The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
New rows deepen old ruts in Catholic-Jewish relations
Jews sometimes caught in the crossfire of intramural Catholic tensions
Jun. 23, 2009
Pope Benedict XVI prays at the tomb of Pope Pius XII in the grotto of St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican Oct. 9, the 50th anniversary of Pope Pius' death. (CNS photo)
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionRip Van Winkle famously went to sleep for twenty years and missed the American Revolution. Had he been a modern expert in Catholic-Jewish relations, however, Van Winkle could have awoken from two decades of slumber this week and felt right at home, as long-standing tensions over both Pope Pius XII and the conversion of Jews once again roiled the inter-faith waters.
Taken together, these episodes suggest that for all the progress in Catholic-Jewish ties over the last half-century, the relationship is nonetheless stuck in a couple of ruts that just seem to get deeper over time.
Current events also illustrate another point: Sometimes matters that look like divisions between Jews and Catholics are fueled at least as much by intramural Catholic tensions, with Jews sometimes caught in the crossfire.
Pius XII
The contretemps over Pius XII, the wartime pope whose alleged "silence" on the Holocaust has long been a source of controversy, began with a mid-June conference in Rome sponsored by the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples (better known by its old Latin name, "Propaganda Fidei"). During that event, Fr. Peter Gumpel, a German Jesuit and longtime postulator for the sainthood cause of Pius XII, asserted that Pope Benedict XVI has gone slow in declaring Pius a saint because "representatives of Jewish organizations" have warned him that "relations between the Catholic church and the Jewish would be definitively and permanently compromised."
Though Gumpel did not elaborate, he may have had in mind a meeting last October between Benedict XVI and the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations, as well as an audience the pope held with the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in February. In both cases, Jewish leaders told reporters they had pressed the pope to open up the Vatican archives from the era of Pius XII in order to resolve unanswered historical questions.
Gumpel's suggestion that Jewish concern is to blame brought a swift rebuke from the Vatican. Italian Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, the papal spokesperson, said Benedict should be left "completely free" to make his own decision, without "unjustified and inopportune" commentary.
"If the pope thinks that the study and the reflection on the cause of Pius XII should be prolonged further, his position should be respected without interference," Lombardi said.
Several Jewish leaders rejected the implication that the hold-up is their fault, saying it's not just Jews who have raised doubts. Rome's chief rabbi, Riccardo De Segni, said that debate over Pius XII "is first of all an internal problem of the church. It is clearly a complex matter that divides the church itself."
The Congregation for the Causes of Saints, the Vatican body charged with overseeing the sainthood process, voted in favor of a "decree of heroic virtue" for Pius XII on May 8, 2007. That decree would mark the first formal step toward sainthood, permitting the late pontiff to be referred to as "Venerable Pius XII." The decree, however, is not official until signed by the pope, which Benedict XVI has not yet done.
To some extent, observers say, Benedict XVI may be caught between a rock and a hard place on Pius XII.
He's publicly come to the defense of his predecessor, arguing last September that the wartime pontiff had "spared no effort" to save Jewish lives. Yet Benedict XVI has also expressed a desire for improved Catholic-Jewish ties, most recently during his mid-May trip to Israel, and is particularly aware of Jewish sensitivities in the wake of the controversy surrounding his rehabilitation of a Holocaust-denying traditionalist bishop. As a result, most observers say it's hard to say when, or if, Benedict might decide the time is ripe to restart the process.
Conversion and covenants
While the Pius XII controversy was simmering in Rome, the conversion issue surfaced on the other side of the Atlantic, in the form of a new statement from the U.S. bishops asserting that the Jewish covenant is fulfilled in Christ, and that no one, Jews included, is exempt from the invitation to conversion, baptism, and membership in the church.
The bishops made those statements in a joint June 18 note from the Committee on Doctrine and the Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, styled as a clarification of a 2002 text called "Covenant and Mission."
While no one believes the June 18 note signals a coordinated campaign to convert Jews on the part of the U.S. bishops, some critics say that it could green-light informal and ad hoc missionary efforts. Critics also say that the note's language about the Jewish covenant could stoke the idea that Christianity has "superseded" Judaism, which many blame for playing a role in the history of anti-Semitism in Europe that paved the way for the Holocaust.
