Abstract
The article examines the contributions of Pope Francis to the theology of religion and interreligious dialogue by examining his political, sociopolitical, and practical approach, and contrasting this approach with the doctrinal and theological dialogue and deploying the implications of his four principles—“time is greater than space”; “unity prevails over conflict”; “realities are more important than ideas”; and “the whole is greater than the part”—for the practice of interreligious dialogue.
Keywords
With the election of a new pope there inevitably arises, at least among Catholics, either the hope that he will bring needed changes in the church or the fear that he will resist needed changes and preserve the status quo. What kinds of hope or fear are harbored depends of course on the ones who hope or fear and on the kind of pope who is elected. In 2013 hopes and fears were heightened by the fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the first Jesuit and the first South American to be elected to the papacy. On the right, there was anxiety that he might not pursue the restorationist program of his two predecessors, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and would enact instead a Latin American liberationist agenda. On the left, some feared that he would react negatively to liberationist ideas, as he was alleged to have done with respect to some of his confreres when he was their provincial superior in Argentina. Others hoped that Francis would complete the unfinished businesses of Vatican II, including the reform of the Roman Curia, allowing optional priestly celibacy and the ordination of women, and liberalizing various issues of sexual ethics. In addition, the new pope was expected to resolve urgent recent problems such as clerical sex abuse, gay marriage, the Vatican’s financial scandals, the impact of globalization, climate change, and ecological destruction.
A New Mode of Petrine Ministry
To the surprise of both conservatives and liberals, Bergoglio, who took Saint Francis, “Il Poverello” of Assisi, not only as his name but also as his role model, began his pontificate by unostentatiously dropping the papal princely lifestyle, instituted sweeping changes in the Roman Curia, made use of the teachings of the episcopal conferences and the local churches, participated collegially in several synods of bishops, and issued a series of groundbreaking documents, on the mission of the church (Evangelii Gaudium), ecology (Laudato Si’ and Querida Amazonia), love in the family (Amoris Laetitia), and social friendship (Fratelli Tutti). 1
Francis was a man on a mission and in a hurry, perhaps thinking that at his age, there was no time to waste. Then, the coronavirus pandemic struck, bringing his reform agenda to a screeching halt. In the meantime, there was among some cardinals unprecedented open and concerted opposition to Francis’s performance of the Petrine ministry and teaching, especially in matters of sexuality and the family. 2 In this article, I will consider not the issues mentioned above but only one part of Francis’s agenda that is very important to him but on which he has not devoted a fully fledged and comprehensive document. I refer to interreligious dialogue, or to use Francis’s preferred expression, interreligious encounter. 3
With Nostra Aetate, the Catholic Church made a volte-face in its assessment of other religions. Though the shortest of all the sixteen conciliar documents, with only 1,141 words in 41 sentences and 5 numbered paragraphs in the original Latin, the declaration improbably became the magna carta of the church’s relations with non-Christian religions. 4 Of course, there lacked no vigorous opposition to the various postconciliar initiatives and theologies of interreligious dialogue, as the condemnation of several theological writings on religious pluralism and the declaration Dominus Iesus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (2000) under Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI readily show. 5 Francis inherited a contentious and ambiguous legacy on interreligious dialogue and has consistently and firmly pledged to promote mutual understanding between the Catholic Church and other religions. At the same time, the pope consistently avoided disputed questions in the theology of religions and emphasized mutual learning through forming friendships and spiritual accompaniment with the believers of other religions.
So far, most of the studies on Pope Francis deal with the themes treated in his various writings mentioned above, especially evangelization, sexual ethics, and ecology. There is still a dearth of scholarly investigations, at least in the English language, of his activities and thought on interreligious dialogue. 6 Francis approaches interreligious dialogue primarily as a pastor and a practical theologian and not as a systematic theologian like Benedict XVI, who was concerned mainly with expounding on the doctrinal and theological issues implicated in the dialogue between Christianity and non-Christian religions. Here, I will not discuss in full Francis’s activities in interreligious dialogue (e.g., his many meetings with the leaders of other religions), though I will appeal to his dialogue with Rabbi Abraham Skorka and his meetings with the Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyeb and with Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani as illustrations of Francis’s approach. Rather, I will use his more generic statements and obiter dicta to critique the current theology of religions and expand it in ways that may not meet with Francis’s approval.
Pope Francis’s Sociocultural Approach to Interreligious Dialogue
One of Pope Francis’s key refrains is that interreligious dialogue is an indispensable and effective way to resolve all kinds of conflicts (not just religious), restore peace and harmony, build up social justice, and preserve ecological integrity. Already as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina, Bergoglio had conducted a prolonged dialogue with Rabbi Abraham Skorka on various and sundry topics of immediate interest to Argentinians. Bergoglio gave an expansive description of what dialogue is and how it should be done: Dialogue is born of a respectful attitude toward another person, from a conviction that the other person has something good to say. It supposes that we can make room in our heart for their point of view, their opinion and their proposals. Dialogue entails a warm reception and not a preemptive condemnation. To dialogue, one must know how to lower the defenses, to open the doors of one’s home and to offer warmth.
7
For Francis, then, profound respect for the other, sincere willingness to learn from different points of view, and friendly hospitality are the virtues needed for genuine dialogue of any kind. One of the topics discussed by the rabbi and the archbishop was their practice of interreligious dialogue itself. Bergoglio proudly recounted how, at his inauguration as Archbishop of Buenos Aires in 2009, he had arranged for the president of the country to greet all of the representatives of other faiths, and not just Christian authorities. Also, during the ceremony, the representatives of other faiths, and not only Catholics, offered their own prayers. Such gestures, the rabbi agreed, show how interfaith dialogue was important for Bergoglio, who also mentioned that he had accepted Skorka’s two invitations to speak at his synagogue and that he had invited Skorka to speak to his seminarians. 8
In his first writing as pope, Evangelii Gaudium, 9 Francis speaks of dialogue in three areas to promote full human development and the common good: dialogue with the state; dialogue with society, including cultures and the sciences; and dialogue with non-Catholic Christians (ecumenical dialogue) and with non-Christian believers (interreligious dialogue). Regarding interreligious dialogue, the pope first speaks of the conditions for such dialogue, such as “an attitude of openness in truth and love,” so that dialogue partners can “learn to accept others and their different ways of living, thinking and speaking” (EG, §250). The pope immediately stresses the intrinsic social dimension of interreligious dialogue: “We can then join one another in taking up the duty of serving justice and peace, which should become a basic principle of all our exchanges” (EG, §250). Next, the pope affirms the essential bond between dialogue and proclamation: “Evangelization and interreligious dialogue, far from being opposed, mutually support and nourish one another” (EG, §251). The pope warns that “a facile syncretism” must be avoided and that it is necessary to remain “steadfast in one’s deepest convictions, clear and joyful in one’s own identity” (EG, §251). Later I will discuss Pope Francis’s view on the dialogue with Judaism, Islam, Asian religious traditions, and religious nonbelievers.
