between Obama and Benedict, but they cannot be allies except incidentally, for one is the world's leading herald of the culture of death, the other is the world's herald of the culture of life. The "empathy" of a man who feels no compulsion to defend babies against brutal slaughter in and out of the womb, is a man whose fundamental values are profoundly disordered. No, the 'congruence' is affected by a man clever enough to use the peacemaker's rhetoric. With respect to Islam, substantive overtures will be heard from Pope Benedict alone.
I would also like to add that
I would also like to add that any president who lies the U.S. into a war of choice that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of our men and women in the military as well as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens is a man whose fundamental values are profoundly disordered as well. Oh that's right, he defended the rights of embryos and fetuses so it's ok.
Mr./Ms. Anonymous,It could
Mr./Ms. Anonymous,It could not be called the best of worlds, but if Bush knowingly lied to start a war, and this also implicates disordered values, at least he has a heart for babies, absent any external compulsion to care. This essential component of human compassion is missing in Obama. One might exercise poor judgment even so, but this is, so to speak, the cornerstone of compassion and empathy. And if one must choose the lesser of two evils, the choice is not difficult.
Great article John! I pray
Great article John! I pray the Pope and President meet soon !
Also add to the list,
Also add to the list, President George W. Bush. Same congruence exists with him.
For those who cling to a
For those who cling to a "culture war mentality" of life vs death, right vs
wrong, truth vs falsehood, chew upon this the next time you make your
self-righteous examination of conscience.
The spiritual pollution, upon which Pope Benedict XVI based his remarks on
Pentecost Sunday, as needing cleaning up in the Church of Jesus Christ,
has a lengthy history. The "Greening" of the Church has no precedent and
may very well be a distant pipe-dream, given the recent sexual child abuse
scandal in the American Catholic Church, and now the current revelations of
sexual child abuse in the orphanages of the Irish Catholic Church in the 1940s and 1950s.
Respect for Life, indeed, from the womb - BUT - not to natural death.
..."the sexual abuse crisis
..."the sexual abuse crisis has given the priesthood a black eye, and on and on".
Thanks John for simplifying the problem for everyone. I am sure that is just what each abuse vicitm and family is thinking "and on and on". It is just that simple for you and all the bishops and all involved in the Church.
That is the heart of the problem...the "good" people are so flippant about the problem and just look the other way. they do nothing to truly help solve things.
So sad and it looks as if it will never turn around.
important, John, the small
important, John, the small note about the "deep sense of gratitude for the service and sacrifice that so many good priests provide". We, the laypeople, can do a lot for ourselves by showing the priests: We appreciate your work.
If monotheists have it right
If monotheists have it right there is only one God, the God of Abraham. But because the one God revealed Himself to man through different holy books written by different authors at different times, Muslims and Christians have different concepts of His true nature and His plan for their salvation.
Muslim leaders will always insist salvation can come only through faith in Allah. Christian leaders will always insist that it can come only through faith in Jesus Christ. For either to accept that they are not in exclusive possession of the truth about God and his requirements for salvation would require them to renounce the dogmas that are the cornerstones of their faiths.
Most lay Christians take an inclusive view of salvicity. A recent Pew Forum study pegged the number of Christians who believe that religions other than their own can lead to salvation at 70%. The results were surprisingly consistent across the conservative-liberal spectrum: 63% of evangelical Protestants said other faiths could lead to salvation. Fully 83% of mainline Protestants and 79% of Catholics agreed. Lay Christians are apparently dubious of the notion that their religion has an exclusive contract with the Almighty.
For the laity’s view of salvation to be accepted by its leaders as true however would require that: Either there is more than one set of truths about the one God [in which case all truths about Him are relative], or God has not yet revealed himself fully to man [in which case religious dogmas could be absolutely true, but no one can know for sure].
It seems likely that the above-mentioned Christians would find the latter to be more plausible. If God has not yet revealed himself fully to man, His truth is not “all relative”, it is simply incomplete.
Prior to 1965, the Roman Catholic Church’s position on the one-true-path-to-heaven issue was “outside the Church there is no salvation.” Its Second Vatican Council opened the door for the first time to the possibility of salvation for non-Christians. Apparently concerned that its exclusivist view of salvation was unnecessarily divisive, the Council decided, not without considerable debate, that Christ’s truth seems to be evident in religions that do not accept Jesus Christ as God in a sufficient quantity that a non-Christian can be saved. That he need not express an explicit belief that Jesus was the Christ to make it to heaven was an extraordinary step forward for the Catholic Church.
