Gerry O’Connell speaks to the Patriarch of Venice, Cardinal Angelo Scola – son of a socialist truck driver and a profoundly Catholic mother. He is also a leading intellectual in the Italian Bishops’ Conference and one of the more creative and original thinkers in the College of Cardinals.

Q. What do you see as the main challenges facing the Catholic Church today? 

A. I think the principal challenge, which the Church shares with every other social subject in the field, is the interpretation of the post-modern. The question is; have we, or have we not entered the post-modern world? Certainly the collapse of the Berlin Wall has marked a rather radical mutation that can be seen in certain macroscopic phenomena.

Indeed, what is happening in the Middle East is like a second phase of what happened in 1989. There is obviously a strong desire for freedom on the part of peoples on the world stage, and that comes with an urgent demand for real participation. 

This has complicated even more that which I call the process of the mixing of civilizations and cultures; that is, a process of movement and displacement of peoples which will become even more radical in the coming decades. All this has made it made more urgent for us in Europe to gain a deeper knowledge of Islam. 

Then there is the question of the progress of techno-sciences, especially in bio-engineering, cloning, bio-convergence, informatics, biology, molecular physics, neuroscience and so on. All these phenomena are producing a different kind of man and so the challenge for the Church is the same as for all humanity: What kind of man does the man of the third millennium wish to be?

Q. What is your view on this? 

A. Some 10 years ago when I was in Munich I bought a copy of Die Welt and there was an entire page written by this young German philosopher of science named Jongen under the banner headline Man is only his own experiment! 

It is clear that we are faced here with a framework that is radically different from that which prevailed up to the 1980s, and it seems to me that the Church, in this context, has to insist on the fact that the ‘I’ does not exist without relations. This is the point. Because it is from the ‘I’ that the dynamism of the truth, the good and the beautiful is documented within the human family and, in my view, this fact is irrepressible. 

I think that we must value with much realism all the positive things that emerge from these major shifts and discoveries, while accepting the elements of contradiction that are found in every passage of civilization. 

The challenges are at the anthropological, social, cosmological and ecological levels, and since the Church of Christ is the presence of a God who became incarnate and who has engaged, and continues to be involved with humankind, it has to respond to these challenges of humanity. The risk is that man thinks of himself as freed from every bond, and so as ‘a self-made man’. 

This nullifies the exchange between the generations, it nullifies education in the proper sense of the term, and leads to many phenomena that we see in the anthropological transformations and ways of understanding sexuality, love, parenthood, work and so on. 

It seems to me that in this context, the mission of the Church is more relevant than ever. Indeed, I believe that the Christian proposal is particularly relevant now, because if we read the Gospel we see it revolves around the theme of happiness and freedom. Jesus said that if you wish to be happy, come and follow me, and he who follows me will be truly free. It inserts the dynamic of truth, goodness and beauty within the horizon of happiness and freedom. 

So when the Christian proposal is freed from the many things that weigh it down because of the contradictions and sins in the men and women of the Church, and is re-proposed in its youthful simplicity as an encounter with a humanity made whole by Christ, then it is more relevant than ever.

Q. What do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of the Church as it faces these challenges? 

A. They are those which Benedict XVI has formulated at the beginning of his first encyclical – Deus Caritas Est – namely, that the nature of Christianity is a personal encounter with Christ. We see this clearly in those people who have encountered him and witness to the beauty of a humanity that has succeeded. 

The weakness is the continuing existence of that which Paul VI denounced; the dualism between faith and life. This is evident when one does not experience how the relation with Christ impacts on one’s daily life, or how Church life is relevant to all this, and so one tends to conclude that the practice of the Christian life is useless, and one tends to put it aside. 

The paramount task of the Church is to announce Christ in all the settings of human existence and to simplify the life of the Christian community in the parishes and dioceses so that they may be better suited to people today, especially to the young, to the people who have a family and work. It’s a substantial problem to regain the link between faith and life, to understand how the faith is relevant to my life. This requires the way of relations; it cannot be done by oneself alone, it requires a living community of people who can communicate their experience.

Q. You have visited many Churches in the southern hemisphere and described them as “beacons of hope”. What do you mean? 

A. These are Churches of the first evangelisation, and they maintain a vitality and freshness in which the primacy of life renewed by Christ is palpable. 

Then, too, one sees a spirit of joyfulness in all the African Churches, where the liturgy is often positively incarnated, and where the depth of fraternal relations in Christ is tangible, notwithstanding the problems and contradictions that all people have. It is particularly striking to see how the experience of the mystery is an experience of joy.

I have seen this many times in Africa, I have seen it in Asia, in the Philippines, in Brazil and other parts of Latin America, although these situations are quite different. 

So I consider these Churches as signs of hope because I think they can rejuvenate the entire fabric of the Catholic Church. But it remains to be seen how the themes we have spoken about earlier will impact on them.

Q. Many of these Churches face the problem of how to relate to other religions. You have given much attention to this question. Do you think the Church has grasped this problem sufficiently? 

A. The Catholic Church, in my view, particularly since the Second Vatican Council and also because it has given a very high importance to the practice of ecumenism, is facing the question of inter-religious dialogue with great realism. But it takes time to find a proper balance.

I recall an affirmation of the then Cardinal Ratzinger which was more or less this; inter-religious dialogue is an intrinsic experience of the Christian Church, it is not something contingent, imposed from outside. It is not imposed by the fact that today we have 15 million Muslims in Europe, though this makes it more urgent for us to engage in inter-religious dialogue. 

An effective dialogue requires that I engage my faith in a dynamic way. It implies an identity, but a dynamic identity, and so we return to what we spoke about earlier: What is Christianity? The event of Christ, by which he gives himself as a gift to mankind to be the way, the truth and the life, is open to dialogue at 360 degrees. But if I reduce Christianity to a question of doctrine only, then I reduce it to a dialogue of a purely speculative kind. 

Certainly, Christianity implies a doctrine and a moral teaching, but they are incarnated in the life of a person and in the life of a community. Therefore, if I practice the Christian life for what it is – ‘the good life’ which the Gospel documents and witnesses to, then I can go and dialogue with everyone.

It’s sufficient to go to India where there are many mixed marriages between Hindus and Christians and there, one sees how people practice inter-religious dialogue in daily life, for example, in the way husband and wife love each other, or in the way they educate their children. 

On the other hand, it is also necessary to have reflection of a theological and cultural kind such as is happening, indeed flourishing, in many places today. One example of this is the small Oasis experience which we started here in Venice which is dedicated above all to the reciprocal knowledge. 

The first step in dialogue is knowledge, getting to know the other. This is fundamental because, as it is evident today, if one asks an Italian or European Catholic “what is Islam?”, more than 90 per cent would not know how to answer. I’m sure the same would be true vice versa for Muslims, if we question them about Christianity. 

It seems to me that, generally speaking, as Christians we are well on the way in terms of inter-religious dialogue, but it is an epochal question and requires a lot of time.

Q. In Rome many people – in the Vatican and outside – are saying that after the Polish and German popes, and all the crises of this pontificate, we need an Italian pope once again to put order in the Church. 

A. Well, we’ll see. First of all, the Holy Father is very well and is doing his task in a formidable way, giving us a teaching of the highest level that is arousing enormous and impassioned dialogue throughout the whole world. Second, he is renewing the pastoral work of the Church through rooting it in the liturgy and the sacraments. 

I do not at all agree with those who say that this is a papacy which has generated crises. There have been moments when he has had to take on his own shoulders great problems of other men of the Church, and he did so by taking the lead, without ever pulling back.

