Nostra Aetate at Sixty: Reviving a Moribund Decree
MARY C. BOYS
Dr. Mary C. Boys, SNJM, is the Skinner and McAlpin Professor of Practical Theology at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. Among numerous publications, she is the author of the forthcoming Blessing of a New Dawn: Reorienting Christianity’s Relationship with Judaism (Orbis Books).
For a thousand years in Your eyes
are like yesterday gone,
like a watch in the night.
Psalm 90:4 (Robert Alter translation)
For those of us of a certain age, it is difficult to grasp that the Second Vatican Council officially ended sixty years ago on December 7, 1965. Nostra Aetate, the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (promulgated October 28) was the briefest among the Council’s documents, disseminated shortly before the Council’s official closure, but its brevity did not detract from the controversies that had accompanied its drafting process. Intensely debated, some considered NA as an extraordinary advancement while others criticized it as heretical or excessively cautious. However modest its five paragraphs of forty-one Latin sentences, they garnered the attention of the world’s press and became the subject of innumerable commentaries, conferences, books, and articles. It may well be that the ratio of words in the official document to the torrent of commentary and critique exceeds that of every other document from Vatican II.
Nostra Aetate’s brevity gave rise to a series of subsequent official statements from the Vatican and bishops’ conferences that were intended to refine and expand upon this “Ur” document on the Catholic Church’s relationship with other religious traditions. Perhaps more significantly, the vision of NA became embedded in the church’s structure; within a decade after the Council, the Vatican established its Commission on Religious Relations with the Jews as a body overseeing its implementation. In many countries, bishops’ conferences established offices to lead implementation and development of relations with other religions, such as the Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Relations of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Nostra Aetate also inspired new directions for scholarship in the interreligious world; literature on Jewish-Christian relations by Jewish as well as Christian scholars now constitutes a sizeable and burgeoning library. Although criticism of the document itself is lively and trenchant, the consensus is that despite its deficiencies, NA marked a momentous turning point. For Rabbi Gilbert Rosenthal, it initiated a Copernican Revolution in Jewish Christian Relations, the subtitle of his 2014 edited book, A Jubilee for All Time. In Waiting on Grace: A Theology of Dialogue, the British Jesuit theologian Michael Barnes called NA the “moral heart of Vatican II”; it was a “revolutionary” statement, a “manifesto for Christian living in a pluralist world.”1 Theologian Paul Knitter (and my former colleague at Union) considers NA to be a milestone in the history of religions as the “harbinger of a new ‘axial age,’” that is, a “quantum evolution in the religious consciousness of the human species.”2
And while not the first of significant Christian statements following World War II, NA carried considerable symbolic freight on the ecumenical front. Its ecumenical influence can be seen most vividly in the hefty, two-volume collection edited by Franklin Sherman, Bridges: Documents of the Jewish-Christian Dialogue, the first volume spanning the period from 1945-1985 and the second from 1986-2013. So many centers promoting Jewish-Christian relations have been established in colleges and universities that there is now a Council of Centers on Jewish-Christian Relations; its informative website (https://ccjr.us/) includes a comprehensive compendium of documents pertinent to the field, including all the documents referenced in this article.
While many Catholics and Christians more generally are at least vaguely aware that the church has generally improved its relations with Jews and other religious traditions, few people, clergy included, seem to be aware of the continuing theological bond invigorated at Vatican II that has evolved in significant ways.
In the more quotidian realms of the local church, however, NA and its subsequent statements seem of little relevance. While many Catholics and Christians more generally are at least vaguely aware that the church has generally improved its relations with Jews and other religious traditions, few people, clergy included, seem to be aware of the continuing theological bond invigorated at Vatican II that has evolved in significant ways. In part, this unfamiliarity seems an inevitable consequence of the passage of time. If for some the Council is “like yesterday gone” (Psalm 90:4), for most people today it seems as if it were a thousand years ago, deep in the recesses of antiquity.
