Wednesday, April 27, 2016

INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE


If you ask me: what is the biblical evidence, if any, for the importance of interreligious dialogue? I would admit that it is impossible to find the term “interreligious dialogue” in the Bible because it is a modern terminology. However, the spirit of interreligious dialogue is able to find in several places in the Bible. This spirit marks the importance of how the Bible relates to the needs of non-Christians and how Gospel is proclaimed to the world.
Luke 2, 41-53 talks about Jesus’ visiting at the temple; the verse 46 is that, Then, after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions.”  At the age of twelve, Jesus sat among the teachers listening to them and asking questions of them. Even Jesus was just a young boy, he earned the respect of the Jewish Teachers. Jesus’ discussion with the teachers really shows a so-called spirit of dialogue.  Moreover, Jesus raised religious topics to the Jewish teachers, and they were amazed by his understanding and his answers. The important point is that Jesus and those teachers created an atmosphere of conversation with respect and listening to one another. In this context, Luke also wanted to make known Jesus to others. He brought them along to understand more about Jesus. In this sense, the proclamation of the Good News might be emerged in an “early interreligious dialogue”. 

In the Acts of the Apostles 17: 17-23, (Paul at Athens), Paul met many different people at the synagogue. Although they were not in the same community with him, he still engaged in a conversation with them. So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present.  And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him.”  He was humble himself to observe and learn their different religious practices.  He did not intend to preach to them, but to be with them first. He tried to have a direct communication and interaction with those religious practitioners to understand their ways of worship deeply.  From his observation and experience, he looked for the suitable way to communicate the Gospel according to their own traditions. This is quite clearly in verse 23, "For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD' therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.”  This verse shows that Paul’s spirit of interreligious dialogue was very clear. It was a change that Paul came to be with those non-Christians, to understand, and walk with them. 
         The encounters above could be one of the motivations that the Church has found herself on Interreligious Dialogue as an important mission. Clearly, specific contributions that texts such as Nostra Aetate and Dialogue and Proclamation have made a great effort to a Catholic theology of interreligious dialogue. Perhaps, the greatest contribution of Nostra Aetate is the Church’s recognition of her relationship to other religions, especially a new spirit of her relationship to Judaism. This contribution is considered as an opportunity to heal the wounded memories between Jews and Christians. The idea is not only meant in relationship with Judaism, but also touches all the religions as positive contributions to global solidarity and religious harmony.  We can see that the dialogical spirit of Nostra Aetate is clear in its opening words, “In her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship. (1)”  This emphasizes on a new understanding of the Christian-Jewish relation which encourages a mutual respect, unity, and friendship.  An author reflects on Nostra Aetate, saying that, "For nearly 40 years, Nostra Aetate has promoted a rich dialogue between Christians and Jews to encourage mutual understanding and respect for each other's faith and religious convictions."  
In the same spirit, “Dialogue and Proclamation” (1991) continues to contribute a deep sense of interreligious dialogue, not just stopping at understanding and respect for each other’s faith, but sharing the noble values of each other’s traditions. In this engaging dialogue, participants are called to listen to different spiritual and religious values and explore to the richness of each religious tradition.  In this way, Christians can deepen other religious traditions, and the Gospels may be proclaimed to other believers as well. This spirit of “Dialogue and Proclamation” is made concrete in No 40, “It reaches a much deeper level, that of the spirit, where exchange and sharing consist in a mutual witness to one's beliefs and a common exploration of one's respective religious convictions. In dialogue, Christians and others are invited to deepen their religious commitment, to respond with increasing sincerity to God's”. 

THE ARGUMENTS OF THOMAS AQUINAS AND BRYAN HEHIR ON THE ETHICS OF WAR




Argument of Thomas Aquinas
In the Summa Theologia, Thomas Aquinas presented the issue of just war. This issue emphasizes the particular rules for a war to be just.  He quoted the Augustine words to defend this standpoint: “If Christian teaching forbade war altogether, those looking for the salutary advice of the Gospel would have been told to get rid of their arms and give up soldiering. But instead they were told, do violence to no man, be content with your pay”[1]. He mentioned three conditions (rules) for just war. 1) Authority of the sovereign, this means that the leaders of the nation have right to start and conduct war. The war was not started by civilians. 2) Just cause, this means that “those who are attacked are attacked because they deserve it on account of some wrong they have done”[2]. The purpose of war is to self-defend, protect, prevent and remedy the wrong or evil. 3) Right intention, people support for the good and stay away from the bad or evil. People have to determine clearly that the core of war is to bring peace, so after finishing war, people should not continue to provoke, but should return to a life of regularity. Actually, Thomas Aquinas based on Christian charity to draw his model of war.

