「賴」野
教宗本篤十六將於十一月到訪土耳其，但前幾天在德國某大學演說時提及「聖戰」與神的屬性不相容時，引用了十四世紀拜占庭帝國國王Manual II Paleologos的一番話：「讓我知道穆罕默德帶來什麼新事物，你只會見到邪惡及非人性的事物，例如他命令以刀劍來傳教」("Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached") ，教宗此番話原意是邀請回教徒就此前題作出文化對話，但引來土耳其回教領袖激烈批評，並要求教宗道歉。
教宗認為回教不是和平的宗教等見解早有前科，去年77倫敦巴士恐怖侵襲後，教宗被問及伊斯蘭教能否被稱為和平宗教時，他已表示不表贊同。可是回教組織領袖指教宗有意挑起全世界回教徒的忿恨卻顯得過激。當人感到別人言論有冒犯性而要求人道歉時，問題常是自己心中有鬼，結果產生神經過敏反應，一口咬定人家別有用心，凡事都變成「傷害感情」，大概仇恨已佔據自己的內心，失去了對話及討論的可能。
教會圈子也不時有此類神經過敏反應，喳咪的人講了一些話，有人以為是針對他，不高興地忿然離場(類似的例子自己去想)，引用黃毓民早前在港台節目的精句：好多人是「記憶力強，分析力弱」的(他評論陳太及葉劉)。許多人也是「衝動力強，清醒度弱」、「敏感度強，思維度弱」的，面對這類人，都是小心講野好，小心「賴」野。
5 comment(s):
教宗指出宗教只能帶來和平
梵蒂岡（亞洲新聞）—宗教“只能成為和平的使者”；凡是利用宗教作為向他人施暴藉口的人都是不合法的。今天，教宗本篤十六世在紀念一九八六年義大利亞西西世界各國宗教領導人聯合祈禱聚會二十周年而發表的文告中，重申了先教宗若望保祿二世在這次活動中所闡明的立場。
教宗本篤十六世指出，近年來，並沒有實現二次大戰後人們所強烈渴望的“和平夢想”。“第三千年首先迎來了恐怖主義和絲毫沒有煙消雲散之意的暴力。而且，今天因許多地區廣泛存在的地理-政治緊張局勢而導致的武裝交鋒，將促使人們認為，不僅文化的不同，而且宗教之間的差異也會構成不穩定或者威脅和平的因素”。
為此，教宗本篤十六世強調，“這一進行了二十年的活動，或者說是教宗若望保祿二世親自倡導的活動具有先知性的特點”。“儘管各宗教之間存在著不同，但是，對上主存在的共識是一致的。而且，僅從上主所造的萬物，人們便應該可以辨認洞察出這一點（援引羅1，20）。為此，信徒便不能不將其他人類視為自己的兄弟。為此，任何人以宗教信仰不同而做為向他人發動戰爭的藉口和先決條件，都是不合法的”。同樣，宗教戰爭“不能全推卸給宗教本身，而是所處文化和發展時代的局限性所決定的”。
亞西西聚會中，充分體現了祈禱在建設和平中的重要作用。“和平是具有多種意義的價值觀。為了建設和平，誠然，文化、政治和經濟道路都是重要的。但首先，要在心中建設和平。由此，才會發展成能夠孕育或者威脅、削弱及壓制和平的感情”。教宗指出，“在各種宗教傳統成員的身上，都見證了祈禱在建設和平中的價值”。早在一九八六年，就提請人們注意，“宗教對話不能被視為或者被詮釋為奠定在相對主義概念上的理論合併”。
為此，教宗向應聖埃基迪奧團體邀請出席亞西西宗教祈禱聚會的全體代表們表示，目前“避免不必要的混亂”是“義不容辭的”。為此，“當我們共同為和平祈禱時，需要根據各自不同的宗教信仰方式進行祈禱。一九八六年，就作出了這一選擇。而這一選擇，迄今為止仍然是有效的。各自的不同，不能讓人覺得是向違背真理真正意義的相對主義妥協”。