My concern is not so much that people have (at best) a vague notion of what NA says but rather that its insights seem to play no role in the ordinary life of the church, especially its liturgical life. In preaching, it is rare that a homilist builds upon its insights, even implicitly. This omission is particularly evident when the lectionary delivers a text, especially during the Lenten and Easter seasons, for which NA’s theological perspectives are critical. Reading of the passion accounts on Passion/Palm Sunday and on Good Friday typically continues without mention of the church’s recognition that the Jewish people are not responsible for the death of Jesus – and what a revolutionary claim that was sixty years ago. It is jarring, for those of us acutely aware of NA, to hear the texts of the passion in which it is clear that the Jews play a leading role in the events leading to the crucifixion of Jesus. It is not that preachers are accusing Jews of being Christ killers, but rather that that they fail to offer an interpretive word when a New Testament reading clearly associates some or all Jews with the crucifixion of Jesus. Overall, many Christians look upon Judaism as obsolete, its covenant seen as preparing for and fulfilled in the salvific work of Jesus Christ. Jesus is frequently portrayed in stark contrast to his Jewish contemporaries. The rich literature of biblical scholarship on the many “troubling texts” in which Jews are depicted negatively seems to play little or no role in preaching. This omission is particularly problematic when large portions of the Acts of the Apostles, with their frequent attribution of Jesus’ death to Jews, dominate the Easter season lectionary.
It may well be that NA lacks integration into the church’s life because biblical scholarship seems no longer to be a preeminent aspect of Catholicism’s pastoral life today; much of the scholarship seems restricted to academic settings, despite a wealth of accessible and insightful commentary.
It may well be that NA lacks integration into the church’s life because biblical scholarship seems no longer to be a preeminent aspect of Catholicism’s pastoral life today; much of the scholarship seems restricted to academic settings, despite a wealth of accessible and insightful commentary. The Sunday Old Testament lections seldom receive more than a passing mention – if that. Consequently, the implicit message is that the Old Testament in itself is unimportant for Christians; it merely narrates the promise of which Christianity is the fulfilment. Stereotypes continue to enjoy a long life; at least by way of implication, Judaism is regarded as obsolete, its purity laws portrayed as stringent, its patriarchal traditions as singularly antiquated and anti-woman. The Pharisees continue to serve as a prize rhetorical trope for preachers, for whom they represent the hypocritical teachers and legalistic mindset of Judaism in dramatic contrast to the just and merciful Christ.
To assert that NA is “moribund” is to recognize that, for the majority of Catholics today, Vatican II is not only distant in time
but also disconnected from their understanding of faith. While many look favorably on other religious traditions, their positive assessment likely arises more from cultural sensitivities or a longing for contemplative religious practices than from theological insights.
To assert that NA is “moribund” is to recognize that, for the majority of Catholics today, Vatican II is not only distant in time but also disconnected from their understanding of faith. While many look favorably on other religious traditions, their positive assessment likely arises more from cultural sensitivities or a longing for contemplative religious practices than from theological insights. Few parishes seem to have the resources in terms of finances and personnel to promote the religious education of adults; clergy typically lack the time or expertise to provide educational leadership. The useful publications related to NA that once emanated from the Committee (formerly Secretariat) of Ecumenical and Interreligious Relations of the United States Catholic Bishops have seemingly come to a halt. One publication, however, did appear in December 2024: Translate Hate: The Catholic Edition (https://www.usccb.org/resources/translate-hate-catholic-edition), a useful manual for understanding and combatting antisemitism. It does not suffice for much needed instruction on Judaism. The significant church documents that develop and extend NA seem to be unknown by all but the few who have been educated in Jewish-Christian relations. Whatever Catholic clergy may have learned about NA in seminary, I see virtually no awareness of the wealth of church teaching that has developed and deepened since Vatican II. Further, most clergy seem to lack substantial knowledge about Judaism, whether in the Second Temple period or contemporary Jewish life; they show little familiarity with the church’s history of relations with Jews. Without knowledge of this history, the groundbreaking perspectives that NA set in motion cannot be understood and appreciated.