In Querida Amazonia, Francis urges an “ecumenical and interreligious co-existence.” His insistence on the primacy of cultural and social dialogue is explicit: “In an Amazonian region characterized by many religions, we believers need to find occasions to speak to one another and act together for the common good and the promotion of the poor.” 10 The pope adds that this sociocultural dialogue does not hide or water down the theological convictions of the Christian faith that form the Christian identity; rather, “if we believe that the Holy Spirit can work amid differences, then we will try to let ourselves be enriched by that insight, while embracing it from the core of our own convictions and our own identity” (QA, §106).
In his latest encyclical, Fratelli Tutti, Francis comes closest to formulating his theology of interreligious dialogue. 11 Consistent with his theme of fraternity and social friendship, which the pope says has been a concern of his (FT, §5), Francis says he intends to follow the footsteps and approach of his namesake: “Francis did not wage a war of words aimed at imposing doctrines; he simply spread the love of God” (FT, §4). He goes on to recall his meeting with the Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, with whom he signed the “Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together” in Abu Dhabi on February 4, 2019. 12 Clearly, interreligious dialogue is envisaged by Francis as a way to achieve a pragmatic goal, namely, world peace, or to put it in his signature expression, “human fraternity.” It is most noteworthy that in both documents, Evangelii Gaudium and Fratelli Tutti, Francis places interreligious dialogue in the context of social dialogue, the goal of which is, says the pope, quoting from the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India, “to establish friendship, peace and harmony, and to share spiritual and moral values and experiences in a spirit of truth and love” (FT, §271). 13
Sociocultural Encounter vs. Theological Dialogue
This predominantly sociocultural approach to interreligious dialogue is simultaneously Francis’s strength and weakness. On the one hand, it harnesses the energies of all religions to achieve concrete and tangible goals, not least the elimination of religious violence, which is an urgent need in our time of religious indifference and fundamentalism. It brings together believers of different religions or even nonbelievers, who might not come together at all to work for the common good if the focus is placed on doctrine. It also moves interreligious dialogue out of the restricted circle of religious specialists and involves every ordinary citizen, irrespective of their church standing, scholarly achievement, and ecclesial tradition. This approach has been shown to be very effective in resolving conflicts of all types, meeting the challenges of material destruction by natural disasters and improving the living standard of the communities, especially in Asian countries. These effects can be empirically measured and assessed with objective criteria. Finally, this shared common life and collaboration for the common good may, albeit not always, give rise to theological exchange and spiritual sharing.
On the other hand, despite its practical effects, this mode of interreligious dialogue often, for strategic purposes, tends to eschew doctrinal dialogue and leaves unexamined and unchanged the theological claims that have fueled suspicion, hatred, and violence in the first place. Among these claims are, for instance, (1) the uniqueness and universality of Jesus as savior; (2) the truth and superiority of Christianity over all other religions; (3) the divine origin of Christian revelation, sacred books, and rituals in contrast to the allegedly purely human character of those of other religions; (4) the missionary obligation to “proclaim” the Gospel to all; and (5) the necessity of converting other believers and unbelievers to Christianity and, more specifically, to the Catholic Church, which alone and exclusively is said to possess all the means of salvation. Admittedly, these theological claims by themselves do not lead to violence. However, when backed up by the superior economic, political, and military power of colonialist nations associated with Christianity, which has not been rare, together they make a combustible mix to ignite oppression and war against other believers and unbelievers, as history has borne witness.
To date, Francis has not dealt explicitly and at length with any of these five Christian claims. He has simply repeated Vatican II’s teaching on the possibility of salvation for all, including non-Christians and unbelievers, on certain conditions, as stated especially in Lumen Gentium (§16), Ad Gentes (§9), and Nostra Aetate. 14 He insists that “evangelization and interreligious dialogue, far from being opposed, mutually support and nourish each other” and that in interreligious dialogue a “facile syncretism” must be avoided (EG, §251). He insists that Christians “believe firmly in Jesus as the sole Redeemer of the world” (QA, §107). He maintains that in interreligious dialogue Christians must hold on to their “Christian identity” (FT, §277). His continued use of the traditional expressions such as “proclamation” to designate Christian mission implies that the church has the whole truth to teach non-Christians with authority (“proclaim”).
Pope Francis’s emphasis on cultural and social dialogue among believers does not, of course, eliminate theological and doctrinal dialogue. In Evangelii Gaudium, he deals with interreligious dialogue as part of the Christian mission. Interestingly, just as the Commission for Religious Relations with Jews is part of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and not the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Francis does not consider relations with Judaism as part of “interreligious dialogue” but assigns them a special place, given the unique relations between Judaism and Christianity. Of course, the history of the relations of the Catholic Church with the Jews and the State of Israel has been extremely fraught and has received very extensive treatment. This must be presupposed in our discussion of Francis’s statements on Jews and Judaism. Here, suffice to note that, for Francis, “as Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion, nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God” (EG, §247). He goes on to note that “while it is true that certain Christian beliefs are unacceptable to Judaism, and the Church cannot refrain from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah, there exists as well a rich complementarity which allows us to read the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures together and to help one another to mine the riches of God’s word. We can also share many ethical convictions and a common concern for justice and the development of peoples” (EG, §249). 15
While there is nothing objectionable or pathbreaking in Francis’s statement about the relations between Christianity and Judaism, it is regrettable that his insistence on the duty of the Church to proclaim to the Jews “Jesus as Lord and Messiah” has not taken into account the vast and highly contentious literature on the Christian mission to the Jews.
16
Recently, beginning on June 23, 2021, Francis said, in a series of reflections on the Letter to the Galatians at the Wednesday addresses, that “the Law, however, does not give life.”
17
The pope’s ambiguous remark alarmed Israel’s Chief Rabbinate, who feared that it might endorse “the teaching of contempt” and imply a form of supersessionism already rejected by Vatican II. It asked Cardinal Kurt Koch, the president of the Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations with Jews, to convey its distress to Pope Francis and to ask him to ensure that any derogatory conclusions about the Mosaic Law and Judaism that might be drawn from his homily are categorically repudiated. Pope Francis’s overall attitude to and past statements on Jews and Judaism certainly do not imply in any way supersessionism on his part. In response, the pope later clarified during the general audience on September 29, 2021, We must not, however, conclude that the Mosaic Law, for Paul, had lost its value; rather, it remains an irrevocable gift from God. It is, the Apostle writes, “holy” (Rm 7:12). Even for our spiritual life, observing the commandments is essential. But even here, we cannot count on our efforts: the grace of God that we receive in Christ is fundamental. That grace comes from being the justification given us by Christ who already paid for us. From Him, we receive that gratuitous love that allows us, in our turn, to love in concrete ways.
18
This unfortunate incident shows that in the fraught relations between Christians and Jews, especially after the Holocaust, extreme care must be taken to avoid giving in word and deed even a hint of supersessionism. 19
Regarding Islam, Francis notes the recent phenomenon of the significant presence of Muslims in traditionally Christian countries and stresses the greater need for dialogue between Christians and Muslims. He highlights the doctrinal commonalities between the two religions, especially monotheism, the Abrahamic heritage, the profound veneration of Jesus and Mary, and many other pious practices. Of course, these doctrinal commonalities, albeit with important differences, could provide a firm basis for a theological dialogue between Christianity and Islam, especially to clarify the common misinterpretations of the trinitarian and christological doctrines among Muslims. However, the pope’s concern for the sociocultural and not theological aspects of interreligious dialogue also shines through his encounter with Islam, especially in his urging that affection and respect be extended by Christians to Muslim migrants (EG, §253) and in his request that Islam-majority countries grant Christians “freedom to worship and to practice their faith, in the light of the freedom which followers of Islam enjoy in Western countries” (EG, §253).
