The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionA theologian-pope sidelines theology
by John L Allen Jr on Jan. 22, 2010
If it's true that only a soldier can fully grasp the horrors of war, perhaps it likewise takes a theologian to appreciate the limits of theology. That may help explain a striking paradox about the papacy of Benedict XVI: He's a true theologian-pope, yet a core element of his legacy will be to sideline theology as the focus of Catholicism's engagement with other religions.
Another chapter was added to that legacy this week with the pontiff's Jan. 17 visit to the Great Synagogue of Rome, the first time a pope made the trip since John Paul II's groundbreaking visit in 1986.
Pope Benedict XVI shakes hands with Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni, the chief rabbi of Rome, at the main synagogue in Rome Jan. 17. (CNS/L'Osservatore Romano via Reuters)Understandably, media attention was concentrated on debates over Pope Pius XII, the wartime pontiff whose alleged "silence" on the Holocaust is among the most polarizing issues in Catholic-Jewish relations. In late December, the Vatican announced that Benedict XVI had signed a decree of heroic virtue for Pius, moving him a step closer to sainthood.
On that score, the visit seemed to mark the birth of a new star in the Jewish world: Riccardo Pacifici, President of the Jewish Community in Rome, who had the rare opportunity to challenge the pope in public.
"The silence of Pius XII on the Holocaust is still painful," Pacifici said in a speech welcoming Benedict to the synagogue. "Perhaps he could not have stopped the trains of death, but he could have transmitted a signal, a final word of comfort, for our brothers and sisters on their way to the ovens of Auschwitz."
To be sure, Pacifici and the pope's other hosts made it clear that Jewish-Catholic ties will survive tensions over Pius XII, and he acknowledged the courage of many Catholics in risking their lives to save Jews. (Members of Pacifici's family were sheltered by the Sisters of Martha in Florence). Nevertheless, Pacifici's comments also suggest that prominent Jewish leaders do not plan to sit on their hands as Pius XII moves toward canonization.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
In his own speech, Benedict XVI offered an indirect defense of his controversial predecessor, asserting that during the war, "The Apostolic See itself provided assistance, often in a hidden and discreet way."
Yet a focus on what wags call the "Pius Wars" overlooks what is arguably the far more consequential element of Benedict's remarks last Sunday. In effect, Benedict blew past the doctrinal substructure of Catholic-Jewish relations in order to propose a new platform for political and social action.
Some experts on Jewish-Catholic relations faulted Benedict's speech for its obvious theological lacunae. Fr. John Pawlikowski of the Catholic Theological Union, for example, noted that Benedict's doctrinal remarks were largely a patchwork of quotations from John Paul II (and Vatican II), and that he never addressed the two thorniest doctrinal issues: the continuing theological significance of the Jewish covenant, and the legitimacy of missionary efforts directed at Jews.
In effect, however, skipping such matters seems to have been the point. After a declaration of "esteem and affection" for Jews, coupled with the usual pledges to fight anti-Semitism and to keep the memory of the Holocaust alive, Benedict got down to business in sections six through nine of his speech. There, he proposed the Torah as the basis of a "great ethical code" for humanity, leading Jews and Catholics into "areas of cooperation and witness" on a cluster of issues:
- Resisting the siren song of secularism, "reawakening in our society openness to the transcendent dimension"
- Defending the right to life and the family
- Promoting justice for "the poor, women and children, strangers, the sick, the weak and the needy"
- Acting on behalf of peace, especially peace in the Holy Land
All this amounts to an application of what Benedict has described as a shift from "inter-religious" to "inter-cultural" dialogue. In 2008, Benedict penned an introduction to a book by his old friend, Italian politician and philosopher Marcello Pera, in which the pope wrote: "Interreligious dialogue in the strict sense of the term is not possible without putting one's own faith into parentheses, while intercultural dialogue that develops the cultural consequences of the religious option … is both possible and urgent."
Put in layman's terms, what Benedict is saying is that trying to find a lowest common denominator of theology upon which Christians and Jews can agree -- or, for that matter, Christians and Muslims, Christians and Hindus, etc. -- will inevitably result in a loss of identity on both sides. Given that bolstering Catholic identity is the stated priority of his pontificate, that's a no-go. The more profitable enterprise, in Benedict's eyes, is to elaborate a set of shared values, and then to pool resources to apply those values in social and political debates.
"On this path we can walk together," the pope said, "aware of the differences that exist between us, but also aware of the fact that when we succeed in uniting our hearts and our hands in response to the Lord's call, his light comes and shines on all the peoples of the world."
That effort to unite hearts and hands, not to blaze new theological trails, will likely be the "Benedictine legacy" in inter-religious affairs.
As it happens, we already have an example of the Benedictine legacy in action. This week, the Mixed Commission of the Chief Rabbinate in Israel and of the Holy See held its ninth meeting in Rome. The topic? Not Jewish and Christian perspectives on the Bible, or the significance of the Mosaic covenant, or respective attitudes about the Messiah. Instead, it was the effort to carve out a distinctively religious form of environmentalism in contrast to secular environmental movements.
"Humankind today faces a unique environmental crisis which is substantially the product of unbridled material and technological exploitation," a statement said at the conclusion of the meeting. "While this challenge must obviously be addressed through the necessary technical means, as well as self restraint, humility and discipline, the participants emphasized the essential need for society to recognize the transcendent dimension of Creation that is critical to ensure sustainable development and progress in an ethically responsible manner."
Painting a spiritual shade of green is an example of inter-cultural dialogue at work, and under Benedict XVI, such projects appear to be the future of inter-faith relations.
