The election of Pope Francis gave hope to many.  Here was a man who was known for his love for the poor, whom Jews and Muslims called friend, who showed a sensitivity to the beliefs of others by blessing them silently rather than articulating a blessing in words that were meaningless to them. 
Recently at his morning mass he suggested that everyone, even atheists,  were made in the image and likeness of God and were redeemed by the Blood of Christ.  Because of this, he suggested, everyone was  called to be good.  He saw living  a good life as a way to peace and a place of encounter.  Some atheists might not find talk of redemption very meaningful but these remarks show an inclusiveness and recognition of goodness outside of the Catholic Church and even organised religion.  Good news indeed!   What a wonderful way to encounter those who do not follow our particular way of life, to recognise the goodness that is around us if we have eyes to see it and to feel that we can engage with all human beings in spreading that goodness wherever we find ourselves.

Not such good news for the Vatican media office, however.  One of their spokesmen intervened to clarify the Church's position. Yes indeed salvation is available to all but anyone who " knows the Catholic Church cannot be saved if they refuse to enter or remain in her".  What exactly does this mean?    The niceties of the theology are not my concern here.  What the media office did was turn a generous, inclusive, warm approach to others into the opposite.  It seemed to suggest that goodness was not as universal as the Pope suggested.  Pope Francis knows the goodness that is to be found in others whether of a religious faith or not because he has worked with them and befriended them.  He has made the journey into the world of others.  He knows first hand the goodness to be found there.  Goodness is all around if we look for it but if we stay within our own microscopic world, do not look beyond our own community, do not reach out to others, do not encounter those who are different from us we will not see that goodness.  Someone has written a book entitled Why did  Jesus, Moses, the Buddha and Mohammed Cross the Road?'  I would suggest that the Vatican spokesman might cross the road and I can be sure he will be challenged by what he encounters when he does so!

I was sent this story by a friend a couple of weeks ago and it was because of it that i thought i would start a blog. I think it is self explanatory.

There used to be a joke in Paris . What is the difference between the Chief Rabbi of France and the Cardinal of Paris ?  The Cardinal speaks Yiddish!"

Jean Marie Cardinal Lustiger was buried yesterday. He died this week of cancer. He was born almost 81 years ago to Polish parents who ran a dress shop in Paris . When the German army marched into their city, his parents  sent him and his sister into hiding with a Catholic family in Orleans . Their mother was captured and sent to Auschwitz .
In 1999 as Cardinal of Paris, Jean Marie Lustiger took part in reading of the names of France 's day of remembrance of Jews who had been deported and murdered. He came to the name of Gesele Lustiger, paused, teared and said, "My Mama!" The effect in France during a time of revived anti-Semitism was electric.

He was just 13 and in hiding when he converted to Catholicism, not to escape the Nazis he always said, because no Jew could escape by conversion, and not of trauma, he said. Among his most controversial observation: I was born Jewish and so I remain, even if that is unacceptable for many. For me, the vocation of Israel is bringing light to the goyem. That is my
hope and I believe that Christianity is the means for achieving it. There were a great number of Rabbi's who consider his conversion a betrayal, especially after so many European Jews so narrowly escaped extinction. Cardinal Lustiger replied, "To say that I am no longer a Jew is like denying my father and mother, my grandfathers and grandmothers. I am as Jewish as
all other members of my family that were butchered in Auschwitz and other camps!"

He confessed to a biographer that he had a spiritual crisis in the 1970's provoked by persistent anti-Semitism in France. He studied Hebrew and considered emigrating. He said, "I thought that I had finished what I had to do here and I might find new meaning in Israel ." But just at that time the Pope appointed him bishop of Orleans. He found purpose in the plight of immigrant workers. Then he was elevated Cardinal, the Archbishop of Paris .  Jean Marie Lustiger was close to the Pope. They shared a doctrinal conservatism. He also battled bigotry and totalitarianism.  For years, Cardinal Lustiger's name was among those who was considered to succeed John Paul. Without putting himself forth, the Cardinal joked that few things would bedevil bigots more that a Jewish Pope. "They don't like to admit it, but what Christians believe, they got through Jews."

