October, 2006 (Vol. 21, No. 12)

Positive new developments have occurred in relations between Roman Catholics and Orthodox, clearing the way for a new phase in the theological dialogue. The failure of the July 2000 meeting in Baltimore to agree on a common statement regarding uniatism (i.e. Roman Catholic efforts to incorporate groups allowed to keep the Eastern rite) had created serious difficulties, but the dialogue never did break down, writes Frans Bouwen, the editor of the Jerusalem and Beirut-based journal Proche-Orient Chétien, in its latest issue (56/1-2).

Meetings took place at a bilateral or local level, despite the fact that the international theological joint commission between both Churches did not meet again. And the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church finally met again in Belgrade from Sept. 18-25. While both the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity and the Patriarchate of Constantinple took several initiatives in order to relaunch the official dialogue, Bouwen emphasizes how frequent interactions between Orthodox and Roman Catholic dioceses at a local level have become. Moreover, besides official dialogues, in recent years there have been a growing number of symposia and other meetings to better acquaint Catholics and Orthodox to each other.

There remain some challenges. According to Bouwen, it is important for Orthodox participants to show that they have not put aside the controversial issue of uniatism. At the same time, it is not possible to focus first on that problem if a dialogue is meant to be successful; participants will have to find a way to integrate the issue of uniatism within wider discussions on ecclesiology. Subsequent to the publication of the article, the Joint Commission (composed of 30 Roman Catholics and 30 Orthodox) met again in Belgrade in September, continuing the work begun in 1980 to seek the restoration of full communion.

While the official communique underlines the spirit of friendship, investigative reports mention that the papal primacy is still a stumbling block and the establishment of Catholic parishes in Orthodox areas remains a thorny issue, reports ADN Kronos International (Sept. 22). Moreover, a Russian Orthodox Church representative, Bishop Hilarion of Vienna, protested against solving theological issues through a majority vote: only consensus can be acceptable on such issues, he said. Hilarion also opposed putting the Patriarchate of Constantinople above the other Patriarchates through mentioning it alongside the See of Rome in the document, according to Interfax (Sept. 25). The rivalry between Moscow and Constantinople remains a serious area of intra-Orthodox tension.

(Proche-Orient Chrétien, Sainte-Anne, P.O. Box 19079, 91190 Jerusalem, Israel; ADN Kronos International, http://www.adnki.com; Interfax,http://www.interfax-religion.com)

— By Jean-Francois Mayer

Quebec may have hit bottom when it comes to measures of Catholic adherence and commitment, but the growth of new religious communities and renewal groups in the province suggests stirrings of a new generation in the church, reports the National Catholic Register (September 24). By all indicators, the Catholic Church in Quebec has taken a free fall from its position as a Catholic stronghold before the 1960s. Sparse church attendance and an acute shortage of priests, as well as the general secularization of Quebec public life, remain prominent.

Although he does not cite statistics, John Zucchi of McGill University sees young people rejecting the anti-Catholic attitudes of the previous generations who often battled the church on political grounds. “Many were born in a spiritual vacuum. With no antagonism toward their parents, they are starting to come back to church.”

More tangible signs of change are evident in the growth of Catholic renewal movements and communities. Such movements as Marie Jeunesse and Myrium Bethlehem are two of “several dozen” new communities…some that are home-grown, and some that were begun in France.” Other international orders, such as Opus Dei and the Legionaries, are also finding a following. These movement stress such traditional practices as adoration of the Eucharist and are showing some new religious vocations.

(National Catholic Register, 432 Washington Ave., North Haven, CT 06473)

An approach half way between that of arranged marriages and choosing one’s mate is taking shape among Muslims in the U.S., reports the New York Times (September 19).

In the past, dating in any form was condemned as sinful and arranged marriage was seen as the only truly Islamic alternative . But the force of assimilation has introduced some compromises. Panelists at the recent conference of the Islamic Society of North America see a hybrid form of arranged marriage emerging in the U.S., where the young do choose their mates, but the parents are “at least partly involved in the process in something like half the cases,“ writes Neil MacFarquhar.

The combination of modern and traditional courtship practices was on view at the gathering. A “matrimonial banquet” was held where single American Muslim men spent seven minutes talking to women at each table, mirroring the popular practice of “speed dating” on the American single scene. Yet the parents were often on hand to lend their approval to the deliberations. A recent informal study found that one-third of Muslim marriages in the U.S. end in divorce. This is a lower figure than found among non-Muslims, but divorce is still a growing concern in the Islamic community.

Although charismatic and Pentecostal revivals have simmered down in the last few years, the recent establishment of “healing rooms” may have more staying power in this movement, according to sociologist Margaret Poloma.

