By small steps” “

The history of the Prayer Days for Peace in the World began in 1986, on the initiative of John Paul II. Since then the “spirit of Assisi” has inspired many other events of dialogue and common commitment of religions to peace. We tried to gauge the progress of this dialogue in a conversation with Elaine Rudolphi , German theologian, staff-member of OCIPE (Catholic Office of Information and Initiative for Europe) and head of the Foyer Catholique in Brussels for international pastoral mission. The Assisi meeting will see the participation of delegates of numerous Orthodox patriarchates, including that of Moscow. Does this represent a real step forward in ecumenical dialogue? “It’s certainly a positive sign. As regards the ecumenical patriarchate of Constantinople, for example, the dialogue is undoubtedly more open, especially with Bartholomew. The truth is that the messages coming out of the Churches are sometimes ambiguous. In countries like Romania, on the other hand, ecumenical dialogue proceeds with greater facility, also for historical reasons. We should also bear in mind, however, that the Prayer Day in Assisi is not only ecumenical but also interreligious: the effort of dialogue embraces all religions”. In your view, how far can religion become an instrument of peace? “It’s not religion in itself that is an instrument of peace, but individuals animated by the religious spirit; in other words, the choice of becoming a peacemaker is up to the believer himself. Religion may become an instrument of peace if people are convinced that this commits them to acting for peace – like the groups in Northern Ireland or in the Middle East, where peace is slowly built up with little projects of dialogue through religion”. In his recent address to the Diplomatic Corps, John Paul II reaffirmed the role of religion in the politics of international relations. Do you think that the international political community is ready to accept an enhanced role for interreligious dialogue? “What the Pope said in some sense recalls the words of Jacques Delors on the soul of Europe: in other words, a fil rouge that the Churches must follow to proclaim that the economy is not enough to make Europe and that ‘we have something more to offer’. We need to ensure that political action is aware of its own role of representation. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t seek dialogue with the religions or the Churches. The legacy left by the three monotheist religions exists in Europe, though at times an unconscious one. That doesn’t mean, however, that religions have any precise political duty, just as political action doesn’t have any precise religious duty: it may be a source of inspiration, of course, but politics and religion always remains on two different levels. Politics can never represent religions and the Churches, since the electorate and the persons they elect represent a larger and more heterogeneous slice of the population. Politics can make use of interreligious dialogue, but cannot appropriate it as an instrument of policy”.