Fr. Thomas Michel's Official Website

As it happens, the period of my priesthood almost exactly coincides with the period since the publication of Nostra Aetate at the Second Vatican Council, which committed the Catholic Church to “dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions” (NA, 2).  The Council document was published 43 years ago in October, 1965; sixteen months later I was ordained a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Louis.

My priestly ministry took me very early on into the field of interfaith dialogue, specifically dialogue with the followers of Islam.   I was ordained only two years when my bishop was approached at the Second Vatican Council by an Indonesian bishop, who asked for the loan of a priest to teach English in his seminary in Central Java.  My bishop sent me to Indonesia where I fell in love with Indonesian people, culture, and way of life, and I wanted to stay and serve there permanently.  To this end, I joined the Jesuits, and Indonesia remains my province until today.

After having completed my novitiate in Indonesia, my provincial told me to ask around among those who knew the needs of the region to see what I would be doing on a more permanent basis.  As I was doing this, I mentioned to my students that I was trying to decide what to study.  Some of my Muslim students suggested that I study Islam.  “That way,” they said, “you can help Christians to understand Islam better, and you can help Muslims to know more about the Christian faith.”  Indonesia, as you may know, has the world’s largest Muslim population with about 220 million Muslims out of a total population of 250 million people.  I liked the idea of studying Islam and got permission from my superior to go to the Middle East to pursue Arabic and Islamic studies. 

Before I left Indonesia I asked myself what attitude I should bring to the study of Islam.  I can still remember opening the volume of Vatican Council documents and reading the words of Nostra Aetate: “The Catholic Church regards the Muslims with esteem.”  Here I found the orientation I was seeking for my studies; I would study in order to discover why we should regard Muslims with esteem.  Since that time, my experience of life among Muslims has confirmed the words of the Council; I have found many reasons to admire and respect Muslims.  My point is that I can present myself as one Catholic whose attitude toward interreligious dialogue was formed by the Council’s teaching.

Of course, the Church’s commitment to dialogue did not begin with Nostra Aetate.  A year earlier Pope Paul VI wrote his encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, which until today remains once of the most beautiful Church affirmations of the importance of dialogue. Introducing the concept of dialogue to a Church that previously had felt no need for it, Paul VI turned the attention of Catholics to their fellow believers whose origins in faith can be traced back to Abraham.  The Pope states: “We refer to the Jewish people, worthy of our affectionate respect, who are faithful to the religion which we call the Old Testament, and to those worshipers of God according to monotheistic religion, especially the Muslims, who are worthy of admiration for all that is good and true in their worship of God.”

When we look back at the growth of the idea of interreligious dialogue, however, one man stands out as the central figure in establishing this commitment in the Church.  I’m referring to Pope John Paul II who, more than any other individual, was responsible for the reception of the Vatican Council teaching by both the official teachers and by rand-and-file Catholics.  If it were not for this Pope, awareness of the Council teaching might easily have become restricted to the limited circle of those who study papal documents. 

In order for dialogue to become rooted in the consciousness of Christians as an integral element of Christian life, something more had to be done to communicate this commitment to the Church at large.  This was the great achievement of John Paul II.  It became standard practice on his Papal trips that he would not limit his encounters to members of his own Catholic flock or even to a broader gathering of Christians, but he always included visits and meetings with the followers of other religions.  In Rome, John Paul’s audience chamber became an open house to visiting delegations of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and others.  For example, in the case of Muslims, John Paul had over 50 private encounters with the followers of Islam, which is at least 45 more meetings with Muslims than were carried out by all the previous popes in history put together.  He wrote an encyclical, Redemptoris Missio, in which he stated that “Each member of the faithful and all religious communities are called to practice [interfaith] dialogue.”

It has often been noted that John Paul II was the master of the dramatic gesture, an intuitive appreciation that the right gesture at the right time would be remembered long after texts and speeches would be forgotten.  His wearing the sacred headdress of Australian aboriginals, his visits to mosques in Senegal and Syria, his kissing a copy of the Qur’an, his visit to the Rome synagogue and his affixing a prayer to the Western Wall of the Temple in Jerusalem all went a long way to show respect for the faiths of others.  His invitation to religious leaders around the world to come to Assisi to pray for peace gave concrete expression to his conviction, expressed at the very beginning of his pontificate, that prayer in common was a Spirit-led way to come spiritually closer to people of other faiths. 

