EDMUND CHIA

REGENSBURG AND

The The Regensburg Lecture of Benedict XVI is by now well known as the most recent interreligious fiasco involving the Vatican and the world of . This lecture was delivered by the pope at his former school, the University of Regens- burg, (Benedict XVI 2006a). We have probably all followed the inci- dent closely enough, especially the vociferous reaction that certain statements of the lecture provoked all over the . Numerous Muslim communities and organizations protested the pope’s speech (some violently but the majority in a civil fashion).

The matter was even brought up for discussion in the Parliament of my own Mus- lim-majority country, , and the prime minister, who chairs the Organ- ization of Islamic Countries, had demanded that the pope apologize for the hurt caused to the Muslim community. Of course the Western media was more inter- ested in portraying the less civil responses from other forums, especially those which turned bloody and involved the burning of the pope’s effigy, the destruction of churches, and other violent acts.

In Defense of the Pope Aside from the protests and criticisms from the Islamic community, reactions to the pope’s lecture and especially its aftermath also came from within the Catholic community. Many spoke in defense of the pope, among whom were bishops and cardinals, especially those working in the Vatican. The newly appointed Vatican Secretary of State, Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone, for example, emphasized that the pope’s lecture was directed to an academic audience and his use of the offensive text by the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus was incidental, merely a way of introducing the discussion. Benedict was in no way targeting Islam or the Mus- lim community. The president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dia- logue, Paul Cardinal Poupard, advised that if people read the pope’s text thor- oughly and meditatively, they would find that, far from being an attack on Islam, Benedict was instead reaching out to them. In fact, many other cardinals and Vati- can spokespersons were quick to point out that the pope was defending in general, including Islam. The pope’s target was the of secu- larism, which seems to exclude from its rational pursuit (ZENIT 23-09-2006).

70 REGENSBURG AND DIALOGUE

The pope himself had to make public statements about his own lecture. But instead of offering an apology for his remarks against Islam, he clarified that the citation from Paleologus “unfortunately, lent itself to misinterpretation.” The pope then went on to suggest that for the attentive reader of my text, however, it is clear that in no way did I want to make my own the negative words spoken by the Medieval Emperor in this dialogue, and that their polemical content does not express my personal conviction. He then stated his primary intent: The topic of my lecture— responding to the mission of the University—was therefore the relationship between faith and reason: I wished to invite [people] to the dialogue of the Christian faith with the modern world and to the dialogue of all the cultures and . (Benedict XVI 2006b) A few days later Benedict even went to the extent of assembling Muslim dip- lomats residing in so as to be able to address them face-to-face: I should like to reiterate today all the esteem and the profound respect that I have for Muslim believers .... Christians and Muslims must learn to work together, as indeed they already do in many common undertakings, in order to guard against all forms of in- tolerance and to oppose all manifestations of violence; as for us, religious authorities and political leaders, we must guide and encourage them in this direction. (Benedict XVI 2006c)

Thoughtful Muslim Responses As indicated earlier, the pope’s lecture was picked up by the media and evoked a great deal of response from the angry and hurt Muslim community. While much of this could be classified as reactionary and perhaps even manipulated by religio- political entities,1 we cannot say that the response in its entirely was unwarranted. To be sure, Benedict’s lecture, in view of its aftermath, was closely studied by a good number of learned Muslims. At the end of the day they, too, concluded that the lecture did indeed make hurtful and even inaccurate remarks. These conclu- sions came from many thinking Muslims from all over, but it will suffice here to look at only two such sources. The first is an “Open Letter” jointly composed by a group of 38 scholars, leaders, and royal personages of the Islamic community from across the world, representing all eight schools of thought and jurisprudence in contemporary Islam.2 It was delivered in a spirit of goodwill and dialogue to the

1 Some Muslim commentators suggest that it was not surprising if some of these protests were orchestrated by local religious and political leaders, especially authoritarian regimes where the people’s basic human rights and freedom of expression are effectively curbed. Such demonstrations are, therefore, exercises in catharsis. See Ramadan 2006.

2 All the citations in the following paragraph are from this document.

71 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 17 (2007) 1 pope through the Vatican nunciature in Amman. I will highlight five points made by the “Open Letter.”

