The Benedict Blog - On the Pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI

Friday, March 13, 2009

Anticipating Pope Benedict XVI's trip to Israel and the Holy Land

Pope Benedict's visit to the Holy Land is scheduled for May 8-15, 2009. We'll be providing roundups of news, commentary and coverage of his visit, with increasing frequency as we draw nearer to the trip.

We start things off with some good news: The row that ensued between Jewish leaders and the Vatican after the latter lifted the excommunication of a bishop who denied the extent of the Holocaust, is over -- or so declared Shear-Yashuv Cohen, the chief rabbi of Haifa, in comments to the press, following a meeting between the Pope, a delegation from the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Holy See Commission for Religious Relations With the Jews.

"This was not just another meeting," said Rabbi Cohen:
"This was a special experience, a turning point, the end of a crisis. We could not have expected a warmer reception."

"I Am Preparing to Visit the Holy Land As a Pilgrim" - The full address of Benedict XVI upon receiving a delegation from the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and of the Holy See Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews.
On March 10th, Archbishop Antonio Franco, apostolic nuncio in Israel held a press conference was held in Jerusalem to present the schedule for Benedict XVI's trip to the Holy Land:
the most important moments of the trip will be three public Masses, one in Jerusalem, another in Bethlehem and the final one in Nazareth.
The Pope will spend May 11-12 in Jerusalem, the 13th he will go to Bethlehem and the 14th to Nazareth.
The Mass in Nazareth is expected to draw the largest crowd, given its coincidence with the conclusion of a Year of the Family. The Holy Father will bless a cornerstone for a new international center dedicated to support the family.
The Bishop of Rome will also have some key moments of prayer in the Holy Land: the first in the Upper Room and the last in the Holy Sepulcher.
Meetings with the Israeli and Palestinian Authority presidents are scheduled, as are meetings with Jewish and Muslim leaders in respective holy places of both creeds, and a visit to the Holocaust memorial, the Yad Vashem.
Israeli President Shimon Peres has welcomed Pope Benedict’s decision to visit Israel:
"I am delighted that His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has responded positively and accepted my invitation to visit the Holy Land," he said. "The Pope will be a most honored guest, welcomed and respected by people from all walks of life. His visit will be a moving and important event bringing the spirit of peace and hope. Welcome to Israel."
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas also welcomed the visit:
Abbas said the hopes the visit will be the start of a lasting good, and a sign of love and peace in the land of peace.
Abbas ordered formation of a higher committee to be headed by Palestinian Minister of Local Governance Ziad Al-Bandak to prepare for the Pope’s historic visit.
Richard Owen of The Times highlights the fact that, if the trip goes according to plan, Pope Benedict XVI is set to become the first head of the Roman Catholic Church to enter a mosque in Jerusalem:
Monsignor Antonio Franco, the papal nuncio in Israel, said it had been agreed "in principle" that the pontiff would visit the seventh century Dome of the Rock, one of the holiest sites in Islam, together with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. It contains a rock on which the Prophet Muhammed is said to have left his footprint as he ascended to heaven on a "night journey" accompanied by the archangel Gabriel.
The Israeli Tourism Ministry has already begun its preparations for the papal visit, with funds distributed towards renovations and preparations at Christian sites in Israel, including Qasr el-Yahud, the Good Samaritan site, the Cenacle (site of the Last Supper), the Jesus Trail and more.
In an interview with Vatican Radio this week, Custodian of the Holy Land Father Pierbattista Pizzaballa said that news of the papal visit is "very encouraging and will help us to hold our heads high and soar a bit higher than we’ve been able to until now."

Labels: Israel (Apostolic Journey), Jewish-Christian Relations

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Pope Benedict, the SSPX, and the dispute over Religious Freedom and Church-State Relations

Note: This post will be continually updated with further news and commentary as events develop.

Statements & Developments

01-24-09: Decree of the Congregation for Bishops Card. Giovanni Battista Re, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops:
... His Holiness Benedict XVI - paternally sensitive to the spiritual unease manifested by the interested party due to the sanction of excommunication and trusting in the effort expressed by them in the aforementioned letter of not sparing any effort to deepen the necessary discussions with the Authority of the Holy See in the still open matters, so as to achieve shortly a full and satisfactory solution of the problem posed in the origin - decided to reconsider the canonical situation of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta, arisen with their episcopal consecration.
With this act, it is desired to consolidate the reciprocal relations of confidence and to intensify and grant stability to the relationship of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X with this Apostolic See. This gift of peace, at the end of the Christmas celebrations, is also intended to be a sign to promote unity in the charity of the universal Church and to try to vanquish the scandal of division.
It is hoped that this step be followed by the prompt accomplishment of full communion with the Church of the entire Fraternity of Saint Pius X, thus testifying true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope with the proof of visible unity.
01-26-09: Roundup of responses from various sources to the repealing of the excommunications, courtesy of Rorate Caeli.
01-28-09: Remarks of Pope Benedict XVI on the remission of the excommunications on the SSPX hierarchy, followed by an expression of solidarity with the Jewish people:
... Precisely in the accomplishment of this service of unity, which qualifies, in a specific way, my ministry as Successor of Peter, I decided, a few days ago, to grant the remission of the excommunication in which the four bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, without pontifical mandate, had incurred. I fulfilled this act of fatherly mercy because those prelates repeatedly manifested to me their deep suffering for the situation in which they found themselves. I hope that this gesture of mine will be followed by the solicitous effort by them to accomplish the ulterior steps necessary to accomplish full communion with the Church, thus testifying true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope and of the Second Vatican Council.
While I renew with affection the expression of my full and unquestionable solidarity with our brothers receivers of the First Covenant, I hope that the memory of the Shoah leads mankind to reflect on the unpredictable power of evil when it conquers the heart of man. May the Shoah be for all a warning against forgetfulness, against denial or reductionism, because the violence against a single human being is violence against all. No man is an island, a famous poet writes. The Shoah particularly teaches, both old an the new generations, that only the tiresome path of listening and dialogue, of love and of forgiveness lead the peoples, the cultures, and the religions of the world to the hoped-for goal of fraternity and peace in truth. May violence never again crush the dignity of man!
01-28-09: Superior General of the SSPX: Bishop Williamson forbidden to speak on political or historical matters January 27, 2009:
We view this matter with great concern, as this exorbitance has caused severe damage to our religious mission. We apologize to the Holy Father and to all people of good will for the trouble it has caused.
It must remain clear that those comments do not reflect in any way the attitude of our community. That is why I have forbidden Bishop Williamson to issue any public opinion on any political or historical matter until further notice.
01-28-09: Note of the District Superior for Germany of the SSPX:
The banalization of the genocide of the Jews by the Nazi regime and of its horror are unacceptable for us.
The persecution and murder of an incalculable number of Jews under the Third Reich touches us painfully and they also violate the Christian commandment of love for neighbor which does not distinguish ethnicities.
I must apologize for this behavior and dissociate myself from such a view.
Such dissociation is also necessary for us because the father of Archbishop Lefebvre died in a KZ [concentration camp] and because numerous Catholic priests lost their lives in Hitler's concentration camps.
01-29-09: Interview granted by the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, to French Catholic Magazine Monde & Vie.
01-30-09: Letter of apology to Pope Benedict XVI from Bishop Bernard Williamson:
Amidst this tremendous media storm stirred up by imprudent remarks of mine on Swedish television, I beg of you to accept, only as is properly respectful, my sincere regrets for having caused to yourself and to the Holy Father so much unnecessary distress and problems.
For me, all that matters is the Truth Incarnate, and the interests of His one true Church, through which alone we can save our souls and give eternal glory, in our little way, to Almighty God. So I have only one comment, from the prophet Jonas, I, 12:
"Take me up and throw me into the sea; then the sea will quiet down for you; for I know it is because of me that this great tempest has come upon you."
Please also accept, and convey to the Holy Father, my sincere personal thanks for the document signed last Wednesday and made public on Saturday. Most humbly I will offer a Mass for both of you.
Interview with Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, president of the Ecclesia Dei Commission published today in Italian national daily Corriere della Sera.
Note of the Secretariat of State Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone L'Osservatore Romano, February 5, 2009:
... The positions of Mons. Williamson on the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable and firmly rejected by the Holy Father, as he himself remarked on the past January 28, when, referring to that brutal genocide, he reaffirmed his full and unquestionable solidarity with our Brethren, receivers of the First Covenant, and affirmed that the memory of that terrible genocide must lead "mankind to reflect on the unpredictable power of evil when it conquers the heart of man", adding that the Shoah remains "for all a warning against forgetfulness, against denial or reductionism, because the violence against a single human being is violence against all".
Bishop Williamson, for an admission to episcopal functions in the Church, will also have to distance himself, in an absolutely unequivocal and public manner, from his positions regarding the Shoah, unknown to the Holy Father in the moment of the remission of the excommunication.
The Holy Father asks to be joined by the prayers of all the faithful, so that the Lord may enlighten the path of the Church. May the effort of the Pastors and of all the faithful increase in support of the delicate and burdensome mission of the Successor of Apostle Peter as "custodian of unity" in the Church.
Italian District of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) has announced the expulsion of Father Floriano Abrahamowicz, the priest responsible for Northeast Italy. Rorate Caeli February 6, 2009.
Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos in the eye of the storm interview granted by the director of the Holy See Press Office and head of Radio Vaticana, Fr. Federico Lombardi, SJ, to French daily La Croix. February 5, 2009.
Williamson "was removed from his charge as head of the seminary" of Nuestra Señora Corredentora of La Reja (Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina) - confirmed by Father Christian Bouchacourt to Argentinian daily La Nación. February 9, 2009.
Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre (March 10, 2009):
Even though many Bishops and members of the faithful were disposed in principle to take a positive view of the Pope’s concern for reconciliation, the question remained whether such a gesture was fitting in view of the genuinely urgent demands of the life of faith in our time. Some groups, on the other hand, openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before the Council: as a result, an avalanche of protests was unleashed, whose bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment. I therefore feel obliged to offer you, dear Brothers, a word of clarification, which ought to help you understand the concerns which led me and the competent offices of the Holy See to take this step. In this way I hope to contribute to peace in the Church. ...
Commentary on the Letter by Fr Federico Lombardi, SJ, Head of the Press Office of the Holy See March 12, 2009:
The “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre” is definitely an unusual document and deserves all our attention. Never before in his Pontificate has Benedict XVI expressed himself in such a personal manner and intensity on a controversial subject. There isn’t the slightest doubt: this Letter bears his mark, from beginning to end. ...
Communiqué of Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, in response to Pope Benedict's letter.

Further Resources, Commentary and Discussion

Q-and-A Explains Standing of 4 Lefebvrite Bishops explanation prepared by the episcopal conference of England and Wales on the lifting of the excommunication of four bishops of the Society of St. Pius X.
Lefebvre Group Step Hailed as Unity Week Success: Spokesman Reflects on Lifting of Excommunication Remarks of Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office. Zenit News January 25, 2009.
With Lefebvrists, It's Just the Beginning: Ecclesia Dei Member Considers Lifting of Excommunication Remarks of Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard, archbishop of Bordeux. Zenit News January 27, 2009.
Rome’s Reconciliation: Did the Pope heal, or deepen, the Lefebvrist schism?, by George Weigel. Newsweek January 26, 2009.
Misconceptions: What the “lifting” of the SSPX excom’s means for people, by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (What Does The Prayer Really Say?)
"Your Move" and Lefebvre Part II, by Amy Welborn. Charlotte Was Both
No More Excommunication for the Lefebvrists. But Peace Is Still Far Off, by Sandro Magister. Chiesa. January 28, 2009.
Lefebvre movement: long, troubled history with Judaism, by John Allen Jr. National Catholic Reporter January 26, 2009.
The Lefebvrite case: What was the Vatican thinking?, by John Allen Jr. National Catholic Reporter January 30, 2009.
The Jewish Reaction to the Pope's Welcoming Back Holocaust Denying Bishop: Disproportionate! Rabbi Irwin Kula. Huffington Post February 2, 2009.
"The SSPX bishops should resign": The Regensburg Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Mueller about the prohibition of the Holocaust denier, Williamson in his diocese, and what he wants from the Society of St Pius X ZEIT ONLINE. February 3, 2009. [Translated by Catholic Church Conservation].
"Enough", by Paul Zummo (CrankyCon). February 3, 2009.
Double Disaster at the Vatican: Of Governance, and of Communication, by Sandro Magister. Chiesa. February 4, 2009.