Mention has been made of Francis’s meeting in early 2019 with Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Ahmed Al-Tayyeb and their common issuance of the “Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together.” Two years later, in March 2021, on his first international journey since the COVID-19 pandemic began, Pope Francis accepted the invitation of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, a highly revered Shia authority, to visit him at his humble quarters in Najaf, Iraq. According to the Ayatollah’s offices, their extended “discussion revolved around the great challenges facing humanity, the role of faith in Almighty God, God’s messages, and the high moral values needed to live up to them.” 20
Finally, concerning other non-Christian religions such as primal religions, Hinduism, and Buddhism, the pope reiterates the affirmation of Lumen Gentium §16 that non-Christians, when they live faithfully according to their consciences, can live “justified by the grace of God” and thus be “associated to the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ” (EG, §254). The implications of his statement that these religions can be “channels” by which the Holy Spirit works for their adherents’ salvation will be elaborated below. Francis also acknowledges that Christians must learn from the “various forms of practical wisdom” of non-Christian believers, their witnesses to their faith through suffering, and their struggle to live in peace and harmony because Christians can “benefit from these treasures built up over many centuries, which can help us better to live our own beliefs” (EG, §254). 21
New Openings in the Theology of Religions and Interreligious Encounter?
Despite his rather mainstream affirmations about non-Christian religions, some of Francis’s statements seem to open the door, however slightly, for revising and modifying the current teachings of the Catholic Church on the five issues listed above. Underlying these five issues is the question of whether non-Christian religions are “ways of salvation,” not only de facto but de iure, that is, by God’s will and design. In other words, if non-Christians are saved and the possibility of their salvation is affirmed by Vatican II and by Pope Francis, are they saved in spite of or because of their faith in the teachings of their religious founders and by faithfully practicing what they enjoin? Of course, salvation only comes from God and not from any religion, including Christianity. Religions only function as “ways and means,” as “signs and instruments,” or in theological terminology, as “sacraments,” that is, the efficacious signs in and through which God’s saving grace operates in history. More abstractly, religions are not the efficient cause but only the instrumental cause of salvation.
Concerning the salvific power of non-Christian religions, Francis explicitly acknowledges that God’s work in non-Christians “tends to produce signs and rites, sacred expressions which in turn brings others to a communitarian experience of journeying towards God” (EG, §254). In other words, it is God, and not humans, that establishes what we call non-Christian “religions,” and God does so through human founders, or in the case of Hinduism, through its sacred texts. Therefore, non-Christian religions, despite their doctrinal and moral deficiencies, take their origins from and lie within the divine economy of salvation, just as Christianity, with its own doctrinal and moral deficiencies, does.
Francis even calls non-Christian religions “channels which the Holy Spirit raises up to liberate non-Christians from atheistic immanentism or from purely individual religious experiences,” though they “lack the meaning and efficacy of the sacraments instituted by Christ” (EG, §254). 22 “Channels” used by the Holy Spirit may be, I suggest, regarded as the theological equivalents of “sacraments.” It is true that the pope hastens to add that non-Christian religions “lack the meaning and efficacy of the sacraments instituted by Christ.” This judgment on non-Christian religions, however, applies only to their objective status, that is, their validity (ex opere operato), and not to their subjective effects on the non-Christian faithful, that is, their efficaciousness (ex opero operantis). Furthermore, “instituted by Christ,” when referring to the historical origin of the sacraments, is to be understood analogically, that is, not all the seven sacraments can be traced back to Christ directly, as can baptism and the Eucharist. Thus, the fact that non-Christian religions cannot be said to be instituted directly by Christ does not lessen their sanctifying power. Finally, it is important to note that this evaluative judgment of non-Christian religions and the claim for the superiority of Christianity and its sacraments are done from the perspective of Christian criteria of “true religion” (vera religio). These criteria are not appropriate for comparative purposes, just as it would be inappropriate to use, for instance, Buddhist criteria of “true religion” to judge Christianity and declare that it is objectively deficient. By the same token, though Christians claim to have at their disposal the sacraments in their fullness, they may not and indeed often do not benefit from their full efficaciousness due to their defective spiritual condition and imperfect reception.
Furthermore, Francis explicitly acknowledges that interreligious dialogue can be “a process in which, by mutual listening, both parts [Christian and non-Christian] can be purified and enriched” (EG, §250, emphasis added). The pope pointedly notes that Christians can benefit from the teachings and practices of other religions to be better Christians (EG, §254). In this way, the Christian mission is not to be understood as a one-directional activity of Christians to non-Christians (missio ad gentes) but a reciprocal “evangelization” among other believers (missio inter gentes) and with them (missio cum gentibus). 23 In light of this, Francis’s continued use of the language of “proclamation,” albeit traditional, to refer to Christian mission is rather infelicitous as it connotes authoritative declaration by the superior speaker to a submissive audience rather than humble and sincere mutual listening, which should characterize, according to the pope, the dialogue between Christians and non-Christians, who purify and enrich one another. 24
As for conversion, during his meeting with the bishops of Asia on the Sixth Asian Youth Day in Korea on August 17, 2014, Pope Francis said that in fraternal/sisterly dialogue “with my identity and my empathy, my openness, I walk with the other. I don’t try to make him come over me. I don’t proselytize.” 25 He acknowledges that “God will move hearts and someone will ask for baptism, sometimes not. But always let us walk together. This is the heart of dialogue.” 26
Pope Francis’s affirmative answer, though not systematically elaborated, to the question about the de iure salvific efficacy of non-Christian religions and the need to walk together with non-Christians in the interreligious encounter, in my judgment, suggests the possibility of revisiting the questions of the uniqueness and universality of Jesus as savior; the truth and superiority of Christianity over all other religions; the divine origin of Christian revelation, sacred books, and rituals in contrast to the allegedly purely human character of those of other religions; the missionary obligation to “proclaim” the Gospel to all; and the necessity of converting non-Christian believers and unbelievers to Christianity and, more specifically, to the Catholic Church, which alone and exclusively is said to have all the means of salvation.
Concerning the uniqueness and universality of Jesus Christ as savior, for instance, the claim that non-Christian religions, by God’s will, possess salvific efficacy will qualify the force of this christological belief. It does not deny what Christians believe about Jesus as the unique and universal savior but it does qualify “unique” and “universal” by including within it the belief that other religions and religious founders do play a role in the salvation of at least their followers. Furthermore, if it is true, as the pope asserts, that Christians can benefit from the teachings and practices of other religions to be better Christians (EG, §254), it would follow that the salvific impact of non-Christian religions and religious founders is not limited to their adherents but extends to Christians as well.
