On September 13, 2024, during his historic apostolic visit to Southeast Asia and Oceania, Pope Francis made headlines with a statement: “All religions are paths to God.”

This remark, made during an interreligious meeting in Singapore, quickly sparked controversy, with critics accusing the Holy Father of promoting heresy and religious indifferentism.

---

Did Francis misspeak?

Some have argued that Francis misspoke, and that there is nothing wrong in acknowledging that. It would not be accurate to treat every sentence uttered by the Holy Father as an infallible statement in need of defense.

It must be said with all clarity that Francis was not speaking infallibly here. In fact, one can even argue that he was not speaking magisterially at all, so that a Catholic may not need to submit their mind and will to this remark.

However, it must also be said that one need not defend the Pope only when he is speaking infallibly. The Pope (just like anyone else) can and should be defended if his statements are defensible and if that defense is true. I believe that’s the case.

Also, the idea that Francis misspoke seemed justified, since the original English translation of the speech on the Vatican’s official website appeared to soften the Pope’s statement: instead of “All religions are paths to God” this original translation read: “Religions are seen as paths trying to reach God.”

The Pope’s critics were quick to point out that the translation did not reflect the original wording in Italian. Later, the Vatican website changed the English version to “All religions are paths to God.”

Does this prove that Francis misspoke? Not necessarily. It remains unclear who made the decision to tone down the original English translation. With the controversy already brewing at the time, did Francis himself request the softened language, or was this the translator’s choice?

And why did the Vatican later revert to a more accurate translation? Was it in response to the backlash, or did Francis confirm that this was his intended wording from the start?

These questions remain unanswered, so those who claim that Francis misspoke are merely speculating. They may be right, and they may be wrong.

If they are right, Francis may later clarify and offer an explanation addressing his critics’ concerns, thereby easing the controversy.

But what if they are wrong? Then we must take the Pope’s words at face value and ask ourselves whether what he said is really so problematic. And, as a matter of fact, it’s not.

---

How can other religions be a path to God?

In his controversial speech, Francis was referencing the authoritative teachings of the Second Vatican Council, namely as expressed in the declaration Nostra Aetate, #2:

From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense… The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men… The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.

Interestingly, this paragraph of Nostra Aetate cites Hinduism as an example of a religion with an “advanced culture” that has “struggled to answer the same questions.” The Council’s tenor sharply contrasts with the portrayal of Hinduism as entirely demonic in memes spread by Francis’ critics during this controversy.

But even considering this, Nostra Aetate is careful in balancing this expanded view of religious truth with the idea that the fulness of truth can only be found in Christ: “[The Catholic Church] proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.”

Pope St. John Paul II later developed the concept of semina Verbi (“seeds of the Word”)—first formulated in the first century by St. Justin Martyr—in light of Nostra Aetate:

I have wished to recall the ancient doctrine formulated by the Fathers of the Church, which says that we must recognize “the seeds of the Word” present and active in the various religions. This doctrine leads us to affirm that, though the routes taken may be different, there is but a single goal to which is directed the deepest aspiration of the human spirit as expressed in its quest for God and also in its quest, through its tending towards God, for the full dimension of its humanity, or in other words, for the full meaning of human life. The “seeds of truth” present and active in the various religious traditions are a reflection of the unique Word of God, who “enlightens every man coming into world” and who became flesh in Christ Jesus.

Once again, we see a delicate balance here. All religions are “different routes” with a “single goal,” and that single goal is God. Later in his speech, John Paul II explains that both the Church and individual Catholics must be “marked by sincere respect, profound sympathy and, when possible and appropriate, cordial collaboration” and that this “does not mean forgetting that Jesus Christ is the one Mediator and Saviour of the human race.” This “attitude of respect and dialogue… far from opposing the proclamation of the Gospel… prepares it.”

One can proclaim both things as truthful without being contradictory. The corollary is that each of them is true in itself.

---

Did Pope Francis say that all religions are equal paths to God?

Some critics have argued that Francis spoke heresy, since he would have said that all religions are equal paths to God. However, that is not true. Saying that all religions are paths to God, doesn’t mean that all religions are equal paths to God.

Yet, others argued that, even if the Pope did not say it directly, he heavily implied it. Is this really the case? Let’s read the whole paragraph:

One of the things that has impressed me most about the young people here is your capacity for interfaith dialogue. This is very important because if you start arguing, “My religion is more important than yours…,” or “Mine is the true one, yours is not true….,” where does this lead? Somebody answer. [A young person answers, “Destruction”.] That is correct. All religions are paths to God. I will use an analogy, they are like different languages that express the divine. But God is for everyone, and therefore, we are all God’s children. “But my God is more important than yours!”. Is this true? There is only one God, and religions are like languages, paths to reach God. Some Sikh, some Muslim, some Hindu, some Christian. Understood? Yet, interfaith dialogue among young people takes courage. The age of youth is the age of courage, but you can misuse this courage to do things that will not help you. Instead, you should have courage to move forward and to dialogue.

The critics claim that by cautioning against arguing “my religion is more important or truer than yours,” Francis implied that all religions are equally true. They also claim that his analogy of languages suggests the same, as languages don’t compete with each other, but are equally valid in expressing the same concept.

