C ENTRO P RO U NIONE Semi-Annual Bulletin A publication about the activities of the Centro Pro Unione “UT OMNES UNUM SINT” Digital Edition Web https://bulletin.prounione.it E-mail bulletin@prounione.it 2532-4144 Digital Edition ISSN N. 92 - Fall 2017 E-book A Ministry of the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement Centro Pro Unione In this issue Paul D. Murray 8 Jack Bemporad Between Past and Future. Achievements and Challenges for Interreligious Dialogue `Centro Conferences 3 James F. Puglisi, SA `Letter from the Director 2 18-25 January 2018 22 Receptive Ecumenism and the Quincentennial Anniversary of the Lutheran Reformation `Centro Conferences Your Right Hand, O Lord, Glorious in Power (Exodus 15:6) `Week of Prayer for Christian UnityCentro Pro Unione Bulletin 2 Centro Pro Unione Bulletin A semi-annual publication about the activities of the Centro Pro Unione The Centro Pro Unione in Rome, founded and directed by the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement, - www.atonementfriars.org - is an ecumenical research and action center. Its purpose is to give space for dialogue, to be a place for study, research and formation in ecumenism: theological, pastoral, social and spiritual. The Bulletin has been pubblished since 1968 and is released in Spring and Fall. IN THIS ISSUE Letter from the Director EDITORIAL STAFF bulletin@prounione.it Contact Information Via Santa Maria dell'Anima, 30 I-00186 Rome (+39) 06 687 9552 pro@prounione.it Website, Social media www.prounione.it @EcumenUnity CENTRO PRO UNIONE A Ministry of the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement DIRECTOR'S DESK N. 92 - Fall 2017 Fr. James Puglisi, SA – Director Centro Pro Unione James F. Puglisi, SA Director Centro Pro Unione Fall 2017, n. 92 / Digital Edition (Web) ›Rabbi Jack Bemporad ›Paul D. Murray ›Editorial News ›Summer School ›Wattson-White Annual Conference ›Week of Prayer for Christian Unity his issue of the Bulletin – Centro Pro Unione contains the texts of two lectures recently given at the Centro as we began celebrating our 50 th anniversary. The 19 th annual Paul Wattson and Lurana White lecture in December was given by our friend Rabbi Jack Bemporad. In looking back over these past 50 years of dialogue Rabbi Jack took us on a fascinating journey in his conference entitled: “Between Past and Future. Achievements and Challenges for Interreligious Dialogue”. In addition to his many personal encounters during those exciting days of beginning dialogues he has remained a constant promoter of deepening dialogue not only on the personal level but also on the intellectual level. The second important study in this issue is placed in the context of the 500 th anniversary of the Reformation. In a stimulating lecture which engaged those in attendance, Dr. Paul Murray from Durham University, UK, and Director of the Centre for Catholic Studies spoke on the values of what we call today “receptive ecumenism”. He raised the important question about the potential Catholic learning that we may receive from the Reformation Traditions. I hope that you will be challenged as well by reading his lecture: “Receptive Ecumenism and the Quincentennial Anniversary of the Lutheran Reformation”. What can we look forward to in the coming issue? Another lecture of Rabbi Bemporad on “Monotheism and All that It Implies” as well as the talks Celebrating 50 Years of Methodist- Roman Catholic International Dialogue by Ms Gillian Kingston Vice President of the World Methodist Council and Dr Clare Watkins, Lecturer in Ministerial Theology, University of Roehampton, London and the responses by the two co-chairs of the dialogue, Rev Dr David Chapman and Bishop John Sherrington. Several other events rounding out this Fall will be the lecture of the Reformed bishop of Debrecen, the Most Rev. Károly Fekete on the historical and present day aspects of the Hungarian Reformed Church in November. This will be followed by the 20 th annual Wattson/White lecture in December by Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleis who will speak on “Catholic- Orthodox Relations following the Holy and Great Council in Crete (2016)”. Save the date 14 December, 2017. The next day we will be treated to the presentation of the volume Luca Marenzio by Prof. Mario Bizzarini followed by a concert of the voxcal group “Prima Prattica Ensemble”. It is also time to think about your planning the celebration of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity 18- 25 January. See the Bulletin for the theme and information for ordering copies in English, Spanish and/or Italian. Lastly we gladly announce our Annual Summer course in ecumenism and interreligious dialogue from 25 June to 13 July 2018. You can book the course on-line after January. Remember to continue to look at our new website (www.prounione.it) for news and activities of the Centro Pro Unione. This Bulletin is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database, published by the American Theological Libra- ry Association, 250 S. Wacker Drive, 16 th Floor, Chicago, IL 60606 (www.atla.com). TCentro Pro Unione Bulletin CENTRO CONFERENCES 3 N. 92 - Fall 2017 Introduction Religions have enormous power. In the past, they were often used, not just to compete and reject, but to repress or even attempt to destroy contending religions. Co-opted by virulent ideologies as well, religions were used to justify persecution and motivate warfare. To