Diversity

Last September (2009) I gave a talk at the Canadian Ecumenical Centre in which I tried to touch on an aspect of the themes I addressed in my book, Dealing with Diversity. I am particularly concerned by the shift to integralism in the Catholic Church.

We are faced today with the most profound crisis since the rise of civilization 7,000 years ago. The planet, our shared home, is being ravaged by human presence to the extent that the result may be the near extinction of humanity. In addition, the race to get control of natural resources is driving humanity more and more toward extensive economic, cultural and social exclusions often through the use of violence.
The underlying source of the destruction lies in attitudes that have shaped public policy and economic activity. Thus the question of values and of motivation is crucial to any solution.

The great world religions propose to humanity a way to live on this planet that will give meaning to life and assure a path through suffering toward fullness of life. The traditional Christian formulation of this finds its home in the theology of salvation, which is understood to include also our responsibility as faithful disciples to collaborate with God in ensuring earthly conditions that correspond to God’s will for us and for creation.

Thus, religions have a positive role to play in providing the ethics, the values, and the orientation for dealing with this crisis of humanity. Our religions traditions can in fact be powerful forces for change. The way in which that will operate in society will change in each context. We have every reason to look positively at the contribution religion can make to society. It is generally accepted, as Jacques Racine has admirably pointed out, that religion can help society and the people in society discover meaning in their life together. It can contribute to sustaining in particular those who are marginalized, who suffer setbacks, who are seriously ill or who are in prison. Religion can help us find common ground in living together and in resolving conflicts. Our religious traditions believe it is important to contribute a sense of transcendence, of reconciliation and of solidarity to society. Religions can help orient and sustain the search for peace.

We owe much to Hans Küng for his effort to articulate a global ethic based on the various world traditions. Such a project requires a realignment of the fundamental relationship between humanity and the planet. (Thomas Berry) Such an ethic needs to move beyond the anthropocentric context of historical ethics to one that is ecocentric. Little of our Christian ethics has prepared us for this.

Nevertheless, while all religions clearly have something to contribute, no one religious tradition or any one philosophical or political tradition offers a complete answer to the current crisis nor is any one of them in a position to lead humanity along a path out of the crisis, in part because we don’t all agree either on how to understand the problems or how to go about solving them.

What needs to happen is for all traditions, all peoples of good will, to join their efforts in order to save ourselves from the destruction we are creating.

Bringing people together from different religious and cultural traditions entails an enormous amount of dialogue.

And that means that each tradition needs also to examine the way in which it deals with, not only the issues, but with the existing diversity itself.

There is also diversity within each religious tradition whether Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist or any other. The Catholic Church embraces a staggering diversity of rites and traditions as well as being present to almost every culture on the planet. If we are closed off to that diversity we will not be prepared to listen carefully to the proposals coming from those diverse sources nor will we be ready to collaborate collectively toward finding a path.

So it is that the diversity I speak of includes the rull range of diversity across religions and religious traditions in the world today, including, though not exclusively, the major world religions. In the search for a path out of the crisis, every voice counts. That means that every tradition, every culture, every viewpoint, whether major or marginal, has to have its place at the table. Every contribution may contain a crucial piece of the puzzle. I particularly want to underline a growing consensus that the wisdom of indigenous peoples across the world has an invaluable contribution to make in the current context.

However, diversity cannot be restricted to this level. It must be recognised that there is also a diversity that transcends religion. The planet includes enormous cultural, linguistic, artistic and lifestyle differences. Every country, every society is a rainbow of diversity. We are more and more aware of the importance of these dimensions of diversity in our everyday life. Rather than focus on one aspect of diversity as the critical element, I am trying to open it up as widely as possible.

Much of the debate in Quebec has centred on the integration of diversity into a “living together” in society. This is a diversity of harmony and respect. While harmony and respect are fundamental, I believe that the situation requires more than that. We are also called to deal with life and death issues like violence, wars, violation of human rights, climate change, the destruction of the environment at every level, the ravages of consumerism fed by a voracious capitalism.

It should be obvious that we cannot deal with these issues by working only in our own little camps. My own “camp” is that of the Roman Catholics and it is to this camp that I have resolved recently to address myself most especially. It seems obvious to me that Catholics are not in a position to resolve these social problems, nor to even provide a decisive intervention that would tip the scales. We forget sometimes that Catholics are a minority in this country and on the planet. We have to work ecumenically and interreligiously in the context of a secular society and with people who do not confess any religion.