Labels: Jewish-Christian Relations, SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X)

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Pope Benedict XVI meets with Jewish delegation from the United States, confirms intention to visit to Israel and the Holy Land

Benedict XVI's preparations for his trip to the Holy Land are under way, as he himself confirmed today in a meeting with a Jewish delegation from the United States (Zenit News, February 14, 2009):

According to sources from both Jerusalem and Rome, the Holy Father's first pilgrimage to Israel and the surrounding region will take place during the second week of May.
He confirmed his intention to make the visit, despite doubts cast on the plan by the conflict in Gaza and the scandal caused by Lefebvrite Bishop Richard Williamson.
Rabbi Arthur Schneier of New York told the Pontiff, "The promised land awaits your arrival."
And noting that his guests were scheduled to visit the Holy Land after their time in Italy, Benedict XVI said: "I too am preparing to visit Israel, a land which is holy for Christians as well as Jews, since the roots of our faith are to be found there.
"Indeed, the Church draws its sustenance from the root of that good olive tree, the people of Israel, onto which have been grafted the wild olive branches of the Gentiles. From the earliest days of Christianity, our identity and every aspect of our life and worship have been intimately bound up with the ancient religion of our fathers in faith."

Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Walter Kasper (centre L), pose during an audience with a delegation from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations at the Vatican. Photo credit: Reuters

Click here for the full text of Pope Benedict XVI's address to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations -- in which the Holy Father recalled his meeting the Jewish community at Cologne (making history as the first Pope to visit a synagogue in Germany), in August 2005; his visit to the extermination camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau in May 2006, his meeting with Rabbi Schneier and congregation of the Park East Synagogue in New York during his 2008 visit to the United States.

Chiefly, Pope Benedict recalled the importance of recognizing the Shoah (alluding to the recent controversy involving SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson):

The two-thousand-year history of the relationship between Judaism and the Church has passed through many different phases, some of them painful to recall. Now that we are able to meet in a spirit of reconciliation, we must not allow past difficulties to hold us back from extending to one another the hand of friendship. Indeed, what family is there that has not been troubled by tensions of one kind or another? The Second Vatican Council’s Declaration "Nostra Aetate" marked a milestone in the journey towards reconciliation, and clearly outlined the principles that have governed the Church’s approach to Christian-Jewish relations ever since.
The Church is profoundly and irrevocably committed to reject all anti-Semitism and to continue to build good and lasting relations between our two communities. If there is one particular image which encapsulates this commitment, it is the moment when my beloved predecessor Pope John Paul II stood at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, pleading for God’s forgiveness after all the injustice that the Jewish people have had to suffer. I now make his prayer my own: "God of our fathers, you chose Abraham and his descendants to bring your Name to the Nations: we are deeply saddened by the behaviour of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant" (26 March 2000).
The hatred and contempt for men, women and children that was manifested in the Shoah was a crime against God and against humanity. This should be clear to everyone, especially to those standing in the tradition of the Holy Scriptures, according to which every human being is created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26-27). It is beyond question that any denial or minimization of this terrible crime is intolerable and altogether unacceptable. Recently, in a public audience, I reaffirmed that the Shoah must be "a warning for all against forgetfulness, denial or reductionism, because violence committed against one single human being is violence against all" (January 28, 2009).
This terrible chapter in our history must never be forgotten. Remembrance – it is rightly said – is "memoria futuri", a warning to us for the future, and a summons to strive for reconciliation. To remember is to do everything in our power to prevent any recurrence of such a catastrophe within the human family by building bridges of lasting friendship. It is my fervent prayer that the memory of this appalling crime will strengthen our determination to heal the wounds that for too long have sullied relations between Christians and Jews. It is my heartfelt desire that the friendship we now enjoy will grow ever stronger, so that the Church’s irrevocable commitment to respectful and harmonious relations with the people of the Covenant will bear fruit in abundance.

Labels: Jewish-Christian Relations, SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X)

Sunday, February 01, 2009

Pope Benedict, The SSPX and the Repeal of the Excommunications

Note: This post will be continually updated with further news and commentary as events develop.

Statements & Developments

01-24-09: Decree of the Congregation for Bishops Card. Giovanni Battista Re, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops:
... His Holiness Benedict XVI - paternally sensitive to the spiritual unease manifested by the interested party due to the sanction of excommunication and trusting in the effort expressed by them in the aforementioned letter of not sparing any effort to deepen the necessary discussions with the Authority of the Holy See in the still open matters, so as to achieve shortly a full and satisfactory solution of the problem posed in the origin - decided to reconsider the canonical situation of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta, arisen with their episcopal consecration.
With this act, it is desired to consolidate the reciprocal relations of confidence and to intensify and grant stability to the relationship of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X with this Apostolic See. This gift of peace, at the end of the Christmas celebrations, is also intended to be a sign to promote unity in the charity of the universal Church and to try to vanquish the scandal of division.
It is hoped that this step be followed by the prompt accomplishment of full communion with the Church of the entire Fraternity of Saint Pius X, thus testifying true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope with the proof of visible unity.
01-26-09: Roundup of responses from various sources to the repealing of the excommunications, courtesy of Rorate Caeli.
01-28-09: Remarks of Pope Benedict XVI on the remission of the excommunications on the SSPX hierarchy, followed by an expression of solidarity with the Jewish people:
... Precisely in the accomplishment of this service of unity, which qualifies, in a specific way, my ministry as Successor of Peter, I decided, a few days ago, to grant the remission of the excommunication in which the four bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, without pontifical mandate, had incurred. I fulfilled this act of fatherly mercy because those prelates repeatedly manifested to me their deep suffering for the situation in which they found themselves. I hope that this gesture of mine will be followed by the solicitous effort by them to accomplish the ulterior steps necessary to accomplish full communion with the Church, thus testifying true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope and of the Second Vatican Council.
While I renew with affection the expression of my full and unquestionable solidarity with our brothers receivers of the First Covenant, I hope that the memory of the Shoah leads mankind to reflect on the unpredictable power of evil when it conquers the heart of man. May the Shoah be for all a warning against forgetfulness, against denial or reductionism, because the violence against a single human being is violence against all. No man is an island, a famous poet writes. The Shoah particularly teaches, both old an the new generations, that only the tiresome path of listening and dialogue, of love and of forgiveness lead the peoples, the cultures, and the religions of the world to the hoped-for goal of fraternity and peace in truth. May violence never again crush the dignity of man!
01-28-09: Superior General of the SSPX: Bishop Williamson forbidden to speak on political or historical matters January 27, 2009:
We view this matter with great concern, as this exorbitance has caused severe damage to our religious mission. We apologize to the Holy Father and to all people of good will for the trouble it has caused.
It must remain clear that those comments do not reflect in any way the attitude of our community. That is why I have forbidden Bishop Williamson to issue any public opinion on any political or historical matter until further notice.
01-28-09: Note of the District Superior for Germany of the SSPX:
The banalization of the genocide of the Jews by the Nazi regime and of its horror are unacceptable for us.
The persecution and murder of an incalculable number of Jews under the Third Reich touches us painfully and they also violate the Christian commandment of love for neighbor which does not distinguish ethnicities.
I must apologize for this behavior and dissociate myself from such a view.
Such dissociation is also necessary for us because the father of Archbishop Lefebvre died in a KZ [concentration camp] and because numerous Catholic priests lost their lives in Hitler's concentration camps.
01-29-09: Interview granted by the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, to French Catholic Magazine Monde & Vie.
01-30-09: Letter of apology to Pope Benedict XVI from Bishop Bernard Williamson:
Amidst this tremendous media storm stirred up by imprudent remarks of mine on Swedish television, I beg of you to accept, only as is properly respectful, my sincere regrets for having caused to yourself and to the Holy Father so much unnecessary distress and problems.
For me, all that matters is the Truth Incarnate, and the interests of His one true Church, through which alone we can save our souls and give eternal glory, in our little way, to Almighty God. So I have only one comment, from the prophet Jonas, I, 12:
"Take me up and throw me into the sea; then the sea will quiet down for you; for I know it is because of me that this great tempest has come upon you."
Please also accept, and convey to the Holy Father, my sincere personal thanks for the document signed last Wednesday and made public on Saturday. Most humbly I will offer a Mass for both of you.
Interview with Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, president of the Ecclesia Dei Commission published today in Italian national daily Corriere della Sera.
Note of the Secretariat of State Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone L'Osservatore Romano, February 5, 2009:
... The positions of Mons. Williamson on the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable and firmly rejected by the Holy Father, as he himself remarked on the past January 28, when, referring to that brutal genocide, he reaffirmed his full and unquestionable solidarity with our Brethren, receivers of the First Covenant, and affirmed that the memory of that terrible genocide must lead "mankind to reflect on the unpredictable power of evil when it conquers the heart of man", adding that the Shoah remains "for all a warning against forgetfulness, against denial or reductionism, because the violence against a single human being is violence against all".
Bishop Williamson, for an admission to episcopal functions in the Church, will also have to distance himself, in an absolutely unequivocal and public manner, from his positions regarding the Shoah, unknown to the Holy Father in the moment of the remission of the excommunication.
The Holy Father asks to be joined by the prayers of all the faithful, so that the Lord may enlighten the path of the Church. May the effort of the Pastors and of all the faithful increase in support of the delicate and burdensome mission of the Successor of Apostle Peter as "custodian of unity" in the Church.
Italian District of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) has announced the expulsion of Father Floriano Abrahamowicz, the priest responsible for Northeast Italy. Rorate Caeli February 6, 2009.
Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos in the eye of the storm interview granted by the director of the Holy See Press Office and head of Radio Vaticana, Fr. Federico Lombardi, SJ, to French daily La Croix. February 5, 2009.
Williamson "was removed from his charge as head of the seminary" of Nuestra Señora Corredentora of La Reja (Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina) - confirmed by Father Christian Bouchacourt to Argentinian daily La Nación. February 9, 2009.

Further Resources, Commentary and Discussion

Q-and-A Explains Standing of 4 Lefebvrite Bishops explanation prepared by the episcopal conference of England and Wales on the lifting of the excommunication of four bishops of the Society of St. Pius X.
Lefebvre Group Step Hailed as Unity Week Success: Spokesman Reflects on Lifting of Excommunication Remarks of Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office. Zenit News January 25, 2009.
With Lefebvrists, It's Just the Beginning: Ecclesia Dei Member Considers Lifting of Excommunication Remarks of Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard, archbishop of Bordeux. Zenit News January 27, 2009.
Rome’s Reconciliation: Did the Pope heal, or deepen, the Lefebvrist schism?, by George Weigel. Newsweek January 26, 2009.
Misconceptions: What the “lifting” of the SSPX excom’s means for people, by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (What Does The Prayer Really Say?)
"Your Move" and Lefebvre Part II, by Amy Welborn. Charlotte Was Both
No More Excommunication for the Lefebvrists. But Peace Is Still Far Off, by Sandro Magister. Chiesa. January 28, 2009.
Lefebvre movement: long, troubled history with Judaism, by John Allen Jr. National Catholic Reporter January 26, 2009.
The Lefebvrite case: What was the Vatican thinking?, by John Allen Jr. National Catholic Reporter January 30, 2009.
The Jewish Reaction to the Pope's Welcoming Back Holocaust Denying Bishop: Disproportionate! Rabbi Irwin Kula. Huffington Post February 2, 2009.
"The SSPX bishops should resign": The Regensburg Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Mueller about the prohibition of the Holocaust denier, Williamson in his diocese, and what he wants from the Society of St Pius X ZEIT ONLINE. February 3, 2009. [Translated by Catholic Church Conservation].
"Enough", by Paul Zummo (CrankyCon). February 3, 2009.
Double Disaster at the Vatican: Of Governance, and of Communication, by Sandro Magister. Chiesa. February 4, 2009.