Beyond their obvious value as public relations events and the witness value to Catholics of the friendship and fellow feeling that should exist among believers of various faiths was what was said and taught in these encounters.  John Paul’s teaching about other religions and their role in God’s saving deeds in history, a theology that built upon and sometimes went beyond the teaching of Vatican II, was often developed in these encounters.

It was not only by acts of in his hospitality toward people of other faiths and dramatic gestures of solidarity that John Paul promoted the practice of dialogue in the Church, but also by his elaboration of a theology of religions that was both consistent with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and at the same time clarified the theology of the Council on key points.  Just to give one example, the Council document Nostra Aetate praised Muslims for associating themselves with the prophet Abraham who submitted his life to God.  The text in Nostra Aetate reads: “They (Muslims) take pains to submit wholeheartedly to His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.”  However, several commentators have given a very restrictive interpretation of these words to claim that the Council text does not link actually Islam to Abraham, but only that Muslims are (incorrectly) inclined to do that.  Here is a fundamental ambiguity that those opposed to dialogue with Muslims have not failed to exploit.

Thus, on his 1979 visit to Turkey, John Paul II stated in his homily to the Christians in Ankara: “They (Muslims) have like you the faith of Abraham in the one all-powerful and merciful God.”6 Here any possible ambiguity in the Council text is dispelled.  Not only do Muslims express Abraham’s faith in the all-powerful and merciful God, but they have that faith “like you (Christians),” i.e., in a manner analogous to Christians’ own faith in God.  A year later, in Otranto, John Paul noted that Islamic faith in the One God inherited from Abraham forms a deep basis for a spiritual unity with Christians and a foundation for dialogue that should transcend historical and theological differences.  He stated: “We present to the One God ... the problem, of coming closer and having true dialogue with those who are united to us, despite the differences, by faith in the one and only God, faith inherited from Abraham.”  Note that the unity to which the Pope refers is an already existing spiritual bond rooted in the faith which Christians and Muslims have inherited from Abraham.  The challenge, as he sees it, is not that of creating some vague theoretical unity that might be envisioned with Muslims and our “elder brothers” the Jews, but rather one of recognizing and deepening through dialogue a faith-based fellowship with those with whom we are already united by a common submission to the One God.

3. Dialogue

I believe that future generations will see in John Paul II one of the most important thinkers who made possible the maturation of a Catholic theology of religions.  He did not do this with the methodological precision of a systematic theologian, but with the instinctive grasp of a pastor.  He taught by doing, and his theological elaborations were often an explanation of the course of action that he had already taken.

Some of the positions which he took met considerable resistance within the Church and, I might add, among the hierarchy and among his own Vatican staff.  We have already noted that in 1979, in his first encyclical Redemptor Hominis, he underlined the importance of “prayer in common” as one of the ways of coming closer to the followers of other religions.  This recommendation went basically unnoticed and unopposed until John Paul announced in 1986 that he was inviting religious leaders from around the world to Assisi to pray for peace. 

The Pope’s announcement not only caught Catholics by surprise, but Christians of other churches were unsure of how to respond to the invitation.  Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu leaders were equally perplexed at the unexpected invitation, and there were many more refusals than acceptances.  The more “representative” the individual invited, the less ready was he or she ready to take a chance on accepting, with the result that there was only one official Hindu participant, and a handful of not very representative Muslims.  The bulk of participants were made up of Catholic movements like S. Egidio and Focolare and Buddhist organizations like Rissho Kosei-kai who were already in dialogue with the Catholic Church.       

The followers of other religions seem to have been suspicious that the Pope harbored unstated proselytizing intentions and were worried about being manipulated for the sake of hidden agenda.  When it became clear after the 1986 Day of Prayer that the Pope was not interested in exploiting the occasion for purposes of subtle propaganda, attitudes little by little changed.  As someone who was working in the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue at the time of both the First Day of Prayer in 1986 and the Second in 1993, I can testify to a dramatic change of attitude on the part of the followers of other religions.  At the 1993 prayer for peace in Bosnia and elsewhere in the Balkans, there was immeasurably greater trust, better cooperation, and increased enthusiasm.  When a decade later the Third Day of Prayer in Assisi was called by John Paul II in January, 2002, in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks and the tensions surrounding the bombing of Afghanistan, there were so many truly representative religious leaders who wanted to take part that numbers had to be severely limited.  There was no room on the stage for all those who wanted to be there.

