In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • The Future of Interreligious Dialogue: A Multireligious Conversation on Nostra Aetate eds. by Charles L. Cohen, Paul F. Knitter, and Ulrich Rosenhagen
  • Leo D. Lefebure
The Future of Interreligious Dialogue: A Multireligious Conversation on Nostra Aetate. Edited by Charles L. Cohen, Paul F. Knitter, and Ulrich Rosenhagen. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2017. 327 pp. $40.00.

This very helpful volume offers a detailed review of the process of composition of Vatican II's Nostra Aetate, The Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, followed by a series of assessments, critiques, and proposals for further development and correction by authors from a variety of different religious traditions. In the opening chapter, John Borelli recounts the various stages of discussion, debate, and dispute, beginning with the meeting of Pope John XXIII with French Jewish historian Jules Isaac in June 1960 and ending with the promulgation of the Declaration in October 1965. Borelli appropriately highlights the critical role of Cardinal Augustin Bea, and it is informed by the personal recollections of Thomas F. Stransky, who served as a staff member working with Bea throughout this period.

While all the authors commend Nostra Aetate for being a breakthrough achievement, a number of authors raise critical concerns. Paul Knitter and Jeannine Hill Fletcher criticize the inclusivism of the Declaration, charging that this blocks genuine learning from others. Ulrich Rossenhagen surveys the very different initial Protestant [End Page 95] responses to Nostra Aetate, noting that many Protestant theologians, especially those influenced by Karl Barth, approved the positive discussion of the Jewish people but were quite critical of the Declaration's openness to dialogue with religions other than Judaism. The late Buddhist scholar Rita Gross proposes that the problem is not inclusivism itself but how one holds one's doctrinal commitments, including a position of pluralism. Greek Orthodox theologian Peter C. Bouteneff vigorously defends the inclusivist approach of the Declaration, arguing that to adopt a pluralist position would have fundamentally betrayed the centuries-long conciliar tradition that the Second Vatican Council represented.

In one of the most insightful contributions, Jeffrey D. Long from the Hindu tradition compares the structural similarity between the inclusivism of Nostra Aetate and the inclusivist approach to other religions of Swami Vivekananda; Long proposes that "we are all inclusivists—including religious pluralists, who see pluralism as a fuller truth than nonpluralism" (260). John J. Thatamanil criticizes what he calls the "hierarchical inclusivism" of Nostra Aetate, while also rejecting the pluralist position of John Hick. Thatamanil, who is not a Catholic, confidently instructs the Catholic Church on what it "must" affirm regarding religious diversity (290); he then rewrites selected passages from Nostra Aetate in accordance with the mandates of his theology (298–299). As Jeffrey Long's comment points out, Thatamanil's perspective offers its own form of inclusivism toward Buddhists who do not believe in God but are nonetheless included in Thatamanil's vision of religious diversity as a result of divine providence.

Other authors focus on practical implications. Jennifer Howe Peace stresses the importance of developing interreligious relationships in seminary education, Dwight Hopkins reflects on the Declaration's condemnation of racial discrimination, and Roger Haight reflects on the implications of the Declaration for spiritual practice. Sallie B. King notes that in practice the theological perspectives of Nostra Aetate did not prevent Catholic monastics from entering deeply into the experience of Buddhist practices and learning from them. King offers a thoughtful challenge to Christians to bear witness to Jesus to Buddhists in ways that Buddhists can appreciate. On the one hand, she commends the widespread practice of learning from and borrowing from other religious traditions, but she worries about the prospective loss of identity of all religious traditions in an age where people are "spiritual but not religious" (284–288).

One consistent and forceful criticism from many authors concerns the non-inclusive use of the word "men" in the English translation being [End Page 96] cited. None of them note that the Latin text of Nostra Aetate, which alone is authoritative, consistently uses the Latin word homo (plural homines), which refers to all humans, and not the more restrictive Latin word vir (plural viri), which refers only...

pdf

Share