Diplomatic Language in the Deepavali Messages of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1. An overview of the history and function of the PCID can be found in Pratt (2010).

2. Judaism is missing from this list as Jewish–Christian relations do not fall within the responsibility of the PCID.

3. Bradley (2009, 126) argues that the political influence that the Catholic Church holds rests to a significant degree on “giving out messages of certainty.”

4. For the role of ambiguity in diplomatic language, see also Scott (2001) and Pehar (2001).

5. An accessible introduction to the use of metaphors in political language can be found in George Lakoff and Elizabeth Wehling (2014).

6. For a short analysis of the language and context of the Indian anti-conversion laws, see Howard (2013, 71ff).

7. A short overview of the situation of Christians in India can be found in the report In Response to Persecution: Findings of the under Cesar’s Sword Project on Global Christian Communities (2017, 25).

8. For a comment on Benedict’s diplomatic style, see O’Connor (2006).

9. An example is provided by Schmidt-Leukel (2005, 96).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Melanie Barbato

Melanie Barbato is a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute for Religious Studies and Intercultural Theology at the University of Münster. She holds a doctorate in Indology and Religious Studies from LMU Munich and a Master of Studies in Oriental Studies from the University of Oxford. The research on the PCID’s Deepavali messages was conducted while she was a visiting scholar at the American University of Rome. Her book Jain Approaches to Plurality: Identity as Dialogue is forthcoming with Brill.