Leo XIV embraces ‘profound change’ in Church’s stance on false religions

(LifeSiteNews) — The Vatican has recently published a “commemorative document” to mark 60 years since the “promulgation” of Nostra Aetate, the Second Vatican Council’s “Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions.”

The text contains errors regarding:

• The nature of religion,
• The sources of revelation,
• The theological virtue of faith,
• The incarnation of Our Lord,
• The relation of the old and new covenants,
• The duties of the state toward the true religion,
• The necessity of the Church for salvation,
• The Church’s mission toward those outside her fold,
• The manner in which the baptized are to be reconciled to the Church,
• The prohibition on participating in false worship,
• The legitimate use of violence by a society in self-defense.

Underlying the specific errors can be discerned the erroneous systems of naturalism, liberalism, and modernism.

Taken as a whole, the text is incompatible with the public profession of the Catholic faith and the visible unity of Christ’s Church.

The authors of the text

The document, “A Journey of Hope: Sixty Years of Interreligious Dialogue and Fraternity in the Light of the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate,” has been published in the names of three Vatican cardinals and their secretaries.

The cardinals are:

• Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, who has been a key figure in implementing the programs of both Francis and Leo.
• Cardinal Kurt Koch, prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, under whose leadership that dicastery produced a document that I have previously described as a blueprint for transforming the papacy as part of “the commitment to build a synodal Church.”
• Cardinal George Koovakad, prefect of the Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue, who has also shown himself a loyal adherent of the revolutionary program, as can be seen, for example, in his message to Muslims at Ramadan.

On June 22, 2026, the document was approved by Leo XIV who “ordered its publication,” which took place on September 16, 2026.

A clear break with the past

“A Journey of Hope” does not hide its lack of continuity with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

In fact, the document is refreshingly honest about the novelties introduced by Vatican II, and the contradiction between the new approach and the old. The document says of Nostra Aetate:

Far more than a mere text, it marked a profound change in the Church’s understanding and expression of her relationship with followers of other religions.

It made “it possible to overcome attitudes of exclusion, contempt, or indifference that had long prevailed.”

The document speaks of “the Church’s new attitude toward other faiths and religious traditions – which emerged from the Second Vatican Council” and notes that since Vatican II, “non-Christian religions should no longer be seen as adversaries but as companions on the journey.”

Nostra Aetate “radically transformed the face of interreligious relations,” as a result of which:

The Church has moved from an attitude that was often reserved or distant to a courageous path of sincere dialogue, respectful encounter, and fraternal cooperation.

Taking the revolution further

In “A Journey of Hope,” Leo XIV and his collaborators are open about their intention to take this revolution further, in order to achieve the goal of building “a fraternal society capable of accepting differences.” The differences to be accepted are specifically the religious differences of “believers of different traditions.”

The authors think that a “genuine shift in mindset is necessary.” This means “abandoning the logic of defensiveness, hostility, or conquest in order to adopt an attitude that is open, benevolent, and courageous.”

In paragraph 55, we read that “it is time to promote a new ethic of dialogue”:

It is no longer a matter of fearing or keeping one’s distance from the “other believer” – another civilization, another way of thinking – but of daring the encounter. The one who was once perceived as a threat, an enemy to be feared, respected only from a distance, or even destroyed, can become a dialogue partner, an ally, a friend, even a “pilgrim of truth” with whom one shares a part of the journey.

The authors continue:

Civilizations and religions can certainly come into tension, but they can also resonate with one another in a creative dynamic, knowing how to transform diversity into solidarity. Otherness should no longer be experienced as an obstacle, but as a challenge to be embraced. In a world confined within the suffocating limits of immanence, believers belonging to different religions do not wish to give up presenting to the world the truth of transcendence and God’s love for all people.

And they hold that:

Monolithic and isolated models, which encourage a closed view of reality, are proving increasingly inadequate and, ultimately, become sources of violence and suffering for the most vulnerable. The defensive entrenchment in one’s own position and the view that proselytism is the only way to engage with the other no longer make sense in a world that increasingly resembles an interconnected and constantly evolving global village.