Benedict XVI will beatify John Paul II on Sunday, the day that JPII himself wanted to call the Day of Divine Mercy and that will be marked by a large celebration of the faith. “I think that Wojtyla was the Pope of freedom and the Saint of freedom” said Angelo Scola, the Patriarch of Venice about John Paul II. “A freedom that, however, continuously needs to be freed”. And only faith in Christ can free it. This faith, Scola explains in this interview with ilsussidiario.net, “became, in the arc of his life, his primary factor of knowledge of himself, others and God”.

Your eminence, what personal memories do you have of John Paul II?

The first time I went up on the altar with him, in 1979, I was struck by the way he celebrated. John Paul II was a “mystic” Pope. He lived a relationship of extraordinary immediacy with God. It is not surprising that people called for his sainthood starting the day he died. It was enough to see him pray. When we went to lunch with him, we went first to the chapel to say the Angelus. All of us thought that it would take about thirty seconds. Instead, sometimes it took so long that we could no longer remain on our knees on the floor. The Pope was truly immersed in prayer, and for him space and time no longer existed. You could see it by the movement of his lips. In his prayers I perceived—I could see—a profound dialogue with God, uninterrupted. Like a breath, the Pope let out sounds like the gurgles of a river that never ends. It was amazing. 

“They try to understand me from the outside, but I can only be understood from within”, Karol Wojtyla said. What unifies the philosopher, the poet, the priest and the man, in one of the richest personalities of the 20th century, the Pope?

Certainly his faith. His intense, in the fullest sense, faith, as the total reliance on Christ Jesus that opened him up to a full understanding of the human person. John Paul II’s personality, his various life experiences, and his versatility (he was in fact a poet, philosopher, theologian) fed him from his infancy through liturgy, prayer, his passionate sense for relationships, his openness and curiosity about reality, and his total gift of self. This faith, which he breathed from his parents, became, in the arc of his life, his primary factor of knowledge of himself, others and God. Everything began within for him and, after passing through basically all of reality, returned, strengthened, to his heart.

How did you draw near the personality of Karol Wojtyla, and how did your encounter with the teachings of John Paul II deepen over time?

I had the opportunity to meet Karol Wojtyla briefly in the international editing circle for Communio, but our relationship deepened after his election to the papacy. As I told you earlier, the first time I met him as Pope was when I concelebrated mass with him, as well as with Monsignor Giussani and Monsignor Camisasca in February 1979 in his private chapel, followed by breakfast. We later collaborated mostly because I was teaching in the John Paul II Institute for the Study of Matrimony and Family, as a Consultant to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and as the Rector of the Pontifical Lateran University, known as the University of the Pope. I was thus able to deepen his teaching in the celebrated catechism on man-woman and the human body, in Mulieris Dignitatem, and more generally about the problems of matrimony and the family. This led me to study Wojtyla’s philosophical and anthropological works (especially Persona e atto) and to compare them to the masterpiece Love and Responsibility and with the celebrated volume Alle fonti del Rinnovamento. My work on Wojtyla’s thought continued with the encyclicals on the Trinity, with his moral and social teachings. I concentrated my debt to him, which is human before being doctrinal, in the work Elementary Experience, published a few years ago.

One of the most diffuse clichés about John Paul II is that he was the “Great Communicator” (just as Benedict XVI is thought of as the theologian, the guardian of orthodoxy, as if Wojtyla was not). Do you think that behind the partial truth of that hasty simplification there is sometimes an ideology working?

Every man falls into ideology, whether he wants to or not. Because of this, we  need to free ourselves by turning to self-criticism, in the same way that we need to free ourselves from inevitable prejudices. The simplification you referred to is, as a simplification, ideological. We must get rid of it. It is true that there is a difference between the personalities and carisms of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, but on the other hand, there is the profound unity and continuity in their exercise of the ministry of Peter. A point of view that is free and purified of ideology, cannot but recognize this unity and greet the originalities of these two Popes as a great gift for the Church.

Experience plays a fundamental role in the philosophical and pastoral method and teachings of Wojtyla, as well as in his writings. Can you explain what the centrality of experience consists in? 

It consists in the fact that every man in every time and place, culture and religion participates in a “common experience” the same as everyone else. Wojtyla deeply reflected on this common experience. There is a decisive passage in Persona e atto, from which all of his actions were inspired. In this passage, he strongly affirms that beyond the great diversity that characterizes men and beyond the opposing philosophical and cultural visions that characterize thought, there is a common experience that every person has upon which one can build both a method for a good life and adequate philosophical and religious reflection. In fact, theology is nothing more than the systematic and critical reflection on the experience of faith in the Christian community. Obviously the history of thought shows that the category of experience is very delicate and should be treated with particular care. 

“Man’s redeemer, Jesus Christ, is the center of the cosmos and of history”. What did this announcement, which opened the first encyclical of John Paul II in 1979, mean for the Church and for contemporary man?

I will talk about what it meant for the world starting from the situation in Italy at the time. We were just coming out from the distressing year of 1978, with the tragedy of Moro and the death of Paul VI. With that decisive affirmation “Jesus Christ in the center of the cosmos and of history”, John Paul II gave content to the extraordinary cry which opened humanity up to hope on the first day of his papacy: “Do not be afraid”.

John Paul II bet a lot on the lay faithful, the baptized, to make Christ contemporary for today’s man. In fact, in 1998 he spoke of the coessentiality of movements and institutions to the mission of the Church. What did this directive mean for life in the Church?

Certainly the Pope, who had been a student, worker, actor, ardent friend to Jews, energetic and intelligent objector both to the Nazi and Marxist utopias, as well as extraordinary teacher and priest, lived a fullness of humanity. Meeting him, one immediately perceived that he was first of all a man and this highlighted even more the priestly dimension of his person. This kind of Pope was, therefore, able to perceive the decisiveness of vocation and mission in the lay faithful.  It must be underlined that, in Christifideles laici, the Pope does not speak about just “lay” people, but “lay faithful”. This means a Christian who is called, in every area of human existence, to make the renewing beauty of the encounter with Christ visible in his face.

And the movements?

The question of movements and institutions needs much more space to reach a conclusion. One thing I can say is that the two essential things in the Church are the institutional gifts and the charismatic gifts. The first (the Eucharist illuminated by the Word of God, the teachings of the Apostles, Communion) are those that Jesus established as indispensable foundations for the existence of the Church. The second expresses the fantasy with which the Holy Spirit “persuades” man in every era to cling to the Church as the place for the fullness of human life. Obviously both are gifts of grace. Any opposition between the institutional gifts and the charismatic gifts is without foundation.

John Paul II was devoted to Mary. What does this devotion teach the Church of our time?

It is a font of beneficial humility for every Christian. In fact, Mary is the most powerful expression of the Immaculate Church and teaches all of the faithful, men and women, that Christ the Bridegroom is the incomparable gift for the Church Bride. With Him, everyone is first and foremost “passive”, in that we receive. Also, Mary, the paradigm of maternity, is the one who, in every circumstance, even the most unfortunate, walks with Jesus. She is virgin and mother. Because of this, I love to define Mary as “the woman”.

The last part of the papacy of John Paul II was marked by a difficult, inwardly hard-fought, relationship with the truth (and with the leadership of the Church), especially because of his sickness. The giant who so deeply left his mark on the history of the world was not afraid to show himself in all his limits. What can the Blessed Wojtyla teach us as a man and as the successor of Peter?