While some may fear that the claim of uniqueness and universality of Jesus as savior will be denied or watered down by this admission of non-Christian religions being divinely willed “channels” of salvation, it may be argued that this new doctrinal development is an expansion of the christological belief thanks to the church’s better knowledge of non-Christian religions and its members’ closer friendship with their non-Christian neighbors. Pope Francis himself gives a reassuring and encouraging description of the development and growth of the church’s understanding and formulation of doctrines: Within the Church, countless issues are being studied and reflected upon with great freedom. Differing currents of thought in philosophy, theology, and pastoral practice, if open to being reconciled by the Spirit in respect and love, can enable the Church to grow, since all of them help to express more clearly the immense riches of God’s word. For those who long for a monolithic body of doctrines guarded by all and leaving no room for nuances, this might appear as undesirable and leading to confusion. But in fact, such variety serves to bring out and develop different facets of the inexhaustible riches of the Gospel. (EG, §40)
In the footnote to this quotation, Francis invokes St. Thomas to defend the necessity of multiplicity and variety in doctrinal expressions. The note concludes, “We need to listen to and complement one another in our partial reception of reality and the Gospel” (EG, note 44).
It is in the context of doctrinal development that I suggest that the claim of uniqueness and universality of Jesus as unique and universal savior, the doctrine on the church as the necessary and unique means of salvation, and the axiom that there is no salvation outside the church (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) must be qualified and reinterpreted in the light of Francis’s implicit affirmation of the salvific role of non-Christian religions and vice versa. Similarly, the traditional teachings on the superiority of Christianity, conversion as the goal of Christian mission, and the role of “proclamation” in evangelization call for a fresh reformulation that takes into account the facts on the ground produced by the interreligious encounter.
To be fruitful, interreligious dialogue must be carried out in the spirit of what Francis calls “human fraternity” and “social friendship.” The pope elaborates expansively on this virtue and shows how it must be practiced in all areas of life to resolve the many challenges facing humanity today, from globalization to the COVID-19 pandemic, migration, populist and liberal politics, the death penalty, war, and religious violence. Meditating on the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:25–37), Francis urges that we become “neighbors without borders” to all strangers (FT, §§56–86).
Among the strangers are the believers of non-Christian religions. Pope Francis devotes the last chapter of his encyclical to the role of religions “in the service of fraternity in our world” (FT, §§271–87). He points out that human fraternity is based on the fact that we are all children of God, “the visible image of the invisible God” (FT, §272); the denial of this transcendent truth, he says, quoting his predecessor St. John Paul II, gave rise to modern totalitarianism. Affirming this truth allows believers of all religions to be “traveling companions, truly brothers and sisters” (FT, §274). Thus, religions are not restricted to the private sphere; even though religious ministers must not engage in party politics, religions must not renounce “the political dimension of life itself” (FT, §276).
In this context of collaboration among religions for the common good, Pope Francis affirms that “the Church esteems the ways in which God works in other religions” and reiterates Nostra Aetate (§2), in which the council expresses the church’s high regard for “their manner of life and conduct, their precepts and doctrines” (FT, §277). For this interreligious dialogue, Francis strongly urges that we create “a social covenant”: “Such a covenant also demands the realization that some things may have to be renounced for the common good. No one can possess the whole truth or satisfy his or her every desire since that pretension would lead to nullifying others by denying their rights” (FT, §111). Social friendship and the social covenant in interreligious dialogue lead the participants to reject the arrogant and even colonialist overtones that have attached to doctrines of any religious tradition as they came to be formulated in the context of controversies and even violent conflicts. In so doing, all religions are challenged to realize that “some things may be renounced for the common good,” as Pope Francis has noted. Pope Francis does not specify which things “may be renounced for the common good,” perhaps because which these things are cannot be determined a priori, apart from the social covenant and fraternal friendship accompanying interreligious dialogue. Note that the pope does not say that they should be denied outright. They will only be “renounced,” that is, maintained within one’s religious tradition and reformulated if necessary but not imposed on others, to avoid nullifying the rights of others to affirm theirs. This approach has been recommended for ecumenical dialogue. For instance, it has been suggested that the Catholic dogmas that were promulgated in the second millennium need not be accepted by non-Catholic churches for the restoration of unity. 27 May not the same be said in interreligious dialogue, that “some things may be renounced for the common good”?
Philosophical Grounding for Interreligious Encounter
In his discussion of “the common good and peace in society,” Francis propounds four principles that he claims derive from the church’s social doctrine and that “can guide the development of life in society and the building of a people where differences are harmonized within a shared pursuit” (EG, §221). Francis enumerates them as follows: “time is greater than space”; “unity prevails over conflict”; “realities are more important than ideas”; and “the whole is greater than the part” (EG, §§222–37). These four philosophical principles form the bedrock of what may be termed, somewhat grandly, “Francisian metaphysics.” 28 While Francis applies them to the building up of a harmonious society, it is helpful to examine their implications for the interreligious encounter.
Time Is Greater than Space
“Time” and “space” stand in Francisian metaphysics for “fullness” and “limitation,” respectively. Time as fullness is “an expression of the horizon which constantly opens before us, while each individual moment has to do with limitation as an expression of enclosure,” that is, space (EG, §222). For Francis, “time” refers to reality’s dynamic and processive aspect and orientation to the future, that is, its eschatological character. People live between “each individual moment and the greater, brighter horizon of the utopian future as the final cause which draws us to itself” (EG, §222). Francis draws the practical implications of this principle for social action: This principle enables us to work slowly but surely without being obsessed with immediate results. . . . Giving priority to time means being concerned about initiating processes rather than possessing spaces. Time governs spaces, illumines them, and makes them links in a constantly expanding chain, with no possibility of return. . . . What we need, then, is to give priority to actions that generate new processes in society and engage other persons and groups who can develop them to the point where they bear fruits in significant historical events. Without anxiety, but with clear convictions and tenacity. (EG, §223)
A Jesuit with extensive experience in the Spiritual Exercises, Francis may have derived this basic insight from the Ignatian concept of the “more” (magis), the “more” being the horizon that invites further action and gives meaning to the results of the actions achieved. Ultimately, the horizon, in the Christian faith, is none other than God, for whose honor all things exist and all actions are done (ad maiorem Dei gloriam). The “more” is not identical with “the best, the most, and the greatest” but is, as Francis puts it, “the final cause which draws us to itself.”
This movement to the “more” can be analogized to Karl Rahner’s notions of “excessus” and “Vorgrief,” whereby humans, in knowing and loving, reach out toward the Horizon of Truth and Goodness (“transcendental knowledge”) but never grasp it as an object of thought and love (“categorical knowledge”). As we move toward the horizon, it ever recedes, eluding our grasp, precisely because it is the horizon. The only way we can reach the horizon is for it to come to us and graciously bestow itself upon us while remaining the ever-greater Magis. 29
In interreligious dialogue, the same dynamic applies. In interreligious meetings among people of different faiths, common folk as well as theological experts, a specific sociopolitical and economic project for collaboration is planned, or a particular doctrine is placed under discussion. In the end, the project may or may not be carried out, or the doctrine may or may not garner consensus. But success and failure should not terminate the dialogue process, which must be initiated again and again since “time,” the fullness of unity, rather than “space,” a particular project or agreement, is the goal of the dialogue. Furthermore, full religious unity, like the horizon, never falls within our grasp, imprisoned as we often are in our own religious traditions. If and when it is finally realized, it is experienced as a gift, like the ever-receding horizon graciously bestowing itself upon us as we move toward religious unity. That is why, of the four modalities of dialogue—common life, practical collaboration, theological exchange, and shared spiritual experience—the last is the most important and also the most challenging, since in it we can have a glimpse, and only a glimpse, of the horizon, whom Karl Rahner calls “Holy Mystery,” and experience its gracious presence. 30
During the Prayer for Christian Unity at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Wall on January 25, 2015, Pope Francis said, So many past controversies between Christians can be overcome when we put aside all polemical or apologetic approaches, and seek instead to grasp more fully what unites us, namely, our call to share in the mystery of the Father’s love revealed to us by the Son through the Holy Spirit. Christian unity—we are convinced—will not be the fruit of subtle theoretical discussions in which each party tries to convince the other of the soundness of their opinions. When the Son of Man comes, he will find us still discussing! We need to realize that, to plumb the depths of the mystery of God, we need one another, we need to encounter one another and to challenge one another under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who harmonizes diversities, overcomes conflicts, reconciles differences.
