Catholics and Interreligious Relations
Page 1 of 2
I. A New Ministry
In 1997, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, established as the secretariat for Non-Christians in 1964, issued the English edition of a 700-page volume, Interreligious Dialogue: The Official Teaching of the Catholic Church (Documents 1963-1995). The text of The Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian religions (Nostra Aetate) and selections from other documents of the Second Vatican Council, specifically related to interreligious relations, account for nearly 25 pages by themselves. Documents and excerpts from the solemn magisterium of Paul VI and John Paul II take another 50 pages. To these the editor has added over 500 pages of speeches, letters, and communications of the popes in the past 30 years and 100 pages of texts issued by offices of the Holy See. This collection takes us from the time of the Second Vatican Council until 1995 and gives just one perspective, that of the Church of Rome, on the question of Catholics and religious pluralism. You each may have your own perspectives from missions, from the set of relations you and your community have developed with other faith communities, or perhaps from the experiences of various local churches engaged in interreligious relations with the peoples in the areas where you have lived and worked.
Interreligious relations and dialogue constitute one of the significant new ministries which Catholics have taken up vigorously, and over the last 35 years this ministry has blended thoroughly into the life and mission of the church. Dialogue is the primary way through which Catholics are urged to address the religious pluralism encountered in their daily lives. This ministry is now part of the fabric of our Catholic identity.
The Second Vatican Council formally recognized interreligious understanding and broadened it to include interreligious dialogue as an explicit teaching with universal status. We now identify some goals of interreligious relations and dialogue: mutual understanding and respect, common action and joint efforts to insure social justice, and spiritual enrichment. I derive these from the fourfold forms of dialogue which have been identified in various documents. The goals of interreligious relations are quite distinct from the Catholic Church’s understanding of the goal of ecumenical activity, namely, the full visible communion of all Christians. Through interreligious relations we are not striving to unite all people in one religion. We are definitely not trying to collapse the religions of the world into one. Our ecumenical vision and our interreligious vision are quite distinct. Both indeed are global because the council also marked that critical point in the history of Catholics when we came to realize that we are indeed a global church. I mean by this more than just a church that extends to the ends of the earth. A global church is one that is embodied, represented, lived and inculturated by peoples all over the earth and through them engaged with the religious and cultural traditions of all humanity. Our desire for the unity of Christians extends to the ends of the earth in every culture and in every situation in which the people of God live. Our desire for nterreligious relations with peoples of faith also extends to wherever the people of God live and work.
What has happened since the Second Vatican Council is the real story. In a way, we could say that the churches now began to catch up with the teaching and to test the risks taken by the bishops. The council fathers took a particularly bold stand on relations with Jews. We know that the desire among church leaders to address our relationship with the Jews was at the origin of the declaration Nostra Aetate, but the global nature of the council transformed that text from its initial draft as the final chapter of the Decree on Ecumenism to its final form as an independent text that specifically mentioned Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and people of all faiths who are genuinely awakened to God’s transcendent presence operating in their lives. So not just on the hierarchical level, where these documents mark notable achievements, but also on the level of the lived spirituality of all Catholics, whether monastics or lay folks, wherever they live in pluralistic societies, interreligious relations have become part of the Catholic way of life.
II. Defining Religious Pluralism
Before we go too far afield with this topic, perhaps we first should take a look at the meaning of the term “religious pluralism.” Today, I will distinguish three usages of this term, which have different implications for Christian faith and life. There is first of all a mostly sociological use of the term religious pluralism. It indicates that in a given society or set of societies there are a variety religious traditions, and persons identifying with these traditions actively interact with one another in such a way that the traditions themselves are affected by this interaction. Religious pluralism in this usage is more than religious plurality. It is not simply another way to say there are many religious traditions observable in a society. It signifies more than religious diversity. It implies that these traditions are both different and engaged with one another, influencing one another, responding and reacting to one another through their members. Thus more precisely it means engaged diversity. Unless one is engaged with persons of other faiths as people of faith, religious pluralism is not an issue. One could just as well believe that only one’s faith is true religion and everything else practiced is false religion. Christians among themselves have much to discuss about religious pluralism even in this sense as engaged religious diversity.
