INAUGURAL ISSUE - AUGUST 2003

ISSN 1448 - 6326

CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHING ON ITS RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER RELIGIONS SINCE VATICAN II     GERARD HALL SM

 

ABSTRACT

My intention is to provide a speedy tour through the past forty years focussing on theological and rhetorical shifts in major Church documents and papal pronouncements on Catholic approaches to religious pluralism. This tour will focus on three questions:

(1) Has there been a shift in the Church's teaching on Non-Christian religions as such?

(2) How does the Church understand religious dialogue in context of its evangelising mission?

(3) What are some of the outstanding theological and rhetorical issues arising from these documents and pronouncements?  

1.  Has there been a shift in the Church's teaching on Non-Christian religions as such?  

At the outset, it needs to be stated that Vatican II is the first Council in the history of the Church to speak positively of other religious traditions. [1] Jews are acknowledged as "first receivers of God's covenant," Muslims as "followers of Abraham," Hindus and Buddhists as "advanced civilisations . . .with a deep religious sense" (LG, 16; NA 2). The Council's 1965 Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate) states unequivocally that "the Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions." Indeed, Christians should "acknowledge, preserve and encourage the spiritual and moral truths found among Non-Christians, as well as their social life and culture" (NA, 2). Whether or not this represents a shift in theology, it certainly represents a significant shift in rhetoric.

Summarising the theological vision of Vatican II, the Secretariat for Non-Christians (later renamed the Pontifical Commission for Interreligious Dialogue) declared in 1984:

The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council . . . affirm that in the religious traditions of non-Christians there exist "elements which are true and good" (LG, 16), "precious things, both religious and human" (GS, 92), "seeds of contemplation" (AG, 18), "elements of truth and grace" (AG, 9), "seeds of the Word" (AG, 11; 15), and "rays of that truth which illumines all humankind" (NA, 2). According to explicit conciliar indications, these values are found and preserved in the great religious traditions of humanity.  

Two things are happening here. First, with the aid of patristic language, the Council is simply confirming traditional Christian teaching on the universal offer of grace and salvation ("God wills all to be saved" 1 Tim. 2:4). Second, it applies this teaching in a reasonably explicit way to the various religious traditions outside Christianity. Although this may appear to represent a shift in the Church's teaching, it has more to do with rhetoric than doctrine as such. Official post-conciliar statements reveal a significant tension with regard to the more precise question of whether or not the Council meant to imply a positive role for other religious traditions in the divine economy of salvation. In 1964, prior to the conclusion of the Council, Paul VI issued the encyclical Ecclesiam Suam in which he declares his respect for "the spiritual and moral values of various non-Christian religions." Moreover, he explicitly promotes dialogue with Jews, Muslims and "the great Afro-Asian religions." Notwithstanding this, he also asserts the traditional Christian claim that "there is one true religion, the Christian religion." In a later apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Nuntiandi (1975), Paul VI distinguishes between those "higher forms of natural religions" and the "religion of Jesus." Such an approach is clearly reminiscent of the traditional schema in which the human search for God (natural religions) is contrasted to the divine gift of God in Christianity (supernatural religion). He says as much when he states: "Our (Christian) religion effectively establishes with God an authentic and living relationship which the other religions do not succeed in doing" (53).

In the first half of his papacy at least, John Paul II takes a much less sanguine view of other religious traditions. He achieves this partly through advancing the teaching of Vatican II with regard to the theology of the Holy Spirit. Lumen Gentium developed a theology of the Spirit with respect to the Church and its mission in the world; Gaudium et Spes highlighted the role of the Spirit in terms of spiritual values and human aspirations in secular culture. However, little attention is given to developing a theology of the Spirit with respect to the religious traditions. In his very first encyclical, John Paul II refers to the "one Spirit of truth" uniting all religions (Redemptor Hominis 1979, 6). This "mystery of unity" was evident to him at the World Day of Prayer for Peace at Assisi in 1986. In the same year he wrote an encyclical on the Holy Spirit, Dominum et Vivificantem, in which he reflects on the Spirit's activity in the world beyond the confines of the visible Church.