First, it was respectfully made known to the pope that his thesis that Sura 2:256 of the Qur’an, “There is no compulsion in religion,” was formulated when the Prophet of Islam (pbuh) was “powerless and under threat” was factually incorrect. The instruction was from the era and, according to the Open Letter, was not a command to Muslims to remain steadfast in the face of the desire of their op- pressors to force them to renounce their faith, but was a reminder to Muslims themselves, once they had attained power, that they could not force another’s heart to believe. Second, Benedict had asserted that Islam is different in that in “Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent” perhaps to the point of not being “bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.” The Open Letter pointed out that “God has many Names in Islam, including the Merciful, the Just, the Seeing, the Hearing, the Knowing, the Loving, and the Gentle.” God is even closer to the hu- man being “than his jugular vein.” The Open Letter added that in their most mature and mainstream forms the intellectual explorations of Muslims through the ages have maintained a consonance between the truths of the Qur’anic re- velation and the demands of human intelligence, without sacrificing one for the other. Third, the Open Letter pointed out “that ‘holy war’ is a term that does not exist in Islamic languages.” If Pope Benedict was referring to jihad, then, said the Mus- lims, “it must be emphasized [that it] means struggle, and specifically struggle in the way of God.” They continued: “If some have disregarded a long and well- established tradition in favor of utopian dreams where the end justifies the means, they have done so of their own accord and without the sanction of God, His Prophet, or the learned tradition.” Fourth, to the myth that Islam was largely spread “by the sword,” the Open Letter responded: “Indeed, as a political entity Islam spread partly as a result of conquest, but the greater part of its expansion came as a result of preaching and missionary activity.” To be sure, “the command ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ means now what it meant then.” Moreover, Pope Benedict was in error in his claim that the Prophet (pbuh) had issued the “spread by the sword” command: “no such command has ever existed in Islam.” Fifth, the Open Letter questioned the authority of the so-called experts or refer- ences which the pope cited. They said: “Muslims have not to our knowledge en- dorsed the ‘experts’ you referred to, or recognized them as representing Muslims or their views.” They further advised: “[I]t seems to us that a great part of the object of inter-religious dialogue is to strive to listen to and consider the actual voices of those we are dialoguing with, and not merely those of our own persua- sion.”

72 REGENSBURG AND DIALOGUE

Another thoughtful response, with extended commentary, came from a devout Libyan Muslim named Aref Ali Neyed who is a scholar with extensive knowledge of both Islamic and Western philosophy and (Neyed 2006).3 Neyed is well-known among Catholic circles through his work at Rome’s Pontifical In- stitute for Arabic and Islamic Studies. Again, I will highlight just five major points put forward by Neyed. First, Neyed posits that if the primary aim of Bene- dict’s lecture was actually the critique of a “reason which is deaf to the divine,” then “Islam can actually be ’s best ally against the arrogant preten- sions of scientistic positivism, and for a deeper and more spiritual Reason.” Sec- ond, if the pope wished to speak about Islam he should at least “hear Muslim theologians themselves on what they thought and taught” rather than “through the filters of some Islamo-phobic Catholic Orientalists.” Third, if Benedict needed to “find a ‘starting-point’ for his reflections on ‘faith and reason’,” he could have found many more creative ones “without using a disfigured straw-man Islam.” Furthermore, “the connection between the medieval dialogue and the main point of the lecture is so strained and distant; invoking the dialogue unnecessarily dam- ages Christian-Muslim relations.” Fourth, in citing the “there is no compulsion in religion” statement, “instead of cherishing this ruling, and challenging Muslims today to live up to it, the Pontiff dismisses an important Islamic resource for rea- sonableness and peace by seeing it as a fake Islamic stance that was only ever held because of temporary weakness!” Finally, said Neyed, Benedict XVI, by self-righteously invoking the hurtful accusations of a long-dead Emperor, is, astonishingly, oblivious to the use of torture, cruelty, and violence in the his- tory of the , not only against Muslims, but against , and even fellow Christians.

