On June 22, the Catholic portal “Ad Vaticanum” released an interview with the Indian “Cardinal” George Jacob Koovakad, who is the prefect of the “Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue”. The topic was “interreligious dialog” and the recent visit of Prevost to the grand mosque in Algiers. I think that taking a look at his words and contrasting them with what the Church always taught can be useful in understanding what is wrong with the situation today.
The interview starts as follows:
“AV: Can interreligious dialogue and evangelisation coexist without tension, or is there an inherent conflict between them?
+JK: The document Dialogue and Proclamation argues that interreligious dialogue and evangelisation can coexist because both are essential dimensions of the Church’s evangelising mission. It clearly states that dialogue and evangelisation are ‘interrelated yet not interchangeable’ (§77). Dialogue does not replace proclamation, and proclamation must be carried out in a spirit of dialogue.”
The document Koovakad references was issued in 1991 by the “Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue” and it makes a distinction between “dialog” and “evangelisation”. Koovakad of course cannot give any sources before Vatican II, which claim that the Church has a duty to “dialog”. The duty the Church is to evangelize all nations.
In his 2012 Christmas address to the curia, “Benedict XVI” admitted: “Dialogue does not aim at conversion, but at understanding.” Immediately afterwards, he tries to soften this claim: “In this respect it differs from evangelization, from mission […]”. Nevertheless, it is clear that the goal of the true Catholic Church is always to convert others to Christ.
“The Church therefore recognises the presence of ‘seeds of the Word’ in other religions (§82) while still affirming the uniqueness of Christ as Lord and Saviour.” And later, he says: “A ‘positive evaluation’ of other religious traditions involves recognising in them ‘rays of truth’, ‘seeds of the Word’, and the action of the Holy Spirit.”
“John Paul II” explained what he meant by “seeds” allegedly present in other religions during his general audience on September 9, 1998:
“The ‘seeds of truth’ present and active in the various religious traditions are a reflection of the unique Word of God, who ‘enlightens every man coming into world’ (cf. Jn 1:9) and who became flesh in Christ Jesus (cf. Jn 1:14). […] Keeping this doctrine in mind, the celebration of the Jubilee of the Year 2000 ‘will provide a great opportunity, especially in view of the events of recent decades, for interreligious dialogue’ (Tertio millennio adveniente, n. 53). Even now, during this pneumatological year, it is fitting to pause and consider in what sense and in what ways the Holy Spirit is present in humanity’s religious quest and in the various experiences and traditions that express it.”
Then, he blasphemously suggested that the founders of the false religions were inspired by the Holy Spirit: “The various religions arose precisely from this primordial human openness to God. At their origins we often find founders who, with the help of God’s Spirit, achieved a deeper religious experience. Handed on to others, this experience took form in the doctrines, rites and precepts of the various religions.”
As a Catholic, one can say that other religions contain some truths: either truths of the natural law, which can be known by the light of reason or, like the Protestants and the Orthodox, contain truths from divine revelation. However, these truths are mixed with many, many falsehoods.
In the interview, Koovakad mentions the word “proselytism” twice.
“Proclamation may sometimes be perceived as disrespectful or as hidden proselytism, while excessive emphasis on dialogue can weaken the call to proclaim the Good News.” And: “Dialogue is inseparable from respect for freedom of conscience. Therefore, meaningful dialogue cannot involve coercion, manipulation, or proselytism.”
“Francis” condemned “proselytism” repeatedly. “Francis” condemned “proselytism” repeatedly. But what is “proselytism”? Let’s take a look at the definition of the word “proselytism” (or its verb form, “proselytise”) in a dictionary. Here is the definition of “proselytise” in the Cambridge English Dictionary: “to try to persuade someone to change their religious or political beliefs or way of living to your own”. That is precisely what evangelization is. Other dictionaries provide similar definitions. Now, it is true that the word “proselytism” is somewhat pejorative, but it is accurate.
