]]> http://english.angeloscola.it/2009/05/17/ratzinger-realism-the-lesson-of-the-eight-days-of-benedict-xvi-in-the-holy-land-an-article-by-the-patriarch-of-venice/feed/ 0 http://english.angeloscola.it/2008/06/23/the-freedom-to-convert-the-serious-case-of-religious-freedom/ http://english.angeloscola.it/2008/06/23/the-freedom-to-convert-the-serious-case-of-religious-freedom/#comments Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:21:20 +0000 ufficiostampa http://english.angeloscola.it/?p=70 The nexus between truth and freedom is for man one of the always resurgent questions because in the ultimate analysis it cannot be mastered or deduced in purely conceptual terms. The journey of Oasis, which on more than one occasion in recent years was near to touching upon this subject, by then suggested dedication to a broader and more precise approach. However, the characteristic attention to the data of reality that constitutes the inescapable method of our common project led us to privilege in this edition an approach to the question that would contextualise in today’s world both reflection on the intrinsic direction of freedom towards truth and reflection on the truth of freedom. These arguments, indeed, find in the burning question of the freedom to convert, as a culminating expression of the freedom of religion and conscience, a decisive terrain of examination.

Two Opposing Difficulties
At the meeting of the scientific committee that was held in Amman on 21-25 June 2008 we had already observed that from the point of view of Western societies, religious freedom, freedom of conscience and freedom to convert cohabit with a paradox. They are certain recognised by juridical systems and the common mentality. However, two facts point to the frailty of this recognition. On the one hand, conscience is conceived in terms that we may define as ‘creative’ in an equivocal sense [cf. Veritatis splendor, n.54], whereas conscience does not have the power to ‘actively’ establish of its own accord what is good and evil. On the other hand, these freedoms are substantially thought of as a mere prerogative of the individual: ‘something’ that refers to the sphere of the private and thus that cannot seek to have public relevance. The risk is that these two declinations of religious freedom (and freedom of conscience) become emptied of real contents in their practical exercise. In this way, indeed, one neither recognises the intrinsic dimension of truth of the religious experience nor admits that the religious experience expresses itself as a fact of a community and a people.

If we now turn our attention to the experience of countries that have Muslim majorities, we are faced with a situation that is completely different. Both the dimension of truth of the religious experience and the popular dimension belong to the DNA of these peoples. They demonstrate great attachment to their own tradition. And yet one cannot deny the existence of a grave deficit in the sphere of religious freedom: one may think here of restrictions on worship in some countries and on citizenship for non-Muslims in others, and one may think above all else of the decisive question of the possibility of changing one’s religion. In some situations it would appear that whereas one can tolerate a certain level of diversity for those already born to another faith, the request for religious freedom becomes intolerable if the person who asks to convert is a Muslim. The way out that not rarely is implicitly imposed on these people is illuminating here: if you want to leave Islam you have to abandon the country in order to avoid the ‘scandal’ of a public gesture.

The ‘Serious Case’ of the Relationship between Truth and Freedom
The gravity and urgent importance of the questions raised in the short and necessarily incomplete picture that I have outlined indicate how much the question of religious freedom touches upon the heart of man. Without any doubt, access to the ‘foundation’ or better to the desire to enter into a relationship with it constitutes one of the most powerful stimuli that animate man’s heart. As the famous phrase of St. Augustine observes: ‘quid enim fortius desiderat anima quam veritatem?’. Man is made for truth, he is directed towards it, as in various forms the religions of the world never cease to remind us and as the Muslim faith in a particularly insistent and positive way stresses. In it, so perceived is the decisiveness of the nexus between man and truth that the German orientalist Franz Rosenthal was able to describe the whole Arab-Islamic civilisation beginning with the category of ‘knowledge’.

Here I was very struck to learn that in Arabic one word alone (haqq) means at the same time ‘true’ and ‘real’. If one adds that the same term in the Jewish Bible designates law (hoqq, ‘ordinance’, ‘precept’), one cannot but be amazed by the vastness of the reflections that are thrown open beginning with this evocative polysemy. The life of mankind is truly an incessant return to the great questions connected with the Truth.

However, the equation ‘true’ and ‘real’ that the etymology of this Arabic term would suggest, if interpreted in a rationalistic fashion, betrays a possible risk, that of deducing truth in a conceptualistic way, understanding it as a complete and formally consistent system of conceptual propositions. The act by which conscience relates to reality, that is to say the affirmation of truth, is thus ‘the fruit, of a representative character, of a mere conceptual operation’. And as a consequence an action is said to be ‘the carrying out of this previously known ideal’.

