The Second Vatican Council took a positive step in opening up the Church to dialogue with the other religions and with the world with its documents on Other Religions and on the Church in the Modern World. There was some dialogue with other religions happening in India even before the Council. The first Indian Benedictine ashram in Thannirpalli was founded in 1950. A theological dialogue was going on in Calcutta animate by some Belgian Jesuits with reviews like “The Light of the East.” The Council was an encouragement. More ashrams were founded. Dialogue groups were started in different places. Inter-religious live-togethers were organized in various places in India. The theology of religions was also being developed by many theologians. The two seminars on “The Inspiration of Non-Biblical Scriptures” and on “Sharing Worship” were particularly noteworthy. Indian theologians also contributed to the development of reflection on and the ministry of dialogue at the Asian level through the organs of the FABC. While the Vatican itself was still looking on dialogue as a step towards mission, the Asian Bishops and theologians encouraged interreligious dialogue as something worthwhile in itself. The focus of mission and dialogue was shifted from the Church to the Kingdom of God. The goal of mission was said to be the building up of the Kingdom and of the Church as its symbol and servant. Asian theologians developed a theology of harmony. St. John Paul II manifested a positive appreciation of other religions when he invited their leaders to come together to Assisi to pray for world peace in October 1986. Though they did not pray together, the fact that the other religious leaders were invited to pray was considered as offering their religions a certain legitimacy. St. John Paul II repeated the gesture in Bosnia and in Rome. In an encyclical meant to relaunch the Church’s mission to the people, The Mission of the Redeemer, the Pope accepted that the Church can collaborate with the other religions in promoting gospel values.
Decreasing Interest in Dialogue
Two factors, however, need to be noted. The first one is ambiguous. The interest in interreligious dialogue has cooled down. Dialogue groups have largely disappeared. Ashrams seem to be on the decline, once their founders were no longer on the scene. The younger priests and religious, not to speak of the people, are less interested. Coming from poorer sections of the people they are more interested in the theology of liberation. Some theologians exploring the theology of religions and dialogue have been pulled up by the central authority in the Church for not encouraging mission rather than dialogue and for seemingly downplaying the uniqueness of Christ as the only Saviour and the role of the Church as a means of salvation. Younger theologians seem to be in a mode of self-censorship. They seem more interested in liberating Dalits, Tribals and Women and also creation. Interest in interreligious dialogue and inculturation is waning, on the whole.
The second factor is rather negative. Though the Council spoke also about dialogue with the world indicating themes like the family, culture, economics, politics, peace, etc. in its document The Church in the Modern World nothing much has been spoken, written or done in these areas. In the early years there was at least some interest in social work for development and human promotion. The Indian Social Institutes in Delhi and Bangalore and Social centres in other provincial centres seem less active in research, reflection, training and action. Various NGOs are active, but with a different atmosphere and interest. There is no dialogue with various socio-cultural movements and ideologies in view of social liberation and development. The documents speak of four types of dialogue: of life, of intellectual exchange, of spiritual experience and of common action. Small groups of people may engage in the first two. They have become activities of a few specialists, even professionals. I would have expected that at the level of common action the two kinds of dialogue, namely with the religions and the world, would have come together. I would have further expected that the dialogue with the world in view of action would have led us to dialogue not only with the religions, but also with ideologies, some of which may claim to be secular and agnostic, if not atheistic.
