Interreligious Relations today: the remarkable relevance of
Nostra Aetate
Michael L. FITZGERALD
[Source: Pontificium Consilium pro Dialogo Inter Religiones, Pro Dialogo (Bulletin 119,
2005/2). Published on the website of the Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission of the
Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne, Australia, with permission from Mons. Michael L.
Fitzgerald.]
(Editor’s Note: HE. Archbishop Michael L. Fitzgerald, President, delivered a public lecture
on 6 March 2005 at the Xavier College in Cincinnati, USA. The following is the integral text
of his address.)
INTRODUCTION
A journalist, writing about the next conclave, has said that one of the first issues which the
next Pope will have to grapple with is the relationship of the Church to other religions, and
especially to Islam. This was not so even less than fifty years ago, when Blessed John XXIII
convoked the Second Vatican Council. In response to the preliminary questionnaire very few
bishops mentioned the topic of other religions, and no draft schema was prepared on this
topic. It was really by accident that it appeared on the agenda. A French rabbi, Jules Isaac,
suggested to John XXIII that it was time the Church made an official declaration to
counteract the “teaching of contempt” with regard to the Jews. The suggestion was accepted.
Cardinal Augustine Bea, head of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, was entrusted with the
preparation of a text to be submitted to the Council. It was opposition to this initiative,
particularly from bishops in the Middle East, and then suggestions from the bishops of Africa
and Asia, that brought about a broadening of the text to cover the attitude of the Church to all
religions. Thus was born Nostra Aetate, a gift to the Church from the Holy Spirit.
The Declaration on the Relations of the Church to Non Christian Religions was solemnly
voted and approved by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council on 28 October 1965. It is
interesting to reread this document almost forty years afterwards and to see that it has lost
none of its actuality. It has certainly inspired the members of the Catholic Church at different
levels to promote relations of respect and dialogue with people of other religions. It continues
to be a solid point of reference for these relations.
1. THE FUNDAMENTAL UNITY OF HUMANKIND
Nostra aetate, “In this ages of ours, when people are drawing more closely together”.1
Religious pluralism is not a new phenomenon. Many nations have known throughout their
history a society which is ethnically, culturally and religiously plural. Is this not true of the
USA, a land of immigration? In this sense, the opening words of Nostra Aetate had already
been anticipated. Yet there is indeed a growing pluralism in the world today. One can point to
the increase in the Muslim population of the US, but also to the presence of Buddhists,
Hindus and Sikhs and people of other religions. The pluralism project of Professor Diana
Eck, of the Harvard Center for World Religions, has shown the extent of this diversity. The
situation is similar in Europe. Nor should one forget the pluralism in the heartlands of Islam,
through the presence of so many Christian workers in the Arabian Peninsula. This presence
leads to new questions concerning religious liberty and the legitimate requirements of
religious communities. The Council had also examined these questions in Dignitatis
Humanae, its declaration on religious freedom. This is a reminder that Nostra Aetate is not to
be taken in isolation, but rather read in conjunction with the other documents of Vatican II.
The introductory paragraph of the document reflects on what people have in common.
References are given to the Christian Scriptures to show that all humankind comes from one
stock and that God’s saving design embraces all. This truth has been a constant feature of the
teaching of Pope John Paul II. To give but one example, when reflecting on the Day of Prayer
for Peace, held in Assisi 27 October 1986, John Paul II referred to the common origin and
common destiny of humankind and said that in the in-between period “we must learn to walk
together in peace and harmony, or we drift apart and ruin ourselves and others “.
There are certainly differences. Some of these reflect the genius of different peoples, but
there are also the spiritual riches enshrined in different traditions, riches which can be
considered as Godgiven. There are also differences which arise from human limitations,
which spring therefore from sinfulness, for we must admit that humanity is not perfect.2 Yet
the basic unity is recognized. It can be said that this springs from the very nature of the
human person. All people are faced with the same questions — about the meaning of life,
about suffering and death, about genuine happiness — and they turn to religions for
satisfying answers. These questions are still posed. Scientific progress has not eliminated
them, but perhaps has added new dimensions to questions concerning the dignity of the
human person and the place of the human person within the created universe. Are people still
turning to religions for the answers? Perhaps in our age there are people who mistrust
established religion and who wish to create a religion, or religions, which would appear to
suit them better. The Post-Modern mentality, with its mistrust of ready-made syntheses, leads
to the eclectic and syncretistic approach of New Age where people tend to draw from many
religious traditions at the same time.
