Inter-religious statement on euthanasia, in Portugal

Care, with compassion, until the end

Inter-religious statement on euthanasia

The debate currently underway in Portugal about what has been labelled “assisted death” invites all of us to reflect and offer their contribution to enrich a process of dialogue which requires the intervention of all social agents. The religious traditions bear a message about the life and death of man, as well as the model of society we build, and it is both legitimate and necessary that they present this message with freedom and humility.

At a time when Parliament debates and prepares to vote on proposals for a possible law on euthanasia, we, the undersigned religious communities present in Portugal, having gathered to discuss and reflect together, and aware that we are living moments of great importance for our time collective future, do declare:

1. The dignity of those who suffer

We believe that each human being is unique and, as such, irreplaceable and necessary to the society of which he or she is a part, bestowed with an intrinsic dignity which is prior to any criteria of quality of life or usefulness, until the time of natural death. Not only does life not lose its dignity as it draws to its end, but the vulnerability with which it is clothed in this stage is, rather, a badge of special dignity which requires proximity and care. We do believe that suffering should be avoided if possible and, therefore, we give thanks for the fact that medical and pharmacological sciences have developed to such an extent that they allow for an effective relief of pain and promotion of well-being. However, we do not ignore the dramatic nature of suffering and the difficulty in finding meaning in continued life. We are aware that religion offers the possibility of meaning to those who believe, but we also know, from experience in accompanying so many who are not religious, that belief is not a necessary condition to finding meaning in one’s own suffering. With these our brothers we learn, indeed, that this task represents one of the greatest achievements of personal dignity. One’s dignity does not depend on anything other than existence as a person and personal autonomy cannot be emptied of its social meaning.

2. For a merciful and compassionate society

The suffering at the end of life is a spiritual challenge for each individual and an ethical challenge for society as a whole. Principles such as mercy and compassion are common to the different religious traditions and, over the history of civilization, have given rise to social models capable of creating, in each period, precise ways of accompanying and caring for the most fragile members of society. Today, human death is one of the areas which challenges us. What is asked of us is not that we give up on those living their final stages of life, by offering them the legal possibility of death, which can be the result of suffering without adequate care. It is this suffering which is truly unbearable and which gives rise to the will to die. It is the fruit of a society which abandons, which loses its humanity and becomes indifferent. Our beliefs in this respect are confirmed by our experience that people who are properly accompanied neither despair nor ask to die. What is asked of us, therefore, is that we commit ourselves more deeply to those who are living through this stage, taking upon ourselves the necessity of offering them a humane and accompanied death.  

3. Palliative Care, a necessity which cannot be delayed

We believe that palliative care is the most complete expression of this service which the state is obliged to give, since it results from the highest technical and scientific skill and competence in compassion, both of which are needed when dealing with people in the final stage of life. True compassion does not insist on futile treatment in an attempt to prolong life, but helps people to experience their own death as humanely as possible, recognising that it is only natural. Palliative care values a person until their natural end, alleviating their suffering, fighting off loneliness through the presence of family and other loved ones. We ask Portuguese society to rise up to this challenge, which can no longer be postponed, of making palliative care available to all, and we take upon ourselves the task of doing all that we possibly can to participate in this national effort. We cannot help but to ask if this current debate, preceding as it does an investment in proper palliative care, does not betray a lack of truth.

Religious traditions profess that life is a precious gift, with Abrahamic religions stressing that it is a gift from God and, as such, sacred in nature; but this only confirms its natural dignity, from whence stem its inherent inviolability and unavailability which, therefore, do not rest on religious foundations. But religion does give life a meaning, a hope and other possibilities of transcendence. Societies need this vision of man to stand alongside all the others which exist.

We, the religious communities present in Portugal, believe that life is inviolable until natural death and we share the belief in a compassionate model of society. For this reason, in the name of humanity and the future of the human community, we feel called to take part in the current debate on assisted death, to express our opposition to its legalisation under any of its forms, be it assisted suicide or euthanasia. Therefore we put our names to this common statement.

Lisbon, May 16^th, 2018

Portuguese Evangelical Alliance -  Pastor Jorge Humberto, representing the president Pedro Calaim

Portuguese Hindu Community – Mr Kiritkumar Bachu

Islamic Community of Lisbon – Sheikh David Munir

Israeli Community of Lisbon – Rabbi Natan Peres

Catholic Church – Cardinal Patriarch D. Manuel Clemente

Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople – Archpriest Ivan Moody

Portuguese Buddhist Union – Diogo Lopes

Portuguese Union of Seventh Day Adventists – Pastor António Carvalho, representing the president, pastor António Amorim

“Dialogue is at the heart of the Christian mystery”

Full transcript of my interview with Fr. Darren Dias, a Canadian Dominican priest and expert in inter-religious dialogue.

