Dangers Of Inter-religious "dialogue"

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://catholicinsight.com/online/c_ecumenism.shtml"]SOURCE[/url]

---------
[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=3018"]Catholic Culture Review for Catholic Insight Magazine[/url]
---------
[quote]Inter-religious dialogue has had the support of the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions, perhaps better known by its opening words Nostra aetate (In this age of ours), October 28, 1965. Its most prominent application has been in the area of Jewish-Catholic dialogue where it has led to important statements and actions, especially from Pope John Paul II, the relevant Vatican Secretariat, and local organizations.

The relationship with Jews, whose history and theology Christians partially share through the Old Testament, is however very different from the Church’s relationship with non-monotheistic religions such as Hinduism, with its panoply of pagan gods and goddesses whom the Church never respected in the past but, rather, treated as idols.

Consequently, the Church has had to exercise great care not to confuse the faithful or even missionary theologians. Some of these have posited the idea, for example, that “conversions” are no longer called for. Other theologians have projected a new world religion which is to be an amalgam of the “best of all religions.” Both these views make a mockery of Christianity as the only religion revealed by Jesus, Son of God and Son of Man, and have been duly rejected by the Vatican.

Even the quest for unity among Christians can be upsetting and has pitfalls which must be avoided. One example is the mistaken clamour for Catholic intercommunion with Christian communities which are doctrinally or morally at odds with Catholic orthodoxy. No one is more aware of these problems than Pope John Paul. He teaches that the search for unity among Christians is a command of Jesus (“that all may be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you” (John 17:21)), yet it is not something which can be achieved without unity of doctrine first. The Church, therefore, does not permit intercommunion except on rare occasions and then only under strict conditions. Priests who have ignored these rules have been suspended.



Fatima, a new departure?

The controversy surrounding Our Lady of Fatima’s shrine in Portugal began in the fall of 2003 when the English-language newspaper Portugal News reported that a new proposed church holding 9,000 worshippers would be an inter-faith shrine (November 1, 2003). In the report, the rector of the shrine, Monsignor Luciano Guerra, is quoted as saying, “The future of Fatima, or the adoration of God and his mother at this holy shrine, must pass through the creation of a shrine where different religions can mingle.”

This observation led the Canadian priest Father Nicolas Gruner, who publishes a quarterly magazine The Fatima Crusader, to declare the whole idea “blasphemous”. A press release entitled, “Outrage Expressed at Catholic Sanctuary being Turned into Shrine for Pagan Worship,” Fort Erie, ON (November 12, 2003), stated:

“The plan to turn the Fatima Shrine into a place where all the religions of the world will gather to pay homage to their various gods has aroused strong opposition. According to Catholic Moral Theology, says Father Paul Kramer of the Fatima Center, this is a grave sin against the First Commandment and an act of Apostasy.” Those are strong words.

Part of Father Gruner’s opposition was directed at the conference which accompanied the announcement. This conference was attended by the Rector, Luciano Guerra; the Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, Serafim Ferreira e Silva; Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, President of the Vatican Council for Interreligious Dialogue; and others. Speakers dwelt on aspects of Nostra aetate’s statement:

“The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines, which although differing in many ways from our own teaching nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men.”

This statement goes on to say, “Yet she proclaims, and is in duty bound to proclaim, without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life (Jn. 1:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself (2 Cor. 5:18-19), men find the fulness of their religious life.” (See also C.I., December 2003, “Holy See’s message to Hindus on feast of Diwali,” pp. 22-23.)

One of the speakers, Fr. Jacques Dupuis, S.J., a controversial theologian, may have expressed himself in such a way as to provoke people already suspicious of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue, people such as Father Gruner. Father Gruner at any rate concluded that Dupuis was an outright heretic, denying any need for conversion to Christianity, affirming that all religions are equal, and that Catholic dialogue with Hindus is just meant to “make a Hindu a better Hindu,” and nothing more (Fatima Network News, June 30, 2004, p. 3 of 17).