The Pope’s Intention I have discussed at length what some have called the Regensburg Moment (Neu- haus 2006) for the purpose of speaking to issues that must be attended to in our encounters with religions other than Christianity. I will continue with illustrations on how observers are interpreting the pope’s intention in view of discerning les- sons pertinent to the task of interreligious dialogue. Two scenarios will be ex- plored.

The first is what I will call the scenario of insensitivity. This theory argues that the pope truly did not know that his speech would hurt the feelings of Muslims. To be sure, that was not his intent. After all, the citations about Islam were merely illustrations. They were by no means the central thesis of his lecture. Some reports suggest that the text of the lecture was not properly vetted by Vatican officials or that there is actually no one else left within the Curia with the necessary sensitiv-

3 All citations are from this document.

73 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 17 (2007) 1 ity towards Islam, especially since the departure of Angelo Cardinal Sodano and Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald.4 Moreover, the pope did not foresee that his lec- ture would reach beyond the walls of the university where it was presented. As far as he was concerned, the lecture was directed to a specifically Christian audience of university professors, some of whom might well be secularists and atheists. They were the intended targets of the assertion that faith and reason should go to- gether. If anything, the example of Islam was used to defend, according to Cardin- al Poupard, “the value of religion for humanity, and Islam is one of the world’s great religions” (ZENIT 23-09-2006). Even after the massive protests had set in the pope still could not understand why there were such negative reactions. That is why the first official Vatican statement in response to the violence merely as- serted that “the Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his ad- dress could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful, and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his inten- tions” (Bertone 2006). It was, at best, a measured apology and yet the offensive passages were never retracted.

A second interpretation of the pope’s intention is what I will call the scenario of confrontation. This theory is that the pope knew that his speech would be a direct challenge to the Muslim community and he intended it that way. Some reports suggest that he was advised against using the offensive texts but went ahead with it. His personal experience with Islam convinced him that harsh words needed to be said about the religion and its association with violence. The ancient texts that he cited, so the theory goes, actually reflected his personal convictions but had to be distanced later only because of the violence that erupted on account of them. Why was the pope so pointed and “brusque” in his comments about Islam? The insight of one of his former students and a great proponent of Benedict’s thinking, Fr. Joseph Fessio, might shed some light: “It is at this point in the lecture that Benedict makes a statement which cannot be avoided or evaded if there is ever to be any dialogue between that is more than empty words and diplomatic gestures” (Fessio 2006). For the pope, as he has asserted over the years, interreligious dialogue has to be an honest and truthful dialogue. The truth cannot be compromised and need to be told as it is, even if it may sound unpleas- ant. Proponents of this scenario, which includes many Catholics worldwide, charged that the violence that erupted actually confirmed what the pope was say-

4 Angelo Cardinal Sodano, who served many years as the Vatican Secretary of State under Pope John Paul II, is reputed for his diplomatic skills as opposed to the newly ap- pointed Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone who is, by training, a canon lawyer. Archbishop Mi- chael Fitzgerald, a trained scholar of Islam, had served many years in the Pontifical Coun- cil for Interreligious Dialogue, the last several years as its head. When Pope Benedict as- cended the papacy Fitzgerald’s dicastery was merged into the Pontifical Council for Cul- ture whereby he lost his job and was assigned to take over the nunciature at .

74 REGENSBURG AND DIALOGUE ing. So, he was in fact saying something truthful and hence no apology was need- ed. Incidentally, the “Open Letter” condemned the violence, regarding them as “totally un-Islamic.”

Lessons for Interreligious Dialogue These are merely two speculative views of the pope’s intentions. We are actually not so much interested in the accuracy of the hypotheses as in the lessons we can draw from each of the scenarios. First, the two scenarios mentioned above remind us of the importance of developing a sensitivity for the religious “other.” This might seem a common sense stance to adopt, except for the fact that it may not dawn on the consciousness of many Christian theologians for several reasons. For one, Christian theology has always been an intra-Christian activity, much the same way Christianity has developed independently of other religions. Add to this the fact that for most of Christian history the Church has been in a position of “power” and we can further appreciate why Christian theology had not felt the need to be sensitized to other religions. In the words of an Indian scholar whose country was subjected to colonial rule, Christianity’s relationship with Hinduism can be described thus: “This was at a time when the rulers—the British—had a Christian identity and the missionaries were empowered for that reason and not concerned to creatively engage with, but only to critique and destroy, Hinduism” (Ram-Prasad 2005: 82-83). This perception is not groundless, traditionally, Chris- tian missionaries, in the words of the ’s document , “often adopted the attitude that non-Christian religions were simply the work of Satan and the missionaries’ task was to convert [them] from error to knowledge of the truth.”5