One might object that days of prayer are not the goal or even the ultimate step in interreligious dialogue; some have criticized the Assisi Days as displaying a new kind of papal triumphalism.  However, when one records the contribution of John Paul II to interreligious dialogue, the Assisi days of prayer command a central position.  They showed that dialogue, in the view of the Catholic Church, was not limited to academic discussions, but should be action-oriented towards healing the problems of the world, and should express the unity of religious believers standing in prayer before God.  On the other hand, the days of prayer were the final straw which led traditionalist Archbishop Lefevre to break with the Church, but opposition to praying together was not limited to schismatic groups. Even in Rome, there was so much opposition that after the 1986 Day of Prayer a new phrase was coined to appease the critics: “the religious leaders came together to pray, not to pray together.”  I do not know who was the first to think up this facile attempt at reinterpretation, whether it was prelate or journalist, which in any case ignores John Paul II’s affirmation in Redemptor Hominis that prayer together, (preghiera communitaria in the original Italian) is, along with “dialogue, friendly contacts, and investigation of the treasures of human spirituality” a way recommended by the Pope to come closer to believers of other faiths.

There are other areas in which John Paul II pushed Catholics to think more deeply about what is involved in the Catholic commitment to interreligious dialogue.  It was during his papacy that Vatican offices published two important studies on dialogue, the 1984 Mission and Dialogue9 of the Secretariat for non Christians and the 1991 Dialogue and Proclamation10, a joint document of the Congregation of Evangelization (Propaganda Fide) and the renamed Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.  These documents incorporated much of the current theological thinking, including the well-known four-part breakdown of dialogue into the dialogue of life, action, study, and spiritual sharing, and made it part of magisterial teaching.     

However, it is John Paul’s 1990 encyclical Redemptoris Missio which contains the most developed, authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church on interreligious dialogue.  Someone looking for a two-page summary of the contemporary position of the Catholic Church on interreligious dialogue could not do better than the three long paragraphs, 55-57, of Redemptoris Missio.  The Pope locates interreligious dialogue within the one evangelizing mission of the Church, but he is careful to distinguish dialogue, in both method and goal, from the task of proclamation.  His acknowledgment of interreligious dialogue within the Church’s mission is not tentative or hesitant but enthusiastic.

“A vast field lies open to dialogue, which can assume many forms and expressions: from exchanges between experts in religious traditions or official representatives of those traditions to cooperation for integral development and the safeguarding of religious values; from a sharing of their respective spiritual experiences to the ‘dialogue of life’ through which believers of different religions bear witness before each other in daily life to their own human and spiritual values, and help each other to live according to those values in order to build a more just and fraternal society.  Each member of the faithful and all Christian communities are called to practice dialogue, although not always to the same degree or in the same way [my italics].  The contribution of the laity is indispensable in this area, for they ‘can favor the relations which ought to be established with the followers of various religions through their example in the situations in which they live and in their activities.’”1

There is much that is good in these paragraphs on dialogue in Redemptoris Missio, but I would like to call attention to a point that has been controverted, even in some Vatican circles.  I refer to the view, oft repeated by John Paul II, that one of the outcomes hoped for is mutual enrichment and emulation, learning from one another, encouraging one another to move forward on the path to God.  Some who would want to give a restrictive interpretation of dialogue have suggested that dialogue is nothing but an exchange of views, with the implication that it is no more than a forum where Catholics can speak and teach, but nothing to learn beyond the acquisition of useful information.  This is not the position of John Paul II who in Redemptoris Missio states: “There must be no abandonment of principles nor false irenicism, but instead a witness given and received for mutual advancement on the road of religious inquiry and experience, and at the same time for the elimination of prejudice, intolerance and misunderstandings.”12 In dialogue, we Christians give their witness and receive the witness of their friends of other faiths, so that through dialogue all should grow in both intellectual understanding and spiritual experience, at the same time they move beyond prejudice and misunderstandings.