In the last phase of the life of John Paul II, he incarnated the great Pauline affirmation “When I am weak, then I am strong”. “Your grace is enough”, says Paul in the Second Letter to the Corinthians. The way that John Paul II wore his suffering exalted the Petrine ministry because it showed that the power of governing the Church—but not only for the Church—is never at the mercy of the one who possesses it. It comes only and always from God.  We must pray every day that those who are responsible for leading the Church live this way.

How is John Paul II a contemporary saint? To what profound human question does his sanctity of life respond?

In my opinion, his sanctity is visible in a luminous way in his passionate commitment to freedom. I think Wojtyla was the Pope of freedom and the Saint of freedom. A freedom that, however, continuously needs to be freed. As the Gospel of John says, those who follow Jesus “will be truly free”.

(Federico Ferraù)

march, 30th 2011

At the Angelus yesterday, Benedict XVI made an appeal “to those who have political and military responsibilities for the immediate initiation of a dialogue, which suspends the use of weapons.” “May peace return as soon as possible for these people and further tragedies be stopped”,  Cardinal Angelo Scola, Patriarch of Venice, tells ilsussidiario.net , “means to object strongly that every death is one too many. But peace is not an automatic utopia, it is necessary to build it every day in reality.” “We in Europe,” Scola explains, “are victims of a strong presumption. We think we know how to evaluate and solve problems without taking into account the testimony of those who live in these situations.” Starting with the Christians in those lands. And there is not only the important issue of participation and democracy, but also of the transformation of Islam.  This is a challenge which involves the spiritual contours of European identity, and of Italy in particular, the hinge between north and south.

“I ask God to obtain that a horizon of peace and concord may dawn as soon as possible on Libya and on the entire region of North Africa,” Benedict XVI said at the Angelus on Sunday, March 20. In what sense can one speak of peace when the policy is to take direct action to save the people from tyranny?

To speak of peace in these circumstances means, of course, to demand that armed violence, even in this case, would end and give way to negotiation, that peace return as soon as possible for these people and to halt further tragedies; to object strongly means that every death is one too many. But peace is not an automatic utopia;  it is necessary to build it every day in reality. Therefore, to obtain peace, prayer arises, against all skepticism, as an effective tool.

On closer inspection, the gears of realpolitik never seem to respond well to commands.  Why is this?  Is it a lack of “strategy” or a cultural deficit or lacking foresight of some kind?

I am not an expert.  What I can observe is that we Europeans are often victims of a strong presumption. We think we know how to evaluate and solve problems without taking account of the testimony of those who live in these situations. This often prevents us from considering all the factors in play. Many collaborators of Oasis who live in these places these days invite us to make a careful distinction:  the situation in North Africa is different from that of the Middle East, although both of the areas are in turmoil. What is happening is largely an unexpected phenomenon or not foreseen in this way, but it has very different connotations from country to country:  Libya is not Egypt, we know very little about Libya, just as this is radically different from what has happened in Tunisia.  Also what is happening in Syria is different.

And what do you think about Libya, specifically, Your Eminence?

As to the current war in Libya, I would like to recall the opinion of Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, who speaks for all of us Italian bishops.  This seems a realistic assessment: you cannot stand still when so many lives are at stake and the civil society itself. What then becomes complex is to determine what this intervention should consist in.   So it becomes essential to listen very carefully to the voice of people like the bishop of Tripoli who has been there for years and knows the situation from the inside.

If we step back for a moment from the events related to the Libyan crisis, we see that across the Mediterranean–since the attacks on Christians at the end of last year, then by the Egyptian crisis, etc. — we are going through a phase of unprecedented instability. What is changing?

I believe that, as always in human affairs, it is only in time that a process, especially one so explosive and complex, can be understood. We must have the patience to let all the factors come to the surface. Certainly one cannot underestimate the strong demand for freedom, for the dignity of life, for democracy, and for work that emerges from these movements, but there are other aspects that we cannot see yet and that we must, however, try to understand  carefully.  For example:  what evolution may occur within the diversity of Islam starting from these events?  At the same time, there is the advance in the process that I call the “hybridization of cultures and civilizations”, an historical process, which is partly violent, partly unpredictable and also hopeful, and which does not ask permission to happen, but which we can at least try to accompany, and to govern.

How concerned should we be about the plight of Christians in the Middle East?  Can we still speak–given the paucity of their presence– of a particular “task” they have in the face of these circumstances?

The situation of our fellow Christians in the Middle and Far East is very painful. We cannot afford to remain passive, to not to listen to their voices and their cry for help. The Church of Venice, on the path of the pastoral visit that has involved the entire diocese, has been able to work with two remarkable people: Bishop Luigi Padovese, murdered in Turkey, and Shahbaz Bhatti, the  Pakistani Christian Minister who was the victim of a recent attack. Their testimony is forcing us to act for the freedom of the Church, which is threatened in some predominantly Muslim countries. Their martyrdom documents that what it means to live authentically as Christians is to live the desire to follow Jesus, to find a place–as Bhatti wrote in his spiritual testament –at the foot of his cross to participate in his resurrection.

Almost all agree in recognizing that a major humanitarian crisis is upon us. What must the government and the society do to rise to the task? 

One thing is the impetus to welcome, which must be immediate toward those who find themselves in a difficult situation which is so burdensome. Another thing is that the policy must be orderly and organic, even in a case of a grave emergency like this.  The problem is that everybody should assume responsibility: the whole of Europe is called upon to respond to this situation. Our country must prepare itself to face realistically the fact that tens of thousands of people will present themselves at our doors. Of course, we need to have a vigilant eye and a far-sighted vision: the tragedies that mark North Africa and more generally the beginning of the third millennium are a formidable challenge from Providence toward the man of the future. What kind of man do we want to be? An “I-in-relationship”? Or a man who, of course, can have amazing techno-scientific means available, but who tends to fossilize into an individual identity and thus deteriorates?

Do you think the crisis at hand is also a “yardstick” of European unity?

This uneasiness demonstrates that Europe cannot be held together only by the cement of the euro, but needs a clear identity, a sound economic and foreign policy, and with ample breadth. But this is impossible, I repeat, unless Europeans as individuals and nations respond to a huge question: “Who will be the man of the third millennium?” Perhaps the tragedy of the migration of large numbers of men and women from Africa, if we are all more generous, can be the glue for the construction of a peaceful Europe because it is capable of opening itself, with an intelligent availability, to those in need. A Europe that becomes a tangible expression of that sharing between people which is essential for the present and the future and that we Europeans, who are a bit comfortable and sedentary, have not been able to make the stable project of the good life.

From the very beginning of  your mandate, you have focused your mission as pastor on the status of the Church of Venice as a bridge of dialogue between East and West. Is there is a particular task that it can play in this historic moment?

At this very time, when throughout the Northeast we are preparing to welcome the Holy Father on his imminent visit to Aquileia and Venice, we are opening our eyes to a new challenge for Venice and the entire Northeast: to find the original function of the link between peoples and cultures again, and not only between East and West, but also between North and South. Looking at a map of the area, what catches the eye is how the Adriatic is the vertex of the Mediterranean which, here in our area, opens to the heart of old Europe. The circumstances are inviting us to ask ourselves what this “new” and needed Northeast will be, which, as in the days of the splendor of Aquileia, from which 57 churches were born, could cover Croatia, Slovenia, Austria, Bavaria, Hungary. In a word, the Adria Alps region.