But the world has changed significantly, especially in the last half century. Chris- tianity is no longer in a position of power. If anything, it is losing ground even in , which some, including the pope, wish to assert is a Christian continent. But there is more. Christianity is also losing ground in the developing world, fol- lowing the disintegration of the Christian colonial empire and the rise of inde- pendent nation states, followed by the revival of indigenous and the other world religions. Christianity therefore can no longer dismiss these other religions as in- ferior or irrelevant. It has no choice but to be engaged with them. What comes of this engagement is the question. An insensitive or arrogant and confrontational en- gagement might produce another Regensburg Moment. To be sure, Regensburg is not the first time the Church has been in trouble for its insensitivity and arro- gance. In fact, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the

5 This quote is a footnote (No. 11) to an article from Vatican II’s Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate. See Abbott 1966: 662.

75 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 17 (2007) 1 then Cardinal Ratzinger had a more or less similar encounter. In a recent book he had this to say: When the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published the declaration , On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Christ and the Church, in 2000, a cry of outrage arose from modern society, but also from great non-Christian cultures such as that of India: this was said to be a document of intolerance and of religious arrogance that should have no place in the world of today” (Ratzinger 2004: 9) The defense at the time was that Dominus Iesus was a kind of in-house document, directed at the members of the Church, especially those theologians who were tak- ing lightly the truth claims of the faith. It was not aimed at other religions, though in trying to assert the truth claims of Christianity Dominus Iesus did suggest that the other religions “contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and errors’” (DI, 8) and that people of other religions are in a “gravely deficient situation” (DI, 22) as far as was concerned. Such in-house defense is no longer feasible for a glo- balized world where communication is almost instantaneous. Christian theolo- gians have to be aware that what they say or write is accessible worldwide, in- cluding to persons of other religions. This is, perhaps, a good thing. Thanks to technology we have now to be extra cautious with our assertions, something we probably would not have bothered to do if left to ourselves.

Practical Challenges to Dialogue What should we be more cautious about? How should we go about our task of do- ing theology in such a way that we take seriously our neighbors of other faiths? What are some steps we should adopt in order that we not fall into the sin of in- sensitivity, ignorance, or arrogance? I will highlight a few guidelines.

First, Christian theology must more and more be done together and with persons of other religions. This is almost mandatory when we are explicitly discussing them and their religions, but also when we are not. In the former case, as can be seen from the Regensburg example, it is only ethical that we consult with those whom we are writing about, especially when our portrayal of them is not alto- gether positive. This was the advice given by the signatories of the Open Letter: if you want to know Islam or talk about it, speak directly to Muslims. The thought of having to encounter our dialogue partners face-to-face has a way of forcing us to be extra careful and sensitive in what we say about them. This is evidenced by the tone and content of the speech delivered by Pope Benedict when he met with the ambassadors from Muslim nations as compared to the Regensburg lecture. In the face-to-face encounter with Muslims, he emphasized only the positive and re- spectful elements, whereas just weeks earlier his words about Islam in the absence of Muslims were quite different in tone. To be sure, in all of the pope’s encounters with persons of other religions he has been nothing but gracious and polite. An example is his most recent visit to the largely Muslim country . It is un-

76 REGENSBURG AND DIALOGUE likely the pope has ever directly suggested to his dialogue partners that their reli- gion is violent or unreasonable. Even if he harbored such thoughts he surely would not have expressed them, at least not to their face. If honesty and truthful- ness is a factor in interreligious relations it is only right that what we say of our partner’s religion in their absence should be exactly what we are able to say to them in their presence. Anything short of that would be dishonest.

