“ Assisi, something different from a meeting“: that’s the headline in the Spanish daily ABC of 19/1, introducing an article by Juan García Pérez on the Pope’s meeting with the leaders of other religions. The meeting, the author declares, “confronts us with important questions… The ‘others’ have begun to become more present in Western Europe… That’s why some Catholic theologians affirm that the dialogue with the other religions is the horizon of Christian theology in the near future.” In the author’s view, however, “ the meeting in Assisi is being realized not by exchanging ideas but within the confines of one’s own religious experience. That does not diminish one’s own convictions but demands a deepening of them. And so we are led to the faith of others, and at the same time bring our own faith to them.” “The Spirit of Assisi is alive” is the title of the comment of the French daily “La Croix” of 22/1, signed by Yves Pitette. “The interreligious meeting in Assisi is taking place under the best auspices”, writes the commentator, who also asks himself: “There’ll be over 1000 journalists there and television will be omnipresent. But will the message succeed in getting through?”. According to Pitette, “the whole impact of the day will depend on the attention focused on the Moslems coming from many countries”: “Will Al-Jazira and the other media of the Moslem world describe a meeting that shows that Christianity cannot simply be assimilated to the political West?”. “Of course continues the commentary there are absences at the meeting that reveal disagreement. But the spirit of Assisi is alive. Victory consists in the fact that the religious leaders have formed the habit of gathering together to proclaim that their faith wishes to bring peace”. “The Catholic Herald” of 18/1 also comments on the symbolism of the meeting in Assisi. Michael Barnes writes: “ the symbolism of the meeting in Assisi will not be exhausted in the images of colourful religious exponents who congregate to pray together. Each group will meet in a different place and pray in a different language. But there is something that unites them all. And it’s not the vague ‘common essence’ that provides the magic formula of peace. Peace is a gift from God and from God alone. This is what makes us more human. Human beings meet God in silence that speaks louder than any other human language… The source of our finding ourselves together lies in God”. “A Latin-American Pope would help to overcome the enormous disparity between north and south”: that’s the view of Cardinal Andrés Rodríguez, archbishop of Tegucigalpa (Honduras) in an article published in La Razón of 21/1 . According to the cardinal, “ if the next Pope were to come from Latin America or from any nation of the southern hemisphere, his pontificate could make a great contribution to overcoming the growing gap between the rich and poor countries”: “If we examine history and evaluate what significance John Paul II had for the end of the east-west conflict, we may then admit that the possibility of a pope arriving from the south could make a significant contribution to the overcoming of the north-south conflict, i.e. the growing and inhumane poverty which is afflicting many parts of the world and for which we have so far failed to find a solution“. In the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 23/1 the Cardinal of Cologne, Joachim Meisner intervenes on the forthcoming vote in the Bundestag on the importation of embryonal stem cells, scheduled for 30 January. The Cardinal writes: “This decision involves significant consequences for the image of man and for his dignity in our society” because what it implies “ is neither more nor less that a turning upside down of the whole Christian-Western conception of man, according to which the smallest, weakest and most defenceless of human beings can trust in the particular care of the State and of society.” And he predicts: “ If the importation of embryonal stem cells is accepted, then two arguments will not be slow in making their appearance: the one ethical, the other economic. As regards the first, it will be said that it is unfair to permit the killing of embryos abroad and conduct oneself as if one had nothing to do with the matter, while at the same time benefiting from the ‘fruits’ of this killing.” The other motivation, continues Meisner, is of economic type, given that “ the costs of importing stem cells could become so exorbitantly high due to the patents” that, to continue the research, “ one would have no other option” but to go down the road of a change in the law.