同時，教宗再次提到了聖方濟各。這是在短短幾天的時間?，教宗第三次談到聖方濟各了。教宗寫道：“他為我們這個時代所作出的見證，為今天充滿了和平；尊重自然；人與人、宗教與宗教、文化與文化之間對話理想的人們構成了必要的標誌。總之，如果我們不願意背叛他所傳達的資訊，就應該牢記對基督的選擇，為他提供了理解所有男女老少都蒙召去履行的友愛的秘訣”。
穆斯林學者與梵蒂岡代表展開不同宗教信仰之間的交流倡導溫和派精神
雅加達（亞洲新聞）—六月二十日至二十日，第二屆國際伊斯蘭學術會議在印尼首都雅加達舉行。與會的天主教會和穆斯林世界知名學者一致表示，應加強各宗教之間的對話，給予溫和派更多的聲音，建設“全球性的和平”。來自世界五十三個國家、地區的三百多名伊斯蘭問題專家和政界人士，出席了由印尼最大的穆斯林組織Nadhlatul Ulama（NU）主辦的本次大會。聖座宗教對話委員會與伊斯蘭對話辦公室負責人阿卡申赫蒙席，代表梵蒂岡出席了會議。
在向地方媒體發表談話時，阿卡申赫蒙席重申了天主教會堅持“與其他宗教保持良好關係的努力，從而建設一個安全與和睦相處的世界”。“各宗教都蒙召去努力加強對話，建設全球性的和平”。聖座代表繼續強調了“教宗本篤十六世支援宗教對話，特別是與穆斯林對話的堅定立場”。“教宗保證願意繼續駕起與各宗教信徒之間的友誼橋樑”。
印尼兩個最大的穆斯林組織負責人，都在發言中充分表達了展開宗教對話，以及伊斯蘭內部對話的必要性。從而促進溫和派，抵制和排斥極端主義。東道主Nadhlatul Ulama（NU）的代表穆紮德在講話中指出，加強溫和派的聲音，對於各宗教信仰之間的和諧以及伊斯蘭現代化建設來說是至關重要的環節。“溫和派決定了宗教信仰之間的平衡、促進了和平的寬容、社會福祉以及團結互助”。Nadhlatul Ulama（NU）主席表示，他們將繼續為“捍衛真正的伊斯蘭價值觀而努力，使人們懂得如何在多元化的社會中捍衛自己的宗教”。
印尼又一大穆斯林組織Muhammadiyah主席辛蘇丁在講話中指出，應不斷促進伊斯蘭的現代化，以便同恐怖主義做鬥爭。“恐怖分子歪曲宗教。只要不公正和違法行徑仍然繼續存在於社會中，極端主義和恐怖主義就會在印尼找到滋生的沃土”。穆紮德和辛蘇丁都強調，一些穆斯林團體在印尼試圖推行伊斯蘭教義的走法是錯誤的。
但是，雅加達會議中並沒有著重強調梵蒂岡反復重申的展開宗教對話的前提條件——“相互性”。印尼總統蘇西洛在開幕式上發表講話，談到了西方世界中日益蔓延的排斥伊斯蘭現象，邀請穆斯林團體充分展示出“伊斯蘭是一個和平的宗教”。今天，梵蒂岡代表阿卡申赫蒙席在接受《雅加達郵報》採訪時似乎對此作出了回應。聖座代表指出，“不僅因‘排斥伊斯蘭’穆斯林在承受痛苦，基督信徒也在因‘排斥基督信仰’忍受痛苦。宗教領導人和團體應該採取促進內部及與其他信仰對話的行動，以治癒‘排斥’的頑症和宗派衝突”。
教宗指出要在相互尊重和保持各自本性的基礎上與伊斯蘭對話
梵蒂岡（亞洲新聞）—接納穆斯林、與伊斯蘭對話，但不能放棄向對方展示“符合基督信仰本性的建議”，並在“相互尊重”的前提下展開對話。今天，教宗本篤十六世在接見出席聖座移民與觀光牧靈委員會年度全體大會代表時作出了上述闡述。
在談到本屆大會的主題“來自伊斯蘭國家的移民與觀光、以及針對伊斯蘭國家的移民與觀光”時，教宗指出，這一問題直接涉及了當前的社會現狀。在現實社會中，這一問題變得越來越現實了，完全值得予以特殊的反思。“不僅是因為這一現象的巨大數量，而主要是因為這一伊斯蘭具有宗教和文化的雙重特徵”。
