The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Hard truths about Jews and Catholics
by John L Allen Jr on Jun. 26, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionSo far, 2009 isn't shaping up as a banner year in Jewish-Catholic relations. We've seen continuing fallout from the revival last year of a Good Friday prayer for the conversion of Jews, uproar over lifting the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying bishop, and a trip to the Middle East where the pope drew rave reviews everywhere but Israel. This week alone brought a new chapter in old debates over Pius XII, and a mini-fracas over a note from the U.S. bishops saying that Christ's message is meant for Jews too.
While each of those episodes has its own contours, collectively they seem to be telling us something important about where things stand between the two faiths.
The revolution in Jewish-Catholic understanding over the last fifty years, which has gone a long way towards healing wounds that took almost 2,000 years to accumulate, was quite possibly the most important inter-religious accomplishment of the 20th century. The question today is whether that momentum can be sustained in a new set of historical circumstances.
In that regard, recent vicissitudes seem to point to an inescapable conclusion: Lest Jewish-Catholic ties in the 21st century suffer death by a thousand cuts, it's time for rational people on both sides to confront a couple of hard truths.
For Jews: Old habits must go
Here's the first hard truth, meant for Jewish leaders (many of whom, it must be said, already get it): The old habit of criticizing the Catholic church first and asking questions later has to go, because the historical wheels are turning, and before long you may find a church that simply isn't listening.
That's a tough thing for any Catholic to say, given that the church was experienced as a source of pain by the Jewish people for so long. Yet the plain fact is that Jews do need to unlearn these psychological patterns, because pouncing on every perceived slight frustrates the best friends Judaism has on the Catholic side, and gives other Catholics an incentive to dismiss legitimate Jewish concerns.
Pope Benedict's recent trip to Israel offers a case in point. Benedict went to the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial to express solidarity with Jewish suffering. Yet when he said Jews had been "killed," rather than "murdered," he got pummeled. The pope was also faulted for not mentioning Christian anti-Semitism, even though he's acknowledged the point many times before. Ambivalence toward the pontiff hung in the air; an analysis after the trip in the Jerusalem Post asked, "Why have so many religious-Jewish leaders here been reluctant to accept the pope's gestures of dialogue and peace?"
Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican's top official for relations with Jews, summed up widespread Catholic exasperation when he said to me in Israel: "There seems to be an official attitude of, 'That's good, but it's not enough.'" It's not much of a leap from there to thinking, "They're going to criticize us no matter what we do, so why bother?"
Indiscriminate criticism also ignores demographic reality. The leaders of the Catholic future aren't going to be World War II-era Europeans who feel a personal investment in the relationship with Judaism, but Africans, Asians and Latin Americans who probably don't know many Jews, and who don't see their churches as carrying any historical guilt for the Holocaust. Say "Jews" to the typical third world bishop, and the immediate mental image isn't of Auschwitz; it's of the Israeli wall around the West Bank and of Jewish groups influencing American foreign policy. Of course, Catholic leaders in the global South know that Christianity shares a unique scriptural and theological bond with Judaism. But they don't have an instinctive "turn the other cheek" spirit, and when confronted with what seems like axe-grinding, their tendency is either to push back or to tune out altogether.
Reaction to a new statement from the U.S. bishops about the relationship of Christianity to Judaism illustrates another problem with hair-trigger criticism. In essence, the June 18 note said that Christ is the fulfillment of God's covenant with Israel, and that proclaiming Christ is the heart of the church's mission. In response, the Anti-Defamation League suggested that Catholics might now use inter-religious dialogue to proselytize Jews.
That's not very credible on the face of it; anybody who's been around such dialogues knows that the sort of Catholics who take part are hardly likely to start thumping catechisms and insisting that Jews be baptized. More deeply, the key point is that statements like this often have little to do with Judaism. They're more about a push within the church to shore up a strong sense of Catholic identity, which means that the real targets are not Jews but avant-garde Catholics. Knowing that should inform how Jews react.
Of course, when the U.S. bishops issue a document titled "The Relationship of Christianity to Judaism," it's bound to stir Jewish interest, however much the agenda may have to do with insider Catholic baseball. There's nothing wrong with Jewish leaders requesting clarification about how to square the text with other church statements, or what its practical implications might be. The trick is to do so without being perceived as taking sides in Catholic arguments, and without drawing worst-case conclusions and then reacting to them as if they're already a fact.
For Catholics: Stop dragging Jews into our debates
Now for the second hard truth, this one directed at Catholics: We've got to stop dragging Jews into internal Catholic battles.