Dialogue with the World and the Role of Conscience
As we celebrate the 50 years after Vatican II, I would like to suggest that we should look more seriously into this dialogue with the world. I think further that, without abandoning the dialogue of action with other religions, we should seek to dialogue also with secular ideologies. I would like to propose, thirdly, that such a dialogue with secular ideologies – and even with religious people – should be done on the basis of individual conscience. As a matter of fact, in two of its documents, namely that of Religious Freedom and The Church in the Modern World, the Council speaks about the dignity of every human, as human, in the world and the role of conscience and its freedom. I think that it is our challenge today to dialogue with every human, in view of building a cosmic human community, based on his/her conscience. While it is true that religious inspiration and energy can be very helpful animators in promoting collaboration in building a better world for all, religions may also be ambiguous. A spirit of fundamentalism may make a particular religious group look on other groups as enemies to be marginalized or overcome or even destroyed. Has not aggressive mission been a characteristic of some religions? Religious communalism makes the religions tools of a political agenda seeking to promote economic, social and political betterment for one’s own group. While leaving the more open religious groups to do what they can, should we not focus on conscience as a factor that can unify all humans at a rational and human level? I would like to explore this in the following pages, starting precisely with what the Council has to say about conscience. Another reason to focus on conscience is that Pope Francis is actually doing it, though in a different context. He is helping us to rediscover the role of conscience in the lives of people.
Conscience is Universal
In its Declaration on Religious Liberty, the Council affirms that every human person is endowed with human dignity which needs to be respected. An element of this dignity is freedom, especially in the area of religious practice. Each one is bound to seek the truth, but is free to do it in his/her own way. (Nos 2-3) The state and civil society must respect and protect this freedom. Since the humans are not merely individuals but social beings they have the right to seek the truth as a community. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms in its very first Article: “All human beings are free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” (Art 1) Let us note that the human right to freedom includes also freedom of thought, conscience and religion. These are different dimensions of one and the same freedom. The Declaration on Religious Liberty clarifies this.
It is through his conscience that man sees and recognizes the demands of the divine law. He is bound to follow this conscience faithfully in all its activity so that he may come to God, who is his last end. Therefore he must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters. (No. 3)
Conscience is therefore a universal gift given by God to all the humans as humans, irrespective of whatever religion or culture they may belong to. Through conscience the humans can discern God’s law inscribed in each one’s heart. This law is common to all the humans, prior to any religious affiliation.
The Pastoral Constitution on The Church in the Modern World, though it looks at the world from a Christian point of view, is addressed to all peoples with an expressed desire to dialogue and work with them in building up a more equal and just world. (Nos. 1-3) It is in this context that the Council develops further this notion of conscience.
Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, tells him inwardly at the right moment: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. His dignity lies in observing this law, and by it he will be judged. (cf. Rom 2:15-16) His conscience is man’s most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths. (No. 16)
The deepest core of the humans is their conscience. There they are in touch with God. They may belong to different religions or may refuse to belong to any. But they cannot escape this moral sense of what is right and what is wrong, what they have to do and what they have to avoid. Conscience, as a matter of fact, has an interreligious dimension. “Through loyalty to conscience Christians are joined to other men in the search for truth and for the right solution to so many moral problems which arise both in the life of individuals and from social relationships.” (No. 16) The Council is aware that the intellectual nature of the humans “finds at last its perception, as it should, in wisdom, which gently draws the human mind to look for and to love what is true and good.” (No. 15) The Bible has such wisdom books which do not belong strictly to the Jewish tradition, but to the wider human culture of the area. Similar wisdom literature in the form of aphorisms, proverbs, stories, etc. are found in all parts of the world. In India we have the Panchatantra stories and collection of aphorisms like the Tirukkural. They transcend the different religions. The Church affirms its readiness to collaborate even with atheists. “Although the Church altogether rejects atheism, she nevertheless sincerely proclaims that all men, those who believe as well as those who do not, should help to establish right order in this world where all live together. This certainly cannot be done without a dialogue that is sincere and prudent.” (No. 21) In this context, it would be interesting to recall some of the areas in which the Church is calling us to dialogue and collaborate with all people of good will. Let me insist once again that, though the document does offer a Christian perspective to the issues evoked, it is only meant as a Christian contribution to a dialogue to which everyone, even the atheists, are invited. The Christian perspective is seen, for instance, when the idea of God’s manifestation and action in the conscience of each one is replaced by the presence and action of the Holy Spirit conforming everyone to the paschal mystery of Christ. But by adding a phrase “in a way known to God”, the priority of God beyond religions, so to speak, is safe guarded. (No. 22) The document goes on to spell out the problems that the world is facing. Though it is addressed to all peoples, it is a document of the Church. So it speaks constantly at two levels. It evokes the problems and then adds a Christian perspective. In a dialogical context this should not be taken as the last word, but as a Christian proposal to which the others from their own religious or ideological point of view are expected to respond. Unfortunately this second step in dialogue is not often taken. What I would like to suggest is that before an interreligious encounter, a dialogue at a secular, rational level, centred round conscience is possible and could be useful. In many places in Europe and elsewhere, where either the religions are rejected or interreligious tensions are very active, this may be the only kind of dialogue possible. So in the following pages I would like to focus on what the document The Church in the Modern World is saying about the problems in the world that need attention.