A co-worker of Father Gruner, John Vennari, states that “the saying” that all religions lead to God “is nothing more than one of Freemasonry’s fundamental tenets.” He quotes a French Freemason as saying, “One can say that ecumenism is the legitimate son of Freemasonry” (Ibid, page 2).

Since that time Fr. Gruner has also censured defenders of the event such as Father Robert Fox, Fr. Michael Pacwa, and Mother Angelica’s EWTN, in the strongest of denunciations.



Bishop of Fatima

In a letter from the Bishop of Fatima to journalist Delia Gallagher (Zenit, January 1, 2004), the bishop, too, explains the shrine as a place “where different religions can mingle.” As for the new church, he writes, “the rector has been inundated by correspondence due to this ‘sensationalist news.’” (Editor: Fr. Gruner and companions). He continues:

“The rector clarifies it as follows: ‘God willing, a religious space will begin to be constructed very shortly, and though it is the presumption of some journalists that it will resemble a stadium, it will in fact be a church, with seating for 9,000; it will be exclusively destined to be a place of Catholic worship, located not next to the current Basilica, but between the Cruz Alta and a national road, and, when opportune, …can receive pilgrims of other convictions who wish to fraternally partake in our way of prayer.”

“Regarding the controversy surrounding the building,” the bishop’s letter continues, “the rector mentions specifically Father Nicholas Gruner, a Canadian priest who runs The Fatima Crusader, a quarterly newsletter. ‘It is our conviction,’ says Monsignor Guerra, ‘that the article in Portugal News has been guided by some members of the group led by Father Gruner, a priest who finds himself in an irregular canonical situation, who persists in his crusade in favour of the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, according to the secret of Fatima (although it has been said and re-said that this consecration has already occurred) and who distributed pamphlets during our October conference against the realization and intentions of the conference.’” (Zenit, January 1, 2004)



May 2004

As if to prove Fr. Gruner’s worst suspicions correct, that one of Europe’s greatest Marian Shrines which attracts five to six million pilgrims a year is being paganized, a Hindu priest performed a Hindu ritual at the altar in the little chapel of the Apparitions, itself inside the Basilica, on May 5, 2004. The Portugal News stated, “The first step in developing Fatima as a multi-faith center could have been taken…. Sixty Hindus led by a (Hindu) priest paid homage to the Goddess Devi, the divinity of nature.”

Portugal News was not making it up because the whole thing could be seen on Portuguese TV, including greetings from the Bishop of Fatima and the Rector of the Shrine, and both being clothed with prayer shawls with inscriptions of the Baghwad Gita. The Bishop, in response to this latest criticism, was heard to say, “We don’t want to be fundamentalist, but sincere and honest.” Another spokesman, Brother Valente, spoke of the criticisms as “Catholic Talibanism.”



Comment

In 1986, at the time of an inter-religious gathering in Assisi, Italy, a similar but worse incident took place when a Buddhist priest at a side altar inside the Basilica removed the tabernacle and replaced it with a statue of Buddha for worship. In Fatima, Vennari’s June 30 Newsrelease does not mention that idols were placed on the altar inside the Basilica. The incident is described as a Hindu priest praying the Shanita Pa, the prayer for peace, accompanied by the offering of food and flowers. Still, it would seem that the ceremony should not have taken place where it was held.

The question of devoting space to other religions in Catholic shrines requires careful theological preparation and explanation before it is allowed, if it is to be allowed at all. The bishop’s comment that “we don’t want to be fundamentalist” is not an appropriate answer; rather it appears as an uncalled-for insult, not to mention the other reference to “Catholic Talibanism.”