Many factors are undoubtedly responsible for the waning interest in the issues NA raised – some undoubtedly involving larger cultural issues (for instance, the increasing secularity in the West, widespread disillusionment with Catholicism in the wake of the sexual abuse crisis, and the conservative mindset of younger clergy that devalues Vatican II). Nor is it easy to gain attention to a sixty-year-old text in a world that prizes the moment and communicates by tweets and memes. Church documents are a heavy lift in this realm. The texts tend to be prosaic and densely written; it is hard for many to see them speaking to their own lives.
Only by situating NA in its larger context of commentary and development do we see its revolutionary character.
Frankly, simply reading NA is not in itself particularly inspiring. Not only is it dated – hardly surprising, given its distance in time – but its significance lies more in what it initiated than the final text promulgated in October 1965. Only by situating NA in its larger context of commentary and development do we see its revolutionary character. I propose there are four major elements of this context:
(1) The back story of Vatican II’s origins, structure, spirit and its most significant outcomes as well as the specific tale of how NA came about and evolved over the course of the four sessions of the Council.
(2) NA’s most salient claims, that is, those that have proved the most important over time. A brief exposition of the context within the Council’s mandate is a necessary accompaniment.
(3) Its reception, both within Catholicism and beyond its borders.
(4) Issues that NA left unresolved, the current thinking on these issues, and remaining points of tension.
Each of these elements could easily constitute a chapter (or more) of a book. Here I limit myself to a sketch of the general contours of each.
The Back Stories
Two interrelated back stories are crucial to understanding the genesis and significance of Nostra Aetate. The first involves the story of how and why Vatican II came to be and its distinctive traits in relation to the most important of the twenty prior general councils. Essential elements include the hopeful vision of Pope John XXIII, which gave rise to the church’s heightened engagement with the “signs of the times”; a brief description of the structure and processes by which the meetings proceeded and the documents were drafted, debated, and finalized; a summary of fundamental insights related to NA in key documents; and ways in which those insights have been of significance to the church’s life.
The second back story focuses specifically on the dramatic decision to include relations with Judaism on the Council’s agenda; it is a story especially of the poignant meeting of John XXIII with French Jewish historian Jules Isaac in June 1960, and of NA’s perilous journey in the drafting process. This story also encompasses the influence of missionaries and others with extensive experience in Asia and Africa, where other religious traditions were dominant. The back story regarding NA itself requires illuminating the nature of the controversies its various drafts occasioned.
The Major Claims of Nostra Aetate
The back stories provide a crucial context for delineating the main components of Nostra Aetate itself, including its recognition of humankind’s search for meaning, and its recognition that there is truth and goodness in other religions. True, NA’s vision is somewhat limited; other religions “often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men and women” (§2). Yet NA “urges” the members of the church to “enter with prudence and charity into discussion and collaboration with members of other religions” so as to “acknowledge, preserve and encourage the spiritual and moral truths found among non-Christians, together with their social life and culture” (§2). Never before had the highest level of authority in the Catholic Church encouraged its adherents to engage in interreligious dialogue.
The claims regarding Judaism – that Jews “remain very dear to God,” who “does not take back the gifts he has bestowed or the choice he made” (§4) – are only remarkable insofar as we recognize that such affirmations clash markedly with the church’s longstanding hostility to Judaism.
The sections on relations with Islam (§3) and with Judaism (§4) suggest a conflictual history, although NA is more explicit in regard to the former: “Over the centuries many quarrels and dissentions have arisen between Christians and Muslims.” Here NA explicitly records a plea to “forget the past” and to aspire to “achieve mutual understanding for the benefit of all” (§3). The claims regarding Judaism – that Jews “remain very dear to God,” who “does not take back the gifts he has bestowed or the choice he made” (§4) – are only remarkable insofar as we recognize that such affirmations clash markedly with the church’s longstanding hostility to Judaism. Even more extraordinary in light of church history is the assertion that “neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time [of the crucifixion of Jesus], nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his passion” (§4). We do not do justice to the revolutionary character of NA unless we offer at least a brief review of the long and shameful history of the church characterizing Jews as “Christ killers,” as those unfaithful to God because they were responsible for the death of God’s son.