What exactly is your involvement in inter-religious and ecumenical dialogue?

I am primarily involved in inter-religious dialogue. I am on the Hindu-Roman Catholic Dialogue of Canada, it's the first type of dialogue the Canadian Bishops have sponsored outside of the monotheistic faiths. There was already dialogue with Jews, a very old dialogue of the Church, and Muslims, and now Hindus.

I also teach at the University of St. Michaels College, in the faculty of Theology, where my area of interest and research is religious pluralism, that is, what is the significance of the simultaneous presence of multiple religious traditions in the World.

Does your Indian background have anything to do with being on that commission?

It may do. I am not a specialist in Hinduism, there are those on the dialogue who are more so, but certainly culturally, because my grand-parents are from Goa, I can relate to Hindus that would come from India also. So that may be one of the reasons. The other reason also is my area of interest.

Because of course that would be very specific and very different from dialogue with Muslims and Jews...

That's right. The first, Ecumenical, would be dialogue with just Christians, and there we have a common faith in the One Lord Jesus Christ, so there is a basis already for Dialogue. With Jews, of course, because Christianity grew out of Judaism, we have a common Scripture, what we call the Old Testament, common notions around God and the divine. We also have a basis for dialogue which is Theological.

Likewise with Muslims we share faith in the One God, we are monotheists, so we have at least that type of basis. What does monotheism call us to live ethically, morally, so there is a basis there.

When you move outside of Christianity and the monotheistic religions, into dialogues with Hindus and Buddhists, its different, because we have less in common theologically, we have less of a shared European and Middle Eastern tradition. So that makes the dialogue a different kind of dialogue. It may start on Human questions, anthropological questions, social challenges. So I think it's true that the non-Christian and non-monotheistic dialogues present a new way of dialogue with the Church.

In terms of the Canadian society, are relations between Hindu and Christian communities generally peaceful and fruitful?

Yes. Canada is a fairly multicultural and multi-religious society, it is predominantly still Christian, at least nominally, and people practice their faith without any sort of problem. It’s a peaceful coexistence.

Religious dialogue with Hindus is very new. We have often gotten together, people of different faiths, on social or political issues, but the religious factor wasn't really entering into the discussion, so it is a new thing. Having said that, there are always, and this is unfortunate and its a problem around the world, incidents of intolerance. We have certainly had an increase of intolerance towards Muslims in the past months, we have had anti-Semitic actions in the country, now they are rare, but still significant. So it still shows that we have a lot of work to do, and that although some might say that tolerance is the lowest common denominator, we still have work to do in the area of tolerance, even a country as open and tolerant and diverse as Canada.

I've heard that it’s not clear cut that Hinduism is a polytheistic faith, that it might not be as simple as that. How would you describe it?

I think that one thing that Christians and certainly Roman Catholics have an advantage with is that when we enter into dialogue we are appointed by the bishops and we can say that we speak from a certain position and we have a shared understanding on these things. To say the same about other religions like Hinduism, and it is the same for Judaism or Islam, there is no central authority, there is no central body to say this is what we believe and this is how we understand ourselves. So our dialogue with Hindus is different because we dialogue with different expressions of Hinduism, and within Hinduism there is such a great diversity of belief, there is such great diversity in the way Hindus would articulate their beliefs, that it would be hard to answer your question, certainly as a Christian, but also within the Hindu tradition there would be many ways of expressing it. Some might say that in fact there is one source of being, and therefore they are not actually polytheists. Even the categories of polytheism and monotheism might be Western, Judeo-Christian categories that Hinduism does not fit into. That is part of the work of dialogue, to reach across those boundaries that make categories difficult to discuss.

No salvation outside the Church? What does this mean exactly?

No Salvation outside the Church is a common adage. It was certainly in the literature of the Roman Catholic Church before the Second Vatican Council, but it hadn't been used, even in the 19th Century, very often. We know that in around 1949 there was a famous case with a Boston priest named father Leonard Feeney who interpreted that quite literally. And both the bishop of Boston and also, eventually, the Holy See. The CDF and the Pope were involved with this discussion, which is to say that even in 1949 we did not take this literally.

So after the Second Vatican Council that phrase "Outside the Church, no Salvation", has disappeared from all official literature because, in fact, the Church teaches that there is goodness and truth outside of Christianity, there are seeds of the Word, there is the Divine presence in other religions, so there is indeed salvation outside of the Church.