In saying this, I do not wish to underestimate a Catholic contribution. I realize that many Catholics have entered the fray and are doing a lot of good work. In the Catholic tradition there is a wealth of possibilities for making a significant contribution to society. For example the little-known social doctrine of the Church can support the dignity of the human person, the responsablity for participation in society, the search for the common good. It insists on the universal destination of goods, in other words, sharing, solidarity. Finally, the social doctrine of the Church insists on the principle of subsidiarity: that decisions be made at the level of those who are most affected. The Catholic tradition, with its option for the poor, demands that society include those who are marginalized.
Collaboration in society requires a sharing of deep values. We have a certain tendency, when working on social issues across borders of diversity to hide our religious affiliations. I do not think this is wise. While I agree with the conclusion of the Bouchard-Taylor commission that Quebec needs to continue working toward an open, secular society, I differ from those who suggest that such a society means that religious convictions should not be present in the public sphere. Our religious convictions are the source of our deepest values. We need to be transparent with one another about them when we are engaged in social struggles. When there is good communication, honest dialogue about these values is a real plus. We need to work seriously to share these values if we want to keep our collaboration strong and fruitful.

My reflections on the Catholic tradition led me to wonder whether we don’t also encounter obstacles that come from our tradition itself and that need to be taken into account in our strategies for bringing about a transformation of our unjust and irresponsible world.

I found that, in fact, there are important elements in our Catholic tradition of which we need to be very conscious if we don’t want to fall into traps that will undermine effective responses to the current crises. I want to mention three in particular: history, doctrine and truth.

The first obstacle is our history as a church, beginning with the creation of imperial Christendom after Constantine. This had led to the extremes of inquisition, religious wars and crusades. Nor are these dead issues. In many parts of the world the memory of these events remains fresh in memory. The holocaust that the Jews suffered during the Second World War is the exemplary horror of a Christianity totally out of touch with its origin and spirit. And it was not the first effort of extermination in the world. Far from it. To give only one example, in Latin America the religions that existed before the arrival of Europeans were repressed and even entire peoples were exterminated (up to 70 million). Moreover, there are several examples of major violence in the recent decades that have been related to attitudes rooted in Christian consciousness. The war in Bosnia is an outstanding example. Closer to home, we can point to the cultural genocide practiced against First Nations during the twentieth century.

We need to examine carefully Catholic attitudes that contributed to these atrocities. More specifically, our naïve disregard of this history and its impact on attitudes in other traditions creates a huge obstacle to collaboration. When working together we must always be aware of the presence of these memories in others. We might well say that all that is past history and that we have moved beyond those times. For many the suspicion is very alive that we will reinstate those attitudes if we have a chance.

Our ignorance also of the history and values of other religious traditions—I think especially of Islam—only exacerbates mutual distrust. I am amazed at times at the ignorance of many with regard to Islam. At times it is really abismal.

There is also a second set of obstacles consisting in those doctrines that gave rise to a context that created those historical events. Some of our Catholic doctrines tend to cast suspicion on those who are different. An example might be belief in Jesus as unique Son of God and Saviour of all humanity and even of all creation. There is no difficulty with the belief that Jesus is Son of God and Saviour. The problem comes with the word “unique” that tends to exclude the authenticity of other religious traditions. There are also certain doctrines touching on the sacraments that have led to closure to diversity. Probably the most outstanding is the exclusion of women—and more recently of homosexuals—from ordained ministry.
So it is that I propose we be more fully aware, that we acknowledge the errors of the past (the first obstacle) as we have begun to do, and also that we explicitly renounce the underlying attitudes by making sure that we have fully examined and reviewed all those elements of our doctrinal tradition that pose an obstacle to effective collaboration. Church leaders have a special responsibility in the effort to find theological explanations that will help us to be more open to what others have to contribute.
And that brings me to the third obstacle to effective collaboration: our notion of truth. Catholics—and I wager many others also—have a serious problem with the concept of truth that we all too often present as static eternal affirmations not susceptible to alteration. We need to recognise that and to begin to put in place another way of situating our beliefs in today’s world. That isn’t easy. However, in our hugely diversified and postmodern world, there is no other option if we don’t want to end up being just another sect. I don’t think there is any place today for “eternal truths.” When I say that I realize that it leaves me wide open to being accused of being relativist, which is probably the most damning accusation that can be levelled against a Catholic thinker today. But I will risk continuing with my conviction and claim that this does not mean I am a relativist. And so I repeat again: there is no place in today’s dialogue across the lines of diversity for introducing “eternal truths.”