(interview by Federico Ferraù, translation by Sharon Mollerus)

Yesterday twenty-one red roses, twenty-one ‘rosebuds’, were offered to the altar of the Nicopeia Madonna in St. Mark’s  Basilica at the end of the mass held by the Patriarch, Cardinal Angelo Scola. A special gesture to remember the martyrdom of the Christians in the world and the massacre of 21 people which has hit the Coptic community of Alexandria in Egypt, a church that is particularly close to that of Venice, since both were born from the preaching of Mark the Evangelist.

Cardinal Scola, in an interview with the Corriere  the imam El Tayeb, head of the al-Azhar mosque, asked the Pope for a sign in order to re-establish trust. You have been involved in the presence of the Christians in the Middle East for decades now through the Oasis Foundation. What do you think of El Tayeb’s words?

“First of all we must bear in mind that we still know little about each other. This is shown by the fact that no practising Christian would recognise himself in the image of his faith which is current among Muslims and vice versa. There is also an urgent need to face the big problem of the relationship between truth and freedom. It is a question of a balance that must always  be regained, since without truth man loses his way, but without freedom man is a slave. Violence is  born from this too”.

But the Christians have never threatened anyone, but are rather the victims of those who in the name of religion carry out massacres and spread fear and death.

“Unfortunately  perceptions are radically different between one side and the another of the Mediterranean. In the West many feel under attack from Islam, while in the East many consider that it is Islam that is being attacked. The media are responsible for this too. However, we must keep to the facts: it is not the first time that  terrorists, claiming to act in the name of Islam, have carried out  abominable suicide attacks in a church where a group of Christian faithful had gathered to pray”.

Benedict XVI has asked for protection for all Christians. How do you explain that this position has been labelled as interference?

“The Pope is not asking for any special treatment for Christians. He asks for the respect of the fundamental rights of every man, among which there is obviously the right to live, to publicly profess a religion and to not  be driven out of one’s own country. As in the attacks in Alexandria, like in Baghdad in October and Nag Hammadi a year ago,  in Pakistan very frequently and in India or in China, it is the Christians that are hit, the Pope, who bears the responsibility of over one billion faithful, considered it his duty to call the world’s attention to the problem of the persecution of the Christians”.  

What is Europe’s role?

“Europe must act in a more clear-cut way for the respect of fundamental rights, and have the courage to not subordinate them to economic interests. Moreover, Europe can promote, through facts, a model of plural society in which the different members recognise each other starting with the practical good of being together. This is an idea on which the lay and the believers of the various religions can find a meeting point. An idea which, in the medium term, can be a paradigm for all countries”.

On the very same day as the terrorist attack in Cairo, the Pope had announced that he will take part in the interreligious meeting in Assisi in October…

“The meeting in Assisi has exactly this meaning: terrorism, even before being a problem of security and intelligence, raises an issue of experience and culture. There exists a violence that is perpetrated in the name of God. Religions must remove all legitimacy from these criminal acts. We must not only say it is wrong, but also why it is wrong”

The Islamic kamikaze terrorists consider themselves martyrs. For Christians too, martyrs are called upon to bear witness to Christ in the highest and most definitive way. What difference is there?

“The difference between a martyr and a suicide terrorist is radical. In his offering the first embraces his own persecutor beforehand. His prior forgiveness thus wins over an unjustifiable evil. The suicide terrorist prepares to die, but his gesture is aimed at the destruction of others. For this reason it is intrinsically an evil, a negation of the human”.

In the past centuries Christians and Jews were forced to live like ‘dhimmi’, subjugated, under Islam. Is this inevitable?

“Absolutely not. The words of the imam El Tayeb  in the interview that you mention were  quite clear. And to tell the truth, the imam had already expressed his position also in other circumstances, for example in an interview to the Lebanese newspaper an-Nahar some months ago. I was able to read a preview of it prepared for the next Oasis newsletter. In the Muslim world a battle of ideas is going on, next to that of arms which  everyone can see: anyone who thinks that nothing is moving would be wrong”. 

(M. Antonietta Calabrò)

july, 1th 2010

The French National Assembly begins debating a complete ban on Muslim full face veils in public next week and could outlaw them by the autumn. Belgium’s lower house of parliament has passed a draft ban and could banish them from its streets in the coming months if its Senate agrees. The Spanish Senate has passed a motion to ban them after a few towns introduced their own prohibitions.

Calls to ban “burqas” — the word most widely in Europe used for full veils, even if most full veils seen are niqabs — have also been heard in the Netherlands and Denmark. According to a  Financial Times poll,  the ban proposal also “wins enthusiastic backing in the UK, Italy, Spain and Germany”.

Only a tiny minority of Muslim women in these countries actually cover their faces, but that doesn’t seem to matter. That Switzerland has only four minarets didn’t stop Swiss voters from banning them in a referendum last November (and maybe banning veils next). There seems to be a movement to ban religious symbols that Europeans either reject or fear.

Is this the best way for Europe to deal with the veil? Should governments just introduce ever tougher policies and Muslims counter with increasing opposition?  Is there another approach that could offer a more harmonious outcome?

Cardinal Angelo Scola, the Roman Catholic Patriarch of Venice, thinks there is. His beautiful city of canals and gondolas might not be the first one would think of when discussing Muslim integration in Europe, but his Oasis Foundation there has been working with Christians and Muslims in the Middle East since 2004. His extensive contacts in the region have led to some ideas he thinks could be relevant for Europe.

First of all, Scola thinks bans are not the way forward.  “One risks radicalising the problem rather than resolving it,” he told Reuters. “The problem would be more adequately dealt with in the normal workings of civil society rather than by a law… One must obviously separate religion and politics, church and state. But one must recognise that religions have a public dimension.”

Muslim countries in the Middle East have seen a resurgence of Islam in recent decades, he said, with increased emphasis on the unity of the Ummah (Islamic world) and importance of visible markers of Muslim faith such as headscarves.

This has led some European Muslims to stress Islamic values and traditions over common European concepts such as the separation of church and state. “In pluralist societies, if this distinction between the religious and civil dimensions is not upheld, the universality of the Ummah can become a problem” he said.

“I think we Christians have tools that come from our history and traditions that one can use to approach this question. Christianity is universal, but the split between the spiritual and social dimensions was clear in principle since the beginning. Especially since the Second Vatican Council, we have been able to live out this universality while respecting the civil, cultural and social dimensions of different countries. We live like citizens among other citizens in loyalty to the pluralist society like in Europe. I think this is the problem of Islam today. It plays out a lot in Europe, where their presence now is massive. There is a  continual confrontation. “

Apart from “burqa bans” Scola also thinks Europeans miss the point when they say Muslims in Europe have to develop a so-called “moderate Islam” which many Muslims see as an outside effort to shape their faith to conform to western norms. Rather than trying to influence the religion from the top down, he thinks Europeans should start with Islam as it is lived by the majority of Muslims day to day. With their centuries of experience living side by side with Muslims, Middle Eastern Christians could teach Europeans an important lesson.

“For example, we should stop talking about “moderate Islam,” which is an empty term. In reality, there are only a few individuals or little groups of  intellectuals who interpret their faith in a way that is called ‘moderate Islam.’  But this is not the expression of the people’s faith.  As the Christian churches there see it, one can operate a dialogue with the Islam of the people. In this sense, our strength is that we know these situations well and see what we can apply here to build a democratic society  in which Muslims can really integrate while respecting their religious affiliation.”

