By Prof. P. Sameer Adani L.C.
What is the value of other religions from a Catholic perspective, right? How can we interpret other religions from a Catholic perspective?
First of all: why choose Ratzinger as a guide for this question of the theology of religions? Various proposals have been put forward in the history of the Church, and especially in the post-conciliar Church: exclusivism, pluralism, implicit faith and Rahner’s inclusivism. What did the Council say about this and, finally, what concrete solution does Ratzinger offer regarding plurality, and how does this translate into interreligious dialogue and Catholic mission?
So, why choose Ratzinger as a guide on this topic? It would seem that he is not the best guide, because he is not a specialist author in the theology of religions. The theology of religions — that is, the attempt to understand what the value of other religions is — really emerged as a specialized field of theology after the Council. And Ratzinger is not an expert in this area. And the Ratzinger people normally think of when they say "I’m going to speak about Ratzinger and the theology of religions" is Dominus Iesus, the famous document published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Christ is the only Savior of all humanity.
In his last interview with Peter Seewald, Ratzinger said that, even though that document was produced by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under his presidency, and he signed it, and there is nothing wrong with the document, he himself would not have expressed things in the same way.
So, if we really want to understand what Ratzinger thinks on the subject, it’s not only Dominus Iesus — which he agrees with — but those are not the only formulations he would have used, and a lot is probably missing from what he would have included as a theologian.
If, then, he is not the most obvious choice for this theme, what are his strengths?
His first strength is that he places the question of the theology of religions — the question of the value of other religions — within dogmatic theology.
Not as something on its own, but from the perspective of Trinitarian theology, ecclesiology, Christology: what can be deduced from there for the questions of the theology of religions.
Second point: even though his knowledge of authors is limited, he is very attentive to the importance of starting from phenomenology and the philosophy of religion. What does that mean
He himself says: even though I didn’t do this, if you want to do it well you have to go and study other religions with a first-person phenomenology.
You have to study, read the texts, talk to people, go and visit their temples. First-person phenomenology: know the material before drawing principles.
And then, philosophically, also ask the question: how do religions understand themselves, without immediately giving a theological judgment? What is their value, but first of all what is their internal structure?
Why does this topic interest me? My mother is German, my father is Indian, a convert from Hinduism. I grew up in Dubai, so I have many Muslim friends. I am Canadian.
I spent three months as a priest in the most important Buddhist temple in Kandy, Sri Lanka, to study Buddhism. That’s why it interests me. And one can ask: how do we understand Islam without immediately giving it a Catholic judgment on its value, its strengths, its limits? What is its internal structure? What is the internal structure of Hinduism?
There is a very famous description of the religious experience by a German author. Obviously, who else but a German?
The Mysterium Tremendum et Fascinans.
The religious experience, man’s experience before God, can phenomenologically be described as the experience of a mystery: Mysterium Tremendum, that is majestic power, omnipotence, and Fascinans, that is attractive fascination.
If you study the great religions of the world, they are structured precisely like this.
What, for example, is the Mysterium in Islam?
Everything in Islam serves to communicate and to help man have an experience of God: of power, of majesty, of the glory of God. Everything in Islam. From the rites: have you ever entered a mosque? The way people stand, the fact that they touch one another, all the symbols, gestures, words, prayers. The whole community, the _umma_, is structured to communicate to man and allow him to experience the majesty of God.
Eastern religions in general — Buddhism and Hinduism, to a lesser extent Shintoism and Confucianism — are all centered on the Mysterium. God is mysterious, he cannot be known. We see him only in images and shadows, without being able to truly comprehend him.
There is no Revelation in the strict sense. And then what is the Fascinans? It is Christianity.
This God who becomes man, who proclaims that he is in love with man, who suffers for man, who wants to be one with man. So, before giving a theological judgment on the value of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., we must understand them, understand what they say and how they are structured, how they see themselves.