a great extent this has changed in recent decades. But I want to underscore that unless religions continue to work, earnestly, for a common good, we will simply continue some of the worst elements of the past. The Past Over the centuries, the West was plagued with religious wars: the Crusades, which affected both Jews and Muslims; the Inquisition, which sought to eliminate suspected Jews, and the Hundred Years War, a series of bloody conflicts among Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. Even though the Hundred Years War and other such conflicts were not simply religious wars, religious ideologies were used to motivate and justify the conflicts. On many levels, there was tremendous religious strife, hatred, misinformation, and outright lies told about the beliefs of the “Other(s)” throughout this period, as exemplified by the eighty years of conflict between the Spanish and the Dutch. The Thirty Years’ War was brought to an end finally by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which confirmed the 1555 Peace of Augsburg, which had granted Lutherans religious tolerance in the Holy Roman Empire. The Peace of Westphalia, in resolving the Thirty Years’ War, to some extent went further, by extending religious toleration to the three great religions of the so-called Holy Roman Empire–Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism. As a result, the member states of the Empire were bound to allow at least private worship and liberty of conscience. This change was a major advancement towards interreligious peace, although each religion’s viewing of the other, in the terminology of the “saved” and the “damned,” made achieving real tolerance under state authority a necessity, even though unity among religions was untenable. However, these agreements did not extend to Jews, who suffered tremendously in the late Middle Ages and what is now called “the Early Modern Period.” Hysterical and libelous myths raced through Europe; accusations were made of Jewish poisoning of the wells during the bubonic plague; Jews were said to have killed Christian children for religious purposes during Passover (the so-called blood libel); property of Jews was confiscated; there were forced conversions and Jews were totally expelled from most lands in Western Europe. To be sure, the state of Christian-Jewish relations varied enormously from period to period, and from land to land, so that no single generalization applies everywhere and in all periods. However, the residue of Christian teaching was such as to relegate the Jews to second-class status, making it easy for them to become objects of persecution. Jews, without conversion, were considered to be damned, and were subject to doctrinal missionizing. These attitudes were caused by extensive subterranean anti-Judaism in European society in modern times. Two examples illustrate this very well: The great mathematician Frege in his diary entry of 1924 states: “One can acknowledge that there are Jews of the highest respectability, and yet regard it is a misfortune that there are so many Jews in Germany, [parenthetically let me just add that the German historian Treitschke had called the Jews ‘our misfortune’] and that they have complete equality of political rights with citizens of Aryan descent; but how little is achieved by the wish that the Jews in Germany should lose their political rights or better yet vanish from Germany. If one wanted laws passed to remedy these evils, the first question to be answered would be: how can one distinguish Jews from non-Jews for certain? That may have been relatively easy 60 years ago [he means in the early 19th century]. Now, it appears to me to be quite difficult. Perhaps one must be satisfied with fighting the ways of thinking which show up in the activities of the Jews and are so harmful, and to punish exactly these activities with the loss of civil rights and to make the achievement of civil rights more difficult.” A second example: The Lexicon für Theologie und Kirche published in the 1930’s, under the heading Antisemitism, states: Between Past and Future Achievements and Challenges for Interreligious Dialogue Rabbi Jack Bemporad - Director, The Center for Interreligious Understanding Englewood, New Jersey, USA Conference given at the Centro Pro Unione, Thursday, 15 December 2016 Rabbi Jack Bemporad – Director, The Center for Interreligious Understanding `Rabbi Jack Bemporad, conference speakerCentro Pro Unione Bulletin CENTRO CONFERENCES 4 N. 92 - Fall 2017 “The parameters he expressed guarantee to a good Catholic a perfectly clear conscience in deciding in favor of abolishing civil rights for Jews.” I could easily multiply these types of statements. The basic principle with respect to the granting and forfeiting of civil rights however, was made best by Hermann Cohen when he said: “Neither the Enlightenment nor modern legislation has succeeded in removing from the Jews the burden placed upon them by the prejudice that they represent nothing but a foreign race. This prejudice can and will disappear only when the inherent worth of their religion is fully recognized.” The point that Cohen has made is that whatever civil rights the Jewish people may have achieved have always been held hostage to their receiving religious rights and acceptance, not merely civil rights. The civil rights have had a precarious history as long as contemptuous teachings were repeated, so that their religion