Religious Pluralism: Transforming Society Using New Concepts of Evangelization and Dialogue

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all, the text is geared toward a reader interested in theology, rather than the sociology of religion (which is my area of expertise). For this reason, I will introduce some comments that could perhaps improve the article if you wanted to expand the spectrum of readers. 

 

The introduction, using a reference to Bob Dylan, is attractive and promising. However, the North American reality regarding religious pluralism is far from that of other countries such as Spain, Italy, or Poland (in the European context, to give three examples) where pseudo-pluralism or, some will say, decline of the religious monopoly of the Catholic Church is observed.

 

In addition, in the first paragraphs, the author or authors make statements that should be accompanied by bibliographic references that accompany them.  Otherwise, they remain opinions.

 

Here are three ideas that could appear in the article if you wanted to give a sociological vision:

 

I advise the writings of Peter L. Berger who at the end of the 90s of the last century rejects his theses on secularization to talk about "desecularization" (1999). The great novelty has undoubtedly been pluralization, not secularization. This pluralism would be the coexistence of various religions, as well as the coexistence of the religious and the secular in societies and within individuals themselves. In this "desecularization", for the American sociologist, there would be two areas that escape: the delocalized space inhabited by intellectuals and professionals with Western education who would constitute a powerful international elite and the European continent, which would be a world exception, not the rule.

 

In the same vein as Hervieu-Léger (2016) religious beliefs continue to give meaning and continuity to life experiences to individuals. What is different today is that the protagonist is the individual.

 

Last but not least, the experience of faith is a dimension of the researcher that involves lifestyles and social institutions. That is, it is constituted in the context, often fundamental, of the social scientist. In the same way, the scientist who lacks religious experience is linked and moves in other experiential fields that also contextualize him and, consequently, endow him with an evaluative sphere that directly or indirectly affects his/their research work. 

 

Regarding the conclusions, the parameters to validate or not the scientificity of an investigation must be marked from the reasonableness of the approaches, the methodology used, and the results. In my opinion, there are not clear in the article. 

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing my Religions article. I appreciate your time, effort, and valuable comments, many of which I have incorporated into the new revision.

Reviewer 2 Report

The question of religious pluralism and Catholicism is an important one and can stir up strong feelings in any intra-Catholic debate. Ultimately, this paper doesn’t seem to show enough evidence of deep reading and thinking on the plethora of works by theologians on the question of pluralism and how the Catholic Church has generally deeply rebuked or censured such thinkers, especially during the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict---confer figures like Jacques DuPuis or Peter Phan as 2 of a number of examples. Such a basic absence seems telling and would need to be addressed.

 

The Catholic Church (especially the Vatican), at best after Vatican II, moved from an exclusivist to an inclusivist position on other faiths if we take Alan Race’s terms. But even here there was no clear break as parts of Nostra Aetate show. While recent Vatican messages about Judaism may open up the possibility of more than one way, officially the Catholic Church has been closer to Dominus Iesus (strangely left out of this paper—along with some important (or notorious) notes from the CDF after that infamous or needed document on other religions and faith.

 

The above is one major conception that needs to be re-examined (i.e. why all these missing pieces, even in footnotes?). The other is the need for greater precision and care on the meaning(s) of religious pluralism and not just the fact of the existence of multiple religions in a society. Has the Catholic Church clearly decreed how salvation can be possible outside the Sacramental life of the Church and the role of Christ? If so, a very detailed, careful exposition is needed (which also needs to grapple with all the counter evidence—a book in itself!)

 

You are right to turn to the Spirit as a way forward but here you need to work with key Catholic theologians who have examined this issue (for example, Dermot Lane or Edward Schillebeeckx, or of course Yves Congar). Perry Schmidt-Leukel (though no longer Catholic) or Paul Knitter are also essential on religious pluralism. The list could go on.

*

While I commend the ecological turn in the paper in itself, I was not convinced of the overall cogency of the paper, which seemed to be doing a few different things and might have suffered on account of that.

 

Aside from deeper readings and inclusion of the above texts and theologians, you could focus only on Pope Francis and work more closely on what you perceive is his views and positions on the salvific roles of other faiths. I would not label him a religious pluralist in a John Hick sense, certainly (and far from the Dalai Lama’s position in his more recent books!), nor even a principled pluralist in the sense of Irving Greenberg, the great Jewish thinker. Inclusivist or Exclusivist in doctrine, Francis (like John Paul II) is certainly more open when it comes to the social and personal gesture or the practical solidarity of coming together to try to heal the world.

 

I commend your wanting to read some of the main Vatican documents, so I suggest you build on that by reading and including more theological voices and then seeing how that changes your overall aims and descriptions of the relationship of religious pluralism to an institutional Catholic Church that has never supported it, and more than not, rebuked it, or emphasized its dangers. Another paper or two—far different than this present one may arise—but I think it would be a stronger one. Hope these suggestions are of some value to you going forward.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing my Religions article. I appreciate your time, effort, and valuable comments, many of which I have incorporated into the new revision.

