HOW CAN THEOLOGY BECOME REALLY MORE CATHOLIC A Catholic Reading of the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio Francis X. D Sa, S.J.

Transcription

1 2009_b How can Theology become really more Catholic? A catholic Reading of the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, in: Journal of Indian Theology II:1 (Jan-April, 2009), Introduction HOW CAN THEOLOGY BECOME REALLY MORE CATHOLIC A Catholic Reading of the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio Francis X. D Sa, S.J. Theology means different things to different people. But what connects most if not all these views is the Logos tou Theou. That is the revelation-centre where they all meet, each in a different manner, to listen to God s Language, to God speaking. 1 It has taken almost two thousand years to come to the belated realization that not only Catholics and Christians listen when God speaks but also believers from other traditions. 2 It is surprising then that theologians have restricted their reflections to the mental borders of their traditions with little or no effort made to build theological bridges of understanding with other belief-traditions. Catholic Theology has still a long way to go to become really catholic (kat holos). In order to do that Catholic Theology has to take its understanding of God seriously. Unfortunately it is saddled with too much baggage which it tends to take overseriously. Its theology of religion and revelation has emerged mostly from a monocultural background which is not the most ideal place for such an enterprise! Without active interaction with and some experience of other religious traditions, it is not possible to work out a relevant theology of religion. Writing about other religious traditions from the outside is understandably a first step but that cannot be by any means the corner-stone for a theology of religion. Arguably then a relevant theology of religion will have to emerge from a religiously multicultural and pluralistic soil. Multicultural refers to the circumstance that many cultural streams are present in the context. By itself multicultural does not mean pluralistic; rather it means plurality. I understand plurality as the existence of many unrelated streams. But there is pluralism where cultural and religious traditions acknowledge the existence of other cultural and religious traditions and their right to exist. However this can only be the beginning of a pluralistic culture. This occurs when cultures and religions begin consciously to interact with one another in the spirit of a pluralistic attitude. Such interaction gradually brings these traditions closer to one another when a positive attitude accompanies it. Indeed without at least a semblance of a positive attitude no dialogue is possible. 1 According to Hans-Georg Gadamer Logos means primarily language. See his his essay "Mensch und Sprache", in his: Kleine Schriften Vol. 1 (J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], Tubingen, 1976), : "Es gibt eine klassische Definition des Wesens des Menschen, die Aristoteles aufgestellt hat, wonach er das Lebewesen ist, das Logos hat. In der Tradition des Abendlandes wurde diese Definition in der Form kanonisch, dass der Mansch das animal rationale, das vernunftige Lebewesen, d.h. durch die Fahigkeit des Denkens von den ubrigen Tieren unterschieden sei. Man hat also das griechische Wort Logos durch Vernunft bzw. Denken wiedergegeben. In Wahrheit heisst dieses Wort auch und vorwiegend: Sprache" (p. 95). 2 See the document Nostra aetate of Vatican II, especially nos. 2-3.

2 2 1. The Catholic Church and Other Religions: From Vatican II till Today Vatican II officially expressed for the first time in the history of the Catholic Church a positive attitude towards Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism. 3 The very first paragraph of the document Nostra aetate expresses such a sentiment. 4 Thus the seed of a culture of pluralism was planted in the Catholic Church, - something that will be most fruitful for the Church in India. 5 It is instructive to look at some of the landmarks in the recent history of the Church. The Vatican Council made some remarkable assertions, remarkable at least for that time (1965). In the Declaration Nostra aetate it asserted: The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. With sincere respect she looks on those ways of conduct and life, those precepts and teachings, which, though differing on many points from what she herself holds and teaches, yet not rarely reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all human beings. 6 And in the Decree Ad Gentes (1965), Nr. 18 it said: There are ascetical and contemplative traditions in some ancient cultures the seeds of which were implanted by God before the Gospel was ever preached there. The religious institutes should carefully study how best these ascetical and contemplative traditions may be assimilated into Christian religious life. (Myy emphasis) In the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes (1965), Nr. 22 we read: For since Christ died for all [cf. Rom 8:32], and since all human beings are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being associated, in a way known to God, with the pascal mystery. 3 See Robert A. Graham s comment on Nostra aetate, Non-Christians, Walter M. Abbot (Ed.), The Documents of Vatican II, p.659: However, some historical perspective can be provided by the recollection that is the first time an Ecumenical Council has expressed such an open approach to the other great faiths of the world. 4 Nostra aetate No. 1: In our times, when every day men are being drawn closer together and the ties between various peoples are being multiplied, the Church is giving deeper study to her relationship with non-christian religions. In her task of fostering unity and love among men, and even among nations, she gives primary consideration this document of what human beings have in common and to what promotes fellowship among them. For all peoples comprise a single community, and have a single origin, since God made the whole race of men dwell over the entire face of the earth (cf. Acts 17:26). One also is their final goal: God. 5 See All India Seminar: Church in India Today, Bangalore 1969 (New Delhi: C.B.C.I. Centre, n.d). 6 "Nostra aetate" Nr. 2. See my The Dharma of Religion. Towards an Indian Theology of Religion, in: K. Kunnumpuram/L. Fernando (Eds.), Quest for an Indian Church. An Exploration of the Possibilities Opened up by Vatican II (Jesuit Theological Forum Reflections 8), (Gujarat: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1993),