教宗繼續指出，“天主教會日益深刻認識到宗教對話是教會在現代世界內服務於全人類的組成部分。這一信念，已經成為‘日常的食糧’，特別是對那些在移民、難民和各種觀光旅行者中間開展工作的人來說。我們正處在一個時代，在此階段中，基督信徒蒙召去發掘宗教問題的開放性對話，但同時不能放棄向對話者展示符合基督信仰性質的建議。而且，越來越認識到了在對話中彼此尊重的重要性。在Erga Migrantes Caritas Christi，確切地將這一相互性喻為巨大重要性的原則。這是一個‘奠定在彼此相互尊重基礎上的關係’（64）。而且，這一使命是十分重要的、複雜的”。
教宗本篤十六世特別談到了基督信仰團體對移民和觀光者的接納和對話，並以基督信仰之愛為核心。“這就是為什麼，每一名基督信徒蒙召向來自任何國家的每一個人敞開臂膀和心靈的原因，讓負責公共生活的當局根據健康的和睦相處方式去制定相關的法律”。愛，“還要特別向弱小者和貧困者”展示。
最後，教宗指出，“誠然，我們還應該希望那些移民到穆斯林國家的基督信徒的宗教信仰能夠得到接納和尊重”。
而穆斯林國家的基督信徒生存狀況，也正是本屆大會探討的主要內容。宗座阿拉伯和伊斯蘭學院教授馬里斯•伯曼斯神父，在大會發言中特別介紹了一些穆斯林國家的基督信徒的現狀。
在五個馬格?布地區國家中，“除阿爾及利亞極其弱小的基督信仰團體外，其他國家的基督信徒們並沒有在上述國家中安居樂業。無論是常駐的還是臨時過客，他們只是客人。由此，充分說明了地方不穩定的狀況。儘管教會的司法地位，被維護其法人和必要自治權的法制機構所承認”。
海灣合作組織六國除最重要的成員沙烏地阿拉伯外，“都持有尊重基本宗教自由的態度”。上述國家中，生活著大約170萬天主教徒。而沙特“禁止除穆斯林信仰以外的任何宗教。全國大約兩千萬人口中，共有120多萬天主教徒。他們卻只能秘密展開牧靈活動，還要面臨各種危險。葉門全國兩千萬人口，只有極少數的外籍人士，其中大約有3千名天主教徒。但是，他們卻能夠得到司鐸和修女們的牧靈幫助”。
蘇丹的情況“最為矛盾”。“連續數年的內戰和政府試圖在全國推廣沙?亞（伊斯蘭教義）後，2百萬天主教徒的處境十分特殊。最近簽署的和平與和解協定中促進的局勢正常化，受到了達爾富爾局勢的嚴峻考驗。其他撒哈拉地區非洲國家，施行法國或者英國式的非宗教政策，保障少數基督信仰團體”。總之，“應密切關注一些伊斯蘭改革派社團極力推廣的伊斯蘭化進程”。試圖強行施行伊斯蘭教義，特別是尼日利亞聯邦北部的許多地區。
南亞地區生活著世界半數以上的穆斯林。“巴基斯坦的156,500,000人口中，3,800,000名基督信徒（其中，1,200,000為天主教徒）生活在分離式選舉和‘瀆神法’的壓制下，基督信徒隨時可能被以褻瀆可蘭經、穆罕默德先知或者伊斯蘭的罪名拖上法庭，公開地遭到報復”。
孟加拉129,000,000人口中，共有15,000,000名基督信徒（其中235,000為天主教徒），“景況基本相同”。馬來西亞“的基督信徒主要是華裔和常年在當地的印度移民。有關法律非常奇怪地限制非穆斯林信徒使用馬來宗教術語”。印尼的212,000,000人口，27,800,000名為基督信徒。其中，5,700,000名天主教徒。“潘卡希拉建國章程中闡述了實施多元化政策。總之，在馬魯古群島和切萊貝斯等地充斥著反基督信仰現象，還不包括東、西帝汶發生的事件”。“印度聯邦總人口超過了10億，共有1億零7百萬穆斯林信徒、6千2百萬基督信徒，其中天主教徒共1,550萬。他們生活在奠定在積極合作基礎上的相對共存狀態下。菲律賓的6千多萬居民幾乎全部是天主教徒，3,270,000名穆斯林信徒給棉蘭老島和蘇祿群島帶來了無數問題”。
