John Paul Ii And Interreligious Dialogue Theology Religion Essay
John Paul II and Interreligious Dialogue by Sherwin B and Harold K ( explosive detection systems. ) Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Pub. , 1999, ( pages 1-220 ) . General Introduction: The Vatican Council II remains a singular event in the life of the Church in her relationship with other faith traditions. It paves ways for the grasp of the giftedness in other faiths through “ duologue based on the desire for deeper apprehension and regard ” ( Sherwin and Kasimow, p. eleven ) for other spiritual beliefs. John Paul II ‘s committedness to interreligious duologue is strengthened more by the foundation already led by his predecessors, John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul I in their heat to travel the church frontward. Bing a magnetic figure, “ John Paul II is acclaimed as one of the most influential and most- traveled leaders of the twentieth century, sing 129 states ”[ 1 ]. His love for rapprochement is seen is his important and increased attempts to better the relation of the Catholic church with Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Eastern Orthodox church, integrity of supplication and many apologies to about every group on behalf of the church for her wickednesss. However, one of the commendable accomplishments of JP II is the announcement of Interreligious duologue among faith communities. JP II ‘s involvement is non so much on spiritual affinity of each individual or community but basically on the anthropology rooted profoundly on the imago Dei. For him, “ every kid born into this universe is formed in the image of God, is loved by God, is respected by God. God desires that each and every one of God ‘s kids be brought to the joy of God ‘s land ” ( xii ) . JP II, has an oculus on the self-respect and freedom of the human individual. Record has it that, while functioning as a cardinal, he was in attending at the Vatican II wherein he contributed vastly to two of the council ‘s influential paperss: Dignitatis Humanae and Guadium et Spes[ 2 ]. The basic thrust in JP II is non on what divides but on what unites the full humanity so that the divisions bing amongst religion communities constitutes a stumbling block in detecting their relatedness. The purpose of the interfaith duologue therefore is to get the better of “ the many biass, stereotypes and myths ” ( xiii ) that have darkened the heads and Black Marias of the religion communities, forestalling relationship from developing among the universe faiths. In their piece, Sherwin and Kasimow present us with the willingness of John Paul II to Buddhism, Islam and Judaism to dialogue with the church on the profusion of their spiritual worldviews, “ to see how bookmans and theologists of assorted positions within each of those faiths evaluate and understand the Pope ‘s positions of their faith-traditions and the relationship between Catholicism and those several religions that seem to flux from those positions ” ( xv ) . It is JP II ‘s strong strong belief that “ interfaith duologue can assist to mend and transform the universe ” ( 1 ) ; that it is “ is a way that can advance regard among members of different faiths and aid to convey peace to a universe torn by struggle and war, poorness, and the devastation of the environment, a universe that is captivated by philistinism and secularism, in deep demand of happening important being ” ( 2 ) . In other words, the purpose of faith is to seek and endeavor after peace, for it is in its nature “ to further an ever-increasing fraternal relationship among people ” ( ibid ) . Bing aware of the duologue with other faiths in the universe, JP II, considers as top precedence duologue between the Abrahamic religions and heartaches over the wars caused by the kids of Abraham, “ I consider duologue between Jews, Christians and Muslims to be a precedence. In coming to cognize each other better, in turning to respect one another, and in populating out, with regard for scrupless, the assorted facets of their faith, they will be, in portion of the universe and elsewhere, ‘artisans of peace’3 ” ( Ibid ) .
