Conclave frontrunner Aveline's approach to Islam completely inverts Church teaching

(LifeSiteNews) — Cardinal Jean-Marc Aveline has been presented as a leading candidate to succeed Francis at the coming conclave. Before Francis’ death, Vatican insiders told LifeSiteNews that he “will be the next pope,” and Edward Pentin and Diana Montagna’s Cardinalium Collegii Recensio states that he is “allegedly Pope Francis’ ‘favorite’ cardinal to succeed him.”((https://collegeofcardinalsreport.com/cardinals/jean-marc-aveline/))  

Understanding Aveline’s theology has become an urgent task. In the first three parts of this series, we examined how Aveline systematically reinterprets the Catholic religion.  

• Part I: He reimagines the role of false religions in salvation. 

• Part II: He redefines the universality of Christ’s mediation to include those outside the Church. 

• Part III: He reconfigures the Church’s mission around dialogue, rather than conversion. 

• Part IV: He presents Rabbinic Judaism as a parallel “true religion,” and a necessary source to which the Church must turn in order to understand herself. 

Aveline’s approach to Judaism leads to a Church that renounces her mission to convert all nations, and seeks from other religions “a service of purification”: 

The world’s religions have become a question addressed to Christianity, which must, in their presence, reconsider its claim and thus receive from them, at the very least, a service of purification.((This text from Cardinal Ratzinger was quoted in Jean-Marc Aveline, ‘Évolution des problématiques en théologie des religions’, in Recherches de Science Religieuse, 2006/4 Tome 94, pp. 496-522.   

“The experience of the relativity of all human data and of all historical formations is one of the most striking spiritual characteristics of our time. […]  

“This is why the question of the relationship between Christianity and the religions of the world is absolutely pressing for today’s faith: it is not the result of vain curiosity that seeks to construct a theory on the destiny of others—this destiny is decided by God, who does not need our theories; if it were only that, our search would be futile and even misplaced.  

“The world’s religions have become a question addressed to Christianity, which must, in their presence, reconsider its claim and thus receive from them, at the very least, a service of purification.   

“As soon as this question is approached, it suggests how the Christian can also understand the necessary place of these religions in the history of salvation.” 

« L’expérience de la relativité de toutes les données humaines et de toutes les formations historiques fait partie des caractéristiques spirituelles marquantes de notre époque. […]  

« C’est pourquoi la question de la relation du christianisme avec les religions du monde s’impose absolument à la foi d’aujourd’hui : elle n’est pas le fait d’une vaine curiosité qui voudrait construire une théorie sur le destin des autres—ce destin, c’est Dieu qui le décide, lui qui n’a pas besoin de nos théories ; s’il ne s’agissait que de cela, notre recherche serait vaine et même déplacée. […]  

« Les religions du monde sont devenues une question adressée au christianisme qui doit, devant elles, repenser sa prétention et par là reçoit d’elles à tout le moins un service de purification.  

« Dès qu’il est abordé, l’examen de cette question fait deviner combien le chrétien lui aussi peut comprendre la place nécessaire de ces religions dans l’histoire du salut. » 

Cardinal Ratzinger, The New People of God, originally published as Das neue Volk Gottes: Entwürfe zur Ekklesiologie in 1969. This work does not seem to have been published in English.))

This part will explain how Aveline derives ideas such as this from the “lessons” taught by Rabbinic Judaism, how he applies such ideas to the other world religions, and the dire results that follow. 

As with the previous part, much of the material for this article in based on Aveline’s 2010 article “Les enjeux actuels des relations entre juifs et chrétiens” (The current issues in Jewish-Christian relations).

I. JUDAISM AS TEACHING THE CHURCH ABOUT RELIGIOUS PLURALISM

In the last part, we saw that Aveline’s subversive approach to Judaism follows these clear steps: 

• Misrepresent the Mosaic Covenant as being of ongoing validity 

• Misrepresent Judaism as the continuation of the Mosaic religion 

• Create a false understanding of the Church’s relationship with Rabbinic Judaism 

In itself, this approach is an inversion of doctrine and theology. However, Aveline takes this inversion, and places it at the service of another, more drastic inversion still. Aveline’s process continues: 

• Use this false understanding of Judaism to “deepen” what he calls “the mystery of the differentiated unity of God’s work” 

• Use this “mystery of the differentiated unity” as the lens through which to understand other non-Christian religions, and thus explain how they retain “salvific or revelatory value.” 

He specifically claims that his treatment of Judaism can “help” the Church by serving as the model for his wider theology of religious pluralism.   

The final step of Aveline’s program is as follows:  

• Use the “salvific or revelatory value” of world religions to recast the concept of religion itself in purely naturalistic terms. 

This explains how he justifies saying that “[b]asically, religions are ways for men and women to seek answers to the great, simple questions of life”—which represents the collapse of his whole synthesis into naturalism, and apostasy from Christ.((Nathalie Courtial, ‘Catholiques et musulmans ont "beaucoup de choses en commun", rencontre entre évêques et imam à la mosquée’, l’Éveil, 6 February 2019. Available at https://www.leveil.fr/puy-en-velay-43000/actualites/catholiques-et-musulmans-ont-beaucoup-de-choses-en-commun-rencontre-entre-eveques-et-imam-a-la-mosquee_13129039/  

[L]e point le plus important pour moi, ce sont ces relations d'amitié. Au fond, toute personne, qu'elle soit croyante ou pas, on est tous des hommes et des femmes qui vivont une vie humaine avec toutes les questions qu'elle soulève. 

On peut avoir des théories dans la tête, balancer des versets du Coran contre des versets de la Bible, on reste confronté aux mêmes questions, un jour ou l'autre : qu'est-ce la vie ? Qu'y a-t-il après ? Comment trouver le bonheur ? Pourquoi la souffrance existe ?  

Les religions, au fond, sont des façons pour les hommes et les femmes de chercher des réponses à ces grandes questions simples de l'existence. Il vaut mieux une religion qui vous aide, qui ne vous donne pas des réponses à des questions que vous ne vous posez pas mais qui vous aide à faire en vérité l'expérience de la vie, c'est ça le plus important".))

Differentiated unity is a divine mystery, willed by God  

Aveline asserts that Jewish-Christian dialogue reveals a differentiated unity between the Church and Judaism, and that this—rather than “homogenization”—is positively willed by God. He explains his concept of differentiated unity as follows: 

On the one hand, Jewish-Christian dialogue, because it invites reflection on the theological meaning of difference, can help unmask some ambiguities in interreligious dialogue that might too easily yield to the sirens of a homogenizing tolerance.  

On the other hand, the experience of interreligious encounter can enable a theology of the Jewish-Christian relationship to deepen the mystery of the differentiated unity of God's work, in the form of a call to share the gifts that each (Jew, Christian, and "other") has received in service of the Promise made in Abraham to all the human family.((Aveline 2010.  

« D’un côté, le dialogue judéo-chrétien, parce qu’il invite à penser le sens théologique de la différence, peut permettre de démasquer certaines ambiguïtés d’un dialogue interreligieux qui céderait trop facilement aux sirènes d’une tolérance uniformisante. 