was seen as dead, superseded, in fact, vile. Based on such examples, it is my firm belief that insofar as religious rights are concerned, I don’t think that secular values and the granting of civil rights by the State is sufficient to preserve the religious rights of various groups. For Jews, there is little question that in spite of their having gained civil rights in Europe, these rights were not sufficient to protect them against waves of anti-Semitism. As indicated, despite the extent to which this has largely changed since the emergence of the modern secular state, the rise of racial anti-Semitism that culminated in the Holocaust shows that the Jews are still vulnerable as objects of ideological hatred. So we need religions to acknowledge and grant religious rights to Other faiths. Religion can have –must have– a positive role in the progress of mutual tolerance and understanding. With the increasing pressure of right wing parties to limit religious rights of various groups, there are other religions today in danger of suffering the same challenge to their religious rights whether they be Jews or Muslims, or even Christians, such as the Copts in Egypt and the Christians in ISIS Territories. Our age and principles, morally and spiritually, require religions to grant to one another religious rights. We have to overcome the mentality of viewing the other as the enemy, or as damned in his current religion. The greatness of the Catholic Church’s changed attitude in recent decades is that it has, in fact, granted to the Jewish people religious rights. One cannot stress enough the revolutionary achievement of Vatican II and Nostra Aetate, its content and its subsequent development through numerous statements on Jews and Judaism on behalf of various commissions, Pontifical offices, and Papal speeches. Thanks to the great achievements of Vatican II, much of past negativity has been completely overcome. Looking backward to 1964, the very famous (and then, probably the most authoritative orthodox rabbi in America) Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik wrote an article, entitled “Confrontation” in the orthodox journal Tradition. In that article he maintained that while it was legitimate for Jews and Christians to communicate on matters of social concern (for welfare of the Jewish community) he clearly rejected any dialogue of a theological nature. His justification for rejecting theological dialogue was the posture then of the Christian community, which viewed itself as on a level above Judaism; a posture which viewed Judaism as inferior and Jews as objects of conversion. In that situation, Rabbi Soloveitchik said, “Non-Jewish society has confronted us through the ages in a mood of defiance, as if we were part of the sub-human objective order. We shall resent any attempt on the part of the populous community to engage us in a peculiar encounter in which our confronter commands us to take a position beneath him while placing himself not alongside, but above us.” What Soloveitchik was referring to was the history of Christian-Jewish confrontations. Jews were subjected to an asymmetrical position with respect to Christianity for the simple reason that the community of the many had the power. However, Rabbi Soloveitchik also said, “It is self evident that a confrontation of two faith communities is possible only if it is accomplished by a clear assurance that both parties will enjoy equal rights and full religious freedom.” There’s no question that since Nostre Aetate and the supporting Catholic documents, dialogue, at least between Catholics and Jews, has been in terms of two faith communities that enjoy equal rights and full religious freedom. The point I want to make is that the situation in 2017 is a very different one from that which Rabbi Soloveitchik experienced 1964, the year before Vatican II. Would not Rabbi Soloveitchik himself today grant our situation has met the necessary changes for dialogue enunciated above? At the same time, missionizing by Fundamentalists and other Christian groups has been, and continues to be a Rabbi Jack Bemporad – Director, The Center for Interreligious Understanding `An interesting exchange among attendeesCentro Pro Unione Bulletin CENTRO CONFERENCES 5 N. 92 - Fall 2017 very troubling problem for Jews. However, the cessation of active missionizing on the part of the Catholic Church has been stated by Cardinal Cassidy, Cardinal Kasper, and most explicitly reaffirmed by Cardinal Koch in his recent celebration of “50 Years of Christian-Jewish Dialogue.” So the most revolutionary document by far, treated as having the equivalence of a dogmatic statement, is the Declaration Nostra Aetate. What the Declaration Nostra Aetate did with respect to Jews can be summarized in two critical points: First, the need for a reexamination of the relationship between the church and Judaism and the Jewish people, i.e., the movement from a theology of a dead and outdated and superseded Judaism to a theology of a living Judaism. Second, a rejection of the belief that anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism in all its forms is in any way based on Christian or scriptural teaching. No one could have done more to clarify this than Pope John Paul II when he equated Vatican II with Divine Wisdom. Referring to the Declaration Nostra Aetate, John Paul gaves it the highest level of authority, making it equivalent to a dogmatic statement in the