That tendency is best documented in the "Pius Wars," meaning debates over Pius XII and his alleged silence during the Holocaust. Catholic conservatives tend to exonerate Pius XII as part of a broader defense of papal authority and wisdom; liberals tend to see Pius' handling of the Jewish question as symbolic of wider failures of the Vatican and the papacy. In both cases, what may look like a discussion of the church and the Jews is often really about something else.
Yet the habit of treating the Jewish community as a terrain for proxy fights is far more widespread.
Part of the problem is that since Vatican II, the Catholic trailblazers in relations with Judaism have tended to come from the more liberal wing of the church, and at times -- without any ill will, and for the most part inadvertently -- some seem to want Jews to make the case for church reform. I know one prominent Jewish leader, for example, who was told by a veteran Catholic theologian that if Jews had complained more vociferously about Pope Benedict's speech at Auschwitz in May 2006, then Regensburg would never have happened. (That's a reference to Benedict's infamous speech in Germany in September 2006, linking Muhammad, the founder of Islam, to violence.) The implied suggestion was that Jews are somehow responsible for pushing the pope in one direction or another.
The result can be an unhealthy cycle in which Catholicism's in-house critics push Jews to protest whatever comes from the Vatican or the bishops, and in turn, those Jews most inclined to criticize the church feel confirmed by support from these Catholics.
On the other hand, more conservative Catholics sometimes forget that no discussion about the Catholic theology of Judaism is ever purely internal; inevitably, these matters reverberate in the Jewish world. Sensitivity is required to ensure that documents or statements on the subject, even if they're addressed primarily to Catholics, are nonetheless presented with sufficient context, and with the right tone, so that Jews don't get them wrong. (Some might feel that the June 18 note from the U.S. bishops could have benefitted from a bit more consideration along these lines.)
If Catholics truly have the best interests of Jews at heart, then in an era of transition threatening to put Judaism on a back-burner, our primary concern ought to be helping Jews solidify their relationships with the structures and leaders of the church -- not pushing them to carry water in Catholic debates, and not leaving them perplexed as to what exactly the church is trying to say.
I realize that I'm painting with an awfully broad brush, and perhaps some of this will seem exaggerated or incomplete. An optimist might argue that much of the tension in recent months is actually symptomatic of a fundamentally healthy relationship -- like a family in which siblings who love one another are nonetheless at each other's throats.
Too much is at stake, however, not to take the risk of overstating things, especially for all those Jews and Catholics who treasure the progress we've made together. These two truths, if that's what they are, need to be talked about, because otherwise the current routine of one step forward, two steps back, may repeat itself until everyone just gets tired of the dance.
John L. Allen Jr. is NCR senior correspondent. He can be reached at jallen@ncronline.org
Why was Pope Benedict's
Why was Pope Benedict's speech at Regensberg "infamous"? It was a good speech. "Notorious" is also judgmental, but not as extreme.
As for your two sources of strife, I note that both of them are significant mainly on the left. Leftist Jews seek to denigrate Christianity, and leftist Catholics seek to use Jews as a hammer against conservative Catholics. That won't change, but it also won't hinder orthodox Jews and conservative Catholics from finding more and more common ground.
I also think that southern hemisphere Catholics may have a more biblically grounded faith that will make them more empathetic to Jews, not less. I would bet that pilgrimages to Jerusalem will be much more common among Africans than Americans in years to come.
Um--the Jews who tend to
Um--the Jews who tend to denigrate Catholicism come from all parts of the spectrum, not just "leftists."
This is John Allen at his
This is John Allen at his best and most insightful. Thank you for this.
"Painting with an awfully
"Painting with an awfully broad brush"? Perhaps. But for this active participant in Catholic-Jewish dialogue, John Allen's article is admirably balanced -- and much needed.
Just one comment - Mr. Allen
Just one comment - Mr. Allen writes:
It's not much of a leap from there to thinking, "They're going to criticize us no matter what we do, so why bother?"
I see what he means and is trying to say but my gut reaction? Why bother? Because it is the right thing to do. Because we need to. Because we were SO wrong for so long.
Why bother? Maybe because it is what God is calling us to do.
Thank you for the clarity of
Thank you for the clarity of your perspective. Yes, indeed, we were so wrong for so long and these wrongs caused great damage to many. If things do not change immediately, we need to be willing to continue on the road of respect for our Jewish brothers and sisters. Not to belabor the point, but there are many deep, tragic sins of the past concerning our relationship to the Jewish community. Building trust may take time and a concerted effort to stay the course. I, like you, believe this is God's call
Ummmm.... The comment Allen
Ummmm....
The comment Allen made was not his own sense of the right or wrong response to the problem at hand but the perhaps inevitable and unfortunate result of dealing with knee jerk criticisms that are based on an unfortunate choice of vocabulary [for instance; the use of the word "killed" instead of "murdered"] or something else very trite rather than the evidence of our consistent actions.