Second, in the event that we do not know any partners of other religions then it is our responsibility to seek out views which portray their religions sympathetical- ly. Thus, relying on the views of “experts” or authors who are openly hostile to the other religion is, unfortunately, methodologically flawed and even unethical. It only serves to fuel the ignorance, bias, and prejudice which is probably already present in the Christian community. Our task as Christian theologians and ecclesi- astical leaders is not to promote further dissension but to open minds and hearts. How would we Christians react if a Muslim leader, say a Grand , talks about Christianity to his Muslim community but bases his views of Christianity primar- ily on the ideas and speeches of Osama bin Laden or the manifesto of the Al- Quaida network? Not only would we protest that those views do not represent au- thentic Christianity, we would also suggest that it does not serve the Muslim com- munity to be further prejudiced against Christians as a whole. If anything, our pro- phetic mission and duty as theologians and religious leaders is the building of bridges across religious communities and not the sowing of seeds of hatred and disharmony. Thus, it is important that we search out credible sources when discus- sing the religions of our neighbors.

Third, if we have to make negative references or cite unpleasant examples to illus- trate our case, it is only fair that they come from within our own tradition. As pointed out earlier, if the Regensburg lecture needed to highlight the thesis that violence is against the nature of God, there are ample examples from within the Christian tradition. For example, we could cite the Crusades or the inquisition as well as the centuries of violence committed by the Christian colonial machinery or the way Christian political leaders have recently justified the bombardment and occupation of two sovereign Islamic nations, killing tens of thousands of innocent Muslim women and children, all of whom had absolutely nothing to do with wea- pons of mass destruction or terrorism. In short, as scripture advises us, it might be good to take note of the beam in our own eye first before pointing out the speck in our neighbor’s.

Along the same lines, if we have to speak about other religions, especially in front of an audience of our own co-religionists, we should only speak well of them. An example should help illustrate this. At a conference in Europe when the Archbi- shop of Jakarta, Julius Cardinal Darmaatmadja, was talking about Muslim-Chris- tian relations in his country he related the incident of church and mosque bomb-

77 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 17 (2007) 1 ings in his country and spoke in particular of the Christmas Eve bomb which ex- ploded in his cathedral. The incident claimed one life, which was that of the young man who had discovered the bomb and was trying to rush it outside the church only to have it explode in his face. That young man, the cardinal said, was a Muslim, a member of the Muslim youth group who had come to protect the ca- thedral when they heard that terrorists and extremists (the cardinal never once identified these extremists as Muslims, even if they might have been adherents of Islam) were coming to bomb it. In the eyes of the cardinal, the actions of that one Muslim who martyred himself for the Christian community is more representative of Islam than the few terrorists who act against the dictates of their religion and in the process give it a bad name.

Dialogue of Life Finally, let us turn to the second scenario which we talked about earlier. This theory has it that the Holy Father was right in confronting Islam directly with re- gard to the scourge of violence. The intent of such direct and candid confrontation is so we can discuss real and serious issues, in view of bringing about more au- thentic Muslim-Christian relations. But judging from the fruits of Regensburg one cannot but conclude that the tactic backfired. Not only did such forthright and honest challenge not bring about the cessation of violence it even fueled it and in the process strained even further the already vulnerable Muslim-Christian rela- tions. Interreligious polemics and confrontation have not worked in the past and is probably a bad strategy for all time. This is because the relationship between religions is in general still very fragile. Its pursuit is a very recent phenomenon. Thus, it is still in its infancy stages, against the backdrop of centuries of interre- ligious indifference, hostility and even wars. As in all human relationships it must proceed with patience and in small steps. Openly confronting one’s interreligious dialogue partner when one has not yet developed a degree of confidence and trust is like two acquaintances beginning a friendship by openly confronting one anoth- er’s weak points.

The challenge, therefore, is for us Christian theologians to build sincere and au- thentic relationships with peoples of other religions. This has to be done slowly, patiently, and with great humility. In we emphasize what has come to be known as the Dialogue of Life. The idea is to begin with a casual friendship and be involved in each other’s life in small ways so as to build a trusted and sincere relationship. Archbishop Fernando Capalla of the Philippines often talks about his relationship with his friend, the chief Muslim cleric, where they are able just to drop in at one another’s homes unannounced and have a meal together or even spend a night in the other’s residence. Such is the height to which the Dialogue of Life can reach.

