Fr. Thomas Michel's Official Website

The Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi

On 24 January 2002, Pope John Paul II invited the leaders of the world’s religions to Assisi to take part in a day of prayer for peace.  This was not the first time that religious leaders assembled, at the Pope’s initiative, in Assisi for such an action.  On the first two occasions, in 1986 and 1993, I was on the staff of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and thus fully involved in the preparations and execution of the events.  At the Day of Prayer held this past January, I was able to take part in the proceedings from the more relaxed viewpoint of a simple participant, rather than having to worry about seating arrangements and trying to make sure that everyone was at the right place at the right time.

My overwhelming impression is that the Day of Prayer represents an idea whose time has come.  In the 1986 prayer, we met resistance and opposition on many sides: conservative Catholics, the evangelical wings of other Churches, and many followers of other religions.  In fact, there were only a handful of Muslim participants at the 1986 prayer and even fewer Hindus, and those few we had to search out and plead with them to come.  A number of individual Christians and Churches questioned the theological propriety of praying with the followers of other faiths.  The followers of other religions had their own suspicions.  What was the Pope up to?  Did he have a hidden agenda?  They also had their own religious constituencies to contend with.  Would they, on their return home from Assisi, be accused of syncretism or collaboration in idolatry?

It was a very different story this year.  When the Pope announced the 2002 Day of Prayer, so many religious leaders and groups wanted to take part that the organizers were forced to severely limit the numbers of Christians and to turn away many of those of other religions who wished to take part.  There are several reasons for the change of attitude.  On the one hand, Pope John Paul has been giving a consistent message over the past 20 years, a message that has been heard and appreciated.  His opposition to the Gulf War in 1991 was surprising and welcome news to Muslims that under his leadership the Catholic Church was ready to take an independent moral stance, rather than simply bless whatever political decisions were taken by Western governments.

The credibility achieved made possible even more dramatic gestures in subsequent years such as his reception by the Sheikh al-Azhar in Cairo and his much-photographed walking hand-in-hand through the Damascus mosque with Sheikh Kaftaro.  Similarly, the Pope’s visit to Israel and sensitive gestures at the Western Wall in Jerusalem convinced many Jews of the sincerity of his offer of reconciliation.  Similar events in Bangkok, Delhi, and Tokyo seem to have been successful in conveying the idea that what the Pope is really interested in is peace, not domination.

However, the initiative of interreligious dialogue could not have been successful if it were the vision of only one man.  The presence in Assisi of 30 Cardinals, including Cardinal Ratzinger of the Congregation of the Faith, showed that in Catholic theology and practice there has been no “turning back” from the commitment to interreligious dialogue.  Moreover, the high-level participation of Christians of other Churches indicates an ecumenical consensus on the propriety of coming together with other believers to pray for peace.  Orthodoxy was represented by no less an authority than the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartolomeo, and representatives of the World Council of Churches and major confessional organizations such as the Lutheran World Federation, the World Assembly of Reformed Churches, and the Anglican Communion displayed Christian solidarity in supporting interreligious collaboration for peace.

Not only Christians were professing their desire to work with others for peace.  A strong international Jewish delegation was present, and the number of Muslim leaders had to be limited to about 50.  Many influential Muslim scholars and religious authorities had to be content with participating “in the audience” because there was simply not enough room on the podium.  The number of Buddhist participants, especially from Japan, had to be limited as well.  To me, all this says that there is an overwhelming thirst for peace among religious believers today and a readiness to work with others to achieve that goal.

The aftermath of 11 September

The success of the Prayer for Peace in Assisi is not unconnected with the tragic events of this past 11 September.  The terrorist attacks that resulted in a great loss of lives and the total destruction of the World Trade Center in New York were a reminder that interreligious dialogue may be the only alternative to a spiral of violence and retaliation that could result in an even greater loss of innocent lives and even broader destruction.

The specter of “America versus Islam” or even “The West against the Rest” is one that has come to preoccupy many thinkers in political, social, and religious fields.  After the 11 September attacks, Americans, as well as many from other Western industrialized nations, feel themselves besieged.  They consider themselves victims of an underground movement that seeks to destroy the societal values they hold most dear.  They are angry and want to retaliate, even if the main casualties of such attacks are helpless Afghan or Iraqi civilians who had no part either in the terrorist attacks of 11 September nor in choosing their respective governments.

For their part, Muslims consider themselves victims of aggressive military, economic, and cultural policies of Western nations under the leadership of the United States.  A recent poll by CNN in seven predominantly Muslim nations showed that 67% of those interviewed see the United States as a threat to their well-being.  While condemning the 11 September attacks from the perspective of Islamic faith, they point out that many more Muslim lives have been lost in Bosnia, Palestine, and Chechnya than were taken at the World Trade Center.  The incalculable number of those who have died in Iraq, especially of women and children, due to malnutrition and lack of medicines and health care as a result of ten years of international embargo, provides the grounds for their claims that they have been victims of government-sponsored terrorism.