It could be said also that there is another aspect of this unity, what could be termed its
mystical dimension. The Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes,
states that by his incarnation the Son of God has united himself with each human being (cf.
CS 22). This effect of the incarnation enhances the dignity of the human person to whatever
nation or religion that person may belong. This theological reflection is absent from Nostra
Aetate, which is primarily a pastoral document, and so again we have to remind ourselves
that it is be read in conjunction with the other documents of the Council, Lumen Gentium,
Gaudium et Spes, Ad Gentes, etc.
Nostra Aetate takes unity as a given, yet it is also something towards which humanity is
moving. We could ask ourselves then: what sort of unity is being held out as a prospect for
the future? Ecumenical endeavours among Christians aim at bringing about a unity of faith
which can be the basis for communion while respecting the diversity of traditions and rites. A
unity such as this cannot be achieved among the different religions for, despite their
commonalities, essential differences of belief remain. Indeed those movements that have
attempted to bring all religions into one have ended up as constituting new religions. It would
seem therefore that religious pluralism is a permanent feature of this world — with the
discussion going on as to whether this pluralism is to be considered de jure, that is directly
willed by God, or simply defacto, as something permitted by God — until the differences are
resolved at the end of time, when God will be all in all (cf. 1 Cor 15:28).
2. DIALOGUE WITH DIFFERENT RELIGIONS
2.1. Traditional Religions
Nostra Aetate begins its second paragraph with a reference to people who show “a certain
awareness of a hidden power, which lies behind the course of nature and the events of human
life “. The religious expression which this gives rise to could be classified as Traditional
Religion.3 One might ask why attention should be given to these religious traditions, since
they would seem to be destined to disappear with the oncoming of modernity and
globalisation. Yet these religions are not in fact disappearing, for they are still influencing the
lives of many people. Even those who have embraced world religions, such as Christianity
and Islam, often return to ancestral practices in times of tension and stress. Some have
returned to their traditional religion, rejecting Christianity as a colonial imposition. Others are
taking up their ancient practices in so far as they are compatible with the Gospel. For
Catholic Native Americans the Tekakwitha Conference has for the last fifty years been
providing support and guidance for this endeavour.
It could be said that, in the past decades, greater attention has been paid to people of
traditional religion, whether the Tribals in India, or the Lumads in the Philippines, or the
Indigenous populations in Latin America, as also to Native Americans in North America.
Often this attention has been more concerned with questions of dignity and human rights, but
it also has its religious dimension, taking the form of inculturation of the Christian faith, or, at
times, dialogue with people who wish to remain in their ancestral religions.
Since Traditional Religions are usually not highly organized, or are characterized by a certain
secretiveness, official dialogue with them remains rather difficult. It is noteworthy that Pope
John Paul II, when visiting Benin in 1993, insisted on meeting with the representatives of the
Voodu religion. He praised them for their strong attachment to their ancestors, something
which their Christian brothers and sisters shared with them. Yet he said that the Christians of
Benin were also grateful for their “ancestors in the faith” who had brought them the Good
News that God is Father and has revealed himself through his Son Jesus Christ. In 2002,
when John Paul II invited religious leaders to Assisi to pray for peace in the world, a Voodu
leader from Benin accepted the invitation and gave one of the testimonies, just as other
representatives of traditional religions had been present at the 1986 Prayer for Peace.
The inner dialogue, within those who wish to be both authentic Christians and fully members
of their indigenous culture, has been encouraged by John Paul II in his meetings with Native
Americans in St Anne de Beaupré, Canada, in 1984, and in Phoenix, Arizona, in 1987, as also
during his meeting with Australian Aboriginals, at Alice Springs in 1986. He gave the same
message to Amerindians and Afro-Americans in Santo Domingo in 1992. Cardinal Arinze,
who comes himself from a background of Traditional Religion, while he was President of the
Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, wrote two letters on pastoral attention to
Traditional Religions, for Africa in 1988, and for Asia, America and Oceania in 1993. The
Council has continued to give attention to th&se religions, as is exemplified by the
colloquium it organized in Rome in January of this year: The Resources/or Peace in
Traditional Religions.