Allen was not advocating the "why bother?" attitude. He was simply reporting that it might be the unfortunate outfall of a relationship where one side has pre-conditioned themselves to find fault where no fault is intended.
"If Catholics truly have the
"If Catholics truly have the best interests of Jews at heart," - Yes we do! We have the mandate from the Messiah to preach the Gospel to all, including Jews, so that they may see the light of the eternal truths (which is summarized in the Catholic Faith) and recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah. That is their salvation on their Day of Judgment, and the only real true unity (or disunity) between Catholics and Jews. I think you forgot to add this "Hard Truth" in all of the methodological analysis of complex relationships.
Allen, you are always mixing
Allen, you are always mixing up religion with politics, as if the Church was some big Zionist political machine.
I don't like mixing up religion and politics, I suppose that makes me a ''conservative'', but only in a very limited sense.
I recognize that the Jews of the Bible are not exactly the same as the Jews and Christian of today, which gives me a more pragmatic asssesment of what is really going on here.
People like Garry Wills and John Cornwell are a huge part of the problem. They are like arsonist-firemen, they light a fire and then they try to clear it up. As I recall, you wrote in admiration of these writers, you have no objections to the huge chasm they created in Jewish-Catholic relations (sic !).
Before Jewish-Catholic relations can go on, I think a new schism is necessary within the Catholic Church itself. The remnants of the Rembert Wekalnd gang can create their own flock which could indepently engage in those relations. Then we would have something very close to reconcilisation.
No it doesn't make you a
No it doesn't make you a conservative. It makes you a Pharisee!
I praise God for brave men
I praise God for brave men like John Cornwell. His book, "Pius XII: Hitler's Pope" was one of the best books, penned by a Catholic insider, that I've ever read.
Pius XII was responsible for drawing up the Concordat with Germany, prior to him becoming Pope. It is naive to say that PiusXII didn't know the impact that the Concordat would have on the Jews and upon those Catholics of Conscience, who would try to defend them prior to and thru WWII.
I encourage all to look up the Concordat, which is all over the Internet, and to read it. Then, ask yourself if Pius XII didn't sell out the Church and their future relationship with the Jews. Had Pius XII openly come out against Hitler, he could have been dethroned and relegated to the dump-heap of History. Instead, Pius XII cozied up to the Nazi Regime and every other Fascist Regime in Europe prior to WWII. Why? Because he thought the Fascists could help the Church regain the power which She lost in the American and French Revolutions, both which forever proudly separated government and religion.
From Pius X's, "Anti-Americanism" (which basically was Anti-Democratic forms of government) to the Vatican/Concordat with Germany signed in 1933, through the Papacy of Pius XII, the Church bet on the wrong horse! Instead, She showed Her true colors as being a centuries-old enemy of the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by not only supporting Hitler, but by supporting every Fascist Regime in Europe and Croatia instead of Democratic reforms!
If you truly want some insight into the above topics, I strongly suggest that one should buy Cromwell's book, "Pius XII: Hitler's Pope."
The Myth of Hitler's Pope by
The Myth of Hitler's Pope by Rabbi David G. Dalin is a book that defends Pope Pius XII and credits him with leading efforts to rescue tens of thousands of Jews from the Nazis. It balances out some of the more ridiculous assertions made by John Cornwell.
Perhaps Pope Pius XII could have done more to help Jews during World War II. I don't know enough about all his options to make a judgement at this time. However, Pope Pius XII definitely did help rescue many Jews.
Jeanne fails to realize that rise of Hitler to power in Germany was the culmination of one of the achievements of the French Revolution that she so admires, specifically the total separation of government and religion. (In reality, religious ideals and ethics or the lack thereof are tied very closely to the legal systems of all nations)
Hitler took the idea of the legal separation of government and religion to new heights and championed the superiority of his Aryan racial theories above the Christian principles espoused by Pope Pius XII.
Jeanne's idea that Pope Pius XII could have "dethroned" Hitler by denouncing him is somewhat ignorant because Hitler was never "enthroned" by the Pope in the first place.
Besides, Protestant Christians were in the majority in Germany, and they would not have accepted the idea that Pope Pius XII could "enthrone" or "dethrone" their leader.
The Nazis received the most votes of any political party in Germany in 1932, but not a majority. They formed coalitions with other political parties after the election, banned the Communist representatives in the Reichstag, and then got the Reichstag to pass laws giving Hitler supreme power.
I suppose Pope Pius XII could have sacrificed himself by criticizing Hitler more strongly.
Whether such criticism could have "dethroned" Hitler is quite doubtful. But perhaps if the Pope had chosen martyrdom at the hands of the Nazis, he would now be seen in a more heroic light.