Religious pluralism has a socio-political meaning too, referring to the fact of the American experiment in democracy. By this I mean the separation of church and state, whereby no particular religious group or set of groups legally represents the minds, hearts, and interests of the citizenry. This is the religious pluralism guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” To some, the acceptance of this fact of equality before the law or even the lack of a religious preference or privilege for one religious group implies concession. For example, equal acknowledgment of rights before the law implies that, in the eyes of the law, doctrinal disagreements are opinions with no legal standing except when touching upon self-evident truths necessary for civil society. Equal recognition on the model of democracy implies to some an acknowledgment of equality of religious standing.
Finally, there is the metaphysical use of the term “religious pluralism,” which is the claim, more or less, that each religious tradition as such is a valid way in itself for addressing the human condition and connecting those who pursue that way with the ineffably Real and Infinite Being, by which Christians mean God. This view is now espoused by several in the fields of history of religions or philosophy of religion. They represent what they feel is the result of decades of research bringing to light, for Europeans and Americans especially, the richness of the variety of religious traditions in the world and the development of a method to explore these traditions based upon religious experience. The methods of history of religions or philosophy of religions have revealed much to us about the meaning and content of religious beliefs and practices and have advanced our understanding in the general field of religious studies. Acceptance of these methods does not imply that one has to accept the view that all religions are ultimately valid in themselves, the view which a metaphysical use of religious pluralism rests upon. I have one parting comment about this particular view of religious pluralism. It seems to me that such a view involves reducing the diversity of various religions to a single essence or meaning for the term religion and therefore that this is not a view of true religious pluralism, that is, an equality of really distinct religious traditions. This may be a view that all religions are in some way examples of a single form of religion.
I am not using religious pluralism in a metaphysical sense when I acknowledge the fact of religious pluralism, nor am I going to speak to you about the Catholic Church’s relationship with democracy. I am going to speak about the Catholic Church’s reflections on religious pluralism, the active engagement of religious folks with one another.
III. Actions of the Catholic Church
The Secretariat for Non-Christians was established before the Council ended, on Pentecost Sunday 1964, to handle developments in the post-conciliar period. In his address to the faithful on Pentecost, Pope Paul VI spoke of a particular reason for the establishment of this secretariat; what he said is helpful for us as we explore the general theme of this conference, Christ consciousness. Echoing the theme of hospitality, that Christ comes as a guest to our houses, Pope Paul VI declared that all religious pilgrims to Rome now have a place to receive them: “No pilgrim, no matter how distant he may be religiously or geographically, no matter his country of origin, will any longer be a complete stranger in this Rome, ever faithful to the historic program the Catholic faith has reserved to it as patria communis.” The Secretariat would thus be the place of contact for all peoples of other faiths with whom it was charged to promote friendly relations.
Nostra Aetate specifically names Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus and also notes the “deep religious sense” among all peoples whose way of life is religious. The unity of the human community and the openness of every human person to the experience of the divine are foundational ideas in the text: “Men look to their different religions for an answer to the unsolved riddles of human existence” and “throughout history even to the present day, there is found among different peoples a certain awareness of a hidden power, which lies behind the course of nature and the events of human life” (1 & 2). Then there is the famous ray of divine truth passage:
The Catholic Church began its work promoting good relations with persons of other religions, attempting to educate Catholics about other religions, and correcting their errors and misunderstandings regarding other religions. The Second Vatican Council was an epochal step for Catholics in interreligious relations, but the World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi in 1986 was its boldest implementation up to that point in post-conciliar times. It was an event that connected the ecumenical, the interreligious, and the social missions of the church, and displayed them to the world. The generous response of Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist and other religious leaders to join Pope John Paul II to fast, to walk, and to pray for peace made October 27, 1986, an historic date in the history of interreligious relations. At the end of 1986, the pope described how much that single day influenced him personally, calling it the greatest religious event of the year, a moment when the hidden and radical unity of humanity found visible expression, and an event so significant that it invites deep reflection. In the same place he noted the lessons of Assisi, and among them was the reassurance that “we can indeed maintain that every authentic prayer is called forth by the Holy Spirit, who is mysteriously present in the heart of every person.” That single day as an event has influenced interreligious relations more than any single event. Our church opened its doors, and the successor of the Petrine ministry and symbol of unity among Christians welcomed representatives of churches and religious traditions so that they could stand together and witness cooperation, understanding and prayer.