When it was put together in 2002, "Covenant and Mission" collected the thinking of some leading American experts in Christian-Jewish dialogue, and thus had no authoritative standing for either faith. Yet after it was inadvertently published on the U.S. bishops' web site as an official conference text, it sparked wide Catholic debate, particularly among those who felt it betrayed traditional doctrine on Christ and salvation. (For example, Fr. John Echert, a commentator on the EWTN web site, wrote that if the document were to gain official approval, he would consider it "one of the signs of the end times, namely, apostasy.")
More influentially, the late Cardinal Avery Dulles penned a widely read critique faulting "Covenant and Mission" for appearing to suggest that there are "two independent covenants," one for Jews and the other for Christians, "running on parallel tracks to the end of history." Until his death in 2008, Dulles continued to press for an official reply to "Covenant and Mission."
Sources told NCR that the Vatican also quietly signaled to the U.S. bishops that they ought to say something publicly about "Covenant and Mission."
The June 18 note states that "Covenant and Mission" was "insufficiently precise and potentially misleading" on several important points. The note states:
- While the Jewish covenant with God is "enduring," that covenant is nonetheless fulfilled in Jesus Christ, "both in history and at the end of time";
- Inter-religious dialogue is not an alternative to the proclamation of Jesus, because even in such dialogue a Christian gives "witness to the following of Christ";
- It's a mistake to believe that Jews are somehow duty-bound not to become Christian, or that the church has an obligation not to baptize Jews.
Fr. James Massa, the top staffer for the U.S. bishops on inter-religious affairs, told NCR that the June 18 note is not intended to shut down "a very fluid area of theological investigation," and that it "absolutely" does not mean the Catholic church intends to target Jews for new missionary efforts. Instead, he said, the note is largely directed at "Catholic educators, scholars, and theologians," and is intended to defend core articles of the faith about Christ and salvation.
Some Catholic experts, however, charged that the June 18 note appears to contradict earlier church statements on the Jewish covenant and missionary efforts.
Fr. John Pawlikowski of the Catholic Theological Union, a veteran leader in Catholic-Jewish relations, said he believes the note is inconsistent with statements from Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican's top official for relations with Jews, that hopes for the Jews to one day accept Christ represent a "a strictly eschatological prayer, with no concrete implications for efforts at Jewish conversion" in the here and now – a position, Pawlikowski argued, that Pope Benedict XVI has also seemed to accept.
Pawlikowski said that the bishops' note effectively ratifies the more conservative views of Dulles and Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna, Austria, who has argued that the offer of faith in Christ should be made to Jews, albeit in a "unique" and "most sensitive" way. He predicted that the note will cause "confusion" among Jews about what exactly the Catholic church is trying to say.
From the Jewish side, the Anti-Defamation League issued a June 22 statement objecting to the bishops' note, saying it could be read to imply that inter-faith dialogue is an occasion for inviting Jews to conversion. The ADL charged that such a stance "would foster mistrust between Jews and Catholics and undermine years of work building a positive relationship based on mutual trust and respect of our differences in faith."
Other Jewish leaders, however, suggested that the real tension may not be so much between Jews and Catholics, but among Catholics themselves.
Rabbi Yehiel E. Poupko, Judaic Scholar at the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago, told NCR that in his view, the June 18 note is part of "a great debate within the church itself" – a debate that doesn't directly concern Jews because, Poupko said, "No faith community should turn to another and tell them what to believe."
Poupko said Jews are often less concerned with how Catholics articulate their theology than with what they do, and he sees no evidence of new missionary efforts from the church directed at Jews.
At the same time, Poupko said, "given the history of the church's treatment of the Jews over two millennia," he would ask all parties to this intra-Catholic argument to make it clear that no matter who prevails, "it will cause no harm to the Jewish people, to Judaism, or to the State of Israel."
The key, Poupko said, is for all sides to exercise "humility and caution."
[John Allen is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.]
Thanks for the insightful
Thanks for the insightful article.
Based upon your earlier reporting of PR lapses at the Vatican, I am surprised that the Vatican felt it needed to respond with a "swift rebuke". A reply that said something along the lines of"...that's his opinion"(Fr. Gumpel's), if any response at all, seems more appropriate, as it seems that is all it was.