church. Thus in a talk to the Jewish representatives of the Jewish community of Venezuela, the Pope stated, “I wish to confirm with utmost conviction (con toda mi profunda conviccion) that the teaching of the Church proclaimed during the Second Vatican Council in the Declaration Nostra Aetate… remains always for us, for the Catholic Church for the Episcopate… and for the Pope, a teaching which must be followed - a teaching which it is necessary to accept not merely as something fitting, but much more as an expression of the faith as an inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as a word of the Divine Wisdom.” It is clear that the statements of Vatican II have became a model for other religions, such as the statement of the USA Presbyterian Church on the relations between Christians and Jews. However, there are two main differences between Catholic and Protestant statements with respect to Jews. The Catholics rooted these statements in scripture, especially Paul’s letter to the Romans in Chapter 11:29, whereas the Protestant Statements mainly tried to correct anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic statement. The Presbyterian statement reads: 1)We affirm that the living God whom Christians worship is the same God who is worshipped and served by Jews. We bear witness that the God revealed in Jesus, a Jew, to the True Lord of all, is the same one disclosed in the life and worship of Israel. 2)We affirm that the church, elected in Jesus Christ, has been engrafted into the people of God established by the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Therefore, Christians have not replaced Jews. 3)We affirm that both the church and the Jewish people are elected by God for witness to the world and that the relationship of the church to contemporary Jews is based on that gracious and irrevocable election of both. 4)We affirm that the reign of God is attested both by the continuing existence of the Jewish people and by the church’s proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Hence, when speaking with Jews about matters of faith, we must always acknowledge that Jews are already in a covenantal relationship with God. 5)We acknowledge in repentance the church’s long and deep complicity in the proliferation of anti- Jewish attitudes and actions through its “teaching of contempt” for the Jews. Such teaching we now repudiate, together with the acts and attitudes which it generates. 6)We affirm the continuity of God’s promise of land along with the obligations of that promise to the people Israel. 7)We affirm that Jews and Christians are partners in waiting. Christians see in Christ the redemption not yet fully visible in the world, and Jews await the messianic redemption. Christians and Jews together await the final manifestation of God’s promise of the peaceable kingdom. Modern Times: Where to Go from Here? The main challenge today is: can secular society, without religious underpinnings, guarantee the preservation of democratic values? What is the cement that will hold society together? Religion can and must play a role in doing this as the conscience of society. This is now our great historic task! What is needed is a continued, critically honest review of our own positions and how they have viewed the Other. `Russell Bernie Fellows with Rabbi Jack Rabbi Jack Bemporad – Director, The Center for Interreligious UnderstandingCentro Pro Unione Bulletin CENTRO CONFERENCES 6 N. 92 - Fall 2017 Religions must view themselves as agents of and for humanity, as the conscience of culture in dealing with global problems, world peace, hunger, joblessness, and disease. It is to the great credit of Pope John XXIII that he recognized the extent to which the Catholic Church and Christians had been complicit in denigrating and teaching about Jews with contempt. It was his firm belief that to be true to one’s faith is to tell the truth about how one’s faith may have treated other faiths. Pope John XXIII planted the seed that was expanded when Cardinal Cassidy in Prague asked forgiveness for acts of anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism on the part of Christians. And this culminated in the Millennial Service of Repentance during which the Catholic Church asked forgiveness for past acts in various areas. The prayer that Cardinal Cassidy read during this service was later inserted into the Wailing Wall by Pope John Paul II during his historic visit to Israel: “God of our fathers, you chose Abraham and his descendants to bring your name to the nations: We are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness, we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the covenant.” The challenge now of religionists in our generation is to respond to the defects of secular society - religion has to become the conscience of our society. This can only be done by embracing the ideal of humanity which enshrines, the concept of the integrity of every human being and a full commitment to peace. The great Sage Hillel enjoined us not to judge our fellow human being until we stand in his or her place. I believe what he meant is that it is not enough just to put yourself in another person’s place, in that person’s shoes, or experience the world through that person’s categories, through their feelings, their hopes and fears: one must go further and look at oneself with the eyes of the Other. How do you look to him or her? With what eyes do you see