To be sure, Vatican II did not decree that all religions are equally true, or that salvation can ultimately come in any way other than through Jesus Christ, but it did acknowledge that Christ’s truth could enlighten even those who don’t believe in Him. Through the grace of God, those who lead a life worthy of salvation will attain it.
The leaders of Islam are at least as convinced as their Christian counterparts that salvation can come only through their concept of God. But there is reason to believe that some see sufficient truth in Christianity to believe it’s possible for a non-Muslim to attain paradise.
Because Islam was built on Judaism and Christianity, it supercedes them. God did not reveal himself fully until He did so to Muhammad. As a result, Muslims are inherently more able, at least intellectually, to accept what they see as true in their sister monotheistic faiths than Jews and Christians are. “Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve [2:62].
Whether a non-Muslim needs to explicitly express belief in Allah to find salvation is the subject of ongoing debate. However, it seems safe to conclude that while they take different routes, most progressive religious leaders and their followers ultimately arrive at the same place. Christians insist it is through Christ, and Muslims insist it is through Allah. But their all-seeing, all knowing, all-powerful God - who will ultimately judge all men – is able to save any man of His choosing.
That pious Muslims and Christians [and Jews] behave in ways that are strikingly similar seems to support the notion that God’s truth is operative in some fashion in all monotheistic religions, albeit in ways man can’t yet fully understand. Exactly how this is possible will be debated until end time, but that any person can be saved is something many Muslim and Christian leaders [and most of their faithful followers] should be able to agree on. If salvation is indeed possible for all men, no man would have a basis for imposing his beliefs on others - either by stifling his right to freely practice the religion of his choosing, or by committing violent acts against others in God’s name.
A much-heralded Catholic-Muslim forum, hosted by Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican in November 2008, yielded little more than the expected condemnation of terrorism - something both sides had already done on numerous occasions. It produced no agreement on tangible actions to be taken to confront religious fanaticism.
If before the next meeting of the Catholic-Muslim forum [scheduled for early 2010], Benedict and his counterparts were to agree to disagree on their irreconcilable differences over the path to salvation and begin to focus the debate on whether their shared God has the ability to save any man of any faith, it’s possible they could make headway in stemming the rise of violent extremism. If nothing else, such an agreement would deprive violent fanatics’ of their my-way-or-the-highway view of salvation.
The choices are ultimately limited to two: Fight it out over the one true God until the last religion standing can unanimously proclaim its version of Him true [preferred by fanatics], or acknowledge that God has the power to grant salvation to anyone of His choosing [preferred by everyone else].
If there is a silver lining in the fight over the one true God it’s that many thoughtful members of both faiths already agree that no just God would damn a good person to hell simply for choosing [or inheriting] the wrong faith. Religious leaders, in this instance, would be well served to follow their followers. Amen.
You offer a careful and
You offer a careful and thorough assessment, Michael.
I would make only this amendment to your description of Catholic belief, which is not without ramifications:
It is true that Vatican II "acknowledge[d] that Christ’s truth could enlighten even those who don’t believe in Him. Through the grace of God, those who lead a life worthy of salvation will attain it,".. but with a decisive qualification.
As you suggest, if it is to be intelligible, the Truth of God's nature and of the relationship He offers to mankind is One. Mankind has been afforded a reliable teacher of that Truth, yet many remain aware only of the starry skies above and the moral law within, having never encountered the "revealed" truths of faith. But if one is doing the best one can with the knowledge at one's disposal, then salvation is possible. If one becomes aware of an ostensible teacher of Truth, or of clues that implicate its existence, and pride (it is always pride) elects to pursue a different and more accomodating course of instruction, then one is eternally culpable for rejecting the Truth.
The visible Church of Christ, according to Vatican II, "subsists in the Catholic Church," though its spiritual compass is known to God alone. That is, those who inculpably identify with a non-Catholic community, Christian or other, have available to them elements of salvation - but - these elements are, so to speak, anchored in the world by the Catholic Church. In other words, it is still true that 'extra ecclesia, nulla salus.'
Thus understood, it is true that "no just God would damn a good person to hell simply for choosing [or inheriting] the wrong faith." And because this is already taught by the Catholic Church, no need exists, "in this instance," for "Religious leaders... to follow their followers."
Regarding the Catholic-Muslim "Common Word" forum. Its starting point, the Love of God and neighbor, ensured futility because the Catholic and Muslim concepts of Love, God, and neighbor, and the status of reason itself, are incommensurable. Hence there does not presently exist the common ground of reason on which substantive dialogue can seek a "shared God." The Regensburg lecture and the Paris sequel undertook to show that dialogue begins with recognition of this chasmal divide. They observed that Islamic faith, like that of Protestant Christendom, gives doctrine absolute priority over reason. But Benedict's message is polyphonic: the abiding theme and solution to this dilemma, after all, is love.