Few people bother to remember that the Nazis killed millions of Catholics in Poland as well as millions of Jews in Poland. The Nazis also liquidated many of the Catholic clergy in Poland. Hitler was no friend of Catholics or Catholicism.
Nazi leaders coveted wealth and power, and glorified violence. They wanted total control over the minds and loyalty of the German people. That is why the Nazi regime is considered a "totalitarian regime".
Theology aside, I suspect
Theology aside, I suspect that a good deal of Jewish suspicion of Benedict is personal and derived from the facts that he (a) is German; (b) was a member of the Hitler Youth when he was a boy; and (c)later on served in the Wehrmacht as a young man. Even if they accept his explanation that he was forced into the above mentioned organizations, suspicions are bound to linger.
Catholic relations, both
Catholic relations, both internal and with the wider world, will be conflicted and dysfunctional as long as the church is a slave to the defensive triumphalism seen in the infallibility doctrine. This stance is based on fear, discomfort with the human frailty of the church and doubt that God is with us to preserve us. A magical claim of perfection is not the promise of Christ to the church, but being made perfectly good vessels through Christ, within and despite our true broken-ness.
Our church will heal and be a true light to the world when we put down our fig leaf and walk with each other - and with our fellow faith traditions - in both humility and confidence. We can't survive or thrive by holding on to this pretend game of being superior, free of error and aloof to the wider world.
Excellent comment!! So
Excellent comment!! So true...humility is so necessary for all of us to deal with each other and the world. Thank you!!
"INFAMOUS SPEECH?" John Allen
"INFAMOUS SPEECH?" John Allen refers to Pope Benedict's September 2006 speech in Regensburg, German as "Benedict's infamous speech." It was not an infamous speech at all. Some day historians will say that it was not an "infamous" speech but one that was very much needed. The Pope knew exactly what he was doing and had the courage to do it. In fact, he never apologized for his remarks. His Regensburg speech was directed not just to the Muslims but - also and especially - to the secularized societies of Europe and North America. The theme of the Pope's speech was on "Faith and Reason." Muslims tend to downplay or even diminish reason, while secularist societies tend to downplay or even pooh-pooh faith. Faith and reason are the two wings on which the human being soars. After the Pope's speech many Muslims and secularists of good will recognized that the speech had opened up many minds and hearts.
I agree with most of what is
I agree with most of what is said in this article.
However, John Allen's use of the label "third world" usually sounds like a caricature. He dumps too much in the "third world" box. To use a term the arose during the Cold War to describe ecclesial realities strikes me as wholly inappropriate, lacking in historical and cultural nuance. By default, he places the US Church together with the various European churches, which is also highly problematic.
The term "third world" may be useful if one wants to be understood in some US circles, but one would expect more from a reporter that claims to be knowledgeable with the global Church.
I am sensitive to language
I am sensitive to language and was interested in your comment. Yet, without offering an alternative term(s), your point is significantly incomplete.
I am a Catholic and I
I am a Catholic and I disagree with what Benedict is doing, making Pius a saint. I think Pius XII was complicit in the murder, the killing of Jews by his silence and apathy he became an enabler of the Holocaust genocide of Jews and lots of other people in and before the world war two.
Some Jews are unhappy with Benedict because he is trying to make a saint of Pius XII and he refused to enter that Holocaut museum in Israel that has the poster telling the truth, that Pope Pius by his silence and apathy allowed so many to die in the Holocaust. Benedict would not enter because of that. This is cowardly and despicable of Benedict not to face his errors and to be so arrogant and stubborn about what he does.
This is exactly the kind of
This is exactly the kind of trickery that John Allen is complaining about. Paulette's priority is to attack the present-day conservatives within the Catholic Church and she does not scruple to use the Jews as a weapon in her intra-Catholic combat. Even if some of the allegations about Pius XII's wartime activities should turn out to have some basis in fact, this would not ex post facto justify Paulette's intellectual dishonesty. And in any case, the evidence now available points to gross exaggeration, to say the least, on the Hochhuth side.
Thank you for your defense of
Thank you for your defense of "some Jews". As an Orthodox Jew, I would like to nuance what is really thought in our community. First, we know from our own sources, Pius saved some Jews. The Talmud teaches us, that saving one life is like saving an entire world. So Pius deserves some credit. Whether he advocated a systematic rescue of Jews is debatable from currently available sources. And then we know many more Catholic clergy and laity actually collaborated with the Nazis, so the reputation of the Church is tarnished to some degree here. But in the end, we also know that Pius did three things that complicate the Jewish view of Pius: a) he refused to return Jewish children put in the care of Catholics at the end of WW2 thus compounding our devastation at that time - in effect kidnapping our children, b) under his reign, Nazis were given Vatican passports to escape Europe in the post ware period, and c) he actively lobbied the UN and the US to not create the state of Israel and the rescue of European Jews to Israel. These actions do not sound like a "friend of the Jews". So the truth about Pius is forever mixed. Jews can and should hold the historical truth about Pius as damning, but mixed. Catholics, however are free, to canonize whom they will -its your religion, not ours. Just do not expect us to rewrite or sanitize history to make that any easier or less embarrassing. Truth will make us free.