“Francis” confirmed this meaning when he infamously told a 15-year old girl in Sweden, when she asked what to do about her friends who don’t go to Church: “You have to live as a Christian, like a Christian: convinced, forgiven, and on a path. It is not licit to convince them of your faith; proselytism is the strongest poison against the ecumenical path.” And in 2019 to a group of students: “With a non-believer the last thing I have to do is try to convince him. Never. The last thing I have to do is talk. I have to live in accordance with my faith. And it will be my testimony that will awaken the curiosity of the other who says: ‘But why do you do this?’ And that’s where I can talk. But listen, never, ever advance the Gospel through proselytism. If someone says he is a disciple of Jesus and comes to you with proselytism, he is not a disciple of Jesus. We shouldn’t proselytize, the Church does not grow from proselytizing.” (link)
In other words, “Francis”, Koovakad and people like him repudiate the command of Jesus: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you”. (Mt 28:19-20)
“The Church is open to engaging in dialogue with everyone, based on her conviction that every human person is created in the image of God and remains the object of God’s salvific concern. Interreligious dialogue is not mere diplomacy or pragmatic coexistence, but part of the Church’s evangelising and salvific mission. Therefore, dialogue cannot mean moral relativism, silence in the face of injustice, or the dilution of truth claims. At the same time, moral clarity should not lead to hostility, exclusion, or a refusal of encounter.”
What the missionaries have done during two millenia was to bring the Gospel and the one true religion to the world and not “dialog”. Pope Gregory XVI wrote in his encyclical Probe Nostis (1840) about missionaries: “They are inspired with a burning love and undeterred by rough roads and heavy toil. They search out those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death to summon them to the light and life of the Catholic Religion. So, fearless in the face of every danger, they bravely enter the woods and caves of savages, gradually pacify them by Christian kindness, and prepare them for true faith and real virtue. At length they snatch them from the devil’s rule, by the bath of regeneration and promote them to the freedom of God’s adopted sons.”
Gregory XVI didn’t claim that the false religions were somehow “good”. False religions are darkness for the people trapped in them.
After asking him about the Russian Orthodox patriarch Cyrill, the interviewer then switches to the subject of Prevost’s visit to the grand mosque in Algiers. Koovakad counters criticism of the visit:
“Theologically, a Pope entering and praying in non-Christian spaces is understood not as an act of religious relativism or syncretism, but as a gesture of respect, dialogue, peace, and shared human solidarity. […] When a Pope visits a mosque, synagogue, temple, or other non-Christian sacred space, such gestures should be interpreted primarily as expressions of openness, mutual respect, and the Church’s commitment to interreligious dialogue.”
Of course it is religious relativism to pray in the worship house of a false religion. The entire act conveys the message of “your religion is good enough”.
When “Leo XIV” visited the mosque, he didn’t proclaim Jesus Christ and His Church with one word. Instead, he said: “Thank you for this reflection and for these words, which are so important during this visit, from a place that represents the space that is of God; a divine, sacred space where so many people come to pray in order to find the presence of the Most High, of God, in their lives.”
By calling the mosque a “divine, sacred space”, he confirmed the Muslims in their errors.
“Pope John Paul II explained after the Assisi meeting that while believers of different religions cannot ordinarily ‘pray together’ in the strict sense, they can remain present while others pray, showing reverence for the sincere search for God by others.”
In 1986, “John Paul II” organized a meeting in Assisi, Italy, to which he also invited Orthodox bishops, Muslims, Buddhist monks and representatives of other religions to “pray for peace”. It is true that he didn’t pray together with them, but he organized the event and stood there with the other representatives, giving the impression that the pope is just one of many religious leaders. He wrote in “Redemptoris Missio”, paragraph 29: “Excluding any mistaken interpretation, the interreligious meeting held in Assisi was meant to confirm my conviction that ‘every authentic prayer is prompted by the Holy Spirit, who is mysteriously present in every human heart.’”
“Thus, Catholics should understand papal gestures in non-Christian spaces as symbolic acts of encounter and dialogue, not as a denial of the uniqueness of Christ or as approval of all religious beliefs equally.”
Pius XI warned already in 1928: “For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.” (Mortalium Animos 2)