I have since made significant changes based on your suggestions. Here is a point-by-point response to your comments:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors [Author response is in bold]

[Added thoughts from a variety of theologians such as Dupuis, Rahner, and Congar, as well as Knitter, Cobb, Panikkar, Knitter, D’Costa, and Phan with brief mention of Küng, Ruether and Baum.] The question of religious pluralism and Catholicism is an important one and can stir up strong feelings in any intra-Catholic debate. Ultimately, this paper doesn’t seem to show enough evidence of deep reading and thinking on the plethora of works by theologians on the question of pluralism and how the Catholic Church has generally deeply rebuked or censured such thinkers, especially during the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict---confer figures like Jacques DuPuis or Peter Phan as 2 of a number of examples. Such a basic absence seems telling and would need to be addressed.

[Expanded information on Dominus Iesus – see section 3.5] The Catholic Church (especially the Vatican), at best after Vatican II, moved from an exclusivist to an inclusivist position on other faiths if we take Alan Race’s terms. But even here there was no clear break as parts of Nostra Aetate show. While recent Vatican messages about Judaism may open up the possibility of more than one way, officially the Catholic Church has been closer to Dominus Iesus (strangely left out of this paper—along with some important (or notorious) notes from the CDF after that infamous or needed document on other religions and faith.

[Hopefully this comment was addressed a bit by adding other theologian’s perspectives and expanding some details of the different Vatican documents – I agree, though, that a “detailed, carful exposition is needed” and that it might warrant a book on the topic] The above is one major conception that needs to be re-examined (i.e., why all these missing pieces, even in footnotes?). The other is the need for greater precision and care on the meaning(s) of religious pluralism and not just the fact of the existence of multiple religions in a society. Has the Catholic Church clearly decreed how salvation can be possible outside the Sacramental life of the Church and the role of Christ? If so, a very detailed, careful exposition is needed (which also needs to grapple with all the counter evidence—a book in itself!)

[While I like the idea of examining the Spirit’s influence in greater detail, I’m thinking this topic might be a standalone chapter and respectfully think it may be a bit out of scope for this particular journal article] You are right to turn to the Spirit as a way forward but here you need to work with key Catholic theologians who have examined this issue (for example, Dermot Lane or Edward Schillebeeckx, or of course Yves Congar). Perry Schmidt-Leukel (though no longer Catholic) or Paul Knitter are also essential on religious pluralism. The list could go on.

[Upon your excellent suggestion, I deleted the ecological example of pluralistic evangelization activity and reworked a more general idea into the conclusion.] While I commend the ecological turn in the paper in itself, I was not convinced of the overall cogency of the paper, which seemed to be doing a few different things and might have suffered on account of that.

[Expanded the discussion on Pope Francis and redirected the ecological focus back toward evangelization and dialogue.] Aside from deeper readings and inclusion of the above texts and theologians, you could focus only on Pope Francis and work more closely on what you perceive is his views and positions on the salvific roles of other faiths. I would not label him a religious pluralist in a John Hick sense, certainly (and far from the Dalai Lama’s position in his more recent books!), nor even a principled pluralist in the sense of Irving Greenberg, the great Jewish thinker. Inclusivist or Exclusivist in doctrine, Francis (like John Paul II) is certainly more open when it comes to the social and personal gesture or the practical solidarity of coming together to try to heal the world.

[Added some theological voices (see response above) and I like your idea of drilling down into the Church’s relationship with pluralism and dialogue over time – as well as your idea about exploring the Spirit’s role – might be interesting to get some interreligious perspectives on some of these documents too.] I commend your wanting to read some of the main Vatican documents, so I suggest you build on that by reading and including more theological voices and then seeing how that changes your overall aims and descriptions of the relationship of religious pluralism to an institutional Catholic Church that has never supported it, and more than not, rebuked it, or emphasized its dangers. Another paper or two—far different than this present one may arise—but I think it would be a stronger one. Hope these suggestions are of some value to you going forward.

Thank you for your diligent time and effort in greatly improving my article!

Reviewer 3 Report

The author includes a summary of encyclicals that concern the issue of religious pluralism. The summary does not lead to very deep synthesis, which does not become problematic until the those of Pope Francis are discussed.  There seems to be a subtle yet substantial break in the tradition when Francis claims that “each particular group [faith tradition?] becomes part of the fabric of universal 392communion and there discovers its own beauty” (Francis 2020, no. 149)

These observations seem to call for a deeper synthesis and comparison with the longstanding position on religious pluralism.

The author writes that the Church no "acknowledge[s] religious pluralism," but does that acknowledgement suggest mere recognition or assent to the viability of religious pluralism within Catholic doctrine? Francis has been ambivalent on such matters, which marks a break from the tradition.

Finally, if the objective of this essays is to discuss how religious pluralism influences ecumenical dialogue on climate policy, I think that needs to be stated in the introduction.

I see that it is rooted in a theological reality, but it does not seem to be rooted in one that separates different Christian confessions. So maybe the ecumenical move here is not that surprising?  

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing my Religions article. I appreciate your time, effort, and valuable comments, many of which I have incorporated into the new revision.