Even where actual violence and military action have not occurred, Muslims perceive the cultural invasion of Western - mainly American - products and life-style, brought by the Western-dominated communications media and entertainment industries, as a danger to their way of life.  Many Muslims are convinced that the West is out to destroy Islam as the last bastion of resistance to a global consumer-oriented society based on humanistic values and neo-liberal market policies.

Breaking the impasse

Have we reached a cultural and religious impasse, with both sides convinced of being victims of the aggressive intentions and deeds of others, whom they regard as enemies, and are ready to fight to preserve their lives and cherished values?  Have we reached the “clash of civilizations” predicted by many Western writers and policy-makers?

Among the alternatives to polarization and violence is interreligious dialogue.  In his encyclical Redemptoris Missio, Pope John Paul II says that “All Christians and every Christian community are called to practice [interreligious] dialogue, although not to the same level nor in the same way”(RM 57).  Almost 40 years after the Second Vatican Council document Nostra aetate committed the Catholic Church to enter onto a path of dialogue with the followers of other religions, the concept is still not well understood among Christians.  Some think that Christians are called to enter into theological discussions on the Trinity and Christ’s relationship to the Father, areas into which they feel they are not well prepared to delve.  For others, dialogue seems to be understood as a type of public relations consisting mainly of platitudes and avoidance of hard questions and difficult issues.

Church teaching subsequent to the Council makes it clear that neither of these ideas is what is meant by dialogue.  The term comprehends a broad range of positive relations with people of other faiths: living together in harmony in neighborhoods and cities, working together for the good of all, studying current issues and problems together, and even sharing in respect and friendship what each holds most deeply, their faith relationship to God.  While some Christians in almost every nation are making efforts at building positive relationships with the followers of other faiths, as a Church we are still scratching the surface.  Many prejudices, suspicions, and obstacles remain which can be overcome only through patient effort and dedication.

In the months since the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers, many new initiatives have been undertaken by both Christians and Muslims to sit together and study the geopolitical situation and explore paths to peace.  Muslims are beginning to realize that they have not communicated well the nature of Islam as a religion of peace, and are thus eager to reiterate the strong Qur’anic prohibition of killing innocent persons.  Christians are beginning to see the need to distinguish between the teaching and way of life of true Christianity and the baggage of modern civilization, from Johnnie Walker whiskey to MTV, discotheques, and the geopolitical agenda of “Christian” nations, that often passes as part of Christendom.

One of the big problems that face both sides is the burden of history that each bears.  Christian imagination has been formed by images of the invading Turk, of slave raids in the Mediterranean, of harems and dissolute oil sheikhs.  The Muslim image of the Christian goes back to events of the Crusades, reinforced in more recent centuries by the ravages of colonial domination and post-colonial interference.  Each group can draw up a long list of grievances against the other, until one wonders whether any space for mutual acceptance and reconciliation exists.

Prejudices and suspicion cannot be overcome solely through books and lectures.  Christians and Muslims have to meet, to explain their concerns and hopes for the future, to try to listen with open hearts to what the other is seeking to express.  In short, they have to try to understand each other as believers in God who seek to do God’s will in all things.  Although the support of bishops and clergy is necessary to form an awareness of the Church’s commitment to dialogue, interreligious relations are essentially a work of the laity.  As the Pope continues in the above-cited passage: “For this, the involvement of the laity is indispensable.  By the example of their lives and through their own actions, they can work for the improvement of relations among the followers of the various religions, while some can make a contribution to research and study” (RM 57).

If it is not to be carried on in an ivory tower, dialogue today must treat the real issues that disturb people.  Some might define religiously inspired terrorism as the key issue.  Others might say that it is the lack of social justice throughout the world, the gap between the rich and the poor.  Yet others might define the problem as one of how to live as conscientious believers in a world in which God and God’s will is marginal to economic, social, and political decision-making.  However the problems are defined, it is clear that they go beyond any one religious community or any one nation, and cannot be adequately faced by any group working in isolation from others.

We must also move beyond seeing the central problem in narrow terms as being one of Christian-Muslim tensions.  Such would not serve to explain the Buddhist-Hindu conflict in Sri Lanka, inter-tribal conflicts in Africa, the international debt crisis, class warfare in Latin America, problems of population control and bioethics, the globalization of culture and economy, the role of women in society, and the breakdown of traditional family structures.  These are merely some examples of the many issues that need to be included on the agenda of interreligious dialogue, precisely because they are bigger than the concern of any one group and require the cooperation of all to resolve.  On many of these issues, Christians, Muslims and other believers will find themselves in agreement, while on others they will have to challenge each another from the perspective of their respective faiths.

I am convinced that interreligious dialogue is an idea whose time has come.  If we are to move beyond the burdens of history to build a more human, God-centered world characterized by peace, harmony and respect for others, we can only achieve this through dialogue and cooperation.  Let us not delude ourselves.  Such a utopian vision will not become a full reality until the parousia, but Christians and other religious believers are called to be people of hope, who work to build God’s reign on earth without expecting to see results in our lifetime.  If our efforts are sincere, persistent and faith-filled, God will produce the results in God’s own time.