Labels: Jewish-Christian Relations, SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X)

Sunday, April 06, 2008

Pope Benedict, The Jews and the "Good Friday Prayer"

In which I finally attempt to play 'catchup' and navigate the waters of controversy regarding the Pope's revision to the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews. This post may be updated as I come across additional pertinent articles. -- Christopher]

Background

First, let's examine the prayer itself, its revisions, and the reaction of Jewish brethren, since therein lies the controversy. (Using as my source Wikipedia "Good Friday Prayer for the Jews -- with all the caveats about employing a public encyclopedia, and not being a liturgical expert I sincerely welcome correction should readers spot a mistake in reporting, translation or history ).

The "Prayer for the Jews" in its original formulation dates back to 1570, reading as follows:

Let us pray also for the faithless Jews [Latin: "perfidia iudaica"]: that Almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts (2 Corinthians 3:13-16); so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.

In 1959, Pope John XXIII removed from the Good Friday liturgy the adjective "perfidi - while correctly translated as "faithless" or "unbelieving", there was a common misconception that the Latin perfidis was equivalent to "perfidious", leading to denunciations of the Jews as treacherous. (For further details, see the German edition of Zenit News service: "The Good Friday intercessions: a long history" February 6, 2008; translation via the blog Catholic Conservation).

According to Zenit News Service:

That same year, [Pope John XXIII] also eliminated from the rite of baptism the phrase used for Jewish catechumens: "Horresce Jusaicam perfidiam, respue Hebraicam superstitionem" (Disavow Jewish unbelieving, deny Hebrew superstition). ...
The 1962 missal was promulgated with an apostolic letter issued "motu proprio" by John XXIII "Rubricarum Instructum." The missal does not make reference to "perfidious Jews."
On Good Friday in 1963, John XXIII underlined the importance of this decision when the old formulation of the prayer for the Jews was read. The Pope interrupted the liturgy and asked that that the liturgical invocations begin again from the beginning, following the new text.

It was Pope John XXIII's liturgical innovation that inspired Professor Jules Isaac to seek out an audience with him in 1960 and petition for the repudiation of what he referred to as the "teaching of contempt" -- certainly not the official teaching of the Church, but no less pernicious, which he believed culminated in the inexplicable silence and apathy of many Christians toward the Nazi persecution of the Jewish people.

According to various accounts, Isaac met with Pope John for three days. Upon leaving he said to the Pope, "Can I leave with hope?" And the Pope responded, "You are entitled to more than hope."

On Good Friday in 1963, John XXIII underlined the importance of this decision when the old formulation of the prayer for the Jews was read. The Pope interrupted the liturgy and asked that that the liturgical invocations begin again from the beginning, following the new text.

The Roman Missal adopted by Pope Paul VI in 1969, and put into effect in 1970, reformulated the prayer. Because of a similar potential for misinterpretation, the reference to the veil on the hearts of the Jews, which was based on 2 Corinthians 3:14, was removed. The 1973 ICEL English translation of the revised prayer is as follows:

Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant. (Prayer in silence. Then the priest says:) Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your Church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Concerns about the motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum"

On 7 July 2007, the Vatican released Pope Benedict XVI's motu proprio entitled, Summorum Pontificum which permitted more widespread celebration of Mass according to the "Missal promulgated by John XXIII in 1962".

While the term "perfidis" was indeed removed, the 1962 missal's references to the Jews is still subject to theological criticism. For what it's worth, a summary of the objections can be found in the Statement of the Discussion Group "Jews and Christians" of the Central Committee of German Catholics (April 4, 2007):

The Missale Romanum of 1962 contains the Good Friday Intercession "for the conversion of the Jews" (pro conversione Iudaeorum). Although this rite no longer includes the denigrating descriptions of the Jews as acting "perfidiously" (perfidus) and/or as "perfidious" (perfidia), the Good Friday Intercession otherwise expresses the overall [demeaning] perspective of the text as it has been prayed in the Liturgy of Good Friday since the Middle Ages. The intercession speaks of the "blindness" (obcaecatio) of the Jewish people and says that the Jewish people walk "in darkness" (tenebrae). This contradicts in a striking way the conciliar declaration Nostra Aetate, which states in chapter 4:
Sounding the depths of the mystery which is the church, this sacred council remembers the spiritual ties which link the people of the new covenant to the stock of Abraham. [...] the apostle Paul maintains that the Jews remain very dear to God, for the sake of the patriarchs, since God does not take back the gifts he bestowed or the choice he made. (see Romans 11,28-29; see Lumen Gentium 16). [...] the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy scripture. Consequently, all must take care, lest in catechizing or in preaching the word of God, they teach anything which is not in accord with the truth of the Gospel message or the spirit of Christ.
To revive the 1962 Missal with the old Good Friday Intercession means the denial of a substantial theological paradigm change made by the Council: in fact, the biblically-justified new understanding of the relationship of the Church to Judaism with the accompanying change to Church's own self-understanding. The traditional Good Friday Intercession still beseeched categorically that the Jews would acknowledge "our Lord Jesus Christ, the light of truth." The post-conciliar revised version is more open: it recognizes the way of salvation of the Jews, founded upon God's design, even if it asks that the Jews may "arrive at the fullness of redemption."

Pope Benedict revises again

On February 7, 2008, Zenit News reported that Pope Benedict decided to modify the the prayer for the Jewish people prayed in the Good Friday liturgy according to the 1962 Roman Missal. The changes were conveyed in a note from the Vatican Secretariat of State, published in L'Osservatore Romano.

In the revised form, the prayer now reads in English translation:

Let us also pray for the Jews. May the Lord our God illuminate their hearts so that they may recognize Jesus Christ as savior of all men. Almighty and everlasting God, you who want all men to be saved and to gain knowledge of the truth, kindly allow that, as all peoples enter into your Church, all of Israel may be saved.

(As reported by Sandro Magister), a note in La Civiltà Cattolica explained the reason for the change:

"In the current climate of dialogue and friendship between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people, it seemed right and opportune to the pope [to make this change], in order to avoid any expression that might appear in the least to offend or displease the Jews."

The note concluded:

"This contains nothing that is offensive toward Jews, because in it the Church asks God what St. Paul asked for Christians: that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ may enlighten the eyes of the Ephesians' hearts, that they may understand the gift of salvation that they have in Jesus Christ (cf. Ephesians 1:18-23). The Church, in fact, believes that salvation is only in Jesus Christ, as is said in the Acts of the Apostles (4:12). It is clear, besides, that Christian prayer can be nothing other than 'Christian', meaning that it is founded upon the faith – which is not that of all – that Jesus is the Savior of all men. For this reason, the Jews have no reason to be offended if the Church asks God to enlighten them so that they may freely recognize Christ, the only Savior of all men, and that they too may be saved by the One whom Shalom Ben Chorin, a Jew, calls 'Brother Jesus'."

Not quite the reaction the Vatican expected

John Allen, Jr. reports on the reactions to the prayer's revision (National Catholic Reporter February 8, 2008):

As is clear from comparing the two versions, Benedict has removed some of the language that critics found offensive: references to lifting "the veil from the hearts," the "blindness of that people," and the "darkness" of the Jews. As is also clear, however, the new version does not retreat from asking that Jews may recognize Jesus Christ as Savior, so that it remains a supplication for conversion.
Based on early exit polls, Benedict's attempt to meet his critics half-way appears to have left almost no one fully satisfied.
As The New York Times noted, some Catholic traditionalists are disturbed - if not by the content of the new prayer itself, then by the precedent that the old Mass can be bowdlerized in response to external pressure. (Some liturgical experts, by the way, think this may be the lasting significance of the pope's decision. As one put it to me this week, "It shows that the '62 missal can be reformed, that it's not inviolable or frozen in time.")
Many Jewish leaders and organizations are equally disgruntled, because despite what the Anti-Defamation League called "cosmetic" revisions, the prayer still remains an explicit appeal for conversion. The question of missionary efforts directed at Jews has long been perhaps the sorest point in Christian/Jewish relations.
"We are deeply troubled and disappointed that the framework and intention to petition God for Jews to accept Jesus as Lord was kept intact," said Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League.

John Allen Jr. also mentions "A further constituency" of critics: "liberal Catholics who don't care for the old Mass for a variety of reasons, as well as veterans of Catholic/Jewish dialogue who see all this as a headache they don't need." He cites Fr. John Pawlikowski of the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago:

"Even though only a small number of Catholics may pray the new version of the prayer, it creates a situation of the church seemingly speaking with two voices (the 1970 prayer and the new prayer) that do not dovetail easily. Which represents the more authentic theology of the Catholic Church with regard to the Jewish people? This situation compromises Catholic integrity."

Pawlikowski elaborates on this in Praying for the Jews: Two Views on the New Good Friday Prayer Commonweal March 14, 2008 / Volume CXXXV, Number 5):

The 1970 Missal, the definitive response to the liturgical changes mandated by Vatican II, further revised the 1965 prayer. It acknowledged the Jewish people’s faithfulness to God, but left open the eschatological resolution of the apparent conflict between Christ’s universal salvific action and the Jews’ ongoing covenantal com-mitment. The 1970 prayer is clearly in the spirit of Nostra aetate, which totally rejected almost two millennia of Christian theological perspectives on the Jews, but failed to offer a definitive replacement. That task was left to subsequent generations of theologians and biblical scholars, work that has in fact been taking place since the end of the council. Two such ongoing efforts are the Christ and the Jewish People consultation, jointly sponsored by Boston College, the Pontifical Gregorian University, the Catholic Theological Union, and the Catholic University of Leuven with the encouragement of Cardinal Walter Kasper; and the multiyear study project on Paul and Judaism at the Catholic University of Leuven.
In an official international Vatican-Jewish dialogue in Venice in 1977, Tomaso Federici, a lay scholar highly respected in Vatican circles, proposed that in light of Nostra aetate Catholicism should formally renounce any proselytizing of the Jews. The official published version of his paper, which appeared several years later, was altered to call for a rejection of “undue” proselytizing.
A few years ago, Cardinal Kasper wrote that there is no need to proselytize Jews because they have authentic revelation and because, in the understanding of Vatican II, they remain in the covenant. But he did add that Catholicism must also retain a notion of Christ’s universal salvific work. Unfortunately, he never pursued how these two theological affirmations might be integrated.

Contrary to Vatican II?

The Discussion Group "Jews and Christians" of the Central Committee of German Catholics, voices similar complaint, calling it "A New Burden on Christian-Jewish Relations"

On the one hand in the prayer of 1970, which is said on Good Friday in the ordinary Rite of the Roman Catholic Church almost everywhere, the church expresses unequivocally her appreciation of the dignity of Israel, God’s chosen people, to whom God has given the promises and a Covenant, that was never revoked and will never be revoked (cf. Rom 9:4 and 11:29 and the Declaration of the Second Vatican Council, Nostra aetate, 4). On the other hand the Church acknowledges that the Jews who are faithful to God’s covenant and live in the love of His name are on the path to salvation. She asks that God lead Israel to fulfillment along this path. The church does not speak here of a Jewish confession of Jesus Christ to be a condition for salvation, because she trusts that their being faithful in God’s covenant will lead the Jews to their salvation. This conviction was also clearly expressed in our discussion group’s statement, “Jews and Christians in Germany: Responsibility in Today’s Pluralistic Society” of 13 April 2005: “According to Christian faith, Jesus Christ is 'the Yes and the Amen' (2 Cor 1:20) of God’s irrevocable fidelity to Israel and to the whole world. Nevertheless, there is salvation for Jewish people who do not believe in Jesus as the Christ because of God’s covenant with them.”