In a subsequent encyclical Redemptoris Missio (1990), John Paul II is explicit in stating that "the Spirit's presence and activity affect not only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures and religions" (emphasis added, 28). Such a statement appears to open up the distinct possibility that the Spirit's presence may be mediated through the religious traditions themselves. Notwithstanding this, later pronouncements express a more pessimistic view of the salvific possibilities of other religions. For example, in his apostolic letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente (1994), John Paul II almost echoes Paul VI's distinction between natural and supernatural religions by stating that "Christianity has its starting-point in the incarnation of the Word," whereas other religions represent "the human search for God." Or, again, "in Christ, religion is no longer a 'blind search for God' [cf. Acts 17:27] but the response of faith to God who reveals himself." There is much less talk about the "mystery of unity" among the religions and more emphasis on the distinctiveness of divine revelation available to Christians alone.

The question of whether other religious traditions may also mediate divine revelation, albeit it in an incomplete way, is addressed in the joint document of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples entitled Dialogue and Proclamation (1991). This document takes the earlier pneumatology of John Paul II and pushes it a step further. Not only is the mystery of salvation made available through the invisible action of the Spirit, but "it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions . . . that the members of other religions respond positively to God's invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ" (DP 29). This goes beyond respecting "whatever (is) good . . . in the rites and customs proper to various peoples" (LG 17), beyond the affirmation that the mystery of God's grace is universally available, to a cautious acknowledgement that the channels of grace and salvation are potentially operative in other religions' beliefs and practices.

This is not the theological position advocated in Dominus Iesus, the document promulgated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2000. Although admitting that various religious traditions may contain elements that come from God, it also states that their prayers and rituals do not have a divine origin and may, "insofar as they depend on superstitions or other errors, constitute an obstacle to salvation” (21). The spirit of this document is expressed in its final paragraph where it states: "If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation" (22). Dominus Iesus also canonises the aforementioned distinction between supernatural and natural religion with reference to the "theological faith" of Christians and "belief in the other religions" (7). Admittedly, the major purpose of the document is not to explain Christian approaches to other religions but to affirm Christian belief in Jesus Christ the universal Saviour. Nonetheless, its generally negative rhetoric with regard to the religious other has the hallmark of the pre-conciliar era.

With reference to the magisterial documents and proclamations discussed, the theological ambiguity of Vatican II regarding the Church's teaching on non-Christian religions continues to be played out. What Dominus Iesus calls the uniqueness and universality of the saving mystery of Jesus Christ is interpreted by some as indicating the impossibility of any theological shift in Christian approaches to the religious other. They read Vatican II accordingly. However, there remain indications of a shift in theological perspective expressed by the proposition that the grace of Christ and the saving power of the Holy Spirit may be available to followers of other religions through the very beliefs and practices of those religions. Such a proposition understands, from a Christian perspective, the positive role of other religions in the divine economy of salvation. They retain their own uniqueness and integrity even though Christian theology understands that Jesus Christ is the fullness of God's revelation. This interpretation is, in my considered view, more ably supported by the teaching of Vatican II. However, it needs to be said, such a theological shift is yet to be promulgated at the highest level of magisterial teaching.  

2.    How does the Church understand religious dialogue in the context of its evangelising mission?  

For all his caution with regard to the salvific power of other religious traditions, it was Paul VI who set up the Secretariat for Non-Christians in 1964. He further proclaimed in Ecclesiam Suam that dialogue was at the heart of the Church's programme for renewal. Paul VI outlines the basis for his dialogic Church in terms of concentric circles: dialogue within the Church; dialogue with other Christian churches; dialogue with other religions, and, finally; dialogue with the entire world. Nostra Aetate is equally enthusiastic about the necessity of religious dialogue when it calls on Christians to "enter with prudence and charity into dialogues (colloquia) and collaboration with members of other religions" (NA 2). The motivations for such dialogue are primarily pastoral, as the document explains: to overcome divisions, foster friendly relations, achieve mutual understanding and to work creatively for peace, liberty, social justice and moral values (NA 3).