31
What the pope says of ecumenical unity should be applied, mutatis mutandis, to interreligious dialogue. What is being sought in interreligious dialogue is not a universal, global religion, a common denominator, as it were, underlying all religions, which are shorn of all the particularities that make each religion unique. Rather, in plumbing “the depths of the mystery of God,” all religions preserve what is uniquely true and good in themselves, correct their own deficiencies and errors in the light of the teachings and practices of other religions, and help one another to grasp ever more fully the Holy Reality that will ever elude their reach.
Unity Prevails over Conflict
Francis acknowledges that conflicts cannot be ignored but must be faced. However, he maintains that in the midst of conflicts we must not lose sight of “the profound unity of reality” (EG, §226). He points out that there are three ways of dealing with conflicts: ignoring them in total indifference; surrendering to them out of fear and lack of courage, thus becoming their prisoners; or being willing “to face [the] conflict head-on, to resolve it and to make it a link in the chain of a new process” (EG, §227).
The third way, which Francis favors, is made possible by the principle that unity prevails over conflict. The pope finds its justification in the fact that “Christ has made all things one in himself: heaven and earth, God and man, time and eternity, flesh and spirit, person and society” (EG, §229). This unity, centered in Christ, energized by the Holy Spirit, and expressed and realized in the sacraments, as Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism asserts, is the basis for the unity of all the Christian churches, divided though they are. 32 Francis suggests that diversity should not lead to conflict: “Diversity is a beautiful thing when it can constantly enter into a process of reconciliation and seal a sort of cultural covenant resulting in a ‘reconciled diversity’” (EG, §230). “Reconciled diversity,” or “differentiated consensus,” and not the return of the heretics and schismatics to the one true church nor a complete acceptance of uniformity by all the churches, is the goal of ecumenism because reconciled diversity welcomes diversity as a divine gift and reconciles conflicting partners when necessary on the basis of the fundamental unity that may be broken but cannot be destroyed.
While Pope Francis uses this principle to promote peace in the world and restore ecumenical unity among the divided Christian churches, it can and should be extended to interreligious dialogue. Despite their religious differences, believers of different religions are deeply united among themselves. Vatican II’s Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, affirms that despite their conflicts, which at times have been violent and deadly, believers of all religions are intrinsically united with one another because “humanity forms but one community” (Nostra Aetate, §1), rooted as they are in their common origin and their shared destiny. Just as in ecumenical dialogue the ontological unity of all Christians in Christ prevails over the historical conflicts among the churches, so also in interreligious dialogue the intrinsic unity of all human beings prevails over their religious conflicts. It is precisely the collective awareness of this unity of the human race prior to all religious differences that ultimately brings the disputing parties together to search for solutions to their conflicts.
Furthermore, in the light of this preexisting unity, the claims of uniqueness, universality, superiority, and exclusiveness, which not only Christianity but many if not all other religions make for themselves, lose much of their rhetorical bluntness and force. These claims have often proved to be insurmountable obstacles to genuine interreligious dialogue and at times sources of armed conflict and violence, especially when they are made by a dominant religion with the concomitant supersessionist intent to replace and abolish the others and not rarely working in tandem with secular power. Are these claims not among the things that may be “renounced for the common good,” in the sense I suggested above, claims that are made redundant by the principle that “unity prevails over conflict”? If the purpose of interreligious dialogue is to recover and foster the original unity that binds all believers and unbelievers together, should not claims that have proved divisive and harmful for interreligious relations in the past be qualified, even abandoned, all the more so since their renunciation not only does not reduce the truth and value of the religions that have made them but also renders them more acceptable to others because of the attitude of humility and honesty underlying their renunciation?
It is also important to note that this unity does not annul plurality and differences. In the “Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together” referenced above, Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Ahmed Al-Tayyeb state, “The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race, and language are willed by God in his wisdom, through which he created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different.” 33 The part in this statement that conservatives such as Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith, find most objectionable, even heretical, is Pope Francis’s affirmation that the pluralism and diversity of religions “are willed by God in his wisdom.” 34 This statement validates my earlier suggestion that, for Francis, non-Christian religions may be regarded as “ways of salvation,” the unity of God’s salvific design prevailing over the “conflict” of religious pluralism.
Realities Are More Important than Ideas
Francis states the difference between reality and idea tersely: “Realities simply are, whereas ideas are worked out” (EG, §231). Because of the Francisian principle that realities are greater than ideas, it is necessary to reject the various means of masking realities: “angelic forms of purity, dictatorships of relativism, empty rhetoric, objectives more ideal than real, brands of ahistorical fundamentalism, ethical systems bereft of kindness, intellectual discourse bereft of wisdom” (EG, §231). Of course, Francis does not devalue ideas, which are, he says, “at the service of communication, understanding, and praxis” (EG, §213). However, ideas run the risk of being disconnected from reality, as in nominalism and idealism, useful only for classifying and defining things but incapable of moving people to act.
That this Francisian principle is especially needed in our time is obvious to anyone who has followed recent politics in the United States, where “alternative facts” and “fake news” are the order of the day and reality is reduced to partisan representations and rhetoric. Of course, realities do not present themselves to our eyes as they are; on the contrary, they require a mind that is open to truth and not given to conspiracy theories, and a critical interpretation according to well-established objective norms to determine if ideas are based on facts or fanciful inventions. Francisian epistemology is not naïve realism—according to which to know is, as Bernard Lonergan puts it, just to take a look—but critical realism, which requires the knower to perform a fourfold task of investigation of the datum (experiencing), its meaning (understanding), its truth (judging), and its value (evaluating). 35 The last act indicates the necessity of translating ideas into action, which Francis explicitly insists on: “This principle impels us to put the word into practice, to perform works of justice and charity which make that word fruitful. Not to put the word into practice, not to make it reality, is to build on sand, to remain in the realm of pure ideas and to end up in a lifeless and unfruitful self-centeredness and Gnosticism” (EG, §233).