根據這位元專家的看法，前景不容樂觀。“黎巴嫩昨天的團體內部衝突；猶太和巴勒斯坦人今天在聖地的交鋒，以及紐約、馬德里和倫敦恐怖襲擊後發生的系列事件；阿富汗和伊拉克的軍事干預行動，使共同生存的可能變得更加不穩定。事實上，少數派越來越可能成為陳舊偏見以及十字軍和吉哈德聖戰夢想的‘替罪羔羊’。伊斯蘭極端勢力取得的相對成果，導致穆斯林溫和派和伊斯蘭政府機構前所未有地要重申其伊斯蘭身份。沙烏地阿拉伯是以可蘭經為規範的典範。事實上，在伊斯蘭國家中，非穆斯林信徒總的來說遭到了排斥。誠然，當一些勢力試圖展示一個有能力實現民主與人文主義的‘啟示性穆斯林’、改革派和現代派穆斯林時，也會利用公眾輿論”。
本篤十六世與伊斯蘭
by Samir Khalil Samir, sj
拉青格教宗認為，宗教應與孕育其的文化與文明進行比較。為了避免文明衝突，伊斯蘭應該擺脫恐怖暴力；西方擺脫世俗主義和無神論的暴力。本文作者為資深專家，曾經于去年九月出席與教宗本篤十六世共同探討伊斯蘭問題的閉門會議
貝魯特（亞洲新聞）—教宗本篤十六世可能是世界上為數不多的幾位人士之一，他們深刻認識到了現代伊斯蘭問題的討論中存在的模糊概念；及其在現代社會中謀求一席之位的艱辛。同時，教宗為伊斯蘭指出了一條建設世界和睦相處的道路。宗教不是奠定在宗教對話的基礎上，而是奠定在文化與文明上、奠定在理性上，在意識形態或宗教之前，宗教首先應恪守人類和人性的觀點。這一注重文化對話的觀點，充分說明了教宗將聖座宗教對話委員會併入聖座文化部的初衷。
教宗還要求伊斯蘭展開奠定在文化、人權、拒絕暴力基礎上的對話。同時，要求西方重返不排除宗教意義的人性和理性的觀點。由此，或者說只有這樣，才能避免文明衝突，並展開不同文明間的對話。
伊斯蘭集權主義不同於基督信仰
To understand Benedict XVI’s thinking and Islamic religion, we must go over their evolution. A truly essential document is found in his book (written in 1996, when he was still cardinal, together with Peter Seewald), entitled “The Salt of the Earth”, in which he makes certain considerations and highlights various differences between Islam and Christian religion and the West.
First of all, he shows that there is no orthodoxy in Islam, because there is no one authority, no common doctrinal magisterium. This makes dialogue difficult: when we engage in dialogue, it is not “with Islam”, but with groups.
