Dialogue is possible” “

An international conference with the title “Islam in a Pluralistic World” was held in Vienna from 14 to 16 November. Numerous personalities of the international political and religious world attended the conference, including the ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I . Cardinal Christoph Schönborn , president of the Austrian Bishops’ Conference, also addressed the meeting. We present a résumé of his speech. THE QUESTION OF MISSION. “Can a dialogue between missionary religions exist?” That’s the question posed by Cardinal Schönborn, who pointed out the missionary character of Christianity and of Islam. It’s a question, said the cardinal, that plays an “often unspoken but decisive” role and that “cannot fail to be present at this conference. How ought we to tackle so delicate and essential a question? In as realistic a way as possible!”, he exclaimed, “since realism constitutes a sound basis for dialogue”. Schönborn stressed that the two religions are not “monoliths”, but live “in a multiplicity of directions that in part have bitterly combated with each other and that continue to do so”. The cardinal observed that the missionary history of both religions has not always been “a glorious testimony of tolerance and dialogue. Today too – he continued – the question of mission represents one of the fundamental cruxes for the dialogue of religions. Shall we succeed – Schönborn asked – in combining missionary dynamic, which represents a fundamental part of our religion, with an attitude of respect for the conscience of others, for freedom of religion and tolerance?”. WORRYING EXAMPLES. The president of the Austrian bishops mentioned some situations on the international scene that “are giving rise to concern and anxiety in various parts of the world and that raise doubts about whether dialogue can succeed”: “the explosive progress of the Islamic mission in Africa”; “the sharp growth of the radicalisation of Hinduism in India”; “the progress of the Islamic mission in Sri Lanka”. Schönborn paralleled these examples with some worrying cases caused by the “missionary activities of certain groups within our own religious communities: “the rapid progress in Latin America of fundamentalist Christian groups from the USA, that are siphoning off millions of Catholics and also causing major political consequences”. Therefore, Schönborn argued, “the question of mission… must become one of the main points on the agenda of dialogue”, because “mission is the sign of the vitality of religions but also possesses a great potential for conflict”. Schönborn rejected the hypothesis of “claiming, in dialogue, the renunciation of mission. To renounce mission would be tantamount to abjuring our religions. We must also be conscious of the fact that the missionary dynamic of our faiths represents for many of our contemporaries the reason for their rejection of religions”, since “they see in them an excessive potential for intolerance and conflict”. THREE POINTS ON THE agenda. The cardinal identified three main tasks to progress in interfaith dialogue: first, “a clarificatory dialogue on what is meant by our essential missionary task”; second, tackling the “considerable need for dialogue and clarification on the question of ‘proselytism’. Christians accuse Christians of reciprocal proselytism”, causing people to transfer from one confession to another. “This issue is a constant bone of contention in relations between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church”, but also assumes a growing significance in the “world Islamic community”. Third, said Schönborn, “we need an interfaith dialogue on the question of mission that may also take into consideration our missionary histories (which thank God do not only have dark sides but also great, creative and positive sides!), by openly discussing our mutual concerns and openly denouncing the violations of religious liberty on which the common efforts of correction need to converge”. To these three points, which need to be tackled “without hesitation” in the years ahead, Schönborn added a fourth concern: namely, the aspect of responsibility “towards God and the world”: “sooner or later we shall have to respond before God to the question whether we have performed our mission together. And we shall have to respond before him to the question whether we have given credible witness of faith in God to the many who don’t believe in God, or whether, on the contrary, we have reinforced atheism due to our conflicts. May dialogue make us conscious of this responsibility!”.