A practical variant of this approach, which is well described in the Gospel story of the young rich man, is the legalism that ‘has it that freedom is possessed before being expressed in an act, arguing that its meaning has already been given once and for ever in the norm’. This vision of truth in the ultimate analysis is a form of idolatrous gnosis, because it conceals the claim that man possesses through his limited outlook the complete physiognomy of God. But as we read in the last edition of Oasis, ‘praise be to He who had given to his creatures no other way of knowing Him than their inability to know Him’. These are the words of Abû Bakr, the first successor to the Prophet of Islam, which the author of the article rightly puts side by side with the si comprehendis, non est Deus of St. Augustine. A relationship of possession with truth, almost as though we could dispose of it as just one thing amongst others, is not possible; in essential terms it is not even thinkable. Both Islam and Christianity well know why this is: truth is not a packet of notions but a living and personal reality which continually calls freedom into play. Its manifestation cannot be inserted a priori into the narrow boxes of a reason understood geometrically.

In other words, the Truth itself, which is transcendent and absolute, requires, in order to be attested to man, the act of his decision. Reflecting in the past on this subject, I emphasised that ‘truth places man in the need for a free decision not only because it opens up to him the area of the answer but because it requires it because man by his origins is destined for truth’.
There thus emerges in evident fashion the importance of modern reflection on freedom, not only in a political sense (the freedom of peoples and nations) but first of all in relation to its intrinsic relationship with truth. The truth of freedom implies freedom to adhere to truth. If this is true for our Western history, one can equally say the same of the Arab-Islamic world.

The Community Dimension
Benedict XVI in his recent address to the United Nations stated that ‘The rights associated with religion are all the more in need of protection if they are considered to clash with a prevailing secular ideology or with majority religious positions of an exclusive nature. The full guarantee of religious liberty cannot be limited to the free exercise of worship, but has to give due consideration to the public dimension of religion, and hence to the possibility of believers playing their part in building the social order’.
These words of the Holy Father oblige us to bear in mind the community dimension of religious freedom. Objectively, this is a critical point: indeed, what happens to the identity of a community if a sizeable number of people begin to call it into question either because they come from another religion or because they convert to another religion? It is not difficult to understand that this fact is potentially a source of tensions.

The teaching of the protagonists of the Catholic orientalism of the twentieth century demonstrates that the Catholic Church does not have as its goal that of placing at risk the bases of shared social life in countries with Muslim majorities. It does not identify with an aggressive proselytising approach that demonises non-Christian cultures and religions. Father Anawati, a great Egyptian Dominican, a theologian and a philosopher, confessed at the end of his life: ‘I do not study Muslim culture in order to destroy it. What should I destroy it? It is something that is beautiful in itself. It should be appreciated’.

At the same time, however, respect for the identity of the community cannot be pushed to the point of violating the human freedom of the individual. Today this should be borne witness to in a decisive way in relation to our Muslim interlocutors. Catholic doctrine on the subject certainly does not think of religious freedom as an option in an imaginary ‘supermarket of religions’. It stresses that religious freedom is a consequence of the absolute and incumbent duty of everyone to adhere to the Truth, but with an objective and suitable conscience. It is this obedience mediated by the conscience that is the foundation of religious freedom, which should not be limited to the mere possibility of engaging in worship but which also includes the right to change one’s religion. Here as well a clarification is required: in doing this the Church does not state that every choice in this sphere is good. Error in itself does not have rights but a person with an upright conscience who falls into error possesses this freedom. Certainly not before God but before other people, society and the State. Only God is the judge of the choices of the individual in this field. Only He can know what is to be found in the heart of man and why he decides to abandon one religion to join another.

One could object that the State, even though it is evidently not able to enter the hearts of men, is nonetheless interested in maintaining the cohesion of the community. In this critical reservation truth is to be found and to such an extent that the fathers of the Second Vatican Council chose to add to the declaration on religious freedom contained in Dignitatis Humanae the restrictive clause ‘Provided the just demands of public order are observed’ (n. 4). However, granted this clarification, one cannot but ask oneself what good can follow for the truth from keeping people in a religion in which they no longer believe. Is it really more deleterious for a community to have an explicit abandonment of a religion than a profession of that religion which is only a façade? One of the fathers of modern Islamic reformism, the Egyptian Muhammad ‘Abduh (1849-1905), answered in the negative, inviting people to distinguish between the very early moments of Islam – where in his view the embryonic nature of that movement justified the use of coercion – and its subsequent epochs where such a need declined.

The Primacy of Witness
In presenting these questions for the reflection of our readers, I would like to end by recalling the short analysis (to which I referred at the beginning of this paper) of the opposing difficulties that the West and the world of a Muslim majority encounter in engaging in a correct approach to religious freedom, freedom of conscience, and the freedom to convert. These difficulties, in fact, well demonstrate that a due assent to truth is always dramatic because freedom must decide always and once again in every individual act.