4. A pneumatological theology of religions

John Paul II’s personal theology of God’s saving action in other religions takes a strongly pneumatological approach.  The Holy Spirit is at work at the origins of the world’s religions, and the Spirit is active to influence the day-to-day religious and ethical practice of the followers of other religions.  The results of the Spirit’s activity are sometimes so powerful as to make Christians ashamed of their own complacency and lukewarmness.  Take this passage from Redemptor Hominis at the beginning of his pontificate:

Does it not sometimes happen that the firm belief of the followers of the non-Christian religions - a belief that is also an effect of the Spirit of truth operating outside the visible confines of the Mystical Body - can make Christians ashamed at being often themselves so disposed to doubt concerning the truths revealed by God and proclaimed by the Church and so prone to relax moral principles and open the way to ethical permissiveness.13

There are several points to be noted in this passage, which is as challenging today as when he wrote it in 1979.  Firstly, the belief of the followers of other religions is not of their own making but the work of the Holy Spirit, and the Pope uses the strong phrase “the Spirit of truth” to underline that there is divinely-produced truth in these beliefs.  Divinely-produced? Divinely-inspired? Divinely-revealed?  The Pope does not go into these theological niceties but leaves such questions for the theologians to examine.  It goes without saying that John Paul II is not claiming that everything that passes for religious belief in every one of the world’s religions is true, but he is affirming that the Holy Spirit, working outside the boundaries of the Church, has produced much truth and goodness in the other religions.  Secondly, he goes so far as to say that the effects of this extra-ecclesial work of the Spirit in the upright and holy lives of the followers of other religions are so evident that they can challenge Christians to be better Christians.

A decade later, in the context of preparing for the Millennium Year, the Pope took the occasion of his Wednesday Roman audiences to provide a catechetical commentary on the texts of the Second Vatican Council.  On 9 September 1998, he delivered a catechesis on Nostra Aetate that contains some of his most profound reflections on a theological evaluation of other religions.  Beginning from the Conciliar expression of the seeds of the Word present and active in the other religions, the Pope refers to his own encyclical Redemptor Hominis to affirm that “though the routes taken may be different, ‘there is but a single goal to which is directed the deepest aspiration of the human spirit as expressed in its quest for God and also in its quest, through its tending towards God, for the full dimension of its humanity, or in other words, for the full meaning of human life.’”14 (Redemptor Hominis, n. 11).

So far, there is nothing extraordinary in this teaching.  But then the Pope moves into his central topic, a reflection on the work of the Spirit in other religions.  He states:

During this pneumatological year, it is fitting to consider in what sense and in what ways the Holy Spirit is present in humanity’s religious quest and in the various experiences and traditions that express it.  It must first be kept in mind that every quest of the human spirit for truth and goodness, and in the last analysis for God, is inspired by the Holy Spirit.  The various religions arose precisely from this primordial human openness to God. At their origins we often find founders who, with the help of God’s Spirit, achieved a deeper religious experience.  Handed on to others, this experience took form in the doctrines, rites and precepts of the various religions.

In short, every movement of the human spirit for truth and goodness is inspired by the Holy Spirit.  This also applies to the Buddha, Muhammad, and other founders of the world’s religions who were guided (inspired?) by the Holy Spirit to a deep spiritual experience which, when communicated to their followers became the doctrines, rites and rules we know today.

But there is more.  Whenever humans of whatever religion pray with sincerity, the Holy Spirit prays in them and for them.  For John Paul II, this is not abstract theory; he has seen it and experienced it himself.  As he states:

In every authentic religious experience, the most characteristic expression is prayer.  Because of the human spirit’s constitutive openness to God’s action of urging it to self-transcendence, we can say that “every authentic prayer is called forth by the Holy Spirit, who is mysteriously present in the heart of every person.”  We experienced an eloquent manifestation of this truth at the World Day of Prayer for Peace on 27 October 1986 in Assisi, and on other similar occasions of great spiritual intensity.15

Here the Pope is simply elaborating on what he had said many years before in his Radio Talk to the Peoples of Asia, when he stated: “Wherever the human spirit opens itself in prayer to this Unknown God, an echo will be heard of the same spirit who, knowing the limits and weakness of the human person, himself prays in us and on our behalf.”16