This week, I was asked to write a piece for The Forward, a national Jewish weekly, explaining Benedict XVI's approach to Catholic-Jewish ties. Here's how I concluded the piece, which I think captures the lasting significance of Benedict's synagogue visit once the dust settles on Pius XII:
"Benedict's approach … boils down to this: 'Let's each of us be ourselves internally, and let's see what we can do together in the outside world.' It might not be everything some Jews (or Catholics, for that matter) would desire, but at this moment in Catholic history, it may well be as good as it gets."
The full article is here: Making Sense of Benedict’s Jewish Policy
* * *
Though this is admittedly an odd way of putting things, one might say that the aim of next October's Synod of Bishops on the Middle East, called by Pope Benedict XVI to address the crisis in the region, is to change the music from The Clash to Fleetwood Mac.
If Christianity in the Middle East came with a pop music soundtrack, in recent decades it would have been dominated by The Clash's famous '80s number, "Should I Stay or Should I Go?" Increasingly, the answer has been "go." In 2007, the World Council of Churches estimated that the Christian population of the Middle East has plummeted from 12 million to 2 million in just the last 10 years. A century ago, Christians constituted twenty percent of the population of the Middle East, while today the most generous estimates put it at five percent, and some say it's lower still, around two percent.
Daniel Pipes, writing in the Middle East Quarterly in winter 2001, predicted that within a relatively brief arc of time, Christians "will effectively disappear from the region as a cultural and political force."
A reminder of how perilous things can be came on Jan. 6, when Islamic fundamentalists opened fire outside a Coptic church in the village of Hagaza in Egypt, killing seven Christians on their way to Christmas services. (Following the Gregorian calendar, Christmas in the East is celebrated on Jan. 6). Bishop Joannes Zakaria, a Coptic Catholic, wrote recently in Oasis, a journal dedicated to Christianity in the Middle East and sponsored by Cardinal Angelo Scola of Venice: "Sadly, our Coptic community is continually struck and wounded ... I must acknowledge that there's a terrorist strategy, in an Islamic matrix, which aims to transform our Christian feasts into days of mourning and sadness."
On Tuesday, the Vatican released the lineamenta, or preparatory document, for the Synod on the Middle East, and the thrust seems to be to change the tune to something like Fleetwood Mac's 1977 classic, "Don't Stop (Thinking about Tomorrow)." The document calls upon Christians to stay put, embracing life as what Benedict XVI has called a "creative minority," passionately engaged in their societies despite their reduced numbers.
"What is God asking of us at this time?" the document asks. "To remain so as to commit ourselves to these events which are under the care of providence and divine grace? Or are we to leave?"
It's clear which reply the document prefers. Whether that will be the real-world answer of Christians in the region, however, is much less certain.
Beyond the root question of Christianity's survival, the lineamenta sketches an ambitious agenda for the synod, which will take place in Rome Oct. 10-24 and which will bring together the leadership of the seven churches of the Middle East: Armenian, Chaldean, Melkite, Syriac, Coptic, Maronite and the Latin Rite. They will be joined by bishops and other participants from around the Catholic world, in what the Vatican hopes will be an impressive show of solidarity for the church in the Holy Land and across the Middle East.
I'll write more about the synod as the date approaches. For now, here's the link to the full text of the lineamenta.
For the record, Archbishop Nikola Eterović, secretary of the Synod of Bishops, said in a Vatican news conference on Tuesday that comments on the lineamenta will be considered not simply from bishops' conferences and other official institutions, but from "individual persons of the entire world." Hence for anyone wanting to put in two cents about the fate of Christianity in the Middle East, now's your chance.
The plan is for all suggestions to reach Rome by Easter, so that Benedict XVI can present the official working document for the synod (the Instrumentum laboris) during his June 4-6 trip to Cyprus.
The actual link for the
The actual link for the lineamenta is http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20091208_lineamenta-mo_en.html
so, which would have been
so, which would have been more effective, and life-saving, and pro-life while surrounded by Mussolini's black shirts, allies of the Nazis, while the German/Polish episcopacy at best sat on its hands:
To go out on the balcony in a vainglorious martyrdom making some ineffectual speechifying as "a final word of comfort, for our brothers and sisters on their way to the ovens of Auschwitz" or to "provide assistance, often in a hidden and discreet way" including through the "the Sisters of Martha in Florence" as well as countless other congregations of religious throughout Europe, who received no Apostolic Visitations and most often no recognition for their courageous, highly effective, undefended and discrete efforts, always at the risk of their own lives.
Anyone else seen Louis Malle's hidden, discreet "Au Revoir Les Enfants" lately?
Or too busy leering at the violence of Inglourious Basterds?
This is quite commendable of
This is quite commendable of you. So far as I know, bishops in the Netherlands spoke out more directly against Nazism, and this only exacerbated persecution in the area. In such trying times, it is best to give individuals the benefit of the doubt, especially we who in our own modern times too often fall short of speaking against the modernday sins of abortion, materialism, hedonism, and relativism.
"So far as I know,....." You,
"So far as I know,....."
You, Sir, don't know "far" enough! I lived through that period, I was there. I knew some of the church leaders who spoke out openly against what the Germans were doing in my country (killing Jews, homosexuals, handicapped, ordinary citizens , such as some of my relatives). I know of priests who went onderground, and did marvelous work on behalf of those who were persecuted; others spoke out openly (like Cardinal De Jong, Fr. Titus Brandsma). I remember that time as very confusing, very dangerous; nobody could be trusted. What was the best thing to do in those circumstances?