There are still those in the Church who would say that inter-religious or ecumenical dialogue should essentially be about trying to convert non-Christians and bring the separated Christians back to Rome…

But then it would cease to be dialogue, it would become evangelization, it would become mission, and they are strains in Christianity, which is an evangelizing religion, but even in that evangelizing mission, John Paul II wrote that dialogue is a part of the evangelizing mission of the Church, so that as much as we are called to evangelize, in the sense of explicitly making others Christian, we are also called to dialogue, that is to learn not only about people of other religions, but in our dialogue we learn about God and about who we are.

With all the emphasis on dialogue, however, is there not a crisis in the Church view of evangelization? Certainly some in the Protestant world decry the fact that the Catholic Church seems to have given up on active missions to evangelize non-Christians.

That might be a misperception. Certainly the Church has gone through various phases of its evangelizing mission, the first generation, that is, the Jewish Church that evangelized the gentile world, is different than it was in medieval time when the Church sought to Evangelize Europe, and it is different with the sixteenth Century, with the so-called discoveries, when missionaries would evangelize, along with the colonization, so you have a mission which is linked to colonisation, and that lasted right up until the 18 hundreds and early 19 hundreds. So every era there are exigencies which make Missionary activity different. Today the situation is such that we would not evangelize in the same way that we did in a previous generation, that would be suicide for the Church. However, it doesn't mean that the Church ignores its evangelizing mission, but it probably does it and understands it in different ways.

There is no such thing as a forced conversion these days, but there was in the past.

So I think that our Evangelical brothers and sisters would remind us that we still are constituted by a Mission, the reason that there is a church is for the mission. The Gospel mission. There is no doubt. How we witness to the Gospel is different in every era, and I think part of our witnessing today is to enter into dialogue with those who are different from us, and I think that is actually at the heart of what the Gospel is about. So that in the incarnation of Jesus Christ there is a divine and human dialogue, the Word becomes flesh, so that at the very heart of the Christian mystery there is dialogue and for us to be performative of dialogue really behoves us, then. Dialogue helps us to discover the fundamental attributes of what it means to witness to the Gospel.

Again, this might be a misperception, but the idea we have over here is that Canada is an extremely liberal country. In that issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc., which are contentious in the USA, seem to be settled in Canada. Is Canada mission territory?

Well, everyone is in need of mission, in a different way. Everyone is in need of witness to the Gospel.

While the United States professes a separation of Church and State, I think they're religion and State are still fairly linked. Canada does have a pretty healthy separation of Church and State, and there is a real separation.

I think Canada is socially conscious on many issues. So, whether it is socialized medicine, or education which is a public system of post-secondary education, or even refugees, immigration laws, compared to the US, where they have a private medical system and very expensive post-secondary education, so in that sense it is a very socially conscious and collective country, compared to a more individualist consumerist society, in the US. But certainly there is always work to be done in every society.

I think Canada might be a little bit different, because how the Church, or religious groups, would seek to influence public policy, would be through society and the promotion of values, and in the promotion of human or Christian values, people can buy into them even if they are not, lets say, Christian. I think in the USA it is often about influencing law-makers. Its really about the state and how the State controls things. The distinction I am making then is how to evangelize a society through society itself, through culture, or how you might evangelize society through the mechanisms of a state, and I think those are two very different approaches.

Recently the Vatican commission for religious dialogue with the Jews published a document giving weight to the idea that there is no need to evangelize the Jews because they already live in a salvific covenant with God. This is in no way a consolidated idea within the Church, what is your take on this?

That document which came out in December 2015 is an important document. It is a reflection on the past 50 years of relationships with the Jews and in some ways it enumerates the great strides that have been made. It addresses some of the areas which are of ongoing concern and one of the things that it did address is that it said quite explicitly that the Roman Catholic Church no longer has any institutional mission to converting the Jews, and that is based on a scriptural, Pauline notion that God does not take away his promises, and so the promise that he made to the Jewish people remains.

The New Covenant, as we Christians call it, with Jesus Christ, does not abrogate the old covenant with the Jews. So I think that it affirms what is a common theological principle, or idea, that these two covenants are related and intertwined, but that the Jews, because they have an ongoing relationship with God, would not need missionary activity, they would not need to become Christians, so the Church does not have a missionary outreach to the Jews in the way that it had had in the past. For example, there were some religious communities which were founded exclusively for the conversion of Jews.

I actually think that what is very significant in the publication of that document is that a group of Orthodox rabbis also published a document around the same time, I think it came out a few days before, and this was a first in modern history, for the Orthodox Rabbis to really respond to the invitation of the Roman Catholic Church to dialogue, and I think that is really an important step. That our dialogue is a real dialogue, it is not just the Church producing documents, but we see an effect in other religions, which respond to the invitation to enter into some kind of deeper relationship with us.