The funeral for Cardinal Lustiger began at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris with the chanting of Kaddish, the Jewish prayer for the dead.  Sometimes there are profound inconsistencies in our world!

                                    Blessed are those that can give without remembering, and take without forgetting.

I came across an article yesterday on the BBC website. it was written by Mark Vernon and a reflection on how the book by John Robinson 'Honest to God' had changed people's ideas of God.  it was a move away from anthropomorphic images to images such as Paul Tillich's Ground of our Being, more  suited to what we know of science and the cosmos.  Vernon seems to suggest that these images are more meaningful to people but that the images offered by the Church are meaningless.  He decries this as he recognises the good religious practices and traditions can have in developing people's spirituality.   I resonate with this.  So often I find God language quite unintelligible and off putting. Somehow religion, and here I speak of Christianity, forgets that anything we say of God is metaphor and analogy, that God is mystery.  I like Etty Hilsum's way of putting it when she talk of the Absolute, the Source of Life which for convenience she calls God.  All religions grow up in a particular context and are influenced by that.  Often images and names for God reflect a particular history or experience but they do not say all that there is to say about God.  It is here that interfaith relations can help us.  I find that to understand the images of God of another religion is to widen my appreciation of the mystery of God and to realise the inadequacy of all images. 
This is particularly so with Buddhism which is refusing to speak of a personal, creator God reminds me that there are some unanswerable questions and that when faced with the mystery of God the only adequate response is silence.

Scotland is at an exciting and important stage in its history. As it journeys towards a referendum there is a desire to develop a new vision for Scotland and to engage in conversations about the kind of society we would like to live in.  Yesterday I was preparing a paper for such  a conversation with the members of Interfaith Scotland.  I used some of the material contained in a series of books, Postcards from Scotland.

One of the books,  written by Phil Hanlon and Sandra Castle of Glasgow University, is entitled AfterNow.  It shows that Scotland is one of the most unhealthy societies in Europe.  It is unclear why this is so but some suggest a break down in community, a loss of meaning and purpose. The authors suggest that  Scotland needs to encourage a return to spiritual values such as community, offering a listening ear and giving people a locus for conversation and reflection if it is to promote health and well-being it is to become a healthy nation .

Another of the  book in the series is written by Carol Craig from the Centre for Confidence and Wellbeing . It is entitled The Great Takeover and shows how materialism, the media and markets now dominate our lives. Carol argues how this has led to competitiveness and a celebrity culture that is not wholesome, affects our health and wellbeing and does not contribute to our happiness. Carol suggests that in the past religions offered an alternative voice but now, according to Carol, the only time an alternative voice is heard is in Thought for the Day on Radio 4!

Postcards from Scotland  suggest that there is a need for a change in the general culture of Scotland, a change in people’s attitude, a return to simpler, life-giving, wholesome values.  The series encourages us to consider what it means to live a good life, something philosophers have been doing since the time of Socrates.  Whatever the good life is it is not about accumulating more goods, being more successful, more important, more powerful.  One of the answers offered by the authors of the series is to choose less, to choose voluntary simplicity, to develop compassion for ourselves. others and the world around us. These authors are not necessarily religious but the solution they offer is fundamental to most religions.  If religious traditions were able to live out these values in their daily life and speak about them in a way that is meaningful to everyone, religious or not, they could make a great contribution to the wellbeing of society. The religious message is needed more than ever, especially at a time when it looks as though religion is in decline.  And this message could be the more powerful if it were  spoken with a united voice.  This would mean religions setting aside their own particular agendas to speak with a common voice about the human values they all share. This is the work of interfaith relations.  