3 3 Since then the new Mantra in the Catholic Church has been dialogue. 7 John Paul II spoke in and out of season of the dialogue of religions and cultures. Visiting several Asian countries he broadcast on Radio Veritas (Manila, 21 February, 1981) a message to the people of Asia. Among other things he said (Nr.5): All Christians must therefore be committed to dialogue with the believers of all religions, so that mutual understanding and collaboration may grow; so that moral values may be strengthened; so that God may be praised in all creation. Ways must be developed to make this dialogue become a reality everywhere, especially in Asia, the continent that is the cradle of ancient cultures and religions. 8 (My emphasis) In his encyclical Redemptoris missio (1990) John Paul II broke fresh ground: Inter-religious dialogue is a part of the Church's evangelizing mission. Understood as a method and means of mutual knowledge and enrichment, dialogue is not in opposition to the mission ad gentes; indeed, it has special links with that mission and is one of its expressions In the light of the economy of salvation, the Church sees no conflict between proclaiming Christ and engaging in interreligious dialogue. Instead, she feels the need to link the two in the context of her mission ad gentes. These two elements must maintain both their intimate connection and their distinctiveness; therefore they should not be confused, manipulated or regarded as identical, as though they were interchangeable. (55) See most especially the following passage (56): Other religions constitute a positive challenge for the Church: they stimulate her both to discover and acknowledge the signs of Christ's presence and of the working of the Spirit, as well as to examine more deeply her own identity and to bear witness to the fullness of Revelation which she has received for the good of all. In the Document Dialogue and Proclamation another new element is expressed 9 : 7 See Jacques Dupuis, Der interreligiöse Dialog als Herausforderung für die christliche Identität, Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 88:2 (2004), 4: Die Auffassung des Dialogs als eines wesentlichen Bestandteils der Evangelisierung ist eine gewichtige Neudeutung der Kirchensendung in der nachkonziliaren Theologie. Diese Neudeutung ist in einem größeren Zusammenhang zu sehen, und zwar in der Ausweitung des Begriffs der Evangelisierung in den Jahren nach dem II. Vatikanischen Konzil. Neben weiteren Elementen wurde der Dialog so zu einem wesentlichen Aspekt der Evangelisierung. Die entscheidende Wende in den offiziellen Texten brachten bestimmte Veröffentlichungen in den vergangenen 80er und 90er Jahren. 8 In Madras addressing the leaders of other religions 5 February he said (Nr.4): Dialogue between members of different religions increases and deepens mutual respect and paves the way for relationships that are crucial in solving the problems of human suffering. Dialogue that is respectful and open to the opinions of others can promote union and a commitment to this noble cause. Besides, the experience of dialogue gives a sense of solidarity and courage for overcoming barriers and difficulties in the task of nation-building. For without dialogue the barriers of prejudice, suspicion and misunderstanding cannot be effectively removed. With dialogue, each partner makes an honest attempt to deal with the common problems of life and receives courage to accept the challenge of pursuing truth and achieving good.again, dialogue is a means of seeking after truth and of sharing it with others. 9 See Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue/Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples, Dialogue and Proclamation (19 May 1991), Nr. 32.