The May 5 incident is disturbing. It is even more so, now that Catholics are told that Hindus are allowed to perform their own religious rituals in the great Marian shrine at Vailankalli, India (Vennari, op cit). The Congregation for Interreligious Dialogue should clarify its intentions and procedures. A statement would be most welcome. There already is too much uncertainty and confusion about the limits of ecumenical dialogue to now also add new confusion about Hinduism, Buddhism, and other groups.

As for the denunciations from the Gruner camp, these too appear inappropriate. Vehemence of this kind only inflames emotions. The Fatima Crusader group appears to be moving further away from a balanced understanding of the Catholic faith and is in danger of becoming a “sect.” Its attitude towards the Vatican is one of suspicion and—in the personal struggle of Father Gruner with Roman jurisdictions about his status as a priest—one of almost open warfare. To declare the May 5 incident as the “abomination of desolation” (see illustration) is grossly exaggerated and, again, inappropriate.

For a group which claims to be totally devoted to Our Lady of Fatima, it appears to have little confidence in the Virgin Mary, or in the Church and the Pope she loves and uses as her chosen instruments.

Meanwhile, a detailed explanation and prescription from the Council for Interreligious Dialogue would be most desirable.


News Brief

I append the following News in Brief item of July 18, as newsworthy, without further comment

.

Truth and sincerity keys for fruitful dialogue

Interreligious dialogue is an imperative but must be based “on truth and sincerity” if it is to be fruitful, says the review Civiltà Cattolica. An editorial in the July 17 edition of the biweekly review pointed out both the problems and the possibilities presented by interreligious dialogue.

Civiltà Cattolica, which is revised by the Vatican Secretariat of State before being published, stated that interreligious dialogue has become “one of the Church’s urgencies.” Dialogue needs certain conditions to be fruitful, the review said. First, the idea must be overcome that religion is harmful and damaging. Instead, there is “a desire for dialogue to find points of agreement and extinguish powderkegs of war and conflict,” the editorial stated.

Among religions themselves, “The results are positive: a climate of mutual respect and trust has been created to put an end to intolerance and the reciprocal ignorance of the past,” it continued. Yet, whereas “The dialogue of life, agreement, understanding and acceptance has not been difficult, …religious dialogue itself, called theological, has met with serious difficulties.”

Among the difficulties in the theological realm, the review said, is “the mutual ignorance of what the speakers believe.” Second, “the persistence of prejudices.” The greatest difficulty in the Christian ambit, however, lies in deformed views of “the person of Jesus,” it stressed.

The review criticized the attempts of some theologians to reinterpret the Trinity and the incarnation of Jesus because they lead to a negation of the “uniqueness of Jesus Christ.” Civiltà Cattolica stressed that for a Christian “Jesus Christ is the only Saviour of all men.”

“In interreligious dialogue, Christianity does not try to make itself accepted by those who profess another religion, but wishes to make itself known in its true nature,” the editorial emphasized. “Interreligious dialogue is authentic only if those who are committed to it present their own religious creed in its authenticity and integrity.”

By Fr. Alphonse de Valk[/quote]

[cathoholic_anonymous]

I am heavily involved in interreligious dialogue, so I found this article very interesting. I agree that it's important to emphasise that there are significant differences between faiths, otherwise the very spirit of dialogue is compromised. But it's also important not to go to people of other religions with preconceived ideas about what they believe and with some ready-defined ideas on how to treat them, as has happened here:

[quote]The relationship with Jews, whose history and theology Christians partially share through the Old Testament, is however very different from the Church’s relationship with non-monotheistic religions such as Hinduism, with its panoply of pagan gods and goddesses whom the Church never respected in the past but, rather, treated as idols.[/quote]

Interestingly enough, a substantial number of Hindus [i]are[/i] monotheists. They view their pantheon as facets of the same God. Some even believe that the pantheon was created by humans as a way of making God easier to understand. As it's impossible to focus on all that God is simultaneously, these Hindus pick one aspect at a time (i.e. wisdom, represented by Saraswati) and concentrate on that.