Excellent article,
Excellent article, brilliant!
In Israel the Catholic Church is perceived as being pro-Palestinian and ant-Israeli, because it objects to the mistreatment of the Palestinians.
In Latin America it's fair to
In Latin America it's fair to say, by and large, that the Catholic Church takes the Palestinian side while the various Evangelical and Pentecostal churches take the Israeli side. As John Allen says, Latin America, along with the rest of the third world, is going to represent in the near future a larger slice of worldwide Catholicism. The freedom of action given to anti-Israel propagandists within the Latin American Church is bad news for the future of Catholic-Jewish relations.
Sadly for Jewish-Catholic
Sadly for Jewish-Catholic relations, Catholics need to take the Palestinian side because the injustices inflicted on them are not an accident but deliberate ongoing policy as cruel as anything seen in a long time. Jewish-Catholic relations suffer because people identify being Jewish with being Israeli, and this is flawed logic. Israelis tormenting the Arabs are sociopathic sadists who happen to be Jewish. Other Jews within Israel itself are appalled by what is happening. Their protests are easily available in the blogosphere.
"Catholics need to take the
"Catholics need to take the Palestinian side," Fr. William? No, they don't need to. They are free to, just as they are free to support Israel, if that's what they think is right. Similarly, they are free to support or oppose President Obama's announced negotiating effort toward a two-state solution. To state that Catholics "need" to do this or that is simply an untruth.
The Anti Defamation League is
The Anti Defamation League is concerned with secular-ethnic, not religious, issues.
We shouldn't have them as our interlocutors in theological matters.
We shouldn't allow them to force their way into inter-religious discussions with the Jews.
There are other legitimate interlocutors among religious Jews.
Thank you, Mr. Allen, for
Thank you, Mr. Allen, for this excellent commentary.
Your observations on the Pius XII debate were especially insightful. If I might offer a suggestion to the Catholic side, could we please get on with the cause of Pius XII; either complete it (preferably) or abandon it for the present as too much of a distraction. (The latter would be a shame but at least Pope Pius would have appreciated the diplomatic case for taking the issue off the front burner.)
As long as Pius XII's cause is left in its present state, active but undecided, it deflects discussion from real current issues. Moreover our continuing timidity in the face of the decendants of Rolf Hochhuth is an encouragement to those who deal with inconvenient history simply by re-writing it.
What about the general
What about the general indiference from both parts
I don't think most Jews
I don't think most Jews really care about what the Catholic Church thinks. The Jews are in a life-or-death struggle with Muslims. They see the Church getting ever smaller and purer. Where I live (New England) the Catholic Church will soon be smaller than the Mormon Church. In Italy and Poland, Catholics are refusing to have children. In France, Spain and Austria, Catholics don't bother going to mass. The Christians in the Middle East have ceded their claim to an interest in Jerusalem by deciding they'd rather just leave. In twenty years, the Catholic Church will consist of a few million destitute Third World semi-pagans, hanging around hoping for a handout. This is not the image of a religion whose hierarchy is worth cultivating.
Orion 71 states: "Benedict
Orion 71 states: "Benedict ...was a member of the Hitler Youth when he was a boy ...and ...later on served in the Wehrmacht as a young man." This is utter nonsense.
Joseph Ratzinger never attended any Hitler Youth functions of any sort. Why would he? The Nazis murdered his Down's Syndrome cousin.
The anti-aircraft unit into which he was conscripted was no more a part of the Wehrmacht than the Home Guard was a part of the British Army. Sorry, I don't know what the American equivalent would have been.
"Benedict went to the Yad
"Benedict went to the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial to express solidarity with Jewish suffering. Yet when he said Jews had been "killed," rather than "murdered," he got pummeled. ...Ambivalence toward the pontiff hung in the air; an analysis after the trip in the Jerusalem Post asked, "Why have so many religious-Jewish leaders here been reluctant to accept the pope's gestures of dialogue and peace?"
Why? Let's start with the issue you relegated to the section "for Catholics" - Pius XII. Few who have read the history would have any difficulty understanding where the Jewish people come from on this. The attempt to canonize him should simply be allowed to fade away. The man was not a saint. His cowardice during WWII alone should eliminate him from consideration. It seems to be becoming an unfortunate habit in the church to canonize former popes, regardless of their "worthiness". The case of Pius IX is an even greater travesty, on many levels. And among the reasons his case should be left on the backburner forever was his treatment of the Jews (returning them to the Roman ghetto), as well as the sanctioned kidnapping of a Jewish child and his refusal to return that child to his parents.