The Enlightenment and the modern era forced the Catholic Church to radically rethink its approach to freedom, Scola said. At the Second Vatican Council, it found ways to help Catholics “live a pluralist society as citizens among others, working for the common material and spiritual good without entering into conflict. Muslims in Europe should now make this transition. The fact of being in Europe could help them make this passage. Until about 10 years ago, I thought the crucial point for the development of Islam was the Middle East, especially Lebanon.  That remains very important, obviously, but I think a lot of the challenge will play out in Europe.”

Scola said what is needed is what he calls a metissage or crossbreeding of civilisations that is a continuing process, not a set goal. “I’m not arguing for syncretism” he said. “We have to conceive of laïcité in a new way, as a civil society in which all people  offer their ideals of life and ways of conceiving the material and spiritual good and try to find common ground. In this sense, one should avoid the abstract idea of multiculturalism, which hasn’t worked either in Britain or in France.”

The cardinal said Muslims should be active citizens in Europe and not try to keep a distance from society around them. “This is the way Christians (in the Middle East) do it. They have churches ant their communities, but when they enter into the life of the city of man, they enter as citizens.”

“The strength of religion is to propose a concrete universal ideal, in contrast to the formal conception of laïcité that only refers to a charter of human rights that is often reduced just to formal principles. It leaves problems unsolved … it neutralizes all public experience of religion so that, in the words of the German Idealists, it creates ‘a night in which all cows are black’.”

Many Europeans are tempted to see laïcité, as the French call the strict separation of  church and state, as “a neutral and empty place and pretend that religious people behave like atheists,” Scola said. “That’s an abstraction that in the end will not bring much luck to Europe.”

June 7, 2010

The murder of Bishop Padovese shocked the Christian world, especially in the Middle East. Do you believe this was the act of an isolated madman, or was there something more behind it?

Personally, I don’t know anything beyond what’s been in the newspapers about whether this was the act of an isolated madman (something, however, that the episcopal conference of Turkey, and above all the Archbishop of Smyrna, Archbishop Ruggero Franceschini, now the Apostolic Administrator of Anatolia, seems to rule out), or whether it was an organized act and, if so, at what level.

But from what Bishop Padovese said to us in Venice some months ago, during a meeting at the Cathedral of San Marco, I can deduce that he knew very well the risks to which he was exposing himself every day, and he faced those risks with an attitude of crystalline witness. Speaking of the church in Turkey, Padovese said: “If, as has happened in decades past, we as Christians accept being invisible, remaining an insignificant presence in the fabric of the country, there won’t be any problems. But we recognize, as is happening now in Palestine, in Lebanon, and above all in Iraq, that this is a dead-end street which doesn’t do justice to the Christian history of these countries, in which Christianity was born and flowered, and which would not do justice to the thousands of martys in these lands who have passed down to us the witness of their blood.” (Second Ecclesial Assembly, October 11, 2009).

In any case, however banal the material cause of a martyr’s death may be, the offering of their life is still radical and glorious. The episode of Saint John Baptist makes the point: a man of his stature was put to death because of the capricousness of Salome.

The Synod for the Middle East will be held in October, for which Benedict XVI presented the Instrumentum Laboris during his recent trip to Cyprus. What might we expect the synod to accomplish?

The importance and the expectations of the Synod are enclosed in its title: “Communion and Witness.” These truly are the two decisive questions for Christians in the Middle East – as they are, in a sense, for the whole church. The churches of the ‘first evangelization’ need to rediscover the freshness of their beginnings. To that end, they’re called to radically simplify their Christian proposal. The ideas of communion and witness respond to that urgency, which simply can’t be delayed.

The bishops of the Middle East, however, are well aware that given the situation facing many of them, if I can use a slightly rude expression, this is almost a “last call.” This obviously means the event will be freighted with a lot of expectations, but it will also help it go directly to what’s essential.

Pope Benedict recently visited Cyprus. Was there an impulse from that visit which is important for Christianity in the Middle East?

The trip to Cypus was striking, not only for the great value of that land which is linked to the mission of St. Paul, and not only for the richness of the pope’s reflections and declarations. It was also important for the pope’s witness to a faith that’s clearly rooted in the history of our time: his warning about the possible ‘shedding of blood’ in the Middle East, his meeting with Chrysostomos II, his embrace with the local Catholic community and the presentation of the Instrumentum Laboris to the bishops, and his declaration about the necessity of dialogue with our Muslim brothers. He added an immediate clarification, so typical of this pope, of the meaning of the term ‘brother’ – demonstrating that this was a deliberate choice of words, precisely in a moment in which the world was deeply on edge because of the killing of Bishop Padovese.

Recently the attention of the mass media with regard to the Catholic Church has been focused almost exclusively on the sexual abuse crisis. Do you believe this has created a media environment in which it’s difficult to raise awareness about the struggles of Christians in the Middle East?

The trip to Cyprus demonstrated that the Christian faith responds to the questions and the daily needs of the women and men of today, and at the same time it takes to heart the travails of a people (it’s enough to think about the obvious sorrow of the pope over the division of the island.) In that sense, it was a healthy thing for a church that’s been beat up quite a bit over the scandal of pedophilia.

The pope, with his charism, his personal example and his rigorous judgment, has devoted himself completely to addressing the crisis, and has accomplished a major step forward for us bishops, priests and laity: Now it’s up to us to follow his example, taking the necessary measures to ensure that the tragedy of sexual abuse of minors isn’t repeated, while at the same time also demonstrating the supreme ‘suitability’ of being Christian today.

The way in which the pope handled himself in Cyprus, on a Middle Eastern chessboard which has laid waste to the intelligence of the best diplomats in the world, was an eloquent demonstration that the faith still possess a strong cultural dignity, even on the human level, and in terms of the construction of the common good. If our terrible responsibility for the abuse of minors demands penance and renewed witness from all Christians, that’s also the best way to take up the truly radical question facing us today: ‘Can the post-modern person reasonably believe in Christ, and, above all, believe in the church?’

For years, experts have talked about the ‘disappearance’ of Christianity from the Holy Land and the entire Middle East. Do you see any indication that the situation is improving? Is there basis for hope … hope that’s not simply theological, but also empirical and demographic?

I think that we can’t underestimate the importance of the presence of ‘new Christians,’ meaning immigrants, mostly of Asian origins. In Cyprus, for example, the pope was welcomed not just by the Maronite community, but also by many immigrants from the Philippines, from India and from Sri Lanka. This phenomenon is particularly evident in the Gulf, and despite the absence of a full and true climate of religious freedom, it’s a presence that could continue to evolve.

That said, the loss of the presence of the most antique churches would be disastrous, because they’re a spring for our tradition, meaning a way of connecting with the Christian experience itself; moreover, they have an incredibly rich liturgical and theological patrimony, and a unique experience of contact with the Islamic world.

Today in the Middle East, everything is polarized around numerous unresolved conflicts, but, without forgetting a healthy sense of realism, we also need to be able to read all the signs of the times. Recently Fr. Samir Khalil, in commenting on the Instrumentum Laboris, made reference to certain developments in Egypt and Lebanon, affirming that “in small steps, something is moving forward.” In order for things to progress, however, we need a perspective with which to face the third millenium. Facing these new times, we’re all like babies – fascinating, but fragile. This is where the theme of education enters the picture.

[Note: In a June 6 essay, Jesuit Fr. Samir Khalil, a Lebanese Catholic theologian, pointed to declining interest among Lebanese Shi’ites in an Iranian-style theocracy, and to the fact that Muslim converts to Christianity in Egypt may still be marginalzed but they’re no longer murdered, as signs that “things are evolving in the right direction.”]