In his encyclical Mission of the Redeemer (Redemptoris Missio, 1990), John Paul II again described the impact of that experience and provided the Catholic Church with a very clear statement of its importance. He again offered reflections on the work of the Holy Spirit in every human heart. He also made this very personal observation:
He again stated very clearly that the Catholic Church not only respects every individual for being open to God and the action of the Spirit but also understands that God works through other religious traditions: “ [God] does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression . . . ” (55). This text moves beyond a statement of respect for all religious persons and a belief that all humanity is directed towards God. This passage states explicitly a respect for religions in themselves because they are means through which God communicates to humanity.
The work of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue has expanded enormously as Pope John Paul II has invited people of faith to join him for events in Rome and in his travels. The journal of the Pontifical Council brims over with documentation and reports, and various Buddhist, Muslim, and other scholars have been published in it. In 1991, the Pontifical Council completed work on an extremely important document, Dialogue and Proclamation, which it issued jointly with the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. In it the relationship between mission and dialogue was addressed once again, concluding that dialogue and proclamation are both authentic elements of the church’s evangelizing mission. Both are necessary and legitimate, intimately related though not interchangeable. Various kinds of dialogues and accomplishments, gained from over 25 years of experience, are listed. In my mind, one of its most significant passages is found in the reflection on spiritual experience:
Dialogue and Proclamation also summarized the forms and goals of dialogue and offered inspiration for those who wish to take up interreligious activities. The text not only drew together insights of previous texts and accomplishments of the Pontifical Council but also linked the work of the Pontifical Council with the whole work of the church. The discussion on the relationship between mission and dialogue was not laid to rest, however, with this text. Though an endorsement of its earlier 1984 reflections on dialogue and mission, Dialogue and Proclamation left somewhat unresolved the personal synthesis every Christian needs to determine between mission and dialogue. By placing dialogue within the work of evangelization, the specific goals of dialogue need to be carefully discerned. We have found this in the response of our various partners in dialogue to the word “mission.” For many the word carries negative connotations, and substitutes like “evangelization” do not work much better. “Evangelism,” a term often employed by Protestants, and “proselytism,” a term with negative connotations, complicate this discussion. We will be addressing this question for some time to come because we as Christians cannot be other than we are, namely, witnesses to the gospel of Jesus.
In 1997, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, established as the secretariat for Non-Christians in 1964, issued the English edition of a 700-page volume, Interreligious Dialogue: The Official Teaching of the Catholic Church (Documents 1963-1995). The text of The Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian religions (Nostra Aetate) and selections from other documents of the Second Vatican Council, specifically related to interreligious relations, account for nearly 25 pages by themselves. Documents and excerpts from the solemn magisterium of Paul VI and John Paul II take another 50 pages. To these the editor has added over 500 pages of speeches, letters, and communications of the popes in the past 30 years and 100 pages of texts issued by offices of the Holy See. This collection takes us from the time of the Second Vatican Council until 1995 and gives just one perspective, that of the Church of Rome, on the question of Catholics and religious pluralism. You each may have your own perspectives from missions, from the set of relations you and your community have developed with other faith communities, or perhaps from the experiences of various local churches engaged in interreligious relations with the peoples in the areas where you have lived and worked.
Interreligious relations and dialogue constitute one of the significant new ministries which Catholics have taken up vigorously, and over the last 35 years this ministry has blended thoroughly into the life and mission of the church. Dialogue is the primary way through which Catholics are urged to address the religious pluralism encountered in their daily lives. This ministry is now part of the fabric of our Catholic identity.
