Pope Francis: Jews, Christians and Muslims must work together to protect creation.

Pope embraces Father Guillermo Marco (his former press officer), as Rabbi Daniel Goldman and Islamic leader Omar Abboud look on.

“The believer is a defender of creation and of life and cannot remain silent or [stand] with arms crossed before the annihilation with impunity of so many rights,” Pope Francis told 118 participants from 18 countries of the American continent at an encounter for intercultural and interreligious dialogue held at the Vatican, Sept. 7-8.

Indeed, “the man and woman of faith is called to defend life in all its stages, physical integrity as well as fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of conscience, of thought or expression and of religion,” he told his audience, which included Jewish, Christian and Muslim participants, supreme court judges from some countries and political personalities, including one of Al Gore’s daughters.

Advertisement

RELATED: Interreligious Leaders

The event, the first of its kind, was organized by the Institute for Interreligious Dialogue (I.D.I.) of Buenos Aires—with which Francis has worked closely since 2001, first as archbishop and now as pope—together with the Organization of American States and in collaboration with the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.

Last year, the O.A.S. (which has 35 member states on the American continent) invited the I.D.I. to be the promoter of a continental project called “America in Dialogue” that would focus on “Laudato Si’,” the pope’s encyclical, which, the organization said, offers a vision for the care of and responsibility for planet Earth that is shared by all religious traditions. The three founders of the I.D.I.—Rabbi Daniel Goldman, the Islamic Center director Omar Abboud and the Rev. Guillermo Marco (the pope’s former press officer)—presented the proposal to the pope last November and he gave it his blessing.

Today, Francis spent 90 minutes with the group, underlining the importance he gives to the initiative, which aims to create a network for intercultural and interreligious dialogue across the American continent and in each country to promote a culture of encounter.

Francis warmly thanked the O.A.S. and I.D.I. for this initiative and affirmed that “religions have a very important role in the task of promoting the care and respect for the environment” and in “promoting a true education, at all levels, that helps to spread a responsible and attentive attitude towards the needs of our world and, in a special way, to protect, promote and defend human rights.”

He emphasized the vital importance of interreligious dialogue and cooperation in the 21st century for “the promotion of a culture of sincere and respectful dialogue.” Then, in a warning to the American continent, he said, “If reciprocal respect does not exist religious dialogue does not exist; it is the basis to be able to walk together and face the challenges.”

He reminded participants that the world is “constantly observing us believers” to verify “what is our attitude to our common home and human rights.” Moreover, it is asking us “to collaborate among ourselves and with men and women of good will that profess no religion, so that we can give effective responses to the many plagues of our world.” He listed those plagues: war and hunger, the environmental crisis, violence, corruption and moral degradation, the crisis of the family and of the economy, and above all the lack of hope.

Then, turning to the abuse of religion to justify violence and terrorism, Francis noted that “at times, the name of religion is used to commit atrocities, such as terrorism, and to sow fear and violence and, as a consequence, religions are indicated as responsible for the evils that surround us.”

He told participants and the religious communities they represent that “it is necessary to roundly condemn in a joint way these abominable actions and to take distance from all that seeks to poison souls, to divide and destroy coexistence.”

It is necessary, too, he said, “to show the positive values inherent in our religious traditions so as to be able to give hope to people” and “to share the sorrows as well as the hopes, so as to walk together, caring for each other, and also for creation, in defense and promotion of the common good.”

The symposium closed with a press conference at the Augustinianum in Rome on Sept. 8, and afterwards each of the I.D.I. founders told America what most impressed them during the event.

Father Guillermo Marco said he was deeply impressed at “the willingness of all the participants to work together for a common cause.” Rabbi Daniel Goldman said the meeting revealed that the big challenge today is “how to open dialogue, how to open hearts.” He said most of today’s leaders are failing in this respect. Omar Abboud, for his part, underlined “the importance of ‘Laudato Si’’ in promoting dialogue, because it is not a document for Catholics only. It connects with what is said in the traditions of all the other religions. It shows what we have in common and on which we can work together.”