The theological basis for dialogue according to Ad Gentes (1965) is provided in the example of Christ who entered into dialogue with his disciples leading them to the divine truth. Christian missionaries should dialogue with those among whom they live so that they might "learn of the riches which a generous God has distributed among the nations" (AG 11). In this passage at least, dialogue is associated with belief that the "seeds of the Word" are already present in peoples and cultures prior to the arrival of Christian missionaries. Consequently, the first task of the missionary is to listen and discern. In this way, a genuine dialogue, built on a profound respect for the religious other, is at the heart of the Church's mission of inculturating the Gospel.

Nonetheless, neither Vatican II nor Paul VI speaks directly of interreligious dialogue as an expression of the Church's evangelising mission. Evangelii Nuntiandi, for example, although providing a rich theology of mission involving every form of human liberation and the transformation of cultures, is altogether silent with regard to dialogue with other religions. Evangelisation may well be a "rich, complex and dynamic reality" (EN 17), and increased respect for and dialogue with other religions may well be encouraged (NA, AG, ES), but the precise relationship between evangelisation and dialogue remains obscure in magisterial pronouncements prior to the pontificate of John Paul II.

This question is taken up by the Secretariat for Non-Christians in its 1984 document on Dialogue and Mission. It describes the evangelising mission of the Church as a "single but complex and articulated reality" embracing the following elements: presence and witness; social development and human liberation; liturgical life, prayer and contemplation; interreligious dialogue; proclamation and catechesis. The document explains that "the totality of Christian mission embraces all these elements" (DM 13). John Paul II later reinforces the view that "interreligious dialogue is one element in the mission of the Church" by stressing the complementarity of dialogue and proclamation: "There can be no question of choosing one and ignoring and rejecting the other" (1987 Papal Address to the Secretariat, cit. DP 6). Nonetheless, the various elements of Christian mission are not considered equal since the culmination of mission remains the proclamation of the Gospel (DM 34). Consequently, interreligious dialogue is now recognised as an integral but subsidiary activity of the evangelising mission of the Church.

The many ambiguities remaining become the subject of 1991 document of the Joint Commissions (Interreligious Dialogue and Evangelisation), Dialogue and Proclamation. Here there is some attempt to move beyond a theology emanating from first principles to one that engages with the practical reality of a Church already in dialogue with multiple cultural and religious traditions. Taking its cue from Dialogue and Mission, the Commission elaborates on different forms of dialogue: ordinary human relationships (dialogue of life); social justice type collaboration (dialogue of action); academic circles (dialogue of theological exchange); religious and spiritual encounter (dialogue of religious experience) [DP 42]. The Commission recognises the "complex relationships between culture and religion" and suggests that religious dialogue may be a means of purifying cultures of dehumanising elements and even upholding the traditional cultural values of indigenous peoples [DP 46]. These and other statements in the text make it clear that there can be no pure religious dialogue separated from the cultural reality of people's lives [DP 45-46].

The transformative possibilities of religious dialogue for culture aside, the Commission understands that through dialogue, "Christians and others are invited to deepen their religious commitment" [DP 40]. Specifically, Christians may be moved to "give up ingrained prejudices, to revise preconceived ideas, and even sometimes to allow the understanding of their faith to be purified." Consequently, while keeping their identity intact, "Christians must be prepared to learn and to receive from and through others the positive values of their traditions" [DP 49]. Religious dialogue is clearly a two-way exchange. Outlining eleven human obstacles to dialogue, two are most significant: insufficient grounding in one's faith, and; insufficient knowledge of the religious other [DP 55]. Notwithstanding these and other dangers, the document states that "all (Christians) are called to dialogue though," it is careful to add, "not all in the same way" [DP 43].