And to a certain extent, not in depth, but to a certain extent, that’s it. Many of those who write in this field don’t do that, and don’t recognize that they should. This will come from his theology of affirmation. This is a bit of an introduction. Now, what positions can be taken?
Let us imagine the world of religions. As Catholics, we see all these other religions: what are the possible positions? The first position, in a certain sense dominant in the Catholic Church and in Christianity in general until the Council, is what is called exclusivism.
Exclusivism in a Protestant version and in a Catholic version.
The Protestant version was famously summarized by Barth. What does he say? He says: outside of faith — Catholic faith, supernatural faith, Christian faith — religion is at best theologically irrelevant, and at worst an active form of unbelief.
It is man trying to hide from God. It is idolatry. So there is nothing positive in religions. At best they are completely neutral. At worst it is man trying to hide, to protect himself and to reject God. Anthropologically this means that man is completely incapable. He is incapable of God. He is a natural atheist. There is no point of contact between faith and religion. Now, this is the typical Protestant view. There is no contact between nature and grace. Sola Scriptura, nature is completely corrupt. There is therefore a very strong dialectic between nature and grace. Everything is darkness, everything is sin, everything is corruption, outside of Catholic faith, where everything is light, everything is grace, everything is truth.
Obviously this seems a bit extreme to us. There is also a Catholic version. The Catholic version, before the Council, is summarized in the famous dogma defined by the Council of Florence in Cantate Domino: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.
I read the text: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and proclaims that none of those living outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics, can have a share in eternal life. But they will go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined to her. No one, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he has shed his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church”.
Very strong language, right?
What is the teaching here? Outside the Church there is no salvation.
So if you are not united to the Church you cannot be saved. Even if there are positive elements in the world, etc., there is no possibility of salvation, except by becoming Catholic. Period.
It is the black-and-white version. If the Protestant version is black and white about everything, the Catholic black-and-white version concerns only salvation.
There can be moral elements, interesting elements, good and bad ones. But none of these are salvific. Only Christ is salvific. Only the Church is salvific. And therefore only he who is in the Church can be saved. I have presented you with one extreme: exclusivism, in black and white, in its two forms. Now I will show you the other extreme, before we get to the middle position, which is that of the Council, and then Ratzinger’s development of the Council. But before the middle position: one extreme is exclusivism, the other extreme is pluralism.
Which today is perhaps the most common position among us who grew up in the Western world. And what is the pluralist position?
The pluralist position is that religions are, quote, "more or less epistemologically and soteriologically equivalent".
More or less all religions are the same thing. More or less all religions are paths to God. More or less everyone has their way up the mountain, toward God.
There are different forms of this position.
There is a more rationalist Enlightenment version, based on Kant for example, where man cannot have rational access to God. And so religion is only morality, on the one hand, or sentiment, emotions. There is the more mystical version, which is the Eastern one. I will speak a bit about Hindus.
God is completely shrouded in mystery. We see him only in images. Everything is... Hindus have millions of gods. But all these gods are actually just faces of the one, absolute, supreme, which is Brahman.
And then this is today perhaps the most common form of pluralism, developed by an author called John Hick, who studied at the Gregorian. He was a priest, he left the priesthood, but he studied with Rahner at the Gregorian, during and after the Council.
What is his version of pluralism? It doesn’t matter what we say about God. What matters is social action. So really, one can believe that God is Allah, another that God is Krishna, another that God is Jesus Christ. Dogmas don’t matter. What matters is action, social action. Here Kant’s ethics, morality, is: I have to be a good person. I don’t have access to God, but as long as I personally lead a good life, it’s more or less the same.
Hick says: no, individual ethics is not enough, we need social ethics. We have to build the Kingdom together. You will hear very often, if you pay attention to many documents and speeches, talk about the three things religions must work for: justice, peace and safeguarding the created world.
This has become the new trinity of interreligious thinking.