me? In genuine dialogue there is an openness to depths of oneself and depths of the Other that neither had any real awareness or knowledge of eliciting at its initiation. I would go so far as to agree with David Lochhead who claims that dialogue “is a way of knowing truth that neither party possesses prior to the dialogue.” It is presumptuous to maintain that the great religions of the world, which have been a source of inspiration and hope for millions of individuals with great religious teachers, have no insights to offer us when we consider the world we live in now. Through true and open dialogue we see that other religions differ from our own, and this awareness should make one consider the possibility that we may not have the full truth, and especially, that the Other may have something to teach us. So dialogue is needed to present a more objective and historically accurate view of one another. One cannot deny that if one were to look at Christian attitudes towards Jews, Judaism, and Islam, at Jewish attitudes towards Christians and Christianity, and at Muslim attitudes towards Christians and Judaism, one would often see negative stereotypes and false representations. Past misunderstandings must be clarified and we must take a new direction in the way we view one another. There are two ways that this could be done, first, theologically and second, practically. On the theological level, we have to review the theological discussion with respect to exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism. Each religion can rightly claim that they represent exclusive truths, but such exclusivity cannot descend into an exclusivism which treats other religions in ways that go against fundamental ethical principles. In my opinion, exclusivism must be retained, since our religious traditions have a history, integrity, authority, liturgy, and credibility. What should be done to all our faiths is to remove the negative aspects of exclusivity - the view that claims that we are right and everyone else is wrong; an invidious contrast, viewing one’s own religion as embodying the children of light and the other religions as being children of darkness. The second is epitomized by Scriptural Resources for Peace©, the product of a Vatican symposium of 38 religious leaders from around the world in January of 2003, which I was privileged to attend. It said: “Our Scriptures and other traditions are important spiritual resources. We believe that the Scriptures of each religion teach the path to peace, but we acknowledge that our various sacred writings have often been and continue to be used to justify violence, war, and exclusion of others. How can we reinterpret them in light of our new understandings of mutual respect? Our various communities cannot ignore passages that have often been misinterpreted or manipulated for unworthy goals such as power, wealth, or revenge. We must all recognize the need for new, contextual studies and a deeper understanding of the underlying universalistic meaning of our various Scriptures that clearly enunciate the Rabbi Jack Bemporad – Director, The Center for Interreligious Understanding `Some participants continue the discussionCentro Pro Unione Bulletin CENTRO CONFERENCES 7 N. 92 - Fall 2017 message and value of peace for all humanity. “Believers need to reexamine those Scriptural passages that depict people of other religions in ways that conflict with their own self-understanding and correct those depictions in light of the above. This requires a energetic effort to educate properly our own adherents to the values and beliefs of others. Interreligious education, that takes seriously the self-understanding of other religious traditions, is essential for communicating the message of peace to new generations. This challenge is to remain true to our own faith without disparaging or distorting that of others. “Spiritual Resources for Peace include not only our scriptural foundations, but also the example of our fellow believers who, down through history, have taught peace and acted as peacemakers. These include saints, poets, and martyrs who have suffered, who often gave their lives in non-violent commitment to truth, justice and fellowship which they recognized as the foundations of human progress. There are countless persons in the past of every religion whose names are not recorded, but who have valiantly tried to prevent conflict and war, who assisted victims of violence without regard to religion or nation, and who worked for justice and reconciliation as the basis for establishing peace. By their actions, they have borne concrete witness to the mission of each religious community to be agents of peace amidst the harsh realities of injustice, aggression, terrorism and war. May we learn from them. “The Spiritual Resources for Peace also include interreligious encounters which have helped many to come together to learn about each other’s faith and shared values, and to discover the possibility of living and working together to build societies of justice and peace. Such encounters seek to instill a spirit of mutual respect and genuine understanding of one another and have helped us to see our religions as a force for good. Mutual respect and honoring differences are not simply lofty goals, but achievable reality.” Summary In an address on January 7th 2017 to the diplomatic corps at the Vatican, Pope Francis said: “We are dealing with a homicidal madness