The accusation that Jews were culpable for the death of Jesus, as I wrote in 2013, was the “North Star in a constellation of accusations that the Jews were faithless, blind, carnal, and legalistic—tropes that resonated throughout theological commentary and pastoral exhortations” for centuries.3 Only when contemporary readers understand the extent and depth of the church’s history of contempt for Jews and condemnation of Judaism will NA’s all-too-cautious acknowledgement that Jews were not culpable for his death be seen as extraordinary. The question of Jewish culpability in the passion and death of Christ was one of the most hotly argued claims among the Council fathers. It is important to revisit this claim and resituate it in light of advances in biblical studies since 1965.
Two further matters: First, although the sixteen documents of Vatican II make no explicit mention of the Shoah, it nevertheless looms in the background. Europeans constituted the major bloc of the Council’s participants; many came from countries that had been devastated by World War II. A few had helped to enable resistance to the Nazi regime. Pope John XXIII himself had contributed significantly to Jewish survival as an apostolic delegate to Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey, although he had died in May 1963 and thus did not live to witness the final debates and then affirmation of Nostra Aetate. Second, nowhere does NA admit to the church’s own “many quarrels and arguments” with Jews as it did with Muslims – and it gives no indication of the extent of its centuries of hostility to Judaism, whether in theological claims or denunciations or indifference to suffering. This omission is a critical flaw in section four and a major impediment to Catholics grasping the significance of the Catholic Church’s changed posture toward the Jewish community.
The Reception of Nostra Aetate
It is imperative to present Nostra Aetate as initiating a process of theological reflection. Subsequent statements emanating from various sectors of the church nuanced and developed the brief declaration. The Vatican’s Commission on Religious Relations with the Jews, established as a means of continuing theological exposition of NA, published two documents intended to refine and shape its implementation: “Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing Nostra Aetate #4” in 1975, followed by “Notes on the Correct Way to Present Jews and Judaism in the Teaching of the Catholic Church” in 1985.
Its 1998 “We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah” is of a different genre: a narrative intended to contribute to healing the “wounds of past misunderstandings and injustices” so as to “enable memory to play its necessary part in the process of shaping a future in which the unspeakable iniquity of the Shoah will never again be possible.”4 It confesses that the “history of relations between Jews and Christians is a tormented one,” and that “in effect, the balance of these relations over two thousand years has been quite negative” (§III). But the force of the document is diminished by a reluctance to fully acknowledge the gravity of the church’s failures to stand in active resistance to the Third Reich.
Given how Catholic tradition has for centuries fostered a reductionistic understanding of Torah as law and Judaism as legalistic, the affirmation of Jesus as God’s Torah for Christians rests on an appreciation of the capacious conception of Torah in Judaism – an insight deserving of emphasis.
The Commission’s most extensive contribution to the interpretation and implementation marked the fiftieth anniversary of NA in 2015: “The Gifts and Calling of God Are Irrevocable (Romans 9:29).” Its rich material is, unfortunately, obscured by its length and density of thought. It is not a user-friendly document. Among the insights deserving further exposition is the notion of Jesus as the “living Torah of God” (§3.26). Given how Catholic tradition has for centuries fostered a reductionistic understanding of Torah as law and Judaism as legalistic, the affirmation of Jesus as God’s Torah for Christians rests on an appreciation of the capacious conception of Torah in Judaism – an insight deserving of emphasis.
The Pontifical Biblical Commission has published two recent documents that bear considerable relevance to NA. The first, issued in 1993, “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church” emphasizes the importance of discerning the meaning of biblical texts in their multilayered contexts – historical, literary, and socio-cultural. The PBC’s 2001 monograph, “The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible,” reveals similarities in ways Jews and Christians search for meanings in their texts, sharing many methods but differing in fundamental assumptions they bring to the text. Again, neither of these is widely known in the church except among a subset of theologians; they deserve to be incorporated in creative ways into teaching materials.
