Sat 1st Nov 2014 | Last updated: Fri 31st Oct 2014 at 16:19pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo

Comment & Blogs

To call the Pope’s meeting at Assisi a betrayal of the faith is an utter absurdity

It’s about building ‘fraternity and peace’: anything wrong with that?

By on Wednesday, 6 April 2011

Pope Benedict XVI speaks at a meeting of religious leaders at St Mary's University College Chapel in Twickenham, London (Toby Melville/PA Wire)

Pope Benedict XVI speaks at a meeting of religious leaders at St Mary's University College Chapel in Twickenham, London (Toby Melville/PA Wire)

The forthcoming “meeting” (the word is chosen with probably deliberate care) of the Pope with followers of other faiths and none at Assisi has reduced many traditionalists to apoplectic fury at this supposed betrayal of the Catholic religion, according to which it is only in the Church that the fullness of faith is to be found, so everyone else, to the extent they disagree with us, is just wrong. Well, that’s what I think too, about the Church, that is. I yield to nobody in my suspicion of “interfaith dialogue”, if that means negotiating what we might accept in each other’s religions, noting that nobody in other religions (especially Islam) is prepared to accept that we have anything right at all, and that if you deny the Incarnation and the Trinity, you have denied the very basis of everything we believe, so what’s the point? The recent decision of certain “top Muslim scholars” in Egypt to suspend all dialogue with the Vatican in protest against Pope Benedict XVI’s condemnation of anti-Christian violence in that country, as I wrote at the time, was “depressing”, but only to be expected.

But why was I depressed, I ask myself, if it was so inevitable? I suppose because such “dialogue” at least implies good will: and in the world we are living in, good will is beyond the price of rubies (and sometimes as rare). If we all agreed, of course, we wouldn’t go to war with one another, would we? But actually, good will has far more to do with that than holding the same religion: Colonel Gaddafi and the opposition in Libya, so far as I am aware, hold exactly the same religious beliefs: what’s missing in spades is good will. I am vividly aware, when I look at some of the comments under my blogs, that even towards my co-religionists, and even if theologically you couldn’t slip a cigarette paper between us, good will is on occasion notably lacking, for a time at least.

The Pope doesn’t believe that he will be giving an inch towards the beliefs of those he will be meeting in Assisi: nor will he be. Look, he’s even invited atheists – that in a sense proves my contention. When our new nuncio announced that he intends to open dialogue with non-believers, did anyone really suppose that he seriously intends to consider whether they might be right about the non-existence of God? “Dialogue” is just as likely to be a means of proselytising for the faith as a negotiation between systems of belief.

As a convinced schoolboy atheist, it was only when I watched a TV debate between the atheist philosopher Professor Bernard Williams (for whom of course I was rooting) and Cardinal Heenan that it began to occur to me to that there might be something in all this stuff: I couldn’t put my finger on it, but Heenan (what a great apologist he was, how lucidly intelligent; who is there like him today?) was somehow just more convincing, more reasonable, even about original sin and the real presence, both of which I naturally thought were absurdities. Afterwards, I still thought they were untrue; but that first cold little sliver of doubt had been introduced into my certainties. It was many years before I became a Christian (13 years later), let alone a Catholic (30 years later), but that was without any doubt, for me, the beginning. We have to talk to people, for God’s sake (literally; that’s not just an expletive). Because 50 years ago Cardinal Heenan entered into dialogue with the atheist Bernard Williams I am a Catholic today.

The Vatican has this week made it absolutely clear what the parameters of the Assisi meeting will be:

“Every human being is ultimately a pilgrim in search of truth and goodness. Believers too are constantly journeying towards God: hence the possibility, indeed the necessity, of speaking and entering into dialogue with everyone, believers and unbelievers alike, without sacrificing one’s own identity or indulging in forms of syncretism. To the extent that the pilgrimage of truth is authentically lived, it opens the path to dialogue with the other, it excludes no-one and it commits everyone to be a builder of fraternity and peace. These are the elements that the Holy Father wishes to place at the centre of reflection.