which misuses God’s name in order to disseminate death, in a play for domination and power. Hence I appeal to all religious authorities to join in reaffirming unequivocally that one can never kill in God’s name. Fundamentalist terrorism is the fruit of a profound spiritual poverty, and often is linked to significant social poverty. It can only be fully defeated with the joint contribution of religious and political leaders.” This must be our guiding principle in determining the future of our religious work. Only if religions reaffirm their commitment to humanity, to the intrinsic dignity of all human beings and provide political leadership with the moral and spiritual guidance; the respect for the sacred and the holy that they represent, then religions will fulfill their calling and their essential role in the world. Rabbi Jack Bemporad – Director, The Center for Interreligious Understanding `Bro. Paolo Nicosia, SA `Professor Claudia Melica makes an observation `Dr. Paola Bernardini asks a questionCentro Pro Unione Bulletin CENTRO CONFERENCES 8 N. 92 - Fall 2017 1 Introduction I am grateful to Fr Puglisi for the invitation to share this evening with you and to present this lecture exploring a receptive ecumenical perspective on the 500th Anniversary of the Lutheran Reformation. It is an honour and a joy to connect again with the work of the Centro Pro Unione, which has such significance for Catholic ecumenical endeavour. Whenever things get ecumenically tough, there is periodic reference to our living through an ecumenical winter. Well here in this beautiful and historic room, we are always in the presence of all four seasons! 2 It is here that some of the crucial springtime conversations of Catholic ecumenism began at the time of the Second Vatican Council; conversations which were subsequently ripened to maturity and made ready for harvesting. 3 It is little wonder, then, that with the benefit of long-perspective, the staff and friends of this Centro recognise that our various ecumenical moods and seasons are not always linear and sequential but sometimes simultaneous and overlapping. For as the gardeners amongst us know, amidst and beneath the apparent slowness and death of winter, real growth is happening; the crucial hard growth that bursts forth in spring. For many, though sadly not all, the current papacy seems like just such a bursting forth afresh of spring; and, indeed, I think it is. 4 But it is important to recognise that it too has come out of what preceded it. Its prior context is the papacy of Benedict XVI, 1 I am grateful to Greg Ryan, my Postgraduate Research Assistant at Durham University, for help in transforming the text of this lecture into publishable format. 2 The Centro Pro Unione is situated in what was originally the Pamphilj Family Library within the Collegio Innocenziano on the Piazza Navona. The ceiling is decorated with a fresco by Francesco Cozza of The Triumph of Divine Wisdom, with the Four Branches of Knowledge and the Four Elements. The depiction of Earth includes allegories of the four seasons. 3 For the image of ‘harvesting’ in an ecumenical context, see Walter Kasper, Harvesting the Fruits (London and New York, Continuum, 2009). 4 For documentation and further links pertaining to the various expressions of opposition to Pope Francis, see Edward Pentin, ‘Clergy and Lay Scholars Issue Filial Correction of Pope Francis’, National Catholic Register (23rd September 2017), at: 2 https://goo.gl/Wt41ru which in multiple ways created the circumstances in which this papacy has in turn been made possible. Take, for example, their respective ecumenical teaching. Pope Benedict both stressed the abiding importance of the ecumenical endeavour and emphasised, in continuity with his earlier writings as a private theologian, that each tradition needs to be challenged by the relevant substantive differences of the other traditions rather than just eliding them in service of any premature commonality. 5 He had no illusions about there being a quick-fix solution on the ecumenical way; just a journey of continuing conversion for each of the traditions. For his own part, Pope Francis has taken this approach forward in a particularly clear and pointed way, and in a manner fully in tune also with Pope St John Paul II’s prophetic teaching in Ut Unum Sint. Characterising Pope Francis’ ecumenical teaching has been 5 See Paul D. Murray, ‘Ecumenism, Evangelization and the Conflicting Narratives of Vatican II: Reading Unitatis Redintegratio with His Holiness Benedict XVI Roman Pontiff Emeritus’, in Kirstin Kim (ed.), The New Evangelization: Faith, People, Context and Practice (Bloomsbury, 2015), pp. 99-120. Paul D. Murray – Professor of Systematic Theology, Durham University Receptive Ecumenis and the Quincentennial Anniversary of the Lutheran Reformation 1 Paul D. Murray - Professor of Systematic Theology, Durham University Conference given at the Centro Pro Unione, Friday, 17 February 2017 ` Paul Murray, conference speakerCentro Pro Unione Bulletin CENTRO CONFERENCES 9 N. 92 - Fall 2017 a recurrent emphasis on the need for us to learn from and across real ecumenical differences in ways that can speak to felt needs in our own tradition and so effect real change. Most recently, in his homily during vespers at St Paul’s Outside the Walls to close the Octave of Prayer for Christian Unity, he described ecumenism as: [A]n invitation to leave behind every form of isolation, to overcome all those temptations to self-absorption that prevent us from perceiving how the Holy Spirit is at work outside our familiar surroundings. And continued: Authentic reconciliation between Christians will only be achieved when we can acknowledge each other’s gifts and learn from one another, with humility and docility, without waiting for the others to learn first. 