So many years later, sitting in an easy chair in a peaceful and relatively safe environment, some proclaim what should have been done. Did Pius XII do the right thing? Did he save more lives than the Dutch church leaders? Did the way the Dutch church leaders handled the situation, cause the death of so many MORE Jews, homosexuals, others? Is there a link here; how do we know this??
Or is it like this: to justify the way Pius XII handled the situation, it is necessary to point to the Dutch church leaders and declare that their OPEN resistance really was a flop? Therefore: Pius had it right......
Is this the thinking?
While the "Polish" episcopate
While the "Polish" episcopate sat on its hands?
Presumably as 30% of the presbyterate in the country was dying in the camps?
This comment is historically illiterate.
Frer Charles de desert wrote
Frer Charles de desert wrote while the German/Polish episcopacy at best sat on its hands:
....
You are aware that
more Polish Catholics than Polish Jewish non combatants were exterminated by the Nazis as untermenschen.
that 20% of Poland's Catholic Clergy was killed by the Nazis
Yes, five of the six bishops whose dioceses were forcibly integrated into the Reich, because they were killed by the Nazis.
Lodz Bishop Tomczak was silent publicly, because he was in the Radogoszcz camp
Bp Sapieha refused to collaborate w/ the Nazis, and worked wtih the exiled POlish government
Cardinal Hlond in January 1940 spoke out on Vatican radio against the treatment of Polish Jews and Catholic clergy, and his speech was part of the Nurenberg indictment. And you are aware that teh Nazis arrested him (he had taken refuge in 1940 in Southern France) in 1944
...
You've made the ignorant charge. You've seen some facts. Back it up or, as a person of integrity, apologize and remove it.
I have seen no mention of St.
I have seen no mention of St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, OCD (Edith Stein) who, with her sister Rosa, was killed at Auschwitz as a Jew. Nor have I seen any reference to her letter to Pius XII, appealing for his assistance to save her people - European Jews. This letter was released from the Secret Archives about the time of her relatively recent canonization. Pius XII, despite her established position in German philosophical, religious and educational circles, did not even respond to her.
To remove I cannot as each
To remove I cannot as each comment here remains an indelible blot upon our souls. Nevertheless, or because of this, I am very grateful for your historical knowledge and insight.
What were you saying about
What were you saying about calumny of the dead?
God bless our glorious Holy
God bless our glorious Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, The Pope of Christian Unity!
Let us all pray that his efforts may bear great fruit in the vinyard of the Lord!
"The Pope of Christian
"The Pope of Christian Unity"
Do you follow Fr. Z Pete?
Fr. z? I had to look that
Fr. z? I had to look that name in Google. I'll have to read more about him...
Actually, I got the title idea form a caption I saw on a large picture of the Holy Father on a different blog a read once in a while. Perhaps this Fr. Z is the original source.
Do you follow Fr.
Do you follow Fr. Z?
...
Sure, doesn't everyone?
Pete the greek & Anonymous
Pete the greek & Anonymous Scrantonian check this out:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/01/ive-always-wanted-to-be-a-landlord/
Also, here is an interesting
Also, here is an interesting article on Pius XII...
... written in an Israeli paper:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1144457.html
Just to be accurate and
Just to be accurate and specific....the article was published in an Israeli newspaper, but the author is from Italy (and maybe Catholic?).
Right, I should said
Right, I should said 'published' in an Israeli newspaper. But that does NOT take away from the truth of the matter it puts forward.
While I often find John
While I often find John Allen's commentary enlightening and read him with pleasure much of the time, I find a major confusion in the first part of this article. John quotes Pope Benedict: "Interreligious dialogue in the strict sense of the term is not possible without putting one's own faith into parentheses, while intercultural dialogue that develops the cultural consequences of the religious option … is both possible and urgent."
John then interprets this to mean: "Put in layman's terms, what Benedict is saying is that trying to find a lowest common denominator of theology upon which Christians and Jews can agree--or, for that matter, Christians and Muslims, Christians and Hindus, etc.--will inevitably result in a loss of identity on both sides." I don't see at all how these two statements equate. The meaning of the Pope's sentence seems much more obviously to be this: the Catholic Church will not put it's own beliefs "in parentheses" when entering into religious discussion. I assume that by "parentheses," the Pope means that there is no opportunity for the Catholic Church to acknowledge in a dialogue that it possesses anything less than the absolute truth.
This is a very different claim that what John Allen suggested--and a much more problematic one. "Dialogue," be it between individuals, cultures, or religions, must allow for the possibility of learning from one another. The Catholic Church has a large portion of its practice and its beliefs that are not part of the infallible deposit of faith--and so indeed may be put "in parentheses" when we enter into religious dialogue. One rather obvious part of our Church's changing practice, for instance, has been the Church's vacillating implementation on how it relates to Judaism.
This has shaped our liturgy (Judaism after Vatican II has been our "older sister in faith," rather than a religion requiring conversion), and it also has changed radically how our Church has read the Scriptures we share with Judaism, even impacting how we have translated the Sacred Texts in accepted Catholic translations. We have become a better Church in our understanding of the Old Testament when we have learned to hear and read it *with* our Jewish brothers and sisters. We would not have learned this if biblical scholars had refused to enter into religious dialogue. Like it or not, the official teaching of the Church on the nature of biblical interpretation has changed in the last one hundred years with our increasing dialogue with Judaism, as is evident in the Pontifical Biblical Commission's "The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible" of 2001, with its approving introduction by then-Cardinal Ratzinger.
