Card. Walter Kasper
Presidente della Pontificia Commissione per i Rapporti Religiosi con l'Ebraismo
 1. The friendly invitation to speak about dialogue, especially about dialogue between Jews and Christians, is for me first of all an opportunity and an invitation to express thanks to my Jewish friends. For we owe to them the concept of dialogue. "Dialogue" is a relatively new concept in philosophy and in theology as well. It has its roots in the personalistic philosophy of the first half of the 20th century, especially in the Jewish personalistic philosophy of Martin Buber, Franz Rosenzweig, Emanuel Levinas and others.
The Second Vatican Council adopted this understanding and it became a key concept of the post-conciliar Church. The Council believed that dialogue is necessary on all levels of life. Besides ecumenical dialogue, there are other forms of dialogue: for example, interreligious and intercultural dialogue, dialogue with modem scientists, artists, intellectuals, politicians and so on. Not the least there is dialogue within the Church herself, dialogue between bishops, bishops and their priests, bishops and laity, and dialogue within the different communities, orders and congregations. Nowadays dialogue is seen as the answer to the great challenges of modernity. Because dialogue between the civilisations is the only possible alternative to the so–called "clash of civilisations" (Huntington). Dialogue is the only means by which humankind can survive in humanity and in peace.
The dialogue between the Catholic Church and Jews that we have undertaken in the last 40 years since the Second Vatican Council and its Declaration Nostra aetate is the best proof of the truth of this affirmation. This dialogue has radically changed Jewish-Christian relations. It brought about a revolution in our perception of each other and can be seen – as we hope – as an example that a new beginning and reconciliation are possible even after a difficult and complex history.
2. But what is dialogue all about? The Jewish origin of the concept of dialogue tells us that it has Biblical roots. It is founded in the Biblical understanding of the human person as a being who is fundamentally in dialogue with God, or as a being called by God and answering God's call. The dialogue with God is linked to the dialogue among ourselves. Because God did not create us as isolated individual beings, but as men and women, that is, as social beings with a communitarian nature. We not only have dialogue, we are dialogue by our very nature.
The main insight of dialogical philosophy is therefore: I do not exist without you; we do not exist for ourselves; we exist for and with each other. The other is not the limit of myself, he or she is a gift and an enrichment for myself. Therefore the human being is never a monological being; as human beings we exist through and within dialogue. We do not only have dialogue, we are dialogue, we are encounter. Dialogue is a indispensable process towards human self-realisation. Each person is unique and has his or her own gifts, and only when we share our gifts through dialogue can we realise the fullness of being human.
Dialogue therefore is a holistic reality; it does not mean only dialogue consisting of words and conversations. Dialogue encompasses all dimensions of our being human; it implies a global, existential dimension and implies the human subject in his or her entirety. Of great importance is especially the field of symbolic interaction. So dialogue is communication in a comprehensive sense. In this perspective, it can be seen to withstand and to criticise our Western individualistic way of life. Ultimately, dialogue means living together and living in solidarity for each other.
Such dialogue is not only essential and necessary for individuals. Dialogue concerns also nations, cultures, and religions, which all have their own riches and gifts. But it becomes narrow and evolves into ideology when it closes itself and when it absolutises itself. Then the other nation, culture and religion becomes the enemy. The "clash of civilisations" (Huntington) will ensue. Dialogue is the only way to avoid such a disastrous clash. Today dialogue among cultures, religions and churches is a presupposition for peace in the world. It is necessary to pass from antagonism and conflict to a situation where each party recognises and respects the other as a partner.
These reflections enable us to define more exactly what dialogue is all about. It is clear on the basis of what has been said that dialogue is something other than inconsequential "small-talk"; nor is it interchangeable with scientific discourse. Dialogue is a holistic existential process through which the human person realises his or her human dignity; it is a holistic process because it take places not only through words but also through signs and symbols and finally through our whole human existence. It is the way through which we come to know about truth and through which we find the truth of our own existence.
Pope John Paul II addressed this issue in his ecumenical encyclical Ut unum sint (1995), in which he wrote that the concept of dialogue has its home in contemporary personalistic thinking. He writes: "The capacity for dialogue is rooted in the nature of the person and his dignity." Then he continues: "Dialogue is an indispensable step along the path towards human self-realisation, both of each individual and of every human community." As such it possesses not only cognitive significance but also an existential universal dimension. "It involves the human subject in his or her totality" (UUS 28).
3. It would deviate too far from our topic here to discuss dialogical thinking within the broader context of the various theories of knowledge and truth. In this context it must be enough to say that dia-logical thinking is to be distinguished from the usual logical thinking in that it does not proceed mono-logically in a relation between the subject and the objects. As Martin Buber, one of the most significant representatives of dialogical thinking, says, the truth is located not only in direct subject-object relations but in a "dia" , a "between" which is opened up between the dialogue partners and in which both have a share. Only in the "dia" – the between of a I-thou and a We-relation – do we "have" or, better, do we participate in the objective reality; the subject-object-reality is thus embedded in the subject-subject reality of communication and dialogue.
But this should not be misunderstood. In such a communication process the dialogue partners do not in a sense produce the truth, they do not constitute it, rather they have a share, each from his own personal perspective, in the pre-existent truth; in dialogue they mutually open up the truth to one another and make a gift of it to one another. Therefore the goal of dialogue is not to come to a compromise or to meet on the lowest common denominator and in so doing reach an agreement at the price of the truth, but on the contrary to find consensus in the truth. This is possible only when we in dialogue are open to the truth, when we are listening to one another and in listening to one another are listening to the truth, so that truth can become evident through our dialogue. In conclusion: Truth reveals and proves itself in the "between" of the inter-subjective speech process.