Among the many statements emanating from conferences of bishops, several from the bishops of France are particularly notable. In 1987, the French Bishops Commission for Relations with Jews memorably wrote that Jewish faithfulness to God, dedication to Scripture and commitment to peoplehood “pose questions to us Christians which touch on the heart of our faith.”5 Their “Declaration of Repentance” in 1997 is a far more candid confession than that of “We Remember.” It includes this forthright admission:
In the judgment of historians, it is a well-proven fact that for centuries, up until Vatican Council II, an anti-Jewish tradition stamped its mark in differing ways on Christian doctrine and teaching, in theology, apologetics, preaching and in the liturgy. It was on such ground that the venomous plant of hatred for the Jews was able to flourish. Hence, the heavy inheritance we still bear in our century, with all its consequences which are so difficult to wipe out. Hence our still open wounds.6
Among the various teaching documents from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, two have particular relevance for preaching and teaching about the passion and death of Christ: “God’s Mercy Endures Forever” in 1988 and “Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatization of the Passion” in 1995, a text that though aimed at passion plays is pertinent as well to preaching the passion narratives. Although a bit dated, both are accessible and helpful statements that deserve to be recirculated, perhaps with some modest revision reflecting more recent scholarship. It seems, however, that the USCCB no longer publishes these two resources; they are available widely on websites, but only if one is aware of their existence. The one recent resource, Translate Hate: The Catholic Edition, published in 2024 in conjunction with the American Jewish Committee, offers some good counsel on recognizing and countering antisemitism.
NA’s reception is evident in ways other than texts, such as the symbolic importance of papal journeys to Auschwitz, to Israel (including Yad Vashem), and to Rome’s Great Synagogue. So also do the gatherings of (male) religious leaders in Assisi in 1986, 2002, 2007, and 2021 witness to interreligious collaboration, as do the annual gatherings of religious leaders sponsored by the Community of Sant’Egidio. And, although not widely recognized, the powerful relationships developed in our time between Jews and Christians, especially in the West, offer hope that what Nostra Aetate initiated continues to flourish in ways the Council Fathers could scarcely imagine.
Issues Unresolved
In arguing that Nostra Aetate’s importance lies in what it inspired and initiated, there are a number of pressing matters in need of continuing exploration. Among them: theologies that enable fresh and significant ways of thinking about truth claims in our multireligious world, integration of the fruits of biblical scholarship into the life of the church, and the urgency of deepening understanding of antisemitism so as to combat it more adequately. A brief word on each.
…there is much ferment in theological circles today that offers new perspectives on religious diversity, particularly from the world of comparative theology. Complex questions remain but NA should not be seen as the final word on this topic.
A striking aspect of NA is the assumption that the Catholic Church possesses the ultimate truth – not simply a “ray” of truth among other such rays. The release of Dominus Iesus by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2000 developed this claim at length. But there is much ferment in theological circles today that offers new perspectives on religious diversity, particularly from the world of comparative theology. Complex questions remain but NA should not be seen as the final word on this topic.
NA’s section four is marred by claims resting on outdated biblical scholarship and the assumption of superiority, such as the italicized:
True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.
If Christianity’s supersessionist posture via-a-vis Judaism can no longer be theologically justified, what would a Christian theology look like if it were premised on the claim that the Way of Christ neither diminishes nor lessens the Way of Torah because both are pathways to God?
As historian Magda Teter documents in her 2022 book, Christian Supremacy: Reckoning with the Religious Roots of Antisemitism and Racism, the theological legacy of supersessionism – the church as superseding Judaism – has had serious consequences beyond the religious sphere. As she documents, the church’s assumption of superiority to Judaism fostered an attitude of supremacy that was implemented into law, contributing significantly not only to antisemitism but also to anti-Black racism. Her bracing book raises the following question: If Christianity’s supersessionist posture via-a-vis Judaism can no longer be theologically justified, what would a Christian theology look like if it were premised on the claim that the Way of Christ neither diminishes nor lessens the Way of Torah because both are pathways to God? Biblical scholarship, including the emphasis on the New Testament texts as originating “within Judaism” has much to offer. The abundant scholarship on the Jewishness of Jesus situates him in history and in the context of Jewish teachings.
