The Inanity of Interfaith Dialogue
In his 1913 book, Les religions laïques. Un romantisme religieux [Secular Religions. A Religious Romanticism][1], Dom Jean-Martial Besse, a Benedictine monk from Ligugé, explained that attempts to bring about a reconciliation between religions by means of dialogue between them, are inspired by modern ideologies born of the Enlightenment, whose aim is to enucleate them. In this book, he described a diverse group of liberal Catholics (whom he qualified as “neo-Christians”) who were cultivating this desire for an entente cordiale, and evolving towards an insubstantial religious romanticism.
He recalled the first attempt to establish a dialogue of this kind, which occurred at the Parliament of the World’s Religions, held in Chicago in 1893. Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, took part in it, opening the meeting with the recitation of the Our Father. Abbé Félix Klein, who spread Americanist ideas in France, wanted, along with Abbé Victor Charbonnel, to repeat the experience at the 1900 Paris World Fair, but the attempt failed, Leo XIII having made it known in 1895, in a letter to Mgr Satolli, the Holy See’s apostolic delegate to the United States, that he was unfavorable to Catholic priests taking part in joint initiatives of this sort.
Exchanges of this kind, in which participants draw on what, according to them, unites them in order to carry out joint actions for peace, continued to develop among Protestants, but it was not until the Second Vatican Council and the declaration Nostra Ætate that such exchanges were deemed as having a rightful place among Catholics. Up until then, there had certainly been many exchanges between Catholics and members of non-Christian religions, but with a view to preparing evangelization more effectively, and never between the institutions as such.
The new process is risky for everyone involved, but it is obviously primarily risky for the religion of Jesus Christ, which is cognizant of possessing religious plenitude. The most immediate risk for Catholicism is the loss of its missionary strength. Indeed, this is the crux of the criticism that can be levelled at the conception of dialogue put forth by Nostra Ætate: Catholicism is led to recognize a positive status, not for this or that element of præparatio evangelica, which other religious traditions contain as “rays of truth” (and which actually belong to Christ and his Bride) shining in the midst of a host of errors and erroneous ways, but for these religious traditions as such, which are thus declared worthy of “sincere reverence”[2].
Nostra Ætate does not state that these traditions are parallel paths possessing a supernatural existence of their own, capable of procuring salvation, but it does avoid saying that they are false paths (“differing in many aspects from the ones she [the Church] holds and sets forth”). Vatican II, as in other areas, sought a middleground position, if such a thing were possible, between orthodoxy and heterodoxy, a moderate heterodoxy in short. So much so that the International Theological Commission, pointing out the ambiguity, asked: “As for saying that religions as such can possess a value in the order of salvation, this is a point that remains subject to debate.”[3]
Three phases can be distinguished with regard to this dialogue desired by the Second Vatican Council, the first two ultimately being very similar to one another, the third being yet to come, even if it has already begun:
- the Assisi phase, when Catholicism calls upon other religions to engage in dialogue;
- the Bergoglian phase, when Catholicism explains unity in diversity to other religions;
- finally, the phase in which religious confrontation begins regaining the violence which, in reality, it had never lost.
Assisi: Christianity summons Christian denominations and religions
The first meeting in Assisi on October 27, 1986, organized by John Paul II, remains the historic showcase of interreligious dialogue, even if, in response to critics, it was not a matter of dialoguing together, as in Chicago or similar meetings, but of praying for peace. And, heeding the warnings of Leo XIII, the aim was “not to pray together, but to be together to pray”. The 150 representatives of a dozen religious traditions first met separately in Assisi’s various churches to pray according to their own customs, with the representatives of the different Christian denominations meeting together in San Rufino Cathedral. Then, all gathered on the esplanade of the Basilica of St. Francis, where each religion recited separately its own prayer.