Finally, in the same catechesis, the Pope’s understanding of the comprehensive nature of the Spirit’s activity enables him to see the Spirit’s activity as going beyond the lives of certain individuals to shape and influence people’s cultures, histories, and religions.  The work of the spirit is, moreover, a saving activity that leads the Pope to raise the thorny question of the salvation of the followers of other faiths.  He states: “The Holy Spirit is not only present in other religions through authentic expressions of prayer. ‘The Spirit’s presence and activity,’ as I wrote in Redemptoris Missio, ‘affect not only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures and religions.’17

How are other believers to be saved? By God’s saving work in Jesus Christ, certainly, but are the followers of other religions saved through the practice of their own religion, or in spite of it?  John Paul comments on Ad Gentes, stating: “Normally, ‘it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Savior.’”18 Repeating the Council teaching (Gaudium et Spes, 22) of the possibility of each person being in contact with the Paschal mystery, he ventures: “This possibility is achieved through sincere, inward adherence to the Truth, generous self-giving to one’s neighbor, and the search for the Absolute inspired by the Spirit of God. A ray of divine Wisdom is also shown through the fulfilment of the precepts and practices that conform to the moral law and to authentic religious sense.”

The Pope concludes by saying that all this should lead Christians to approach the followers of other faiths in a spirit of dialogue and respect, attitudes which do not detract from a commitment to the Church’s evangelizing mission.  “The attitude of respect and dialogue is the proper recognition of the ‘seeds of the Word’ and the ‘groanings of the Spirit.’  Far from opposing the proclamation of the Gospel, our attitude prepares it, as we await the times appointed by the Lord’s mercy. ‘By dialogue we let God be present in our midst, for as we open ourselves in dialogue to one another, we also open ourselves to God.’”19

I apologize for having perhaps belabored this short catechesis of John Paul II, but I feel that it is worth the effort, because it is, in my opinion, a rather neglected text, but one which provides the theological foundation for many of his teachings, actions and gestures throughout his papacy.  In his thinking about other religions, John Paul II appears to be far in advance of many Catholics, including many of our theologians and bishops.

5. Dominus Iesus

What then can we say about Dominus Iesus, the declaration of the Congregation of the Faith in August, 2000, on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church?  This document, appearing near the end of John Paul II’s reign, was the work of the Vatican’s doctrinal commission headed at the time by the Cardinal Ratzinger, and has led many to ask whether in his final years John Paul II had withdrawn from his consistent support of the Church’s commitment to dialogue.  After the uproar caused by Dominus Iesus, the Pope felt it necessary, in November 2000, to affirm that the commitment of the Catholic Church to ecumenical and interreligious dialogue was irreversible.  Some say that the appointment in 2001 of Walter Kasper, later Cardinal Kasper, an outspoken critic of Dominus Iesus, as head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity was a way for the Pope to distance himself from a document that in style and tone, if not necessarily in content, was not in keeping with the message of his pontificate.

It is not my place to speculate about whether Dominus Iesus will eventually be received by the Church at large, or whether it will, like many documents put forth by Vatican offices, become a footnote of interest solely to students of historical research.  The notorious example in recent times is that of Veterum Sapientia, the 1962 Apostolic Constitution of John XXIII which stated that in all Catholic seminaries philosophy and theology should be taught in Latin.  This was tried in some places for one or two semesters and then quietly dropped with full assent of the bishops.  In the case of Dominus Iesus, a document that was described as a “disaster” even by leading Vatican cardinals, it is too early to predict its eventual reception by the Church.

However, even if Dominus Iesus should eventually be received by the Church as part of magisterial teaching, the document does not negate the Church’s commitment to interreligious dialogue.  In fact, in its positive assertions, the document shows how far the Catholic Church has come in its understanding of interreligious dialogue since the time of Nostra Aetate and how deeply the theological approach of John Paul II has affected even the more restrictive circles of thought within the Church.  Allow me to note briefly some of these assertions.

Dominus Iesus notes that “mutual enrichment” is one of the benefits of interreligious dialogue (par. 2).”  While dialogue does not replace missio ad gentes, the need for interreligious dialogue, which requires “an attitude of understanding and a relationship of reciprocal knowledge and mutual enrichment,” is not negated by proclamation of the faith.  In fact, interreligious dialogue is undeniably part of the Church’s evangelizing mission. 