So in that document, which was a very fine document issued by the dicastery on religious relations with the Jews, I think the more significant thing is that Orthodox rabbis, for the first time, have responded.

Concerning the polemic at Wheaton College about whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God, how do you see this issue?

I am less familiar with the details of the Wheaton situation, though I know about it. So I will answer in two ways.

What I think is very troubling about the Wheaton situation is what is the role of academic freedom? How do theologians have freedom to make statements and to explore research without being disciplined? So one thing is a collegial concern for academic freedom.

I think that Pope John Paul II, in Algeria, when he was on a visit, was quite clear to say to the Muslim Youth that we worship the same God, and we both, all religions, not just Muslims, but all religions, have a temptation to make God in their own image. And one of the things that dialogue does is remind us that we have to avoid the temptation to make out of God something that we want. We see this with extremists, with so-called Muslims, some would say they are not even Muslims, the ISIS people, creating God in their own image. And this leads to intollerance and violence. The alternative to dialogue is violence. So like when children don't have words to express themselves, they express themselves physically, violently, and this is what could happen when we make God into our own image, into something that will further our own agendas, then there is no more room for dialogue and violence ensues.

As a Dominican you are heir to a long tradition of dialogue…

That's right. The order was founded by St. Dominic in the early 13th Century, and Dominic, at the time, faced the great Albigensian heresy in Spain and France, and he observed the way the Cistercians had been trying to evangelize, to bring back these heretics. Now the heresy was a problematic heresy because it denied the very goodness of Human creation and it denied the effect of the resurrection, that is what dualisms do, when they are too spiritually or non-materially oriented, they negate and they denigrate creation, so it was a very problematic heresy.

The Cistercians went out to convert the heretics, to bring them back to the Church, but they were not successful. And one of the things Dominic realised was that some of the criticisms of the heretics, that the Church had become too worldly and they were too involved in power and they were too wealthy and they weren't following the Evangelical precepts, he realized in his dialogue with them that some of the criticisms were true, so he adopted a very simple, austere and poor lifestyle, and then began to enter into conversations with them about theology.

His method was to speak to people, so he spoke sometimes throughout the night to heretics to try and bring them back. So his approach was quite dialogical, we would say today, and it was never heavy handed, and never forced.

An example of how dialogue can also be mission...

That's right.

How well do you know your Goan heritage?

My father was born in Goa, as were my grand-parents, and they moved to Toronto, so I knew my grand-parents, and obviously I knew my father. So I would have heard many stories, and certainly culturally we observed many things, religiously, food, certain customs. But I don't speak the language, which is Concani, because Salazar did not permit the use of the local language. So we lost a lot because of the Portuguese colonization, we lost a lot of the culture, and it was a 450 year colonization. So we have our own Goan culture, but we also have influences of the Portuguese, but beginning in the 40s many people began to leave Goa, so we are a diaspora people, like the Jewish people. There were not a lot of opportunities in Goa in the 40s and 50s and so people began leaving, so there is a culture of the migrant people which is different from the Goa of today, because with the liberation in 1960, and the return to India, the culture changed again.

I have only been there once, and it would have been very different than my parents or my grand-parents' generation, and yet that is a Goa that I don't actually know, because it doesn't actually exist anymore.

But was there a big diaspora in Canada?

There is, yes, in Toronto. There is also a diaspora in London and here in Portugal, of course. I suspect that the Goan population is larger outside of Goa than in Goa.

So there was a community aspect to your experience in Canada?

Yes, there was. There were a few clubs and associations, and there still are. So that is how things are transmitted in Toronto, Montreal and London.

"We will be the salt and the light of the Arab World"

This is a full transcript, in English, of my interview with Patriarch Gregorios III Laham, of the Melkite Church. His Beatitude speaks of the situation of Christians in the Middle East but also about particularities of the Eastern Catholic Churches, such as ordination of married men outside of the ancestral territories of the Patriarchates, etc. The news report can be seen here, in Portuguese, but is accompanied by a video which is in English, subtitled in Portuguese. The interview was conducted in English, some of the Patriarch's answers were edited for clarity, but always respecting his meaning. 

Transcrição integral, no inglês original, da entrevista ao Patriarca Gregório III, da Igreja Melquita. A notícia encontra-se aqui. 

You are in Portugal to speak about the situation of the Christians in Iraq and Syria. What will you be telling your audiences?