At the upcoming meeting of Oasis in Lebanon, you’re going to speak on education as ‘a proposal for our time.’ Why did you select this these? What do you have in mind?

The choice of theme was born in the journey taken by Oasis from its foundation to today, which has been a journey of understanding and exchange of experiences at the international level. The most grave problem in the Middle East is violence: violence against Christians, the permanent conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, but also violence among Muslims. We tend to see only the terrorism that strikes the West, but the biggest atrocities actually fall upon Mulsims themselves. Let’s not forget that in Algeria, the civil war during the 1990s left more than 200,000 people dead.

Normally, they say that to avoid violence you’ve got to promote education. Naturally that’s true, as long as it’s clear what kind of education you’re promoting. There’s a kind of education that closes someone and makes them violent, and there’s a kind that dissolves one’s personality altogether, cutting ties with the people who generated you. Certainly we need education, but not just any education. We need educational practices that know how to connect truth and freedom. In Lebanon, this necessity is very clear: the schools of that country have produced both militia members and people of peace. Now we’re trying to understand how to favor the latter. That’s a precondition to any conversation about dialogue.

Can you say something about the present situation in the dialogue between Christians and Muslims? What are the important recent developments?

There’s a theological dialogue, which in the Catholic church is entrusted to the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dilaogue. The presence of Cardinal Tauran with us in Beirut represents a significant gift, and a great opportunity. Then there’s a dialogue of life, which touches all the faithful, not just in the Middle East but also in the churches of Europe. I think about my diocese, Venice, and in the Veneto, where the presence of Muslims is growing all the time.

There’s also a dialogue which takes as its theme the inevitable ‘cultural interpretations of every religious faith,’ and their implications for the human person and for the society of today. The Oasis Foundation locates its activity above all at this level. In this sense, it seems decisive to me that Muslims learn how to open themselves to the experience of Christians in the West. In the West, Christians passed through an era of Caesaropapism and theocracy, but today they understand how to celebrate the public importance of their faith in full respect for the pluralistic secular society in which they live. Muslims can profit from this experience, just as we can learn from them in other areas.

One noteworthy recent initiative in Catholic/Muslim relations is the Oasis project, launched by Cardinal Angelo Scola of Venice in 2004. Though Oasis does not shy away from theological conversation, its accent is on understanding Islamic cultures, sometimes expressed as the ‘Islam of the people’ – what in journalistic parlance might be called ‘the Muslim street.’ In particular, Oasis is interested in the interplay between traditional cultures and the new forces of pluralism and mixture of peoples driven by globalization. (Scola likes to use the Italian term ‘meticciato’, which roughly corresponds to ‘mestizo’, to convey this idea.)

On Monday and Tuesday of this week, June 22-23, the scientific committee that directs Oasis met in Venice to take up the subject of ‘intepreting traditions in a time of blending.’ In conjunction with that event, I interviewed Scola, 67, on the current state of Christian/Muslim relations.

In light of current events, Scola’s comments on Iran seem especially interesting. In a nutshell, he suggested that a form of ‘Shi’ite messianism,’ corrupted into a political ideology, may be part of the problem in terms of Iran’s checkered relationship with the West – but that it’s ‘reversible.’ He also suggested that the 1979 Iranian revolution and all that’s followed offers a useful reminder to the secularized West that history is sometimes still forged by ‘theological options.’

The full text of the interview follows.

1. Why the choice of ‘tradition’ as the theme for the annual meeting of Oasis?

Each of us, in making daily decisions in work, in our relationships, even when we rest, starts with an interpretive hypothesis about reality that we’ve received from preceding generations – in other words, a tradition. Oasis, as you know, wants to investigate the “process of mixing of civilizations,” and while the actors in this mixture are single individuals, they’re all heirs of a tradition. The problem, naturally, is how these traditions relate to one another. Are we prisoners of our tradition, as multiculturalism has it? Do we have to put our traditions in parentheses in order to adhere to certain abstract universal principles? Or, with a truly revolutionary attitude, do we even have to abolish them? In reality, tradition presents itself to us as a patrimony that has to be interpreted, because it’s a fact of experience in constant evolution, which is all the more evident in a pluralistic society such as ours.

2. The pope talks about ‘inter-cultural’ rather than ‘inter-religious’ dialogue. What do you think this distinction means? Does he too possibly have in mind the weight of tradition?

I believe that the Holy Father wants to emphasize that the Christian faith, which is the child of an incarnate God, and because it’s offered to humanity as an answer to the questions of daily life, immediately becomes a culture. There’s no pure ‘faith,’ which then enters into relationship ‘with the different cultures.’ Moreover, every faith and every religion is always subject to cultural interpretations. The relationship between faith and culture is inevitable, and circular. Just think about all the different points of view we in the West have with regard to ‘the Islams.’ Therefore, there simply is no inter-religious dialogue that isn’t at the same time inter-cultural.

The pope’s approach in no way intends to limit the dialogue, but rather to define it rigorously. What’s in play aren’t ‘pure faiths,’ but faiths as they’re culturally interpreted. That has nothing to do with relativism: The Truth is incarnate. That applies to Christianity in itself, to all the religions, and thus to inter-religious dialogue.

3. In Jordan, the Holy Father proposed an ‘alliance of civilizations’ between Christians and Muslims. What do you think the aim of such an alliance would be?

The pope himself gave the answer at the end of his speech at the airport in Amman: ‘To grow in love for the Almighty and Merciful God, and in fraternal love for one another.’ Together Christians and Muslims can offer witness to an ‘expanded reason,’ capable of opening itself to the dimension of the Absolute.

4. In your view, what were the principal fruits of the pope’s trip to the Holy Land?

Pope Benedict’s trip to the Holy Land was a lesson in realism. At the beginning, it looked like an “impossible trip” because it seemed destined to make everybody unhappy. Intead, Benedict XVI inserted himself into the vast ranks of Christian pilgrims to the holy places. He walked in the footsteps of the Incarnate God, who died and rose again for the salvation of human beings. He traced the paths that throb with the suffering of the Christians who live there. In the name of the entire Catholic church, he embraced the Christian community on that edge of the Middle East, the ‘lit candle that illuminates the holy places.’But this embrace – precisely because it was performed in the name of Him who is the way of truth and life – also included, though in diverse ways, our Jewish brothers and the Muslims who live in the land given to our father Abraham. It’s the universal and incarnate proposal of Christ that leads the Christian faith to encounter with every religion, with every vision of reality.

5. What’s your view of President Obama’s June 4 speech in Cairo?

I’m curious to hear from participants in the Oasis meeting what effect the words of the American president had on the populations of the Middle East, especially the Christian minorities. His speech seemed to me very political. It was extremely lucid in indicating the challenges that the United States must confront, decisive in suggesting certain changes in direction, and even audacious in favoring a greater role for regional actors. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the arguments offered in support of a ‘new beginning’ between Muslims and the United States are fragile, and some historical readings were distorted to suit the necessities of the moment. Obama was forced to pass over some of the points of greatest friction. It was an understandable choice from a tactical point of view, but it can’t hold up for very long.

6. What are you hearing from your contacts in Iran these days? Looking down the line, it seems that Shi’a Muslims and Catholics share certain traits: A strong clerical hierarchy, a theology of sacrifice, and deep currents of popular devotion. Does this suggest that Catholicism can play an important role in a dialogue with Iran, where Shi’a Islam is dominant?