The total disconnect with the Church’s missionary tradition was apparent, not only in the unheard-of spectacle given to the Catholic people of the Vicar of Christ standing on equal footing in the midst of false religions, but also in the flawed justifications given. Assisi had been chosen for this meeting not least because, during the Fifth Crusade, St. Francis had met (at the risk of martyrdom, it should be noted) the Egyptian Sultan Al Kâmil in order to converse with him. It goes without saying that Francis’ aim had nothing to do with expressing his “sincere reverence” for Islam, which he considered to be diabolical, but had everything to do with converting the sultan and his people. Reference was also made to the two interventions by Pius XI, who had called on all men to pray for peace in 1932 (in his encyclical Caritate Christi) and in 1937 (Divini Redemptoris). Yet in both cases, it was not in the least the other religions which Pius XI was inviting to pray, but individual men, those who naturally recognize the existence of God as Creator and Just Rewarder, and who adore him.
It is often asserted that the August 6, 2000, declaration, Dominus Jesus, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, rectified Assisi. The shock had indeed been considerable, as would later be the case with John Paul II’s kissing of the Koran which an Iraqi delegation had offered him on May 14, 1999. This intent to rectify is perhaps more fully developed in the encyclical Redemptoris missio of December 7, 1990, which affirms that “interreligious dialogue is a part of the Church’s evangelizing mission” (n° 55), which “gladly acknowledges whatever is true and holy in the [various] religious traditions”, and insists on the discovery through dialogue of the “seeds of the Word” (n° 56) present in the various religious traditions. Nevertheless, even these documents speak positively of these religions, which are as such the “main and essential expression” of the “spiritual riches” of peoples[4]. In fact, these texts, along with Assisi and the Council itself, at once recall the unicity of salvation in Jesus Christ (see: Tribune d’un théologien – Res Novae – Perspectives romaines), as well assert the notion that there can be a “mutual enrichment” between Catholicism and the other religions, worthy as the latter are of “sincere reverence”[5].
So, is Catholicism on a par with other religions? Not quite. For the Assisi Day (and also for those that followed in 2011, under Benedict XVI, and in 2016, under Francis), it was the Catholic religion that invited its partners to come together to pray for peace. There has been some talk of a subtle return to papal “imperialism”, which was all the more evident in 1986 when John Paul II took on a political role by contributing to the fall of the Soviet empire.
From the point of view of dialogue, this “imperialism” goes even further than what is claimed. For in reality, the other religious traditions and the other Christian denominations lack the centralized, doctrinally unified form (at least in normal times) of the Catholic Church. In ecumenical and interreligious dialogue alike, therefore, “dialogue-friendly” Rome must seek out and select from among those religious who demonstrate a willingness to partake in dialogue, those it considers most representative, whether it be from among the Orthodox and Protestants, or among the Buddhists and the Shintoists, all the while excluding many others. Ultimately, apart from the sociological weight that these religions in themselves possess, what makes them exist as partners with the capacity for dialogue is the choice of the Catholic party. It confers on them – we dare not say magisterially – an existence, making of them unified entities similar to itself, which is particularly evident when it seeks to bring order to the plethora of animist religions, mixed and mingled with a myriad of syncretic sects, in order to find therein suitable interlocutors. And in return, even if it is the one doing the summoning to dialogue, Catholicism finds itself, in reality, to be just one among all these religions, placed within their midst. This is the original sin of dialogue as put forward by Nostra Aetate, which bends the knee before liberal society, which sees the Church as just one spiritual association among many others.
Francis: Catholicism explains unity in diversity to other religions
As with all the “intuitions” of Vatican II, the debate is open, within the radius drawn by the conciliar compass, between the “hermeneutic of reform in continuity”, with the precautions surrounding John Paul II’s Assisi Day, and the “hermeneutics of discontinuity and rupture”, with Pope Francis’ statements on the subject of religions: “The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom” [emphasis added] (Abu Dhabi, February 4, 2019). Yet this remains within the radius drawn by the conciliar compass: the moderate interpretation or the maximal interpretation. Indeed, the Abu Dhabi Declaration was claimed by him as an interpretation of the Council on the flight back to Rome: “From the Catholic point of view, this document has not gone one millimeter beyond the Second Vatican Council.” Affirming that the diversity of religions derives from the divine will does indeed remain in line with the Church’s new reverence for them, but it takes this reverence to the maximum.