First, we are very thankful that you are so aware in Portugal and elsewhere about this situation, especially of the Christians as part of society in Syria. We are especially thankful to Aid to the Church in Need.

The events in Iraq in June, with the expulsion of about 120.000 Christians, and also some Yezidis from Mosul and Nineveh, were a shock for the whole Middle East. It had a great impact in Syria, because the Syrians were more optimistic, the situation was better, the government was doing well, the army was having more successes, but with this shock of Iraq the people were disappointed, skeptical, pessimistic, and more and more people are leaving today, because they are afraid that something similar will happen to them. 

Currently the main places of fear are near the border with Turkey, near Aleppo, in the North... Aleppo is a real prison, it has been for months. Several times without water, without electricity, and sometimes without food. But they are very courageous, and very united, the bishops and the people, but many left, especially the rich people who could help others. And many factories have been destroyed...

Damascus is less dangerous, it is the capital. We hear bombs and planes attacking, but more from the government against these mercenaries and bandits and groups. There are about 2000 groups working in Syria, fighting in Syria, against the government.

People say it is a civil war, but I can't say it is a civil war. Civil war means different factions of the country fighting each other. Here you have a government and mercenaries and groups from inside, from outside, fighting, attacking, kidnapping, and so on. It is not a civil war, it is not even a real revolution. It is a crisis, which is bigger because of the influence and invasion of other groups from outside. 

Daily we hear that people from Holland, Britain, Germany, are going to Syria. It is against human and natural law to go from Holland to fight against me in Syria, or to destroy my house. It's not like the first or the second world wars, not even like the war in Lebanon, there it was a real civil war, here it is all militias, militias, militias. 

The chaos is the biggest danger today. You don't know. Every place is safe in Syria and every place is dangerous.

Here in the West we see Christians being persecuted. Many people want to help. But what can they do?

First of all, really, if we had a consensus with the Arab world and Europe, to stop the war, this is the best help, because even with the huge humanitarian help by international organizations, the churches, Catholic and others, in spite of that, we can't cope with all the needs of our people. 

Daily we have more people needing help. For example, in my Patriarchate in Damascus we started a small community for about 300 families. Now we have 8000, and everyday more and more.

Children are dying, there are no schools, little food, now the winter, medicine, operations, handicapped people, kidnapped people and ransoms. Daily we have huge numbers and different sorts of tragedies and needs.

We have had lots of help, from the Vatican, Aid to the Church in Need, the Holy Father, Congregation for the Eastern Churches, Cor Unum, Ouvre d'Orient, Caritas, they are helping a lot, as well as our international friends. It is a lot of help, but we are not able to cope with the needs of the people. 

The second is really to stop the traffic of weapons. Pope Francis said that the biggest problem today is weapon trafficking... In Europe there are economic problems, and the weapons business and the war are ways of improving the economy in Europe and America.

For me, as a priest, as a bishop – very independent, very free, and with no tension or influences – we don't need these wars in the Middle East to change. We can change without that. The Islamic world was changing already before ISIS and so on, in general you could see development in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, without these wars and crises... we don't need it.

It is really an awful war and Europe is responsible for that, with the USA and with Russia. All together. I am sure that if one day the interests of Russia and America coincide we will have peace. As long as they don't realize how to do that, we will continue to have war. It is not ISIS... sure they have influence, but the real problem is somewhere else.

Assad warned that a change of regime would open the doors to radical Islam. Is the regime vital to coexistence?

The situation in Syria, the conditions of life together, coexistence, freedom of religion and of worship, churches, schools, development of industry and so on, is not only the result of the regime or the Ba'ath party. 

The party did a lot for the development of the country, but this coexistence, this freedom, is not a result of this party, which was founded by a Christian. It is an ancient tradition. In the time of the Ottomans, the best place to live, for Christians, was Syria and Lebanon, called Sham. These were countries where Christians could live. 

When you go out to other Arab countries, like the Emirates, the Gulf states, it is another Arabic Islamic situation. But the place where Christians used to live in security, in freedom and coexistence, cordiality, together, flourishing and respected, are these countries. So I wonder, what can these movements bring us more? I don't know. 

If there is an alternative, what is it? Who can bring me, as a Christian, as a Muslim, as Druze, as Shiite, more than I have now in terms of living together, peaceful coexistence of churches and mosques, living together in different quarters, with Christian business men having more Muslim employees than Christians... It is wonderful. I like to tell the Western countries, we live together better than in some countries in Europe. 

Many Christians were taken up by the pan-Arab nationalist movements in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. Has that dream died?

