An article by Niwa Limbu in AdVaticanum reports the words spoken on October 23 by Cardinal Jean-Paul Vesco, Archbishop of Algiers, in an interview with CathoBel. The conversation concerned evangelization in a predominantly Muslim society. For Vesco, the Algerian Church is part of the people among whom it lives: “We are the Church of this people. Not a proselytizing Church, not a Church that exists to convert, but a Church that aspires to be one of the components of this people.” Its mission is to bear witness and share social life, not to count conversions.

The cardinal opposes proselytism because, in his view, it presupposes considering the other’s religion false. “In monotheistic religions, proselytism is poisonous because it implies considering the other’s religion false,” he states. Praising someone while denigrating their beliefs, he adds, “puts an end to dialogue.” Vesco also rejects the idea that Islam and democratic aspirations are incompatible.

To the fear of religious and cultural differences, Vesco counters brotherhood: “Do we consider ourselves a besieged fortress? […] Or do we choose brotherhood? For me, it’s the only worthwhile option.” Therefore, against the “great replacement” theory—which holds that indigenous European populations would be replaced by immigration and the growth of immigrant communities—he does not propose a return to an ancient Christian political order. “Christians have another card to play besides the restoration of a Christian regime,” he declares. Finally, the cardinal links synodal participation to a shift in the way of conceiving the Church, stating that it would have “buried any possibility” of a future Vatican III composed only of bishops.

Limbu (whose article is linked here) places these statements in continuity with previous interventions. In 2018, when he was bishop of Oran, Vesco told Le Point that “the Gospel is not transmitted through proselytism, but through the testimony of life, through commitment to society, through friendship.” He clarified that such transmission “does not necessarily lead to a change of religion” and that what matters to him is that a person “lives a spiritual experience.” In 2022, in an interview with Cath.ch, he called for liberation from the idea of ​​having to “lead others to our truth” and to admit that in Islam there may be “a part of truth that escapes us.”

The article compares this approach with different emphases within the Catholic Church. In 2019, Cardinal Robert Sarah recalled the missionary mandate and the responsibility to proclaim Christ to all: “Whether Muslims, Buddhists, or animists, we must evangelize everyone by proclaiming Jesus Christ.” Cardinal Kurt Koch, however, distinguished between mission and proselytism: Christians have a mission toward those of other religions, but can carry it out “only with credible witness and without any proselytism.”

In the United States, Bishop Robert Barron has challenged the separation between evangelization and conversion, arguing that “conversion” is not a “dirty word.” In his view, opposing evangelization and conversion is tantamount to opposing the Church.

Thus far has been a summary of Niwa Limbu’s article.

Meanwhile, a biographical note: Jean-Paul Vesco was appointed bishop of Oran on 1 December 2012 and consecrated on 25 January 2013. Pope Francis created him a cardinal on 7 December 2024.

The statements attributed to Cardinal Vesco in the AdVaticanum article certainly present some critical issues. Let’s look at some of them.

1) “The Church is not there to convert”; it is a component of the Algerian people. It is right that the local Church share the life of the people and not seek conversions through pressure or advantages. But it would be incomplete to say that the Church does not exist to evangelize: Paul VI defines evangelization as its “proper vocation” and its “deepest identity.” The decree Ad gentes states that the mission invites everyone to conversion to Christ, respecting freedom ( Evangelii nuntiandi, 14 ; Ad gentes, 7 ).

In Ad gentes we read:

The reason for missionary activity stems from the will of God, who “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ, himself a man, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:4-6), “and there is no salvation in anyone else” (Acts 4:12). It is therefore necessary that all be converted to Christ known through the preaching of the Church, and be incorporated into him and into the Church, his body, through baptism (39). […]

Although God, through ways known to Him alone, can lead men who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel to that faith “without which it is impossible to please Him” ​​(41), it is nevertheless the essential task of the Church (42), and at the same time her sacrosanct right, to spread the Gospel; consequently missionary activity retains in full — today as always — its validity and necessity. […]

Christ’s disciples, by maintaining close contact with men in their lives and activities, thus promise to offer them an authentic Christian witness and to work for their salvation, even where they cannot fully proclaim Christ.

2) “Proselytism is poison because it implies considering the religion of the other as false.” The criticism of coercion and manipulation is fully legitimate: faith cannot be imposed. If proselytism can indicate incorrect practices, the Catholic message, on the contrary, does not coincide with them. The Church can recognize semina verbis in other religions and, at the same time, proclaim Christ. Redemptoris missio says that dialogue and proclamation are distinct but connected, and that they should not be considered interchangeable (Dignitatis humanae, 2–3 ; Nostra aetate, 2–3 ; Redemptoris missio, 55–56).

In Redemptoris missio we read:

Yet, also because of modern changes and the spread of new theological ideas, some ask: Is missionary work among non-Christians still relevant? Has it not been replaced by interreligious dialogue? Isn’t human advancement a sufficient objective? Doesn’t respect for conscience and freedom exclude any proposal for conversion? Can’t one be saved in any religion? So why missionary work? […]

I recently wrote to the Bishops of Asia: “Even though the Church willingly recognizes what is true and holy in the religious traditions of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam, reflections of that truth which enlightens all men, this does not diminish her duty and her determination to proclaim without hesitation Jesus Christ, who is ‘the way, the truth and the life’…

3) The Gospel is transmitted through witness, commitment, and friendship; it does not necessarily lead to a change of religion. It is correct that Christian witness should not be evaluated solely by counting conversions, and that no one can be forced. The caveat is that witness, according to Catholic doctrine, does not indefinitely replace explicit proclamation: Evangelii nuntiandi affirms that there is no authentic evangelization without the proclamation of Jesus; Redemptoris missio describes conversion as adherence to Christ, to be proposed without coercion (Evangelii nuntiandi, 22–23 ; Redemptoris missio, 46).

In Evangelii nuntiandi we read:

NEED FOR AN EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT

1. 22. 2 However, this always remains insufficient, because even the most beautiful testimony will prove powerless in the long run if it is not illuminated, justified — what Peter called “giving reasons for one’s hope” [ 52] — and made explicit by a clear and unequivocal proclamation of the Lord Jesus. The Good News, proclaimed by the testimony of life, must therefore sooner or later be proclaimed by the word of life. There is no true evangelization if the name, the teaching, the life, the promises, the Kingdom, the mystery of Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God, are not proclaimed.

4) “What matters is that a person lives a spiritual experience”; “porosity, not proselytism.” Spiritual experience and mutual openness have value, but presented in this way they open to an unacceptable relativistic ambiguity as they render the proclamation of Christ, the Redeemer of man, totally useless. According to Dominus Iesus , the Church recognizes elements of truth in other religions but does not consider them revelations complementary to the fullness of revelation in Christ (Dominus Iesus, 4–6 ; Evangelii gaudium, 251).

In Dominus Iesus we read:

The Church’s perennial missionary proclamation is today threatened by relativistic theories that seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but also de iure (or in principle). Consequently, truths such as the definitive and complete nature of Jesus Christ’s revelation, the nature of the Christian faith compared to belief in other religions, the inspired nature of the books of Sacred Scripture, the personal unity between the eternal Word and Jesus of Nazareth, the unity of the economy of the incarnate Word and the Holy Spirit, the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ, the universal salvific mediation of the Church, the inseparability, despite their distinction, of the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Christ, and the Church, and the existence of the one Church of Christ in the Catholic Church, are considered obsolete.

I will stop here because the list of statements made by Cardinal Vesco could be long and the observations could significantly burden this article.