Shortly after the release of "Summorum Pontificum", Avvenire featured an interview with Archbishop Amato of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in which he responded to the view which pitted the extraordinary form of the prayer for the Jews against Nostrae Aetate:

Q: Your Excellency, there are those who accuse the motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” of being anti-conciliar, because it offers full citizenship to a missal in which there is a prayer for the conversion of the Jews. Is it truly contrary to the letter and spirit of the Council to formulate this prayer?
A: Certainly not. In the Mass, we Catholics pray always and in the first place for our conversion. And we strike our breasts for our sins. And then we pray for the conversion of all Christians and all non-Christians. The Gospel is for all.”
Q: But the objection is raised that the prayer for the conversion of the Jews was definitively surpassed by the one in which the Lord is asked to help them to progress in fidelity to his covenant.
A: Jesus himself affirms, in the Gospel of Saint Mark: “Repent, and believe in the Gospel,” and his first interlocutors were his Jewish confreres. We Christians can do nothing other than re-propose what Jesus taught us. In freedom and without imposition, obviously, but also without self-censorship.

Two Ways of Salvation or One?

Reading Fr. Powlakowski and the response of the Central Committee of German Catholics, one receives the impression that Jesus Christ plays no role in the salvation of the Jews; the The Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, however, is quite clear on the correct interpretation of Nostra Aetate on this subject ("On the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church" June 24, 1985):

7. "In virtue of her divine mission, the Church" which is to be "the all-embracing means of salvation" in which alone "the fulness of the means of salvation can be obtained" (Unit. Red. 3); "must of her nature proclaim Jesus Christ to the world" (cf. Guidelines and Suggestions, I). Indeed we believe that is is through him that we go to the Father (cf. Jn. 14:6) "and this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" (Jn 17:33).
Jesus affirms (ibid. 10:16) that "there shall be one flock and one shepherd". Church and Judaism cannot then be seen as two parallel ways of salvation and the Church must witness to Christ as the Redeemer for all, "while maintaining the strictest respect for religious liberty in line with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (Declaration Dignitatis Humanae)" (Guidelines and Suggestions, I).

Responding to the "Two Ways of Salvation" thesis ("there is no need to offer the Jews entry into the new covenant in Jesus Christ as God's covenant with the people of Israel was never revoked, and is alone salvific"), Christoph Cardinal Schönborn stated in The Tablet (Judaism’s way to salvation March 29, 2008):

... according to the New Testament and from the Christian point of view there is only one salvation in Jesus Christ, but two clearly distinguishable ways of proclaiming and accepting this salvation. In this respect it must be made clear that the overture/offer to the Jews to recognise Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah cannot simply be equated with Christ's mandate to evangelise all (heathen) nations and make them his disciples (cf. Matthew 28: 18-20).

Schonborn reminds us that "There is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call upon him" (Romans 10:12) -- at the same time, it does not follow that the difference was abolished; "Even within the Church, St Paul retains a certain diversity of appeal and differentiates between Jews and Gentiles":

... St Paul distinguishes between the two vocations, between those who believed in Jesus as the Messiah who came "from circumcision" and those who converted to Christ and came "from the Gentiles". The difference lies in the way in which they communicate with each other in the Church and impart the same blessing to the world which God conferred on human beings through Jesus Christ, "For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the circumcised on behalf of the truth of God, in order that he might confirm the promises given to the patriarchs, and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy" (Romans 15,8-9).
By welcoming the Gospel, the Jews are witnesses of God's fidelity to his promise, while the Gentiles are witnesses of the universality of his mercy. These two appeals in the Church reflect the twofold way of the same salvation in Christ, one for Jews and one for Gentiles. Thus the same Jesus Christ is simultaneously "a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel" (Luke 2:32).
Consequently, this twofold way of receiving salvation calls for a twofold way of bearing witness to the Gospel message for Christians and a twofold catechumenal way to prepare for the same baptism in the one Jesus.

If the Church has apologized for all forms of compulsion ("proselytism" in the negative sense), it does not follow that they havea abandoned Christ's mandate to proclaim the Gospel "to the Jews first"; rather,

it means that this mandate must be carried out in the most sensitive way, cleansed of all un-Christian motives. Prayer, the offering of life, tokens of unselfish love and above all recognition of Jewish identity should win "the goodwill of all the people" (Acts 2:47) for the disciples of Jesus so that bearing witness to their faith in Christ, proposed with due respect and humility, may be recognised by them (the Jews) as the fulfilment - and not as a denial - of the promise of which they are the bearers.

Schonborn also recommends in the context of this article Cardinal Dulles' critique of dual-covenant theology "Covenant and Mission" (America October 21, 2002).

Kasper's Defense

In the past I admit I have been critical of Cardinal Kasper, head of the Vatican's Commission for Religious Relations With the Jews. In the past, he has often served as foil to then-Prefect Cardinal Ratzinger, "watering down" the CDF's forceful teaching on the salvific role of Christ, his Church and evangelization.

In fact, Cardinal Kasper address at a joint meeting between the Rabbinic Committee for Interreligious Dialogue and the USCCB's Office of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs seems to have contributed to such an erroneous "dual covenant" understanding.

Discussions at this meeting later culminated in the 2002 statement, Reflections on Covenant and Mission -- which concluded that "evangelizing task [of the Church] no longer includes the wish to absorb the Jewish faith into Christianity" and that "Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God." The ensuing controversy prompting Cardinal Keeler to later distance himself, stating that the document "does not represent a formal position taken by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) or the Bishops' Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs (BCEIA)."

In light of which, there are some indications that Cardinal Kasper is "stepping up" in his presentation:

From Catholic News Service: Vatican cardinal defends reformulation of Tridentine prayer for Jews February 7, 2008:

The pope removed language that spoke of the "blindness" of the Jews, which Cardinal Kasper said was "a little offensive."
"The Holy Father wanted to remove this point, but he also wanted to underline the specific difference that exists between us and Judaism," the cardinal said.
That difference is that for Christians Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God, he said.
"This difference cannot be hidden. The Holy Father wanted to say, yes, Jesus Christ is the savior of all men, even the Jews. He says this in his prayer," Cardinal Kasper said.
"But if this prayer, today, speaks of the conversion of the Jews, that doesn't mean we intend to carry out a mission," he said.
Rather, he said, the pope's revised prayer expresses an "eschatological hope" by citing St. Paul's expectation that when "the full number of the Gentiles" enters the church, then all Israel will be saved.
In effect, Cardinal Kasper said, the pope has removed the "language of contempt" and replaced it with words that express honest differences.
True dialogue between faiths must always accept the identity of the other, he said.
"We respect the identity of the Jews; they should respect ours, which we cannot hide," he said.
"I don't see this as an obstacle, but rather as a challenge for true theological dialogue," he said.

Haaretz reports another conversation with the Cardinal (Vatican rejects criticism of new prayer for Jewish conversion February 7, 2008):

"We think that reasonably this prayer cannot be an obstacle to dialogue because it reflects the faith of the Church and, furthermore, Jews have prayers in their liturgical texts that we Catholics don't like,"
"I must say that I don't understand why Jews cannot accept that we can make use of our freedom to formulate our prayers," Kasper, a German, told the Corriere della Sera.
"One must accept and respect differences," said the cardinal.

Also, On Good Friday, Cardinal Kasper published a commentary on the new prayer in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung -- a full English translation will hopefully be forthcoming, but Dr. Thomas Pink, Centre for Philosophical Studies, King's College London), provides four key points worth considering:

Kasper acknowledges that the 2008 prayer brings out important presuppositions of Catholic faith concerning the Jews left only implicit in the 1970 prayer, and emphasises that Nostra Aetate has to be interpreted in the context of all of Vatican II - (including presumably Lumen Gentium para 9, which refers to the Church as a New Israel in which Jew and Gentile are to be united in a new and more perfect covenant?)
[Kasper:] The new formulation of 1962 says nothing new, but only expresses what was hitherto assumed as straightforward, but clearly not sufficiently thematised.f
Kasper now openly acknowledges that the prayer is straightforwardly for Jewish conversion, something he initially hedged about in a private letter to a US Rabbi.
[Kasper:] The word conversion does not appear in the new formulation of the prayer. But it is implicit in the prayer for the Jews to be enlightened so that they recognise Jesus Christ. It should also be observed that the 1962 Missal provides the individual intercessions with titles; and the title reads as before: 'Pro conversione Judaeorum - for the conversion of the Jews'
Kasper still opposes a targeted mission to the Jews. But his rationale, which is Pauline, is not likely to appeal to Catholic liberals. It is nothing to do with the Jews having their own separate means of salvation. Rather, God has hardened the hearts of the Jews against Christ their saviour, and so it is for God not us to unharden them.
[Kasper:] Only He who has hardened the mass of Israel can undo this hardening again. He will do this when the 'Saviour' comes from Zion. That is in Paul's language none other than the returning Christ. For Jews and Gentiles have the same Lord.
While opposing a targeted mission, Kasper calls for Christian witness to the Jews, on the model of St Paul who on visiting Greek cities, preached to the local synagogue first before addressing the Gentiles (note parallel here with Schoenborn - witness to the Jews precedes that to the Gentiles.)
[Kasper:] The exclusion of a targeted and organised mission to the Jews does not mean that Christians should just sit around. One must distinguish between targeted and organised mission and Christian witness. Naturally Christians should, when appropriate, give witness of their faith and of the riches and beauty of belief in Jesus Christ to 'their elder brothers and sisters in the faith of Abraham' (John Paul II). That Paul did also. On his journeys of mission, he went first to the synagogue, and only then when he found no belief there did he go to the Gentiles.

A Rabbi and Priest speak in solidarity

Not all Jews expressed adverse reactions, according to Zenit News Service. Among those expressing understanding and sympathy was Rabbi Jacob Neusner (prominently featured in a chapter of Pope Benedict's Jesus of Nazareth):

Among the reactions, an article published Feb. 23 in the German newspaper Die Tagespost is noteworthy. The article, written by Jacob Neusner, professor of History and Theology of Judaism in Bard College, supports the explanation given by the cardinal, explaining that the prayer does nothing more than express Christian identity.
"Israel prays for the gentiles, so the other monotheists -- the Catholic church included -- have the right to do the same, and no one should feel offended. Any other policy toward the gentiles would deny gentiles access to the one God whom Israel knows in the Torah," wrote [Rabbi Neusner]. ...
"And the Catholic prayer expresses the same generous spirit that characterizes Judaism at worship. God’s kingdom opens its gates to all humanity and when at worship the Israelites ask for the speedy advent of God’s kingdom, they express the same liberality of spirit that characterizes the Pope’s text for the prayer for the Jews -- better ‘holy Israel’ -- on Good Friday," the Jewish professor explained.
"Both ‘It is our duty’ and ‘Let us also pray for the Jews’ realize the logic of monotheism and its eschatological hope," Neusner concluded.

The full text of Rabbi Neusner's article was republished by Sandro Magister, alongside a biblically-rich explication by Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the pontifical council for culture:

This intense hope is obviously proper to the Church, which has at its center, as fountain of salvation, Jesus Christ. For the Christian, he is the Son of God and is the visible and efficacious sign of divine love, because as Jesus had said that night to "a ruler of the Jews," Nicodemus, "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son... God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him" (cf. John 3:16-17). It is, therefore, from Jesus Christ, son of God and son of Israel, that there arises the purifying and fecundating stream of salvation, for which reason one can also say in the final analysis, as Christ does in John's Gospel, that "salvation is from the Jews" (4:22). The estuary of the history hoped for by the Church is, therefore, rooted in this spring.
We repeat: this is the Christian vision, and it is the hope of the Church that prays. It is not a programmatic proposal of theoretical adherence, nor is it a missionary strategy of conversion. It is the attitude characteristic of the prayerful invocation according to which one hopes also for the persons considered near to oneself, those dear and important, a reality that one maintains is precious and salvific. An important exponent of French culture in the 20th century, Julien Green, wrote that "it is always beautiful and legitimate to wish for the other what is for you a good or a joy: if you think you are offering a true gift, do not hold back your hand." Of course, this must always take place in respect for freedom and for the different paths that the other adopts. But it is an expression of affection to wish for your brother what you consider a horizon of light and life.