The Challenges of the World Today
The document starts with the evocation of “the joy and hope, the grief and anguish of the men of our time, especially of those who are poor or afflicted in any way.” (No. 1) While the growth in wealth is evident, the gap between the rich and the poor is also increasing. Communications make possible a greater unity among people, but there are ethnic, economic, political and religious conflicts everywhere. Scientific advance is undeniable, but it seems to be used to control people rather than free them. The traditional social order seems to be breaking down, but widespread migrations and refugees bring in new social problems. Some young people seem more keen and active in religious practice, but secularization is also spreading. Tensions between theory and practice, between what is useful and what is ethical, between family and community demands and individual aspirations and needs, between the generations in a fast changing world are increasing. Today we are also more sensitive to the need to protect creation from human exploitation. The human quest for meaning in life is becoming more complicated, but urgent.
While there is growing individualism, there is also a need to respect the equal dignity and rights of the persons, irrespective of their own personal gifts, achievements and social positions. At the same time we cannot ignore their dependence on the community. “In his fatherly care for all of us, God desired that all men should form one family and deal with each other in a spirit of brotherhood. All, in fact, are destined to the very same end, namely God himself.” (No. 24) We seek the “common good, which is the sum total of social condition which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfilment more fully and more easily.” (No. 26) Everyone is called to work towards this human and cosmic development, conscious however that scientific and technological progress should be at the service of the humans as individuals and as community, promoting greater justice and brotherhood. There seems to be a fear that religions tend to be otherworldly and may be an obstacle to such human and cosmic development. God has created the world for the benefit of the humans and developing it in an appropriate way is God’s will, provided the moral laws are respected. (cf. No.35-36) The Document affirms that the Church is ready to collaborate with all human efforts to promote personal and community well being provided they function within the limits of God’s law. It also confesses that the Church itself “profits from the experience of past ages, from the progress of the sciences, and from the riches hidden in various cultures, through which greater light is thrown on the nature of man and new avenues to truth are opened up.” (No. 44)
Some More Urgent Problems
In Part II, dealing with some more urgent problems, the document focuses on marriage and the family, culture, economic and social life, politics, the solidarity of peoples, and peace.
The family is a sort of basic community in society. It is in the family that a child grows, is socialized and learns basic human and moral values. But it seems to be in crisis today. Many young people, for whatever reason, just live together without committing themselves to a permanent relationship. Divorces are getting frequent. The family simply becomes a safe social framework in which each individual follows his/her own personal agenda. The wider families of former times which provided a secure social base are disappearing. Nuclear families, isolated in a busy world, seem to become the rule. An emerging issue is interreligious families with questions about the religious life of the couple and the bringing up of their children.
Culture(s)
Humans are born with many physical and intellectual endowments: physical strength and capacity to shape nature and their own bodies to humanize the world around them and to have a joyful and peaceful life; intelligence, imagination and artistic sense to create a world of beauty; ways of reaching out to each other through language and poetry and build community; institutions to structure personal and community lives; a symbolic world that helps them to reach out to the transcendent. Through science the humans have discovered the secrets of the universe and have learnt to use them for their own benefit through appropriate technologies. The creativity of different groups of people, further diversified by local resources and factors like the weather, has resulted in the emergence of different cultures. Interactions between cultures through communications have led to mutual enrichment. People have become aware of their own capacities to shape their lives and build community. A focus on science and technology, while downplaying the arts may lead to a mechanization of life. Scientism may lead to secularization, emphasizing the instrumentalization of culture. The role of religion in culture would be to add depth to it in terms of values, perspectives and goals. Many religions animating one culture and many cultures socializing one religion may give rise to various tensions especially where religious fundamentalism and communalism may try to use culture for their own ends. But rising secular tendencies would be a counter balance.