4 4 While entering with an open mind into dialogue with the followers of other religious traditions, Christians may have to challenge them in a peaceful spirit with regard to the content of their belief. But Christians too must allow themselves to be questioned. Notwithstanding the fullness of God s revelation in Jesus Christ, the way Christians understand their religion and practice it may be in need of purification.(my emphasis) The progress in the official stand of the Hierarchy with regard to other belief-traditions is reason for rejoicing. Whenever and wherever officials take on the work of bridgebuilding a major step towards a culture of peace is taken. That is why it must be acknowledged and must be made more widely known, the more so since there is urgent need to carry forward this work. In what follows I shall, for reasons of brevity, concentrate on just one point: This concerns the question of culture, an issue that is often neglected in the field of dialogue. I realize that the realm of culture is comprehensive; I am also aware of the somewhat cursory nature of my remarks. This is so because my concern with culture is connected with the Catholicity of catholic theology. 2. Church and Culture in Redemptoris missio (= RM) Culture is that specific material, human and spiritual world in which we are brought up and which shapes us, our way of thinking and behaving, our language and literature, our way of going about, our speaking, our values and anti-values, etc., etc. In general culture is our specific way of being-in-the-world. Culture is one of those realities where the verb have is totally inaccurate. It is not we who have a culture; rather it is to culture that we all belong. Culture is the larger reality in which we are born, move and have our being. It shapes, forms and determines us to such a degree that we cannot do away with or change our culture as we do our clothes or even give up as we do with our habits. We are born and brought up in a culture; we cannot change it at will. But culture is not static. It is continually undergoing change. Everything we do and everything that happens to us, everything that occurs in our surroundings and in our world at large has directly or indirectly - an impact on our culture. But, and this is very important, our impact on culture is indirect. We come in touch with another culture; we become familiar with its literature, its music, its art, etc. Without even our knowing it influences us, perhaps it broadens our perception, our thinking and makes us more toleration towards diversity, etc. Even the opposite of this is possible. All this has a tremendous influence on our own culture. It is no more what it was before we came in touch with the other culture. It makes us a little different from those in our culture who are not in touch with that culture. One sees the difference between Muslims in Saudi Arabia and Muslims in Europe; between Catholics in Italy and Catholics in India; or even Communists in China and Communists in Russia (to say nothing about Communists in India). Over and above ideological differences there are cultural differences; their hold over us should not be underestimated. However these changes are never deliberate. Long years of association with another culture bring about changes that one hardly notices. It is only through contrast with others

5 5 who do not associate with that particular culture that one becomes aware of the changes and the differences. These observations are value-free. At this stage we are not stating what is better or what is worse. We are stating what is the case with Muslims in Saudi Arabia and Muslims in Europe, etc. to show that coming in contact with another culture inevitably affects our culture and that breathing the air of a specific culture brings about changes in our culture. Culture is not folklore; it is the specific difference of a particular people, a difference that leaves its footprint at every step and in almost everything that pertains to them. It is perceivable in the way the people look at life, at the world, at the Divine, at beauty and in the way they understand good and evil. A culture promotes specific attitudes and values. It stresses certain virtues and condemns certain kinds of wrongdoings. 10 For our discussion it is relevant to point to out that every culture has a unique approach to truth and its opposite. 11 This is integral to its selfunderstanding. For every culture its understanding of truth is normative, not optional. But the danger is to universalize this normative character and expect the other cultures to accept and follow this norm. Our approach to truth is normative for us. So too is our neighbour s approach normative for the neighbour. Does this mean that all are right and no one is wrong? Far from it. We have to start from the premise that all can be right and all can be wrong. Only sharing our truth-experience and dialoguing with other traditions will point out to us whether the expression of our truth-experience excludes other truthexperiences (of which we have no experience) or pass judgment where we have neither experience nor competence! To state this is not to fall victim to the dictatorship of relativism, as the then Dean of the College of Cardinals, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger put it in his homily at the funeral service of Pope Paul II. Relativism rejects absolute truth. For us Divine Truth is always absolute and whatever truth we human beings may discover or receive is dependent on absolute truth. Human beings cannot make truth; at the most they can discover or receive truth. But whatever truth they discover or receive is historically conditioned. None can overcome historical conditioning. Such conditioning manifests itself in our articulation of the truth. The experience of truth is one thing and its articulation another, though the articulation is neither arbitrary nor superfluous. Though truth and its articulation belong to two different realms, namely, to the order of being and to that of language, they always go together. Unfortunately there is a general tendency to overlook or deny this important distinction. Furthermore we come to know each other s truth/s through our respective articulations of truth only, never directly. All articulations are dependent on and conditioned by one s historically conditioned cosmovision. But a cosmovision is the product of collective 10 We only need to look at the attitudes of the different religious communities towards women, childmarriages, sati, dowry-deaths, widows, to say nothing about homosexuals. Only in some communities of the same religion we find honour-killings, not in others. For a really different way of life and values see the books of Laurens van der Post about the bush-people, for example, The Lost World of the Kalahari (Penguin Books 1958). 11 See, for example, my Some Reflections on Våc in the Hindu Traditions, Vidyajyoti, Journal of Theological Reflection 66:11 (2002),