See A Bishop and a Rabbi Defend the Prayer for the Salvation of the Jews by Sandro Magister. www.Chiesa. March 7, 2008).

German Jews severe ties

In March 31, 2008, the Jerusalem Post reported that the president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, Charlotte Knobloch, severed relations with the Catholic Church out of disappointment with the prayer:

"As long as Pope Benedict does not return to the previous wording, I assume that there will not be any further dialogue [such as we had] in the past," said Knobloch. ...
The Vatican's liaison to Jewish groups, Cardinal Walter Kasper, has argued that the prayer is not a missionary statement; rather, the wording reflects the desire of the Catholic Church for all people to be saved through Jesus Christ. Knobloch, however, says that "implicit in the Good Friday prayer is a subtle call to proselytize Jews, which I must characterize as an affront that is arrogant and clearly a backward step in the Christian-Jewish dialogue."

Der Spiegel also carried an interview with prominent German rabbi Walter Homolka:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Homolka, you -- and around 1,600 rabbis worldwide -- are sharply protesting the Vatican's revival of the Latin Good Friday Prayer, which reads: "Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men." Do you consider Benedict XVI to be anti-Semitic?
Walter Homolka: He is trying to focus on the specific aspects of his church -- that's his duty. But in this case he has lost his sensitivity. It is insulting to Jews that the Catholic Church, in the context of Good Friday of all things, is once again praying for the illumination of the Jews, so that we can acknowledge Jesus as the savior. Such statements are made in a historical context which is closely connected with discrimination, persecution and death. Given the weight of responsibility that the Catholic Church has acquired in its history with Judaism, most recently during the Third Reich, this is completely inappropriate and must be rejected to the utmost degree.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: What is the effect of Benedict's new version of the Latin phrase?
Homolka: He indicates that he believes that the path to salvation, even for Jews, can only go through Jesus, the savior. This opens the floodgates for the conversion of Jews. The Internet is already full of comments by conservative, right-wing Catholics who say: "Wonderful, now we finally have the signal to convert the Jews." This kind of signal has an extremely provocative effect on anti-Semitic groups. The Catholic Church does not have its anti-Semitic tendencies under control.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: So Benedict is encouraging anti-Semitic tendencies?
Homolka: He is accepting them, at the very least.

Rabbi Homolka is clearly prone to hyperbole, but Germany's Jews have had a rough time of it in recent years (anti-semitism appears to be on the rise in Germany).

Even so, Van Wallach of the "liberal, hawkish" Jewish blog Kesher Talk questions the outrage over the prayer ("That's Right, We Bad, We Perfidious: The Upside of the Latin Mass"):

Alarm about the Latin Mass assumes people understand Latin. How many do? Wouldn't that signal a widespread return to classical learning in the West, instead of a threat to Jews, if Latin revived? If Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ couldn't ignite pogroms, then I hardly think a few Latin references, however troubling, will cause outbreaks of violence. That only happens when the culture is already well fertilized with Jew hatred. If a society is primed to despise Jews, well, that's going to happen whether the Mass contains a few references to us or not.
In the great continuum of threats to the physical and mental safety of Jews, the Tridentine Mass ranks right up there banana peels on the sidewalks of Columbus Avenue. My concerns circle back to guys who dream of a Second Holocaust and shoot up JCCs, or proclaims Jews monkeys and pigs -- and act on their lunacy. Let's put our anxiety where the real threats are and not get bent out of shape about Latin.

Vatican plays "damage control"

On April 2nd, JTA (Jewish & Israel News) reported that Pope Benedict XVI was preparing to clarify the Vatican’s position on the controversial Good Friday Prayer for the Jews:

The Vatican will issue a letter within a week aimed at easing Jewish fears that the Catholic Church wants to convert them, said the chairman of the International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations, Rabbi David Rosen.
Rosen, who has seen a preliminary draft of the letter, said it will come from the pope via the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone.

On April 4th, the Vatican press office issued a communiqué released today by the Vatican press office on the publication of the new "Oremus et pro Iudaeis" for the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal:

The Holy See wishes to reassure that the new formulation of the Prayer, which modifies certain expressions of the 1962 Missal, in no way intends to indicate a change in the Catholic Church's regard for the Jews which has evolved from the basis of the Second Vatican Council, particularly the Declaration Nostra Aetate. In fact, Pope Benedict XVI, in an audience with the Chief Rabbis of Israel on 15 September 2005, remarked that this document "has proven to be a milestone on the road towards the reconciliation of Christians with the Jewish people." The continuation of the position found in Nostra Aetate is clearly shown by the fact that the prayer contained in the 1970 Missal continues to be in full use, and is the ordinary form of the prayer of Catholics.
In the context of other affirmations of the Council -- on Sacred Scripture (Dei Verbum, 14) and on the Church (Lumen Gentium, 16) -- Nostra Aetate presents the fundamental principles which have sustained and today continue to sustain the bonds of esteem, dialogue, love, solidarity and collaboration between Catholics and Jews. It is precisely while examining the mystery of the Church that Nostra Aetate recalls the unique bond with which the people of the New Testament is spiritually linked with the stock of Abraham and rejects every attitude of contempt or discrimination against Jews, firmly repudiating any kind of anti-Semitism.

Despite the Holy See's hope that the statement would clarify any misunderstanding, some remain dissatisfied:

The Anti-Defamation League said a statement from the Vatican that the new formulation of the prayer "in no way intends to indicate a change in the Catholic Church's regard for the Jews," did not go far enough.
"On this issue the Vatican has taken two steps forward and three steps backward," Abraham Foxman, the league's national director, said in a statement.

According to the head Rabbi of Rome, "We are not satisfied: what we wanted was to hear a Vatican statement in touch with the times and to hear that the Church does not pray for the conversion of Jews, or at least that it will not pray for this until the forever and that God only helps one group of people ... [the Vatican's statement] did not clarify this point: the question remains completely unresolved"."

* * *

Back in 2002, I had posted an essay entitled Jewish & Christian Relations: Mixed Signals from the Vatican, on the Vatican's response to the controversy and confusion over the document "Reflections on Covenant and Mission" by the Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, USCCB and the National Council of Synagogues. Nothing has changed since that time: the same issues -- the same conflicting theological perspectives and factions (even within the Jewish-Christian dialogue), are battling it out once again. In a sense, Benedict's renewal of the Latin Mass and 1962 Missal and his revisions to the prayer have brought things to a head.
There seems to be confusion over the terms proselytism and evangelization -- Cardinal Francis Arinze, former head of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious dialogue and one quite familiar with the term, proselytism is generally understood to mean the effort to spread one's religion by methods that are regarded as unnacceptable. These might include coercion by physical (through harrassment and threat of violence), economic (through the promise of material gifts), and psychological (taking advantage of one's ignorance) means -- all of which deserve condemnation since they insult the human dignity of the recipient, infringes upon one's religious freedom, and does no honor to God.
Search through the history of Christian-Jewish relations, and you will likely find examples of all of the above. However, as Lawrence Uzzell pointed out, proselytism "is most often invoked by those who ultimately oppose all forms of Christian evangelism. If the Apostles had refrained from everything that today is lumped under the term, there would have been no carrying out of the Great Commission and the Church might have died in its infancy. Precisely because it labels all missionary activity pejoratively, the term is no help in distinguishing the legitimate from the illegitimate." ("Don't Call It Proselytism" First Things October 2004)
This seems to describe those within the Jewish community (and not a few "liberal Catholic" participants in the dialogue) who lump together any effort to witness the gospel proselytization, for whom the very suggestion that they might be saved, even implicitly, through the sacrifice of Christ is verboten.
There are those who hold to a strict interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, insisting that those who are not formally and explicitly baptized in the Church are damned (popularly known as "Feeneyism", roundly condemned by the Church in 1949); there are also those who hold to a radically liberal interpretation of salvation -- to the point of suggesting that Christ's sacrifice is but "one of many" paths to salvation. John Paul II and Benedict XVI (both in his present office as well as in his prior role as Prefect of the CDF) have steered a path between this theological "Scylla and Charybdis." Two prominent examples of this are John Paul II's Redemptoris Missio and the now-famous Dominus Iesus, which while agreeing to the possibility of "participated forms of mediation" in salvation, nevertheless stated "solutions that propose a salvific action of God beyond the unique mediation of Christ would be contrary to Christian and Catholic faith."
Fr. Peter Phan at least recognizes the "catch-22" for what it is:
“Jews, who do not share our faith in Christ, are in a saving covenant with God,” if anything, exacerbates the problems posed by religious pluralism, since it is claimed that at least one non-Christian religion, namely Judaism, is a way of salvation (“a saving covenant with God”) apart, at least prima facie, from Christ and Christianity.
The challenge for Roman Catholic theologians then is to articulate a coherent and credible Christology and soteriology (theology of salvation) that honors the Christian belief in Jesus as the savior of all humankind and at the same time includes the affirmation that Judaism is and remains eternally a “saving covenant with God.”
Phan advocates a "post-supersessionist Christology" that will "not so much to elaborate a Christian theology of Judaism as such (which may or may not be interested in having its faith validated by Christians) as to reflect on how Christians should understand themselves in reference to Judaism"; that will adamantly reject the idea that "God’s self-gift to and covenant with Israel have been abolished, either because of Israel’s guilt in rejecting and killing Jesus (as implied in the charge of faithlessness and deicide against the Jews) or because of the intrinsic superiority of Jesus’ ministry and of Christianity (the “New” Covenant supplanting the “Old” Covenant)". I find Phan to be very perceptive in recognizing the challenge, howbeit this has also led him into some troubling speculative territory on religious pluralism, meriting the attention of the U.S. Bishops' Doctrinal Committee as well as the CDF.

Labels: Jewish-Christian Relations

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Pope Benedict XVI, Auschwitz, and the Nature of Anti-Semitism

For comprehensive coverage of Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Poland, I refer you to American Papist's "The Great Poland Post of 2006".

On Sunday, May 28, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI walked in silence under the iron gate bearing the Nazi slogan, "Arbeit Macht Frei," or "Work Makes You Free," and into the concentration camp of Auschwitz:

As church bells rang in the southern town of Oswiecim -- the Polish name for Auschwitz -- a solemn Benedict, his hands clasped in prayer, walked in silence the 200 metres to the execution wall wedged between prisoner blocks 10 and 11, where the Nazis summarily shot thousands of prisoners.
His face grave, Benedict stood a few moments in prayer, removing his hat before bowing solemnly and placing a bowl containing a lighted candle before the grim wall.
The pope then greeted a line of 32 camp survivors waiting to meet him. Some grasped his hands warmly, some knelt to kiss his papal ring, many seemed eager to thank him for visiting the camp.
Benedict clasped the hands of the first survivor waiting in line, a woman, wearing the striped scarf that Polish political prisoners wore at the camp.
An elderly Polish man kissed the pope on both cheeks, a gypsy survivor of the camp pressed the pope’s hand to his lips.
Henryk Mandelbaum, 83, wearing the distinctive striped cap of the Sonderkommando -- Jewish prisoners who emptied the gas chambers where their fellow Jews perished -- kissed the papal ring.

(German-born Pope Benedict XVI in Auschwitz, by Denis Barnett. European Jewish Press May 28, 2006.

Afterward, Benedict visited the cell which housed the Polish Catholic martyr Maximilian Kolbe, executed in 1941 after taking the place of a prisoner sentenced to die by starvation, and recognized as a saint by Pope John Paul II in 1982. He also paused for reflection next to the line of 22 plaques at Birkenau's International Monument to the Victims of Fascism, established between former crematoria II and III, where -- in German -- he prayed for peace and reconciliaton.

According to the Deutsche-Welle, Pope Benedict "shattered a taboo in the often-blighted relationship between Christians and Jews by using his native German language" to pray for Jewish-Christian reconciliation:

Throughout his four-day pilgrimage to Poland, a sentimental tribute to his predecessor and mentor John Paul II, Pope Benedict has avoided speaking German, aware that the older generation still regard it as the language of the old oppressor. But, the paper continued, the choice of German in Auschwitz was a deliberate gesture — a recognition that he had come to the camp not just as the Head of the Roman Catholic Church, but as a German and as an individual.