In the context of dialogue and collaboration, truth is the formulation of an underlying insight and as formulation is limited by the cultural framework that language provides. In this respect, all truth is culturally limited. Once we recognise this, dialogue takes on new and fascinating dimensions as we try to understand how others formulate their experience in words. This sheds new light on the strengths and weaknesses of our own formulations and allows us to move forward in understanding. All this does not mean that there is no such thing as truth. There are truths, valid truths. However, their formulation is always a matter of cultural and historic frameworks. This includes the sacred scriptures and also the dogmas defined by Christianity. All of them deserve respect and also review and, at times, revision of their formulation in order to respect new insights and cultural frameworks.

In the case of the dialogue that is at the heart of my presentation, the search is less for eternal truths than for points of consensus that will allow us to move forward. (It is interesting in this respect, that the Pope set aside time not so long ago for an long meeting with Jürgen Habermas to discuss precisely this issue.)

For me, a bridge and starting point for dialogue, which is the deep source of collaboration across religious divides, lies in the concept of religious experience. By religious experience I mean that level of consciousness that underpins our beliefs and practices, or in other words that provides their fundamental source. The concept of “religious experience” is better known in Protestant circles than Catholic. It was William James who first really explored this term. (By the way, Charles Taylor has written an excellent commentary on James in this respect.) Catholics tend to refer more to “faith” though Bernard Lonergan has developed an excellent reflection on the structure of consciousness that I lean on heavily here. Faith and religious experience are of course intimately related terms but I feel that “religious experience” is broader, partly because it makes more explicit the dimension of feelings. By “feeling” I do not mean “sentiment” or “emotion” but rather that profound orientation of our human character as conscious and responsible beings. It is what St. Paul referred to when he said that the “Spirit is poured out into our hearts.” (Rom. 5, 5) Unfortunately, we often tend to assimilate “faith” with “beliefs,” that is to say the intellectual formulation of the insights that arise out of the basic experience. While “faith” is ultimately, in biblical terms, relational, that often gets lost in the popular mind. So, I conclude that the term “experience” carries all the elements better, in my view.

I find that Catholics sometimes have a tendency to be suspicious of their own religious experience and to reject, with a wave of the hand, the experience of others. Asked point blank if they have had an experience of God, many Catholics answer “no.” I find this an indication of an incredible gap in their religious formation. Far too often Catholics prefer to rely on authorities in the hierarchy or on theologians to affirm their beliefs and practices and to leave it to the saints to have religious experiences. Even if I find that collective co-responsibility as church is important in the religious sector and in the formulation of beliefs, we cannot abandon our own contributions, that is to say, what comes from our own experience and our own reflections. Living on “borrowed” experience is both dangerous and ultimately fruitless. We certainly need traditions and doctrines to help us recognise the depths and dimensions of our experience but they are not replacements for the work of facing our own religious experience. Religious experience is a fundamental element of being human; it is the ground, to use Tillich’s phrase, for human yearning and reaching out for “more,” for transcendence, to borrow a term from Karl Rahner and Bernard Lonergan. It is also to religious experience that we return always to find the responses, in terms of meaning, belief, practice, that ground our yearning. Without it we wither and die. It is the fundamental process of becoming human from the time of birth as we encounter the “other,” who is beyond us and without whom we cannot become fully human.

All of this may seem obvious, and even obvious to many Catholics. However, we live in a context of growing integralism. This is true, along with other traditions, of many branches of Christianity and they are strong in North America. It also touches the Catholic Church very directly. We live under an institutional pressure to adopt integrist (or fundamentalist) attitudes. Catholic institutions are moving more and more toward integrist positions and unfortunaely this is influencing many in the Catholic ranks.

I think we need to be clear that integrism is not acceptable, or wise. It is high time we moved beyond those narrow views and those narrow self-protective stances however subtly they insinuate themselves into our consciousness and practices. As a whole, I think we are getting there, certainly more than 100 years ago. Nevertheless all of us need to keep an eye out lest integrist influences limit our ability to face today’s challenges. At this point then, either we move forward together or, quite literally, we all perish !