« D’un autre côté, l’expérience de la rencontre interreligieuse peut permettre à une théologie de la relation judéo-chrétienne d’approfondir le mystère de l’unité différenciée de l’œuvre de Dieu, sous la forme d’un appel à mettre en partage les dons que chacun (juif, chrétien et « autre ») a reçus en propre au service de la Promesse faite en Abraham à toute la famille humaine. »))

He refers to “a certain ideology of tolerance emerges that risks confusing consensus with uniformity,” and cites Moses Mendelssohn’s warning for Christians against desiring conversion or religious unity: 

Let us not create harmony where diversity is clearly the plan and ultimate aim of providence. […] Why make ourselves unrecognizable by masquerades in the most important matters of life, since God did not mark each of his own features on the face in vain?((Jean-Marc Aveline, ‘Les enjeux actuels des relations entre juifs et chrétiens,’ Études 2010/10 Tome 413, p 355-366. Available here. Citing Mendelssohn:  

« Alors ne créons pas d’harmonie là où la diversité est manifestement le plan et le but ultime de la providence. […] Pourquoi nous rendre méconnaissables par des mascarades dans les affaires les plus importantes de la vie, puisque Dieu n’a pas marqué en vain chacun de ses propres traits du visage ? »))

Likewise, Aveline cites Christian de Chergé, who describes religious difference itself as a gift of God:  

'And if difference finds its meaning in the revelation that God makes of what He is? Nothing could prevent it from being conceived as faith itself, that is to say, as a gift from God.'  

Extending the Lubacian intuition of “the extension of the dogma of the communion of saints”, de Chergé drew attention to the strange interdependence that emerges in the differentiated unity of salvation history.((Aveline 2010 : 

« Et si la différence prenait son sens dans la révélation que Dieu nous fait de ce qu’il est ? Rien ne saurait empêcher de la concevoir comme la foi elle-même, c’est-à-dire comme un don de Dieu. » Prolongeant l’intuition lubacienne de « l’extension du dogme de la communion des saints », de Chergé attirait l’attention sur l’étrange relation d’interdépendance qui se fait jour dans l’unité différenciée de l’histoire du salut.))

Aveline comments on all these ideas:  

The Jewish-Christian relationship, because it prevents each tradition from defining its identity without including in this definition an otherness, either as a root more or less assumed, or as a fruit more or less recognized, constitutes an indispensable foundation for any theological research on [what de Chergé calls] 'the divine meaning of what humanly separates us.'((Aveline 2010 :  

« La relation judéo-chrétienne, parce qu’elle empêche l’une et l’autre tradition de décliner son identité sans inclure dans cette définition une altérité, soit en tant que racine plus ou moins assumée, soit en tant que fruit plus ou moins reconnu, constitue un fondement indispensable pour toute recherche théologique sur « le sens divin de ce qui humainement nous sépare ».)) 

At the end of the 2010 essay in question, Aveline waxes poetic on the relationship between the Church and Rabbinic Judaism: 

'Between the burning bush of Sinai and the silence of Calvary, the vivid flame of faith traces the furrow of sparks where theologies will pass indefinitely,' Stanislas Breton once wrote.((Aveline 2010. 

« Entre le buisson ardent du Sinaï et le silence du Calvaire, la vive flamme de la foi trace le sillon d’étincelles où les théologies indéfiniment passeront », écrivait jadis Stanislas Breton. »))

Whatever Breton may have meant by these words, Aveline’s application once again assumes that the Rabbinic Judaism of Yavne is still the religion of Sinai (rather than of Yavne), and refers again to de Chergé’s words in attributing a “divine meaning” to its relationship with the Church: 

Thanks to the experience of interreligious dialogue, it seems that a new stage of this furrow of sparks opens before us today, Jews and Christians, provided that, together scrutinizing 'the divine meaning of what humanly separates us,' we accept to share our hope under 'the flash of encounter.'((Aveline 2010. 

« A la faveur de l’expérience du dialogue interreligieux, il semble qu’une nouvelle étape de ce sillon d’étincelles s’ouvre aujourd’hui devant nous, juifs et chrétiens, pour peu que, scrutant ensemble « le sens divin de ce qui humainement nous sépare » nous acceptions de partager notre espérance sous « l’éclair de la rencontre ». »))

However, Aveline takes the supposed “differentiated unity”—which began as a novel “exception” conceded to Judaism, based on the Church’s Old Testament heritage—and extends it to all religions.  

After all, if the religion which explicitly rejects Christ can be said to have a continuing covenant and vocation, then what other religion can be denied the same?  

Judaism as the catalyst for Aveline’s interreligious theology 

The extension begins by Aveline’s presentation of religious pluralism as a “problem” to be reflected upon—but without regard for the traditional understanding, namely that false religions are the result of sin, and that God permits their existence for the sake of a higher good. He writes:  

Religious pluralism compels each religion to rethink the relevance of its claim to universality.((Aveline 2010: 

“Today, as religious pluralism compels each religion to rethink the relevance of its claim to universality, and as a certain ideology of tolerance emerges that risks confusing consensus with uniformity, the Jewish experience of the dialectic between emancipation and assimilation remains highly relevant.” 

« Aujourd’hui, alors que la pluralité religieuse impose à chaque religion d’avoir à repenser la pertinence de sa prétention à l’universalité et que se fait jour une certaine idéologie de la tolérance qui risque de confondre consensus et uniformité, l’expérience juive de la dialectique entre émancipation et assimilation reste d’une grande actualité. »))  

This “problem,” he argues, is to be resolved in light of the supposed relationship between the Church and Judaism. He presents his vision of Judaism as the foundation of his broader theological system—a vision of religious pluralism which obliterates the very concept of a “false” religion in the first place.   

He explains that the modern approach to Judaism gave rise to a new approach to religious pluralism in general: 

Given the magnitude of the issues to be addressed, the following reflections set out only a modest goal, starting from the following observation: whereas the necessity of a Christian position on Judaism after the tragedy of the Shoah led the conciliar assembly of Vatican II beyond its original project, even towards an opening to dialogue with the religions of the world […]((Aveline 2010:   

“… it may be that the reverse movement today holds promise. Indeed, the reality of interreligious relations, with their advances and difficulties, makes possible a new look at the theological content and significance of the specific relationship between Jews and Christians.”  