6 6 beliefs. They are intimately connected. Beliefs cannot be thrown overboard but it is good to remember that these articulations too are culturally conditioned and that interpreting them is not a straightforward affair. Beliefs are true in their respective world of belief; outside this world they do not make sense. That is why Raimon Panikkar speaks of the relativity or relationality of beliefs. The relativity of beliefs does not mean their relativism. 12 They are related to their world of belief. Beliefs are never individual beliefs; they are part of a family of beliefs. This is what I call a world of belief. To ignore a culture s claim to truth is to destroy the very basis of dialogue. Dialogue is precisely the quest for the truth as the other sees and witnesses to it. At the same time it is the acknowledgement of Man s limited nature and God s absolute truth. Man s reception of absolute truth will always remain limited and historically conditioned. 3. Gospel and Culture It is an encouraging thought that Redemptoris missio introduces in Nr. 24: From now on the Church opens her doors and becomes the house which all may enter, and in which all can feel at home, while keeping their own culture and traditions, provided that these are not contrary to the Gospel. (My emphasis) Again in Nr. 3 it states: Peoples everywhere, open the doors to Christ! His Gospel in no way detracts from man's freedom, from the respect that is owed to every culture and to whatever is good in each religion. By accepting Christ, you open yourselves to the definitive Word of God, to the One in whom God has made himself fully known and has shown us the path to himself. 13 Believers from different traditions need not worry about their cultures and traditions. This is important because it is a significant step on the way to becoming really Catholic. Down the centuries the story of Jesus has been told and its significance has been interpreted in different dogmatic formulations on the background of the judeo-graeco-roman beliefworlds. Now it is high time that this task is undertaken in the other cultures so that the goal of Catholicity is gradually realized. Redemptoris missio Nr. 52 sees this as an urgent task: As she carries out missionary activity among the nations, the Church encounters different cultures and becomes involved in the process of inculturation. The need for such involvement has marked the Church's pilgrimage throughout her history, but today it is particularly urgent. It is with this in view that the following discussion is being undertaken. 12 Raimon Panikkar, Faith and Belief, in The Intra-Religious Dialogue (New York, N.Y./Mahawah, N.J.: Paulist Press, rev.ed. 1997), Similarly Redemptoris missio Nr. 38 says: On her part. the Church addresses people with full respect for their freedom. Her mission does not restrict freedom but rather promotes it. The Church proposes; she imposes nothing. She respects individuals and cultures, and she honors the sanctuary of conscience. To those who for various reasons oppose missionary activity, the Church repeats: Open the doors to Christ!

7 7 Roman Documents including Redemptoris missio sometimes speak of Gospel and Church as if they were culture-free, culture-neutral as it were. The process of the Church's insertion into peoples' cultures is a lengthy one. It is not a matter of purely external adaptation, for inculturation "means the intimate transformation of authentic cultural values through their integration in Christianity and the insertion of Christianity in the various human cultures." The process is thus a profound and all-embracing one, which involves the Christian message and also the Church's reflection and practice. But at the same time it is a difficult process, for it must in no way compromise the distinctiveness and integrity of the Christian faith. (52) In this process the important aspect of culture is overlooked - completely, as it seems to me. The way Redemptoris missio understands inculturation is problematic. For her inculturation "means the intimate transformation of authentic cultural values through their integration in Christianity and the insertion of Christianity in the various human cultures. This is one-sided because it overlooks the fact that here Christianity is not culture-neutral. Redemptoris missio s understanding and expression of authentic cultural values is simplistic. When Christianity encounters a culture it is not a culture-neutral Christianity. There is no pure, culture-neutral Christianity. In an encounter between a Christianity that is conditioned by a specific culture and another religious tradition that is conditioned by another culture mutual interaction takes place. The one is influenced by the other but in a subtle manner. By influence is meant both a positive as well as a negative influence. There are happenings some of which are positive and some negative. But there are other happenings where it is not easy to say whether they are positive or negative. In such a case only time and history will have the last word. Thus it can never be the case that the Gospel or Church or Christianity alone is the giver, the one who affects and changes the other culture. Christianity and the other religions both give and receive; in what measure giving and receiving take place cannot be foreseen or determined in advance. Both are changed in the encounter. In the light of these reflections passages like the following comments on inculturation need revision. Through inculturation the Church makes the Gospel incarnate in different cultures and at the same time introduces peoples, together with their cultures, into her own community. She transmits to them her own values, at the same time taking the good elements that already exist in them and renewing them from within. Through inculturation the Church, for her part, becomes a more intelligible sign of what she is, and a more effective instrument of mission.(52) The way the process of inculturation is here described it appears that the Church has the initiative; that it is an active agent; and that it is in its power to make the Gospel incarnate in different cultures and to introduce peoples, together with their cultures into her community; to transmit to them her own values and to take the good elements that already exist in them and to renew them from within. But that is not how the process of