Also per your earlier assessments of the Pope's priority - to re-establish the role of any/all believers in a secular world- it seems a "go slow" strategy determining something as "eschatological" as sainthood seems prudent; what's the hurry? The 800 lb guerilla in the room is Isamic radicalism. Is this the time to split unresolvable hairs? Recent Iranian events seem to point out more pressing inter-faith issues.
Again, thanks for the reporting.
I agree on the "thanks" for
I agree on the "thanks" for the reporting. John Allen identifies important issues and articulates the various sides clearly and impartially. I have a greater appreciation for what the Pope has to deal with. Whew!
Thanks again.
Why do we see in the recent
Why do we see in the recent history of the Church - the great movement to canonize popes? Is every pope a saint? What defines a saint? With their penchant for power and control and fear of allowing other voices to be heard as well as any inkling that we may actually change something - what is it that demands that every pope all of a sudden is on the fast track to sainthood? Pope John Paul II canonized so many people, it seemed to diminish the very idea. The other problem is that of canonizing obscure individuals who lived hundreds of years ago, but who started Religious Communities - and if you have enough money you can move through the process. The founder of Opus Dei is on the same level as John XXIII???? Finally, to be a saint, you have to be a celibate and/or a cleric or so it seems - it sure seems to help in the process. It seems that it might be a good idea to stop the process for a couple of years and think carefully about what we do. The final issue is that only Catholics can be officially canonized???? This is a action that has no scriptural basis nor any other rationale except to have a pantheon of heros or demi-gods.
In light of the current
In light of the current Jewish/Catholic tensions over the holocaust and Jewish conversion, I would like to suggest that every Catholic bishop take the time to read James Carroll's magnificent history of Jewish/Christian
relations over the past 2,000 years.`It is an objective theolgical treatise
which explores this history in great detail.
CONSTANTINE'S SWORD. The Church and the Jews received The New York Times Best Seller list.
James Lovejoy
If, indeed, "HaShem Is
If, indeed, "HaShem Is Salvation," as the very Name of Jesus boldly proclaims, how can there be any question of salvation for the Jews? If, indeed, our faith in the Trinity is true, isn't faith in HaShem also faith in Jesus? I am astounded by Christian arrogance and astonished by our lack of understanding of our own theology.
Regarding Pius XII: Which would be greater, the good caused by his canonization or the harm caused by his canonization? Is Pius in need of canonization? (Under the circumstances, would he want to be canonized? If he would, isn't that proof that he shouldn't be?) Is the Church in such great need of his canonization that it risks insulting, betraying, and jeopardizing our relationship with our elders in faith? . . . that it risks new hatred and violence against the very People of Jesus? "In all things charity."
Dear Archibald, Catholics
Dear Archibald,
Catholics must be faithful to God's Revelation as received by Christians from the Old Testament, and in the New Testament. St. Paul makes it very clear that; Christians are to try to dimplomatically evangelize all men - including Jews into faith in Jesus Christ as the foretold Messiah.
If anyone has a problem with that, they must take it up with St. Paul and God who revealed this teaching to Paul.
In the meantime, the Church must be faithful to the Gospel and Letters contained in God's Revelation. The Christian Revelation includes, 'Jesus...There is no other name under heaven by which man can be saved.' And that includes the belief that Jesus is Divine, Jesus is God as His Father is God.
I don't know if you are Christian. But that is the Revelation of Jesus Christ and His Holy Spirit to His Church. And the Church is not going to change that Revelation - or spin it - because it upsets someone. The Church can no more do that than the Jewish Faith of the Synagogue can change its denial that Jesus is the awaited Messiah.
And none of this will ultimately be completely sorted out till - as the Catechism of the Catholic Church expresses the teaching of Paul:
674 The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history UNTIL HIS RECOGNITION BY "ALL ISREAL", for "a hardening has come upon part of Israel" in their "unbelief" toward Jesus. St. Peter says to the Jews of Jerusalem after Pentecost: "Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old." St. Paul echoes him: "For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?" The "full inclusion" of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of "the full number of the Gentiles", will enable the People of God to achieve "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ", in which "God may be all in all".
Note to Fr. Pawlikowski
Note to Fr. Pawlikowski regarding confusion (his not the Jew's): there is ONE Lord (Jesus Christ) and ONE Faith (Catholic) and ALL (including other Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc) are called to believe in Him and join Her. Please READ Vatican II, Redemptoris Missio and Ut Unum Sint. Or just wait for the clarification as to the proper interpretation of ecumenism and interreligious dialogue that is sure to follow the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's discussions with the SSPX.