What then of the relationship between dialogue and proclamation in the Church's single evangelising mission of salvation? Apart from stating that interreligious dialogue and proclamation are "both authentic elements of the Church's evangelizing mission," the document provides some caveats. They are "not on the same level" although "both are legitimate and necessary" [DP 77]. Again, we return to the notion, also evident in Redemptoris Missio [55], that dialogue and proclamation are two distinct, non-interchangeable, but closely related expressions of Christian mission. The encyclical, although recognising the two elements must not be "confused or manipulated," also gives "permanent priority" to proclamation [RM 55]. The Commission is more precise in stating that dialogue is "oriented towards proclamation" [DP 80]. However, both statements need to be interpreted in terms of both documents' understandings of the "inchoate reality of the Kingdom" which "can be found beyond the confines of the Church among peoples everywhere" [RM 20] and, specifically, "in the hearts of followers of other religious traditions" [PD35]. This is not an idea promoted with any enthusiasm in Dominus Iesus whose authors prefer to accentuate the identity and inseparability of the Church and the Kingdom [DI 18]. There is no admission here that the Church is need of constant renewal and purification [UR 6, PD 36], that interreligious dialogue can have a positive impact on Christian belief and practice, nor that the Church's commitment to dialogue remains firm and irreversible [PD 54]. Nonetheless, Dominus Iesus does admit that interreligious dialogue is part of the Church's evangelising mission [DI 22]. However, to this reader, religious dialogue as perceived in the document is so subordinate to proclamation, and so marginally conceived with respect to the Church's mission of evangelisation, it loses most of its integrity as an act of authentic Christian witness. Dialogue runs the danger of being 'manipulated' into a means of proclamation, a position clearly not advocated by Redemptoris Missio or the documents of the Commissions. Rhetorically, Dominus Iesus is very much at odds with the "Gospel spirit of dialogue" [PD 77] that is not removed by the priority given to proclamation in the evangelising mission of the Church.

The idea of religious dialogue, although promoted by Vatican II, is only loosely connected to the Church's evangelising mission. It is only in the pontificate of John Paul II that dialogue is confirmed as an integral element of evangelisation. This first occurs in the 1984 document of the Secretariat for Non-Christians, Dialogue and Mission, is explicitly taught by John Paul II in his encyclical, Redemptoris Missio, and is elaborated in the 1991 document of the Joint Commission, Dialogue and Proclamation. It is also taught by Dominus Iesus. Although dialogue remains a subsidiary activity in relation to proclamation, they are both necessary and integral elements of Christian mission. The role of dialogue needs to be informed by the practical reality of the cultural and religious worlds of local Christian communities which constitute the Church. For the authors of Dominus Iesus, that world is one in which the "relativistic mentality" is rife accounting for its negative--at times even aggressive--tone. Other magisterial documents including Redemptoris Missio acknowledge an at least cautious optimism in the importance of religious dialogue as integral to the Church's evangelising mission.  

3.  What are some of the outstanding theological and rhetorical issues arising from these documents and pronouncements?

*   Magisterial documents and pronouncements have their own distinct genre. They do not make for easy reading because they have an air of gravitas or solemnitas which not even the writings of most theologians quite manage to emulate. They are also compromise--even compromised--documents (written by Committees with multiple voices) which feel they must claim the direct authority of both scripture and tradition even as they attempt to address contemporary concerns. They often appear to lack engagement with history, culture and the world we live in because they tend to operate out of an a priori set of theological principles which are considered "true in themselves."

* Much of this is understandable when it comes to matters of divine revelation and religious truth: God's truth is something only the foolhardy or the committed deconstructionist will want to treat lightly. Yet, even Roman documents occur in a particular context addressed to specific concerns and, consciously or unconsciously, reflect the temporality and ideologies of the times.  

* Despite this, or because of it, Vatican II documents exhibit a refreshing and/or alarming naïveté. How you interpret that will reflect your age, ideology and/or what we may loosely call your "attitude to the world." I also believe it will reflect your sense of history. At the start of the 1960s, the Catholic Church, in all but a few intellectual ghettos, had yet to come to terms with what is commonly called (misnamed?) the European Enlightenment. Pope John XXIII was aware of this but not all who joined him in Rome were equally committed to a change of approach. He had taken seriously the challenge of Johannes Baptist Metz who asked the question: "Can we do theology after Auschwitz?" It is often forgotten that the European desertion from Christianity did not begin with Vatican II but with the experiences of two World Wars emanating from the "Christian West." If the Church did not address the contemporary world, Pope John believed, rightly or wrongly, it would fail in its mission of proclaiming Christ to that world.  