How?
By the at times impervious pathway of witness understood as an approach that is both practical and speculative, and from which nobody, and even less Christians, can withdraw. Witness understood in these terms for us obliges us to present to our Muslim interlocutors what we believe to be the authentic cultural interpretation of Christian faith. And this is possible only through mutual involvement.

H.E. Card. Angelo Scola

]]> http://english.angeloscola.it/2008/06/23/the-freedom-to-convert-the-serious-case-of-religious-freedom/feed/ 0 http://english.angeloscola.it/2005/03/15/%c2%aband-thus-i-will-always-admire-all-noble-people-from-all-lineages-and-descent%c2%bb-the-patriarch-speech-at-unesco/ http://english.angeloscola.it/2005/03/15/%c2%aband-thus-i-will-always-admire-all-noble-people-from-all-lineages-and-descent%c2%bb-the-patriarch-speech-at-unesco/#comments Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:35:15 +0000 ufficiostampa http://english.angeloscola.it/?p=77 A Compelling Fact
No one can fail to recognise how delicate the contemporary geopolitical situation is and how many clouds are gathering over the peaceful co-existence between peoples, but at the same time, also, how many unprecedented horizons are opened up by the current historical situation to individuals, to communities, and to nations.

Specifically as a result of a careful consideration of this ambivalent reality, various personalities of the Christian world (members of the laity, priests and bishops) met in Venice about a year ago to implement a project which we decided, in significant fashion taking the words pronounced by the Holy Father John Paul II at the Omayyad mosque of Damascus as a starting point to call ‘Oasis’. Oasis refers first and foremost to the Archbishop of Budapest, the Archbishop of Lyons, the Archbishop of Vienna, and the Archbishop of Zagreb, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples, the Archbishop of Changanacherry, the Archbishop of Tunis, the Bishop of Islamabad, and the Auxiliary Bishop of Arabia, all of whom, together with the Patriarch of Venice, make up the organising committee. At the same time, Oasis refers to a group of friends who created the International Centre for Study and Research and a journal. This project was born within the Studium Generale Marcianum, which came into being in Venice as a form of renewal of the pastoral action of the Patriarchate.
Whereas for Europeans such as ourselves the name ‘Oasis’ has the ring of a somewhat exotic transposition of the locus amoenus of Platonic connotations, a kind of garden where tarrying to converse is pleasant, an oasis is held much more dear by the man of the desert. And it is not in the least surprising that the garden became both in Genesis and in the Koran the paradigm itself of heaven.

The Hybridity of Civilisations
In order to illustrate the character of a project that has run the risk of having a demanding but at the same time auspicious name, I will begin with a general observation.
In connection with so-termed globalisation and ‘network civilisation’, we have been witnessing over recent decades an unprecedented process of the mixing of peoples, which, employing a metaphor that is somewhat bold, I have defined with the phrase ‘hybridity of civilisations’ (métissage de civilisations), where there should, obviously, be a strong emphasis on the genitive ‘of civilisations’. It is not the case that the meeting of peoples is a new development. Indeed, migrations and mixtures mark out the history of mankind. We may think of what the migrations of the Germanic peoples meant for the Roman Empire or what the invasion of the Mongols meant for the Abbasid caliphate. The new fact is that today this phenomenon affects the whole of the planet. This process, which is often tumultuous and loaded with contradictions, is unstoppable, and as a process it necessarily involves us and urgently requires the freedoms that are involved to find their direction.
An important aspect of this mixing of peoples is its unprecedented ‘bi-directional’ character. Although, in fact, many inhabitants of developing countries come to seek their fortune in Europe, North America or Australia, it is also true that every year millions of people, for the purposes of work or recreation, visit the remotest localities of the globe. Despite its evident limitations, tourism has helped to break down the barriers of isolation.

Oasis wants to study this process and its implications for civilisations. This is borne out, among other things, by the composition of its scientific committee which brings together both Western and Eastern personalities in a shared endeavour that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. The choice of multilingualism (the journal is printed in four bilingual versions) is also dictated by the same wish. We could have published a journal exclusively in French, or in English, or in Arabic. Instead, we chose to have languages co-existing with each other even though the difficulty of the undertaking does not allow us for the moment to have an equal relationship in quantitative terms between Arabic and Urdu and the Western languages.
It is evident that a phenomenon as new as that of the hybridity of civilisations brings with it immense problems and to find adequate solutions requires great creative capacities. In the Western world the debate tends to focus on questions that are primarily of a juridical character out of the belief that it is urgently necessary to provide a solid legislative framework within which the individuals who are progressively becoming members of our societies can be received. Indeed, this position brings out an important aspect of the problem but it cannot conceal indeed it often conceals, above all if the sirens of gay nihilism are followed the temptation stigmatised by the poet T. S. Eliot as that of dreaming of ‘systems so perfect that no one will need to be good’.
In our opinion, the path that is possible is the path of testimony I use this category in the practical and theoretical sense which no man can evade because of the risk that is of necessity implied in freedom. It is useless to deceive oneself that man can be spared the adventure of encounter with others. This is because each one of us is born and grows through relationships. And it is specifically at this level that the journal Oasis intends to offer its own contribution, a journal that is not to be located at an academic or scholarly level but rather at a cultural one, in the broadest and noblest sense of that term.