But the key point that he tackles is that of sharia. He points out that:
“the Koran is a total religious law, which regulates the whole of political and social life and insists that the whole order of life be Islamic. Sharia shapes society from beginning to end. In this sense, it can exploit such freedoms as our constitutions give, but it cannot be its final goal to say: Yes, now we too are a body with rights, now we are present [in society] just like the Catholics and the Protestants. In such a situation, [Islam] would not achieve a status consistent with its inner nature; it would be in alienation from itself”, which could be resolved only through the total Islamization of society. When for example an Islamic finds himself in a Western society, he can benefit from or exploit certain elements, but he can never identify himself with the non-Muslim citizen, because he does not find himself in a Muslim society.
Thus Cardinal Ratzinger saw clearly an essential difficulty of socio-political relations with the Muslim world, which comes from the totalizing conception of Islamic religion, which is profoundly different from Christianity. For this reason, he insists in saying that we cannot try to project onto Islam the Christian vision of the relationship between politics and religion. This would be very difficult: Islam is a religion totally different from Christianity and Western society and this makes does not make coexistence easy.
In a closed-door seminar, held at Castelgandolfo (September 1-2, 2005), the Pope insisted on and stressed this same idea: the profound diversity between Islam and Christianity. On this occasion, he started from a theological point of view, taking into account the Islamic conception of revelation: the Koran “descended” upon Mohammad, it is not “inspired” to Mohammad. For this reason, a Muslim does not think himself authorized to interpret the Koran, but is tied to this text which emerged in Arabia in the 7th century. This brings to the same conclusions as before: the absolute nature of the Koran makes dialogue all the more difficult, because there is very little room for interpretation, if at all.
As we can see, his thinking as cardinal extends into his vision as Pontiff, which highlights the profound differences between Islam and Christianity.
On July 24, during his stay in the Italian Aosta Valley region, he was asked if Islam can be described as a religion of peace, to which he replied “I would not speak in generic terms, certainly Islam contains elements which are in favour of peace, as it contains other elements.” Even if not explicitly, Benedict XVI suggests that Islam suffers from ambiguity vis-à-vis violence, justifying it in various cases. And he added. “We must always strive to find the better elements.” Another person asked him then if terrorist attacks can be considered anti-Christian. He reply is clear-cut: “No, generally the intention seems to be much more general and not directed precisely at Christianity.”
文化對話比宗教對話的效果更加顯著
On August 20 in Cologne, Pope Benedict XVI has his first big encounter with Islam, speaking with the representatives of Muslim communities. In a relatively long speech, he says,
“I am certain that I echo your own thoughts when I bring up one of our concerns as we notice the spread of terrorism.”
I like the way he involves Muslims here, telling them that we have the same concern. He then goes on to say: “I know that many of you have firmly rejected, also publicly, in particular any connection between your faith and terrorism and have condemned it.”
Further on, he says, “terrorism of any kind is a perverse and cruel [a word that he repeats 3 times] choice which shows contempt for the sacred right to life and undermines the very foundations of all civil coexistence.” Then, again, he involves the Islamic world:
“If together we can succeed in eliminating from hearts any trace of rancour, in resisting every form of intolerance and in opposing every manifestation of violence, we will turn back the wave of cruel fanaticism that endangers the lives of so many people and hinders progress towards world peace. The task is difficult but not impossible and the believer can accomplish this.”
I liked very much the way he stressed “eliminating from hearts any trace of rancour”: Benedict XVI has understood that one of the causes of terrorism is this sentiment of rancour. And further on
“Dear friends, I am profoundly convinced that we must not yield to the negative pressures in our midst, but must affirm the values of mutual respect, solidarity and peace.”
Also,
“there is plenty of scope for us to act together in the service of fundamental moral values. The dignity of the person and the defence of the rights which that dignity confers must represent the goal of every social endeavour and of every effort to bring it to fruition.”
And here we find a crucial sentence:
“This message is conveyed to us unmistakably by the quiet but clear voice of conscience.” “Only through recognition of the centrality of the person,” the Pope goes on to say, “can a common basis for understanding be found, one which enables us to move beyond cultural conflicts and which neutralizes the disruptive power of ideologies.”
Thus, even before religion, there is the voice of conscience and we must all fight for moral values, for the dignity of the person, the defence of rights.