Argument of Bryan Hehir

J Bryan Hehir used many different resources to name the issue of war and peace. Especially, he based on two main texts: John XXIII’s Pacem in Terris (1963) and Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes (1965) to support for his standpoint of the morality of war and peace. He quoted in Pacem in Terris “…it is irrational to think that war is proper way to obtain justice for violated right”[3] and in Gaudium et Spes “... to undertake an evaluation of war with an entirely new attitude”[4]: two products of this new attitude are the endorsement of nonviolent philosophy and support for conscientious objection”.  Based on these ideas, he insisted that war can be incompatible with moral order because the nature of war is the use of force to resolve conflict. This harms human life which is considered as moral problem.  He emphasized the centrality of love and the divine in every human creature. (Disarmament 1978). However, he opened that some “use of force within the moral universe” is acceptable in the terms of legitimate ends and limited means. These forms of force are considered as “just defense” related to “the principle of proportionality" and the “rule of noncombatant immunity”.

The similarities, differences, and their reasons
Through two arguments of Thomas Aquinas and Bryan Hehir on the Church tradition on war, I can see that Bryan Hehir agrees with Thomas about proper authority that not everyone can go to war. The reason is that they both inherited the Augustinian position that “The natural order conducive to human peace demands that the power of council and declare war belongs to those who hold the supreme authority”[5]. At the position of just cause, Thomas and Bryan agree that the purpose of war is to settle conflict, try to oppose evil through multiple ways, and protect the common good. The reason is that they both based on Catholic theological tradition to develop the issues of charity and justice. “Thomas located his analysis of just war within the framework of an ethic of charity and tied it directly to the needs of the common good”[6].  Also, Bryan used the document Gaudium et Spes that “Catholic moral theology retained the conviction that war is possible, may be necessary in the name of justice…”[7].  
However, Thomas didn’t consider explicitly about the principles of proportionality and non-combatant immunity. “One author suggests this was because Aquinas thought `right conduct in battle is largely culture-dependent; what counts as praiseworthy or blameworthy action in combat will vary from place to place’. If the Christian soldier acted virtuously, right judgment would help them act appropriately in the widely differing circumstances they were likely to face”[8].  Furthermore, based on the historical event of the persecution of heretics and infidels, Thomas accepted the just wars against infidels who harmed Christians. At this point, Bryan insisted that one can use many ways to oppose evil, but those ways must never harm human life. His argument was based on “just war doctrine” to imply that not all reasons or ways justify war. However, he mentioned some use of force is morally acceptable. This kind of force is as “means of implementing the gospel command of love in the political order”[9]. For Aquinas, he didn’t mention morality in his rules of just war. Perhaps he didn’t think that morality was governed by these rules, but as in idea that “Aquinas did theology in the context of a unified Christian commonweal with the Church established as the recognized moral authority”[10].  However, Bryan emphasized morality in his argument on Christian tradition on war. He quoted Potter’s words that “The logic generally applied by wise critics in thinking about right and wrong in the use of force is admirably simple in its basic structure”[11]. (P 18).

In short, Thomas Aquinas and Bryan Hehir have certain contributions to the issue of the ethics of war although there are many similarities and differences in their positions. Each argument has a number of reasons to support for it. This states that the ethics of war is not easy issue to make a decision of wrongness or rightness. I am sure that this issue will continue to be discussed to answer to the challenges in the future.


[1] Summa Theologia, Question 40. War, p 81
[2] Summa Theologia, Question 40. War, p 83
[3] War or Peace ? the research for new answer, p 14
[4] War or Peace ? the research for new answer, p 15
[5] Summa Theologia, Question 40. War, p 83
[6] Summa Theologia, Question 40. War, p 116
[7] War or Peace ? the research for new answer, p 17
[8]http://www.socialjustice.catholic.org.au/Content/pdf/the_struggle_to_develop_a_just_war_tradition_in_the_west.pdf
[9] War or Peace ? the research for new answer, p 16
[10]War or Peace ? the research for new answer, p 16
[11] War or Peace ? the research for new answer, p 18