Testimony: the Path to Encounter
The term ‘testimony’ runs the risk of immediately raising a problem. Given, it is said, that testimony implies an identity, and because the affirmation of one’s own identity is generally seen as being opposed to encounter with others, one should, it is argued, conclude that these positions exclude each other: either one engages in encounter or one bears testimony.
In our specific case, given that this is a journal produced by Christians, one would, it is proposed, be tempted to conclude that it should be directed solely to Christian communities that live in the West or in Muslim countries. To speak with ‘others’ as well, one would need, it might be suggested, another style, another point of departure, in essentials: another journal.

I think that this is an insidious cultural aut aut to which we should briefly turn our attention. If we turn our minds to history, to the standard bearers of the unbridgeable opposition between identity and encounter, we find many refutations of this. We may think, for example, of the great epic work of the transmission of classical knowledge. Who fails to recognise the cardinal importance of the re-reading of the Greek texts in the advance of Abbasid civilisation? And who, in turn, does not concede the important role, in a Europe that was already not unaware of the classical inheritance thanks to the patient work of monks, played by the input of Arab philosophical and scientific thought? Of this dialectic of encounter and identity it seems to me the Arab poet al-Buhturi was also aware when, towards the middle of the ninth century, after admiring the ruins of Persian rule in Ctesiphon, he ended his famous sniyya with the words ‘And thus I will always admire all noble people, from all lineages and descent’. An Arab and a Muslim, he found that he was celebrating a Persian and Zoroastrian king.

Naturally, history also records ferocious oppositions that have arisen when identity has been understood in an exclusivistic sense, but rather than discouraging us this should provide us with warnings about the present.
In reality, the very possibility of encounter lies in the inexhaustible search for truth understood in a dynamic, living and personal way by the human heart, which in all latitudes beats with the same desires, living every day on affection and work. If such was not the case, one would not know how to justify the fact that human cultures, albeit in their evident diversity, are mutually comprehensible: perhaps at the end of a long journey towards languages and categories that at the outset were distant, but always mutually comprehensible.

It is starting from this belief that Oasis intends to offer itself. With a dynamic identity and thus an identity open to others. Recognising the ecumenism and theology of religions as an inescapable dimension of the Christian experience, Oasis calls on all men of good will, whether Christians, Muslims, members of other religions, atheists or agnostics, and invites them to stand forward in the first person in a shared work about the meaning of the person, community, and the family of peoples. And without being afraid to propose to the freedom of others what they have found to be answers, without omitting to ask that a free dialogue of this kind be made possible everywhere in the world, as a generator of a new civilisation.

Indeed, freedom is for truth. Ever since Greek philosophy this has been an unquestioned cornerstone of the European mind. It has been more difficult for European thought to understand the equally irrepressible principle of the truth of freedom. Practical atheism as the ‘destiny of European modernity’ arose from the defence of the freedom of man carried to the point of postulating, as a minimum, the impossibility of re-cognising the truth. Beginning with the modern age, finite freedom in its constituent desire, its untameable technical-scientific effort to ‘possess’ man and the cosmos, and in the attempt to construct new forms of civil, economic and political life supported by good government has believed that it must require, at the least, a foregoing of the question of absolute truth: hence the censorship of the question about God.

Instead, Biblical revelation contains a theoretical core that post-modern man is rediscovering. Truth is the encounter that takes place between the absolute and transcendent foundation and man. This foundation testifies itself to man in the individual act of freedom that calls him to involvement. Freedom is based upon a God who manifests himself in history in order to come to encounter with man.
In Christian tradition truth, although conserving the whole of its character of absoluteness, is living and personal truth. It thus is not afraid of giving itself over to the finite freedom of man. The very event of Jesus Christ is overwhelming proof of this. Freedom for truth is not given that is not at the same time truth of freedom.
With these assumptions we thus sincerely invite whomsoever so wishes to engage in co-operation, in the certainty of the need to contribute to the accompanying of this complex but unstoppable process of the hybridity of civilisations with an authentic critical spirit. Indeed, only thus will there be realised that wish also contained in the Arabic word that expresses the concept of integration: to become mutually complete, perfect.