I go on at lenghth because, if my interpretation of Pope Benedict's comment above is correct, then his refusal to respond directly to Jewish concerns during his visit is *not* a NEW approach to Jewish-Catholic dialogue. Instead, it is a step backward. When the dialogue is unilaterally cut off (as it was when the Pope did not respond to the concerns raised at the very service where he was a visitor), then we are returning to a model of Church that is turning away from engagement with the world and is instead refusing to see where it can learn and grow from its encounters.
This is especially disconcerting in our dialogue with Judaism. It is no less a Pope that John Paul II who offered the stunning claim that Judaism is a still-validly covenanted people. If the covenant with Israel remains in effect, then the Church must be in dialogue with Judaism in order to understand itself. St. Paul called the Gentile Church a wild olive branch grafted onto the tree that is biblical Israel. That means, like it or not, we are bonded together as one and so much learn and grow together. If this is true, the religious dialogue with Judaism is not an option, but a *requirement* of the Catholic Faith. A "cultural dialogue" with Judaism would then be ignoring one of the greatest challenges still facing the Church: how to make real St. Paul's vision.
A BIG Amen to your comment,
A BIG Amen to your comment, Tom. It's getting increasingly disconcerting to agree with what's meant by "Catholic Identity" in every instance. It's becoming more and more evident that adhering to "Catholic Identity" involves at the very least: cutting off true dialogue or putting up insurmountable barriers to it; continued evangelization which appears to seek numbers, numbers, numbers. Witness the reference to Christian minorities in the Mideast; would John Allen and Rome opt against family/personal survival in order for a number of Christians can still be counted in places where the powers-that-be work toward their elimination by any means possible?
Yes, Mr. Tom W., you have
Yes, Mr. Tom W., you have gotten into an insightful analysis. Thank you.
Rather than think we Catholics are threatened by theological dialogue with other faiths, we should feel that we can become more enlightened. One of the greatest gifts of the Second Vatican Council was to liberate pre-council Catholics from the bigotry, prejudice, and ignorance that we had toward Jews and other non-Catholics. In this liberation, we were given the potential to become more fully “Catholic” and to embrace more truth in history and the modern world. That the church is now looking backwards is a great tragedy.
While there is some merit in
While there is some merit in recalling Pope Benedict's remarks about interreligious vs. intercultural dialogue, it is risky to apply this distinction to Catholic relations with Jews because of the unique "solidarity which binds the Church to the Jewish people 'at the level of their spiritual identity,'" as the pope himself noted last Sunday, citing words of his predecessor. It is therefore mistaken to think that his remarks at the synagogue were devoid of theological significance.
Benedict explained that his “visit forms a part of the journey already begun, to confirm and deepen it.” He went on to express his esteem for “the people of the Covenant” and again made his own John Paul’s words of commitment at the Western Wall to “the people of the Covenant.” He expressed horror over the Nazi “extermination of the people of the Covenant of Moses.”
Why is this choice of words important? Because it makes it crystal clear that Pope Benedict is serious about continuing his predecessor's theological perspective: because God is ever-faithful, the Sinai covenant continues to be the basis of a living and dynamic relationship between God and the Jewish people. Benedict’s words offer a corrective to some Catholic writers who in recent years have reasserted the old language of obsolescence regarding Sinai in a post-New Testament world.
As if to hammer this point home even further, the pope went on to describe Jesus as “reaffirming” (not superseding) a central teaching of Moses and then urged Christians to have “a renewed respect for the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament." Why would Jewish interpretation(s) have any value for Christians if Judaism had no ongoing covenantal relationship with God?
He next did something that perhaps no other pope in history has ever done: he affirmatively quoted a rabbinic text, the Pirkei Avot, as having some inspirational and theological value for both Jews AND Christians.
If a rabbinic teaching is religiously consequential for Christians as well as Jews, and if Christians have a mission with (as distinct from "to") Jews to witness to the Kingdom of God, then clearly Pope Benedict understands the rabbinic Jewish tradition ― past and present ― as genuinely interacting with God and authentically encountering divine holiness. Otherwise, the recurrent phrase "the people of the Covenant" would be rather meaningless.
It seems to me that the point of interreligious dialogue between Catholics and Jews has never been to find "a lowest common denominator of theology," but to compare our traditions' experiences of God, especially in their differences, in order to understand both ourselves and each other and the greatness of God better. Since our traditions are related "at the level of their spiritual identity," what we learn about the other inevitably affects how we understand ourselves as well.
The Church is the new Israel.
The Church is the new Israel. Nobody is saying God just forgot the Jews, but they need Jesus Christ...that is inescapable. Either Jesus Christ is the way or he isn't. We can't be mealy mouthed about Church teaching because we feel guilty about the Holocaust. Again, this is why the SSPX-Rome dialogues are so vital...the claim is Vatican II didn't change Church teaching, but if you read Mortalium Animos and the like you see contradiction.
Hi D.B.-- Actually, this is
Hi D.B.--
Actually, this is one of the vital reasons why the SSPX-Rome dialogues are so important for the SSPX. This has nothing to do with the Holocaust in and of itself, and it certainly is not about "mealy-mouthed" Christian responses to Jews. Instead, it has a world to do with how the Church is related to Israel. It is true that Jews "inescapabl[y]" "need" Jesus as you say, but the answer as to what that inescapable need actually looks like is NOT at all clear in terms of Scripture or Church teaching (modern or ancient).
