The official title for this document is “Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions.” It is one of several documents produced by the Second Vatican Council of the Catholic Church, 1962-1965 (the First Vatican Council met in 1869-70). You will find two insistent messages in NA. The first is that there are certain common human needs, inclinations, and aspirations within all the major religious traditions. The second is that salvation comes for everyone through Jesus in some way, albeit perhaps ways we cannot always recognize. This seeks to combine openness to appreciate other traditions with a strong sense of a Catholic Christian identity. It is not always easy to do both at once.

This document, along with Dignitatis Humanae proclaiming freedom of religion everywhere, as well as many passages in other documents of Vatican II, represent a serious shift in attitude in the Catholic Church from previous centuries. To illustrate, here are a few paragraphs from the 1832 encyclical (circulating) letter to Catholic bishops by Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos.

13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. * * * *
14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit”[22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

15. Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. . . .

Many of these statements sound seriously wrong or deficient today to those who are used to the modern values of free speech, freedom of religion, and the plurality of basic religions in the world. The Second Vatican Council members decided that they valued these also, albeit with some qualifications, as you will read in Nostra Aetate.

The council respects the various major world religions (those “bound up with an advanced culture”) because they all struggle with the issues of what it means to be human (see the 3rd paragraph).

Reading Guide questions, to guide you in reading and understanding Nostra Aetate (NA)

1. Name some of the specific aspects of Hindu thought, of Buddhist thought, and of Islam identified in sections #2 & #3 which NA finds to be good and worthy of some praise

2. In #4, the longest section of the document, NA address the relations between Christians and Jews, mindful of course of a long and often unhappy history. Summarize the religious reasons given, as best you can, of why Christians ought to be respectful towards Judaism.

3. Cultural relativism poses an awkward question. If the people of a religious tradition are intolerant towards outsiders, towards those who do not share the same religion, what is a good way to respond? To be intolerant of their intolerance? To respect their intolerance as their way? Other?