« Devant l’ampleur des questions à traiter, les quelques réflexions qui suivent ne s’assignent qu’un but très modeste, à partir du constat suivant : alors que la nécessité d’une prise de position chrétienne sur le judaïsme après le drame de la Shoah a entraîné l’assemblée conciliaire de Vatican II au-delà de son projet initial, jusque vers une ouverture au dialogue avec les religions du monde, il se pourrait que le mouvement inverse puisse être aujourd’hui porteur de promesses. En effet, la réalité des relations interreligieuses, avec leurs avancées et leurs difficultés, rend possible un nouveau regard sur la teneur et la portée théologiques de la relation spécifique entre juifs et chrétiens. »)) 

Aveline attributes this change in attitude to Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate: 

[T]his work on Judaism, in some sense ‘imposed’ by John XXIII on the conciliar assembly, that it gradually decided to attempt, by broadening its scope, to lay the foundations of a dialogical and cooperative attitude of the Church towards non-Christian religions.((Aveline 2010:  

“It would certainly be too long to trace here the meanders followed by the difficult drafting of the conciliar declaration Nostra ætate, promulgated on 28 October 1965, which gave Jewish-Christian relations a new and decisive impetus. Certainly, numerous difficulties arose, both during the Council's proceedings and in the years that followed. The most important point for our discussion is to note that it was due to this work on Judaism, in some sense ‘imposed’ by John XXIII on the conciliar assembly, that it gradually decided to attempt, by broadening its scope, to lay the foundations of a dialogical and cooperative attitude of the Church towards non-Christian religions.”  

« Il serait certes trop long de retracer ici les méandres que suivit l’élaboration difficile de la déclaration conciliaire Nostra ætate, promulguée le 28 octobre 1965, qui donna aux relations judéo-chrétiennes une impulsion inédite et décisive. Certes, de nombreuses difficultés n’ont pas manqué de s’élever, que ce soit pendant les travaux du Concile ou au cours des années qui suivirent. Le plus important pour notre propos est de relever que c’est à cause de ce travail sur le judaïsme, en quelque sorte « imposé » par Jean XXIII à l’assemblée conciliaire, que celle-ci s’est peu à peu décidée à tenter de formuler, élargissant son propos, les fondements d’une attitude dialogale et coopérative de l’Eglise avec les religions non chrétiennes. »))

He cites a very revealing text from Cardinal Bea, explaining the extension of this differentiated unity to all religions:  

To this Declaration, one could apply the biblical image of the mustard seed. At the beginning, indeed, it was only a brief declaration on the attitude of Christians towards the Jewish people.  

With time, and especially thanks to the conciliar interventions, this seed has almost become a tree, in which now many birds find their nest, I mean in which all non-Christian religions now have their place, at least in some manner.((Aveline 2010, citing Bea’s declaration in 18 November 1964 :  

« A cette Déclaration on peut appliquer l’image biblique du grain de sénevé. Au début, en effet, il ne s’agissait que d’une courte déclaration sur l’attitude des chrétiens à l’égard du peuple juif.  

« Avec le temps, et surtout grâce aux interventions conciliaires, ce grain est presque devenu un arbre, dans lequel désormais beaucoup d’oiseaux trouvent leur nid, je veux dire dans lequel toutes les religions non chrétiennes ont maintenant leur place, au moins d’une certaine manière. »))

This idea was expressed with even greater clarity by Cardinal Walter Kasper, in an address for the 37th anniversary of Nostra Aetate in 2002, presenting the novel approach to Judaism as the protoype in interreligious theology: 

[W]e Catholics became aware with greater clarity that the faith of Israel is that of our elder brothers, and, most importantly, that Judaism is as a sacrament of every otherness that as such the Church must learn to discern, recognize and celebrate.((Cardinal Walter Kasper, ‘Address on the 37th Anniversary of Nostra Aetate,’ 28 October 2002. Available here.)) [Emphasis added] 

It is in this way that novel exceptions for Judaism have become the rule for all religions. 

The result of the extension of 'differentiated unity' to all religions  

If we consider each aspect of Aveline’s novel approach to Judaism, we can see its trajectory towards an interreligious theology: 

• The refusal or inability to call Judaism a false religion becomes the refusal to call any religion false((As previously noted, we must ask whether Aveline would say this of Satanism, Aztec human sacrifice, or other such abominations. One way of avoiding this is to say that these aren’t “true” religions, and to base suc a distinction on entirely worldly and naturalistic grounds. But Catholics cannot help but wonder which are the “true” false religions, and which are the “false” false religions. A similar phenomenon was apparent in Kansas Archbishop Joseph Naumann’s sermon, during a ceremony in reparation for a group of Satanists holding a “Black Mass” at the Kansas State House. While Naumann took laudable steps in response to this abomination, he also condemned the “fake religion” of the Kansas-based “Satanic Grotto.” Such a formulation seems to lend legitimacy to the idea that there are such things as “real religions” besides that of the Catholic Church, which might escape this censure of being “fake.”))

• The claim that the Mosaic Covenant remains valid becomes the claim that all religious dispensations are valid—made palatable to conservatives by the lip-service to “christic mediation.” 

• The concession of a vocation and mission to Rabbinic Judaism becomes a concession to all religions. 

• The supposed co-responsibility of Jews and Christians for each others’ response to God through their respective religions becomes a co-responsibility for all men in all religions 

• The “mystery of the differentiated unity” with Rabbinic Judaism becomes the “mystery of religious pluralism” in general. 

• The need for the Church to learn from and to be purified by Judaism becomes a need for all religions to purify each other—starting with the Church. 

• The asymmetrical dependence of the Church on Judaism for self-understanding becomes an obligation to respect all religions, without expecting the same in return 

• The denial of an evangelical mission to the Jews become a denial of evangelization itself—No mission to the Jews becomes No mission to anyone.

These propositions, taken together, dismantle the foundations of Catholic theology and invert the Church’s entire mission along the lines which we have already seen.  

However, they enable Aveline to say what no Catholic could say without blasphemy or apostasy: 

On the eschatological horizon of the Promise, all peoples share in the mission that the Father entrusted to the Son and to the Spirit.((Aveline 2010.  

“On the eschatological horizon of the Promise, all peoples share in the mission that the Father entrusted to the Son and to the Spirit. In the experience of interreligious encounter, despite its difficulties and sometimes its ambiguities, the Church today finds an unprecedented and demanding opportunity to test that the exodus towards the other, far from diverting it from the Kingdom, makes it discover both the indispensable place of these "others" in salvation history and the importance of its own vocation, as the sacramental expression of a Promise that both surpasses and requires it. Thus, this experience can help Christians to look at Judaism differently, first by trying to receive it as it understands itself today, through the rereading it makes of its history and its vocation. It can also invite them to seek, from this better understanding of what Judaism is in its own eyes, the spiritual links that unite them to it.” 

« Sur l’horizon eschatologique de la Promesse, tous les peuples ont part à la mission que le Père a confiée au Fils et à l’Esprit. Dans l’expérience de la rencontre interreligieuse, malgré ses difficultés et parfois ses ambiguïtés, l’Eglise trouve aujourd’hui une occasion inédite et exigeante d’éprouver que l’exode vers l’autre, loin de la détourner du Royaume, lui fait découvrir à la fois la place indispensable de ces « autres » dans l’histoire du salut et l’importance de sa propre vocation, comme expression sacramentelle d’une Promesse qui tout à la fois la dépasse et la requiert. Dès lors, cette expérience peut aider les chrétiens à regarder le judaïsme autrement, en essayant d’abord de le recevoir tel qu’il se comprend lui-même aujourd’hui, à travers la relecture qu’il fait de son histoire et de sa vocation. Elle peut aussi les inviter à chercher, à partir de cette meilleure connaissance de ce que le judaïsme est à leurs propres yeux, quels sont les liens spirituels qui les unissent à lui. »))

This is also why Aveline approvingly cites Cardinal Ratzinger, in a work which has not been published in English, who lays bare the full scale of the revolutionary synthesis, assuming many novel and false ideas as true, and using them to call for the “purification” of Christianity by false religions: 

This is why the question of the relationship between Christianity and the religions of the world is absolutely pressing for today’s faith: it is not the result of vain curiosity that seeks to construct a theory on the destiny of others—this destiny is decided by God, who does not need our theories; if it were only that, our search would be futile and even misplaced.  