I would encourage you to look very carefully through your Bible to see if you can find any Scriptural evidence that the Church is the "new Israel." Except for one vague reference in Galatians 5:16 to the "Israel of God" (which does not itself clearly refer to the Church even there), there is NO biblical evidence that Jesus, the apostles, St. Paul, or anyone in the early Church envisioned the Church as the "new Israel." Vatican II was a change, yes, in that it *RECOVERED* the Church's authentic teaching on God's eternal, unbreakable covenant with biblical Israel. The Church is NOT biblical Israel; it has been grafted onto biblical Israel.
The Old Testament is quite clear that not everyone who is a child of Abraham is now a part of Israel, true. But the New Testament also makes clear that the mission of covenanted Israel is not done, and the Church's work is tied to that work.
St. Paul did not claim that Jews should stop practicing Judaism; he simply asserted that Gentiles did not first need to convert to Judaism before they could become Christians. He himself however observed Jewish dietary laws, practiced the Nazirite vows, worshiped in the synagogues of his time, and so on. True, St. Paul and Jesus criticize the "Law," but as a careful reading of the Old Testament shows, the "Law" is criticized by Jews if it is not internalized and faith-filled. Jesus and Paul only repeat what Isaiah, Jeremiah, and even Moses himself were saying about authentic practice of the faith of Israel. The greatest commandment that Jesus offers is itself a word-for-word repetition of a verse from the book of Deuteronomy, which is the culminating text of the "Law" (better thought of as the Torah, by the way, which will help Catholics better understand that perhaps Paul and Jesus are criticizing a legalistic reading of the Torah, rather than the Torah itself).
Yes, Jesus Christ is the way; no one is debating that here. How and what that means may be simple to an evangelical Protestant, but Catholic thought throughout its history has understood that conversion is neither simple nor simplistic. It also has been clear that "one size does not fit all," as the variety of conversions attested in the New Testament and in the early Church amply demonstrate.
I neglected to note in my
I neglected to note in my previous comments that I frankly cannot see the significance of "Mortalium Animos" to the current discussion. This 1928 document does not in any way discuss the role of the Jewish covenant with God or even inter-religious dialogue. Rather, it only discusses how the Catholic Church understands ecumenical relations among various Christian denominations. Having reread it, I actually am reminded of how *harmonious* it is with the teachings of Vatican II.
CAFETERIA
CAFETERIA THEOLOGIAN:
..."Benedict's doctrinal remarks were largely a patchwork of quotations from John Paul II (and Vatican II)...
when it suits his POLITICAL agenda!
If Allen's interpretation of
If Allen's interpretation of Benedict's thoughts are correct, then our pontiff is not - dare I say it - an "authentic" theologian. To say that trying to find a theology in common with other religions "will inevitably result in a loss of identity on both sides" is like saying anthropologists suffer a loss of their own identity by studying other cultures, or in trying to find the common threads among different peoples we suffer a loss of our own humanity.
Also a note to Frere Charles - was there any reason why Pius XII could not have provided assistance to Jews AND spoken out against the Nazis?
He DID speak out against the
He DID speak out against the Nazis. He just didn't do it in the suicidal, futile and self aggrandizing method that his critics demand of him.
I invite you to read MIT BRENNENDER SORGE for starters.
BTW, in 1937 when Pius XII wrote this, many in Europe were still trying to placate Hitler and capitulating to his demands. Only a year later would come the famous 'Peace in our time' statement of rubbish.
That would not have been the
That would not have been the highly effective Hidden and discrete way, and would have gotten a whole lot more innocent people killed in the process, tipping the hand and saying, "Go search our convents and monasteries, our schools and institutions because we are resisting you!" It would have stopped immediately the saving of any further lives, and the wholesale rounding up of thousands more people.
I guess only by living secret resistance under a situation of immediate lethal danger can make this make sense to you. The only effective thing that could be done was to keep quiet, with a very tight smile, and to keep sneaking as many people away to safety as possible.
That is what was done, at great risk to countless saints who will never be fully known, because it was by necessity secret, hidden and discrete.
It's a nonviolent resistance thang; you might not understand. Those who were there do; those who have spoken to the courageous sisters and brothers involved received some sense of it.
Perhaps the closest we came in our own national history was the Underground Railroad, although the Sanctuary Movement (see Gary MacEoin) may hold some slight parallel even now.
"That would not have been the
"That would not have been the highly effective Hidden and discrete way, and would have gotten a whole lot more innocent people killed in the process, tipping the hand and saying, "Go search our convents and monasteries, our schools and institutions because we are resisting you!" It would have stopped immediately the saving of any further lives, and the wholesale rounding up of thousands more people."
- You make a very good point, Charles. One more thing: If Pius had done what his critics demand now, make a lot of very public attacks, and gotten killed probably (there was already several Nazi plots to snatch and kill the pope), what would his critics be saying today? I'll tell you what they would say:
"Pius was such a wannabe martyr! He should have kept his self aggrandizing mouth shut and tried to save as many Jews as he could. It's PEOPLE that count, afterall, not spouting platitudes in the face of a dictator. I can't believe they want to make this guy a saint! He failed to do the most good when he had the chance! What good did making a puplic show against the Nazis do? Everyone already knew they were murderous aggressors. He was puffed up on himself, I'd say."
That's what they would say.
You see, his critics aren't really objective about much of anything. There is nothing he could have done that would make them happy.
Charles No apologies for
Charles
No apologies for saying the Polish Bishops 'sat on their hands' during the Holocaust?
John: The Eastern Christians
John:
The Eastern Christians follow the Julian calendar. We, in the West, follow the Georgian calendar.
A fan of yours from ParishWorld.net
Another small point.