Pardon the lapses that my rush didn't avoid.
HPortiers. Thank you for your
HPortiers. Thank you for your comment. You are obviously far more knowledgeable than I regarding matters of faith. But is it not true that the Council determined that, through Christ's grace, even a person who knows Him but doesn't acknowledge his divinty can be saved?
Michael, If you are not a
Michael,
If you are not a person of faith, your knowledge of the religious landscape is all the more remarkable.
If a person knows Christ, then he knows that Christ identifies Himself as the Messiah. According to Catholic belief, before and after Vatican II, if such a person does not acknowledge Christ's divinity, which the life of Christ implies but does not prove, he has refrained from the 'step of faith,' and makes an informed rejection of God's offer of salvation.
Hil Portiers
Not to quibble, but is it not
Not to quibble, but is it not at least possible that Christ's truth is operative in other religions in ways that man cannot yet fully comprehend? Dupuis argued that the Gospel strongly implies that God will not reveal himself fully until end time. Perhaps Christ is hanging out within Islam in a way that neither Muslims nor Christians can see. I'm trying to be a person of faith, but I'm having trouble reconciling dogmas that are literally true, and the reality of life "on the ground."
Perhaps we should continue
Perhaps we should continue this dialogue on another forum?
The principle of non-contradiction, that something cannot both 'be the case' and 'not be the case' simultaneously, is the condition for intelligibility. If we accept this principle, and I will simply state baldly here that the Protestant Reformation turned away from it, at least in theological matters (Islam too, I was Protestant)- if we accept it, then we cannot accept contradictory concepts of God or Christ. There may be elements of 'the Truth' within Islam, but its conception of Christ, as a mere prophet, is incompatible with the Christian view. The Protestant view is likewise incompatible with the Catholic view. One could suppose that each has a partial understanding mingled with error, so that none can claim knowledge of 'all the essentials,' sufficient to ensure salvation (or they would be essentially equivalent). But if we trust reason, we need not stall at this radical scepticism. Yet reasoning *honestly* is not nearly so easy or natural as we assume. Let me suggest that you begin by scrutinizing the reasoning and objectivity of each of the views you are considering, in view of historical fact and the Bible. And read Pope Benedict's Regensburg address (9/06) - it is challenging but sums up the issues as no one else has. Deus vobiscum
I was rushed and apologize
I was rushed and apologize for the lack of clarity, which I would like to correct - If we accept just that a reasonable God (the "Word" = the "Logos" = Word + Reason) would provide an authoritative source of the 'Truth,' preserved through the ages in spite of the human failings that obscure it, it will be found in just one of the 'faiths.' If it exists in more than one, they would be essentially equivalent, which is not the case. Then for one who refuses to avoid the most important questions of human existence, the task is a rigorously objective inquiry into the identity of the one faith that contains the fullness of the "Truth."
I.e., reason should precede and lead to a doctrinal commitment, though it is the reverse that almost always occurs, a 'backward' movement to faith: in the passion of the moment a commitment is made, and then reason, fact, and Scripture are martialed to defend the commitment.
P.S. "...marshalled/enlisted
P.S. "...marshalled/enlisted solely to defend the commitment."
Also, I have not read Dupuis. It appears that the popular esteem in which he was held went to his head, as it has happened with a number of modern Jesuits. By devising his own egalitarian theology he became de facto Protestant. His work was eventually declared to contain fundamental errors.
To paraphrase the very able British lady scholar/writer Dorothy Sayers, we are called to discover what is true, not what is comforting. The two are quite often at odds.
Hil, I'm more certain than
Hil, I'm more certain than ever that I'm in over my head on issues of logic and philosophy as they pertain to the truth about God. I'm an ad guy for crying out loud. I trust reason, but I do not trust that humanity's command of it could ever be 100%. I too reject moral relativism and religious pluralism, but I think it's possible that there are certain things that humanity cannot know. You did not respond to my reference to Fr. Dupuis. If you would like to, my email address is mgyea@comcast.net. No one else need be bored by our personal debate. PS. I've read Benedict's Regensburg address in full. And I am absolutely convinced that he is correct on his call for faith and reason to coexist.
It is my understanding that
It is my understanding that Father Dupuis developed the argument that, while one and the same [like the Trinity], distinctions can be made between Christ's human nature and His divine nature. Therefore, those who reject his divinity are really just rejecting His humanity, and his divine nature can still be at work in their souls...in ways that remain a mystery to man. But I wouldn't "bet the farm" that my understanding is correct.
Post new comment