Well, it is in great danger. Not because of Islamism, these movements are instruments for something else. For me the biggest danger and the biggest problem and cause of this instability in the Middle East is the failure by Europe and the Arab world to solve the conflict between Palestine and Israel.

Iraqi Christian refugees in Erbil

I served for 26 years as bishop in Jerusalem, before becoming Patriarch. I can tell you that all the problems in these countries are related to the problem in Israel and Palestine. As long as there is no solution it means this conflict will be an excuse for many countries, including Arab countries, to dominate their people, not to do what they have to do, and not to liberate and give freedom and development. They spend a lot of money on weapons, but for nothing. The greatest interest is for Israel. 

Security for Israel? I am ok with that. But also security for Palestinians. The security of Israel is more in the hands of the Palestinians than in the hands of Europe and America, because as we say in Arabic, your neighbor is more important than your own house.

The Holy Father Pope Francis, when he came to Jordan in May, said there are two keys to peace in the Middle East and the world. First, a real political and diplomatic, comprehensive, consensus solution for the crisis in Syria.

Second, justice for Palestine. These two things have to be considered in all policies. But they are not considered.

The European Union is 50 years old. I told them, look, you have 50 years of peaceful coexistence. Please help Arabs, don't divide Arabs. Help us to be united. It is better humanity, for development, for young generations and also for peace for you. 

If we solve the Palestinian Israeli conflict we will have less aggressive Islam in Europe. We will have better Islam in Europe, they can be better integrated, there will be more understanding and more dialogue. The danger for you is bigger than the danger for us. Islam in Europe will be more dangerous than in our lands, because we have a long experience of living together, we will be successful, we will live after this crisis. So for the sake of Europe and the Islamic presence in Europe, you need to help solve the problem.

Holland is now willing to recognize the State of Palestine. I asked the Holy Father, when I was with him on the 20th of October in Rome, I said please, be the first state, not the last, to recognize Palestine and you will help Christians and Muslims alike, and Jews also. 

The salvation, the security of the Jews are in our hands and not in the hands others. 

There has been more and more talk of creating a safe-haven for Christians in the Middle East, do you think the time has come for this?

Never! Never. Never. It was maybe a temptation in the past centuries, but no more. 

When Israel defined itself as a Jewish state, there were no protests, which is a pity. I am ok with the existence of Israel, but Jewish state? What for? Where am I as a Christian, or as a Druze, as a Palestinan Muslim... What is the difference between a Jewish state and Shari'a? Jewish state means the law of the Jewish religion. 

After the creation of a Jewish state some want to have an Alawite state, a shiite state, a Druze state, a Kurdish state, and so on and so on, what is the future? Nothing. 

We can't live separated! We have a history of living together. I told my people, we will not have our state, we will be in all states and being, in these states, salt and light. This is the future. Christians cannot live alone. We don't have a ghetto spirit. We have to avoid the ghetto spirit. To be put in a corner, or like a resort to save animals or plants... We are the cradle of Christianity, the birthplace of Christianity, we don't need a state.

I wrote a letter to my people and I quoted the letter to Diognetus, which is well known. I told my people, this is the answer to you. Already in the second century this was it.

The Holy Father said, in Evangeli Gaudium, that people think that the problems of today are worse and more difficult than the problems in the first century. It is not true, it is the opposite! For 300 years we had no rights, it was pagan, now we have churches, schools, congregations, we have processions, we have everything. We were able to overcome then, why not today? We have to give hope to our people, because the danger is so big, they are leaving. They are in great fear.

As pastors we have to be very strong and near to our people. We thank the Lord that all patriarchs and bishops are very near to their people.

Christian leaders have always been against the creation of armed militias for the Christian communities, but since the purge of Mosul and other Christian areas, many have defended the legitimacy of an armed response. What is your opinion?

We are not able be armed and we don't like to be armed. 

I said in 2012, in a letter, we were not asked to be armed, in Syria, we are not asking to be armed and we don't like to be armed. Now, it is different to say that in some places we need to have self defense possibility. Not to attack, not militia. Militia is not for Christians. Lebanon used that approach and it was a very, very bad experience. We don't need that, we are different. The Arabic world needs us like this, and not like militias.

We have to convince our people not to take up arms. We have to see other solutions. So I am asking the whole world, why, after years and centuries, are we always solving problems with war? Why not think of something else? In the XXI century the states are only thinking of more and more weapons. The church has to change minds in the states and not to see everything in terms of weapons and militias. This is not the answer, not for the future.

We had 1400 years with Islam without weapons, why not continue without weapons?

But many middle Eastern Christians reject the idea that they are Arabs, and claim to be Assyrians, how do you react to that?