Again, this third principle can and should be extended to interreligious dialogue, especially in its mode of theological exchange. In this type of dialogue, not rarely does it happen that a dialogue partner insists that the concept or even the word of his or her religious tradition is the only correct expression of the sacred realities that are under discussion. Needless to say, this approach conflates reality with idea, or worse, with a particular word. Again, it is important to note that Francis does not deny the necessity of ideas; after all, he makes use of ideas to convey to us what he thinks about certain things. To be precise, the third Francisian principle only says that realities are more important than ideas (and words) and not that ideas are not important. To put it simply, we must avoid missing the forest (realities) for the trees (ideas).
Furthermore, the most productive way to know religious and divine realities treated in interreligious dialogue, as opposed to mundane realities, is not only by means of ideas but also through mystical experiences. Among contemporary theologians who have eloquently insisted that the divine must be approached through mysticism are Karl Rahner (1904–1984) and Raimon Panikkar (1918–2010). We have encountered Rahner above when we spoke of his concept of the Absolute and Holy Mystery as the transcendental horizon of our thinking and loving. Here, it is helpful to recall his celebrated dictum that Christians of the future must be mystics if they want to be Christian at all. 36 Panikkar argues that to achieve a holistic knowledge of reality, not only the sociohistorical and philosophical approaches are required but, more importantly, a sophianic approach is needed. By “sophianic,” Panikkar means “wisdom”—and not just scientific and philosophical knowledge—and by the sophianic approach, he means “an experience that transforms our lives and incorporates us into the destiny of the universe . . . an intuition capable of giving us an orientation in life, even if for the time being, for our being in time.” 37 Clearly, the Francisian third principle falls within the same epistemological framework as Rahner’s and Panikkar’s for interreligious dialogue.
As a consequence of this third principle, it is important, when disagreements arise in interreligious theological dialogue, to ask what the reality is that is being expressed by such an idea or expression; whether this idea or expression adequately represents this reality, which is always unlikely since reality is greater than ideas; and whether such representation should be modified and complemented by another representation or even “renounced” since “realities are more important than ideas.”
The Whole Is Greater than the Part
Francis gives a fuller formulation of this fourth principle: “The whole is greater than the part, but it is also greater than the sum of its parts” (EG, §235). The first part of the principle is self-evident if “whole” and “part” are taken as quantitative or mathematical elements. The second part is derived from Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Book VIII, 1045a.8–10, where he says that “in the case of all things which have several parts and in which the whole is not, as it were, a mere heap, but the totality is something besides the parts, there is a cause of unity.” 38
Interestingly, Pope Francis does not apply this principle, which is operative in system and Gestalt theories, to ecclesiology, in which the church is more than the collection of local churches or individual Christians (a “mere heap”), or to the debate about the priority of the universal church or the local churches. 39 Rather, he applies it to the tension between globalization and localization. For him, “we need to pay attention to the global so as to avoid narrowness and banality. Yet we also need to look to the local, which keeps our feet on the ground” (EG, §234). Globalization constantly broadens our horizons and helps us achieve the greater good that benefits all. Localization sinks our roots into the fertile soil and history of our native place: “We can work on a small scale, in our own neighborhood, but with a larger perspective” (EG, §235).
Pope Francis concludes his reflections on the relation between the whole and the parts by highlighting two models: the sphere and the polyhedron. The sphere, he says, is not greater than its parts, where all the points are equidistant from the center and have no differences between them; it is, therefore, an inappropriate model for social action. By contrast, the polyhedron, which “reflects the convergence of all the parts, each of which preserves its distinctiveness” (EG, §236), is the fitting symbol of the universality and the locality of the Good News: “The Gospel has an intrinsic principle of totality: it will always remain good news until it has been proclaimed to all people, until it has healed and strengthened every aspect of humanity, until it has brought all men and women together at [the] table in God’s kingdom. The whole is greater than the part” (EG, §237). 40
This Francisian principle applies to interreligious dialogue as well. As was pointed out above, the goal of the interreligious encounter is not to establish a new, global religion into which all religions are absorbed, all their particular and local specificities flattened or erased. On the contrary, all the religious differences that do not jeopardize the unity of humankind, in both its origin and its destiny, must be preserved and promoted so that they can enrich our religious heritage. As Pope Francis rightly insists, participants in the interreligious dialogue must be deeply rooted in their religious identities and must not conceal or abandon them to forge a generic religion. By the same token, it must be remembered that religious identity is not static, nor does it remain unchanged throughout a person’s life. One of the effects of the interreligious encounter is personal spiritual transformation, and at times it causes a change in religious affiliation (“conversion”) or multiple religious belonging. 41 Religions, especially world religions, have always crisscrossed the globe, have been transformed by the encounter with other religions, and in the process have borrowed their doctrines, sacred books, rituals, spiritual practices, and organizational structures. They incorporated those that are not contradictory to them and at times developed into different “denominations” or traditions, though they remain recognizably the same. But even the so-called “minor” religious traditions are no longer restricted to their places of origins; migration, globalization, ease of travel, and social media have opened up new venues for them to spread around the globe.
Thus, for instance, as it moved out of India to Sri Lanka, China, Tibet, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam, to mention only a few countries where it is a significant presence, Buddhism encountered local religious traditions and developed new “Buddhisms,” schools, or sects, but remains recognizably “Buddhism” in its basic core. The same thing may be said of Christianity in its varied “churches” or “denominations”: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, Evangelical, Pentecostal, Independent, and so on. “Syncretism,” as a sociological and anthropological process, is the normal pattern of religious evolution and not an aberration. To a certain extent, all religions practice syncretism; otherwise, they cannot survive in new environments. The question is not whether syncretism is necessary but how it is done. The issue is whether the elements of other religions that are incorporated into one’s religion are coherent with or at least not contradictory to its basic tenets. The challenge is to develop criteria for a healthy syncretism and describe the process by which this type of syncretism is carried out. 42
Furthermore, in interreligious encounters, one meets not Buddhism or Christianity in general and in the abstract, but Buddhists and Christians of various types in the flesh as it were. We encounter, to use Francisian terminology, both the whole and the parts, both globalization and localization, never the one without the other. The challenge is not to be bogged down or overwhelmed by local differences, miss the bigger picture of the whole, and thus frustrate the goals of interreligious understanding and collaboration. Similarly, it is necessary not to be captivated by the generalities of the whole and miss the rich varieties and particularities of local religious embodiments.
Leo Lefebure succinctly and brilliantly summarizes Pope Francis’s distinctive approach to interreligious dialogue: Pope Francis’s interreligious initiatives face formidable obstacles and tensions. Interreligious conflicts continue to rage, while the call for integral ecology has not yet evoked responses adequate to the crisis of the present time. Nonetheless, his appeals for friendship have been widely reciprocated and his efforts at understanding widely appreciated. He has gained the attention of the world community on a level that few figures can approach. In a world of unbearable cruelty and suffering, Francis trusts not primarily human efforts but finds in mercy a point of encounter with all other religious traditions as well as secular humanists.
43
Conclusion
From its very beginning, Pope Francis’s Petrine ministry has been full of surprises and he has been a man of contradictions. He has given hope to many—Christians, other believers, and secular humanists—especially with his pastoral approach of mercy, but he has also met with fierce opposition, even from within, among the upper echelon of the hierarchy, some of whom have publicly attacked his orthodoxy and called for his resignation. In his teachings on evangelization, marriage and sexuality, ecology, and social friendship, Francis has opened new paths and challenged the church to make visible the merciful face of God to the world.