The world’s religions have become a question addressed to Christianity, which must, in their presence, reconsider its claim and thus receive from them, at the very least, a service of purification. 

As soon as this question is approached, it suggests how the Christian can also understand the necessary place of these religions in the history of salvation.((The full text runs : 

L’expérience de la relativité de toutes les données humaines et de toutes les formations historiques fait partie des caractéristiques spirituelles marquantes de notre époque. […] C’est pourquoi la question de la relation du christianisme avec les religions du monde s’impose absolument à la foi d’aujourd’hui : elle n’est pas le fait d’une vaine curiosité qui voudrait construire une théorie sur le destin des autres—ce destin, c’est Dieu qui le décide, lui qui n’a pas besoin de nos théories ; s’il ne s’agissait que de cela, notre recherche serait vaine et même déplacée. […] Les religions du monde sont devenues une question adressée au christianisme qui doit, devant elles, repenser sa prétention et par là reçoit d’elles à tout le moins un service de purification. Dès qu’il est abordé, l’examen de cette question fait deviner combien le chrétien lui aussi peut comprendre la place nécessaire de ces religions dans l’histoire du salut.   

Cardinal Ratzinger, The New People of God, originally published as Das neue Volk Gottes: Entwürfe zur Ekklesiologie in 1969. This work does not seem to have been published in English.)) 

Aveline explicitly adopts Ratzinger’s language and makes it his own. Thus, the true trajectory of the program is unveiled: the Church is no longer the bearer of the truth that judges the world—she is the one that is judged by the world and other religions, and purified in their light.   

We are now only a few steps away from the apostasy which abandons Christ, as well as the concept of revealed religion, which it replaces with a vague humanitarianism. 

Let us see how this is manifested in Aveline’s treatment of Islam.  

II. DIFFERENTIATED UNITY TO NATURALISM: AVELINE’S METHOD APPLIED TO ISLAM 

Aveline’s vision of Rabbinic Judaism as a partner in salvation history, co-responsible for God’s plan and necessary for the Church’s self-understanding becomes the paradigm and catalyst of all his interreligious theology.  

His treatment of Islam follows the same naturalistic, problematizing logic that underpins his broader theology, and the precise trajectory established in his treatment of Judaism. As with Judaism, Aveline presents Islam not as a false religion to be rejected, but as a culturally rich and spiritually valuable tradition—one that participates, in some way, in God’s plan.  

This cultural affirmation is matched by a theological one. Aveline does not openly claim that Islam saves—but he systematically undermines the necessity of leaving it and conversion to the Catholic faith. As in his treatment of Judaism, the objective truth of the Catholic religion gives way to vague references to Christ’s universal role through “christic mediation”, and to a language of “co-responsibility” that treats conversion as optional.  

Lip-service to Our Lord Jesus Christ  

As with Judaism, Aveline’s approach to Islam pays occasional verbal homage to Catholic teaching on Christ’s uniqueness—only to drain it of its theological meaning and all practical consequences.  

In a 2019 interview with Famille Chrétienne, he refers to the Acts of the Apostles, affirming—at least verbally—that “Jesus Christ is the Saviour of the entire world.” But instead of stating this as an objective truth, he qualifies it as “the faith of Christians.”((‘Mgr Aveline : « Il faut s’enraciner dans le Christ pour témoigner auprès des musulmans »’ Famille Chrétienne, 4/2/2019.    

« Que Jésus le Christ soit le Sauveur du monde dans sa totalité : telle est la foi des chrétiens. »))    

But is Christ the Saviour because Christians believe it—or because it is true? This kind of phrasing—also found in other parts of Aveline’s work—suggests a studied ambiguity.((In the same interview, he says: 

“[T]he Christian faith holds that the path of Islam is not sufficient for salvation.”  

« [L]a foi chrétienne tient que, selon elle, le chemin de l’islam n’est pas suffisant pour assurer le salut… »  

Further, in Aveline 2006, he writes:   

“Jesus Christ is “the only mediator of salvation” (1 Tim 2:5) and “there is no salvation outside of him, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:11-12). Consequently, it is only through their relation to Christ that the religions hold, in the eyes of Christians, their positive value in the order of salvation: ‘the contribution of mediations of different types and orders is not excluded, but they derive their meaning and value only from that of Christ, and they cannot be considered parallel or complementary.’” (Emphasis added)    

« Jésus le Christ est « l’unique médiateur du salut » (1Tm 2,5) et « il n’y a aucun salut ailleurs qu’en lui, car il n’y a sous le ciel aucun autre nom offert aux hommes qui soit nécessaire à notre salut » (Ac 4,11-12). En conséquence, ce n’est que de leurs relations au Christ que les religions détiennent, aux yeux des chrétiens, leur valeur positive dans l’ordre du salut : ‘ le concours de médiations de types et d’ordres divers n’est pas exclu, mais celles-ci tirent leur sens et leur valeur uniquement de celle du Christ et elles ne peuvent être considérées comme parallèles ou complémentaires.’ » 

It is true that this way of speaking can indicate that the proposition is de fide, and that denying it is heresy. The context of Aveline’s words make such a technical and dogmatic interpretation very unlikely.)) It reflects the rhetorical strategy underpinning his notion of “christic mediation”: affirm the terms of the faith, while emptying their substance and neutralising their implications. 

Aveline’s treatment of Islam illustrates how this works in practice. In the same Famille Chretienne interview, he admits that “the path of Islam is not sufficient for salvation,” but then immediately qualifies it with the same studied ambiguity already mentioned: he praises Islam’s “spiritual, moral, and socio-cultural riches,” and exhorts Catholics to look for “traces of the Spirit’s work” within it.((Aveline 2019 (Famille Chretienne)  

“For this reason, the Christian faith holds that the path of Islam is not sufficient for salvation, yet it would be wrong to disregard the “spiritual, moral, and socio-cultural” (Nostra ætate 2) riches of this path and to fail to seek, with tireless curiosity, the traces of the Spirit’s work in the human lives of those who walk this path as genuine seekers of God.  

« C’est la raison pour laquelle la foi chrétienne tient que, selon elle, le chemin de l’islam n’est pas suffisant pour assurer le salut, mais que l’on aurait tort de négliger les richesses « spirituelles, morales et socio-culturelles » (Nostra ætate 2) de ce chemin et de ne pas chercher, avec une inlassable curiosité, les traces du travail de l’Esprit dans les existences humaines de ceux qui avancent sur ce chemin en authentiques chercheurs de Dieu. »))  

Instead of inviting Muslims to leave their errors and be saved, he encourages Christians to find value in the errors themselves.  