Therefore, for Benedict XVI, dialogue must be based on the centrality of the person, which overrides both cultural and ideological contrasts. And I think that, getting under ideologies, religions can also be understood. This is one of the pillars of the Pope’s vision: it also explains why he united the Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue and the Council for Culture, surprising everyone. This choice derives from a profound vision and is not, as the press would have it, to “get rid” of Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, who deserves much recognition. That may have been part of it, but it was not the purpose.
The essential idea is that dialogue with Islam and with other religions cannot be essentially a theological or religious dialogue, except in the broad terms of moral values; it must instead be a dialogue of cultures and civilizations.
It is worth recalling that already as far back as 1999, Cardinal Ratzinger took part in an encounter with Prince Hassan of Jordan, Metropolitan Damaskinos of Geneva, Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan, deceased in 2003, and the Grand Rabbi of France René Samuel Sirat. Muslims, Jews and Christians were invited by a foundation for inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue to create among them a pole for cultural dialogue.
This step towards cultural dialogue is of extreme importance. In any kind of dialogue that takes place with the Muslim world, as soon as talk begins on religious topics, discussion turns to the Palestinians, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, in other words all the questions of political and cultural conflict. An exquisitely theological discussion is never possible with Islam: one cannot speak of the Trinity, of Incarnation, etc. Once in Cordoba, in 1977, a conference was held on the notion of prophecy. After having dealt with the prophetic character of Christ as seen by Muslims, a Christian made a presentation on the prophetic character of Mohammad from the Christian point of view and dared to say that the Church cannot recognize him as prophet; at the most, it could define him as such but only in a generic sense, just as one says that Marx is “prophet” of modern times. The conclusion? This question became the topic of conversation for the following three days, pre-empting the original conference.
The discussions with the Muslim world that I have found most fruitful have been those in which interdisciplinary and intercultural questions were discussed. I have taken part various times, at the invitation of Muslims, in inter-religious meetings in various parts of the Muslim world: talk was always on the encounter of religions and civilizations, or cultures.
Two weeks ago, in Isfahan (Iran), the title was “meeting of civilizations and religions.” Next September 19, at Rome’s Pontifical Gregorian University, there will be a conference organized by the Iranian Ministry of Culture along with Italian authorities, and this too will be on the encounter between cultures, and will include the participation of former president Khatami.
The Pope has understood this important aspect: discussions on theology can take place only among a few, but now is certainly not the time between Islam and Christianity. Instead, it is a question of tackling the question of coexistence in the concrete terms of politics, economy, history, culture, customs…
理性與信仰
Another fact seems to me important. In an exchange that took place on October 25, 2004, between Italian historian, Ernesto Galli della Loggia, and the then Cardinal Ratzinger, the latter, at a certain point, recalled the “seeds of the Word” and underscored the importance of rationality in Christian faith, seen by Church Fathers as the fulfilment of the search for truth found in philosophy. Galli della Loggia thus said: “Your hope which is identical to faith, brings with it a logos and this logos can become an apologia, a reply that can be communicated to others,” to everyone.
Cardinal Ratzinger replied:
“We do not want to create an empire of power, but we have something that can be communicated and towards which an expectation of our reason tends. It is communicable because it belongs to our shared human nature and there is a duty to communicate on the part of those who have found a treasure of truth and love. Rationality was therefore a postulate and condition of Christianity, which remains a European legacy for comparing ourselves peacefully and positively, with Islam and also the great Asian religions.”
Therefore, for the Pope, dialogue is at this level, i.e. founded on reason. He then went on to add that
“this rationality becomes dangerous and destructive for the human creature if it becomes positivist [and here he critiques the West], which reduces the great values of our being to subjectivity [to relativism] and thus becomes an amputation of the human creature. We do not wish to impose on anyone a faith that can only be freely accepted, but as a vivifying force of the rationality of Europe, it belongs to our identity.”