Another small point. Christmas according to the Julian calendar is celebrated on January 7th. Christmas EVE is celebrated on January 6th.
To both Tom and Phillip:
To both Tom and Phillip: thank you for such wonderful, thoughtful and grounded commentaries. I have some other views on a few item you each mention in your postings, but I will refrain from writing them as I think - if possible - keeping the focus here on what you each have written will serve us all best. It is postings like yours that make reading these sometimes unbeliveably long and intricate blogs so worthwhile. Thanks again to both of you.
Thank you, Philip Cunningham!
Thank you, Philip Cunningham!
Pope B16 reminds me of the
Pope B16 reminds me of the brilliant person who in any field of endeavor, understands the theory and concepts...but lacks the ability, the 'touch', the common sense to implement it. Thus his 'pastoral' efforts make things worse instead of better.
And this is simply a guess: since he has abundant knowledge, he may dismiss the advice he receives from those less learned but more practical and, possibly, experienced with implementation.
I'm here to offer a slightly
I'm here to offer a slightly different perspective with regard to Jewish-Catholic relations and how other religions should be viewed in a Catholic context. Please keep in mind that these are my opinions only, and if they unknowingly contradict Church dogma and/or authority, I recant them immediately.
My opinion on Jewish/Catholic relations is simple, even simplistic to some: Catholics do not need a dialogue with Jews, while the Jews certainly need one with Catholics. It was not Christians who converted to Judaism, but Jews to Christianity; therefore, there is no real necessity to make ourselves pleasing to Judaism to the point of altering the continuity of our teachings and traditions (both Apostolic and Ecclesiastical). I hold to the view that has been espoused for centuries: the Mosaic covenant was a precursor and shadow for the new and everlasting covenant; the former was imperfect, allegorical, and temporary, while the new is perfect, the fullness of the means of salvation, and eternal. As such, the old was discontinued for the sake of the new, because when the promise of redemption has come, there is no longer any need for its shadow or precursor. This does not say that Jews on an individual level are condemned, or any such nonsense. Those who maintain an invincible ignorance due to their powerful connections to their ancestral religion will be judged on their own moral conduct. However, those who explicitly and consciously reject Christ and the Catholic Church have predisposed themselves to perdition (Extra Ecclesiam, Nulla Salus). God is the final judge in such matters, and I'll leave judging souls to him.
On the topic of learning from the Jews with regard to textual interpretation, that is a very dangerous situation. Modern Judaism is a continuation of the Pharisee sect, who are notorious for their sophistry and missing the true meaning of the text. Christ warns his disciples to beware the leaven of the Pharisees, meaning their teachings. Why should we do the opposite today, especially in light of the fact that, all things being equal, they interpret and twist the text in such a way as to deny Christ? It is far better to rely on the Holy Spirit, and allow the Magisterium to continue to interpret the text according to its essential linguistic meaning, in light of Sacred Tradition.
Thomas
Hi Thomas P.-- I know I run
Hi Thomas P.--
I know I run the risk of overwhelming this discussion, but I do feel the need to clarify where I am able, due to my own training in biblical studies. In your comments above, you say that "[m]odern Judaism is a continuation of the Pharisee sect, who are notorious for their sophistry and missing the true meaning of the text." I think it is quite safe to say that this is a wildly inaccurate misunderstanding of modern Judaism. First off, one would need to clarify which part of "Pharisee" thought you are discussing. Keep in mind that Jesus sides with the Pharisees against the Sadducees and the Herodians; likewise, Jesus calls his disciples to honor and respect the Pharisees precisely because they are seated in the place of Moses. St. Paul later will side with the Pharisees in a debate over the teaching on the resurrection of the body, and he proudly proclaims his own training as a Pharisee.
Jesus and St. Paul do not condemn much of the teaching of the Pharisees. Indeed, to the best of my reading, they do not condemn the teaching of the Pharisees at all when we are discussing the Torah and/or the eternal covenant with Israel: rather, they condemn the hypocrisy of Pharisees who do not practice what they preach, and they likewise condemn the misapplication of the Torah in some Pharisees' thinking. This distinction is very important: the leaven of the Pharisees is not at all identified as their teaching of the Torah or of the eternality of the covenant with Israel.
Instead, the teaching condemned is their own emphasis on a man-made tradition over the sacred text and traditions--a lesson that the Catholic Church itself has often needed to hear. Notice that Jesus repeatedly says that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. This does not mean that the Law or Torah is invalidated by Jesus. Fulfillment does not indicate supercession. It can instead mean fulness of expression, culmination, extension, etc.
In terms of interpreting Scripture, I would encourage you to reconsider your understanding of both Jewish biblical scholarship and Catholic magisterial teaching. Pope Pius XII, in "Divino Afflante Spiritu" (1943), *encourages* the use of close reading of Scripture that draws specifically on the ancient modes of thinking that predate the Church: "The interpreter [of Scripture] must go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing the authors of that period would be likely to use, and in fact did use" (para. 35-36). In other words, the Catholic biblical scholar must understand what ancient Judaism meant by a text before it can understand what it means to the Church. Sadly, due to the Church's ignorance of this view for the better part of two millenia, the ancient ways of reading the Old Testament were preserved *only* by modern Judaism.