Aveline again invokes Christian de Chergé, who taught that Muslims and Christians are to “respond together” to God’s call—and that a “living faith” cannot coexist with the Church’s anathemas—especially those concerning other religions.((Aveline 2006. He quotes de Chergé : 

“I increasingly believe that there is no deep dialogue with the people of Islam except from this radical — and theological, in the strongest sense — perspective, which meets them already where so many of us have been anticipated, marked, even unto their death, by the sign of their respective faiths. This reality of the Kingdom — their communion of glory in the total submission of the Son — returns to us to incarnate by developing all the virtual complementarities of our faithfulness to God.   

“It is enough, moreover, to believe that this God who calls us to prayer, one by another, may grow impatient with seeing us so little inclined to correspond, that is, to respond together. Who dares this correspondence perceives better, and with what joy, how much personal faith alone is alive and how it is truly impossible to express it in the way of the anathemas we hurl at each other after centuries.” 

« Je crois de plus en plus qu’il n’y a de dialogue profond avec les hommes de l’islam qu’à partir de cette visée radicale — et théologique, au sens le plus fort — qui les rejoint déjà là où tant nous ont devancés, marqués, jusque dans leur mort, par le signe de leurs fois respectives. Cette réalité du Royaume—leur communion de gloire dans la totale soumission du Filsil nous revient de l’incarner en développant toutes les complémentarités virtuelles de nos fidélités à Dieu. Il suffit, d’ailleurs, de croire que ce Dieu qui nous appelle à la prière les uns par les autres, peut s’impatienter de nous voir si peu portés à correspondre, c’est-à-dire à répondre ensemble. Qui ose cette correspondance perçoit mieux et avec quelle joie combien la foi personnelle seule est vivante et qu’il lui est bien impossible de s’exprimer à la façon des anathèmes que nous nous lançons les uns aux autres depuis des siècles. »)) The refusal to call Islam a false religion, and indeed the tacit rejection of true and false religion as meaningful categories, runs throughout Aveline’s synthesis. The Church’s historic claims are not directly and openly rejected, but are subject to a “conspiracy of silence.” 

This is the true function of his theory of “christic mediation.” It does not reinforce the necessity of Christ and his Church: it allows him to retain Catholic language while justifying religious pluralism, and implicitly affirming differentiated unity and the legitimacy of multiple “covenants” between man and God. 

Catholics need to learn from Islam—in ways that St Pius X condemned  

As with Judaism, Aveline claims that the Catholics must learn from Islam and its adherents, in order to understand themselves and the Church. 

In Marseille, he praises the friendships formed between Catholic youth and Muslims during charitable work. He speaks approvingly of their “discovery of Islam as it is lived in the streets and housing estates.”((Aveline 2019 (Famille Chretienne) 

« Pour beaucoup d’entre eux, l’expérience du service des pauvres, pour laquelle ils sont venus à Marseille, se double d’une découverte de l’islam tel qu’il est vécu à même la rue et les cités. »)) 

In a 2024 interview with Le Verbe, Aveline expands on this theme in even more naturalistic terms.((‘Cardinal Aveline : au carrefour du christianisme et de l’islam’, interview by Simon Lessard for Le Verbe, 22 November 2024.  

“I see young people who come to Marseille, to the Bernadette fraternity, to serve the poor, helping, among other things, with academic support. They often arrive from relatively affluent neighbourhoods in the Parisian suburbs, carrying ideas and apprehensions about Islam. But after six months, they leave with Muslim friends, and that, to me, is the fundamental shift. Until you have a Muslim friend, you have only ideas about Islam—or worse still, the ideas of others.  

“That is why we have created, in Marseille, a day for Muslim-Christian families—not for priests and imams, but for families. There are games for children and workshops for parents—not on complicated matters from the Qur’an or the Bible, but on simple aspects of everyday life. For example, how to educate our children regarding water consumption.  

« Je vois des jeunes qui viennent à Marseille, dans la fraternité Bernadette, pour être au service des pauvres en aidant, entre autres, au soutien scolaire. Ils arrivent souvent des quartiers assez riches de la banlieue parisienne avec des idées et des appréhensions par rapport à l’islam. Mais, au bout de six mois, ils repartent avec des copains musulmans, et ça, pour moi, c’est le déplacement fondamental. Tant que tu n’as pas un ami musulman, tu n’as que tes idées sur l’islam, ou, ce qui est pire, les idées des autres. 

« C’est pourquoi on a créé, à Marseille, une journée des familles islamo-chrétiennes, non pas pour des prêtres et des imams, mais pour des familles. Il y a des jeux pour les gamins et des ateliers pour les parents, non pas sur des choses compliquées du Coran ou de la Bible, mais sur des choses toutes simples de la vie ordinaire. Comment éduquer nos enfants par rapport à la consommation d’eau, par exemple. »)) He speaks warmly of students from wealthy suburbs who come to serve in poor Muslim districts, and who leave spiritually enriched not only by their charitable work, but by their contact with Islam itself:  

They often arrive from relatively affluent neighborhoods in the Parisian suburbs, carrying ideas and apprehensions about Islam. But after six months, they leave with Muslim friends, and that, to me, is the fundamental shift. Until you have a Muslim friend, you have only ideas about Islam—or worse still, the ideas of others.((‘Cardinal Aveline : au carrefour du christianisme et de l’islam’, interview by Simon Lessard for Le Verbe, 22 November 2024. 

“I see young people who come to Marseille, to the Bernadette fraternity, to serve the poor, helping, among other things, with academic support. They often arrive from relatively affluent neighborhoods in the Parisian suburbs, carrying ideas and apprehensions about Islam. But after six months, they leave with Muslim friends, and that, to me, is the fundamental shift. Until you have a Muslim friend, you have only ideas about Islam—or worse still, the ideas of others. 

“That is why we have created, in Marseille, a day for Muslim-Christian families—not for priests and imams, but for families. There are games for children and workshops for parents—not on complicated matters from the Qur’an or the Bible, but on simple aspects of everyday life. For example, how to educate our children regarding water consumption.” 

« Je vois des jeunes qui viennent à Marseille, dans la fraternité Bernadette, pour être au service des pauvres en aidant, entre autres, au soutien scolaire. Ils arrivent souvent des quartiers assez riches de la banlieue parisienne avec des idées et des appréhensions par rapport à l’islam. Mais, au bout de six mois, ils repartent avec des copains musulmans, et ça, pour moi, c’est le déplacement fondamental. Tant que tu n’as pas un ami musulman, tu n’as que tes idées sur l’islam, ou, ce qui est pire, les idées des autres. 

