Cardinal Koovakad: Fraternity is lived in churches, schools, families

Vatican News

Sixty years after the Second Vatican Council published the conciliar Declaration Nostra aetate, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, and the Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue have published “A Journey of Hope.”

In the following interview with Vatican News, Cardinal George Jacob Koovakad, Prefect of the Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue, speaks about the Church’s desire for dialogue with people of other faiths.

Q: In January 2027, it will be two years since your appointment to lead the Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue. What has been your concrete experience of the current state of the Catholic Church’s relations with other religions?

Almost two years after my appointment as Prefect of the Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue, the concrete experience to which I can testify is that of a dialogue that has now developed deep structural roots and, at the same time, must continually confront new tensions.

The note “A Journey of Hope” states this clearly: the Declaration Nostra aetate is not an isolated text but constituted an institutional and theological “mustard seed.” As early as 1964, even before its promulgation, Saint Paul VI established the Secretariat for Non-Christians, today the Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue. This body, together with the Commissions for relations with Judaism and Islam, transformed a conciliar intuition into a permanent structure of the Curia and of the Church’s mission.

The current state of relations is therefore marked, first of all, by a structural change in outlook. We have moved from attitudes of rejection, mistrust, or simple ignorance to lasting relationships of friendship among religious leaders, shared educational and social projects, and common declarations in the face of wars and humanitarian crises.

Dialogue now takes place on several levels, according to the now-classic framework set out in Dialogue and Proclamation: the dialogue of daily life, the dialogue of action, the dialogue of theological exchange, and the dialogue of religious and monastic experience. It is no longer a peripheral or diplomatic activity, but a constitutive dimension of the evangelising mission: a true “theological locus” in which the Holy Spirit works through the encounter with the other.

During these two years, I have been able to verify personally the solidity of many of these fruits. With Islam, the path of fraternity continues to produce encounters, declarations, and concrete forms of cooperation.

Dialogue has also extended to the great Asian traditions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Shintoism, Taoism, and Confucianism—and to traditional African religions. Practical instruments developed over these decades—the journal Pro Dialogo, messages of good wishes for the feasts of other traditions, cooperation with the World Council of Churches, the Women’s Network for Interreligious Dialogue, and the “Youth in Dialogue” forums—are now an ordinary part of the Dicastery’s daily work.

We are experimenting with opening conversations with “new religious movements,” through meetings based not on theological matters but on social life, values, and the possibility of working together for the common good.

In this regard, number 42 of the Note specifies: “Such fraternal encounters, which can be understood neither as ecumenical dialogue nor as dialogue between religions, and which are founded on clarity regarding one’s own identity and on mutual respect, can offer concrete opportunities to work together in promoting shared values and pursuing the common good. They can also contribute to a more attentive understanding of contemporary spiritual aspirations, broadening the scope for witness, mutual knowledge, and cooperation in the service of human dignity, social peace, and care for creation.”

Advertisement

The Dicastery is called to preserve this heritage and help it grow, especially within the local Churches and among the new generations called to become builders of bridges, not walls.

At the same time, challenges are emerging: fundamentalisms, the political instrumentalisation of religion, and, in quite a few countries, a secularism that reduces religious discourse to folklore or private opinion. In Western pluralistic societies, “dialogue” risks being confused with “relativism”; in other contexts, it risks being stifled by violence or by the lack of religious freedom for Christians.

Q: Over the last quarter-century, we have seen, on the one hand, an increase in the violence and fanaticism of those who kill in the name of God, but also many examples of dialogue, particularly through the path of fraternity emphasised by the Declaration signed in Abu Dhabi in 2019 and by the significant encounters that followed. Can Christians and Muslims live together in peace?

Yes, they can and they must. The Note “A Journey of Hope” states this clearly, placing the question within a broader framework: interreligious dialogue is not an optional choice but a vital necessity.

The last quarter-century has dramatically revealed both sides of reality: on the one hand, the instrumentalisation of religion for purposes of violence and power; on the other, the growth of concrete and fraternal dialogue, which found one of its highest expressions in the 2019 Document on Human Fraternity.

Nostra aetate had already indicated the way: “The Church also regards Muslims with esteem.” It recognises in them the worship of the one God and the importance of prayer, almsgiving, and fasting, and invites everyone to forget the past and to strive sincerely for mutual understanding and the common promotion of social justice, moral values, peace, and freedom.

The post-conciliar Magisterium developed this intuition. Pope Saint John Paul II showed, in Assisi and in many other encounters during his long and fruitful pontificate, that religions are not sources of division but essential actors in building lasting peace.