Likewise, the Pontifical Biblical Commission notes in "The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible" (2001) that ancient rabbinic methods of biblical exegesis and discussion are frequently used by many of the New Testament writers (para. 12-14), a discussion that clearly challenges your view of how the Pharisees and rabbinic Judaism "miss the true meaning of the text." For the ancient Church, it was this very same Pharisaic and rabbinic thinking that helped the Church to see who Jesus truly was. The same 2001 document then offers this powerful comment near its end: "In the past, the break between the Jewish people and the Church of Christ Jesus could sometimes, in certain times and places, give the impression of being complete. In the light of the Scriptures, this should never have occurred. For a complete break between Church and Synagogue contradicts Sacred Scripture" (para. 85). In para. 86, the same document cites John Paul II when he notes that the Jewish covenant with God "has never been abrogated" and that the Jews' "gifts and calling from God" in covenant "are irrevocable."
All of this strongly says to me that in the last one hundred years, the Church has been hearing that it not only can, but MUST, learn from and with the Jews, its "elder brothers" in faith, according to John Paul II. And to return to this topic's starting point, such a vantage point only emerged when the Church was willing to enter into theological dialogue with Judaism.
Hi Tom, I certainly respect
Hi Tom,
I certainly respect your position, as it is obvious you've done quite a bit of research on the topic. However, I disagree in a couple of points.
The first point is on the topic of modern Judaism not being a descendant of Pharisaic Judaism. It is commonly known and admitted by the modern Jews that they are descendants of the Pharisees, their "Tradition of the Elders" to which Jesus alluded being codified in the Mishnah of the first century, which is today a core component of the Talmud. The Pharisees were known for their particular brand of exegesis in using the "Tradition of the Elders" to determine the meaning of the written text, as it is today with the Talmud. Jesus on many occasions brought to their attention that they nullified the commandments of God to satisfy their commandments of men. Modern Judaism has maintained that same tendency. Like their Pharisee ancestors of old, modern Judaism has a penchant for "straining at a gnat." For instance, modern Jews consider it a violation of the Sabbath to carry a tissue in one's pocket outside, while allowing for moving furniture from one level of their house to another. They allow for the carrying of objects outside if a line is ran, connecting two buildings together, because they consider this line of string to be an enclosure, creating a single dwelling instead of two separate dwellings. There are many other such examples that clearly show that not only has these superficialities been carried over from the Pharisees, they have actually gotten much more exaggerated over the centuries.
The second point is the question of the Torah. Jesus did indeed say that he came to fulfill the Law, not to abolish it. However, he is not addressing the ceremonial or precursory elements of the Law, but its eternal meaning transformed into the fullness we see in the New Covenant. Jesus vividly explained to his disciples and the population at large concerning the end of the old covenant, and the rise of the New. We see this in his parable of the vineyard, a parable foretelling the replacement of the old covenant people with that of the New. We also see it in his parable concerning the wedding feast, whose invited guests had forsaken their invitation and were thus destroyed, while others were invited in their place. And, of course, we know Jesus' teachings on the Temple: he considered the old Temple built by human hands destined for destruction, while his Glorified Body would serve as the New Temple. He was correct: at the moment of his Death, the curtain of the Holy of Holies was rent asunder, the Presence of God departing from it and rendering it obsolete.
It is true that the New Covenant must be understood in the light of the Old; but it is also true that the Old has been transformed into the New, and has been fulfilled by Christ, inaugurating the new age and ending the old. If we may have salvation in observing the Law of Moses, then of what use is Christ, His Church, and his Sacraments? And if the fullness of salvation is to be found only in the Church, which it most assuredly is, then of what use is the Law of Moses by itself? It is merely a preshadowing of the Promise, and that Promise has already come to pass, making the need for its shadow obsolete.
Yes, John, you are right.
Yes, John, you are right. B16 is primarily interested in politics, not spirituality. That is the long Roman tradition. He refuses dialogue on the ultimate questions, the stuff of theology, lest the supposed "specialness" of Catholicism be challenged in a globalized world. But he is more than willing to work with Jews, Muslims, Hindus or anyone else to defeat "secularism," free choice re abortion, and opposition to gay rights, or to promote environmentalism, universal health care, labor unions and all the various and sundry POLITICAL agendas of the Vatican. A religion which abandons concerns with the ultimate human questions and whose primary focus is on a political agenda, worthy or unworthy, is a religion with a death wish.
Peter the greek.....I thought
Peter the greek.....I thought you were talking about God the Father (our glorious Holy Father).. until I read that you were talking about Benedict XVI. Perhaps we need to be more restrained in our use of titles when applied to mere mortals.
I must confess to having some deep concern about Benedict's ability, particularly whether he has the sensitivity and empathy required or whether it's "we're right and all others are wrong....so they'd better learn from us". I fear being "entombed" in the Vatican for all these decades would impede one's ability to connect with the real world.
"Holy Father" and "Your
"Holy Father" and "Your Holiness" is a standard way of addressing the Pope, just like "Your Eminence" es a way of addressing a bishop.
" fear being "entombed" in the Vatican for all these decades would impede one's ability to connect with the real world."
- Actually, i would feel safe in saying that the Holy Father is more widely traveled and knowledgeable in these matters than pretty much anyone who writes for this site.
"sensitivity and empathy required or whether it's "we're right and all others are wrong....so they'd better learn from us"
- I think your concern is unfounded. True dialog and ecuminism doesn't mean we have to take a sword, cut the truth in half and throw that part away. Let us give them time. There has been a lot of anger and blood spilt (by Christian hands, for shame) and it will take time to mend.
Pray for unity. This is for the long haul! :-)
I'm confused. What does all
I'm confused. What does all this mean? To achieve unity we must "soften" our theology? The core difference between Judaism and Catholicism is whether or not Jesus was the Messiah. Catholics say He is the Messiah; Jews say He isn't. To achieve unity shall we say "Who knows?"