Three accents strike me in the Shi’a tradition: the necessity of a continual actualization of revelation in certain physical persons, to the point of overcoming a too-rigid conception of divine transcendence; the lively expectation of eschatological fulfillment; and the reflection on the problem of evil. I have the impression that we’re not well informed on these points, despite the enormous work of study and analysis that’s been done by specialists in recent years. We know Shi’ites better than we know Shiism!

The Oasis network really hasn’t arrived yet in Iran, so what I know about what’s happening is what I see and read in the mass media. I don’t doubt, however, that many people in Iran want better relations with the West. We must not forget that Persian culture has shown itself to be extraordinarily fertile and receptive.

The principal probelm, if I can put it slightly audaciously, is that Shi’ite messianism, almost unable to bear the weight of the exepectations with which is is structually bound up, has been converted over the centuries, at least in some circles, into a political ideology. We’re talking about a long process that’s not linear, which experience a brusque acceleration with the 1979 revolution. As Westerners, we were caught off guard. We had forgotten that history is also sometimes forged by ‘theological options.’

In any event, all this is reversible.

7. One sometimes has the impression that any step toward Muslims by the Catholic church is experienced by Jews as a step away from them, and vice-versa. How do we balance these two relationships?

When he arrived in Paradise, Dante asked the blessed if they weren’t annoyed by one another, defensive of their goods and jealous of those touched by the others. The response was no, because with love, the more it’s shared the more it grows. That point holds true for Christians, well beyond their own limitations, also in the arc of history.

‘Readiness for dialogue’ is a good, and a good is always to be shared. If you’ll forgive the crude comparison, it’s not like a cake which, if I eat it, you can’t – or if the Jews get it, the Muslims can’t have it. When dialogue isn’t a tactic, but, as Bonhöffer said, it opens the dialogue partners to “the depths of reality,” then a step forward with Muslims not only doesn’t mean a step back in relations with other religions, but on the contrary, it acts as a stimulus.

With regard to Judaism, it’s written into the DNA of our own faith. I’ve never forgotten the words that Cardinal Henri de Lubac said to me in long-ago 1985: ‘If Christianity must be inculturated, then it must inculturate into the history, which is still unfolding, of the Jewish people who are our roots.’

]]> http://english.angeloscola.it/2009/06/24/iran-struggling-with-shiite-messianism-cardinal-says/feed/ 0 http://english.angeloscola.it/2008/05/24/ciao-mondo/ http://english.angeloscola.it/2008/05/24/ciao-mondo/#comments Sat, 24 May 2008 09:36:04 +0000 ufficiostampa http://1654984976 “This is a problem typical of our globalized society. We’re seeing an unprecedented encounter of people, cultures and religions, which is what I have in mind when I use the phrase meticciato di civiltà - a “hybridization of civiliations.” It’s a historical process currently underway, and its results are by no means certain. There are blendings that work, and blendings that don’t.

The critical point is this: What happens to our identity as a people if a significant bloc begins to call it into question, either because they belong to another religion or because they convert? In some majority Muslim nations, a certain degree of diversity can be tolerated for those who are born into another religion, but the feeling is that the identity of the country would be threatened if those who are born Muslims had the possibility of converting. It’s interesting to note the choice frequently presented to these converts: if you want to leave Islam, you also have to leave the country. The assumption seems to be that the personal dimension of faith interests us up to a point, but we want to avoid the ‘scandal’ of a public gesture”…

John Allen, Jr. is a National Catholic Reporter and analyst for the CNN.
Though the parallel shouldn’t be pushed too far, in some ways Christian/Muslim relations today might be compared to where things stood with personal computers back in the early 1980s. Everybody knew PCs were the future, but they wouldn’t change the world until a simple, appealing, and reasonably standard way of making them work emerged.
Then Apple released the Macintosh in 1984, followed by Microsoft’s first version of Windows a year later. Overnight, personal computing went from a hobby to a necessity, and we woke up in the digital age.
In a similar fashion, everybody knows today that dialogue with Islam is critical to the future. The “market,” however, has not yet settled on a clear model for how it ought to work – who we should be talking to, what we should be talking about, and what we should expect from those conversations. Until that happens, Christian/Muslim relations will remain a bit like the early days of computing … the rarefied pursuit of experts typing in strings of DOS commands to run even simple operations.
So, is there a potential “Windows” of Christian/Muslim relations out there?
One intriguing candidate is the “Oasis” project of Cardinal Angelo Scola of Venice, an attempt to foster a global network of contacts among Christians and Muslims, attaching special importance to the voices and experiences of Christians who live in majority Muslim nations across the Middle East, Asia and Africa. While Oasis sponsors academic conferences and a journal, it’s also devoted to giving voice to real-life experiences of ordinary people, not just intellectual experts and the professional artisans of dialogue.
In light of the fact that Scola, 66, is widely considered a rising star in Catholicism, his patronage alone makes Oasis worth watching.
Launched in September 2004, Oasis is also sponsored by four other cardinals: Philippe Barbarin of Lyon, France; Josip Bozanic of Zagreb, Croatia; Péter Erd of Esztergom-Budapest, Hungary; and Christoph Schönborn of Vienna, Austria. None are identified with what one might consider “soft” positions on Catholic teaching or practice. That distinguishes Oasis from some other initiatives, which bring the avant-garde of different traditions into conversation, but not the mainstream. Among other things, Christian leaders who gravitate around Oasis are often willing to challenge Muslims on issues of reciprocity and religious freedom more forcefully than one sometimes finds in other inter-religious forums.
Scola has said that his aim is not primarily to reach out to “moderate Muslims,” but rather to “popular Islam,” meaning ordinary believers deeply attached to Islamic traditions who nevertheless do not subscribe to radical forms of jihad.
In June, the “scientific committee” of Oasis will meet in Amman, Jordan. The theme is “the relationship between truth and freedom,” with specific attention to freedom of conscience and religion, and how the value of religious freedom can be reconciled with respect for the religious tradition of a given people.
Information about Oasis can be found here: http://www.cisro.it/pages/home_en.html
I recently had the chance to talk with Scola about Oasis and the Amman meeting. The following are excerpts from our exchange.
* * *
Your meeting in Jordan will focus on two values, religious freedom and the traditional identity of a given people. The tension between those two values seems steadily more acute in today’s world. In your view, what are the basic principles for striking the right balance?

This is a problem typical of our globalized society. We’re seeing an unprecedented encounter of people, cultures and religions, which is what I have in mind when I use the phrase meticciato di civiltà – a “hybridization of civiliations.” It’s a historical process currently underway, and its results are by no means certain. There are blendings that work, and blendings that don’t.
The critical point is this: What happens to our identity as a people if a significant bloc begins to call it into question, either because they belong to another religion or because they convert? In some majority Muslim nations, a certain degree of diversity can be tolerated for those who are born into another religion, but the feeling is that the identity of the country would be threatened if those who are born Muslims had the possibility of converting. It’s interesting to note the choice frequently presented to these converts: if you want to leave Islam, you also have to leave the country. The assumption seems to be that the personal dimension of faith interests us up to a point, but we want to avoid the ‘scandal’ of a public gesture.
On the other hand, the modern liberal state is equally unprepared for this question, because it regards only the individual as an interlocutor, and thus thinks solely in terms of individual rights. It’s far more difficult to consider the social implications of individual choices. In the end, this leaves many people unprepared for change and disconcerted by it. We see this clearly on the issue of immigration, where it’s as if many people today are saying: ‘What’s happening? You told us that it was all a question of the individual ideas of immigrants, and everyone is free to think whatever they believe. All of a sudden, however, these individuals have become a foreign body, and we don’t recognize them anymore.’
If we want to overcome this impasse, the solution, it seems to me, must be sought in the recognition of a good that’s also at the basis of every difference, which is the good of relationship. We have to emphasize our common humanity, and to do that, we need to expand the scope of both reason and freedom.