6 By all accounts, when reading his text, the Pope paused and emphasised with repetition the need ‘to learn from the other’. Pope Francis can be heard here as giving eloquent voice to the ecumenical attitude and approach which in recent years has come to be referred to as Receptive Ecumenism. I will say a little more about the key principles of Receptive Ecumenism in a little while. If we were to look for other specific ways in which the pontificate of Benedict XVI set the context for that of Francis, perhaps most notable is the multiple humbling of the institutional fabric of Catholicism which those years witnessed. There was, for example, the exposure of seemingly systemic dysfunction, both in aspects of our central bureaucracy – à la “Vatileaks” – and in aspects of the relationship between the local churches and initiatives emanating from the organs of the universal church, as evident in the process surrounding the new liturgical translations. 7 In a different direction, it was during these years also that awareness spread concerning the globally pervasive nature of the clerical sexual abuse crisis and its recurrent mishandling by those in authority. It became clear that what we are dealing with here is not simply a matter of individual pathologies and their mismanagement; but that compounding, obscuring, and even legitimating such individual pathologies and failings have been widespread dysfunctional habits of thought and practice within Catholicism: concerning, for example, clerical status and the unaccountability of those in authority to the 6 See Pope Francis, ‘Homily for the Celebration of Vespers on the Solemnity of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle at the Basilica of St Paul Outside-the-Walls’ (25th January 2017), at: 2 https://goo.gl/12HsFG 7 Gerald O’Collins and John Wilkins, Lost in Translation: The English Language and the Catholic Mass (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2017). governed. 8 This multiple institutional humbling of the church generated a widespread sense, amongst laity and clergy alike, that it was time to put our own house in order; a sense which appears, in turn, to have been shared by the cardinal electors in the 2013 Conclave and which has subsequently set both the tone and the substantive focus of the current pontificate on honest recognition of our failings and the urgent need for ecclesial renewal. This is the ecclesial context in which Catholics are being invited to mark the quincentennial anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. It represents, I believe, a graced moment in the story of Catholicism and on the ecumenical journey; a graced moment for Catholics to ask what the Catholic Church and the life, practice, structures, and habits of mind of Catholicism might still have to learn and receive from the Reformation Traditions. With that context in view, let us now gain some perspective on what is distinctive about Receptive Ecumenism relative to other ecumenical approaches by briefly sketching this in three steps. Receptive Ecumenism: the basics 9 1.In the context of the more mature dialogues, Receptive Ecumenism believes that the concern to overcome historic divisions through such means as: I) clarifying misunderstandings; ii) using fresh concepts to say together what, previously, could only be said apart; and iii) recognising the validity of distinct but compatible theological frameworks has, on the whole, gone as far it can - for the time being at least. For all the real achievements of processes such as those leading to the 1999 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, Receptive Ecumenism recognises that some seemingly insuperable obstacles and substantive ecclesial differences still stand in the path of full sacramental and structural communion, differences which do not lend themselves to being explained away, either as misunderstandings or as alternative ways of articulating the same reality. 8 See Marie Keenan, Child Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church: Gender, Power, and Organizational Culture (New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). 9 On Receptive Ecumenism, see Paul D. Murray, “Introducing Receptive Ecumenism”, The Ecumenist: A Journal of Theology, Culture, and Society 51 (2014), pp. 1-8; also id., “Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning: Establishing the Agenda”, in Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, Murray (ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 5-25; and id., “Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning: Receiving Gifts for Our Needs”, Louvain Studies 33 (2008), pp. 30-45; and id., “In Search of a Way”, in The Oxford Handbook of Ecumenical Studies, Paul McPartlan (ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming). The Centre for Catholic Studies at Durham University maintains an online list of literature related to Receptive Ecumenism, available at: (Durham University Website) 2 https://goo.gl/vbvoZR Paul D. Murray – Professor of Systematic Theology, Durham UniversityNext >