Auschwitz-Birkenau

Few places on this earth rival the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp as a testament to "man's inhumanity to man" -- a pervasive symbol of terror, genocide and the incomparable abomination of the Holocaust. According to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial Website (auschwitz.org.pl), it is "the site of the greatest mass murder in the history of humanity":

Auschwitz functioned throughout its existence as a concentration camp, and over time became the largest such Nazi camp. In the first period of the existence of the camp, it was primarily Poles who were sent here by the German occupation authorities [...] political, civic, and spiritual leaders, members of the intelligentsia, cultural and scientific figures, and [members of the resistance movement]. Over time, the Nazis also began to send groups of prisoners from other occupied countries to Auschwitz. Beginning in 1942, Jews whom the SS physicians classified as fit for labor were also registered in the camp.
From among all the people deported to Auschwitz, approximately 400,000 people were registered and placed in the camp and its sub-camps (200,000 Jews, more than 140,000 Poles, approximately 20,000 Gypsies from various countries, more than 10,000 Soviet prisoners of war, and more than 10,000 prisoners of other nationalities).
Over 50% of the registered prisoners died as a result of starvation, labor that exceeded their physical capacity, the terror that raged in the camp, executions, the inhuman living conditions, disease and epidemics, punishment, torture, and criminal medical experiments.
Beginning in 1942, Auschwitz began to function in another way. It became the center of the mass destruction of the European Jews. The Nazis marked all the Jews living in Europe for total extermination, regardless of their age, sex, occupation, citizenship, or political views. They died only because they were Jews. After the selections conducted on the railroad platform, or ramp, newly arrived persons classified by the SS physicians as unfit for labor were sent to the gas chambers: the ill, the elderly, pregnant women, children. In most cases, 70-75% of each transport was sent to immediate death. These people were not entered in the camp records; that is, they received no serial numbers and were not registered. This is why it is possible only to estimate the total number of victims.
Historians estimate that among the people sent to Auschwitz there were at least 1,100,000 Jews from all the countries of occupied Europe, over 140,000 Poles (mostly political prisoners), approximately 20,000 Gypsies from several European countries, over 10,000 Soviet prisoners of war, and over ten thousand prisoners of other nationalities. The majority of the Jewish deportees died in the gas chambers immediately after arrival.
The overall number of victims of Auschwitz in the years 1940-1945 is estimated at between 1,100,000 and 1,500,000 people. The majority of them, and above all the mass transports of Jews who arrived beginning in 1942, died in the gas chambers.

This was the third time Pope Benedict had visited Auschwitz and the neighboring camp at Birkenau -- on June 7, 1979, Benedict, then archbishop of Munich-Freising, was among those bishops who accompanied Pope John Paul II on his visit. He returned a year later, "with a delegation of German bishops, appalled by its evil, yet grateful for the fact that above its dark clouds the star of reconciliation had emerged."

Pope Benedict's Birkenau Address

A translation of Pope Benedict XVI's address at the site of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp is provided by Zenit News Service. It is, as the rest of Benedict's addresses, worth reading in full -- particularly before the selective, sound-byte presentations of the media.

Just as his predecessor came as a son of the Polish people, said Benedict, "I come here today as a son of the German people. For this very reason, I can and must echo his words: I could not fail to come here.":

I had to come. It is a duty before the truth and the just due of all who suffered here, a duty before God, for me to come here as the successor of Pope John Paul II and as a son of the German people -- a son of that people over which a ring of criminals rose to power by false promises of future greatness and the recovery of the nation's honor, prominence and prosperity, but also through terror and intimidation, with the result that our people was used and abused as an instrument of their thirst for destruction and power.
Yes, I could not fail to come here. On June 7, 1979, I came as the archbishop of Munich-Freising, along with many other bishops who accompanied the Pope, listened to his words and joined in his prayer. In 1980, I came back to this dreadful place with a delegation of German bishops, appalled by its evil, yet grateful for the fact that above its dark clouds the star of reconciliation had emerged.
This is the same reason why I have come here today: to implore the grace of reconciliation -- first of all from God, who alone can open and purify our hearts, from the men and women who suffered here, and finally the grace of reconciliation for all those who, at this hour of our history, are suffering in new ways from the power of hatred and the violence which hatred spawns.

A German pope addressing the horrors of National Socialism and the Holocaust is a ripe subject for controversy and misunderstanding, so it is no small wonder that not all in Benedict's worldwide audience were satisfied by his words.

The New York Times' Ian Fisher (A German Pope Confronts a Nazi Past May 29, 2006) criticized Benedict for his failure "[to] beg pardon for the sins of Germans or of the Roman Catholic church during World War II," and for "[laying] the blame squarely on the Nazi regime, avoiding the painful but now common acknowledgment among many Germans that ordinary citizens also shared responsibility."

Fisher's sentiment is echoed by the German newspaper Der Speigel (German Silence in Auschwitz May 29, 2006), which notes that Benedict's characterization of Germans as recipients of Nazi exploitation "will probably be associated with him for a long time to come."

Writing for LifeSiteNews.com, Peter J. Smith interprets the Pope's portrayal of his people in a different light, more as a recognition of what Germany truly lost in succumbing to the worldly promises of National Socialism:

Although John Paul and Benedict experienced the horror of the Nazi ideology, each experienced it from different perspectives, and at Auschwitz these perspectives are united. John Paul experienced the most violent effects of the atheist ideology forged by Hitler, as a clandestine young seminarian in Krakow, where the omnipresent stench of burning flesh from Auschwitz-Birkenau constantly reminded Poles of the death sentence that the Nazis had ordered for the whole people. However, Benedict, who was conscripted forcibly into the German army, and then deserted as a teenager saw from the inside the forces that carried away his countrymen from faith in God to a faith in man that embraced death and wrecked terrible havoc on the world.

The European Jewish Press noted Mixed reactions to Pope's Birkenau speech by Jewish leaders. On the one hand, Rome’s chief rabbi, Riccardo Di Segni, found the "accent . . . on the absence of God and not on the silence of man and its responsibilities" problematic, as his characterization of the German people as more the victim "and not on the side of the persecutors."

On one other hand, Israeli Ambassador David Peleg praised the Pope's recognition of the distinctiveness of the Holocaust:

"The most important sentence in the speech is that ’the rulers of the Third Reich wanted to crush the entire Jewish people, to cancel us from the register of peoples.'"
"This is a strong sentence to come from the pope in Birkenau. I think it’s important to remember that in the place where he spoke, 95 percent of those who were murdered -- more than one million people -- were Jews."

And Poland's chief rabbi, Michael Schudrich -- whom the EJP notes was the victim of an anti-Semitic attack only the day before he intoned the Kaddish at the ceremony with Benedict at Birkenau -- praised the speech as "a great moment in the process of reconciling" Jews and Christians."

Although he said the pope "could have said things a bit more strongly ... his mere presence here was very important. It was a cry against anti-Semitism."

Giuseppe Laras, president of Italy's rabbis, stated on Vatican Radio that "this visit is a warning to humanity and a word of hope and consolation for all those who suffered." (Jewish Leaders Reflect on Pope's Auschwitz Visit, May 29, 2006).

And US Rabbi Benjamin Blech described the Pope's visit as "historic for all Jewish people and for the world":

Asked if the pope should have apologised for crimes committed by Germany’s Nazis, Blech said: "His very presence here is an apology. It speaks volumes."
Neither was Blech disturbed, as some Jews had been, over Benedict’s decision to recite a prayer in German at Birkenau. "The pope’s presence speaks a universal language," he told Agence France Presse.

I found the citation of Blech interesting, and perhaps something more than a coincidence: Rabbi Blech happens to be author of If God is Good, Why is the World so Bad?, a popular book on theodicy conceived as a Jewish corrective to the classic work by Rabbi Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People. The two rabbis in their own way respond to the question the Holy Father posed in his own address: Where was God in those days? Why was he silent? How could he permit this endless slaughter, this triumph of evil? (See Blech on Blech Jewsweek Sept. 25, 2003).

* * *

In the Der Speigel article I cited above, Alexander Smoltczyk bemoaned Benedict's uttering "not a word about anti-semitism" -- that he had chosen to speak "about metaphysics" rather than guilt.

Reading the text of Benedict's address, however, it is hard not to see a more stinging rebuke and condemnation of those who persecute the Jews, or a clearer recognition of what anti-semitism truly is, especially as it was manifested in the horrors of Auschwitz:

Deep down, those vicious criminals, by wiping out this people, wanted to kill the God who called Abraham, who spoke on Sinai and laid down principles to serve as a guide for mankind, principles that are eternally valid. If this people, by its very existence, was a witness to the God who spoke to humanity and took us to himself, then that God finally had to die and power had to belong to man alone—to those men, who thought that by force they had made themselves masters of the world. By destroying Israel, they ultimately wanted to tear up the taproot of the Christian faith and to replace it with a faith of their own invention: faith in the rule of man, the rule of the powerful.

Benedict's words called to my mind the closing thoughts of Fr. Edward Flannery, in his classic study The Anguish of the Jews. In his final chapter, on "The Roots of Anti-Semitism," Fr. Flannery states:

. . . antisemitism is at its deepest root a unified phenomenon and from all angles an anti-religious one. In the pagan racist, it is rooted in a revolt against the acceptance of a transcendental or divine moral order that would limit human freedom,a nd focuses on the Jews as the historical source of moral order. In the Christian, it derives from the same source, but channels the revolt against Christ, the Jewish God who brought the Jewish concept of God's reign to all nations.
In the perspective of this twofold subliminal revolt the data of history -- the contrasting forms of antisemitism and its inexplicable permanence -- acquire a measure of coherence and consistency. The positive side of the phenomenon, the attaction the Jews and Judaism have wielded as bearers of God's word among the nations, and the anti-God impulse in the depths of human consciousness and culture are joined in permanent enmity and conflict. Antisemitism is as much a subjective as an objective fact, as much a conflict within a person as among persons. . . .

According to Fr. Flannery, "the sin of anti-semitism contains many sins, but in the end it is a denial of Christian faith, a failure of Christian hope, and a malady of Christian love."

Contemplating the horrors of Auschwitz and the inscriptions of the victims -- Jew, Polish, German, Russian -- the world is confronted by the diagnosis of our Holy Father, and with his prescription as well:

. . . in the words that Sophocles placed on the lips of Antigone, as she contemplated the horror all around her: My nature is not to join in hate but to join in love."

Related Coverage

Pope Benedict's Auschwitz Prayer, by Jeff Israel. Time May 29, 2006:
he sight of a German Pope crossing into the death camp beneath the infamously false Nazi sign, "Arbeit Macht Frei” (Work Will Set You Free), is arguably the most striking image of Benedict’s 14-month-old papacy. Walking alone with his hands clasped in front of him, an utterly grim expression fixed across his face, the 79-year-old pontiff entered as both the leader of the billion-strong Roman Catholic Church, and a World War II-generation German citizen.
Joseph Bottum (First Things "On The Square" May 29, 2006):
It’s as though nearly everyone wants to use the Holocaust for something: to advance some modern political purpose or thicken some contemporary moral claim. The temptation is almost overwhelming—and understandably so, for Auschwitz truly is a lesson, and it seems to demand that we apply that lesson, here and now. It seems to demand that we change our lives, here and now.
In itself, that ought to be a warning. The examples are endless: A few decades ago, the anti-Western Soviets declared that the Nazi death camps demonstrated Communism’s superiority to the bourgeois West; a few years ago, a popular anti-Christian historian wrote a book claiming that the Holocaust proved that organized Christianity must dissolve itself. If the Holocaust merely confirms you in the stands you already have, then you haven’t learned the lesson of the Holocaust.
Attempting to slay God was Auschwitz's greatest evil, pope says , by John Allen Jr. National Catholic Reporter reporting on Pope Benedict XVI's trip to Poland May 25-28.
Pope’s Auschwitz visit unifies faiths, even as Poland battles anti-Semitism, by Dinah A. Spritzer. JTA [Global News Service of the Jewish People]. May 29, 2006.
Missed Opportunity - Piotr Kadl?ik, chairman of the Union Of the Jewish Communities in Poland, had attempted to arrange for Benedict to bless Poles who received the title “Just Among the Nations” during his visit to the monument for the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising -- such was not to be, as the papal motorcade passed quickly by (just long enough for a a sign of blessing. (European Jewish Press Report).
Survivor braves Auschwitz return BBC News. May 25, 2006. Coverage of one survivor's return to Poland -- and memories of Auschwitz.
Auschwitz-Birkenau. Photos by Alan Jacobs.
Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State. "A Chronological Exploration of the Largest Mass Murder Site in History", by PBS Television.