I don't agree with this perception of God, but it was interesting to learn about it.

Edited January 8, 2007 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[123]

[quote]I am heavily involved in interreligious dialogue, so I found this article very interesting. I agree that it's important to emphasise that there are significant differences between faiths, otherwise the very spirit of dialogue is compromised. But it's also important not to go to people of other religions with preconceived ideas about what they believe and with some ready-defined ideas on how to treat them, as has happened here:

The relationship with Jews, whose history and theology Christians partially share through the Old Testament, is however very different from the Church’s relationship with non-monotheistic religions such as Hinduism, with its panoply of pagan gods and goddesses whom the Church never respected in the past but, rather, treated as idols.

[/quote]

Indeed. I stress, of course, the concrete stance in your own faith before you ingage in dialouge with anyone, inter or outer religious. However, we don't really have much denial here due to inter-religious dialouge. At least that I know of.

Edited January 8, 2007 by GloriaIesusChristi

[Emile James]

Glory to Jesus Christ!
while some of things generally at below website are taken out of context and assumed, p0ints are still true, and this page is interesting
is Fatima becoming another Assisi?(referring to profanation) with the statutes of the buddha placed on the Basilica altar /tabernacle for prayer service..among other things..we have passed from ecumenism to universalism, empathetic acceptance..
"dialogue is one thing,to allow African animists to draw blood from chickens on the altar of the basilica of Santa Chiara, and non-Catholic American Natives to dance around the Altar. ...and Shinto Buddhists place Buddha statues on the altar and tabernacle..another"

The Conventual Franciscan superior affirmed first of all that "no profanation of the sacred sites took place."

A golden calf or a golden buddha (among many other things), the first commandment still holds today.
[color="#FF0000"]Sorry we do not link to trad sites - cmom[/color]

Edited January 8, 2007 by cmotherofpirl

[thessalonian]

Ecumenism and dialogue happens to be an area I am studying right now so thank you for this. One must of course be careful in showing respect for ther people and trying not to bash their belief's, respecting their religous freedom, but also not bringing about the scandal of indifferentism, relativism, universalism or other types of false thinking. If in fact a tabernacle was removed and replaced with a Hindu Idol that was not good. However having hindus at fatima isn't anything to get worked up about. Neither is the one guys statements about energies there. These are opportunities for those at fatima to engage these people in a religous dialogue that brings them in to the truth. That is what fatima is about in the first place. In Jesus time he did not condemn the samaritians, for instance the woman at the well. Did not tell her that everything she believe in was false. The Samaritans believed in the God of Israel but only as one of many other god's. Their thinking needed to be redeemed. The same is true of Hindu's, Muslems, etc. etc. There are truths in all men which are manifestations of the laws that has been planted in their hearts by God (see rom 2:14-16). We must recognize these truths and use them to bring these people in to the fullness of the truth. The Apostle Paul doen't go in to the Aeropogus in Acts 17, proclaiming all the wicked, false Gods. He in fact uses one altar, that of the unknown god, to explain Christ to them. It is interesting that the article quotes St. Francis Xavier, as he was perhaps the best in history at this.

The advantage of this method of evangelization, which has been used throughout the history of the Church, is that it puts Christianity in to their language and culture so that they are more easily able to understand it. A priest came to our parish once from New Guniea. New Guniea was canabalistic even in to the 1900's. Well interestingly enough the Eucharist was one of the primary doctrines of the Catholic faith that won their conversion because they could understand it. The gave up canabalism for eating Christ!

Edited January 8, 2007 by thessalonian

[Paddington]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1158926' date='Jan 8 2007, 04:27 PM']
A priest came to our parish once from New Guniea. New Guniea was canabalistic even in to the 1900's. Well interestingly enough the Eucharist was one of the primary doctrines of the Catholic faith that won their conversion because they could understand it. The gave up canabalism for eating Christ!
[/quote]


I guess all roads do lead to Rome.