Pax et Bonum
Related to your article of
Related to your article of Pius XII and the Jews, have you seen the following:
http://www.zenit.org/article-26249?l=english
Your article series has been very informative.
That Jesus was the Jewish
That Jesus was the Jewish Messiah and the eschatological culmination of the Law and the Prophets is certainly the earliest and the most fundamental teaching of the Christian community. To backtrack on that would be basically to repudiate the whole enterprise of Christianity. Of course, adherents to the Jewish faith strongly disagree, just as adherents to the Christian faith strongly disagree with the Jewish contention that worshipping Jesus is, in fact, idolatry because, in the view of the Jewish religion, Jesus was a mere man, a creation of God. That is why Judaism and Christianity are two different religions. We can disagree with one another a still be civil about it, but disagree we must lest we jettison the foundations of our respective faiths.
The Holy Father himself
The Holy Father himself apparently believes the Old Covenant was superseded by the New: "To imitate [Christ], to follow him in discipleship, is therefore to keep Torah, which has been fulfilled in him once and for all. Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded." Many Religions – One Covenant, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999), pp. 70-71. This is not the crude, extreme supersessionism of those who see the Jewish people as effectively irrelevant now to God and the world. It is a simple recognition of the fact that the New Covenant is the definitive and universal covenant. It is the covenant with Israel extended to all of humanity in and through Jesus Christ.
There seems to be no justification (in the article or anywhere else) for the assertion that the Holy Father is disinterested in bringing the Gospel of the Jesus Christ and His Church to anyone at any time – whether Jew or Gentile. And authoritative Church teaching on this issue seems very clear.
It seems to me that the occasional confusion and consternation we see among our Jewish brethren emanates largely from the fact that some within the Church have publicly propagated their private opinions in an imprudent manner – creating an unwarranted expectation of change. When the Church simply reaffirms what she has always taught, they are confused and frustrated. One hopes this document from the USCCB will help to restrain unwarranted public speculation on this important and sensitive matter.
It is heartening to read that
It is heartening to read that the American bishops,(at the urging of the Vatican), are clarifying and teaching the doctrines of the faith, especially in the contect to clarify the pioneering and uncompleted work of these American groups. We as Catholics must emphisize the doctrines of our faith while trying to find common ground with those who believe diffrently than us. This is called evangelization. We spread and support the doctrines of our faith wheather or not we are able to gain converts. Actual coversion is God's doing. As Catholics, this is what we are called to do.
We do not know the whole story of Pope Pius XII. That story is locked in the documents the Vatican holds. I believe that there is a good unknown reason that the Vatican will not release the documents for public viewing. It is not our place to demand the release of the documents. Without knowing the content of the documents, under what context can the public can demand the release of the documents? I will leave that demand to those Vatican conspiricy theorists who seem to haunt this site and other leftist Catholic blogs. This epic may be sequel number 10 to the "Da Vinci Code".
I think Michael F. hits the
I think Michael F. hits the nail on the head. The so-called "dual covenant" theory does a disservice both to Catholics and to Jews. The Church teaches that the New Covenant supersedes and fulfills the Old Covenant, and for Jew and Gentile alike, all salvation comes through Christ, the one Savior of the world (Acts 4:12).
Surely a false dichotomy must not be created between fidelity to the Christian faith and our complete pastoral commitment to ecumenical and inter-faith relations, which always must build on the truth and goodness we have in common. Even less should fidelity to the Christian faith be seen as a cause of hatred or ill will toward the Jewish people.
Rather, watering down Church teaching to make it seem more palatable to the Jews, while on one level understandable, is an example of the "false irenicism" that Vatican II clearly warned against.
John Allen - thanks for the
John Allen - thanks for the article but it continues to raise the question concerning Pius and The Jews. I
s there enough public information (not the stuff hidden away) to make a valid determination as to this question?
If not, then I believe that the Jews are on vary valid ground to question Pius' support. Yes this is guilt by silence but what is one to believe.
Most people are dead so there should be no fear of scandal. Why not just release all pertinant documents?
Vatican II's teaching is
Vatican II's teaching is clear.