Who is Arab? Where is the pure Arabic blood? Many Muslims were Christians, Assyrians, Greek Catholic, and so on. Many admit this, that they were Christians. Until the XIII century the majority of the Middle East was Christian. How did they become Muslim? Over time.

Being Arabic is something difficult to define. There are different linguistic or geographic groups. It is a mixture of different groups. You can't differentiate. I am Greek Catholic, because of the Greek language, but I am Syrian, just like the Assyrians, because it was the invasion of the Greek language and all the Middle East was speaking Greek in the cities. Even the founders of the Syriac church did not speak Syriac. They are called Syriac Fathers, but they spoke Greek. 

So the difference between Arabs and non-Arabs, Assyrians, Syrians, Chaldeans... The same country has different languages, or similar languages.

What is Assyrian? Assyrian, Syrian, Chaldean, Hebrew, Cananean, Philistines... These people are closer to each other than Europeans, because our languages are closer to each other than European. 

I am happy that we have many rites. Coptic, Syrian, Armenian... We have more pluralism than Europe. I say keep your tradition! Think in Arabic, but think also in Coptic, Greek, Armenian, Syrian, Assyrian, Chaldean... How beautiful!

Before the war we had one million Iraqis and they were singing and praying in our churches in Chaldean, it was so beautiful to hear them! In Maaloula Muslims speak Aramaic, just like the Christians. So this distinction between Arabs and non-Arabs... We are in the Arab World. We are Kurds, Druze, Shiite, Christian…

The "arabity" is a Christian trait. We brought that. Some people say, keep your Christians to keep your "arabity", because if there are no more Christians in the Middle East, only Muslims, they will call themselves Muslims, not Arabs. Even though the Koran is in Arabic, they will say we are Muslim. Arabic is the language, but the nation is Islam. 

So in order to keep a real Arab world, an Arab spring, even, we have to keep Christians there. Not only are we interested in staying, you are interested in us staying. This is a real mission.

That is why I said in my letter to other Christians, it is not the time to be only afraid. There are reasons to be afraid, but it is also time to see where is our mission? I like to tell Christians in Europe, never speak of our presence without speaking about our role and our mission. A presence without a role is nothing, a role without a presence is nothing, therefore we have to think about the Christian presence and the Christian role, and in the very beautiful words of Saint John Paul II, the essence of the human being is to be with and for. I am with the Arab World, but I am for the Arab World, that they may have life, and life in abundance. 

How wonderful is this mission? The essence is to be with, but also for. That is the whole sense of this awareness of the world about Christians, not for themselves, to be present, but to be more, to bring the light of the Gospel, the joy of the Gospel, the values of the Gospel in the world. 

There are many different Christian churches in the Middle East, each with its own Patriarch, liturgy, traditions, language… The feeling is that Christians do not speak as one community and with one voice. Is this a problem, and how can it be overcome?
Because of dogmas, sometimes we have some problems. But for the pastoral, for the social presence, for the works and so on, we are one, especially today. We thank the Lord that we have a wonderful set of Patriarchs today, very united, and we had, since June of this year, many meetings together, all Patriarchs, not just Catholics. We went together to Arbil, to visit the refugees of our brothers, the Iraqis, Yezidis, Christians and Muslims. And we went together to Washington where we had a meeting with Obama, for 40 minutes, all together, and we have many declarations, thank the Lord, with one voice. We are very grateful for that and we want the World to hear our voice. One of the means to realize peace in the Middle East is to hear the voice of the churches. 

We don't have interests, no money, nothing, no militias, we are really, in favour of our countries, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon... We are not servants of a regime, no, no, no! We are strongly together, to bring peace.

I sent a letter to the Holy Father and also to the Bishop's conferences in the world. Giving a little paper and asking them, can we make a paper and give it to the Orthodox, the Anglicans, Lutherans and together having one paper for peace in the Middle East... This is a very beautiful and unique chance for the Church to be peacemaker, and that means real power for the Christians in the Middle East, good for dialog to continue in the Middle East and also in Europe. It is a great chance and I hope it will work. We were together with the Holy Father on the 21st and he said Yes, I hope they will do that, to have one document, one word of the whole world towards peace in the Middle East.

Were you satisfied with the results of the Synod for Middle Eastern bishops?

It was really an act of providence. Just before the crisis in the Middle East we had this wonderful chance to join together, Catholic bishops, but also the Orthodox, who were represented, Muslims and Jews... It was providential of Benedict XVI to have this synod, giving a plan for the Christians to be strong and to remain at home. What we need today we have in this document, to remain in our places, and all problems we need to speak about are in this document. 