So in the Church we have moved from an ecclesiocentric vision — outside the Church there is no salvation, if you want to be saved you must be a member of the Church — to a Christocentric one, to a theocentric one: let’s leave Christ aside, it’s enough that you set out toward God, however you understand him. And finally to an anthropocentrism, ethical, at an individual or social level.
What is the practical consequence of all this?
The practical consequence is that salvation is reduced to a minimum morality.
If today I asked you, your friends, your family: what must we do to be saved?
Be good people. Between these two extremes: remember, exclusivism, with the Council of Florence, was in 1436.
Pluralism is from after Vatican II until today. There are 600 years between these two dates.
What position did Catholic theology take? A whole series of authors, especially the Dominican authors of Salamanca, what position did they take?
Think of the dates: 1436, Council of Florence. 1492, discovery of the Americas. 60 years later.
And unfortunately the discovery of the Americas is like this: when the Council of Florence says this in 1436, fine, non-Catholics can be saved, but there are no non-Catholics around, Europe is totally Catholic. Then in 1492 suddenly there is an entire continent of unbaptized people. And the whole discussion begins: what does it really mean, how can we save them? So a reflection begins with the Dominicans of Salamanca, which culminates with Pius XII, shortly before the Council, in 1943. What is his solution? The basic solution is this: if you are a good person, without knowing it, you actually have the desire to be Catholic. And that desire already makes you a member of the Church in an implicit, anonymous way.
So it’s not that to be a member... because only Catholics can be saved, remember. What is the normal way to become Catholic? Sacramental baptism. But they say: no, sacramental baptism is the ordinary form, but there are also extraordinary forms.
One extraordinary form is baptism of desire. Traditionally baptism of desire was used for catechumens, those who are not yet baptized but are on the way to baptism.
They extend the notion of catechumen even to those who have no desire to be Catholic. According to this line of thought, even the Muslim who is completely convinced that Islam is the correct religion and the way to paradise, if he leads a good life, even though he doesn’t know it, the desire to live well is a form of baptism, even though he doesn’t call it baptism, even though he doesn’t know Christ. So, implicitly, anonymously, he is Christian, he is a member of the Church. I have simplified it a lot. So, before the Council you have the hard-line ultra-conservatives who say everyone will go to hell, and then you have the liberals who say: as long as they lead a good life, they are secretly, without knowing it, Catholics.
And he says: both positions don’t work. We cannot say that God sends 95% of humanity to hell without giving them any chance.
But neither does it work to say that it doesn’t matter what you do, just lead a good life to be saved, and then magically, secretly, without knowing it, you are Catholic. That doesn’t work either.
Because then everything is reduced to morality and subjective intention. Where then is the value of baptism? And the novelty of grace, and the ontological change, and all the things we talk about?
Both solutions suffer from a completely individualistic point of view. They are completely subjective, based only on this desire to be good. There is no objective, causal explanation of the mediation of grace. So it is a completely insufficient solution. Both are.
Now, if you want to take this scheme of implicit Christianity to the extreme, the author who did that, after Pius XII but during the Council, who was a professor at the Gregorian and then a professor in Germany, is Karl Rahner. Rahner takes this idea to the absolute extreme. What does Rahner say? Rahner says that human nature is already ontologically constituted to be in grace.
Everyone, by the very fact of being created by God, is in relation with God, and therefore is always in grace, regardless of what they do.
In practice Rahner makes the order of creation coincide with the order of redemption. They are the same thing.
So what does he do? He says he divides humanity into two groups. Those who are members of the Church, this group. And those who are not members of the Church.
No implicit membership. And who does he say is in here? Obviously the baptized, who live a Catholic life.
Catholics and non-Catholic Christians, Protestants. And who is in that other group? He gives an order: Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, those who seek God, etc. And also atheists. Then he says: even those who are in that group, since grace passes through the Church and comes to them, what must they do to open themselves to grace? Go all the way. What must they do to open themselves to grace? Live a good life, obey their conscience, seek the truth, etc. But all of this depends on grace reaching them. If grace did not reach them, what they do is useless in a certain sense. So the question is: but how?