Economics and Politics
Newer means of production and distribution have made it possible to meet the growing needs of the human community. At the same time the task of making money may tend to dominate life and inequality between the rich and the poor is growing. Technology seems to be preferred to agriculture and the service industries. What seems lacking is a mentality of sharing. Economic development must be at the service of the humans who control economic structures and processes. Automation should not be promoted at the expense of peoples’ jobs. People should have the experience of working together for the economic betterment of all so that labour disputes may be avoided. Working conditions should be improved and some leisure should be assured for all. “God destined the earth and all it contains for all men and all peoples so that all created things would be shared fairly by all mankind under the guidance of justice tempered by charity.” (No. 69) Today we would add that the earth must not be destroyed by overexploitation, but must be saved for future generations. The Church has always defended the right to private property as an expression of the dignity and freedom of individuals. But such a right is not absolute and the needs of the poor and the good of the community must also be balanced with it.
History has seen many political systems. However, there would be consensus today around a democratic set up, in which people have a sense of partnership and responsibility. The freedom and rights of everyone will be respected and the minorities of every kind – religious, ethnic, etc. – will be protected. A variety of points of view could meet in an active discussion and lead to a consensus on which common action could be based. Basic moral principles should govern every exercise of authority. Democracy should be participative, while the state respects the autonomy of social institutions like the family and various associative groups.
Peace and Dialogue
We have had two world wars in the last century. Pope Francis has suggested that a third world war seems to be going on, but in a scattered and piecemeal fashion. Forced migrations of whole populations have become a global problem. A recent estimate puts it at more than 60 million people. Terrorist groups and their attacks seem to be multiplying. The many local wars are supported by a flourishing global arms trade which is making money out of the blood of the suffering poor, especially women and children. A recent seminar in Rome has questioned the legality today of the just war theory, given the indiscriminate and destructive nature of the modern war.
While everyone is speaking of globalization of communications and commerce, gross inequalities of wealth and power between nations continue. Global organizations like the United Nations are controlled by the rich and militarily powerful nations. Cooperation in the economic and political sphere to promote justice and community is certainly a must. Cooperation demands dialogue. The Church is ready to dialogue with everyone.
For our part, our eagerness for such dialogue, conducted with appropriate discretion and leading to truth by way of love alone, exclude nobody; we would like to include those who respect outstanding human values without realizing who the author of values is, as well as those who oppose the Church and persecute it in various ways. Since God the Father is the beginning and end of all things, we are all called to be brothers; we ought to work together without violence and without deceit to build up the world in a spirit of genuine peace. (No. 92)
Pope Francis and Conscience
The role of conscience is being highlighted in the pastoral ministry of Pope Francis. Before him moral principles were spelt out in absolute terms. The experts, of course, knew that they could be interpreted according to the circumstances, personal disposition and intention, etc., at least in particular cases. But this was not stressed very much in practice. When religions dialogue with each other it tends to be an encounter of absolutes. They talk about general principles, not about concrete cases. But when two religious groups are dialoguing, not about doctrine or principles, but about action to transform society involving concrete practical decisions, interpretation will be involved. It is at that stage that individuals and their consciences are confronted with decision making. At these moments the pastoral praxis of Pope Francis becomes very helpful. In one of his interviews aboard a plane when someone asked him about homosexual persons, he did not simply repeat the classical doctrine that homosexuality is an intrinsic disorder, but simply asked a counter question: “Who am I to judge?” For an observer, it may simply be a theoretical moral question. But for the person concerned and his/her family it is a personal, practical question. In that context an abstract a priori answer is not enough. One will have to take into account the person concerned, the circumstances, etc. On could even say that the matter must eventually be left to the person’s conscience, after one has clarified the principles. In the same way, when someone asked about the Zika virus he answered that one would be justified in taking appropriate action to prevent being infected with the deadly virus.