The Second Vatican Council formally recognized interreligious understanding and broadened it to include interreligious dialogue as an explicit teaching with universal status. We now identify some goals of interreligious relations and dialogue: mutual understanding and respect, common action and joint efforts to insure social justice, and spiritual enrichment. I derive these from the fourfold forms of dialogue which have been identified in various documents. The goals of interreligious relations are quite distinct from the Catholic Church’s understanding of the goal of ecumenical activity, namely, the full visible communion of all Christians. Through interreligious relations we are not striving to unite all people in one religion. We are definitely not trying to collapse the religions of the world into one. Our ecumenical vision and our interreligious vision are quite distinct. Both indeed are global because the council also marked that critical point in the history of Catholics when we came to realize that we are indeed a global church. I mean by this more than just a church that extends to the ends of the earth. A global church is one that is embodied, represented, lived and inculturated by peoples all over the earth and through them engaged with the religious and cultural traditions of all humanity. Our desire for the unity of Christians extends to the ends of the earth in every culture and in every situation in which the people of God live. Our desire for nterreligious relations with peoples of faith also extends to wherever the people of God live and work.
What has happened since the Second Vatican Council is the real story. In a way, we could say that the churches now began to catch up with the teaching and to test the risks taken by the bishops. The council fathers took a particularly bold stand on relations with Jews. We know that the desire among church leaders to address our relationship with the Jews was at the origin of the declaration Nostra Aetate, but the global nature of the council transformed that text from its initial draft as the final chapter of the Decree on Ecumenism to its final form as an independent text that specifically mentioned Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and people of all faiths who are genuinely awakened to God’s transcendent presence operating in their lives. So not just on the hierarchical level, where these documents mark notable achievements, but also on the level of the lived spirituality of all Catholics, whether monastics or lay folks, wherever they live in pluralistic societies, interreligious relations have become part of the Catholic way of life.
II. Defining Religious Pluralism
Before we go too far afield with this topic, perhaps we first should take a look at the meaning of the term “religious pluralism.” Today, I will distinguish three usages of this term, which have different implications for Christian faith and life. There is first of all a mostly sociological use of the term religious pluralism. It indicates that in a given society or set of societies there are a variety religious traditions, and persons identifying with these traditions actively interact with one another in such a way that the traditions themselves are affected by this interaction. Religious pluralism in this usage is more than religious plurality. It is not simply another way to say there are many religious traditions observable in a society. It signifies more than religious diversity. It implies that these traditions are both different and engaged with one another, influencing one another, responding and reacting to one another through their members. Thus more precisely it means engaged diversity. Unless one is engaged with persons of other faiths as people of faith, religious pluralism is not an issue. One could just as well believe that only one’s faith is true religion and everything else practiced is false religion. Christians among themselves have much to discuss about religious pluralism even in this sense as engaged religious diversity.
Religious pluralism has a socio-political meaning too, referring to the fact of the American experiment in democracy. By this I mean the separation of church and state, whereby no particular religious group or set of groups legally represents the minds, hearts, and interests of the citizenry. This is the religious pluralism guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” To some, the acceptance of this fact of equality before the law or even the lack of a religious preference or privilege for one religious group implies concession. For example, equal acknowledgment of rights before the law implies that, in the eyes of the law, doctrinal disagreements are opinions with no legal standing except when touching upon self-evident truths necessary for civil society. Equal recognition on the model of democracy implies to some an acknowledgment of equality of religious standing.
Finally, there is the metaphysical use of the term “religious pluralism,” which is the claim, more or less, that each religious tradition as such is a valid way in itself for addressing the human condition and connecting those who pursue that way with the ineffably Real and Infinite Being, by which Christians mean God. This view is now espoused by several in the fields of history of religions or philosophy of religion. They represent what they feel is the result of decades of research bringing to light, for Europeans and Americans especially, the richness of the variety of religious traditions in the world and the development of a method to explore these traditions based upon religious experience. The methods of history of religions or philosophy of religions have revealed much to us about the meaning and content of religious beliefs and practices and have advanced our understanding in the general field of religious studies. Acceptance of these methods does not imply that one has to accept the view that all religions are ultimately valid in themselves, the view which a metaphysical use of religious pluralism rests upon. I have one parting comment about this particular view of religious pluralism. It seems to me that such a view involves reducing the diversity of various religions to a single essence or meaning for the term religion and therefore that this is not a view of true religious pluralism, that is, an equality of really distinct religious traditions. This may be a view that all religions are in some way examples of a single form of religion.