8 8 inculturation works. 14 For one thing, if this were the case the history of the Church would be very different. We would long ago have had inculturated local Churches all over the world. And for another, whatever efforts at inculturation we may initiate, they are all much too external. Besides, not all the effects of the cultural interaction are positive. Much discernment is required to see what is from the good spirit and what is not. With great wisdom John Paul II stated repeatedly that the first agent of inculturation is the Holy Spirit. 15 That is all the more reason why sentences like Through inculturation the Church makes the Gospel incarnate in different cultures... have to be made more precise. At the most the Church, when she is open to the promptings of the Spirit, will be led to discern the wheat of the work of the Spirit from the chaff of blind and selfish human initiative. The process that takes place when cultures meet begins as interculturation, that is, the process where cultures affect each other and in course of time become aware of such affection. 16 Whatever Gospel may mean it surely cannot mean that it is culture-free. Even if we took the Gospel to mean that which we read or hear (mostly in our Churches) and not necessarily the original handing down of the story of Jesus which exegetes study and analyze, it is always and already culture-laden. The Gospel as such, i.e., a Gospel that is culture-free does not exist. This is especially true in the case of the missionaries. Inescapably they take with them a reading of the Gospel prevalent in their country. Missionaries usually read and understand the Gospel with the eyes of their own culture, until such time when the influence of the culture where they have opted to live in becomes gradually more dominant. Whatever version of the Gospel one brings or reads, it is soaked in the culture of the respective reader. Readers can never shake off the preunderstanding of their culture in much the same way that exegetes cannot shake off their preunderstanding too. It is true that exegetes take great care not to allow their preunderstanding to interfere when uncovering the world of the text that lies before them. But whether they like it or not, they cannot switch off their own world which interacts in the background with the world of the text. Here where there is a subtle interaction between eisegesis and exegesis the exegete has to exercize the utmost care to see to it that neither one nor the other dominates See my Inculturation in Asia, in: J. Kavunkal/E. D Lima/M. Jayant (Eds.), Church in the Service of Asia s Peoples (Pune: Jnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth, 2003), and Inkulturation und Interkulturation. Versuch einer Begriffserklärung, in: M. Heberling/G. Rott/H. Sing (Hg.), Inkulturation als Herausforderung und Chance. Dokumentation des 1. Dialogforums der Partnerdiözesen Poona und Eichstätt. Grundfragen, Pastorale Herausforderungen, Erfahrungen aus Partnerschaften (Aachen: Riese Springer Verlag, 2001): Ecclesia in Asia Nr. 20, (Bombay: Pauline Publications 2000), See my Inkulturation und Interkulturation. Versuch einer Begriffserklärung, in: M. Heberling/G. Rott/H. Sing (Hg.), Inkulturation als Herausforderung und Chance. Dokumentation des 1. Dialogforums der Partnerdiözesen Poona und Eichstätt. Grundfragen, Pastorale Herausforderungen, Erfahrungen aus Partnerschaften (Aachen: Riese Springer Verlag, 2001): See my Karmische und Anthropische Geschichte, Zeitschrift für Missions- und Religionswissenschaft 87:3 (2003)