Pope Benedict and the Jews - Related Links

Any criticism of Pope Benedict's address at Auschwitz-Birkenau can only be examined in relation to the ongoing witness of the life, words and actions of Pope Benedict to date:

Papal Reprimand for Catholic Radio, by Jan Puhl in Torun. Der Spiegel May 2, 2006. (On the Vatican's efforts to rein in the Polish Catholic radio station Radio Maryja for anti-semitic / xenophobic commentary.
Pope, meeting with Rome rabbi, expresses worry over fresh anti-Semitism Associated Press. January 17, 2006. (Meeting with Rome's chief rabbi, Benedict expressed concern over outbreaks of anti-semitism in Europe).
Jewish-Catholic Ties Advancing, Says Benedict XVI: Receives a Delegation From Simon Wiesenthal Center Zenit. November 14, 2005.
Benedict XVI Proposes Increased Dialogue With Jews Zenit. August 19, 2005. - "In his visit to the synagogue of Cologne, Benedict XVI expressed his concern regarding a resurgence of new signs of anti-Semitism and racism."
Pope Benedict and Father Leon Dehon, Against The Grain June 25, 2005. On Pope Benedict's decision to halt the "fast track beatification" of French priest Father Leon Dehon (1843-1925) due to allegations of anti-semitism, prompting a formal inquiry by the Church.
Pope Benedict and the Jews Against The Grain April 26, 2005. A study of Pope Benedict's thought on the subject until the time of his election.
Pope Benedict XVI, Child of Abraham , by Rabbi David Rosen, nternational Director of Interreligious Affairs of the American Jewish Committee. Beliefnet.com.

Labels: Jewish-Christian Relations

Sunday, June 26, 2005

Pope Benedict and Father Leon Dehon

This past week we learn that Pope Benedict XVI was acclaimed by The Jewish Week by his decision to halt the "fast track beatification" of French priest Father Leon Dehon (1843-1925) due to allegations of anti-semitism, prompting a formal inquiry by the Church (Important Gesture by Pope Benedict, by James D. Besser. The Jewish Week June 17, 2005).

The beatification of Fr. Dehon by Pope John Paul II was scheduled on April 24, 2005 during the Eucharistic celebration in St. Peter’s Square. Jews took the Holy Father's move as a sign of his sensitivity to important issues in Jewish-Christian relations and that he would carry on his predecessor's commitment to fostering good relations between the Church and the Jewish people:

"This is exceedingly important," Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor, interfaith director for the Anti-Defamation League, told The Jewish Week.

Rabbi Bretton-Granatoor was part of a 25-member Jewish delegation who met with the new pope last week. "This gesture is much appreciated and bodes well for the future," the rabbi said. . . .

Earlier this year, historians in France uncovered anti-Semitic writings by Father Dehon, who died in 1925, including his contention that Jews are “united in their hatred of Christ” and that the Talmud is a “manual for the bandit, the corrupter, the social destroyer.”

The hold on beatification — which was not a result of last week’s meeting with the Jewish delegation — also could point to a new Vatican sensitivity on other outstanding issues between the two communities, including the drive to elevate Pope Pius XII, the Holocaust-era pontiff, to sainthood.

“If this means they would consider slowing down the process on Pius XII until all the records are made available and analyzed, that would be a very good thing,” Rabbi Bretton-Granatoor said. “That is an issue we have raised repeatedly. We will have more opportunities to raise it again when we are there in September and October.”

Further discussion can be found, of course, at Amy Welborn's blog ("Second Thoughts" June 10, 2005), where the commentators appear divided regarding the decision, with some proposing that the priest's sentiments should be taken in light of the historical context, especially given the fact that past Christian saints have also expressed claims about the Jews that could be judged anti-semitic in content.

Others question the basic prudency of beatifying any Catholic who expresses anti-Jewish opinions following the Holocaust, especially since, in the rise of anti-semitic incidents in Europe and worldwide, they may be fuel for misinterpretation and confusion regarding the Church's relationship with the Jewish people. Sandra Meisel muses:

The newspaper account says that this cause had been closed on account of the candidate's anti-Semitism in 1952. His attitudes were well known in France. So who saw fit to revive the cause and why? To catch the rising wave of European anti-Semitism? And why would the late Pope approve this, given his warm feelings toward Jews? Was information witheld?

Yes, we'd had anti-Semitic saints in the past, including St. Louis IX and St. John Capistrano. One would think this would be an easy call, post-Holocaust, but the Church recently ignored anti-Semitic elements in Anna Catharina Emmerich -- who made the blood libel -- and beatified her. We should be most grateful that this cause was stopped in time.

I don't see how one can impute deceptive motives on the part of Dehon's supporters in making their case for beatification. After reading about his life and vocation on the website of The Priests of the Sacred Heart, you see there is much one can admire: his devotion to Christ in prayer and veneration of the Eucharist, his solidarity with the poor and working class, his recognition of the "inalienable dignity" of every human being by virtue of their God-given soul ("whether in the body of a worker at the bottom of a dark coal mine, or in the body of a well-fed financier living in the lap of luxury").

According to the SCJ's vocation website, there are approximately "130 SCJ priests and brothers living and working within the United States [and] about 2300 SCJ priests and brothers world-wide," seeking to be "prophets of love and servants of reconciliation" in carrying out a variety of ministries in the world (including, for example, a ministry to the Native Americans from South Dakota to Wisconsin, Mississippi, Illinois, Florida and Texas).

In their defense, it is completely understandable that they would harbor a particular affection for the life and vision of their founder, and wish to see him recognized as a saint. Pope John Paul II also recognized the worth of their charism in his address to the Priests of he Sacred Heart of Jesus (Dehonian Fathers) on June 10, 2003:

This year is the 125th anniversary of religious life of Venerable Léon Dehon. You have wished to commemorate it with a special Dehonian Year that ends on 28 June, the day when you will be commemorating his first religious profession. He himself recognized it as the day on which your Congregation came into being. I hope that this will be an incentive to you to go back to your origins with that "creative fidelity" (cf., Vita Conscrata, n. 37) which will keep intact your charism, distinguished by constant contemplation of the Heart of Christ, conscious participation in his reparative sacrifice and zealous dedication to spreading the Kingdom of the Lord in souls and in society, since it is precisely the rejection of God's love which is the root cause of the evils in the world (cf. Constitutions, n. 4).

However, one must recognize the fact that whatever qualities are good and worthy of admiration in Fr. Dehon, his perception of the Jews in those statements attribute to him are indeed hateful and indefensible, justly meriting condemnation by the Church. And for that reason I concur with those questioning the prudency of such a beatification and the consequent decision of the Holy Father in calling for a formal investigation of the matter. To quote Lee Podles (on Amy's blog):

The poison of anti-Semitism has to be purged from the Church. The beatification of a recent figure who made such anti-Semitic statements would hinder this necessary purification. Can you imagine the legitimate furor if a German Pope canonized an anti-Semite, making excuses for the remarks?

* * *

According to the same article in the Jewish Week, the meeting of the Jewish delegation and Pope Benedict led some participants to speculate on the prospects of a more theologically-oriented dialogue between Jews and Christians:

"He’s a different person," [director of the Commission on Interreligious Affairs of Reform Judaism Mark] Pelavin said of Pope Benedict. "He's a theologian by training and practice. That will color the dialogue. I think it will be more theological in nature. There will be a greater exploration of the idea of the Jews’ covenant with God, and how that relates to Catholic covenantal thinking. Those are things that will have an impact not so much in the political arena but in the teachings the Church uses."

Rabbi Bretton-Granatoor said the meeting suggested Catholic-Jewish relations are poised to jump to a new level.

"After 40 years, the time has come for us to engage in mature theological dialogue," he said. "It’s time for us to recognize that we have very different ways of looking at texts; basic concepts like covenant and mission mean different things. This meeting signaled that it’s time to start unpacking those issues. We have to learn to celebrate our differences, not try to sweep them away."

Several participants commented on Pope Benedict’s demeanor at the meeting.

"At the beginning he seemed as taciturn and as sharp in his bearing as I would have expected," said one. "But as soon as we were finished with the formalities and he stepped down to greet each of us individually, the warmth and kindness were unmistakable."

Related Links:

"Jewish leaders say pope's past cause for optimism, not concern", by Cindy Wooden. (Catholic News Service June 13, 2005)
Pope Benedict XVI and the Jews Against The Grain April 26, 2005. An examination of Pope Benedict's views on the Jewish people and Christian-Jewish relations with references to his many writings on the topic, both as a Catholic theologian as well as in his former capacity as Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

Labels: Jewish-Christian Relations

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Pope Benedict XVI and the Jews

With great affection I also greet all those who have been reborn in the sacrament of Baptism but are not yet in full communion with us; and you, my brothers and sisters of the Jewish people, to whom we are joined by a great shared spiritual heritage, one rooted in God's irrevocable promises.

Pope Benedict XVI, Inaugural Mass Homily April 24, 2005.

* * *While the harpies of the press and disgruntled remnants of heterodox factions are doing their best to fan the flames of controversy over the Cardinal's brief stint in the Hitler Youth -- rather a non-issue after a careful review of the facts -- a few people have actually raised the genuine inquiry: what does Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, actually think about the Jewish people?

Over the course of his life, as a Catholic theologian as well as in his formal capacity as Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the Holy Father has written on the Church's relationship to the Jewish people. Following is, to the best of my memory, an overview of the 'highlights'. (To those for whom much of this is a recap of earlier discussions, my apologies).

'Interreligious Dialogue and Jewish-Christian Relations' (1998)

Interreligious Dialogue and Jewish-Christian Relations Communio 25, no. 1 (1998): 29-41. [.pdf format]; HTML Version. Produced for a session of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences, Paris, this essay was published in Communio and was republished in Many Religions, One Covenant. The piece is chiefly devoted to the matter of interreligious dialogue and various approaches to the world's religions -- such as the sublimination of theistic religions into a transcendental, mystical model; the pragmatic approach, which prioritizes orthopracy over dogma and "interminable wrangling over truth" -- pointing out their strengths and deficiencies. In the latter part of the essay, Cardinal Ratzinger notes that beyond the superficial opposition of the "Old" to "New" Testament, "the primal fact is that through Christ Israel's Bible came to the non-Jews and became their Bible," bringing Jews and Gentiles together. Furthermore:

"Even if Israel cannot join Christians in seeing Jesus as the Son of God,it is not altogether impossible for Israel to recognize him as the servant of God who brings the light of his God to the nations." The converse is also true: even if Christians wish that Israel might one day recognize Christ as the Son of God and that the fissure that still divides them might thereby be closed, they ought to acknowledge the decree of God, who has obviously entrusted Israel with a distinctive mission in the "time of the Gentiles." The Fathers define this mission in the following way: the Jews must remain as the first proprietors of Holy Scripture with respect to us, in order to establish a testimony to the world. But what is the tenor of this testimony? . . . I think we could say that two things are essential to Israel's faith. The first is the Torah, commitment to God's will, and thus the establishment of his dominion, his kingdom, in this world. The second is the prospect of hope, the expectation of the Messiah -- the expectation, indeed, the certainty, that God himself will enter into this history and create justice, which we can only approximate very imperfectly. The three dimensions of time are thus connected: obedience to God's will bears on an already spoken word that now exists in history and at each new moment has to be made present again in obedience. This obedience, which makes present a bit of God's justice in time, is oriented toward a future when God will gather up the fragments of time and usher them as a whole into his justice.
Christianity does not give up this basic configuration. The trinity of faith, hope, and love corresponds in a certain respect to the three dimensions of time: the obedience of faith takes the word that comes from eternity and is spoken in history and transforms it into love, into presence, and in this way opens the door to hope. It is characteristic of the Christian faith that all three dimensions are contained and sustained in the figure of Christ, who also introduces them into eternity. In him, time and eternity exist together, and the infinite gulf between God and man is bridged. For Christ is the one who came to us without therefore ceasing to be with the Father; he is present in the believing community, and yet at the same time is still the one who is coming. The Church too awaits the Messiah. She already knows him, yet he has still to reveal his glory. Obedience and promise belong together for the Christian faith, too. For Christians, Christ is the present Sinai, the living Torah that lays its obligations on us, that bindingly commands us, but that in so doing draws us into the broad space of love and its inexhaustible possibilities. In this way, Christ guarantees hope in the God who does not let history sink into a meaningless past, but rather sustains it and brings it to its goal. It likewise follows from this that the figure of Christ simultaneously unites and divides Israel and the Church: it is not in our power to overcome this division, but it keeps us together on the way to what is coming and for this reason must not become an enmity.