Particularly when U. S. government authorities are banning accurate historical accounts that reveal ignorance, prejudice, and structural racism, it is all the more important for the Catholic Church to witness that it is “not afraid of history,” as Pope Francis affirmed in March 2020
Much of the early criticism of NA from the Jewish community was its formulation “deploring” antisemitism rather than condemning it. Although subsequent documents have since strengthened the wording, the weaker formulation in NA resulted from the general tenor of Vatican II as a council differing from its predecessors; unlike other councils that offered words of condemnation of various movements and beliefs, it avoided denunciations and threats of
“anathema.” Nevertheless, antisemitism, particularly in its contemporary resurgence, remains a challenge: In what effective ways might the Catholic Church combat antisemitism? More than words of condemnation, no matter how strong, will be requisite. While the recent publication mentioned above, Translate Hate: The Catholic Edition is a useful manual for educators in particular, it hardly suffices if church leaders are to be persuasive. There is a wealth of historical, sociological, and theological writing on antisemitism, as well as some excellent video resources and podcasts that could – and should – serve ecclesial leaders to deepen their own knowledge of antisemitism, especially now that the Trump administration is exploiting it for its own political purposes. Particularly when U. S. government authorities are banning accurate historical accounts that reveal ignorance, prejudice, and structural racism, it is all the more important for the Catholic Church to witness that it is “not afraid of history,” as Pope Francis affirmed in March 2020 as he officially opened the Vatican’s archives relating to the pontificate of Pope Pius XII (1939-1958).
There is much that is shameful in the Catholic Church’s history regarding Jews and Judaism. Revitalizing the teachings that NA initiated provides a powerful act of atonement as well as living into what God’s Spirit inspired sixty years ago.
Finally, if the Catholic Church and its ecumenical partners are to reclaim and advance what NA taught sixty years ago, attention to the art and craft of the educational process is requisite. The documents must be made accessible in ways that facilitate recognition of their insights. Religious and theological educators must be given the time and resources to develop creative approaches to the key elements of the NA tradition. Church documents will come alive when knowledgeable teachers are encouraged and supported to become serious and enthusiastic interpreters of the many rich concepts that enhance our understanding of Judaism and the relation of our churches to Jews not only of the past but in the present. Empower learned and creative teachers to find ways of connecting the documents constituting the NA tradition to people’s lives. By doing so, a moribund document will be brought back to life.
Notes
1. Michael Barnes, Waiting on Grace: A Theology of Dialogue (Oxford University Press, 2020), 51, 76.
2. Charles L. Cohen, Paul F. Knitter, and Ulrich Rosenhagen, eds., The Future of Interreligious Dialogue: A Multireligious Conversation on Nostra Aetate (Orbis, 2017), 48.
3. Mary C. Boys, Redeeming our Sacred Story: The Death of Jesus and Relations between Jews and Christians (Paulist, 2013), 137-38.
4. Introductory Letter of Pope John Paul II, in the Vatican’s Commission on Religious Relations with the Jews, “We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah” (1998).
5. In Helga Croner, ed., Stepping Stones to Further Jewish-Christian Relations: An Unabridged Collection of Christian Documents, 1975-1983 (Paulist, 1985), 61.
6. French Bishops Commission for Relations with Jews, “Declaration of Repentance”: https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/roman-catholic/other-conferences-of-catholic-bishops/cefr1997, accessed September 14, 2025.
This article originally appeared in Ecumenical Trends 54.5 (September/October 2025), a publication of Graymoor Ecumenical & Interreligious Institute. The journal offers distinctive perspectives where the church, the academy, and the interfaith field coincide, and combines reporting on current developments in ecumenical/interreligious affairs with accessible scholarship, interviews, and pastoral reflection on the dynamics of religious difference on common ground. Find out more, and subscribe to Ecumenical Trends (print and/or online), by clicking here.