On Interreligious Dialogue: this portion ( portion 1 ) presents the different visits and messages of John Paul II to different parts of the universe and their faiths, originating and advancing duologue with their religious leaders ( 27-70 ) . He appreciates and extols the rich values in the universe faiths while besides observing saliently where and how they differed with Christianity. Sing the presence of Christ in them, he addresses their disciples as “ brothers and sisters ” . Religion, for him, lies at the bosom of every humanity and is expressed harmonizing to their manner of perceptual experience of the Godhead in relationship with them. Trusting more on John Paul II ‘s piece, Traversing the Threshold of Hope, Sherwin x-rays JP II ‘s divinity of faiths that the hunt and pursuit for integrity with God remains “ the common cardinal component and the common root of these faiths ” ( 27 ) . All faiths harbour the values of “ peace ” which “ bears the name of Jesus Christ ” ( 43 ) , integrity, love etc. , and seek to supply replies to humanity ‘s varied jobs in their several ways. Therefore, all faiths “ reflect a beam of that truth which enlightens all work forces ” , the truth which is “ the semina Verbi ( seeds of the Word ) ” nowadays in all faiths ” ( 29 -51 ) . With this, JP II reaffirms the words of the Council on the cosmopolitan significance of Jesus and his paschal enigma, “ that God the Creator wants to salvage all world in Jesus Christ, the lone go-between between God and adult male, inasmuch as He is the Redeemer of all world ” , set uping besides that “ the Holy Spirit works efficaciously even outside the seeable construction of the Church ( californium. L G 13 ) , doing usage of these really semina Verbi, that constitute a sort of common soteriological root nowadays in all faiths ” ( ibid ) . Therefore, “ interreligious duologue at its deepest degree is a duologue of redemption ” , for it seeks to “ detect, clear up and understand better the marks of the age-long duologue which God maintains with world ” ( 40 ) . And as a “ duologue based on the very nature of God, one and triune ” and “ on love for the human individual ” , it demands “ openness and welcome to accept the difference and specific nature of the other party ” ( 32-37 ) , notwithstanding the tenseness that could be among the parties involved in duologue. However, JP II insists that “ interreligious duologue is portion of the church ‘s evangelising mission… all Christians are called to pattern duologue though non ever in the same grade ” , for to “ prosecute in duologue agencies to larn to forgive, since all the spiritual communities can indicate to possible wrongs suffered through the centuries ” ( 39 -41 ) . As if giving a way on what should be borne in head by a Christian in duologue, JP II avers that “ Dialogue should be conducted and implemented with the strong belief that redemption comes from Jesus… that the Church is the ordinary agencies of redemption and that she entirely possesses the comprehensiveness of the agencies of redemption ” ( 34 )
On Buddhism[ 3 ]: JP II notes with esteem the Buddhist pattern of speculation, and accent on redemption like Christianity. That said, he aggressively points out the resistance in Buddhist and Christian philosophies on redemption. “ Buddhism ” , he says “ is… an ‘atheistic ‘ system ” with “ negative soteriology ” and “ indifferent to the universe, as the beginning of immorality ” ( 51-54 ) .
Response: JP II ‘s place attracted responses from some Buddhists and some Christian bookmans ( portion 2. Pp 89-122 ) , the worst of the places being Cardinal Ratzinger ‘s ( now Benedict XVI ) remark on Buddhism as “ a spiritually mental autoerotism or mental onanism ”[ 4 ]( 83-95 ) . In his response, his sanctity Dalai Lama XIV, avers that: 1 ) “ Buddhism is a manner… to touch the space ” though such a term is non used by the Buddhists but truth, by get the better ofing obstructions within us ; 2 ) that Buddhist pattern brings a permeant repose of head, which is consciousness itself, an absolute, non-dual consciousness, unified but non chiefly human ” ( 90 ) . Other noteworthy respondents to JP II ‘s position of negative soteriology on Buddhism include Robert Aitken, Masao Abe and Jose Ignacio Cabezon. Each of these bookmans attempts to throw more visible radiation on the content of Buddhism. Robert Aitken ‘s response rests on what he captions “ The Intrareligious Realization ” ( 96 ) wherein he notes the outstanding Christians both Catholics and Protestants who have shared from the Buddhist manner of life, the manner of enlightenment that frees the head to seek brotherhood with God. “ The intrareligious realisation ” , he says, “ encompasses: it is non a mixture, so that Christianity and Buddhism ” and other faiths, “ each can maturate the human heart-mind of the sincere pupil of spiritual enigma ” . He traces with briskness, the old-age mytho-historical relationship, a sort of bond bing between Christianity and Buddhism which “ began with the visit to the babe Jesus by the wise Work force from the East ” ( 105 ) . Against JP II ‘s place that Buddhism is apathetic to the universe, Aitken, opines that “ Buddhist instruction is of this universe, but is non a instruction that is significantly implemented in the universe, at least non in Europe and in the Americas ” ( 97-98 ) . Similarly, Masao responds by clear uping, though slightly rhetorical and metaphysical, that “ Buddhist