On interreligious dialogue, the pope, as is to be expected, has largely reiterated the teachings of Vatican II and so far has not issued a fully fledged document on the subject. Consistent with his pastoral outlook, he has highlighted and promoted the sociopolitical and cultural aspects of interreligious dialogue to achieve peace and justice and has largely avoided still-controverted doctrinal issues such as the uniqueness and universality of Jesus as savior; the truth and superiority of Christianity over all other religions; the divine origin of Christian revelation, sacred books, and rituals in contrast to the allegedly purely human character of those of other religions; the missionary obligation to “proclaim” the Gospel to all; and the necessity of converting other believers and unbelievers to Christianity, and more specifically, to the Catholic Church, which alone and exclusively has all the means of salvation.
Nevertheless, I have argued that Pope Francis has enlarged the interreligious horizon, opened the door for further explorations into the theology of religions, and expanded the scope of the interreligious encounter. This he did by acknowledging non-Christian religions as “channels” of the Holy Spirit and affirming their contribution to salvation not only for their adherents but in certain ways also for Christians. I made my case by examining Francis’s obiter dicta on the mode of interreligious encounter, especially in his meetings with Muslim leaders, his teaching on “social friendship” and “fraternal humanity,” and the four principles of Francisian metaphysics. These teachings of Francis constitute a new and decisive advance on his predecessors. None of them has spoken on interreligious dialogue in these terms. In light of these teachings, I have suggested, by way of einlesung and eisegesis of Pope Francis’s statements, how the traditional teachings of the church on the five much-debated issues listed above can be modified. I must admit that Pope Francis has not explicitly taught what I propose and that he might not endorse the implications I have drawn from his writings. At any rate, using the pope’s insights on interreligious encounter, theologians can break new paths toward a more open theology of religious pluralism and a mode of being religious interreligiously.
Footnotes
1.
For informative biographies of Jorge Bergoglio/Francis, see Austen Ivereigh, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope (New York: Henry Holt, 2014); Ivereigh, Wounded Shepherd: Pope Francis and His Struggle to Convert the Catholic Church (New York: Henry Holt, 2019); and Elisabetta Piqué, Pope Francis: Life and Revolution (Chicago: Loyola Press, 2014).
2.
Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner wrote to the pope in September 2016, asking him to answer five questions that would dispel what they called the “uncertainty, confusion, and disorientation among many of the faithful” stemming from the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which had been released in April. The quaternity has indicated that, should Francis refuse to answer their concerns, they would consider issuing a “formal correction” of the pope. Ironically, these hierarchs, had they been still in power, would have mercilessly excommunicated those who openly opposed papal teaching.
3.
If “interreligious dialogue” includes its fourfold modality, namely, common life, collaboration for the common good, theological exchange, and shared religious experience among people of different faiths, then it is equivalent to “encounter.” On the fourfold mode of interreligious dialogue, see Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, “Dialogue and Proclamation: Reflection and Orientations on Interreligious Dialogue and the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ” (May 19, 1991), 
; and Peter C. Phan, In Our Own Tongues: Perspectives from Asia on Mission and Inculturation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004), 13–31. In this article, I focus on the dialogue among religions (interfaith or interreligious dialogue) and not on the dialogue among the Christian churches (ecumenical dialogue), though of course both are intrinsically linked, the one impossible without the other.
4.
Paul VI, Nostra Aetate (October 28, 1965), https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html. For a critical evaluation of Nostra Aetate, see Peter C. Phan, “Reading Nostra Aetate in Reverse: A Different Way of Looking at the Relations among Religions,” Studies in Christian–Jewish Relations 10, no. 2 (2015): 1–14, ; and John Borelli, “Correcting the Nostra Aetate Legend: The Contested, Minimal, and Almost Failed Effort to Embrace a Tragedy and Amend Christian Attitudes toward Jews, Muslims, and the Followers of Other Religions,” in Nostra Aetate, Non-Christian Religions, and Interfaith Relations, ed. Kail C. Ellis (Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2021), 9–34.
5.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Declaration ‘Dominus Iesus’ on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church” (August 6, 2000), . Critical studies of Dominus Iesus are numerous. For a fair and comprehensive evaluation of this declaration, see Stephen Pope and Charles Hefling, eds., Sic et Non: Encountering Dominus Iesus (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002).
6.
A wide-ranging English-language study of Pope Francis’s theology of interreligious dialogue is Pope Francis and Interreligious Dialogue: Religious Thinkers Engage with Recent Papal Initiatives, ed. Harold Kasimow and Alan Race (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), especially Leo D. Lefebure’s insightful summary, “Be Friends and Help the World: The Contributions of Pope Francis to Interreligious and Secular Relations,” 303–28. Another very helpful work is Pope Francis and the Future of Catholicism: Evangelii Gaudium and the Papal Agenda, ed. Gerard Mannion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), especially John Borelli’s excellent essay that presciently anticipated Francis’s encyclical Fratelli Tutti, “The Dialogue of Fraternity: Evangelii Gaudium and the Renewal of Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue,” 221–43. Noted scholar of Jewish–Christian dialogue Philip Cunningham collects Pope Francis’s statements on interreligious dialogue on the helpful website, Pope Francis: Dialogika Resources, Council of Centers on Jewish–Christian Relations, .
7.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Abraham Skorka, On Heaven and Earth, trans. Alejandro Bermudez and Howard Goodman (New York: Image, 2013), xiv.
8.
See Bergoglio and Skorka, On Heaven and Earth, 219–21.
12.
14.
Paul VI, Lumen Gentium (November 21, 1964), https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html; Ad Gentes (December 7, 1965), .
15.
It is noteworthy that, during his trip to the Holy Land, Pope Francis invited his two friends from Buenos Aires to accompany him: Rabbi Abraham Skorka and Sheik Omar Abboud.
16.
Regarding the mission to the Jews, there are currently three possible positions: first, Christian mission to convert the Jews is required because salvation is available in Christ and his church alone (e.g., conservative Christians, Evangelical Christians, Hebrew Christians, Jews for Jesus, and Messianic Jews); second, Christian mission to all is necessary but without targeting the Jews (many post-Vatican II Catholic theologians); and third, there is no conversionary mission to Jews but only a joint ethical witness of faith in a still-unredeemed world (a minority of theologians such as Cardinal Walter Kasper, John Pawlikowski, and the signatories of the document A Sacred Obligation: Rethinking Christian Faith in Relation to Judaism and the Jewish People [2002], ).
19.
On how Jews view Pope Francis, see Edward Kessler, “‘The Church Also Is Enriched When She Receives the Values of Judaism’: Shared Faith Responses to Pope Francis and Interreligious Dialogue,” in Kasimow and Race, Pope Francis and Interreligious Dialogue, 85–100; and Debbie Young-Somers, “On Donkey Drivers, Interreligious Dialogue, and Shared Tasks: A Jewish Response to Pope Francis on Interreligious Relations and Collaboration,” in Kasimow and Race, Pope Francis and Interreligious Dialogue, 101–11.
20.