Dominus Iesus is not totally closed to the value of non-Christian Scriptures.  God uses the Scriptures of other faiths to deepen their followers’ relationship with God. “Some elements of the sacred writings of other religions can be de facto instruments by which countless people throughout the centuries have been and still are able today to nourish and maintain their life-relationship with God” (par. 8).  Scriptures of other religions contain elements of grace. “The sacred books of other religions, which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace they contain.

Non-Christian religions are vehicles by which God enriches their adherents.  God is present to the followers of other religions in many ways, not only to individuals, but to peoples “through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression” (following Dei Verbum) (par. 8).  The Spirit actualizes the saving efficacy of God’s work in Christ in the lives of all people, those who lived before Jesus and those who live after (par. 12), a point which Jacques Dupuis repeatedly underlined in his works on theology of religions.  In short, the Holy Spirit is at work in the history of peoples, cultures and religions to bring about good (par. 12).

Christ’s unique mediation does not exclude other mediations, but gives rise to “a manifold cooperation” that includes different kinds and degrees of participated mediation (par. 14).  In this interesting theological speculation, is Dominus Iesus opening the door to reflection upon the possible mediating role, not only of Mary and the Christian saints, but also of Muhammad, the Buddha, Kwan Yin, and other religious figures whose mediation is sought by millions of faithful around the world?

Dominus Iesus recognizes that the reign of God is a reality much broader than the Catholic Church, or even the Church understood as the communion of all the baptized.  The document notes that one must not overlook the fact that the Reign of God is not to be identified with the Church in her visible and social reality (par. 19).  But is it a fact?  A more careful phrasing might note that it is our belief that God’s reign is a broader reality than the visible Church, but Dominus Iesus uses a much stronger term; it is not only a fact, but a fact that should not be overlooked.  The conclusion is that God’s Reign is not only the concern of Christians, but of everyone.  It involves “acknowledging and promoting God’s activity, which is present in human history and transforms it.  Building the kingdom means working for liberation from evil in all its forms” (par. 19). Thus Dominus Iesus provides a strong theological basis for the “dialogue of action,” or working together for the good of all, which was so emphatically proposed by the Council documents.

Can others be saved?  In otherwise evenhanded journalistic reports of the document, I have seen statements such as “Dominus Iesus denies that others than Christians can be saved.”   However, it is clear from the document that others than Christians can receive the grace of salvation (par. 20).  Those outside the Church still have a “mysterious relationship” to the Church which theologians are still trying to understand.  Moreover, the other religions can communicate to their followers elements of religiosity of divine origin which the Spirit produces among all nations and individuals. As Dominus Iesus puts it: “The various religious traditions contain and offer religious elements which come from God.” They are “part of what the Holy Spirit accomplishes in human hearts, the history of peoples, cultures, and religions” (par. 21).  In short, Christian faith must not lessen one’s respect for the religions of the world (par. 22), for “those who obey the promptings of the Spirit are already on the path of salvation” (par. 22), hence, in dialogue, the equal personal dignity of all parties must be presumed (par. 22).

One might object - correctly - that these positive statements are not typical of the whole document and that they are usually hemmed in by cautions and fears of being misunderstood: e.g., not everything found in other religions comes from the Holy Spirit; some superstitions and errors might be obstacles to grace (par. 21).  I agree with this objection, but the very fact that these statements are acknowledged in a highly restrictive document of a Vatican office underlines the extent to which the positive Vatican Council teaching on other religions and the pastoral practice of John Paul II have become rooted in magisterial teaching.  Even a document that is concerned about excesses of enthusiasm for interreligious dialogue cannot deny what has become fundamental Catholic teaching about the work of the Spirit in other religions, the divine values found in other Scriptures, the distinction between the Church and the Reign of God, and the possibility of salvation for the followers of other religions.

6. Will John Paul II’s legacy be carried on?

More than one Catholic and non-Catholic observer has expressed concern at the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI.  As prefect of the Congregation of the Faith that produced Dominus Iesus and harshly scrutinized the writings of Jacques Dupuis, some predicted that John Paul II’s policy of openness towards the followers of other religions was about to be discarded in favor of a more restrictive, “hard-line” approach.  This is of course still possible, but I feel that there are some serious factors which will prevent this from happening.