All three affirmed that in preparation for this event, they could see that the idea of “interreligious and intercultural dialogue” is spreading throughout the American continent. This year representatives of 18 of the 35 member states of the O.A.S. attended, and they feel confident that many more will attend the next meeting in Chile in March 2017.  The government of Chile has offered to host it.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
William Rydberg
2 years 1 month ago
I"d like them to agree on the push for a global tax on global Trade as well as capital for poor food and quality education as well as the Gospel evangelization. People are body and soul ... in Christ,
Charles Erlinger
2 years 1 month ago
Pope Francis' words, “The believer is a defender of creation and of life and cannot remain silent or [stand] with arms crossed..." will, I'll bet, be repeated with emphasis on the not remaining silent part many more times than the not standing with arms crossed part. Here is my take on the tension between talk and action in our church today. Catholic political office holders in the United States have been roundly denounced by high ranking officials of our church, including our most senior clerical and our most publicly prominent lay persons, for the differences they maintain between their private stance and behavior concerning abortion, on the one hand, and on the other, their stance with respect to criminal and civil punishment laws that might sanction patients undergoing, and medical staff performing, abortions. The denouncers maintain that the office holders should work toward overturning in some way the Supreme Court decision that female citizens or residents who choose abortion are within their right to do so, and that professionally qualified citizens are within their right to supply the service. The end-state result of overturning the decision would affect only the degree of availability of the service. It would have no direct, necessary affect on any female's desire and intent to make the choice or to make use of other means to accomplish the intended result. However, the degree of availability of the service would be affected for every female citizen or resident, not only those who, even if only nominally, might regard the moral principles of the denouncers to be valid or relevant. So the Catholic political office holder who would intend to follow the dictates of the denouncers would, when elected, have to intend to represent only those of his or her constituents who support the overturning of the Supreme Court decision. While this kind of situation is not currently considered undemocratic, or even unusual in our polarized society, it presents, in a context in which only un-nuanced moral absolutes are considered, and personal guilt of sin can be assumed and publicly and freely attributed, a point of fairly serious social and potentially even governmental instability. On the other hand, my understanding of the Church's mandate to engage in the "new evangelization" which presumably has remained of interest over the reigns of several popes in succession, is that promoting principles such as respect for human life in all of its stages is, essentially, a missionary mandate, including a mission to ourselves. But a missionary mandate entails achieving conversion. Achieving conversion has, in our past, been done badly, by coercion, and done blessedly, by persuasion and loving assistance. The loving assistance that would seem relevant to this issue is the convincing assurance to women and girls for whom abortion is a perceived resolution to an unbearable difficulty, that we Catholics are ready, willing and able to help them successfully to bear the child and to prosper and to live securely thereafter. And no denunciation would be allowed. Rather, praise, encouragement and lasting friendship could be expected. For today's U. S. Catholic Church to essentially "wrap itself around" women and girls open to the kind and the quantity of loving assurance that would be persuasive would take a massive reorientation of the Catholic Charities programs, and, crucially, a drastic curtailing of the kinds of Church-Government collaborative and contractually related programs that are so common today. The "business model" for Catholic pro-life programs would eliminate the strident denunciatory and threatening campaigns that seem aimed at striking the fear of criminal convictions upon those women and girls facing their terrible dilemmas. And the righteous puritans among us who shout that "justice must be done" would have to be persuaded that the justice worth having is the VIRTUE.

Advertisement

The latest from america

 Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, then nuncio to the United States, and then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, are seen in a combination photo during the beatification Mass of Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, N.J., Oct. 4, 2014. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)
In this third letter Archbishop Viganò no longer insists, as he did so forcefully in his first letter, that the restrictions that he claimed Benedict XVI had imposed on Archbishop McCarrick—one he alleges that Pope Francis later lifted—can be understood as “sanctions.”
Gerard O’ConnellOctober 19, 2018
Kevin Clarke tells us about his reporting from Iraq.
Olga SeguraOctober 19, 2018
For U.S. Catholics, every synod is also a valuable reminder—and corrective—that it is not all about us.
The EditorsOctober 19, 2018
For decades, the U.S. church has gifted its public servants with the social teachings and magisterium of the church.
Christopher Jolly HaleOctober 19, 2018