Writing in the current issue of Pneuma (Vol. 28, No. 1), a journal of Pentecostal studies, Poloma notes that the idea of “healing rooms,“ existing often separately from churches, was originally a brainchild of Pentecostal pioneer John G. Lake and later revived by those associated with the Vineyard churches in the late 1990s. Since then, hundreds of healing rooms have been established throughout North America and overseas, usually under the oversight of the International Association of Healing Rooms (IAHR).

Healing rooms are often situated in medical/professional office buildings, as well as in churches and in independent “houses“ where the sick can come for healing on a regular basis. The rooms operate under the premise that healing is part of the message of Christian salvation, resonating with the “Word of Faith” movement among some charismatics.

But while the theology of the healing rooms does not disparage modern medicine (“pray-ers” are instructed not to give “pray-ees” medical advice), it does “express greater regard for divine power to heal than for the efficacy of medicine,” Poloma writes. She concludes that while charismatic and Pentecostal revivals often die down, “moving the practice of healing out of isolated churches and into the marketplace” may have given the healing rooms a structure less susceptible to the forces of routinization that have domesticated earlier healing movements.”

(Pneuma, P.O. Box 3002, Cleveland, TN 37320-3802)

Years ago, periodicals studying political violence would mostly publish articles on secular-based movements; but today more and more space is given to groups claiming some type of religious justification, especially Islamic ones.

And some terrorism experts have come to a conclusion similar to Muhammad Haniff bin Hassan’s (Nanyang Technological University, Singapore) writing in the journal Studies in Conflict and Terrorism (September): “The real target in the battle against Muslim extremist groups should not be the groups themselves, but their ideology, which should be stopped from spreading beyond their current members.”

Hassan adds that there were instances of similar ideological work in the past. During the Malayan insurgency, Muslim scholars were successfully engaged to prove that communism was against Islam. However, one should remember that Al Qaeda’s type of violence does not only justify its actions through ideology, but also claims to champion grievances of Muslims, from Kashmir to Chechnya and Iraq. The majority of Muslims, not terrorist groups, should be seen as the primary targets of the ideological response; all military efforts will be useless in the long run if groups such as Al Qaeda continue to find recruits and sympathizers willing to help it.

Hassan argues that a comprehensive understanding of the ideology is required (“know your enemy”), not only for devising appropriate response, but also for conducting “forensic theology” (i.e. ideological surveillance) for preventive purposes, such as the identification of discourses which would support terrorist activities. Those who resent the West and seem to sympathize with Bin Laden do not always actually subscribe to Al Qaeda’s ideology.

An effective counterideological work should refrain from generalizations (e.g. lumping all Salafis or madrasahs together). Sweeping statements are dangerous: they define the battle front too widely – and create additional enemies. The war on terrorism will be won through co-opting strategic partners in the Muslim community, as well as by correcting prejudices against Islam by non-Muslims which only serve to antagonize Muslims and fortify extremist views, Hassan concludes. For that reason, the role of religion scholars can also be expected to play an important role in this effort.

Already the role of religion scholars in the war on terrorism is helping to create unprecedented challenges to the American legal system. An article in the Atlantic Monthly magazine (October) looks at how the government’s strategy of “pre-emptive prosecution” of terrorists targets both religious actions and intentions. Unless religious beliefs bear directly on guilt–the use of illegal drugs such as peyote in religious rituals–they are generally barred from trials as prejudicial.

The change surrounds the government’s strategy of demonstrating danger both through acts, such as training to commit violence, and through “speech, belief, or association” documented through the defendants’ words or materials found in their possession. As a result, courts have become battlegrounds where religion scholars clash over the meaning of evidence which is largely theological in content before jurors with little knowledge of Islamic radicalism or Islam in general.

Amy Waldman writes that the expert scholars, lawyers and jurors all wrestle with the fact that religious language does not neatly translate into language of criminal intent. Invocations to God to punish one’s enemies do not necessarily mean that individuals will carry out such punishments. The problem is compounded by the fragmented nature of Islamic authority which cannot provide a common meaning for texts and other teachings.

The conundrum of where to draw the line between belief and action was on display in the recent trial of Pakistani defendant Hamid Hayat, who was convicted of intending to commit terrorist actions because he attended a jihadist training camp and was in possession of extremist literature. Yet prosecutors found no actual plans for terrorist activity. One of the most incriminating pieces of evidence was a small piece of paper that Hayat carried with the written prayer, “Oh Allah, we place you at their throats, and we seek refuge in you from evil.” The prayer was later found to be a common prayer of protection that travelers often carry with them in Pakistan. Waldman concludes that this new approach of reducing the risk of terrorism is resulting in a “de facto restriction of the fundamental liberties of a select group of Americans.”

(Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Taylor and Francis Group, 325 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19106)

— This article was written with RW Contributing Editor Jean Francois Mayer, founder of the website Religioscope (http://www.religion.info).