Therefore truth is not only an objective reality, which we "have"; truth involves subjective-existential truthfulness and interpersonal appropriateness of a statement just as much as the objective-factual correctness and logical coherence of the statement. It is not just a matter of what I say but of to whom and how I say it.
When we say: "I will tell him or her the truth", our attitude may imply a hostile or critical form of communication, which may even be a non-communication because the person to whom I "tell the truth" normally is not willing or not able to accept it or even to understand it, and so is not willing to enter into a fruitful communication with me. To tell the truth in this way blocks meaningful communication more than it promotes it. To tell the truth in a constructive way means not only to help the other to see what I see and how I see it, but also to understand what and how he or she sees it, and then come to a dialogue or communication, which implies my own readiness to conversion and correction, and fraternal correction as well, and my own willingness to take part in mutual enrichment and a sharing of gifts, as the late Pope called it.
4. Such a concept of dialogue has consequences for the intercultural and interreligious dialogue in our present world situation and for the Jewish-Christian dialogue as well. When we take seriously these fundamental insights there are two dangers to avoid. On the one hand, we must shun every kind of nationalism, racism, xenophobia and oppression of people, the claim of superiority and cultural hegemony. This implies of course also the exclusion of every form of anti-Semitism in the same way that it excludes anti-Catholicism. Nations, cultures and religions must open themselves and enter into dialogue. This presupposes mutual tolerance, mutual respect, mutual understanding and acknowledgement both of one's own limits and of the riches of the other, and it presupposes a willingness to learn from one another. We hope that this will happen in the near future also between Christians and Muslims, Jews and Muslims, Israelis and Palestinians.
On the other hand, dialogue does not aim at a uniform universal culture, where the identity of the individual cultures is extinguished. On the contrary, dialogue presupposes partners who each have, know and appreciate their identity. Dialogue acknowledges the otherness of the other. The aim of dialogue is neither an antagonistic pluralism or a boring uniformism but a rich dialogue-unity of cultures, where cultural identities are preserved and recognised, but also purified from inherent limits and enriched by intercultural exchange.
These reflections are important for a correct understanding of the Jewish-Christian dialogue because they show that dialogue is not a new and a veiled form of proselytism. In dialogue Jews remain Jews and Catholics remain Catholics, or even more: Jews become more perceptive and better Jews and Catholics become more perceptive and better Catholics. Through dialogue they learn to understand better their common heritage, while at the same time of course through dialogue they learn also to understand better their undeniable and well–known differences; they learn to understand these differences beyond all misunderstandings, and so they learn to appreciate the other with his or her differences, and only in this way can they learn from each other.
Thus in the last decades Jews and Christians have come to appreciate their common heritage: the belief in the one God, the father of all humankind, our call as children of Abraham to be a blessing for all nations and for the whole world, our commitment to the Ten Commandments (the Ten Words) and to a vision of the world based on these principles being acknowledged by all. We have learned of our common messianic hope proclaimed by the prophets as hope for the renewal of all of creation. We have learned that there have been negative periods in our relations, but we are also aware that there have been times already in the past when we have had a positive mutual cultural and religious influence. On the other hand, we have learned also about our differences especially in Christology and in the Trinitarian concept of the one God. But though these essential differences have caused the break between us, we are convinced that the covenant with the Jewish people is never broken and never interrupted, so tha Jews and Christians can walk together shoulder by shoulder in history and expect the together the final coming of the Messiah.
Thus about what we have in common and about what divides us we shall be in dialogue, and if you want to put it this way: we shall be in controversies till the end of time. Therefore our dialogue is and will be an ongoing process. For instance, after having clarified so much in the last decades, as a consequence of our very clarifications we have been able in the last few months to enter into a new phase of our theological dialogue; we have to talk now and we do talk now about the question of how to reconcile the concept of the unbroken covenant (so dear to the Council and to Pope John Paul II.) with the Christian affirmation (so central in the New Testament) that Jesus is the Christ (i.e. the Messiah) and the fullness of time (Gal 4:4).
We do not have as yet an adequate and a common answer to this question, but nevertheless we already have enough common ground to proceed from theoretical dialogue to practical dialogue, to work together and to give common witness not only in words but by deeds. For some years now we have gone from dialogue about the past to dialogue about our common present and future challenges, we have proceeded from theoretical dialogue to practical co-operation. An example of this is our work together three years ago in Argentina on a food programme for children, and we also initiated a similar co-operative undertaking some months ago in Cape Town in South Africa with regard to the Aids pandemic which tortures the African continent. Whether and how we can include in this dialogue and in this co-operation also moderate Muslims is a question for both of us, and if possible, both of us would want to do so for the good of all humanity.
Thus the Jewish-Christian dialogue is an example and a model of how to overcome and, indeed, that it is possible to overcome a difficult and complex history by dialogue and that by dialogue former indifference and hostility can be turned into alliance, into co-operation and in many and not rare cases even into friendship. As it was promised to our common father in faith, by dialogue the children of Abraham can be a blessing for all nations, a blessing for the whole of mankind.
|
info@santegidio.org