9 9 The conclusion is clear: We do not have a pure Gospel just as we do not have a pure world of the reader. Each partakes in a cultural world of its own; both these cultural worlds interact with one another in the reading/interpreting process. The outcome is, as Severino Croatto puts it, a production, not a reproduction, of meaning Catholicity in Redemptoris Missio RM's approach to atholicity is unambiguously put forward in some important assertions about the Holy Spirit. RM states that though the Holy Spirit is present in a special manner in the Church her 'presence and activity are universal, limited neither by space nor time'. The Holy Spirit offers 'the human race the light and the strength to respond to her highest calling'; she 'offers everyone the possibility of sharing in the Pascal Mystery'. Her presence and activity are to be found both in individuals as well as in society and history, in cultures and in religions. 19 RM goes on to say that 'the Spirit was already at work in the world before Christ was glorified' and that she 'leads us to broaden our vision in order to ponder her activity in every time and place'. 20 (My emphasis) RM presents us then with pronouncements that clearly state that the work of the Spirit is unrestricted, that is, it is everywhere and in everyone without exception and this throughout the course of history without any interruption. RM 28 makes it clear: Indeed, the Spirit is at the origin of the noble ideals and undertakings which benefit humanity on its journey through history: The Spirit of God with marvellous foresight directs the course of the ages and renews the face of the earth. Incidentally St Ambrose had expressed a similar idea differently and arguably more epigrammatically at least in the original Latin version: Truth, irrespective of who utters it, derives from the Holy Spirit J. Severino Croatto, Biblical Hermeneutics. Toward a Theory of Reading as the Production of Meaning (Maryknoll/New York: Orbis Books, 1987). 19 My emphasis. See Redemptoris missio 28: The Spirit manifests himself in a special way in the Church and in her members. Nevertheless, his presence and activity are universal, limited neither by space nor time. The Second Vatican Council recalls that the Spirit is at work in the heart of every person, through the "seeds of the Word," to be found in human initiatives-including religious ones-and in mankind's efforts to attain truth, goodness and God himself. The Spirit offers the human race "the light and strength to respond to its highest calling"; through the Spirit, "mankind attains in faith to the contemplation and savoring of the mystery of God's design"; indeed, "we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in the Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God." The Church "is aware that humanity is being continually stirred by the Spirit of God and can therefore never be completely indifferent to the problems of religion" and that "people will always...want to know what meaning to give their life, their activity and their death." The Spirit, therefore, is at the very source of man's existential and religious questioning, a questioning which is occasioned not only by contingent situations but by the very structure of his being. 20 RM 29: "Thus the Spirit, who 'blows where he wills' (cf. Jn 3:8), who 'was already at work in the world before Christ was glorified,' and who "'has filled the world,...holds all things together [and] knows what is said' (Wis 1:7), leads us to broaden our vision in order to ponder his activity in every time and place." 21 Thomas von Aquin quotes St Ambrose (Glossa Lombadi, P.L. 191, 1651): Omne verum, a quocumque dicatur, a Spiritu Sancto est. Summa Theologiae, I-II.q.109,a.1, ad 1. Quoted in Raimon Panikkar, Der neue religiöse Weg. Im Dialog der Religionen leben (München: Kösel, 1990), 177.

10 10 Furthermore some of RM s pronouncements also about the Christ unambiguously reiterate its Catholicity. It states, for instance, that "the whole economy of salvation has its center in Christ" 22 and that "salvation comes from Christ". 23 Hence: "In Christ, God calls all peoples to himself and he wishes to share with them the fullness of his revelation and love. He does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression, even when they contain 'gaps, insufficiencies and errors'." 24 (My emphasis) RM goes a step further when it states: "Other religions constitute a positive challenge for the Church: they stimulate her both to discover and acknowledge the signs of Christ's presence and of the working of the Spirit, as well as to examine more deeply her own identity and to bear witness to the fullness of Revelation which she has received for the good of all." 25 All this is true and, however correct my thesis may be, it is also clear that the Encyclical does not work it out consistently. Most of it is part of a kind of monocultural Christology that does not promote catholicity. Such a stance is not conducive to dialogue as can be seen from the following. After stating that Other religions constitute a positive challenge for the Church: they stimulate her both to discover and acknowledge the signs of Christ's presence and of the working of the Spirit 26 the Encyclical goes on to speak of those "who are far from Christ". 27 This is strange. If Christ is present in them and his Spirit is at work in them then surely they are not far from Christ, though they may not know this. Christ s presence is not like that of an object on the table. His presence is such that it vivifies from within. Similarly though we have been told of the unrestricted presence and activity of the Spirit, especially in cultures and religions, the Encyclical speaks of those whose culture has not yet been influenced by the Gospel. 28 A more precise way of putting it would be to state that the Spirit works even in those who are not aware of her presence and work in them. Thematizing this is the work of the missionary. From here we could go on to speak about the specific understanding of truth, of beauty, of God, World and Man that is at work in other cultures and religions and state that they are all manifestations of the signs of Christ's presence and of the working of the Spirit. 29 All these inconsistencies, I submit, derive from not distinguishing between the two perspectives of the Christ in the Encyclical: Though RM states that 'the Spirit was already at work in the world before Christ was glorified' and 'leads us to broaden our vision in 22 RM RM RM RM RM RM RM RM 56.