But this is imputing a meaning that is not clear in the paragraph. An analogy is always imperfect, otherwise it would be a description. Therefore, an analogy collapses when it’s pushed towards what it didn’t intend to convey.

If we read the whole quote, we see that this intended meaning pertained to interfaith dialogue. That stands both at the beginning and at the end of the paragraph, framing everything in between. In fact, the “language” analogy suggests precisely that Pope Francis was talking about dialogue.

There was no imputation to any truth-claim to each religion. The critics merely read that into the speech, as they are primed to see Francis as a religious indifferentist.

---

Did Pope Francis say that all religions are ways towards salvation?

Finally, there are those who point to biblical and magisterial references to contend that Francis’ speech contradicted established doctrine on salvation.

The most popular is the Bible passage where Jesus proclaims: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6).

The second most popular is a quote from the declaration Dominus Iesus by the then-Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, when Joseph Ratzinger (the future Benedict XVI) was its Prefect:

“[I]t is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God.”

There are also many who cite pre-Vatican II documents, like Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, condemning as erroneous the proposition that: “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.”

There is, however, a nuance both in Dominus Iesus and in most of these pre-Vatican II magisterial statements: they rebuke the notion that other religions are paths to salvation, not God.

It may seem like a distinction without a difference, but it is crucial. We already established previously that other religions can be paths to God. What about salvation?

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (“outside the Church there is no salvation”) is one of the most well-established infallible statements in Church history.

St. John Paul II, however, while upholding this venerable dogma, still presented a more refined understanding of it. In Redemptoris Missio #10, the Polish pontiff taught that, though “many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church,” they may still be saved through “a mysterious relationship to the Church,” which “does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation.”

These non-Catholics are saved, not by their religions, but through to a “mysterious relationship with the Church.” Therefore, “outside the Church there is no salvation,” though those who are not “formally” part of the Church, may still be saved.

Dominus Iesus states as such:

“Bearing in mind this article of faith, theology today, in its reflection on the existence of other religious experiences and on their meaning in God’s salvific plan, is invited to explore if and in what way the historical figures and positive elements of these religions may fall within the divine plan of salvation… The content of this participated mediation should be explored more deeply, but must remain always consistent with the principle of Christ’s unique mediation: Although participated forms of mediation of different kinds and degrees are not excluded, they acquire meaning and value only from Christ’s own mediation.”

In summary, even if other religions contain positive elements that may be paths towards God, they cannot bring salvation on their own. Only when these elements “participate” in Christ’s “unique mediation” do they become part of God’s salvific action. Therefore, Jesus remains the “way,” as revealed in Scripture.

---

Does Francis believe that Jesus is the only path to salvation?

In response to the controversy, many apologists have highlighted numerous instances where Francis has affirmed that Jesus is the only path to salvation. A non-exaustive list can be found here.

But one of the most interesting examples happened precisely during Francis’ recent journey to Southeast Asia. During a homily in Jakarta, Francis preached that we must “know how to listen to the only word that saves, the word of Jesus.”

How could Francis say that Jesus is the only word that saves in one day and then claim that all non-Christian religions are paths to salvation a week later?

Francis’ critics have spun a narrative throughout his pontificate that he often says contradictory things depending on the context, in an effort to win favor with various audiences. But this is only convincing if one is already set on reading the Holy Father’s words with a hermeneutic of suspicion.

Rather, if Francis has said two things in different contexts and there is a charitable interpretation that harmonized both according to reason, then this is the way we should take his message. But if we really want to understand why he said what he said when he said it, we must then try to find the true context for his remarks.

---

Why wasn’t Francis more precise in his exposition, then?

We have already established that Francis’ speech was technically correct. It merely lacked the caveats that are usually added to these delicate subjects. But then, why didn’t Francis include these caveats in his message?

One must remember that Francis was speaking in the context of an interreligious meeting with young people in Singapore. Claire and I have already written before how, in a Christmas Address to the Curia, Benedict XVI explained that interreligious dialogue “does not aim at conversion, but at understanding,” becoming a “process in which, through listening to the other, both sides can obtain purification and enrichment. Thus this search can also mean taking common steps towards the one truth, even if the fundamental choices remain unaltered.”

But there are particularities to this specific address that make a careful wording even the more important. Singapore has a history of religious riots, namely targeting Catholics.

For this reason, the Singaporean government has enacted the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, which prohibits individuals from “inciting hostility, ill-will or hatred between local religious groups” or even of “wounding the religious feelings of others.”

According to this legislation, religious leaders are held to a higher standard, and the Singaporean government has taken action against foreign religious leaders deemed to have violated the law.

For this reason, interreligious dialogue is very important in Singapore. It is then telling how the main negative reactions to Pope Francis’ speech come from the West, typically from sectors disgruntled towards the pontiff’s openness to constructive dialogue with other religions.

However, if we shift our focus from the West to the reactions of those whom Pope Francis aimed to reach, we can see from their choice of coverage (and what they didn’t cover) that his visit was successful in building bridges. These connections may help the Catholic Church in Singapore keep growing through attraction rather than proselytism.

This article was originally published at “The City and the World.” Click here to subscribe to this Catholic journalism project by Pedro Gabriel and Claire Domingues.