Dishonest Agreement

Last week, I had a serious disagreement with a fellow teacher who also happens to be a good friend. Later that evening, I saw where I went wrong: I had not presented my side clearly. I saw my friend the next day and explained myself with the assurance that this would clear up our differences. He just looked at me and said, “Oh, no. I knew exactly what you meant. I just disagree with you.” Blessed is the man with such friends. 

This brings up the recent remarks of Pope Francis at an interreligious meeting in Singapore when he said, “All religions are a path to God.” He added more lettuce to the salad when he later said, 

If you start to fight, “my religion is more important than yours, mine is true and yours isn’t,” where will that lead us? There’s only one God, and each of us has a language to arrive at God. Some are Sheik, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, and they are different paths [to God]. 

It was yet another instance where the holy father says something which sounds charitable—and I’m sure was meant charitably—but, in the end, turns out not to be so. 

My issue is not with the theological arguments involved but with the presumptiveness of the statement. Pope Francis may want to assure the world that the Catholic Church doesn’t hold herself above any other faith; but what makes him so sure other faiths think they are beneath the Catholic Church? Condescension may be wrong, but it is never so wrong as when the other person believes he is, in fact, above you. 

My point is that such sentiments do more harm than good to the cause of ecumenism. The plain fact of the matter is that the biggest roadblock to ecumenism is the idea that we are all united. It doesn’t take much thought to realize that if we all are worshiping the same God, then what’s the point of discussing anything? If your path and mine lead to the same place, then what’s the point in asking directions?   The plain fact of the matter is that the biggest roadblock to ecumenism is the idea that we are all united. It doesn’t take much thought to realize that if we all are worshiping the same God, then what’s the point of discussing anything?Tweet This

Regardless of whether the Holy Father’s remarks fit in with Catholic teaching, does he realize that, in a way, he has insulted other faiths? Not intentionally, I’m sure of it. That’s part of the problem. Those who say there is no real disagreement over an issue are often people of genuine goodwill—but also of genuinely mistaken will. They mistake the seriousness of the beliefs of others. 

Imagine going to a devout Muslim and saying, “I worship a Trinity in unity; three persons in one God. I worship a God who became man and died for our sins. I worship a God who founded a Church which claims infallibility on matters of faith and morals. Oh, and by the way, so do you.” If he were a decent and honest Muslim, he would politely tell me where to stick it. And he would be right. 

Imagine going to a devout Buddhist and saying, “I worship a God who declared all creation good; so good in fact that He became flesh and dwelt among us. He even said suffering could be good and that it had a purpose. My God says reality is real, especially the reality of good and evil and that the two can never meet. My God says we have one shot at life and that if we live it right, we go on to eternal happiness but that if we don’t, we go to eternal damnation. Period, end of sentence. I’m glad to know we’re on the same page.” If he were an honest Buddhist, he would give no answer because the whole point of Buddhism is that there are no answers; but he would then say to himself that I just wasn’t enlightened enough. 

This is the problem with so much “dialogue”; it never seems to realize that there are points on which the only answer is silence. As Chesterton said: 

If the missionary says, in fact, that he is exceptional in being a Christian, and that the rest of the races and religions can be collectively classified as being heathen, he is perfectly right. He may say it in quite the wrong spirit, in which case he is spiritually wrong. But in the cold light of philosophy and history, he is intellectually right. He may not be right-minded, but he is right. He may not even have a right to be right, but he is right.  

It is dishonest and offensive, however well intentioned, to say to someone else that he agrees with me when the whole tenor of his life, his history, his culture, and probably much blood of his ancestors shows he doesn’t. It is, if I may be blunt, patronizing. It’s like patting Martin Luther or John Calvin on the head and saying, “There, there; you’ll get over it.” 

I know atrocities have occurred because of religious differences. But I also know that atrocities occur because of religious indifferences. Western civilization, with its acceptance of contraception, abortion, broken families, abandoned children, pornography, human trafficking, sexual perversion, euthanasia, increasing despair, and suicide bears witness to it.  

I am not proposing religious wars, but neither am I disavowing them. I would never say to a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Jew that his faith wasn’t worth fighting for. If he wouldn’t, it’s at that point I wouldn’t think much of his faith. It’s when he’s willing to take up the sword that we have reason to come to the table. If faith means anything at all to a person, it means a fight. I have more respect for the Protestant who punches me in the nose for “worshiping Mary” than for the Catholic who doesn’t think she is worth a broken nose. 

In the broken world in which we live, the hope is that we can find ways to agree to disagree. There is, however, no hope in thinking our disagreements don’t matter. That way lies despair, which is about where most of Western civilization is now. 

It is no coincidence that the greatest evangelizers and apologists have been those who recognized differences. That is why they evangelized. They respected the beliefs of others and knew there was work to do. Those on the other side also felt respected, and it’s only then that true “dialogue” can happen. A dialogue without differences isn’t a dialogue, it’s a monologue; which is also about what we have now.

[Photo Credit: Getty Images]