* For all that, the documents of Vatican II are generally cautious in their approach to theological issues. It could not be otherwise. The Church had been living with a "Post-Reformation Mentality" for over four hundred years. It had also benefited in its missionary work from the colonial era in which European colonisation and the spread of the Gospel were (too) closely aligned. Its attitude to other Christians, let alone other religions, was nothing if not narrow and intolerant. Consequently, even if Christian doctrine could not be changed overnight, its rhetoric could and did. Nostra Aetate and Ad Gentes were remarkably open and positive about other religious traditions and cultures. I do not even see here the suggestion, evident in so many Post-Vatican II magisterial teachings, that the "other religions" are natural expressions of the religious spirit in its "blind search" for God in distinction with Christianity, the "supernatural religion." No doubt, this position would underlie the mentality of many Council participants; but the rhetoric of engagement with the religious other cautioned against such theological rhetoric.  

* As a theologian operating in the post-Vatican II era, what I regret is the closing down of the Church's genuine openness to the cultural and religious other. Yet, I understand what has occurred. Post-modernism arrived. Post-modernity is suspicious of all grand historical narratives of which the Catholic Church, along with European civilisation generally, would have to be one of the most notable exponents. The negative side of postmodernism is that nasty beast for whom Dominus Iesus was written, those blinded by the "relativistic mentality." This is something that Paul VI and John Paul II have also been aware of although, to their credit, they continue to struggle with the tension inherent in Christian belief: Jesus Christ is the universal Saviour and the divine economy of salvation is also present and operative beyond the confines of Christian faith.  

* The question is how these two principles are to be understood. The minimalist position is outlined in Dominus Iesus and other magisterial voices. While recognising the universality of divine saving truth, it sees the value of other religious traditions only in terms of being a preparation for the Gospel. The Christ-mystery may be available to them in a veiled way but, in the end, they represent the 'natural' human search for God which cannot be fulfilled or assured without the 'supernatural' offer and reception of divine grace mediated through Christianity.  

* There is, however, another voice emerging in magisterial documents inspired by Vatican II's positive affirmation of other religious traditions. Here, the dialectic of natural-supernatural and human search-divine gift is overturned in favour of a broader vision of divine revelation which provides for multiple, diverse, pluralistic mediations. In this schema, the Christ-mystery, although only fully revealed in Jesus Christ, is or can be positively present in other religious traditions such that they too may be authentic if incomplete mediations of grace and truth. This approach continues to affirm the historical and ontological priority of Christian belief and practice; but it also recognises that beliefs and practices in other religious traditions may be positively salvific.  

* Theologically, the magisterium has moved to affirm this second position--although it is yet to state this in a coherent and unambiguous fashion. Theologians may provide intellectual frameworks--one thinks of Karl Rahner's "anonymous Christians," Raimon Panikkar's "cosmotheandric mystery" or Jacques Dupuis' "trinitarian Christology" as examples. None of these positions is without its own problems. Moreover, it is not the place of the magisterium to canonise a particular theological proposition. What one might wish for, nonetheless, is a more open dialogue with theologians rather than the kind of magisterial point-scoring evident in Dominus Iesus (written with Jacques Dupuis "Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism" in mind).  

* Dialogue. The magisterium now teaches that religious dialogue is an integral and essential aspect of the evangelising mission of the Church. This does not undermine the priority the magisterium gives to proclamation of the Gospel. However, it also needs to be stated there are evident tensions here which are yet to be negotiated. For one thing, if other religions cannot be treated as authentic--I did not say equal--paths of truth and salvation, it is difficult to see that religious dialogue could be anything more than a means of proclamation. If we believe that the religious other is simply and plainly wrong or evil or without salvific possibility, it is surely our moral and religious duty to point out the error of his or her ways. In this situation, dialogue can only be a pedagogic tool. However, if we understand that the religious other is also a source of truth and understanding, then authentic dialogue becomes possible. For this reason, if no other, it seems imperative that the Church expresses plainly and unequivocally the potentially positive role of other religious traditions in the divine economy of salvation.  