It is that the Catholic Church is the 'messianic people' of the 'New Israel' in succession to 'Israel according to the flesh', a 'New Israel' to which all people, Gentile and Jew alike, are called to convert - the terms quoted being expressly used in Lumen Gentium paragraph 9, one of the most solemn decrees of the Council, which further says in the same paragraph:
"He therefore chose the race of Israel as a people unto Himself. With it He set up a covenant. Step by step He taught and prepared this people, making known in its history both Himself and the decree of His will and making it holy unto Himself. All these things, however, were done by way of preparation and as a figure of that new and perfect covenant, which was to be ratified in Christ, and of that fuller revelation which was to be given through the Word of God Himself made flesh. "Behold the days shall come saith the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel, and with the house of Judah . . . I will give my law in their bowels, and I will write it in their heart, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people . . . For all of them shall know Me, from the least of them even to the greatest, saith the Lord.(86) Christ instituted this New Covenant, the new testament, that is to say, in His Blood,(87) calling together a people made up of Jew and Gentile, making them one, not according to the Flesh but in the Spirit. This was to be the new People of God."
It seems that the US bishops are just reminding us what Vatican II actually said - and Pawlikowski is making up his own form of religion 'in the spirit of the Council' without reference to Tradition or the actual teaching of the Council. John Allen's 'Old Rut' is just a basic implication of Catholic teaching and Jewish denial of that teaching - a Catholic teaching which Vatican II reaffirmed. What's new?
John Allen should actually make some serious attempt to understand the doctrine behind these issues, and not try to present the matter as a perpetually renegotiable matter of interfaith diplomacy. The Catholic Church teaches a divinely revealed faith - not a strategy for making people feel good about the Church whatever they themselves happen to believe.
Dialogue and mutual listening
Dialogue and mutual listening is just so classic.
But before my tough Jewish-issue comment at the end of this post, I want to talk about my Catholic dialogue needs. As a Catholic grass-roots person, I want massively more dialogue, as well as inter-religious dialogue, right here at my parish/diocesan home.
Heaven for me would be an entire month dedicated to reading and being able to discuss in depth with IEC people, all the NCR resources/links I have seen, even since January of 2009.
If I feel dialogue-deficient within my own limited small church setting, this could be the experience of other people, no matter what their religion. A lot of us are just scrambling, especially in this wacky economy of 2008-2009.
So getting to the point of actions vs. dialogue, "Jews are often less concerned with how Catholics articulate their theology than with what they do...." I think there are some actions American Catholics have to stand for. My opinion is that we must help our American economy by addressing stopping American military aid to Israel. Those millions could be reverted to American HOUSING, not Israeli defense--which has contributed to Arab Palestinians losing their housing.
Dear Azura, You wrote: "My
Dear Azura,
You wrote:
"My opinion is that we must help our American economy by addressing stopping American military aid to Israel. Those millions could be reverted to American HOUSING, not Israeli defense--which has contributed to Arab Palestinians losing their housing."
I've yet to meet anyone who didn't understand that without American AID, Israel would cease to exist. That of course would be exactly what Fundamentalist Islam wishes to see happen.
There was a time when the U.S.A. was known for its Moderation - a time when Catholic statesmen were synonymous with the voices of Moderation possessing no particular agendas against any particular people.
Many of us have been terribly surprised over the last dacade or so to see a number of Catholic politicians becoming some of the most acerbic irrascible characters in the U.S. political system. Many of those voices [which used to clearly understand that Israel needed to exist as a safe haven for Jews from around the world] we now see spitting venom against little Israel.
No, Israel is far from perfect - as is the U.S. and every other country imperfect. But there is no possible excuse for promoting a policy which would innevitably end Isreal in a historic bloodbath. Calling for an end to U.S. aid to Isreal is tantamount to seeking for the forces of militant Islam being able to overrun Israel and driving all the Israeli's into the sea. THAT IS THE EXACT AVOWED PURPOSE OF HAMAS AND HEZBOLLAH AND THE REST OF MILITANT ISLAM.
We Catholics with hatred for no one need to make our voices heard in this age when extremism seems to be running wild.
Let the Vatican open the
Let the Vatican open the archives on Pius XII and the relationship of the Church and the Jewish community during WWII. The Truth will make you free! What is there to fear except perhaps embarrassment!
Post new comment