2.2. Hinduism
The first religious tradition mentioned by name in Nostra Aetate is Hinduism. Since this
tradition does not have any centralized authority, here too organized dialogue has been
difficult. This does not mean to say that no dialogue takes place. In India, the home of most
Hindus, Christians are involved with them in a constant “dialogue of life ", through
educational and medical institutions, or simply through living side by side. The Catholic
Church in India has developed a whole network of dialogue centres. These also bring
contacts with Hindus, though the activities in these centres are usually carried out on a
multilateral, rather than a bilateral basis.
Of course, relations with Hindus are not always so simple. Social action by Christians is
suspect for being geared to conversions. Indeed the very concept of conversion has become a
bone of contention. This has led to restrictions being put on religious freedom, denying
people the right to choose to which religion they wish to belong. Christian efforts at
inculturation have also been treated with suspicion. Monks such as Bede Griffith, who
adopted the garb of the sannyasi, or ascetics, have been criticized for pretending to be what
they were not, so misleading Hindus.
In recent times India has seen the development of the ideology of hindutva according to
which only Hindus would be true lndians. This has led some Christian leaders to enter into
dialogue with those responsible for this movement, in order to uphold the rights of nonHindus. At another level, some universities have opened faculties of comparative religion,
and through these formal dialogue has taken place with university establishments in other
parts of the world. It is interesting to note the effect of emulation. The founder of a Hindu
university was invited to an interreligious gathering in Kazakhstan. He was so impressed by
the harmony that he found in this meeting, and the openness of the Muslims encountered at it,
that he has taken the initiative to organize a meeting of Christians, Hindus and Muslims at his
own university in Mumbai. The meeting took place, with success, in January of this year.
Outside of India dialogue with Hindus would appear to be sporadic rather than organized. Yet
it is only fair to mention the efforts made in the US by the Association for Hindu-Christian
Studies and also the theological dialogue that is being pursued between Christians and
Hindus at the initiative of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON).
2.3. Buddhism
Nostra Aetate turns next to Buddhism. This may have surprised some who consider
Buddhism to be more of a philosophy than a religion. The document calls it “a way of life “.
‘When examined in its manifestations, it can be seen that whatever might be its lack of
theology — for Buddhists do not normally speak of God — Buddhism acts as a religion and
therefore the Vatican Council was quite justified in treating it in this context. Nostra Aetate
describes briefly how this tradition proposes to overcome the “essential inadequacy of this
changing world “. This has led Buddhism to give great importance to monasticism, and this
fact has allowed a fruitful dialogue to develop between Buddhist monks and nuns and their
counterparts in the Catholic Christian tradition. Monastic Interreligious Dialogue has become
structured on the Catholic side, and more and more monasteries of both men and women are
becoming involved in spiritual exchanges.
This dialogue of spirituality is not the sole form possible. There has developed a fruitful
intellectual dialogue between Buddhists and Christians, in Japan, in the US through the
Cobb-Abe exchanges, and the meetings of the Association for Christian Buddhist Studies.
Similar efforts are being made more recently in Europe. One has only to examine a book such
as Donald Mitchell’s Spirituality and Emptiness4 to see how enriching can be a comparison
of the concept of nothingness in Buddhism with that of kenosis in Christianity. The Pontifical
Council for Interreligious Dialogue has also engaged in formal dialogue with Buddhists,
bringing together representatives of all the three main schools, Theravada, Mahayana and
Vajrayana. It may be thought that it is somewhat unfair to have participants from just one
current of Christianity, namely Catholicism, on the one side, and all the schools of Buddhism
on the other, but this does not seem to have been resented. It has in fact given rise to a certain
amount of Buddhist “ecumenism”. In the three meetings held so far the themes were
convergence and divergence, word and silence, sangha and ecclesia (that is, a study of
community and belonging). The aim has always been to clarify ideas in order to arrive at
mutual understanding.
It has to be recognized that Buddhism is a missionary religion, having passed from India to
Sri Lanka and to Indo-China in the Therevada form, and to China, and from there to Japan
and Korea as the Mahayana school, and to Tibet where it became Vajrayana Buddhism. At
every passage there has been an inculturatlon. This process of inculturation may be
continuing as Buddhism spreads in the Western world, although some of its implantations
strive for exact fidelity to the parent tradition. It is certain that, today, many people in the
West are attracted by Buddhism since it has proved to be a school of meditation, perhaps seen
as a necessary antidote to the agitation of modern life. The Pontifical Council for
Interreligious Dialogue, in conjunction with the Council of Episcopal Conferences of Europe,
has held two consultations on Buddhism in Europe in which attention has been given to this
task of accompanying people who are searching. Here also there is a role which monasteries
and prayer centres can play in responding to the needs of those who are looking for the right
spiritual way.