« C’est pourquoi on a créé, à Marseille, une journée des familles islamo-chrétiennes, non pas pour des prêtres et des imams, mais pour des familles. Il y a des jeux pour les gamins et des ateliers pour les parents, non pas sur des choses compliquées du Coran ou de la Bible, mais sur des choses toutes simples de la vie ordinaire. Comment éduquer nos enfants par rapport à la consommation d’eau, par exemple. »))

To foster this transformation, Aveline established “Muslim-Christian family days”—deliberately excluding priests and imams—so that ordinary families could spend time together discussing “simple aspects of everyday life,” such as “how to educate our children regarding water consumption.”((‘Cardinal Aveline : au carrefour du christianisme et de l’islam’, interview by Simon Lessard for Le Verbe, 22 November 2024.  

Comment éduquer nos enfants par rapport à la consommation d’eau, par exemple.))  

This cannot help but recall Pope St Pius X’s warnings in Notre charge apostolique, where he condemns the dangers to the faith posed by interfaith events like Aveline’s. Reflecting on Le Sillon’s interreligious initiatives, he asks: 

This being said, what must be thought of the promiscuity in which young Catholics will be caught up with heterodox and unbelieving folk in a work of this nature? Is it not a thousand-fold more dangerous for them than a neutral [e.g., avowedly secular, rather than interreligious] association?((https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10notre.htm)) 

What emerges from all this is unmistakable: it is, again, his differentiated unity, coexistence and religious pluralism as a religious formation for Catholics. Islam is not treated as a grave obstacle to grace and salvation, but as a gift to the Church.   

Like Rabbinic Judaism, it is presented as a “true religion,” insufficient for salvation in itself (a lack resolved by the “christic mediation,” which is presumed to extend to it by default), but nonetheless a source of spiritual formation and mutual enrichment. The Church’s role is no longer to evangelize Muslims, but to encourage her children to from Muslims how to understand Christianity.  

Converts—to be cherished, but definitely not to be sought 

Although Aveline occasionally praises those who convert from Islam,((Aveline 2019. 

“Those who leave Islam to embrace the faith of Christians are a precious and fragile treasure for the whole Church, just as are those who abandon atheism or another religion.” 

« Ceux qui quittent l’islam pour embrasser la foi des chrétiens sont un trésor précieux et fragile pour toute l’Église, au même titre que ceux qui quittent l’athéisme ou une autre religion. »)) he frames all direct missionary efforts to Muslims as “arrogant,” and reduces evangelisation to passive accompaniment and vague friendship. He writes:  

[M]ission does not consist in devising missionary strategies for the conversion of Muslims— that would seem to me pretentious and profoundly arrogant. Rather, one must be present, in friendship and openness, attentive to the work of the Holy Spirit in the other and in oneself, always ready to bear witness to our Lord Jesus Christ.((Aveline 2019. 

« C’est pourquoi la mission ne consiste pas en la mise en place de stratégies missionnaires pour la conversion des musulmans : cela me paraît prétentieux et profondément orgueilleux. Mais il faut se tenir là, dans l’amitié et la présence, à l’écoute du travail de l’Esprit Saint en l’autre et en moi, en se tenant toujours prêt à témoigner de notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ. »))

This cultivated passivity, and a studied aversion to planning or purpose,((As if the Lord had not said:    

“For which of you, having a mind to build a tower, doth not first sit down and reckon the charges that are necessary, whether he have wherewithal to finish it: Lest, after he hath laid the foundation and is not able to finish it, all that see it begin to mock him, Saying: This man began to build and was not able to finish. Or, what king, about to go to make war against another king, doth not first sit down and think whether he be able, with ten thousand, to meet him that, with twenty thousand, cometh against him? Or else, while the other is yet afar off, sending an embassy, he desireth conditions of peace.” (Luke 14))) are recurring covers for Aveline’s theology. Asked in 2024 about the future of Catholic outreach to “our Muslim compatriots,” he said: 

“Sufficient for the day is its own trouble, its half-light, and its hymn,” said Saint Francis de Sales with wisdom!  

I refuse to make plans. I simply try to fulfill the responsibility entrusted to me within the French Bishops’ Conference by traveling extensively throughout the dioceses, meeting people—both Christians and Muslims—and striving to create conditions for the emergence of a true and peaceful debate among Christians on these difficult questions, with the ultimate concern for ecclesial communion, in fidelity to the Gospel.((Aveline 2019. 

Comment voyez-vous demain la pastorale missionnaire auprès de nos compatriotes musulmans ? 

« À chaque jour suffit sa peine, sa demi-lumière et son cantique », disait avec sagesse saint François de Sales ! Je me refuse à faire des plans. J’essaie simplement d’assumer la responsabilité qui est la mienne au sein de la Conférence des évêques de France en circulant beaucoup dans les diocèses, en rencontrant les personnes, chrétiennes et musulmanes, en essayant aussi de favoriser les conditions d’émergence d’un débat vrai et serein entre les chrétiens sur toutes ces questions difficiles, dans le souci ultime de la communion ecclésiale, en fidélité à l’Évangile.)) 

While trust in providence is commendable, Aveline’s refusal to plan—combined with the theological deviations discussed in this series—amounts to a quietistic abandonment of evangelisation. He explicitly abandons evangelization for dialogue, and then claims that they are the same. “Mission” becomes the cultivation of feelings and social ties, without urgency, calls to conversion or the recognition of eternal stakes.  

This approach is consistent with everything we have already seen. As with Rabbinic Judaism, Aveline's theology compels him to see Islam as a valid expression of a divine “difference”—a “gift” to the Church—instead of an obstacle to salvation. 

This inversion would not have been recognizable to St Francis Xavier, to the missionaries of the Counter-Reformation; nor to Pope Gregory XVI, who praised those who “snatch [souls] from the devil’s rule [...] and promote them to the freedom of God’s adopted sons.”((Pope Gregory, Probe Nostis, 1840, n. 6. https://www.papalencyclicals.net/greg16/g16probe.htm)) 

However, Aveline goes further still. He implies that God calls Muslims as Muslims, by claiming that the Holy Ghost is present wherever prayer is found—without distinguishing between true and false worship—and, as we have seen, that the Spirit is at work “within all religions, societies, and cultures.”((He cites Dominum et vivificantem, 1986:  

It is good and salutary to think that, wherever prayer is found in the world, the Holy Spirit, the vital breath of prayer, is present.))  

Though he affirms that Islam is “not sufficient” for salvation, this insufficiency does not exclude a “salvific or revelatory value.” This allows him to treat the insufficiency in more positive terms, rather than as an obstacle to salvation: Islam effectively becomes sufficient once it is augmented by “christic mediation.”((Aveline 2010.  

« L’Église catholique reconnaît tout d’abord la possibilité d’un rôle positif des autres religions, en tant que réalités socio-culturelles, dans l’économie générale du salut. Par là se trouve écartée une position exclusiviste qui, au nom d’un ecclésiocentrisme étroit, refuserait aux religions nonchrétiennes toute valeur salvatrice et révélatrice, en s’appuyant sur une interprétation durcie, et donc faussée, de l’antique adage patristique : hors de l’Église, point de salut. »)) Although he seems to look for a loophole, this is functionally the same as saying that Islam is sufficient for salvation.  