If this is "saintly" behaviour, it casts doubt on the worthiness of every saint ever canonized.
You’re really on the ball
You’re really on the ball about the latest trends in the Church, aren’t you, Anonymous. Nothing escapes you, right? So when you complain that “It seems to be becoming an unfortunate habit in the church to canonize former popes, regardless of their "worthiness",” you first checked to make sure that this is really happening, didn’t you?
No, you didn’t, because if you did, you would have found this interesting statistic. Since the end of the Great Schism in 1417 there have been 59 popes, or 60 if you include Benedict XVI. Of those 59, two have been canonized: St. Pius V (1566-1572) and St. Pius X (1903-1914). So the score stands at 57 to 2. Two canonized, 57 not. “An unfortunate habit”, you call it. What utter nonsense.
John Allen is right; my dad
John Allen is right; my dad is Jewish, but my mom is Catholic (I'm Catholic, too).
He is right: Conservative Catholics think that Pius XII was the best thing for the Jews after Moses and want to twist history to make it seem that the Catholic Church was persecuted by the Nazis. Well, then half of the Nazis were not Catholics?
Jews also have a problem. It is true: Whatever the Vatican says, it is never enough. Most of the people complaining are not observant Jews, don't know anything about Catholic-Jewish history, and were never Nazi victims.
Sensitivity is an absolute
Sensitivity is an absolute must but at the same time it would be wrong to allow a good man, Pius XII, to be defamed simply because it appears politically incorrect to defend him. Of course it is true that Catholics have mistreated Jews for a very long time--I don't want to downplay that in the least! We should in fact try our best to bend over backwards to make it clear that we reject all forms of anti-semitism. But honestly, we can't simply allow Pius XII to be labeled a murderer or a Nazi lover either. That's grossly unfair. The historical facts are clear: such an accusation is simply untrue. Indeed, the famous Rabbi in Rome, Yisrael Zolli, converted to Catholicism, and, in act of gratitude for the pope's actions during the war, took Pius' name, Eugene, as his baptismal name! Suffice it to say, accusations against the pope are largely due to politics and careless, sensational reporting. Moreover, while I really appreciated this piece, I think Allen should have pointed out that just as "conservatives" (I hate using political terms here!) have an agenda in supporting Pius, "liberals" also have reasons to give the former pontiff little support. Thanks for the piece though--over all, I enjoyed it.
Not sure who writes the
Not sure who writes the headlines John, but “hard truths” indeed. I must point out however that the hard ones are not just between Judaism and Catholicism, but also between Christianity and Islam. Not to minimize the plight of the Jews, but their prominence in the debate is exaggerated by their place in history and their physical presence in otherwise Arab lands. Catholics will never abandon their Jewish brethren, but our brothers’ hair trigger responses to every perceived slight are wearing thin for many. We want peace. The two state solution is the answer. If we can get there, differences in theology can be easily ironed out. Great article as usual. Thanks.
Until we, as Christian
Until we, as Christian well-wishers of a true peace for Jews and Christians (and Muslims) throughout the Holy Land and beyond accept the responsibility of honestly looking at and criticizing our own historical behaviors, we will have little real credibility on this question.
Until we return to an understanding that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are not synonymous, our ability to deal honestly and in a healing manner with those things old, and those things ongoing that separate us will not be able to be seriously addressed.
To bring the voice of Christ to our relations is not to forcibly convert anyone, nor deny the giftedness of any of the 3 religions of the Book. Those who embrace such a posture reveal the institutional churches sell-out or surrender to the gospel of power instead of the harder work of changing the world through the example that we live as followers and disciples of Jesus. How that change of hearts manifests itself is for the Holy Spirit to determine, not us.
As lovers of peace, then, it becomes not only possible, but crucial to combat anti-Semitism with the same energy that we ourselves are anti-Zionist. Zionism is a right wing political movement within the broader issue of just reparation to the Jewish people for global and disastrous historical wrongs, and it is disingenuous to adopt a policy of un-nuanced condemnation of violence from one group in conflict while defending a policy of uncritical support of violence from the group in power in that same conflict. Such a policy makes us a political voice with a political agenda, not a Christian voice of hope and healing. As such then, as players in the political arena that underpins the middle east conflicts of today, there is not reason why anyone who sees themselves championing another party in the conflict should not second guess any of our statements and actions. For us not to see that is to be blinded by our own sense of self-importance.
Maximilian, I am not using
Maximilian, I am not using any weapons. I write the truth about Pius XII. I am most certainly historically, morally, intellectually honest about Pius XII and his behavior towards the Jews during his papacy.