“For this reason, as well as representatives of Christian communities and of the principal religious traditions, some figures from the world of culture and science will be invited to share the journey – people who, while not professing to be religious, regard themselves as seekers of the truth and are conscious of a shared responsibility for the cause of justice and peace in this world of ours.”

To assert that that is a betrayal of the Catholic faith is an absurdity hardly worth discussing. So why am I discussing it? Because, I suppose, I feel an irrational fondness (fraternity and peace?) for one or two of those who assert it (you can’t always, thank God, be entirely rational).

  • Ginge

    There is a difference between ‘dialogue’ and ‘debate’. I think, Mr Oddie, you are getting the two confused. The beginning of your conversion came after you witnessed a debate, not a dialogue. A dialogue implies that there are positions that are open to alteration on all sides. This is patently not the case from the Catholic perspective.

    This is not the real crux of the problem, however. It is how the whole Assisi project is perceived. Terms such as ‘pilgrimage of truth’ are, in my opinion, wilfully deceptive. I do not know of anyone that could read such a thing and not conclude that it implies that we (all religions and none) are together on a journey seeking the truth.
    As Catholics we are not seekers but holders of the truth. This (how sad that such basic Catholicism needs reiterating) is of course not our truth; but Christs’ truth entrusted to us. So there is no case for triumphalism in that regard. Nevertheless, we all have a duty to proclaim the truth and refute falsehood. Assisi is falsehood.

    Thankfully, the Holy Father cannot give away that which does not belong to him. Although he is leaveing futre generations of Catholic with a lot of work to do.

  • Anonymous

    “To call the Pope’s meeting at Assisi a betrayal of the faith is an utter absurdity
    It’s about building ‘fraternity and peace’: anything wrong with that?”

    “Fraternity”, meaning what ? The 1789-ers were rather keen on that; so keen, that they let it go to their heads; which many of them then proceeded to lose.

    “Peace” ? Again, it sounds nice, but what sort ? “They make a wilderness, & and they call they it peace”, as Tacitus has Calgacus say of the Romans before the battle of Mons Graupius. A peace built on genocide or massacre, is peaceful – but it is not exactly just or good. And: peace for what purpose ? Men’s – or God’s ?

    All these little details need to be sorted out – otherwise, peace can be grossly unjust & wicked. And religious peace that is bought at the price of trampling the Catholic Faith underfoot, is worthless.

    The man who built on sand & not on rock (Matthew 7) built on a foundation that could not last. To build ‘fraternity and peace’ on a shoddy & short-lived foundation, is worse than not building at all, for “great [will be] its fall” – as anyone might expect.

    So, yes, there is a very great deal “wrong with that”. Peace and fraternity that are not in accord with the Catholic Faith, are not truly peace & fratenity. And ,”peace and fraternity” are too unimportant for words, compared with the “first and great commandment” – so whatever teaches us not to love God, and to hold Him cheap compared to earthly goods, is not a benefit, but an evil. God alone matters – & if Assisi 1986 has dimmed that realisation, however slightly, it will have done great harm.

    “Betrayal of the Faith” is almost too kind a description – “Idolatry at Assisi” might be closer.

  • Paul Flynn

    William, you are very confused, and so, sadly, are the leaders of our Church.  When you read the Bible you realize that it is telling you the truth.  There really is only one God.  There really is only one Son whom he sent into the world for our salvation.  The moment you admit, even if it only in your mind, that there are other ways to salvation, the very moment you honour other gods, at that moment you fall into unbelief, at that moment you lose your spiritual power, at that moment you have been overpowered by your enemies in the demon kingdom.  From that moment you can pray for healing, and people will not heal, you can command demons, addictions and other afflictions to leave, they will not go because you have lost your authority over them.
       I know this.  I have spent much of my life in your kind of two mindedness and I can tell you that it doesn’t work.  Praise God I have woken up and returned to what the Bible teaches.  I was led to do so not by my fellow Catholics but by evangelical Christians. 
       The Assissi meetings honour those spirits that reject the truth about Jesus.  No Christian can do that without losing the blessings set out in Scripture.  That is why our Church is in such serious trouble at this time.