This seems to be the purpose of this doctrinal subversion: to make room for such contradictions as treating Islam as being insufficient for salvation, and yet having “salvific or revelatory value” and refusing to call souls out of it. 

This is the logical outworking of his “christic mediation,” and it is scarcely distinguishable from Rahner’s “anonymous Christian” thesis.((Aveline 28-9. He refers to Redemptoris Missio, acknowledging it as “truly revolutionary”:  

“Then—and these lines are truly revolutionary—he specifies what this universality of the Spirit’s presence and action consists in: ‘The presence and activity of the Spirit do not concern only individuals, but also society and history, peoples, cultures, and religions.’ You have read correctly! John Paul II deduces that ‘the Church’s relations with other religions are inspired by a twofold respect: respect for man in his search for answers to the deepest questions of his life, and respect for the action of the Spirit in man.’”  

« Puis - et ces lignes sont proprement révolutionnaires - il précise en quoi consiste cette universalité de la présence et de l'action de l'Esprit : « La présence et l'activité de l'Esprit ne concernent pas seulement les individus, mais la société et l'histoire, les peuples, les cultures, les religions. » Vous avez bien lu ! Jean-Paul II en déduit que « les rapports de l'Église avec les autres religions sont inspirés par un double respect : respect pour l'homme dans sa quête de réponses aux questions les plus profondes de sa vie, et respect pour l'action de l'Esprit dans l'homme » ». 

Without regard for the truth of Aveline’s judgment on Redemptoris Missio, it is difficult to see how one can refer to a doctrine as “truly revolutionary” without this being an open admission of heresy.)) The specificity of Christ’s mediation vanishes, and Christ himself is dissolved (1 John 4:3) into a vague universal presence, with his Church merely one voice among others.   

What remains is a pseudo-theological veneer which is compatible with religious pluralism—with the empty formula of “christic mediation” recalling Pius XII’s stern warning against those who reduce “the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation to a meaningless formula.”((Humani Generis n. 27.))  

In short, Aveline’s vision treats Islam as he treats Rabbinic Judaism: not as a false religion to be overcome, but as an insufficient form of true religion to be affirmed.  

From purported ‘natural religion’ to naturalism 

We have spoken several times of Aveline’s theology “dissolving” Christ. This is a reference to St John, who teaches: 

[E]very spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God. And this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh: and he is now already in the world. (1 John 4.2-3)

Many Catholic authorities believe that the religion of the Antichrist will be of a naturalistic character—that is, one that denies and excludes the divinity of Christ and the supernatural order which he has established. This is precisely the trajectory of Aveline’s “christic mediation” and his interreligious theology in general—and on several occasions, he has demonstrated a tendency towards such naturalism himself. 

He speaks of religion not in terms of revelation or even philosophy, but in a purely psychological and sociological way—in other words, in naturalist terms. For example, at an interreligious gathering in a mosque in 2019, he defines religion in precisely such terms: 

The most important thing for me is these relationships of friendship. At the end of the day, whether we're believers or not, we're all men and women living a human life with all the questions it raises. 

We can have theories in our heads, throw verses from the Koran against verses from the Bible, but we still face the same questions, one day or another: what is life? What's next? How do we find happiness? Why does suffering exist?  

Basically, religions are ways for men and women to seek answers to the great, simple questions of life. It's better to have a religion that helps you, that doesn't give you answers to questions you don't ask yourself, but that helps you to truly experience life - that's the most important thing.((Nathalie Courtial, ‘Catholiques et musulmans ont "beaucoup de choses en commun", rencontre entre évêques et imam à la mosquée’, l’Éveil, 6 February 2019. Available at https://www.leveil.fr/puy-en-velay-43000/actualites/catholiques-et-musulmans-ont-beaucoup-de-choses-en-commun-rencontre-entre-eveques-et-imam-a-la-mosquee_13129039/    

« [L]e point le plus important pour moi, ce sont ces relations d'amitié. Au fond, toute personne, qu'elle soit croyante ou pas, on est tous des hommes et des femmes qui vivont une vie humaine avec toutes les questions qu'elle soulève. 

« On peut avoir des théories dans la tête, balancer des versets du Coran contre des versets de la Bible, on reste confronté aux mêmes questions, un jour ou l'autre : qu'est-ce la vie ? Qu'y a-t-il après ? Comment trouver le bonheur ? Pourquoi la souffrance existe ?  

« Les religions, au fond, sont des façons pour les hommes et les femmes de chercher des réponses à ces grandes questions simples de l'existence. Il vaut mieux une religion qui vous aide, qui ne vous donne pas des réponses à des questions que vous ne vous posez pas mais qui vous aide à faire en vérité l'expérience de la vie, c'est ça le plus important. »)) 

This is not even an affirmation of natural religion, nor even theology in any traditional sense of the word. It is an anthropology, grounded in emotional utility, rather than truth. Nor was this expression an isolated slip. In 2024, he made clear that he saw shared human experience—not divine revelation—as the heart of religion: 

What matters most to me is the development of personal relationships. We are all human beings, grappling with the same fundamental questions: What is happiness? What happens after death? Why does evil exist? These are human questions, common to us all. 

[…] If we begin with our shared human condition and pool what we have found in our respective sources, then we can also listen to the source of our neighbor. At that point, the discussion changes. It is no longer about saying, 'My source is better than yours.' Rather, we can say, 'This is what I have discovered in response to questions we all share.((‘Cardinal Aveline : au carrefour du christianisme et de l’islam’, interview by Simon Lessard for Le Verbe, 22 November 2024. Intervening section :  

“And we, as Christians, along with our Jewish brethren, confess that every human being is created in the image and likeness of God, regardless of the sources he draws upon to satisfy this desire for resemblance.” 

« Le plus important pour moi, c’est d’avoir des liens personnels. Nous sommes tous des êtres humains avec les mêmes questions de fond. « Qu’est-ce que le bonheur ? Qu’y a-t-il après la mort ? Pourquoi le mal ? » Ces questions-là sont humaines, et nous les avons toutes en commun. 

« Et nous, chrétiens, avec nos frères juifs, nous confessons que tout être humain est créé à l’image et à la ressemblance de Dieu, et ce, quelles que soient les sources auxquelles il va puiser pour assouvir en lui ce désir de ressemblance.  

« Si l’on part de la condition humaine et qu’on met en commun ce qu’on a trouvé dans les sources qui sont les nôtres, alors on peut écouter la source du voisin. À ce moment-là, on ne discute pas de la même façon. On ne cherche pas à dire : « ma source est meilleure que la tienne », on va simplement dire : « voilà ce que moi j’ai trouvé par rapport à des questions que nous avons en commun » ».))

Throughout this interview with Le Verbe, Aveline speaks in wholly naturalistic terms about Islam, without any mention of salvation or the supernatural.((Aveline, in Le Verbe, 22 November 2024.  

“I see young people who come to Marseille, to the Bernadette fraternity, to serve the poor, helping, among other things, with academic support. They often arrive from relatively affluent neighborhoods in the Parisian suburbs, carrying ideas and apprehensions about Islam. But after six months, they leave with Muslim friends, and that, to me, is the fundamental shift. Until you have a Muslim friend, you have only ideas about Islam—or worse still, the ideas of others.   