withdrawal is dynamic which includes withdrawal from the universe and freedom from withdrawal… , that stiff indifference to the universe is merely another signifier of fond regard, i.e. , fond regard to detachment ” ( 109 ) . His position which places accent on withdrawal that includes withdrawal from detachment points to a dynamic and originative withdrawal which enables a Buddhists to work in the universe without being limited by secular conditions, enabling them to do societal committedness freely tends to disregard JP ‘s negative soteriological position on Buddhism. Unlike Christianity, he says, Buddhism is non a monotheism with a belief in one absolute God who is Godhead, lawmaker and Jesus. It is instead based on the jurisprudence of pratitya-samutpada or dependent co-origination, … non an godlessness, but a spiritual pragmatism beyond monotheism ” ( 99-100 ) . The summing up of Buddhist redemption does non lie on get the better ofing evil with good nor on engagement in the supreme good but an emancipation from the Sb of good and evil and an waking up to Emptiness in which one becomes a maestro instead than a slave to good or evil. Therefore, Buddhist redemption remainders on two inseparable facets: cosmology and existentialism/personalism. Harmonizing to Masao Ade, “ the more cosmogonic the footing of redemption, the more existentially thoroughgoing the redemption ” ( 111 )
On Judaism ( 70-82 ) : Sherwin notes that JP II has a particular fond regard and love to Judaism and Judaic people, which is on two counts: theological and personal ( 15 ) . He sees the Hebrew Bible as Torah from heaven while “ the Jews are cherished because they continue to demo the universe “ the beauty and profound truth of belief in the one God and Lord ” 51 ” ( ibid ) . For JP II, antisemitism is a wickedness against God and humanity, reprobating the Auschwitz as the greatest calamity of our century ( 17 ) . That said, he reiterates the good known fact that Judaism is intrinsic to Christianity, asseverating that they have a particular relationship more than any other faith. “ You are our dearly beloved brothers, … our senior brothers, … the cardinal difference… has been the fond regard of us to the individual and instruction of Jesus of Nazareth… ” ( 74-75 ) . While turn toing the Jews in West Germany he affirms prestigiously the declaration of the German Bishops, “ Whoever meets Jesus Christ, meets Judaism ” ( 77 ) .
Response ( Part 3 ) : Sherwin in his piece, JP II ‘s Catholic divinity of Judaism, gives a balanced response observing the commendable betterments Vatican II and JP II ‘s papacy have made in Christian-Jews relationships. He traces how the church has recanted/expunged her initial “ supersessionist philosophy ” and the “ displacement philosophy ” – that is, Christianity supersedes Judaism, and the “ new Israel ” displaces the “ old Israel ” as the covenanted people of God ” ( 141 ) to the divinity of integrating and inclusiveness. Therewith confirming “ the unity of Jews as Jews and of Judaism as a faith ” such that “ Judaism is no longer depicted as an disused faith ” nor are “ Jews chiefly defined as possible Christians ” and the annulment of deicide against the Jews by Christians ( ibid ) . However, Sherwin points out that the centrality of evangelization to the mission of the Church remains a disability to this turning relationship, at the same clip observing that it would be unreasonable to anticipate the church to abdicate a philosophy so cardinal to its mission in the universe ( 157 ) . While lauding the Church for her healthy relationship and Reconstruction of her divinity of Judaism, he laments over the non-reciprocity of this gesture by the Jews observing that small has been done by the Jewish community to do Jews aware of the post-Vatican II instructions about Jews and Judaism ( 159-161 ) .
On Islam: PJ II notes the high respect the church has for Muslims in their monotheistic philosophy, deep regard for Mary, the virgin female parent and Jesus, their fidelity and spiritualty of supplication, almsgiving and fasting ( 58-69 and 169-201 ) , which Christians and Muslims portion in common. In a brotherly-diplomatic mode, JP II, says “ Christians and Muslims have many things in common, as brothers and as human existences. We live in the same universe, marked by many marks of hope, but besides by multiple marks of torment… ” ( 61 ) . However, he smartly points out the contrast in Islamic divinity and anthropology from Christianity. Decidedly he says, “ Islam is a non a faith of salvation ” ( 58 ) , “ it reduces godly disclosure ” ( 182 ) , which is premised on the fact that Islam does non accept the worship of any human Godhead figure as Christians do of Jesus. No uncertainty, this is an reading of Islam based on the Christian position. The e g of this is reflected in his position on the Qur’anic denominations of God, “ some of the most beautiful names in the human linguistic communication are given to God of the Koran, but He is finally a God exterior of the universe, a God who is merely olympian, ne’er Emmanuel, God-with-us ” ( ibid ) . He notes in some states where the fundamentalists combine faith with political relations ( the infliction of the Shar’iah jurisprudence ) in which instance “ spiritual freedom comes to intend freedom to enforce on all citizens the ‘true faith ‘ ( 192 ) and calls for the separation of the two to enable democratic values and true freedom to reign.
