Last year John Paul II published his encyclical, Laborem exercens (LE), and Roman Catholic social teaching was so much the richer for it. Only his illness prevented the encyclical from being published on the day of the ninetieth anniversary of the first encyclical on the question of work, Rerum novarum (1891), written by the great pope of the ‘social question’, Leo XIII. LE was intended to contribute to the ‘immortal fame of the encyclical, Rerum novarum’, as Pius XI said of his encyclical Quadragesimo anno (1931). This indicates a basic continuity of LE with the developments in Roman Catholic social teaching set in motion by Rerum novarum. In fact John Paul II explicitly states his intention to remain in organic connexion with these developments. And indeed, with respect to the content of the encyclical, one finds hardly anything fundamentally new.

I Am grateful to Mr Peter Byrne (‘John Hick's Philosophy of World Religions’, S.J.T., Vol. 35, 289–301) for highlighting some of the central issues for a philosophy of religious pluralism. He starts from the now widespread realisation that it is not a morally or religiously acceptable view that salvation depends upon being a member of the Christian minority within the human race. A more realistic view must be pluralistic, seeing the great religious traditions as different ways of conceiving and experiencing the one ultimate divine Reality, and correspondingly different ways of responding to that Reality. These ways owe their differences to the modes of thinking, perceiving and feeling which have developed within the different patterns of human existence embodied in the various cultures of the earth. Thus, on the one hand the religions are responses to a single ultimate transcendent Reality, whilst on the other hand their several communal consciousnesses of that Reality, formed from different human perspectives, are widely different. To understand this mixture of commonality and difference I have suggested that we should make use of a basic distinction which occurs in some form within each of the great traditions. In Christian terms it is the distinction between God in himself, in his eternal self-existent being, independently of creation, and God-for-us or God as revealed to us. In more universal language it is the distinction between the Real (Sat, al-Haq) an sich and the Real as humanly experienced and thought.