How does the issue of ‘reciprocity’ enter into the discussion?

In majority Muslim nations, [Christians] certainly don’t want to put the dominant social tradition, the social fabric, at risk. To be clear, we [in Europe] ask for the same respect for our traditions from those who arrive to live among us.
Respect for the identity of a given community, however, shouldn’t be invoked to violate the human freedoms of single persons. In the end, what’s the point of compelling people to remain in a religion in which they no longer believe? Is explicitly walking away truly more damaging to the community than a false profession of belief? This is the kind of frank discussion we hope to have with our Muslim interlocutors.

Why the choice of Amman? Do you believe that Jordan has something to teach us on the question of religious freedom and traditional identity?

Jordan is a country that’s 97 percent Muslim, but where the Christian minority faces a situation that, despite some shadows, is without a doubt basically positive, especially compared to other parts of the region. It’s a country that’s fairly poor in terms of natural resources, yet it has a higher standard of living compared to several of its neighbors which are theoretically more endowed with natural wealth. In many ways, therefore, it’s a living example of what the Middle East could be, if the logic of recrimination were abandoned and the path to modernization were opened. In this regard, the support that various members of the Royal Family are giving to dialogue among Muslims, as well as Christian-Muslin dialogue, is universally recognized and appreciated.

In the Middle East today, there’s great fear for the Christian future, above all in the Holy Land. Do you see any signs of hope?

The situation is certainly very difficult. Despite that, every time that I have the chance to meet with our Christian brothers in the Middle East, for example during our Oasis meetings, I’m struck by their tenacity and their willness to keep going. In various editions of our magazine, we’ve amply documented the notable exodus of Christians [from the Middle East], but we don’t want to surrender to the logic of lament or regret. The local bishops have repeatedly affirmed that a Christian who doesn’t understand the special role providence has assigned to him or her, being born and growing up in a prevalently Muslim environment, is potentially a Christian who will emigrate. We want to do our part to build up such an understanding.

Oasis has a ‘preferential option’ for Islam. Today’s threats to religious liberty, however, go well beyond the borders of the Islamic world. There are serious problems, for example, in India and China. Is there a risk that in the West, religious freedom has come to be seen almost exclusively as an ‘Islamic problem,’ thus contributing to the idea of a ‘clash of civilizations’?

Certainly religious freedom – which is a fundamental value, and can’t be reduced simply to liberty of cult – must be defended everywhere, and therefore not just in majority Muslim nations. At the same time, it’s true that religious freedom represents an important unsolved dilemma in the relationship between Islam and modernity. For this reason, I believe it has to be faced in an urgent way by Muslims themselves.

You’re committed to dialogue with Islam. In particular, you’ve said in various ways that your interest is not so much ‘moderate Islam,’ but ‘traditional Islam.’ How is this effort to build bridges with traditional Islam going?

I think it’s too early to start drawing conclusions. In any event, our option is rather for the Islam of the people, which can’t be understood exclusively in terms of the category of ‘moderate Islam.’ The term ‘Islam of the people’ simply designates as clearly as possible with whom we’tre trying to speak. Moderate Muslims have the possibility of exercising influence only if, and to the extent that, they accurately interpret (and perhaps stimulate an evolution in) the sense of the faith held by common people, meaning the grassroots religiosity that really sustains the life of populations facing situations that are often very difficult. Anyone who’s spent even a little time in the Middle East understands this.

Oasis has been around now for almost five years. What fruits do you see so far?

The most beautiful fruit is the gradual construction of a community that embraces Christians from West and East who have intense ties, even though of widely varying sorts, with Muslims. Our hope is that this community will continue to mature.

* * *
Source: John L Allen Jr’s blog http://ncronline.org/users/john-l-allen-jr

«The document is certainly an encouraging sign», Cardinal Scola tells Il Foglio. «Above all what is of note is the number and quality of those who have signed the document. This is not only a media event, because consensus is for Islam a source of theology and law. The redactors of Oasis have told me that even if those who have signed avoided a juridical formulation to the document, it is still true that no text produced by the most extremist salafi groups has ever been able to claim a consensus equal to that witnessed by the 138 signatures at the bottom of the open letter. The approach is realistic, ‘if Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the world cannot be at peace’, and at its core it simply aims to ‘say to Christians that we, as Muslims, are not against them and that Islam is not against themso long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their
Religion’. In that sense, the Muslim leaders willingly identify themselves with those ‘others’ of whom Jesus says: ‘who is not against us is with us’».

For the first time a large number of scholars of Islam seem to break with the culture of rejecting the West and non Muslims. «The document, in the prospective of that double love, of God and one’s neighbour, underscores a vein of the Muslim tradition which has been partially placed in the shade due to the growth of fundamentalism. The text affirms that man has ‘mind or the intelligence, which is made for comprehending the truth; the will which is made for freedom of choice, and sentiment
which is made for loving the good and the beautiful’. On the other hand, one notes between the lines a condemnation of terrorism: ‘to those who nevertheless relish conflict and destruction for their own sake or reckon that ultimately they stand to gain through them, we say [...] to sincerely make every effort to make peace and come together in harmony’. The fact that the text is rooted in the Muslim tradition is very important and makes it more credible than other proclamations expressed in a more western language».

In the introduction the 138 record that “together we represent 55 per cent of the world’s population”, a very tactical and political approach. Also for this reason Cardinal Tauran stated that the letter opens new roads, but it needs to be studied thoroughly in order to make it more objective and not selective, more universal and less political. Instead of criticizing the letter, Scola however prefers to speak «of a possible necessary limitation of perspective. One cannot ask of this document more than it can give. It is only the prelude to a theological dialogue, which, in an atmosphere of greater reciprocal esteem, proposes to investigate the contents of the two pillars (love of the one God and love of neighbour) in the two religious traditions».

A year ago in Cairo the Patriarch organized a meeting of the biannual journal, Oasis, with the title, “Fundamental Rights and Democracy”, in collaboration with the University of Al Ahzar, Catholic dignitaries, western academics and members of the World Jewish Congress. «This theological dialogue is in no way possible if there is not a preceding respect», continues Scola. «I had the occasion to discuss publicly at Cairo and in the USA with three signers of the document: Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, Muzammil H. Siddiqui, and I was able to ascertain that this reciprocal esteem is real. The hope is that this document might be read and widely diffused in the Muslim world and in the West».

Can one sustain that the letter is a demonstration that Benedict XVI opened a great debate at Regensburg? «Certainly, the intervention of the Pope provoked a dynamic of great interest within Islam. As the same signers recognize, the interconnection between Christians and Muslims in the contemporary world is such to make it impossible not to take a position concerning the coexistence between different faiths». Dialogue with Islam seemed to have stopped to the point of death. «The document indicates an important point of departure for an authentic dialogue. That always requires two conditions: the revelation of self in testimony and the search for a life that is good (vita bona). It seems to me that the signers of the letter are decidedly going in this direction from the moment that they invite Christians to a type of ‘spiritual emulation’, in a task to do the best: ‘Let us vie with each other only in righteousness and good works’».