This is not about any intra-Catholic divisiveness on my part or anything against any conservative Catholics by me.
Making a saint out of the popes who were so unsaintlike is ethically and morally wrong and does even greater disservice to all the world, and to all Catholics, and Jews.
When are you going to report
When are you going to report objectively on Asian, African and South American Catholics. It seems to me that much worse has been done onto them than what was done to the Jews in the Second World War. But do we find a concerted group going all out to politicize their problem and sufferings. May be some first world well fed and financed group is doing so. For their own agenda best known to them? Must we be subjected to such arguments of injustice of the past. We want to look forward to hear of efforts to wish to build a new world minus a little of these ills and injustice.
Less talk please.
I think it is shakey ground
I think it is shakey ground for a Catholic to criticize Jews because, as one responder has already said, we were SO wrong for SO long.
Mr. Allen's analyses are always thoughtful, and he always strives for balance. But I was disappointed that there is no reference to a point that seems very fundamental to me: Catholics (and Christians in general) must first look to put their own houses in order in the sense of rooting out anti-semitism. If we think it's gone, we are sadly mistaken, and this cancer will continue to infect Jewish/Christian relations.
Thank you for your sensitive
Thank you for your sensitive letter to NCR. As an Othodox Jew, I cannot tell you how many insults and indignities my family and I have experienced over our life times, mostly at the hands of Christians or people who descend from Christian lives and influence. I live in NJ, which was reported to have the highest number of anti-semitic attacks in the nation. In fact, FBI hat crime statistics routinely reoprt more anti-semitic incidents than anti-gay incidents, second only to anti-black incidents. That this can even be counted in 2009 is testiment to what has NOT been achieved yet. That is the result of a long historical process of hatred which sadly the Church (and all churches) had a hand in developing. Granted, the emerging deadly threats are mostly coming from Muslims today. But it is still unnerving to open a western dictionary and see biased definitions of words like "Pharisee", "Judas Tree", etc. or even an encyclopedia where the word "Jew Fish" (which is really a Grouper) is defined in ethnic slurs. The anti-Jewish bias is embedded in literature, society and culture to such a degree, the Church will be working for another 2,000 years trying to undo what it did so long in the past. So, for all the changes that are occuring 13.5 million Jews cannot yet feel totally comfortable with 2 billion Christians, most of who have yet to rethink their own biases.
What troubles me most about
What troubles me most about the discussions on Jewish Catholic relations is that there is often the implication that Catholicism and Jewdaism are bound at the hip. You know... the Judeau Christian tradition business. From this there is the impression that Catholicism and Judaism are closely related theologically. I disagree. Catholicism is a lot closer to Protestantism to Muslims and Buddists than to Judaism. What do we have in common theologically with Judaism?? God is a loving Father? Jesus is the Messiah? mankind has been redeemed? the Sacraments? Love your enemies? that God loves some creatures more than others--the chosen people routine? When Christ came he made a 180 degree turn from Judaism. Christianity has an historical connection with Judaism, but scarcely a theological convergence.
As an Orthodox Jew, I have to
As an Orthodox Jew, I have to agree with much of this letter. Christianity has departed markedly from the fundamentals of Judaism, with only superfificial similarities, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. That is what caused the schism in the first place. I would take issue with some of the potentially sarcastic elements here though. Judaism does portray G-d as a loving father, counter to the prejudicial teachings of some Christians. But you would need to study Jewish theology to know that instead of relying on stereotypes (i.e., bia) about Judaism. I could just as easily call Christianity a Jew-hating religion because of its long past track recod of auto-de-fes, inquisitions and pogroms. But that does not occur anymore due to your newer teachings since 1965. As for the comment about the "chosen people routine", again you need to study Jewish theology rather than characture what this means. G-d did in fact chose the Jewish people first, gave us a covenant and land. The Torah calls this eternal, not conditional as some would interpret it. "Chosenness" is one that involves mission and burden, not privilege as you seem to imply. And he made that a particular requirement for Jews, not an exclusive claim of salvation, since Judaism has always posited a multi-covenant concept with a separate, salvational one for all Gentiles. The Torah itself uses the phrase, "...Israel, the first born of His children". This happens to even agree with recent Vatican statements. Notice the word "first" - it does not say "Only". So maybe its time to give up your stereotypes as all they do is breed ignorance and the resulting hate.
This was an excellent essay
This was an excellent essay in many ways. Ultimately what comes to the fore is the centuries old Jewish-Christian argument regarding the Person of Jesus of Nazareth. However here's what has not been done: If there is to be a real historical look at Christian-Jewish relations, it can't be that this is just a task for Christians, that we only talk about Christian misdeeds. In history there are always two to tango. You have to go back to the creation of the Talmud which was anti-Christian as part of its creation in supressing all other forms of Judaism.