“That is why we have created, in Marseille, a day for Muslim-Christian families—not for priests and imams, but for families. There are games for children and workshops for parents—not on complicated matters from the Qur’an or the Bible, but on simple aspects of everyday life. For example, how to educate our children regarding water consumption.”   

He then proceeds to the text we have just seen.   

« Je vois des jeunes qui viennent à Marseille, dans la fraternité Bernadette, pour être au service des pauvres en aidant, entre autres, au soutien scolaire. Ils arrivent souvent des quartiers assez riches de la banlieue parisienne avec des idées et des appréhensions par rapport à l’islam. Mais, au bout de six mois, ils repartent avec des copains musulmans, et ça, pour moi, c’est le déplacement fondamental. Tant que tu n’as pas un ami musulman, tu n’as que tes idées sur l’islam, ou, ce qui est pire, les idées des autres.  

« C’est pourquoi on a créé, à Marseille, une journée des familles islamo-chrétiennes, non pas pour des prêtres et des imams, mais pour des familles. Il y a des jeux pour les gamins et des ateliers pour les parents, non pas sur des choses compliquées du Coran ou de la Bible, mais sur des choses toutes simples de la vie ordinaire. Comment éduquer nos enfants par rapport à la consommation d’eau, par exemple. »)) 

This is because the reduction of all forms of religion to naturalism is the logical consummation of Aveline’s “theological” system: 

• By treating religious pluralism as a “divine mystery” rather than a consequence of error, he strips truth of its exclusive claims 

• By universalising Christ’s mediation, he detaches it from the need for revelation, faith or conversion 

• By proposing that the Church must learn from false religions—especially Rabbinic Judaism, which explicitly rejects Christ—he replaces evangelization with dialogue 

• By shifting focus from doctrine to shared “existential questions,” he transforms religion into a tool for emotional utility and social harmony. 

In Aveline’s system, revelation is relative, and religion is mankind’s ongoing search for meaning and a better world in this life—rather than as the supernatural return to God through the one mediator, Our Lord Jesus Christ. This renders redundant the entire concept of the supernatural order, and replaces supernatural religion with a vague, naturalistic and humanitarian form of the cult of man himself. 

Nor is this a surprise. We began this series by considering Aveline’s distortion of the dogma “no salvation outside the Church.” But any attempt to distort this dogma—no matter how it is presented—invariably leads to the annihilation of the supernatural order through its collapse into naturalism, and thus the redefinition of salvation itself.   

The end result is not “There is salvation outside the Church,” but “There is no salvation anywhere.”  

III. CONCLUSION: PSEUDO-THEOLOGICAL APOSTASY 

Given the credible reports that Aveline is not only papabile but also a favorite at the next conclave—indeed, allegedly Francis’ own favorite((https://collegeofcardinalsreport.com/cardinals/jean-marc-aveline/))—Catholics must not be distracted by liturgical or moral questions, which are surface questions by comparison.  

The true danger lies in Aveline’s theological system itself—because what would be left standing, if it were applied, would not be the Church founded by Christ, but something else entirely. 

Throughout this study, we have seen that Aveline’s theological system rests on three foundational claims: 

• First, that non-Catholic religions play a positive role in salvation—redefining the Church’s doctrine on false religions, supernatural faith, and extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. 

• Second, that “christic mediation” extends to all religions—a verbal device that permits salvation without supernatural faith or membership of the Church. 

• Third, that the Church’s mission is founded on “dialogue”—not as a strategy, but as grounded in a supposed “divine meaning” of religious difference. 

These points form a coherent trajectory: faith is redefined, the uniqueness of Christ is reinterpreted, and finally the Church’s mission is transformed to fit these new premises. Each move logically demands the next. What begins as an apparently slight reorientation ends in a complete inversion of the Catholic religion.  

The distance between Aveline’s synthesis and Catholic tradition could hardly be greater. He calls openly for what Claude Geffré described as a theological “paradigm shift”: from a theology of salvation, to a theology of religions, and finally to an “interreligious theology,” defined by a divinely willed “differentiated unity,” and in which no boundaries remain.((Aveline 2006. 

“From this, he deduces the necessity of a true “paradigm shift” in theology. Acknowledging the transition from a “theology of the salvation of the infidels”, where one questioned the conditions for the possibility of access to salvation for those who do not confess Christ and do not belong explicitly to the institutional Church, to a “theology of religions” whose goal is to determine the role that religions, as socio-cultural realities, can potentially play in God’s plan of salvation, he proposes moving toward an interreligious theology, tasked with going beyond “a mere theology of so-called accomplishment, which underlies several texts of Vatican II.”” 

« Il en déduit la nécessité d’un véritable « changement de paradigme » en théologie. Prenant acte du passage d’une « théologie du salut des infidèles », où l’on s’interrogeait sur les conditions de possibilité d’accès au salut pour les personnes qui ne confessent pas le Christ et n’appartiennent pas explicitement à l’Église institutionnelle, à une « théologie des religions » dont l’objectif est de déterminer le rôle que peuvent éventuellement jouer les religions, en tant que réalités socioculturelles, dans le plan divin de salut, il propose d’aller vers une théologie interreligieuse, chargée de dépasser « une simple théologie dite de l’accomplissement qui est sous-jacente à plusieurs textes de Vatican II » ».))

Aveline’s interreligious theology is the result, using Judaism to break down the Church’s doctrine on all other religions, resulting in the rejection of clear distinctions between true and false religion; the denial of Christianity’s exclusive claim; and the construction of a Church that no longer teaches, but listens and is purified. 

This is the installation of a new model of religion: one that keeps Catholic language while gutting its content; one that speaks of Christ, the Church, and salvation—while redefining all three according to the demands of modern sentiment and politics. What is left is merely anthropological response to shared questions, devoid of supernatural substance. 

This is the consummation of Aveline’s project. However, the most alarming part of this matter is that Aveline’s thoughts are shared very widely today. His written work provides the theoretical scaffolding for what Francis and many others have advanced more crudely, through gestures and slogans—making Aveline a key partisan and architect of the pseudo-theological revolution now overshadowing the Church.((In their report on Aveline, Diana Montagna and Edward Pentin note: 

His views on dialogue between faiths closely mirror those of Pope Francis: an avoidance of conversion efforts and an emphasis instead on the “mystery” of the plurality of religions, experience and friendship, all of which trump theological formulas. 

https://collegeofcardinalsreport.com/cardinals/jean-marc-aveline/))  

Nor is this a surprise. We began this series by considering Aveline’s distortion of the dogma “no salvation outside the Church.” But any attempt to distort this dogma—no matter how it is presented—invariably leads to the annihilation of the supernatural order through its collapse into naturalism, and thus the redefinition of salvation itself.   

The end result is not “There is salvation outside the Church,” but a naturalist, materialist, pseudo-religion which declares: “This world is all there is: There is no salvation anywhere.”