Reference could also be made to more practical expressions of dialogue, such as the Global
Network of Religions for Children, an initiative due to Myochikai, a Buddhist movement in
Japan. There has been contact, too, between Buddhists and Christians regarding matters of
peace and reconciliation, or on such questions as drug rehabilitation. Buddhist movements are
also engaged in humanitarian relief, often in places where there are no Buddhists among the
stricken population. The worldwide response to the disaster caused by the tsunami raises the
question of the coordination of relief efforts by different religious organizations.
2.4. Other Religions
After its two sentences on Buddhism, Nostra Aetate speaks of” other religions” without
mentioning any names. It is perhaps only right to name those religions that have been
becoming more involved in interreligious dialogue in recent years. The first of these would
be the Sikh religion. Some Sikhs have been advocating a new statement from the Holy See in
which the Sikh dharma would receive explicit mention. This demand springs from the fact
that often Sikhism has not been given recognition as an independent religion and has been
looked upon as a branch of Hinduism. In point of fact, where Sikhs are established in the
world, there does exist a dialogue with people of other religions, particularly at the
multilateral level. Encouraging signs have been the participation in the 2002 Prayer for Peace
in Assisi of an official Sikh delegation from Amritsar, and also the fact that the Sikh
university in that city has been organizing meetings on Sikhism and interreligious dialogue.
Other religions that deserve mention here, since they too are engaged in interreligious
dialogues, are the Baha’i religion, Shintoism, Tenrikyo and Zoroastrianism.
2.5. The Question of Salvation
After a descriptive approach, Nostra Aetate concludes the paragraph with an important
assertion: “The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions “.
It is worth underlining the second of the terms used, “holy”. Does this not imply that these
religions contain elements of grace which allow their followers to attain to salvation? This
has led to a discussion among Catholic theologians regarding the role of religions in
salvation. Nostra Aetate does not solve this question, but the teaching authority of the
Catholic Church, in the document Dominus Jesus, has stated clearly that the religions are not
recognized as alternative ways of salvation. There is only one salvation (pace Mark Heim),5
and only one way to salvation, the way of the Paschal Mystery, but the Council teaches that
the Holy Spirit gives to all, in ways that God knows, the possibility of entering into this
Paschal Mystery (cf. CS 22). How this can come about may be investigated, and Dominus
Jesus encourages theologians to do this. It is legitimate to suppose that the religions can play
their part, and so they can be considered to have a definite, but subordinate, role in salvation.
Nostra Aetate affirms strongly that the Church “is in duty bound to proclaim without fail
Christ who is the way, the truth and the life ", through whom God has reconciled the world to
Himself. The simultaneous presence in Nostra Aetate of a call to both dialogue and
proclamation has led necessarily to reflection on the compatibility of these two elements of
the Church’s mission. This has led Pope John Paul II to conclude: “Interreligious dialogue is
a part of the Church’s evangelising mission... In the light of the economy of salvation, the
Church sees no conflict between proclaiming Christ and engaging in interreligious dialogue...
These two elements must maintain both their intimate connection and their distinctiveness;
therefore they should not be confused, manipulated or regarded as identical, as though they
were interchangeable” (Redemptoris Missio 55). It can be said that there is a tension, perhaps
a necessary tension, between these two elements of the Church’s evangelising mission, but
where there is a true ecclesial spirit they can be held together. It would be as wrong to say
that the Church must always be proclaiming Jesus Christ explicitly in all its activities, as it
would to assert that only dialogue is necessary today. The conclusion of Nostra Aetate had
been to encourage Catholics “to enter with prudence and charity into discussion and
collaboration with members of other religions.., while witnessing to their own faith and way
of life “. One could perhaps point to John Paul II himself as one who has admirably followed
this indication, showing himself always open to dialogue and yet at the same time being an
indefatigable witness to Christ.