Is it right to say that all salvific grace passes through the Church to reach non-Christians as well?
But how? In what concrete sense? What are the instruments for this communication of grace?
For us who are inside the Church it is very simple: the sacraments, Sacred Scripture, etc.
For those who are there, since there are no sacraments, there is no Sacred Scripture, then what must they do to open themselves to grace? How does grace come? What does the Church do to communicate this light, this grace to them? The Council says: we do not know. Only God knows the ways. For this reason, it is theologians, now, who have to work on it. We do not have the formula to say exactly how; we know that it is so, but now you have to think about the how.
All this to say where we must understand, place, situate Ratzinger’s theology. There are so, so many different points, but today’s point, to understand today, is that Ratzinger makes a proposal about this "how". There are many different proposals. Ratzinger makes his proposal. How does grace come? From Christ, from God the Father, from Christ, through the Church, to reach the Christian world. Then each of them must act with moral life, etc. So, the answer: Ratzinger’s answer: Stellvertretung.
What does Stellvertretung mean? Representation.
Taking the place of. Putting myself in the place of the other. So he says: if we look at the Old Testament, the "how" of salvation lies in this dynamic, in this process, in this structure of Stellvertretung. Think of the famous story of Abraham with Sodom and Gomorrah.
What does Abraham say? He enters into dialogue with the Lord and says: if I find fifty righteous, we can save the whole city for the sake of these fifty. And the Lord agrees. They are saved, but why also the others? But in the name of justice, because of the justice of these fifty, all are saved.
The Lord says yes again. But if there are not fifty, sometimes forty, sometimes thirty, twenty, ten.
So there is already this announcement. And then we can read everything.
Why can Moses not enter, or does Israel not enter the promised land? Because in some way he must suffer the punishment of the people in the desert who did not really want to accept God. And they keep committing these acts of rebellion, even after all the miracles in Egypt, etc. One takes the place of the other. And all this dynamic comes to its culmination in the famous prophecy of Isaiah 53, on the Suffering Servant, who blesses us, etc. And this dynamic then comes to its culmination in the person of Christ. What does Christ do to save man? It is true, he preaches. It is true that he works many miracles, because his preaching is that of the prophet who announces the Word.
By working miracles, he shows that he is truly a king. King because what is the characteristic of a king?
Power. And so Jesus, when he works miracles, in nature, walking on water, multiplying bread and fish, etc., or healing people, shows that he has power over nature, let’s say, created and over human nature. And so he shows that he is a king. So he preaches, yes, he is prophet.
He works miracles, yes, he is king. But above all, what does he do to save man? He suffers in his place, he takes his sin upon himself and suffers this in his place, in an exchange, in an exchange with him.
He takes upon himself the injustice and sin of man and offers man his justice, purity, innocence, salvation, life and death. And then it is said that up to here it is basically clear, because we understand that Christ did it. And the Church is nothing other than the Body of Christ, the continuation of Christ in history. And so what does the Church do? When we speak of mission, what are we talking about?
About proclaiming the Gospel in many different ways and about works of charity. It is true, Christ did this in his public life. And so the Church too must participate in Christ-the-prophet who proclaims the Word. It must also participate in the work of Christ, the King who does it.
The Church cannot work miracles, it must do all the social work. But above all, what must the Church do? The Church must offer itself to God in place of others. The Church must, if we have this image: God is outside, the Church places itself here to represent others. The Church must say to the Lord: I am here in place of others. And so the question comes back: but how?
How does the Church do this? And what is the obvious answer? The Mass, the celebration of the Eucharist.
Because in the celebration of the Eucharist the Christian has the possibility to unite his life, his small and limited offering — that is, an offering that in itself is nothing — to unite it to the sacrifice, to the great offering of Christ, and to say to him, and for him, to you, Almighty Father, I offer my life in favor, in substitution, in representation of others, who are not here. For this are the words of Consecration. What are the words of Consecration?