This theme was underlined by the speeches and declarations the Pope made in Southeast Asia during a recent trip. In Jakarta, Indonesia, on September 5, 2024, in the Istiqlal Mosque: “I encourage you to continue along this path so that all of us, together, each cultivating his or her own spirituality and practicing his or her religion, may walk in search of God.” And above all in Singapore, on September 13, in an interfaith meeting with young people at the Catholic Junior College: “All religions are a way to arrive at God. They are – I make a comparison – like different languages, different idioms, to get there. But God is God for all. And since God is God for everyone, we are all children of God. ‘But my God is more important than yours!’ Is this true? There is only one God, and our religions are languages, paths to arrive at God.”
It must be admitted that his visit to Indonesia and his speeches have a very political element. Who would be surprised to hear Francis say such things? In a country where extreme religious plurality (over 209 million Muslims, 23 million Christians and over 10 million Buddhists, Hindus and Confucians) is becoming explosive due to the revival of religions in Asia, the rise of Islamism, and the creation of extremely muscular religious self-defense groups, President Jokowi is implementing a program of “religious moderation”, trying to highlight peaceful religious ideals that facilitate tolerance. It was as if Francis had travelled there simply in order to come to Jokowi’s aid. Hence the signing of the Jakarta Charter with the imam of the Istiqlal mosque, a charter of “religious moderation” which affirmed that “interreligious dialogue ought to be recognized as an effective instrument for resolving local, regional and international conflicts, especially those incited by the abuse of religion.”
“The visible aspects of religions – rites, practices and so on – are a heritage that must be protected and respected [emphasis added]. However, we could say that what lies ‘underneath’, what runs underground, like the ‘tunnel of friendship’, is the one root common to all religious sensitivities: the quest for an encounter with the divine, the thirst for the infinite that the Almighty has placed in our hearts,” he said in Jakarta, on September 5, 2024, in the Istiqlal Mosque. It could be argued that Francis was speaking of the religious sentiment found in every human being, and that he meant that nothing of “whatever is true and holy in the [various] religious traditions” should be rejected, and therefore that his words remain in line with Nostra Ætate[6]. After all, the acknowledgement of a religion necessarily entails, more or less, the acknowledgement of a certain salvific efficacy, a certain “pathway to God”. In this way, Francis unveils the relativistic scope of conciliar interreligious dialogue.
Yet in so doing, paradoxically, he also accentuates the “imperialism” of this dialogue, since he is lecturing other religions, notably Islam (of which he stated in Evangelii Gaudium: “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence,” n° 253), by explaining to them that they are relative: they are paths among others to arrive at God.
So Catholicism, under the guise of the most extreme modesty, by irrepressible habit, remains the one that teaches. It remains missionary, but its new mission is to inoculate religious traditions with the relativistic virus of reciprocal reverence for other pathways. Dialogue according to Nostra Ætate leads to an inverted proselytism, a proselytism of anti-proselytism.
The blood of martyrs
It also leads to a dead-end. What results has it produced? It has accentuated the fact that a significant number of Catholics are sinking into sentimental relativism and conforming to the zeitgeist. In the West, “hardcore” religion is disappearing at a rapid pace, except in the case of Islam, whose presence is growing ever stronger. But the religion that subsists in ultra-modernity is individualized, de-institutionalized and shattered to the extreme, even within each religious group. It has become a kind of diffuse religion that each person organizes as he pleases, and which is ultimately suitable for those without any religion[7].
With no real exceptions. The classic assertion that the United States is a highly religious secular democracy is increasingly irrelevant. Young people under 40 are less engaged in religious practice and are increasingly individualistic, including among evangelicals, who made up a significant proportion of Donald Trump’s electorate and who are increasingly, among young people, of evangelical origin but who hardly practice their religion. Many American Protestants are abandoning all religion, as are many Catholics, even if the decline of Catholicism is masked by the arrival of Latino immigrants. Russia itself, more Western than is believed, is becoming more secularized and individualized. The Orthodox religion, which has regained great power and visibility, does not exert much influence on society, particularly when it comes to morality with regard to the family. And religious practice is surprisingly low: while Easter is a very important holiday for Russians, only 2% of them took part in Easter celebrations last year, in 2023.