3. DIALOGUE WITH MUSLIMS
Nostra Aetate states that the Church has a “high regard” for the Muslims.6 This certainly
marked a complete change of attitude, since for centuries Muslims had been generally
considered as the enemy. It might perhaps be asked whether this “high regard” is still
maintained after the events of 11 September 2001. Without doubt these events have
reawakened a sense of fear with regard to Islam, often equated with terrorism. This fear is
intensified when Islam is considered as a monolith. There is a real need for a greater
knowledge of Islam, and fortunately a concomitant effect of 9/11 has been to increase
curiosity in many people to learn more about it. Such knowledge is required in order to make
the necessary distinctions. An example could be given from a speech made by John Paul II in
Kazakhstan, shortly after the terrorist attacks in the USA:
I wish to reaffirm the Catholic Church’s respect for Islam, for authentic Islam: the Islam
that prays, that is concerned for those in need. Recalling the errors of the past, including
the most recent past, all believers ought to unite their efforts to ensure that God is never
made the hostage of human ambitions. Hatred, fanaticism and terrorism profane the
name of God and disfigure the true image of man. (Astana, Kazakhstan, 24 September
2001)
The Council had underlined, in a summary fashion, the values that are found in Islam. Has
there been any progress in this regard? Little, perhaps, yet attention could be drawn to some
features of the teaching of the present Pope. He has emphasised the need to strengthen the
spiritual bonds that exist between Christianity and Islam. This is surely important since a
political, rather than a religious viewpoint tends to dominate relations. The Pope has also
deliberately used the term “brothers” when speaking to Muslims, on the grounds of the
common origin and common destiny already referred to.
The first point made by Nostra Aetate is that Muslims worship one God, mentioning some of
the attributes which Muslims themselves give to God: “one, living and subsistent, merciful
and almighty”. In Lumen Gentium we find the important addition: “together with us they (the
Muslims) adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day” (LC 16). This truth
of a common monotheism, shared also with Jews and with others, is still contested by some.
There are Christians who allege that Muslims reject the true God in rejecting the Trinity,
while some Muslims tend to treat Christians as unbelievers, precisely because of their belief
in the Trinity. Yet surely it is important to accept that we believe in and worship the same
God — there is no other — even if our understanding of this God is different.
The text of Nostra Aetate mentions Abraham, but caution was taken not to lay emphasis on
the Muslims’ claim to descend from Abraham through Ismael. The original draft including
this was rejected. Instead the conscious linking of their faith with that of Abraham is
acknowledged. Abraham as a figure linking Jews, Christians and Muslims is in fact a feature
of the dialogue that has developed in the last forty years. Many associations have grown up
under the patronage of Abraham, La Fraternitd dAbraham in France being probably the
oldest. Another group in France calls itself Les En/ants dAbraham. In the UK a similar drive
has given birth to the Three Faiths Forum. Worthy of mention is the Alexandrian Process, a
meeting of Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious leaders from Israel and Palestine,
facilitated by the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord George Carey, with the assistance of
Al-Azhar. The purpose of this dialogue is to contribute to a peaceful solution of the IsraeliPalestinian conflict.
One point about the Vatican II Declaration that disappointed Muslims was its silence
regarding Muhammad. Since any positive statement would have to be so qualified as to
appear in fact negative, it was felt wiser to refrain from saying anything. Nor has the
pontifical teaching since the Council been more explicit. There is perhaps an implicit
reference to Muhammad in a discourse in which John Paul II was speaking about the
presence of the Holy Spirit in humanity’s religious quest. He stated:
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 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. (Genera/Audience, 9 September 1998)
This does not mean that there has be no progress in mutual understanding between Christians
and Muslims on the subject of revelation, in which of course for Muslims Muhammad plays
an important part as the recipient of the Qur’an. Investigation of this topic was the first task
taken up by the Groupe de Recherches Islamo-Chrétien (GRIC), a group set up thirty years
ago and which is still active. These joint studies gave rise to an important book The
Challenge of the Scriptures.7 More recently one of the dialogue groups in the US, that of the
Mid-West, has tackled the same theme and a common statement is eagerly awaited.
There has been a definite increase in Muslim engagement in dialogue with Christians of
different denominations, and sometimes efforts have been made to enter into dialogue with
Jews. Moreover Muslims have set up their own structures for dialogue, such as the
International Forum which has as its president the Sheikh al-Azhar, or the Permanent
Committee of al-Azhar for Dialogue with Monotheistic Religions. These bodies have agreed
to form joint committees with the Catholic Church in order to foster dialogue between
Muslims and Christians.