Responses ( portion 4 ) : noteworthy respondents here are Mahmoud Ayoub and Ibrahim M. Abu-rabi ( 169-201 ) . In reacting to JP II ‘s positions, Mahmoud Ayoub chiefly, following the historical overview on the relationship between Christians and Muslims, reiterates the Abrahamic bond of the couple, asseverating as it is enshrined in the Qur’an ( Q. 58: 82 ) that “ Christians are… ” the nearest in cordiality ” to Muslims ” , once more that “ Christians are twice numbered among the spiritual communities whose religion and good plants will be amply rewarded by God, “ and no fright shall come upon them nor will they sorrow ” 2 ” ( 169 ) , notwithstanding the reproaches, ambivalencies and tensenesss, common misgiving bing between Christianity and Islam. Second, he points out the ground for the ambivalency between Christianity and Islam faulting it on the missionary-orientation of both religions, each claiming to possess the sole cosmopolitan message of redemption for humanity while at the same clip sing each other as soberly erroneous in its basic apprehension of God, his nature and his relationship to humanity and its history ( 169-170 ) . The polemics here is like the “ Ghost in the machine ” of Gilbert Ryle[ 5 ]and the narrative of the unsighted people who set out to “ see ” an elephant. The inquiry is, who has the absolute truth and cognition of God? Who can understand God ‘s ways?[ 6 ]Does God talk and understand romantically a peculiar linguistic communication to exclusion of others? Third, reacting interrogatively, “ Dialogue or Evangelization? ” ( 179 ) , Mahmoud notes with coldness JP II ‘s diplomatic-pastoral propensities in any Christian-Muslim issues. For e.g, the disguise of continuing duologue while at the same clip, touching to Christian informant, baptism, the rule of “ interior preparatio evangelica ” , etc. For Mahmoud, JP II “ divides humanity into two cantonments, Christians and those who do non cognize Christ ” which goes back to “ the old philosophy, “ Extra ecclesiam nulla salus ” ” ( 180-182 ) . On other manus, Ibrahim, like JP II, calls for true democracy and cautiousnesss the fundamentalist to abstain from tampering political relations with faith. On the Jesus figure, Ibrahim flatly avers that such a place makes no significance to Islam, “ even the most open-minded Moslems can non accept the claim that Christ, and non God, is the Redeemer and that Christ, “ the Redeemer, is present with grace in every human brush… 50 ” ( 198 ) . Further, he cautions that JP II ‘s position that God in Islam is outside of the universe is a gross deceit of “ the Qur’anic position of God as being close to adult male: “ It was We Who created adult male, and We know what dark suggestions his psyche makes to him: for We are close to him than ( his ) jugular vena ” 54 ” ( 199 ) .
*Part 5[ 7 ]: this portion is an assessment of/on JP II and Interreligious Dialogue by Michael L Fitzgerald ( 207-220 ) observing JP II ‘s committedness to continuity in the spirit of aggiornamento ; while beef uping, promoting and spread outing the church ‘s ties to other faith communities. Under the subheading, “ Beyond Classs ” ( 219 ) , Michael, full of esteem of JP II ‘s character, opines that “ JP II can non easy be classified ” , while once and for all inquiring, “ Is he a conservative? Is he a extremist? ” ( ibid ) .
Questions: If duologue comprises interfaith and witnessing ( californium. Page 173 ) , how remainder assured is the spouse in duologue from the other religion community that duologue is non clandestinely aimed at enforcing one ‘s spiritual high quality and or proselytization on them? In the modern consciousness of the fluidness theoretical account, transcendency and immanency of the Supreme Being, the find of the spiritual values in every faith, could ATR still be described every bit animistic as JP II sees it?