11 11 order to ponder his activity in every time and place 30 (perspective one), it forgets or ignores this perspective in the rest of the Encyclical and begins to speak of Jesus Christ, that is, of Christ after he was incarnated in Jesus (perspective two). Because of this restricting and restricted vision the Encyclical does not take seriously what it had asserted earlier, namely, discovering and acknowledging the signs of the presence of Christ and the work of the Spirit in other religions and cultures! Michael Amaladoss way of expressing things is helpful in our context. 31 : To preserve the unity of the Trinity on the one hand, to affirm a certain articulation between the mission of God and of Jesus on the other, Indian theologians point to a distinction between the Word and Jesus. Jesus is the historical, incarnate manifestation of the Word. But his activity is not coextensive with the activity of the Word as such. Whatever Jesus does, the Word of God does because Jesus is the incarnate Word. But the presence and action of the Word is not limited to its manifestation in Jesus. Such a distinction makes it possible to distinguish the action of God, the Father, the Word and the Spirit in the world and in history from the action of Jesus in and through the Church, and not reduce one to the other. The presence and action of Jesus in and through the Church then can relate creatively to the presence and action of God in other religions as well as in human, secular history as such. (My emphasis) Raimon Panikkar says the same thing but expresses it in his inimitable manner: Jesus is Christ, but Christ cannot be identified completely with Jesus of Nazareth. 32 A little later he says that the Christian encounters the Christ in and through Jesus. 33 At the same time Panikkar acknowledges, that Christ is not absolutely identical with Jesus 34. This is so because Christians do not possess an exhaustive knowledge of Christ. Furthermore, the figure of Christ has been forged almost exclusively in dialogue with the Mediterranean cultures. In dialogue with Syrians, Persians, Ethiopians, Greeks, Romans, and even barbarians they worked out an answer. After that they ceased referring to the other civilizations. They did not imitate their Teacher by asking once again, Who do the people the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Africans say the son of man is? RM 29: "Thus the Spirit, who 'blows where he wills' (cf. Jn 3:8), who 'was already at work in the world before Christ was glorified,' and who "'has filled the world,...holds all things together [and] knows what is said' (Wis 1:7), leads us to broaden our vision in order to ponder his activity in every time and place." 31 See Michael Amaladoss, The Trinity on Mission, in: Frans Wijsen & Peter Nissen (Hrsg.), Mission is a Must. Intercultural Theology and the Mission of the Church (Amsterdam New York: Rodopi, 2002), Raimon Panikkar, Christophany: The Fullness of Man (Maryknoll/New York: Orbis Books), Raimon Panikkar, Christophany: The Fullness of Man (Maryknoll/New York: Orbis Books), Raimon Panikkar, Christophany: The Fullness of Man (Maryknoll/New York: Orbis Books), Raimon Panikkar, Christophany: The Fullness of Man (Maryknoll/New York: Orbis Books), 11: Christology has been, in general, a reflection pursued by Christians who except in its first period of its formation, have virtually ignored the world s other traditions. Christophany, on the other hand, is open to both a dialogue with other religions and an interpretation of that same tradition on the basis of a scenario that embraces the past (including the pre-christian) as well as the present (even what is called the non- Christian, including the secular). Ibid. 162: If Jesus of Nazareth were not a historical personage, he would lose all his reality. Christophany does not contest the historicity of Jesus. It merely affirms that history is not the only dimension of the real