We are very, very happy, and it is providence that this happened just before the start of the Arab Spring and the troubles.

Two of the only things the synod fathers requested, permission to ordain married men in diaspora communities and direct authority over your communities, were denied...

In November last year we had a meeting with the Pope for 4 hours. All Patriarchs of the Eastern Churches, and also the Archbishop-majors, and we spoke of these problems. One result is that today it is ok to ordain married men in America, and not only, in Europe, slowly, because we don't have these huge communities, but it is possible also.

This is official?

Yes, yes, official. With some indications to be discrete, because we have to go slowly, but it is ok. 

As for the authority of the Patriarchs outside, it is not so much as we wished. But it is up to us to organize ourselves. If we have more relations with the Latin Church in the countries where we have people, we can reach more with relations than with Canon Law, or with rules. And I think through the war now, and the crisis in the Middle East, I think there is more and more sensitivity towards us, and this is very important. 

Some Eastern Rite Catholics complain about the restrictions and say that they feel like second class catholics. Do you ever feel that way?

No. We had this experience of the synods and I attended many. There are feelings of family and respect. They are happy to hear us. We have more and more communication with them... I don't think that.

We do have better relations with the Cardinals and bishops outside the Curia. The Curia is very legalistic. We have better friendship with the Church outside the circle of the Roman Latin Church. It is different, you know, the Latins in Rome are one thing and the Latins outside Rome are something else. But it is the Church.

Pope Francis was the ordinary for the Greek-Catholic Communities in Argentina, do you expect a better understanding from him?

Well, this meeting in November last year, was a sign of that, and the same with the consistory on the 21st. He is always praying for Syria and for the Middle East.

We can't forget the prayer for Syria in September 7th last year. For 5 hours we were praying and we avoided the attack against Syria. The warships were on the coast with Syria. But there was no aggression, and Syria became a member of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, it was a change.

I think he is very sensitive. In Argentina he was in touch with all communities, Catholic, Orthodox, and also Muslims and Jews. And he grew up in a very plural society and therefore he brought such a beautiful change and a new outlook for the Vatican. 

There is a tradition among Melkites of refusing to be made cardinals...

Yes, it is very rare. One Patriarch became Cardinal in the XIV or XVI century. But in the modern times, only Maximos IV, who was forced to accept as a sign of reverence. But for my predecessor Maximos V and for myself it is not a question. 

This is a Roman thing, not Oriental. We are more than cardinals, not by rank, but by jurisdiction. I am the Pope of my church. 

I like to say, jokingly, that as a Patriarch I am a big archbishop and a little Pope. In many things, unless there are problems, I can rule and serve my church without any reference to Rome. 

Respecting the tradition of the Eastern churches is a mission for us. Because we are the voice of the Orthodox inside all the jurisdiction and meetings of the Catholic Church. We are the presence of the absentee. If something is related to the Orthodox, we are there. We are immediately giving the point of view of the Orthodox and Eastern churches, and that is a big service that we provide.

Fifty years ago [Ecumenical Patriarch] Athenagoras met my predecessor Maximos IV. Maximos said to Athenagoras, “I was speaking always thinking of you”. And Athenegoras answered, “You were speaking on my behalf”. That is why we are so very faithful to our tradition, because it is the tradition of the Church. As John Paul II said in Orientale Lumen, a beautiful document, the Eastern Churches are churches, the same level as the Latin Church. It is not a special Church, it is the Church of God, the same, in the Middle East, in the Eastern as well as in the Western Church.

If somebody asked you if they should go and fight with the Kurds against the Islamic State, what would you respond?

Let us be ourselves and let Syria and Iraq solve the problems by ourselves. We used to be together for many years. Let the little people work together, and as I said, don't divide the Arab world. 

The people who fight are motivated by money and lack of sense of life. I don't think the jihadists coming from Britain, from Germany or Sweden are really willing to be jihadists or to be Muslim, they have no sense of life and they find adventure. 

Therefore I am really not afraid of them, and I would like to invite the European Union and the Western world to work for better Islamic united world, a united Arabic world, and you will have peace in your country. Peace in our countries is peace for Europe. We are one. We cannot forget the Mediterranean... it is our water. We need a good future for peace in our countries. No war! As Paul VI said. And let the little people work together.

You are interfering because you are powerful and you have weapons. You have to change your mind and do something else. Christianity is always a new look, the World today needs a new look. Not only wars and weapons and so on. We have to think of something new.

We had a bad experience of wars for centuries in the Middle East. The Gospel is a new look over the world. We hope that we can bring more light to our world.

“Cristãos serão o sal e a luz do mundo árabe”