First of all, the new Pope is not a stranger to the Vatican and to the pontificate of John Paul II.  He is not some newcomer pulled in from outside Rome, but was for over 20 years one of the late Pope’s most trusted colleagues.  As such, he was an inside collaborator of John Paul’s dialogue initiatives, presumably a proofreader of the Pope’s speeches and encyclicals, a participant at the Assisi Days of Prayer, and advisor to the Pope’s travels and Roman audiences.  It is hard to imagine Pope Benedict turning his back on his predecessor’s policies that he helped to shape and develop.

Secondly - and this is a point which, in my opinion, journalists often miss - John Paul II’s openness to other religions was not some strategy that he developed on his own, but a conviction firmly rooted in the unambiguous teaching of Vatican II.  The Pope was merely implementing, with interiorized judgment, the direction already set by the Church’s highest teaching authority.  Just as John Paul II was not free to invent any attitude he wanted towards the followers of other religions but had to remain faithful to the magisterial tradition, so also with the present Pope.  Benedict XVI is heir to the same tradition as John Paul II; the basic orientations of his attitude toward other religions have already been set, and we must not expect him to change them.

Thirdly, his first and to date only lengthy address to the followers of another religion, that is, his speech to the Muslim representatives at the World Youth Day in Cologne, Germany, gives no evidence of a departure from the position of John Paul II.  In fact, in style and tone, as well as in content, the same address could well have been given by John Paul II.

He begins by addressing a theme of topical importance, that of terrorism.  The Pope recognizes that his Muslim hearers agree with his condemnation of terrorism and are anguished by those who have alleged any connection between terrorism and the Islamic faith they profess.  He asks that Muslims and Christians work together to oppose “every manifestation of violence” and, to this end, that they employ the power of prayer.20  While, unlike John Paul II, Benedict does not propose that Muslims and Christians pray together for peace, he does acknowledge the efficacious nature of Muslim prayer.

In a passage that clearly reflects the spirit, and often the wording, of Nostra Aetate, Benedict calls upon Muslims and Christians to work together to “affirm the values of mutual respect, solidarity and peace, the sanctity of human life (which he notes is sacred “both for Christians and for Muslims),” defense of human dignity and rights, and cooperation in “service of fundamental moral values.”  He encourages Christians and Muslims to search for a common basis for understanding which will enable the two communities of faith to move beyond cultural conflicts and to overcome the power of disruptive ideologies.

Pope Benedict admits that relations between Christians and Muslims have not always been marked by mutual respect and understanding and that history records violence and bloodshed between them, “with both sides invoking the Name of God, as if fighting and killing the enemy could be pleasing to Him.”  This is not John Paul II’s act of asking forgiveness for the Holocaust and the massacres of the Crusades, but rather a first step to reconciliation, the admission that both sides have done wrong. He continues in this line, explicitly proposing initiatives aimed at  reconciliation: “The lessons of the past must help us to avoid repeating the same mistakes.  We must seek paths of reconciliation and learn to live with respect for each other’s identity.  The defense of religious freedom is a permanent imperative, and respect for minorities is a clear sign of true civilization.”

7. A final caution

Finally, one might conclude with a cautionary note on the 15 February 2006 appointment of Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald as Nuncio in Egypt and Papal Delegate to the Arab League and the pro-tem unification of the presidency of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Council for Culture.  While I am happy that the Holy See has appointed to the key diplomatic post of papal representative to the 22-nation Arab League a man who is both extremely well prepared and who brings as well a genuine interest and commitment to the task, I am concerned, like many others, about the message that might be given to the world by a perceived downgrading of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. 

Let us hope that the pro-tem unification of the presidency of the two councils will remain just that - a temporary arrangement.  In my opinion, it is essential that the Council for Interreligious Dialogue, which played such an important role in John Paul II’s aperture to the followers of other religions, will not be suppressed as an independent body.  Pope John Paul was able to capture the world’s attention precisely by taking religion seriously, by showing sincere respect for the religious belief and experience of every person.  Scaling down interreligious dialogue to the status of vague appendage to intercultural encounter would be to trivialize dialogue and to reduce the importance of religion in human life to the level of the picturesque.  Religion as folklore is already being promoted by too many in our modern societies.  One would hope that the Vatican would take a counter-intuitive position, rather than simply “going with the flow.”  One indication of whether John Paul II’s achievement in the field of interreligious dialogue will be carried on will be the status granted the Vatican dicastery created to promote this aspect of the Church’s life and mission.