The question came much more strongly during the synods on the family. The context was the possible admission to communion of Christians divorced and remarried. The strictly legal answer is ‘No’. But this does not take into account the personal culpability and responsibility of the individuals concerned. Under particular circumstances, a person on whom a divorce is forced – often a helpless woman – may not be guilty at all, but an unwilling victim. Trying to survive and support a child that person may seek the help of another partner. Thus the actual living situation may have changed. Under such circumstances a person who is divorced and remarried may feel that s/he is not living in a state of sin and therefore can go to communion. This has obviously to be discerned in every individual case. The discernment has to be made by the person concerned according to his/her conscience, of course aided by an informed and responsible guide. But, as Pope Francis remarks: “We have been called to form consciences, not to replace them.” Forming consciences would involve, not only teaching them general principles, but also in training them to discern decisions in particular given circumstances. But in a concrete situation this discernment is that of the person concerned, not of the guide. I do not wish to elaborate this point except to say that conscience does not simply repeat absolute principles beyond discussion, but explores concrete contingent decisions in particular circumstances for particular people. At this level one can engage in a practical dialogue oriented towards doing something together towards the transformation of society.
Conclusion: Dialogue and Conscience
We have to respect the many ashramites who seek to live an Indian (Hindu) Christian spirituality. There are also people like Raimon Panikkar, Swami Abhishiktananda and others who may even speak of double religious belonging. Such ways of interreligious dialogue have their place. But in the context of what we have been discussing above I would suggest that the focus of dialogue between religious groups should be primarily not theology or spirituality but praxis. We should try to reach a consensus for action based on the promptings of conscience, which will be a more neutral ground than religious faith or ideology. There is no problem for a person or a group to be inspired also by his/her ideology or religious faith. But the choice for action must also be defensible by reason in the context of a multi-religious community.
At the level of the Christian community in Asia the context and goal of dialogue today is being spelt out in terms of the Kingdom, and not of the Church. The Kingdom, while it has its religious backing, is also a secular ideal, as a community of freedom, fellowship and justice, that will appeal to people of all religions. When someone asked Jesus about the greatest commandment of the Law, Jesus answered that it is to love the Lord God and to love the other as oneself. But on the last day of his life when he is taking leave of the disciples the ‘new commandment’ he gives is simplified: “Love one another as I have loved you.” God has not disappeared. But God is experienced and loved in the other. This was illustrated by Jesus when he described the final judgement. The Lord blesses those who clothed him, fed him, visited him in prison, etc. When the people express their surprise, his explanation is simple: “Just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” (Mt 25:40) He identifies himself with the needy, suffering brothers and sisters. Loving the other becomes an ethical imperative. The Lord is encountered in the other. The Sacred has become the secular. At this level we can dialogue and collaborate, not only with other religious believers, but with all people of good will. We can appeal to conscience as a common ground for our conversations and action plans.
1. It is not necessary to enter into this problem elaborately here. Those interested can consult the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, Chapter 8, Nos. 291-312. I am only
2. highlighting the importance that Pope Francis is giving to the role of conscience.
3. Amoris Laetitia, No. 37.
So far we have been dialoguing with other religious believers, especially the experts among them. People also seem to be ready to make an occasional public show of mutual friendship. I do not think that much headway is being made. It may be more interesting to promote among students a true knowledge of other religions and a spirit of collaboration in view of promoting community, leaving theological and spiritual encounter to the few who are really interested, qualified and initiated. At both levels it may be helpful to focus on a free, equal and just community (Kingdom), based on conscience and open to all people of good will.
Michael Amaladoss, S.J.