I am not using religious pluralism in a metaphysical sense when I acknowledge the fact of religious pluralism, nor am I going to speak to you about the Catholic Church’s relationship with democracy. I am going to speak about the Catholic Church’s reflections on religious pluralism, the active engagement of religious folks with one another.
III. Actions of the Catholic Church
The Secretariat for Non-Christians was established before the Council ended, on Pentecost Sunday 1964, to handle developments in the post-conciliar period. In his address to the faithful on Pentecost, Pope Paul VI spoke of a particular reason for the establishment of this secretariat; what he said is helpful for us as we explore the general theme of this conference, Christ consciousness. Echoing the theme of hospitality, that Christ comes as a guest to our houses, Pope Paul VI declared that all religious pilgrims to Rome now have a place to receive them: “No pilgrim, no matter how distant he may be religiously or geographically, no matter his country of origin, will any longer be a complete stranger in this Rome, ever faithful to the historic program the Catholic faith has reserved to it as patria communis.” The Secretariat would thus be the place of contact for all peoples of other faiths with whom it was charged to promote friendly relations.
Nostra Aetate specifically names Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus and also notes the “deep religious sense” among all peoples whose way of life is religious. The unity of the human community and the openness of every human person to the experience of the divine are foundational ideas in the text: “Men look to their different religions for an answer to the unsolved riddles of human existence” and “throughout history even to the present day, there is found among different peoples a certain awareness of a hidden power, which lies behind the course of nature and the events of human life” (1 & 2). Then there is the famous ray of divine truth passage:
The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men. Yet she proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth and the life (Jn 1:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself (2 Cor 5:18-19), men find the fullness of their religious life. (2)
The Catholic Church began its work promoting good relations with persons of other religions, attempting to educate Catholics about other religions, and correcting their errors and misunderstandings regarding other religions. The Second Vatican Council was an epochal step for Catholics in interreligious relations, but the World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi in 1986 was its boldest implementation up to that point in post-conciliar times. It was an event that connected the ecumenical, the interreligious, and the social missions of the church, and displayed them to the world. The generous response of Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist and other religious leaders to join Pope John Paul II to fast, to walk, and to pray for peace made October 27, 1986, an historic date in the history of interreligious relations. At the end of 1986, the pope described how much that single day influenced him personally, calling it the greatest religious event of the year, a moment when the hidden and radical unity of humanity found visible expression, and an event so significant that it invites deep reflection. In the same place he noted the lessons of Assisi, and among them was the reassurance that “we can indeed maintain that every authentic prayer is called forth by the Holy Spirit, who is mysteriously present in the heart of every person.” That single day as an event has influenced interreligious relations more than any single event. Our church opened its doors, and the successor of the Petrine ministry and symbol of unity among Christians welcomed representatives of churches and religious traditions so that they could stand together and witness cooperation, understanding and prayer.
In his encyclical Mission of the Redeemer (Redemptoris Missio, 1990), John Paul II again described the impact of that experience and provided the Catholic Church with a very clear statement of its importance. He again offered reflections on the work of the Holy Spirit in every human heart. He also made this very personal observation:
The missionary must be a “contemplative in action.” He finds answers to problems in the light of God’s word and in personal and community prayer. My contact with representatives of the non-Christian spiritual traditions, particularly those of Asia, has confirmed me in the view that the future of mission depends to a great extent on contemplation. (91)
He again stated very clearly that the Catholic Church not only respects every individual for being open to God and the action of the Spirit but also understands that God works through other religious traditions: “ [God] does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression . . . ” (55). This text moves beyond a statement of respect for all religious persons and a belief that all humanity is directed towards God. This passage states explicitly a respect for religions in themselves because they are means through which God communicates to humanity.
