This theologically engaging and provocative book is described by the author, William Burrows, as “a posthumous chance [for Jacques Dupuis] to answer his critics in a way that he was denied during his lifetime” (xi). While the book consists of four chapters, chapters 2 and 3 are the heart of the book. According to Burrows, these two chapters were originally “composed by Dupuis as epilogues to his last book, Christianity and the Religions: From Confrontation to Dialogue” (xiv), but in obedience to his religious and ecclesiastical superiors he did not publish them. The other two chapters were written by Burrows.
In the first chapter, Burrows provides concise historical information about his experiences with Dupuis as well as the process through which he produced this book. In the final chapter, Burrows articulates his own theological assumptions and propositions relative to the issues discussed by Dupuis, as well as how he understands Dupuis, whom he considers a “conservative revisionist” (116).
Dupuis makes it clear in chapters 2 and 3 that Dominus Iesus (DI) was crafted to attack his [Dupuis's] theological assumptions (30, 41, 74, etc.). In his response, Dupuis poignantly addresses the question, who is a better interpreter or is more authentically interpreting the theological developments in the church? Dupuis identifies two theological groups. The first includes those represented by DI, and the second is comprised of those represented by the documents of Vatican II, Redemptoris Missio, the International Theological Commission, and John Paul II. Dupuis conclusively argues that the second group more authentically and faithfully interprets the theological developments in the church. Burrows identifies DI and its antiprogressive stance as the primary project of the “Renewal in Continuity” school represented by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now pope emeritus Benedict XIV (105).
Chapter 3 contains Dupuis's response to the inquisitorial notification of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). He refused to sign the first draft of the notification on the grounds that the errors alleged by the notification did not reflect the content of his book. Therefore, about a year later, the CDF presented Dupuis with a second version of the notification. Dupuis hesitantly signed the second notification, because although he believed its interpretation of his work remained incorrect and failed to reflect the content of his work (78), it did not accuse his work of doctrinal error (77). Rather, the second version of the notification accused his book of “notable ambiguities and difficulties on important doctrinal points” (165).
In his rebuttal of this notification as well as the content of DI, Dupuis argued that the theological propositions of his book are more authentically Christian and in better keeping with theological developments in the Catholic Church on the questions of the global influence of the Spirit, the salvation of non-Christians through Christ, and the salvific value of other religious traditions to their adherents than are the content of both DI and the notification. Burrows unequivocally states that the critics of Dupuis, including the CDF, “have not fully grasped what he [Dupuis] was about” (104).
The courage and fidelity to truth of William Burrows must also be appreciated. To my mind, Burrows's commitment to clarifying Dupuis's prophetic theological contribution and to enriching Catholic and Christian theology of religions with this book is a courageous manifestation of academic freedom and of the mission to theological truth, truth that might have been lost because Dupuis was obliged to an ecclesiastical silence sustained by a paradigm of emasculating obedience.
Wherever the truth of what Dupuis says in this book is appreciated, Burrows's courage and commitment to upholding truth as certified in one's conscience will vociferously resonate. This book is a must-read for all who advocate or wish to understand the theology of inclusive pluralism made popular by Jacques Dupuis.