Then comes the essential part:
“it has been said that we must not speak of God in the European constitution, because we must not offend Muslims and the faithful of other religions. The opposite is true – Ratzinger points out – what offends Muslims and the faithful of other religions is not talking about God or our Christian roots, but rather the disdain for God and the sacred, that separates us from other cultures and does not create the opportunity for encounter, but expresses the arrogance of diminished, reduced reason, which provokes fundamentalist reactions.”
Benedict XVI admires in Islam the certainty based on faith, which contrasts with the West where everything is relativized; and he admires in Islam the sense of the sacred, which instead seems to have disappeared in the West. He has understood that a Muslim is not offended by the crucifix, by religious symbols: this is actually a laicist polemic that strives to eliminate the religious from society. Muslims are not offended by religious symbols, but by secularized culture, by the fact that God and the values that they associate with God are absent from this civilization.
This is also my experience, when I chat every once in a while with Muslims who live in Italy. They tell me: this country offers everything, we can live as we like, but unfortunately there are no “principles” (this is the word they use). This is felt very much by the Pope, who says: let’s go back to human nature, based on rationality, on conscience, which gives an idea of human rights; on the other hand, let’s not reduce rationality to something which is impoverished, but let’s integrate the religious in rationality; the religious is part of rationality.
In this, I think that Benedict XVI has stated more exactly the vision of John Paul II. For the previous Pope, dialogue with Islam needed to be open to collaboration on everything, even in prayer. Benedict is aiming at more essential points: theology is not what counts, at least not in this stage of history; what counts is the fact that Islam is the religion that is developing more and is becoming more and more a danger for the West and the world. The danger is not in Islam in general, but in a certain vision of Islam that does never openly renounces violence and generates terrorism, fanaticism. On the other hand, he does not want to reduce Islam to a social-political phenomenon. The Pope has profoundly understood the ambiguity of Islam, which is both one and the other, which at times plays on one or the other front. And his proposal is that, if we want to find a common basis, we must get out of religious dialogue to give humanistic foundations to this dialogue, because only these are universal and shared by all human beings. Humanism is a universal factor; faiths can be factors of clash and division.
贊成互惠互利、反對遷就妥協
The Pope’s position never falls into the justification of terrorism and violence. Sometimes, even when it comes to Church figures, people slip into a generic kind of relativism: after all, there’s violence in all religions, even among Christians; or, violence is justified as a reply to other violence… No, this Pope has never made allusions of this kind. But, on the other hand, he has never fallen into the behaviour found in certain Christian circles in the West marked by “do-goodism” and by guilt complexes. Recently, some Muslims have asked that the Pope ask forgiveness for the Crusades, colonialism, missionaries, cartoons, etc… He is not falling in this trap, because he knows that his words could be used not for building dialogue, but for destroying it. This is the experience that we have of the Muslim world: all such gestures, which are very generous and profoundly spiritual to ask for forgiveness for historical events of the past, are exploited and are presented by Muslims as a settling of accounts: here, they say, you recognize it even yourself: you’re guilty. Such gestures never spark any kind of reciprocity.
At this point, it is worth recalling the Pope’s address to the Moroccan Ambassador (February 20, 2006), when he alluded to “respect for the convictions and religious practices of others so that, in a reciprocal manner, the exercise of freely-chosen religion is truly assured to all in all societies.” These are two small but very important affirmations on the reciprocity of religious freedoms rights between Western and Islamic countries and on the freedom to change religion, something which is prohibited in Islam. The nice thing is that the Pope dared to say them: in the political and Church world, people are often afraid to mention such things. It’s enough to take note of the silence that reigns when it comes to the religious freedom violations that exist in Saudi Arabia.
I really like this Pope, his balance, his clearness. He makes no compromise: he continues to underline the need to announce the Gospel in the name of rationality and therefore he does not let himself be influenced by those who fear and speak out against would-be proselytism. The Pope asks always for guarantees that Christian faith can be “proposed” and that it can be “freely chosen.”
謝謝依納爵的資料，真要點時間消化。
張貼意見