78 REGENSBURG AND DIALOGUE

It is only after we have reached such heights of trust and conviviality that we can think about engaging our dialogue partners in the more serious conversations on critical issues, including sensitive topics that divide us. These could even be theo- logical issues such as beliefs, doctrines, and practices peculiar to each of our own religious traditions. The irony is that when we have reached such an intense level of friendship and congenial relationship, and in view of the trust we have for one another, such theological and doctrinal differences become irrelevant. Instead, on account of our direct experience of the trusted friendship, our minds are shaped into seeing only the beauty and truth in the religion of our dialogue partner. If anything, we begin to realize that there are more points of convergences and areas that unite us than there are points of divergences and areas that divide us.

As can be seen from the preceding discussion, developing direct face-to-face con- tacts and friendships have a way of breaking down the fears, misconceptions, and prejudices we have for the other’s religion. That is why Asian bishops often sug- gest that Vatican officials would definitely change their theological views about other religions if they were afforded the opportunity to live side-by-side and in harmony with the good and holy adherents of these religions. In fact, many of us in Asia not only have friends but also family members and relatives who adhere to religions other than Christianity. There is therefore no way we will speak ill of these religions as it would amount to an indictment upon the very people whom we love and share our lives with.

Theological Challenges to Dialogue It should be clear that I am of the conviction that the more important challenge that confronts us is actually the practical and human relational dynamics rather than the theological challenge posed by other religions. In most instances, when we have developed mutually enriching relationships with our neighbors of other faiths, the theological and religious differences cease to be of concern. Converse- ly, if our experience of the other religions is in the main negative then we are more likely to be critical and hostile towards their theology and praxis. That might in part account for why the pope is critical of Islam. We can get a glimpse of his experience of the religion from Fessio, who participated in a retreat with the pope dedicated specifically to the study of Islam (cf. Magister 2006). This is what Fessio had to say: The West is once again under siege. Doubly so because in addition to terrorist attacks there is a new form of conquest: immigration coupled with high fertility. Let us hope that, following the Holy Father's courageous example in these troubled times, there can be a dialogue whose subject is the truth claims of Christianity and Islam. (Fessio 18-09-2006) Of course, we all agree that dialogue is important and necessary. But if it is mo- tivated by fear of the religious “other” and viewed primarily from a position of siege then the dialogue’s aim is actually to prove the other wrong and perhaps

79 STUDIES IN INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE 17 (2007) 1 even to disparage their religious and truth claims. Dialogue then has violent inten- tions and, in keeping with the thesis of the Benedict’s Regensburg lecture, is far from being reasonable nor consistent with the nature of God. However, if such were to take place among trusted friends, among people whose starting point is that they want nothing but to build on their already positive and good rela- tionship, then the dialogues take on a different tenor. They become occasions where both parties seek to be enriched and to share with one another. These are occasions of true dialogue as both sides have the opportunity to speak as well as to listen. The aim of these authentic dialogues is to see how we can each gain greater insight into that which is Truth, without in the process demeaning one an- other’s religious or truth claims. These sentiments are best expressed in the words of none other than the theologian Joseph Ratzinger himself, when he delivered a lecture in another setting and whose writings can be found in his book entitled Many Religions, One Covenant: What we need, however, is respect for the beliefs of others and the readiness to look for the truth in what strikes us as strange or foreign; for such truth concerns us and can correct us and lead us further along the path. Furthermore, I need to be willing to allow my narrow understanding of truth to be broken down. I shall learn my own truth better if I understand the other person and allow myself to be moved along the road to the God who is ever greater, certain that I never hold the whole truth about God in my own hands but am always a learner, on pilgrimage toward it, on a path that has no end. (Ratzinger 1999: 110)6 It is only in such a spirit of epistemic humility and of spiritual pilgrimage that I feel the dialogue of theological issues can be useful and meaningful. One comes to the dialogue table as pilgrims, with open minds and open hearts, open to the greater metanoia to which the true God is always inviting us. And, as pilgrims, we cannot but look at our dialogue partners as fellow pilgrims, also searching to- gether with us, with neither one of us claiming to have access to the superior path. In this spirit of pilgrimage a certain trust is naturally present as both sides ac- knowledge the other’s worthiness, not only with respect to the persons but also with respect to their beliefs and religious praxis.