Pope Benedict XVI repeatedly stated that Islamic-Christian dialogue cannot be reduced to a seasonal choice, because our future depends on it to a great extent.

Pope Francis gave this path the name and substance of “human fraternity,” signing in Abu Dhabi the Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together, and continuing it through significant encounters in Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan; Jakarta, Indonesia; and many other places.

The Note recalls that these gestures form part of a continuity that has produced visible and silent fruits, to which I have already referred: educational and social cooperation; common declarations against violence in the name of God; networks of women and young people engaged in dialogue with the aim of contributing to concrete causes, such as care for our common home or the prevention of war; and experiences of daily coexistence in multi-religious neighbourhoods.

At the same time, the document does not conceal the wounds: the persecution suffered by Christians in different parts of the world at the hands of extremist groups; tensions connected with conflicts in the Middle East; prejudices that persist on both sides; and the political manipulation of religious affiliation.

Peaceful coexistence is therefore possible, but it is not automatic. It requires three conditions that the Note strongly emphasises.

The first condition is clarity regarding one’s own identity: dialogue is neither relativism nor syncretism. Christians and Muslims engage in dialogue more effectively when each knows and lives his or her own faith deeply. The second is the courage to embrace otherness: the other is not a threat to be kept at a distance, but an interlocutor and, potentially, an ally and a friend. The third is sincerity of intention: dialogue cannot be instrumentalised for short-term political or diplomatic purposes.

The experience of these decades shows that, where these conditions are respected, Christians and Muslims not only coexist but cooperate fruitfully. Where fear or instrumentalisation prevails, however, religion is distorted.

The task of believers is to demonstrate through their actions that authentic faith impels people to work for peace. For this reason, the Dicastery continues to work so that the path of fraternity does not remain on paper but becomes a lived pedagogy in the local Churches, schools, and families.

Advertisement

Q: During his pontificate, Pope Francis particularly emphasised the importance of walking together despite our differences and committing ourselves to helping those who suffer. The Note states that “concrete attention to the most vulnerable is the essential indicator for evaluating the soundness of every project” and “the compass that enables us to know whether we are proceeding in the right direction.” Could you offer some examples related to this perspective?

The Note “A Journey of Hope” places this statement at the heart of discernment concerning interreligious dialogue. It is not a generic or sentimental criterion, but an evangelical and universal principle: the welcome or rejection of the wounded person lying by the roadside.

The poor person, in every form of vulnerability, is the compass. Every project—political, economic, social, academic, religious, or cultural—must be measured according to this standard.

Pope Francis made this principle particularly evident. In Fratelli tutti and in many gestures during his pontificate, such as the washing of feet in prisons during the Holy Thursday liturgy, he showed that walking together despite our differences is not an intellectual exercise but a concrete commitment on behalf of those who suffer. The Note takes up and develops this perspective, placing it within the tradition of Nostra aetate and the post-conciliar Magisterium.

At the international level, major interreligious gatherings have produced not only declarations of principle but also concrete appeals and forms of cooperation on behalf of migrants, refugees, victims of conflicts, and those who suffer religious discrimination.

The Document on Human Fraternity and Fratelli tutti explicitly linked peace with the protection of the weakest. Common declarations against violence and hatred, signed by leaders of different traditions, have often included commitments of solidarity towards persecuted communities and populations affected by wars and disasters.

At the level of the local Churches—identified by the Note as the “creative front line”—the examples are even more concrete and often silent. In many multi-religious neighbourhoods in Europe, Africa, Asia, and Latin America, Christians and Muslims—and, in some contexts, Jews, Hindus, or Buddhists as well—cooperate daily on projects to assist migrants, support families in difficulty, educate children, and care for the elderly.

There are shared soup kitchens, interreligious after-school programmes, and assistance offered jointly to people without healthcare coverage. In conflict zones, Christian and Muslim communities have sometimes created protected spaces for the most vulnerable.

Another significant area is the common fight against antisemitism and intolerance towards Muslims, without ignoring discrimination against Christians, as well as against every other form of religious persecution.

When leaders of different traditions take a stand together in support of those who are discriminated against or persecuted, they are measuring the soundness of their dialogue according to the compass of the most vulnerable.

Finally, education in religious literacy and in understanding cultural and geopolitical dynamics is not a theoretical exercise: it prepares generations capable of recognising the face of the poor and cooperating concretely in their service, beyond religious affiliations.

All these examples show that interreligious dialogue, when authentic, is tested and purified in the encounter with those who suffer. If this happens, we are proceeding in the right direction.