In the US the Catholic Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenism and Interreligious Affairs has
been instrumental in setting up three regional dialogues between Catholics and Muslims. That
on the East Coast addressed the question of marriage and the family, while the Mid-West
dialogue, as mentioned, examined the respective understanding of revelation. The third
group, meeting on the West Coast, at the Center for Spiritual Development in Orange, CA,
chose to concentrate on a spiritual theme, submission/obedience. This group has produced an
important joint statement: Friends and not Adversaries: a Catholic-Muslim Spiritual
Journey.8
Nostra Aetate, taking cognizance of past history, urged Christians and Muslims to forget the
past with its dissensions and to strive for mutual understanding. This is not easy. It is in
particular difficult to reach out to those who see violence as the only way to achieving their
aims. Yet many dialogues have contributed to a better understanding between Christians and
Muslims. Exchanges on belief have contributed to overcoming prejudices, while dialogues on
social questions have helped to create a climate for collaboration in the service of humankind.
There is still, nevertheless, vast room for increased cooperation.
4. DIALOGUE WITH JEWS
Since this particular dialogue is not the responsibility of the Pontifical Council for
Interreligious Dialogue, I shall say nothing here about the progress in relations between
Christians and Jews. I can add a word about trilateral dialogue, bringing together Jews,
Christians and Muslims. There have been many initiatives, including those taken by the
associations mentioned in the last section. There are countless conferences and series of
lectures in which a Jew, a Christian and a Muslim are asked to expose their viewpoints on a
particular topic. Perhaps what is missing often in these events is a discussion among the
speakers. Yet sometimes this is provided for, if not through an immediate debate, at least in
the form of written comments and replies.
It must be admitted that the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict puts a serious obstacle in
the way of serene dialogue. A deal of courage is needed to open up to someone who is often
considered as the enemy, yet it is only right to acknowledge that there are Jews, Christians
and Muslims, within the area of conflict itself, who show such courage. They are surely
deserving of all the support they can be given.
5. UNIVERSAL FRATERNITY
Nostra Aetate ends with a paragraph that contains a forthright condemnation of all forms of
discrimination. It has to be said that, unfortunately, this paragraph too retains its relevance
today. There has been a recrudescence of anti-semitism in various countries of Europe,
sometimes taking the form of attacks on synagogues or the defacing of Jewish tombs. It may
be hoped that the recent commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the liberation of
Auschwitz, bringing renewed attention to the Sho’ah, will have made people realise the
depths of inhumanity to which discrimination can lead. Muslims too have suffered attacks on
their places of worship, and Christian churches have been burnt. The need to combat
terrorism can lead, if care is not taken, to discriminatory measures. Where religious leaders
have built up mutual knowledge and esteem, it has often been possible for them to protest
together against injustice and to intervene in order to reduce tension. This is certainly one
service that interreligious dialogue can contribute to the world. Nostra Aetate, which
encouraged Catholics to engage in such dialogue, can still provide inspiration and guidance.
1. The text actually reads “when men are drawing more closely together “. One of the changes that has taken
place over the last four decades is a greater attention to the need for inclusive language.
2. On this see the speech of John Paul II to the Roman Curia, 22 December 1986, in Francesco Gioia (ed.),
Interreligious Dialogue. The Official Teaching of the Catholic Church 1983-1 995, Boston, Pauline Books &
Media, 1997 n. 566.
3. A document of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue gives the following definition: “By
traditional religions we mean those religions which, unlike the world religions that have spread into many
countries and cultures, have remained in their original socio-cultural environment. The word “traditional” does
not refer to something static or unchangeable, but rather denotes the localized matrix... Whereas in Africa these
religions are ordinarily referred to as “African traditional religions “, in Asia, they are called “tribal religions”
and “folk religions “; in America, “native religions” and “Afro-American religions” and in Oceania, “indigenous
religions “. (Pastoral Attention to traditional Religions in Asia, America and Oceania, 1993. n. 1).
4. DONALD W. MITCHELL, Spirituality and Emptiness, New York/Mahwa, Paulist Press, 1991.
5. S. MARK HEIM, Salvations. Truth and Difference in Religion, Maryknoll, New York, Orbis Books, 1995.
6. The French translation of this passage uses the term estime, and the Italian stima. This shows that not too
much weight should be put on the qualifier in the English translation.
7. G.R.I.C., The challenge of the Scriptures The Bible and the Qur’an, Maryknoll, New York, Orbis Books,
1989 (original French edition 1987).
8. The West Coast Dialogue between American Catholics and Muslims, Friends and not Adversaries. A
Catholic-Muslim Spiritual Journey, in Islamochristiana 30(2004) pp. 171-187.