* Magisterial Dialogue with the religious other. The best thing to have emerged in terms of interreligious dialogue at the magisterial level has been the creation of the Secretariats and Commissions which have direct responsibility for relating to other religious magisteriums. This did not even occur at Vatican II although, as we have seen, Paul VI moved very quickly to set up the Secretariat for Non-Christians. Here, at last, we have a Church that not only speaks about dialogue but actually engages in it. This has important ramifications for the way theology is done. Too often magisterial documents seem at odds with the real life and experience of Christians in the world. It is no surprise that the two most adventurous magisterial documents discussed, Dialogue and Mission and Dialogue and Proclamation, emerge from the two Commissions which include theologians and practitioners in the field of dialogue and evangelisation. For that matter, it is interesting to note that for all John Paul II's cautionary and conservative stance on many issues, and despite some ambiguities, no Pope has been more positive in regard to the promotion of religious dialogue. His experience of dialogue informs his theological reflections.  

* Culture and Religion. With the exception of a small section in Dialogue and Proclamation, there is little attention given to the new cultural reality in which the Church finds itself. One does not have to be a post-modernist to realise that culture and religion are inextricably entwined. Nor does one need to be a statistician to appreciate that most Christians today, as they will be increasingly in the future, are Latin American, African and Asian. Nor do you need to be a certified cultural critic to perceive that the Catholic Church in its teachings and government expresses a very European mentality. As Peter Phan convincingly argues with regard to the future Church of Asia-- and his comments are applicable beyond the Asian Church--, Christians need to move "beyond the narrow walls of their churches and (put themselves) in constant dialogue of life and heart with followers of other religions and even non-believers" [Ecclesia in Asia, 257]. Theologians and bishops from the world of former "missionary territories" often find themselves at odds with a magisterium that seems to impose on them a European way of being Church.

* The Kingdom, the Church and Dialogue. One of the difficulties with Vatican II and all post-conciliar documents and pronouncements on other religions and dialogue is that they are written from the perspective of the Catholic Church. It is a difficulty in the sense that it defines the religious other in relation to the Church rather than reflecting on the way that all religions including Christianity may be related to the divine saving mystery. What becomes important with this change of perspective is not the identity of the Christianity or the Church, but the reality of the Kingdom that all religions may serve in their own diverse ways. Despite the reluctance of Dominus Iesus to countenance a degree of non-identity and separability between the Church and the Kingdom, there is here a platform for mutual respect and engaging dialogue among the religious traditions which breaks the nexus of Christian exclusivism.  

* Commitment versus Indifferentism. I do not downplay the significant threats of religious relativism and indifferentism. Nor do I choose to live in a Church that becomes paralysed by such fears. I take from John Paul II the belief that there is indeed "one Spirit of truth" uniting all peoples and religions and that this "mystery of unity"--in what Christians call the Christ-mystery--is more important than the beliefs and practices that divide us. On a practical level, I know that the future of Christianity is, for better or for worse, entwined with the futures of other religions. In this sense, dialogue cannot be an optional extra. I also believe that the Church's teaching on its relationship with other religions will significantly change as a result of these encounters. As Schillebeeckx has stated, "there is no salvation outside the world" and it is only in this emerging, pluralistic world that we are called, at least for the time being, to live out our Christian faith-- with commitment, yes, but also in dialogue with our fellow-travellers in various political, cultural and religious situations. This, I trust, will have significant impact on the Church's theology and rhetoric.

Magisterial Documents

 

                                                                                                                                                                         Other References  

Barnes, Michael. Dialogue and the Theology of Religions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.  

Burrows, William, ed. Redemption and Dialogue: Reading 'Redemptoris Missio' and 'Dialogue and Proclmation.' Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1993.  

Dupuis, Jacques. Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1997.  

________, Christianity and the Other Religions. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002.  

Flannery, Austin, ed. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Rev. ed. Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Co., 1992.  

Phan, Peter, ed. The Asian Synod: Texts and Commentaries. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002.                                                

---

 

[1] For an historical account of "Official Catholic Teaching on Religious Pluralism," see R. McBrien, Catholicism, rev. ed. (North Blackburn, Vic.: Collins Dove, 1994), 385-390.

 

Gerard Hall sm is the Head of the School of Theology at the McAuley Campus of Australian Catholic University.