How did this animus against Christ/Christians and Gentiles contribute to the troubled relations of Church and Jews? We hear about Christian misdeeds all the time. What about Jewish misdeeds and these cannot be ruled out a priori because of political correctness or any other ideology? A Jewish-Catholic who became a priest was confronted by a relative who asked him how he could be part of a Church that persecuted Jews for 2000 years? That question contained a wholly inaccurate and one-sided approach to Jewish-Christian affairs.
The fact is that if you take the creation of the Talmud as a starting point the animus/persecutions against Christians starting with Jewish Christians began there. It was not initially the Church persecuting Jews. Moreover you had different Talmudic moral standards if you were dealing with a Jew as opposed to a Gentile. How much did this contribute to bad relations when the Church became largely "gentile
As an educated, Orthodox Jew
As an educated, Orthodox Jew I feel the need to respond to the inaccuracies and mischaracterizations in this letter. First, there is no millenial "arguement" regarding Jesus as such. We dismissed his divinity in his own life time and moved on to surviving and thriving without his inclusion. Strictly speaking, Jesus and his followers could be viewed as apostates. Only a wildly insensitive person would suggest that Jews are corporately stupid or unknowing of their own culture and history. I doubt Catholics would venerate one of their own apostates. That is illogical.
Second, any opposition, real or imagined, between first century Jewish groups is an intra-Jewish argument, not an interfaith argument - our own affair, rules and rights. The Church is responsible for making this an interfaith arguement. We know where that led.
Third, there is a claim of Jewish misdeeds. I am unclear exactly what those are. Jews, trying to survive under occupation by a brutal Roman regime, with the introduction to unclean idolatry by pagan culture in their own country have a right to act. The Talmud was not even published until 499 CE, 300 years after anti-semitic agitation by the early Church fathers. So blaming the Talmud for creating anti-Jewish animus in the Church seems to be msicalculated at best. If the "misdeed" is a coded reference to deicide, I was under the impression the Vatican has reconsidered that issue once and for all. Or has the Vatican lied about that?
Fourth, there is a citation of a perennial anti-Talmudic idea about the alleged different moral standards towards Gentiles. Having studied the Talmud, rather than relying on common prejudices, I can attest that no such morale double standard exists. We are doctrinally prohibited from treating Gentiles worse than ourselves for obvious reasons: a) it causes hatred, b) there are more of you than us, c)Gentile culture has been far more violent than our own if the last 2,000 years of history mean anything. There are a few areas of Jewish Law where Jews take precedence in extreme cases, where family takes precedence over foreigners. Would anyone, in a hypothetical sense, save a stranger before family member in a case of extreme danger? I think not. We are human and family is important. None of this deprives Gentiles of anything since they are hypothetical cases used to explain law.
Finally, Jewish contributions to the world society, in historic and even modern times, far outstrips our small numbers. I notice there is no praise for our copious contributions (ex. 23% of Nobel prize winners are Jewish, when we are only one quarter of one percent of the world population). Israel today produces as much as 80% of the world's newest biotechnology. So continue to bash Jews all you want, but then you should consider refusing much of what passes for medical care - since it was contributed by Jewish genious and concern for all the world to avoid feeling like a hypocrit.
This was a wonderful article.
This was a wonderful article. Being the son of a Jew and a lapsed Catholic who entered the Church over Easter of 2008, I have what I consider a rather unusual investment in Christian-Jewish relations. And, I have to admit, the baptismal waters did not wash away the bias I have toward the Jews. Cite a few Jewish misdeeds if it makes you feel better: with Christians calling the shots for 1700 years, there's no question of which group has done more dirt to the other.
But even though I can appreciate Jewish defensiveness where the Catholic Church is concerned, I agree completely with Allen that some Jewish leaders overdo it -- to no one's advantage. Pope Benedict's Yad Vashem speech sounded just fine to me. Reinstating Bishop Williamson looked like nothing more than an oversight. Pope Benedict would have corrected it sooner or later on his own. The Israeli government's threat to withdraw its embassy did nothing but create the impression that non-Catholics were trying to dictate Vatican policy -- a breach of good manners at the best.
As for Pius XII -- well, he's certainly not my favorite Pope. In fact, he ranks just about even with the Borgia boy. But let's face it, he was no more remiss in helping the Jews than Churchill, Roosevelt and all the other leaders who turned away those ships filled with refugees. If we can agree -- and I hope we can, tho' some of the Mel Gibsonism I've read here inclines me to wonder -- that the Holocaust was a grave crime, then no one who held office from 1933 through 1945 comes out looking terribly good.
Post new comment