Only One Way?. Gavin D'Costa

11.6, was faith in a God who rewards good and punishes evil. Theism and morality are the minimal requirements for saving faith. After all, this had sufficed for Israel before Christ. The Council takes this approach a step forward recognizing the genuine theism (assuming that Jews and Muslims have not knowingly rejected the gospel) in both Judaism and Islam, while recognizing the sui generis relationship with the Jewish people. But it moves beyond this in positively affirming Hinduism and Buddhism (developed in NA, but only indirectly in LG referring to ‘shadows’ and ‘images’) in so much as Hindu and Buddhist beliefs and practices are not in contradiction to the gospel. First, let me cite the relevant section in LG 16 before interlacing NA comment on LG:

      Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related [ordinatur] in various ways to the people of God.(*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. (See Rom 9:4–5) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues (see Rom 11:28–9). But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, (see Acts 17:25–8) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. (See 1 Tim 2:4)

Let me address each religion in turn interpolating NA into the discussion. In LG the Catholic Church provides a particular reading of Romans that marks a real advance in formally accepting that God does not revoke God’s covenant with Israel. This excludes the notion that Israel’s covenant has come to an end with the coming of Christ. However, contrary to various modern commentaries, I would argue that it cannot be assumed that Israel has been faithful to the covenant without further qualification, or that the covenant can be understood without its necessary fulfilment in Christ.31 But what is significant here is the recognition that the Jewish covenant (for Jews and for Christians) is God-given and thus genuinely related (ordinatur) in terms of potentiality to the Church and Christ. NA adds three further important points. First, due to the ‘common spiritual heritage’, referring back to Paul’s reading of Romans and the ‘Old Testament’, the Council enjoins ‘mutual understanding and appreciation’ (4.e).32 Given the years of anti-Semitism among Catholic Christians this is a remarkably important and ground-breaking statement. There is a positive call to learn from and appreciate what is present in Judaism, which has flowered in many ways since the Council. Clearly, the Council has no authority over Jews, so this learning can only be seen as an invitation to Jews, but is a duty to Catholics. The foundation of a dicastery in the Vatican related to the Jewish people under the wing of Christian ecumenism compared to the dicastery for non-Christians, which is separate, indicates the serious recognition of Judaism in modern Catholicism. There have been criticisms of Pope Benedict XVI regarding his views on the Jews and his apparent clawing back what the Council affirmed. I do not think these charges can be sustained.33

      Second, there is a disavowal of the charge of Jewish deicide that has caused so much Christian anti-Semitism: ‘neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during [Jesus’] passion’ (4.d). Third, the Council actively rebukes any form of ‘antisemitism levelled at any time or from any source against the Jews’. It took 35 years and John Paul II to produce a formal repentance for the anti-Semitism within Catholicism expressed in the Liturgy of the Day of Pardon presided over by the Pope on the First Sunday of Lent in the Millennium.

Of Islam there is an acknowledgement of a genuine theism and a genuine basis for morality, for ‘along with us they adore [adorant] the one merciful God who will judge humanity on the last day’ (LG 16). This is an important dogmatic point. NA adds three further important points. First, it notes the high esteem in which Jesus is held in Islam and also the honour given to the Virgin Mary, who is ‘at times devoutly invoked’ (3.b). Of course, there is also the common root of Abraham ‘to whose faith Muslims eagerly link their own’. Notice the phrase does not affirm or deny this claim, but states it as a point of possible contact. As with the mention of Jesus, these commonalities operate within the context of a greater and insuperable difference: ‘Although not acknowledging [Jesus] as God’ is the rightful beginning of the sentence just quoted above.34 This allows for possible points of contact, or what the document calls ‘what men have in common’ (1), even amid differences. Second, there is a qualified approval of selective beliefs and practices, rather than some disembodied notion of Islam. Arising out of Muslim belief and worship of the creator God, the Council notes their ‘way of prayer, alms-deeds and fasting’ (4.b). Third, as with the Jewish people, the Council tries to move forward from periods of very troubled relations between Islam and the Church. The purpose of this move forward is mutual service to the ‘common good’, as it is the Church’s duty to ‘foster unity and charity’ among individuals, nations, and religions (NA 1). It was left to the Liturgy of the Day of Pardon to call for forgiveness for Catholic actions against Islam in the Crusades.

When we turn to the Asian traditions, LG 16 is very thin indeed. It uses Paul’s speech on the Areopagus regarding the worship of the ‘Unknown God’ in ‘shadows and images’ to suggest the wider connection with non-theistic traditions. It also cites 1 Timothy 2.4 regarding God’s desire to save all peoples. One should recall LG is not concerned to flesh out this skeleton, but only to indicate its dogmatic existence. The two dogmatic points here are: first, there is an acceptance that non-theistic religions might exemplify a genuine search for God – and in this sense, there is an analogical extension of Aquinas’s ‘potentiality’. Second, there is a further extension to non-religious cultures that can also be ‘orientated’ towards the Church. The latter is a remarkable move given the Catholic Church’s opposition to communism and secularism right up until the twentieth century, although neither is affirmed per se. The Eastern traditions are given a little more flesh in NA. In Hinduism, which contains theistic strands that are different from Semitic theism in their cosmological context,35 it is acknowledged that there is an exploration of the divine mystery in ‘myth’ and ‘philosophy’ (beliefs) – and also in practices. This latter is found in the ‘ascetical practices’ and ‘profound meditation’ in the non-theistic traditions, and through ‘recourse to God in confidence and love’ in the bhakti devotional traditions. While any scholar of Hinduism might balk at this thin description, one should instead perhaps marvel and rejoice that any positive description is being made at all. It is not at all normal for a Church Council to speak about another religion. Instead, here a door is being opened to serious scholarship and Indology theologically to flesh out and think through these starting points for engagement towards the ‘common good’.

      Buddhist beliefs and practices are likewise singled out, even though there are no theistic elements within Buddhism. Nevertheless, in Pure Land and other forms of Buddhism there are emphases upon ‘divine’ aid. Thus NA affirms the insight regarding the ‘inadequacy of the changing world’ and the way Buddhists seek ‘perfect liberation’ and ‘supreme illumination’ ‘either though their own efforts or by the aid of divine help’ (2).

I want to use the example of Buddhism to make a subsidiary point. NA is only concerned to encourage positive pastoral orientation. It makes no claims about comprehensive or detailed evaluation of any religious culture. How could it? Hence, it should be no surprise that two intellectually probing popes after the Council have, in their ‘private’ writings (that is writings that have no magisterial authority), made negative judgements about Buddhism. For example, Cardinal Ratzinger in an interview with a French newspaper suggested that in Buddhism the self-help involved in meditation and release amounted to salvation by one’s own efforts and thus might be compared to ‘auto-eroticism’. He is reported as saying: ‘If Buddhism is attractive, it is because