On Muslim reactions to Pope Francis, see Amineh A. Hoti, “Pope Francis’s Compassion,” in Kasimow and Race, Pope Francis and Interreligious Dialogue, 145–68; and Ataullah Siddiqui, “Pope Francis, Islam, and Dialogue,” in Kasimow and Race, Pope Francis and Interreligious Dialogue, 169–82.
21.
On the Hindu response to Pope Francis, see Jeffrey D. Long, “Cautious Hope: Hindu Reflections on Pope Francis,” in Kasimow and Race, Pope Francis and Interreligious Dialogue, 183–97; and Anantanand Rambachan, “Do We Have a Religious Need for Each Other? Pope Francis and Interreligious Dialogue,” in Kasimow and Race, Pope Francis and Interreligious Dialogue, 199–218. On the Sikh response, see Dharam Singh, “A Sikh in Dialogue with Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium,” in Kasimow and Race, Pope Francis and Interreligious Dialogue, 219–33; and Nikky-Guninder Kaur Singh, “Let’s Get Off Our Cell Phones and Hear a Sikh Maxim from Pope Francis,” in Kasimow and Race, Pope Francis and Interreligious Dialogue, 235–57. For the Buddhist response, see Dennis Hirota, “Toward Dialogue with Pope Francis: A Japanese Buddhist Perspective,” in Kasimow and Race, Pope Francis and Interreligious Dialogue, 259–77; and James L. Fredericks, “Nostra Aetate and Pope Francis: Reflections on the Next Fifty Years of Catholic Dialogue with Buddhists,” in Nostra Aetate: Celebrating 50 Years of the Catholic Church’s Dialogue with Jews and Muslims, ed. Pim Valkenberg and Anthony Cirelli (Washington, DC: Catholic University Press, 2016), 43–57.
22.
The original Italian of Evangelii Gaudium uses “canali.” The French translation uses “la voie”; German “Kanäle”; Spanish “cauces.”
23.
For a full elaboration of these three modes of mission, see Peter C. Phan, The Joy of Religious Pluralism: A Personal Journey (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2017), 129–64.
24.
In Evangelii Gaudium, Francis uses camino, the Spanish for path, fifty-three times, an indication that, for Francis, accompaniment with, walking together, striving with one another is the way to dialogue. I thank John Borelli for this information.
25.
Cited in Francis, “In His Own Words,” in Kasimov and Race, Pope Francis and Interreligious Dialogue, 34.
26.
Francis, 35.
27.
These dogmas include papal primacy, papal infallibility, and the Marian dogmas of Immaculate Conception and Assumption. This point has been suggested by then-Cardinal Ratzinger himself. See his Church, Ecumenism, and Politics: New Endeavors in Ecclesiology (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011), 83–87. This recommendation was made in the Agreed Statement of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission II, Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ Roman Catholic–Anglican dialogue (2005). See ARCIC II, Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, Anglican Communion, Western Section, Ecumenical Relations, Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, .
28.
I coin the word “Francisian” to refer to what belongs properly to Pope Francis rather than the common but in this case misleading “Franciscan.” I must confess that at the first reading of Francis’s exposition of these four principles I found them to be rather odd and out of place in a predominantly pastoral document. What follows is an attempt to argue that they do contain practical implications for interreligious dialogue.
29.
For Rahner’s exposition of this concept of Vorgriff, see his Spirit in the World, trans. William Dych (New York: Herder, 1968); and for a concise explanation, see his Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity, trans. William Dych (New York: Seabury Press, 1978), 26–39. For a brief explanation of categorical and transcendental knowledge, see Peter C. Phan, Eternity in Time: A Study of Karl Rahner’s Eschatology (Selinsgrove, PA: Susquehanna University Press, 1988), 44–55.
30.
On the four modalities of interreligious dialogue, see note 3.
31.
Francis, “Homily of His Holiness Pope Francis” (January 25, 2015), https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2015/documents/papa-francesco_20150125_vespri-conversione-san-paolo.html. The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, signed by Lutherans and Catholics in 1999, calls this consensus “a differentiated consensus.” See Dialogue Documents, Lutheran-Roman Catholic Commission on Unity, Lutheran World Federation, Western Section, Ecumenical Relations, Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, . This expression is subsequently preferred by ecumenists because it emphasizes the ongoing realities of the respective communities.
33.
Francis and Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, “Human Fraternity.”
34.
See Mary Anne Hackett, “Cardinal Müller Issues Manifesto: A Quasi Correction of Pope Francis’ Pontificate,” CatholicCitizens.org, February 9, 2019, https://catholiccitizens.org/news/83530/cardinal. Another right-wing hierarch, Archbishop Carlo Viganò, condemns this statement as a “blatant heresy” and a “terrible blasphemy.” See Michael W. Chapman, “Arbp. Vigano: Pope Francis is Teaching ‘Blatant Heresy . . . A Terrible Blasphemy,’” CNS News, April 23, 2020, .
35.
See Bernard Lonergan, Method in Theology (New York: Herder and Herder, 1972), 6–13.
36.
See Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 20, trans. Edward Quinn (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1981), 149: “The Christian of the future will be a mystic or will not exist at all.”
37.
Raimon Panikkar, The Rhythm of Being: The Unbroken Trinity (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2010), 21. For a commentary on Panikkar, see Peter C. Phan and Young-chan Ro, eds., Raimon Panikkar: A Companion to His Life and Thought (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2018).
38.
The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, vol. 2, ed. Jonathan Barnes (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 1650. Note that Aristotle does not use the word “sum” but “besides,” which is better because it does not evoke a mathematical formula. The reason Aristotle insists that there is a whole besides its parts is to defend the possibility of defining a thing. While it is not possible to define the parts, it is possible to define a thing because a thing is a whole, which is “more than”/“besides” the sum of its parts.
39.
This debate was famously engaged in by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Cardinal Walter Kasper, the former defending the priority of the universal church, the latter that of the local church. For both, however, the church is not the sum of local churches or individual Christians. See Cardinal Walter Kasper, “On the Church,” America, vol. 184, no. 14 (April 23, 2001), .
40.
The image of “polyhedron” had been used by Cardinal Walter Kasper, “Vatican II: Toward a Multifaceted Reality,” Origins, vol. 45, no. 9 (2015): 153–60.
41.
On conversion, see Peter C. Phan, In Our Own Tongues: Perspectives from Asia on Mission and Inculturation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004), 45–61; and on multiple religious belonging, see Peter C. Phan, Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interreligious Dialogue (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004), 60–81.
42.
On religious syncretism, see Eric Maroney, Religious Syncretism (London: SMC Press, 2006); Charles Stewart and Rosalind Shaw, eds., Syncretism/Anti-Syncretism: The Politics of Religious Synthesis (New York: Routledge, 1994); William H. Harrison, In Praise of Mixed Religion: The Syncretism Solution in a Multifaith World (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2014); Herald D. Cort et al., eds., Dialogue and Syncretism: An Interdisciplinary Approach (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989); Anita Maria Leopold and Jeppe Sinding Jensen, eds., Syncretism in Religion: A Reader (New York: Routledge, 2004); and Gailyn Van Rheenen, ed., Contextualization and Syncretism: Navigating Cultural Currents (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2006).
43.
Lefebure, “Be Friends and Help the World,” 325.