Is having "unity" really worth giving up what we believe in?
I think that John Allen is
I think that John Allen is describing here a shift in policy at the level of the Vatican that has few implications for Catholics in the U.S. He knows far better than I that the papacy is not the only Catholic office taking initiatives with other Christians, Jews, Muslims and non-Catholics in general. There are countless local initiatives, which can be more effective when they get beyond these media events to become focused on specific needs. It mattered greatly that a pope visits a synagogue and exchanges greetings of peace with its members, of course. But it rings shallow if the rest of us do not follow his example.
For all the good will on every side, it would be extremely difficult to achieve common ground on doctrinal or moral matters among Catholics and Jews. To begin with, there is no monolithic Judaic institution similar to ours. Next, quite a few Jewish organizations have fought tooth and nail for marriage and family measures diametrically opposite those espoused by the Catholic hierarchy. Finally, what kind of hearing would a joint Catholic-Jewish moral effort receive “among the nations”, especially among the majority Islamic nations?
The pope is empowered to commit the resources of his prefects and assistants to this or that policy at the central level. But we expect from him the positive words of encouragement that he claims he wants to give us. All of us need to get to know our neighbor better, discarding our stereotypes of doctrinal and moral practices. Let me mention one area in which we have received ambiguous guidance from the Benedictine pontificate and from our own hierarchy.
I have read passages from the Tanach frequently over many years at mass, and like every other lector am caught between the original purpose of these scriptures – to direct the people Israel in the ways of their God – and their application by Christians to the saving acts of Jesus. We read these passages at mass for only one reason: because they have a greater or lesser linkage to the Gospel passages of the day. Does this amount to an acceptance of supersessionism? And if so, aren’t all lectors accomplices in denying the ongoing validity of God’s covenant with Abraham? I resolve the dilemma personally by respecting as I read the faith in the one God, who is revealed to Israel and revealed in the true son of Israel, Jesus. As our brother in Rome has said, our faith is a “both-and” proposition. I don’t believe that we can understand the revelation in Jesus unless we appreciate to the full the ongoing revelation to Israel. This is the kind of straight talk we expect from our bishops, instead of the sectarian clarifications they now draw up.
Could someone explain to me
Could someone explain to me why the opinion of the jewish rabbis is relavent to the Roman Catholic church's process of cannonizing one of the faithful? Further, how are we to have dialog when one side is rejecting completely the reality of Jesus Christ? St. Augustine, in the City of God (no, I can not sight where) talks about why the jewish covenent is no longer valid. Did I miss the memo? Is that not a valid interpretation anymore? Are the various popes and staints that expounded on this dogma now going to be declaired heretical?
Just asking.
"Could someone explain to me
"Could someone explain to me why the opinion of the jewish rabbis is relavent to the Roman Catholic church's process of cannonizing one of the faithful?" Cold Standing asks. My response may not satisfy or be definitive but it is honest - If any person(s) have credentials in challenging Pius Xii's canonization it is a "Jew". Canonization is a message more than a statement and this "statement" is wrong. The Jewish Rabbis are right.
Benedict is a theologian who
Benedict is a theologian who doesn't theologize because he has a closed mind. He doesn't tolerate free, honest theological debate within the Roman church, so why should he engage in honest intellectual exchanges with the Jewish rabbinate. After all, in his eyes, they're only Jews. The Catholic church will have to stand in judgment before Jesus, the Jew from Nazareth, some day for the 2,000 years of evil it has perpretated on the people of the Covenant. Nowhere does our Catholic scripture say that God repealed his covenant with Abraham when he made a new covenant with the Christian faithful in Jesus. Jesus was a Jew, as were his mother and the apostles. Nowhere does the Christian Bible speak of any of these people being baptized.
From this Bill flows several
From this Bill flows several provocative statements without source or reference, but the finale of these fireworks is most startling, and I search for its source.
Certainly in my Bible we find the touching and essential tale of the Baptism of Jesus at the hand of Saint John the Baptist, who protects ever our desert hermitage here. In fact that event is a major Feast of the Roman Catholic Church, no?
Did not Jesus also often speak of Baptism with the Apostles?
For the rest let us consider Saint Paul's Letters and other epistles, but I am now far too tired and far too old, and far too much a failure in practicing the primary commandments of Love to take the time away from that primordial struggle, to love, in order to engage in such purposeless and esoteric conflict.
Simply love with all one is and hope for the best, trusting in the charity of our merciful and loving God, the God of all creation.
More PR Spin.
More PR Spin.
"Benedict is a theologian who
"Benedict is a theologian who doesn't theologize because he has a closed mind." Bill Wilson is on the mark. The essential qualification for a real theologian is a mind that is open to the "godliness", regardless of his or her initial position. Benedict, respectful of his background is an "apologist", not a theologian. He is akin to a scientist who has been bought by the pharmacuticals.
Hebrews 8:1-13 (New
Hebrews 8:1-13 (New International Version)
Hebrews 8
The High Priest of a New Covenant
1The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.
3Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."[a] 6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.
7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said[b]:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."[c]
13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
Love is the law. Simply put,
Love is the law. Simply put, THAT is the New Covenant, the new Torah that replaced (or actually clarified) the first. (Love thy neighbor as thyself...Love is patient, love is kind.) In accordance, shouldn't we make every ecumenical effort at finding common ground with the "People of the Original Covenant?" Any effort, including Pope Benedict's, at making our common belief in God more "catholic" should be aplauded, not criticized.
Post new comment