The work of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue has expanded enormously as Pope John Paul II has invited people of faith to join him for events in Rome and in his travels. The journal of the Pontifical Council brims over with documentation and reports, and various Buddhist, Muslim, and other scholars have been published in it. In 1991, the Pontifical Council completed work on an extremely important document, Dialogue and Proclamation, which it issued jointly with the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. In it the relationship between mission and dialogue was addressed once again, concluding that dialogue and proclamation are both authentic elements of the church’s evangelizing mission. Both are necessary and legitimate, intimately related though not interchangeable. Various kinds of dialogues and accomplishments, gained from over 25 years of experience, are listed. In my mind, one of its most significant passages is found in the reflection on spiritual experience:
Interreligious dialogue does not merely aim at mutual understanding and friendly relations. It reaches a much deeper level, that of the spirit, where exchange and sharing consist in a mutual witness to one’s beliefs and a common exploration of one’s religious convictions. In dialogue Christians and others are invited to deepen their religious commitment, to respond with increasing sincerity to God’s personal call and gracious self-gift, which, as our faith tells us, always passes through the mediation of Jesus Christ and the work of his Spirit. (40)
Dialogue and Proclamation also summarized the forms and goals of dialogue and offered inspiration for those who wish to take up interreligious activities. The text not only drew together insights of previous texts and accomplishments of the Pontifical Council but also linked the work of the Pontifical Council with the whole work of the church. The discussion on the relationship between mission and dialogue was not laid to rest, however, with this text. Though an endorsement of its earlier 1984 reflections on dialogue and mission, Dialogue and Proclamation left somewhat unresolved the personal synthesis every Christian needs to determine between mission and dialogue. By placing dialogue within the work of evangelization, the specific goals of dialogue need to be carefully discerned. We have found this in the response of our various partners in dialogue to the word “mission.” For many the word carries negative connotations, and substitutes like “evangelization” do not work much better. “Evangelism,” a term often employed by Protestants, and “proselytism,” a term with negative connotations, complicate this discussion. We will be addressing this question for some time to come because we as Christians cannot be other than we are, namely, witnesses to the gospel of Jesus.
1. Interreligious Dialogue: The Official Teaching of the Catholic Church (Documents 1963-1995), edited by Francesco Gioia (Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1997).
2. For an account of history of the Catholic response to religious pluralism around the question of salvation outside of the church, see Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., Salvation Outside the Church? (New York: Paulist Press, 1992). See also a recently published volume containing a useful historical review of Catholic reflections on religious pluralism: Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1997), chapters 1-5.
3. See “Dialogue and Proclamation,” (42), which appeared in the July 4, 1991, issue of Origins, Catholic News Service Documentary Service, 21, 8. It was republished in Interreligious Dialogue, pp. 608-42.
4. See the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio), 1-4.
5. This is how the term “religious pluralism” was used in the project “Confessing Christian Faith in a Pluralistic Society,” Institute for Ecumenical and Cultural Research (Collegeville, MN 56321-6188), 1995. One sentence in particular demonstrates this meaning: “We can no longer think and act without attention to our neighbors from other traditions” (11).
6. The most prominent defender of this metaphysical usage of religious pluralism as a hypothesis for a theology of religions is John Hick, A Christian Theology of Religions (Louisville: John Knox, 1995): 11-30.
7. See James B. Wiggins, In Praise of Religious Diversity (New York: Routledge, 1996): 55-71.
8. Interreligious Relations, p. 121.
9. “Pope’s Christmas Address to the Roman Curia, the World Situation Constitutes a Pressing Appeal for the Spirit of Assisi, 22 December 1986,” published in Bulletin, Secretariat for Non Christians, 64 (22/1, 1987): 54-55; also repeated in Interreligious Dialogue, pp. 358ff.
10. This encyclical was not published in its entirely in Interreligious Dialogue, and this passage was not among those that appeared there. One needs to find a publication of the entire text, for example, in Origins 20, 34 (January 31, 1991).