And yet, Catholic dogma resists, however poorly defended it may be by its hierarchical guardians, as do the beliefs of other religions. As Pope Francis points out: “Sometimes we think that a meeting between religions is a matter of seeking common ground between different religious doctrines and beliefs no matter the cost. Such an approach, however, may end up dividing us, because the doctrines and dogmas of each religious experience are different.”[8]
So, despite the relativism of François’ statements in Abu Dhabi, Jakarta and Singapore, awareness of differences is growing. So is dialogue useless? Some theologians even say that it is radically impossible, such as Marc Boss, a Protestant who, in his “Plea for a Paradoxical Inclusivity”[9], asserts that theologians of religions must ultimately admit the purely intra-religious nature of their approach: they can only talk about others if they are willing to apply their own specific thought constructs to other traditions. In the same vein, the Dominican P. Remi Chéno seeks to overcome pluralism (all religions are diverse paths leading to God) thanks to a pathway in which believers from the various traditions agree on their unsurpassable differences, with visions that are absolutely different from one another (including the words God, gods, divinity, which resist being declared identical from one religious world to another)[10].
Precisely, if the West is proof of the dissolution of religion into relativism, Asia could be the place to reaffirm unsurpassable differences. It is true that the revival of religious intransigence and proselytizing – including Buddhism’s specific form of syncretistic conquest – is impressive in many places. In India, where Hinduism, the dominant religion, now accounts for 74.8% of a population of 1.40 billion, the latest legislative elections won by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, leader of the Hindu nationalist party, the BJP (Indian People’s Party), highlighted the decisive influence of an aggressive and violent Hinduism, particularly towards Islam. Concerning China, Claude Meyer[11] also speaks of a “spectacular revival” of the spiritual, of Buddhism, Christianity and the immense variety of popular religions, all now benefiting from a liberalism closely supervised by the Party. It is possible, moreover, that the Party’s religious concessions are due to the anxiety provoked by a combative and sometimes terrorist Islam.
Right down to Catholicism, which is admirably sustaining itself, however undermined it may be by ultra-modern liberalism, and incidentally by the dialogue that tries to harmonize with it: in South Korea, there was a 50% increase in the number of Catholics from 1999 to 2018. And North Korea “negatively” reinforces this data insofar as it tops the sinister list of countries persecuting Christianity, through imprisonment, torture and executions. Worldwide, statistics put the number of persecuted Christians at over 360 million, a figure that continues to rise: 1 Christian in 7 is persecuted on the planet, 1 in 5 in Africa and 2 in 5 in Asia and the Middle East, where persecution is such that Christianity is disappearing from the lands where it was born. Soon in Europe? Already in Europe, through aggressive marginalization, the dictatorship of dominant ideologies, aggression and desecration[12]. Just as it has done ever since its origin, the absolute character of Catholicism is asserting itself in the suffering and in the blood of the countless host of martyrs who are raised into the heaven of glory.
Fr. Claude Barthe
[1] Paris, Nouvelle Librairie nationale.
[2] “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 [emphasis added] 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. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.” (Nostra Ætate, n° 2).
[3] « Le christianisme et les religions », 1997, n° 81.
[4] Redemptoris missio, n° 55.
[5] Dominus Jesus, n° 8.
[6] “From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense. Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language.” (Nostra Ætate, n° 2).
[7] Cf. Jean-Claude Basset, « Les chrétiens face à la diversité religieuse », in Les chrétiens et la diversité religieuse. Les voies de l’ouverture et de la rencontre, Jean-Claude Basset and Samuel Désiré Johnson (eds.), Karthala, 2011.
[8] Istiqlal Mosque, Jakarta, September 5, 2024.
[9] In Les chrétiens et la diversité religieuse, op. cit.
[10] Remi Chéno, Dieu au pluriel. Penser les religions, Cerf, 2017.
[11] Claude Meyer, Le renouveau éclatant du spirituel en Chine. Renaissance des religions, répression du Parti, Bayard, 2021.
[12] Marc Eynaud, Qui en veut aux catholiques ?, Artège, 2022.