There has been a great controversy this week in Scotland over a report which was to have been presented to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.  Entitled 'The Inheritance of Abraham?  A report on the promised land' it stands strongly on the side of the Palestinians.  Clearly the authors feel the pain of the Palestinians and see much injustice in current Israeli policies.    But as the title suggests the focus of the report is on a biblical understanding of land.  It suggests that to read the Hebrew bible, which is the Christian Old Testament, as God promising a land to a particular people is wrong and that promises about the land of Israel should not be taken literally.  It speaks of the inclusive dimension of Christianity and the particular exclusivism of Judaism in the same sentence. It could even be taken as suggesting that Judaism has no right to exist since Jesus has broken down all barriers so that there is no longer Jew or gentile.  It is no wonder that the Jewish community were up in arms. 

It seems a bit strange to me that a major Christian Church should not recognise and acknowledge that there are differing interpretations of texts, that these need to be struggled with, discussed, prayed about and any conclusions put forward in a tentative way rather than a dogmatic one-sided way.  And if there are different interpretations of texts within Christianity, then there will be differing interpretations within Judaism and it is not for one religion to tell another how to interpret their religious scriptures. often within Christian circles people use the term Hebrew scriptures for the Old Testament as they think it is more respectful to Judaism but in passing judgement on how texts within this testament are to be interpreted it might be better to use the term Old Testament as it then acknowledges that the way of looking at the text is a particularly Christian one.   It also seems a bit strange to suggest Judaism is exclusive while Christianity is inclusive.  Christianity is perhaps the most exclusive of the world religions having denied salvation to people who do not acknowledge Jesus as Lord and I am not sure that the  claim to inclusiveness would be the way others see us.

The Israeli/ Palestinian conflict is a difficult and painful one. I would hope that any Christian reflection on the situation would feel that pain, embrace it and listen to the cries of that suffering land.  Donald Nichol who was the Director of the Tantur Ecumenical Institute in Israel said he would know the time had come for him to leave the country once he found himself taking sides.  Should a Church not be striving to be a reconciler and peace-maker and can this be done without dialogue?  Even Tony Blair has acknowledged that there will be no peace in the Middle East without dialogue between the religions.

The end of this story is that the writers of the report did meet members of the Jewish community and the Council of Christians and Jews and that the report will be modified before it is presented to the General Assembly.  As always dialogue helps restore relationships and shows a way forward. What a pity if often happens after the event.  if it had been part of the process much hurt and misunderstanding would have been avoided.

A large part of my pilgrimage has been the journey into the faith of others. It has been a sacred encounter and a pilgrimage which has truly enriched my soul. It began when I studied at Lancaster University.  It was a series of coincidences that led me to that university and I was not to know when I started there what a life –changing experience it would be.  Having been brought up as a catholic and having spent all my education within the catholic sector before becoming a catholic nun meant that my time in Lancaster was the first time in my life I lived and worked within a secular context. But it was an exciting and exhilarating context. Not only did I study world religions for the first time but I came into contact with devout people who practised these religions and for whom they seemed to be a source of inspiration, meaning and grace.  This was a great challenge as I discovered that what I thought of as the truth was a faith perspective and only one faith perspective amongst others. I also discovered that there were basic oncepts which underlay all religions. These encounters were enough to make me wonder where my own faith had come from and what doctrines such as the Trinity and the Resurrection really meant. Although it was disturbing at the time I now look upon that time at Lancaster as the most graced moment of my life.  It was a moment which led me to reconsider my understanding of my own faith and to re-articulate it in terms that were meaningful to me.  I was changed by that experience of Lancaster.  I was disturbed in the security of my one-sided perspective as I came to understand that what I took to be the truth was only a perspective on the truth.  I came to recognise the great diversity that there is in God and the search for God which is deep within all religions and indeed within all human hearts.  I was able to recognise what was essential and what was peripheral in my faith as I came to rethink my understanding of God, religion and truth.