Over the bread: this is my body, given up for you.
Over the chalice: this is the chalice of the New Covenant, poured out for you and for all, or for many. What is this difference for you? Who are you? Who are all or many? Really, in the celebration, every time we are at Mass, Christ says: if I am here, the priest is celebrating Mass, Christ says: I offer in the first place, with a direct act, my life, my sacrifice, for you who are here, for this concrete community, and each of us must hear our name at that moment. I, Christ, offer my life and my body for you! But then comes the second part over the chalice: for you and for all. So, with his active and free participation in my sacrifice, I also offer it, Christ is saying, for those who are not here, for all, for many. So, at a Christological level, we have these two great quotations, with the meaning of Romans 12:1: I offer my life, I offer my body, in sacrifice, to complete what is lacking in the sacrifice of Christ. What is lacking? What is lacking in the sacrifice of Christ? In itself it is a perfect sacrifice, but what is lacking is its application to all. At the diachronic level, in all histories, in all cultures.
This means that the people who are there, then what should they do? As we said: existential humility, recognizing that I am a sinner, recognizing that I need mercy, living a life of conversion, continuing to open myself to the Lord, to grace, to do justice, to do good, everything. That is, for the whole human part. For the whole human part it makes sense and is effective only because there is a communication of grace to get there. And how does this grace come? Above all in the liturgy.
So, preaching and works of charity, what we think of when we speak of mission, is only a secondary way of doing mission. Because when I do works of charity or preach, I, a Christian, am there at the door saying things directly to them. To help these people open themselves. But all this verbal communication and with acts, with action, is useless, in a certain sense, if there is no spiritual liturgical part.
It is not absolutely necessary that the Church be great, powerful, rich, numerous, that all the people who are there come in here. It is better, of course, because it is better to be here, close to the Lord, than to struggle out there. Objectively it is better. But it is much more important to have a Church that truly lives its spiritual mission, that truly knows what it means to be Christian, and to do this active participation, this vicarious intercession, rather than a Church that is great, rich, powerful, but that forgets this whole interior part. So there are many texts, the famous 1969 prophecy about the ‘creative minority’, and then there are many different texts, where Ratzinger says: it’s not that other things are not important. Yes, they are important, but they are not as important as the spiritual part.
For this reason his whole ecclesial vision is strongly Eucharistic. The Church is born in the Eucharist, is nourished in the Eucharist, and carries out mission from the Church. Many times we have heard the priest, at the end of Mass, say: now that we have received the Lord, who loves us, etc., now let us go out to do mission. This is not the rational vision.
The rational vision of the priest is that the Mass, the Eucharist, is in itself communion with the Lord, and it is mission. And then everything else follows, we do everything else. So also we, when we participate in Mass, must have the vision: ok, I open myself to the Lord, because he comes, but I must also have my list of intentions. If I go to Mass without praying, interceding for others, starting with my own, etc., my Eucharistic participation is very partial. To be Christian means to be of the Lord for the other. And if we do not have the "for" part, something essential is missing. The "for" part is not only at the center of preaching, yes, but above all in the central sense. Other religions cannot sanctify and no one is saved simply because he is a good person. And to tell the truth, who can truly say before God: I am a good person?
I am a sinner. That is, with honesty, not even with honesty, with a minimum of realism, I must, especially imagining myself before God, before the throne of God, how can I stand before him and say: here I am, I am good, I am just, I deserve salvation? It is not like that.
So there is only one who is good and takes my place. And I, in him, with him, through him, also take the place of others. And this is the dynamic of mutual dependence in Christianity. We depend on Christ, but also on the great saints. We are the spiritual children of the great saints.
And not only because the saints did things, a hospital, a school, but because in some way they are there like spiritual giants. I am here on the shoulders of others.
And then there are many who are on mine.
Aggiungi commento
Commenti