This seems to be where the spirit is blowing in the context of today’s world. We cannot go against the great by hampering the movement of the spirit or of Christianity’s scope and growth. We need to act reasonably for, according to Pope Benedict’s lecture, Christianity is a reasonable faith. Also, in keeping with the pope’s wishes, we must be active participants of the “dialogue of the Christian faith with the modern world” as well as in the “dialogue of all the cultures and religions” (Regensburg Lecture).

6 This is a lecture given at the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences in Paris. It was first published in Internationale Katholische Zeitschrift 26 (1997): 419-29.

80 REGENSBURG AND DIALOGUE

A commitment to continued engagement and dialogue is the vocation of . Courage and perseverance are virtues especially necessary in this challenging times. In the words of the Holy Father at his Regensburg’s lecture: “The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur —this is the program with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time.”

LITERATURE Abbott, Walter (ed.). (1966). The Documents of Vatican II. New Jersey: New Century. Pope Benedict XVI. (2006a). “Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections.” , 12 September; http://www.vatican.va/holy _father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben- xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html (Accessed 3 November 2006). (2006b). “General Audience.” (Saint Peter’s Square, 20 September). http:// www. vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben- xvi_aud_20060920 _en.html (Accessed 4 November 2006). (2006c). “Address of Benedict XVI to the Ambassadors of Countries with a Muslim Majority and to the representatives of Muslim Communities in Italy.” (Hall of the Swiss, Castel Gandolfo, 25 September). http://www.vatican.va/holy _father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben- xvi_spe_20060925_ambasciatori-paesi-arabi_en.html (Accessed 4 November 2006). Cardinal Bertone, Declaration by. (2006). Vatican Information Service (16 September). http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/card-bertone/2006/documents /rc_seg-st_20060916_dichiarazione_en.html (Accessed 4 November 2006). Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (2000). Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church. Vatican: Liberia Editrice Vaticana. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ cfaith/documents/rc_ con_cfaith_doc_ 20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html (Accessed 10 November). Fessio, Fr. Joseph, S.J. (2006). “Is Dialogue with Islam Possible? Some Reflections on Pope Benedict XVI’s Address at the University of Regensburg,” Ignatius Insight (September 18). http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/jfessio_reflections_ sept06.asp (Accessed 10 November). Magister, Sandro. (2006). “Islam and Democracy, a Secret Meeting at Castel Gandolfo.” (23 January). http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=45084&eng=y (Accessed 10 November 2006). Neyed, Aref Ali. (2006). “A Muslim’s Commentary on Benedict XVI’s ‘Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections.” (4 October). http://www.masud. co.uk/ ISLAM/misc/commentary_on _benedict.php. (Accessed 4 November). Neuhaus, Richard John. (2006). “The Regensburg Moment.” First Things 167 (No- vember): 59-76; http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0609/public.html (Accessed 4 November, 2006).

81 REGENSBURG AND DIALOGUE

“Open Letter to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI by 38 Leading Muslim Scholars and Leaders” (18 October, 2006). http://www.islamicamagazine.com/online-analysis/ open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi.html (Accessed 4 November, 2006). Ramadan, Tariq. (2006). “The Pope and Islam: The True Debate.” New Perspective Quar- terly 23/3: (19 September). Ram-Prasad, Chakravarthi. (2005). “Hindu Views of Jesus.” In: Gregory Barker (ed.). Jesus in the World’s Faiths: Leading Thinkers from Five Religions Reflect on His Meaning. Maryknoll: Orbis. Pp. 81-91 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, (1999). Many Religions, One Covenant: Israel, the Church and the World. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. (2004). : Christian Belief and World Religions. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. “The World Seen From Rome, “Benedict XVI, Faith, Reason and Islam: Explaining the Real Message.” ZENIT (23-09-2006). http://www.zenit.org/english/ (Accessed 3 November 2006.

82