Gavin D’Costa is emeritus professor of Catholic theology at the University of Bristol (UK) and currently teaches at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome. A leading Catholic scholar in interreligious relations and the theology of religions, his many books include The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity (2000), Christianity and World Religions: Disputed Questions in the Theology of Religions (2009), Vatican II: Catholic Doctrines on Jews and Muslims (2014), and Catholic Doctrines on the Jewish People after Vatican II (2019). 

The following interview was conducted with Dr. Matthew Anderson, executive editor of Dialogue Across Borders, and touches on modern Catholic views of other religions and the salvation of non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), Jewish-Christian relations, antisemitism in Catholic history, Catholic engagement with the Israel-Palestine crisis, Muslim-Christian relations, and interreligious prayer.

Excerpts

MA: There is an interesting statement you made in the book (p.215) that Christians should neither be pessimistic nor optimistic about the salvation of non-Christians. You write that the church trusts in God's mercy and justice and teaches nothing about this matter, either positively or negatively. Is this a sustainable and coherent position? Could you talk a little bit about why you see this posture of almost complete neutrality as being important or desirable?

GDC: My understanding is that historically, right up until the modern period and the 1960s, the Church had been culturally pessimistic about the salvation of non-Christians. If you look at the great theologians and at the working assumptions behind much of the theology, there's a basic sense that there are many good people out there, but fundamentally, Christ and the Church are required for salvation. My point in the section that you raise is that the Church is neither pessimistic nor optimistic about the salvation of non-Christians. It is simply to say that in terms of the teachings of the magisterium, it certainly pronounces against universalism but never formally pronounces the thesis that everyone who dies as a non-Christian will be lost. It also never pronounced on another thesis, which says that at least 50% of non-Christians may be saved, for example, because we know that they're good and decent. So, in a very technical sense, I don't know if it's neutral. It's simply saying that the conditions for pronouncing on this matter are known only to God. It's a very clear theological claim that the salvation of any human being is something that is ultimately between themselves and their conscience. We can't always be clear judges of who or what is motivating someone. In that sense, I think it's more a kind of restraint from making false claims than not taking seriously the gravity of sin. Once you've got original sin in place theologically, you really do have to raise the question, how on Earth can this wound be lifted? How on Earth can humans overcome this? And the answer is clear within the tradition—without Christ, it can't be overcome. Somebody like Augustine might say that this leads to pessimism. But another theologian working within the same tradition might say it doesn't and bring in other factors. That's why I wanted to balance between the justice and mercy of God. If God is just, then it does mean that sin bears fruit. It is self-destructive and destructive for others. That's a reality we live with every day, and it can't be minimized. But if God is merciful, there's possibly a bigger picture going on than we recognize. The way you put the question was quite challenging and good for me because you asked whether it is both sustainable and coherent. I think it's both coherent and sustainable in the manner in which I've defended it, but I don't want it to be understood as neutrality in a way of just standing back and saying, "Hey, let's not be quick judges." It's actually not neutral. It's making a determinative statement based on theological grounding.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

MA: I would like to ask a final question about the language of  Lumen Genitum (2:16) from the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) which appears to affirm that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. This has obviously been fairly controversial. Do you think it should be?

GDC: Up until Vatican II, the dominant position was that Islam is understood in terms of the natural law to be achieving a relationship with a true God. All of the polemics were against the Qurʾān and against Muḥammad, but there isn't a notion that God, per se, is the problem in Islam. The problem is its anti-Christian polemic and its claims about the Qurʾān and Muḥammad. What we find in the council is this controversial statement in Lumen Gentium that moves beyond the natural law and says we, meaning you Muslims and us Catholics, who adore the one God. Now, at that point, it's saying something that is really quite significant: that in Islam, there may be elements of revelation that goes beyond the traditional understanding of natural law. In part, this is because the Qurʾān shares material with the Old Testament and New Testament. We might say it transmits at least some biblical traditions. Therefore, compared to Buddhism and Hinduism, this is actually a religious tradition that has a connection with elements of divine revelation. At the council, there was this fabulous argument put forward by a Middle Eastern bishop who said that some reformed Protestants don't accept the virgin birth, but it's not a problem for Muslims. Don't we have more in common with Muslims who accept the virgin birth? A door was open to explore Islam with the possibility that this is also a religion that has encountered "revelation" through the Judeo-Christian tradition, not necessarily affirming it in its own terms.

In practice, after the council, the energy present between Jews and Catholics has been pushing the story of the council forward and really exploring it in rigor. With Islam, in contrast, there have been difficulties because the Vatican was increasingly concerned with the oppression of Christian populations in Muslim-majority societies. From John Paul II through to Benedict, there's a clear line—our first concern has to be persecuted Christians in countries where there are Muslim majorities. That kind of changed the tone to a different one from what was happening between Jews and Catholics. It could easily be the case that in 50 years, the scenario where the Jewish right and the religious Zionists begin to kick out Christians may change the face of Jewish-Christian dialogue. Then, the primary concern might become the safety of Christians under this Jewish regime. I'm just speculating there. In one sense, partly because of the volatility of many elements of Islam and political Islam affecting the Church negatively, I think that those statements from the Council have been operating more in smaller theological circles. In popular Catholic culture, it hasn't had the fire behind it like the conversation about the Jews has. But I would say it's revolutionary. It opens new doors in this space for serious conversations to continue and explore it.