12 12 But does this stance not smack of the dictatorship of relativism? If we take cultures seriously we shall discover that they all have a different experience of that Mystery (which we Christians call the Christ but) for which the others have their own name. Culture is neither substitutable nor universalizable. Therefore Panikkar rightly argues: The intelligibility of the incarnation as historical event depends on a particular series of cultural premises proper to the vision of the abrahamic world. Precisely for this reason we must reconsider the presumed right to inculturation that a certain contemporary theology of mission advances, as if the incarnation were a fact that, being above culture, had the right to inculturate itself in every civilization. 36 What Panikkar is inveighing against are passages like RM 52 where the cultural characteristics he is talking about are ignored. Such passages ignore the fact that the Incarnation is at home in a specific cultural world. Therefore it cannot be extrapolated without more ado. More homework needs to be done as I shall explain in the concluding lines. 5. Concluding Comments Redemptoris missio speaks of respecting cultures and religions 37 but in practice and in theory it finds it difficult to give up the privileged understanding it has of the Christian tradition. It does not seem to accept that every culture is privileged and that it has its own experience of reality and also its own expression for it. Forty years after the Council some of us today find even those statements a bit paternalistic which sounded generous and astonishing at the time of the Council. After all that we have said about each culture having its own sense of truth, beauty, etc. a statement like The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. (Nostra aetate Nr. 2) raises questions. What is true and holy for a believing Hindu may not be true and holy for a believing Christian and vice versa! True and holy are part not only of a religion but also of a culture. This is what interreligious dialogue is about! Cultures can meaningfully communicate with one another, as Panikkar has suggested, with the help of functional equivalents. Functional equivalents are not similarities but similarities of function. Put simply, it means, for example, the function God has in the beliefs of the Christians Allah has in the beliefs of the Muslims. That does not make God and Allah identical; they have a similar function in their respective traditions. 38 Avatara and that Christ s reality is thus not exhausted with Jesus historicity. Christophany s transcendence of historical Christology belongs to the cultural moment in which we live. 36 Raimon Panikkar, Christophany: The Fullness of Man (Maryknoll/New York: Orbis Books), RM 38: The Church proposes; she imposes nothing. She respects individuals and cultures, and she honors the sanctuary of conscience. 38 Panikkar speaks of functional or homeomorphic equivalents in his, Religion, Philosophy, Culture, polylog, More specifically see ibid : file://localhost/volumes/lexar%20media/lexar%20media/f.x.d/stick061106/panikkar.htm More specifically & 27-28: I have introduced, a few years ago, the notion of homeomorphic equivalents, as a first step towards interculturality. One should, in our case, research both the eventual equivalent notions to philosophy in other cultures, and the symbols (not necessarily the concepts and even less a

13 13 and Incarnation are not the same but they can be taken to be functional equivalents. The significant function that an Avatara enjoys in the Hindu world of belief is equivalent to the significant function that the Incarnation enjoys in the Christian world of belief. As our Encyclical has put it (56): He [Christ] does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression. (My emphasis) If understood properly, that is in the Catholic mode, then it could be paraphrased thus: The Christ becomes significant in different cultures differently, thus for example, in the one culture as the Incarnation and in another as an Avatara. 39 If then we wish to build bridges of mutual understanding 40 with traditions like these then we need to discover functional equivalents between them. This is possible through indepth study and deep sympathy. Only so can one imbibe their Spirit and hope for a view of them from within, from inside as it were. 41 When this happens the process of interculturation is not far from its climax. At this stage the Spirit takes over - ours is just to open ourselves to her and be led by her in the task of separating the chaff of arbitrariness from the wheat of genuine inculturation. A new language begins to emerge gradually - a language that is intelligible to both cultures. This signals the beginning of a new Pentecost. unique concept) that express the homeomorphic equivalents of philosophy. Homeomorphic equivalents are not mere literal translations, any more than they merely translate the role that the original word claims to play (in this case: philosophy), but they play a function which is equivalent (analogous) or comparable to that supposedly played by philosophy. It is therefore not a conceptual but a functional equivalent, i.e. an analogy of the third degree. One does not seek the same function (as that exercised by philosophy) but the function that is equivalent to that exercised by the original notion in the corresponding cosmovision. We cannot claim to define through one single word what intercultural philosophy is, nor even presuppose that such a philosophy exists. What is possible however is to inquire about the many homeomorphic equivalents, and, from within the other culture, to try to formulate what can correspond to what we are trying to say when we say the word philosophy. We must seek a middle way between the colonial mentality which believes that we can express the totality of the human experience through the notions of a single culture, and the opposite extreme which thinks that there is no communication possible between diverse cultures, and which should then condemn themselves to a cultural apartheid in order to preserve their identity. I am thinking of the case of Bhutan as a political example. Our problem is not merely a speculative one. 39 See Christian Incarnation and Hindu Avatara, in: Concilium 2 (April, 1973), A phrase that Benedict XVI employed in his allocution to the members of the 35 th General Congregation of the Society of Jesus Jesus (21 February 2008), 5:...while you try to recognize the signs of the presence and work of God in every part of the world, even beyond the confines of the visible Church, while you endeavour to build bridges of understanding and dialogue with those who do not belong to the Church or who have difficulty accepting its position... See Decrees of General Congregation 35 issued by the Jesuit Conference of South Asia (Anand: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 2008). 41 Panikkar, Christophany 12: "Christophany interrogates other cultures too, as they in turn interrogate it. The other religions are no longer treated as adversaries or 'pagan' but are acknowledged in terms of their own self-understanding."

14 14