Quoting Francis, the text affirms:

Long gone are the days when an insular mode of thought could determine an approach to time and space and appear to offer a valid way of resolving conflicts. Now is the time to be bold and envision the logic of encounter and mutual dialogue as the path, common cooperation as the code of conduct, and reciprocal knowledge as a method and standard. In this way, we can provide a new paradigm for resolving conflicts and help foster greater understanding and the protection of creation. In this regard, religions, like universities, have much to offer, without having to renounce their specific character and special gifts. Everything we do in this regard will be a significant step towards guaranteeing younger generations their right to the future, while serving the cause of justice and peace.

The goal toward which Leo XIV’s document tends is not the conversion of mankind to Christ, but rather the coexistence of false religions with the religion revealed by man’s Creator and Savior, which He commands be believed by all (cf. Mk 16:15-16). Nostra Aetate remains “highly relevant,” so the document states, in a world searching “for a peaceful coexistence within a universal citizenship founded on fraternity and mutual recognition.”

The new text asserts that an “integral dimension” of the Church’s missionary activity is “the dialogue of life, consisting in respectful and fraternal coexistence among believers of different religions”. It also presents “interreligious dialogue” as “an essential and complementary dimension” of “the explicit proclamation of the Gospel.”

By this sleight of hand, the document is able to simultaneously insist on the proclamation of the Gospel, while robbing that phrase of its authentic meaning.

The Church opposes error because she loves mankind

The quotations above, though lengthy, represent only a selection of the many similar affirmations contained throughout the document. They clearly manifest two of the central positions of the text:

1. That the Church’s authentic teaching about other religions was “defensive,” “insular,” and based on “fear” and other negative characteristics.
2. That the proposed alternative to this attitude is a “new paradigm” of “dialogue” and “coexistence.”

Both the text’s characterization of the Church’s true teaching and the proposed solution are false.

The Catholic Church has directed herself outwards toward the whole of mankind more than any institution in human history. Her missionaries have gone forth since the day of Pentecost to bring all mankind into one universal Church. The Church seeks out every single person that her Divine Founder has lovingly created. She wants to bring every man, woman, and child, of every race and nation, under her loving care.

When the Church encounters each society and culture, she does not seek to impose any man-made ideology, or reject any natural goods. She seeks only to teach those truths which are intended for all mankind, and which God Himself has revealed; to provide the worship and sacraments that unite us to God and to direct souls in that which pertains their eternal salvation.

Under her divinely assisted tutelage, all peoples can attain their greatest glory and see their particular gifts and characteristics brought to a higher state of development and perfection.

Pope Pius XII taught that “the nations” have “diverse conditions of life and of culture.” They “enrich and embellish [the human race] by the sharing of their own peculiar gifts” and by a “reciprocal interchange of goods.” However, this enrichment, is only possible and efficacious “when a mutual love and a lively sense of charity unite all the sons of the same Father and all those redeemed by the same Divine Blood.” Mankind can find unity in supernatural charity only within the unity of the Catholic Church.

The Church always seeks the genuine good of all mankind, in those things which are natural and temporal, as well as in those that are supernatural and eternal. She only seeks to eliminate that which is always harmful to mankind, namely error and sin.

She is completely and irreconcilably opposed to these because they harm us in this life and endanger our eternal happiness in the next. It is precisely because she loves us that the Church opposes all the errors and sins that threaten us.

Father Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., expressed this truth well when he wrote:

In the Church we again meet with this same harmony between things most difficult to reconcile. In her, charity most compassionate and doctrine most firm and uncompromising are united in one love, which is zeal for God’s glory and the salvation of souls. She knows she can do no good without combating evil, that she cannot preach the Gospel without fighting heresy. Mercy and firmness of doctrine can exist only when united; separated they die, and we have left but two corpses, namely, humanitarian Liberalism with its false serenity, and fanaticism with its false zeal.

It has been said: “The Church is intolerant in principle be­ cause she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle, because they do not believe, and intolerant in practice, because they do not love.”

Leo XIV and his cardinals have abandoned the harmony of Catholic doctrine for the “corpse” of “humanitarian Liberalism with its false serenity.” This path leads nowhere but misery in this life, and eternal agony in the next.

That is why it is so important that the doctrinal errors in this document be countered. In the next part of this series, we will go deeper in our analysis of this deadly text.