Ecumenism in the pontificate of Leo XIV

On Thursday, March 26, an interesting meeting was held at the Theological Faculty on Via XX Settembre, organized by the Piergiorgio Frassati Cultural Center, to reflect on Leo XIV’s attitude toward interreligious dialogue.
Giampiero Leo, vice president of the Regional Human Rights Committee and spokesperson for the Tavolo della Speranza (Table of Hope), introduced the event; Matteo Matzuzzi, Vatican correspondent for the daily newspaper “Il Foglio,” served as host and moderator; speakers included Monsignor Francesco Saverio Venuto, professor of Church History; Yahya Pallavicini, Imam of the Central Mosque of Milan and vice president of the Italian Islamic Religious Community (CoReIs); and Rabbi Ariel Finzi, Chief Rabbi of the Jewish Community of Turin.
As Giampiero Leo immediately pointed out before beginning, no representative of our Community was present.
In his introduction, Leo, in complete agreement with Leone’s vision, stigmatized the radicalization of identities and conflicts, but also openly condemned the false attitude of young people who use violent methods to claim they are against violence, the political exploitation of April 25 and the recent referendum, and all forms of anti-Semitism, even disguised ones.
Matzuzzi, whom I admired for his well-rounded preparation, spoke with great competence and clarity both about the political and military context of the Middle East, and about what can be gleaned from the new Pontiff’s early steps and speeches. The impression emerges of a wise person, who, by nature, is restrained in his speeches, but also aware of the potential for manipulation, intending to pick up on the interrupted discourse of Benedict XVI, as well as the Second Vatican Council, which recently seemed “out of fashion.”
Archbishop Venuto, as the subtitle of the meeting suggests, focused primarily on Leo’s moves to recall the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE and to reconnect with Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew, especially at a time when the Russian Church was distancing itself from him. He focused primarily on the steps the Pope was taking within Christianity, which are crucial for engaging with the outside world.
The person who most accurately captured the meeting’s theme was Imam Pallavicini, who presented the Muslim interpretation of Leo’s pontificate: he cited two speeches, one expressing good wishes for the end of the Ramadan fast, and one transmitted by Secretary of State Parolin to establish a study of the Quran and a Muslim-Christian dialogue. Pallavicini observed, perhaps a little bitterly (we Jews also have the same problem), that it is sometimes more complex to establish an INTRA-religious dialogue than an inter-religious one.
Rabbi Finzi, for his part, admitted that he still knows little about the new Pontiff’s intentions and steps, but that he is confident given the pragmatic premises and preliminary statements that seem to distance themselves from the recent past. His speech, which might have seemed off-topic, was instead greatly appreciated by the audience. It laid the methodological foundation for any dialogue, expounding, among other things, the seven principles of Hillel that underlie Talmudic discussions. He also clearly distinguished the religious dimension of initiatives like this, which undoubtedly involve educated, well-intentioned, and well-intentioned people, from the political dimension with its distortions and falsehoods. Surviving and defending oneself does not in any way mean derogating from the higher ethical principles that should unite all men.
In my humble opinion, if we only dealt with Christians and Muslims like these, without dangerous extremist and falsely religious tendencies, the world would be much better.

By Irene Abbiate