"Reconciling Gospel & Torah: The Catechism" (1994)

"Reconciling Gospel & Torah: The Catechism". This essay was originally written for a Jewish-Christian encounter in Jerusalem in February 1994 and was republished in various forms, including the first section of Many Religions, One Covenant. Ratzinger asks the question: "Can Christian faith, left in its inner power and dignity, not only tolerate Judaism but accept it in its historic mission? Or can it not? Can there be true reconciliation without abandoning the faith, or is reconciliation tied to such abandonment?" -- framing his answer in light of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which teaches:

The mission of Jesus consists in leading the histories of the nations in the community of the history of Abraham, in the history of Israel. His mission is unification, reconciliation, as the Letter to the Ephesians (2:18-22) will then present it. The history of Israel should become the history of all, Abraham's sonship become extended to the 'many.' This course of events has two aspects to it: The nations can enter into the community of the promises of Israel in entering into the community of the one God who now becomes and must become the way of all because there is only one God and because his will is therefore truth for all. Conversely, this means that all nations, without the abolishment of the special mission of Israel, become brothers and receivers of the promises of the chosen people; they become people of God with Israel through adherence to the will of God and through acceptance of the Davidic kingdom.

During the course of this essay Ratzinger takes a stand against the "superficial polemics" of anti-Jewish biblical hermeneutics, objecting to "crass contrasts [which] have become a cliché in modern and liberal descriptions where Pharisees and priests are portrayed as the representatives of a hardened legalism, as representatives of the eternal law of the establishment presided over by religious and political authorities who hinder freedom and live from the oppression of others."

"Where the conflict between Jesus and the Judaism of his time is presented in a superficial, polemical way," says Ratzinger, "a concept of liberation is derived which can understand the Torah only as a slavery to external rites and observances." Such an antinomian portrayal of Jesus are in no way part of the Catechism, whose presentation of Judaism is derived from St. Matthew and presents "a deep unity between the good news of Jesus and the message of Sinai."

Citing paragraph # 1968 of the Catechism, Ratzinger goes on to say:

his view of a deep unity between the good news of Jesus and the message of Sinai is again summarized in the reference to a statement of the New Testament which is not only common to the synoptic tradition but also has a central character in the Johannine and Pauline writings: The whole law, including the prophets, depends on the twofold yet one commandment of love of God and love of neighbor (Catechism, 1970; Mt. 7:20; 22:34-40; Mk. 12:38-43; Lk. 10:25-28; Jn. 13:34; Rom. 13:8-10). For the nations, being assumed into the children of Abraham is concretely realized in entering into the will of God, in which moral commandment and profession of the oneness of God are indivisible, as this becomes clear especially in St. Mark's version of this tradition in which the double commandment is expressly linked to the "Sch'ma Israel," to the yes to the one and only God. Man's way is prescribed for him he is to measure himself according to the standard of God and according to his own human perfection. At the same time, the ontological depth of these statements comes to the fore. By saying yes to the double commandment man lives up to the call of his nature to be the image of God that was willed by the Creator and is realized as such in loving with the love of God.

In the third part of this essay, Cardinal Ratzinger discusses Jesus' encounter with the Jewish authorities, exploring the mysterious way in which he fundamentally reinterprets and transforms the Torah, opening up the covenant to the Gentiles in a process which culminated in his crucifixion and resurrection from the dead. I won't go into further details, but suffice to say it's a good read. According to the Cardinal, Jesus' death on the cross

cannot simply be viewed as an accident which actually could have been avoided nor as the sin of Israel with which Israel becomes eternally stained in contrast to the pagans for whom the cross signifies redemption. In the New Testament there are not two effects of the cross: a damning one and a saving one, but only a single effect, which is saving and reconciling.

I expect that Christian and Jewish readers will be sharply divided in their reactions to this portion -- the former intrigued by Ratzinger's line of thought; the latter finding themselves in disagreement. Nevertheless, it is my hope that Jewish readers will at the very least appreciate the Cardinal's rebuke of anti-Judaism and his reminder that: "Jesus did not act as a liberal reformer recommending and himself presenting a more understanding interpretation of the law. In Jesus' exchange with the Jewish authorities of his time, we are not dealing with a confrontation between a liberal reformer and an ossified traditionalist hierarchy. Such a view, though common, fundamentally misunderstands the conflict of the New Testament and does justice neither to Jesus nor to Israel."

The Cardinal closes with a reiteration of the Catechism's rejection of the charge of deicide and collective Jewish guilt, teaching that "Jesus' violent death was not the result of chance in an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances, but is part of the mystery of God's plan" (599) and that "All sinners were the authors of Christ's passion."

. . . the blood of Jesus speaks another - a better and stronger - language than the blood of Abel, than the blood of all those killed unjustly in the world. It does not cry for punishment but is itself atonement, reconciliation. Already as a child - even though I naturally knew nothing of all things the catechism summarizes - I could not understand how some people wanted to derive a condemnation of Jews from the death of Jesus because the following thought had penetrated my soul as something profoundly consoling: Jesus' blood raises no calls for retaliation but calls all to reconciliation. It has become, as the "Letter to the Hebrews" shows, itself a permanent Day of Atonement of God.

'Reconciling Gospel & Torah' is an interesting essay -- one which I found to be conciliatory in spirit and refreshing in its rebuke of "superficial polemics" against the Jews and caricatures of the Jewish law which are found in liberal theology as well as some traditionalist camps.

Dominus Iesus (August, 2000)

Dominus Iesus, or "Declaration on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church" was chiefly intended as a corrective measure to theological excesses and erroneous positions adopted in the course of ecumenical/interreligious dialogue, as well as were found in theologies of "religious pluralism." As such, it was not really intended to address the issue of the Church's relationship with the Jewish people. Nevertheless, some Jews did take offense at its reiteration of standard Christian doctrine concerning the centrality of Christ and his Church in the salvation of mankind, their protests bolstered in part by the press, enough to warrant commentary by Cardinal Kasper, President of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, who offered both an apology for any misunderstanding that might have occured as well as a defense of Cardinal Ratzinger and the intent of the document:

Some Jewish readers tend to think that the Church's attitude towards Jews and Judaism is a sub-category of its attitude towards world religions in general. Yet, such a presumption is a mistake, and so is the presumption that [Dominus Iesus] represents "a backward step in a concerted attempt to overturn the [in this case Catholic-Jewish] dialogue of recent decades" . . .
[Dominus Iesus] does not affect Catholic-Jewish relations in a negative way. Because of its purpose, it does not deal with the question of the theology of Catholic-Jewish relations, proclaimed by Nostra Aetate, and of subsequent Church teaching. What the document tries to "correct" is another category, namely the attempts by some Christian theologians to find a kind of "universal theology" of interreligious relations, which, in some cases, has led to indifferentism, relativism and syncretism. Against such theories we, as Jews and Christians, are on the same side, sitting in the same boat; we have to fight, to argue and to bear witness together. Our common self-understanding is at stake.

Rabbi David Berger of the Rabbinical Council for America, on the other hand, took issue with Cardinal Kasper's interpretation that Jews "are entirely excluded from the purview of its controversial assertions," and offered his own qualified support of the "supercessionism" of Cardinal Ratzinger (On Dominus Iesus and the Jews May 1, 2001 -- further commentary: "To Evangelize - Or Not to Evangelize?" Against the Grain March 21, 2005).

The Heritage of Abraham: The Gift of Christmas (December, 2000)

The Heritage of Abraham: The Gift of Christmas, published in L'Osservatore Romano December 29, 2000, is one of my favorite writings by our Holy Father on the Jewish people -- in that it clearly demonstrates his alignment with the thought of his close friend and predecessor, Pope John Paul II, and the Second Vatican Council, in speaking of a "new vision of Jewish-Christian relations":

We know that every act of giving birth is difficult. Certainly, from the very beginning, relations between the infant Church and Israel were often marked by conflict. The Church was considered by her own mother to be a degenerate daughter, while Christians considered their mother to be blind and obstinate. Down through the history of Christianity, already-strained relations deteriorated further, even giving birth in many cases to anti-Jewish attitudes, which throughout history have led to deplorable acts of violence. Even if the most recent, loathsome experience of the Shoah was perpetrated in the name of an anti-Christian ideology, which tried to strike the Christian faith at its Abrahamic roots in the people of Israel, it cannot be denied that a certain insufficient resistance to this atrocity on the part of Christians can be explained by an inherited anti-Judaism present in the hearts of not a few Christians.
Perhaps it is precisely because of this latest tragedy that a new vision of the relationship between the Church and Israel has been born: a sincere willingness to overcome every kind of anti-Judaism, and to initiate a constructive dialogue based on knowledge of each other, and on reconciliation. If such a dialogue is to be fruitful, it must begin with a prayer to our God, first of all that he might grant to us Christians a greater esteem and love for that people, the people of Israel, to whom belong "the adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; theirs are the patriarchs, and from them comes Christ according to the flesh, he who is over all, God, blessed forever. Amen" (Romans 9:4-5), and this not only in the past, but still today, "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29). In the same way, let us pray that he may grant also to the children of Israel a deeper knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth, who is their son, and the gift they have made to us. Since we are both awaiting the final redemption, let us pray that the paths we follow may converge.

The Jewish People & Their Sacred Scriptures (May, 2001)

The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible was published by the Pontifical Biblical Commission on May 4, 2001. In the wake of the Shoah, it dealt with the pertient questions of whether Christians "can still claim in good conscience to be the legitimate heirs of Israel's Bible . . . and propose a Christian interpretation of the Bible," also addressing the issue of scriptural passages in the New Testament deemed "anti-semitic". Although the document reaffirmed the unity of the Old & New Testaments and Christian reading of the Jewish scriptures, it did include a positive treatment of the Jews, as indicated in Cardinal Ratzinger's proposal that:

what ought to emerge now is a new respect for the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament. On this subject, the Document says two things. First it declares that "the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Scriptures of the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading, which developed in parallel fashion" (no. 22). It adds that Christians can learn a great deal from a Jewish exegesis practised for more than 2000 years; in return, Christians may hope that Jews can profit from Christian exegetical research (ibid.). I think this analysis will prove useful for the pursuit of Judeo-Christian dialogue, as well as for the interior formation of Christian consciousness.

Likewise, the document caused something of a stir in the Jewish press by its recognition that:

What has already been accomplished in Christ must yet be accomplished in us and in the world. The definitive fulfilment will be at the end with the resurrection of the dead, a new heaven and a new earth. Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain. It can become for us Christians a powerful stimulant to keep alive the eschatological dimension of our faith. Like them, we too live in expectation. The difference is that for us the One who is to come will have the traits of the Jesus who has already come and is already present and active among us. (paragraph 5.)