11. Interreligious Dialogue, p. 102.
12. Interreligious Dialogue, p. 622.
13. See Catholics Remember the Holocaust, Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Relations, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1998.14. See “A Just Peace for Palestine,” Origins 20, 41 (March 21, 1991): 671f.
15. Interreligious Dialogue, p. 533.
16. Interreligious Dialogue, p. 534.
17. Donald W. Mitchell, “The Making of a Joint Buddhist-Catholic Statement,” Buddhist-Christian Studies 16 (1996): 203-208. The Taiwan text also appeared in Origins 25, 14 (September 21, 1995) and in Pro Dialogo, Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Bulletin 90 (1995/3).
18. Pro Dialogo, Bulletin 100 (1999/1).
19. See The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton, edited by Naomi Burton, Patrick Hart and Jams Laughlin (New York: New Directions, 1971).
20. The Gethsemani Encounter, edited by Donald W. Mitchell and James Wiseman, O.S.B. (New York: Continuum, 1997).
2. For an account of history of the Catholic response to religious pluralism around the question of salvation outside of the church, see Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., Salvation Outside the Church? (New York: Paulist Press, 1992). See also a recently published volume containing a useful historical review of Catholic reflections on religious pluralism: Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1997), chapters 1-5.
3. See “Dialogue and Proclamation,” (42), which appeared in the July 4, 1991, issue of Origins, Catholic News Service Documentary Service, 21, 8. It was republished in Interreligious Dialogue, pp. 608-42.
4. See the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio), 1-4.
5. This is how the term “religious pluralism” was used in the project “Confessing Christian Faith in a Pluralistic Society,” Institute for Ecumenical and Cultural Research (Collegeville, MN 56321-6188), 1995. One sentence in particular demonstrates this meaning: “We can no longer think and act without attention to our neighbors from other traditions” (11).
6. The most prominent defender of this metaphysical usage of religious pluralism as a hypothesis for a theology of religions is John Hick, A Christian Theology of Religions (Louisville: John Knox, 1995): 11-30.
7. See James B. Wiggins, In Praise of Religious Diversity (New York: Routledge, 1996): 55-71.
8. Interreligious Relations, p. 121.
9. “Pope’s Christmas Address to the Roman Curia, the World Situation Constitutes a Pressing Appeal for the Spirit of Assisi, 22 December 1986,” published in Bulletin, Secretariat for Non Christians, 64 (22/1, 1987): 54-55; also repeated in Interreligious Dialogue, pp. 358ff.
10. This encyclical was not published in its entirely in Interreligious Dialogue, and this passage was not among those that appeared there. One needs to find a publication of the entire text, for example, in Origins 20, 34 (January 31, 1991).
11. Interreligious Dialogue, p. 102.
12. Interreligious Dialogue, p. 622.
13. See Catholics Remember the Holocaust, Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Relations, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1998.14. See “A Just Peace for Palestine,” Origins 20, 41 (March 21, 1991): 671f.
15. Interreligious Dialogue, p. 533.
16. Interreligious Dialogue, p. 534.
17. Donald W. Mitchell, “The Making of a Joint Buddhist-Catholic Statement,” Buddhist-Christian Studies 16 (1996): 203-208. The Taiwan text also appeared in Origins 25, 14 (September 21, 1995) and in Pro Dialogo, Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Bulletin 90 (1995/3).
18. Pro Dialogo, Bulletin 100 (1999/1).
19. See The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton, edited by Naomi Burton, Patrick Hart and Jams Laughlin (New York: New Directions, 1971).
20. The Gethsemani Encounter, edited by Donald W. Mitchell and James Wiseman, O.S.B. (New York: Continuum, 1997).
Website by Booklight, Inc. Copyright © 2010, Monastic Dialogue
Dr. John Borelli special assistant to the president of Georgetown University for Interreligious Initiatives and recently named national coordinator for mission and interreligious dialogue for the U.S. Jesuit Conference, served from 1987 to 2003 as the first full-time staff member in interreligious relations at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. He has been a consultor to the Holy See’s Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue for 15 years.