The Catholic Church and the Jewish People: Recent Reflections from Rome 9780823292769

Citation preview

The Catholic Church and the Jewish People

................. 16673$

$$FM

10-23-07 10:16:57

PS

PAGE i

................. 16673$

$$FM

10-23-07 10:16:58

PS

PAGE ii



The Catholic i>À˜ˆ˜} vÀœ“ Church œÃ˜ˆ> and the
««Àœ>V…ˆ˜} Jewish People /À>`ˆÌˆœ˜ Recent Reflections from Rome

Edited by 2USMIR -AHMUTCEHAJIC Philip A. Cunningham Norbert J. Hofmann, S.D.B. /À>˜Ã>Ìi` Joseph LÞ ->L> ,ˆÃ>Õ``ˆ˜ Sievers

>˜` À>˜VˆÃ ,° œ˜iÃ

 &ORDHAM 5NIVERSITY 0RESS 2007 .EW 9ORK Óääx

................. 16673$

$$FM

10-23-07 10:16:58

PS

PAGE iii

Copyright  2007 Fordham University Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data [[Data to come]] Printed in the United States of America 09 08 07 5 4 3 2 1 First edition

................. 16673$

$$FM

10-23-07 10:16:58

PS

PAGE iv

Contents

Preface ix Cardinal Walter Kasper Introduction xi The Editors Part 1. Reflections on the Relationship between Jews and Christians

1. Cardinal Walter Kasper 3 Paths Taken and Enduring Questions in Jewish-Christian Relations Today: Thirty Years of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews 2. Rabbi Dr. Riccardo Di Segni 12 Progress and Issues of the Dialogue from a Jewish Viewpoint 3. Rabbi Giuseppe Laras 23 Jewish Perspectives on Christianity 4. Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini 29 Reflections toward Christian-Jewish Dialogue Part 2. The Need to Remember

5. Anna Foa 41 The Difficult Apprenticeship of Diversity

................. 16673$

CNTS

10-23-07 10:17:01

PS

PAGE v

vi / Contents

6. Massimo Giuliani 54 The Shoah as a Shadow upon and a Stimulus to Christian-Jewish Dialogue Part 3. Toward a Christian Theology of Judaism

7. Archbishop Bruno Forte 73 Israel and the Church—The Two Explorers of the Promised Land: Toward a Christian Theology of Judaism 8. Erich Zenger 92 The Covenant That Was Never Revoked: The Foundations of a Christian Theology of Judaism 9. Peter Hu¨nermann 113 Jewish-Christian Relations: A Conciliar Discovery and Its Methodological Consequences for Dogmatic Theology Part 4. The Post-Shoah Catholic-Jewish Dialogue

10. Alberto Melloni 129 Nostra Aetate and the Discovery of the Sacrament of Otherness 11. Cardinal Jorge Maria Mejı´a 152 The Creation and Work of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews 12. Pier Francesco Fumagalli 159 The Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee 13. Norbert J. Hofmann 167 A Sign of Great Hope: The Beginning of the Dialogue between the Holy See and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel Part 5. The New Relationship between the Holy See and the State of Israel

14. Cardinal Achille Silvestrini The Vatican and Israel

................. 16673$

CNTS

179

10-23-07 10:17:01

PS

PAGE vi

Contents / vii

15. Oded Ben-Hur 186 The State of Israel and the Holy See Appendixes

1. Drafts Leading to the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate 191 2. Joint Declarations of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee (ILC) 201 3. Joint Statements of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel’s Delegation for Relations with the Catholic Church 223 4. Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Israel, December 30, 1993 233

About the Contributors 257 About the Editors 259 Notes 241 Index 261 Index of Scriptural Passages 269

................. 16673$

CNTS

10-23-07 10:17:01

PS

PAGE vii

................. 16673$

CNTS

10-23-07 10:17:02

PS

PAGE viii

Preface Cardinal Walter Kasper

The year 2005 was very important for dialogues between Jews and Catholics. More than forty years ago, in October 1965, the Second Vatican Council promulgated the document Nostra Aetate, dedicated to the relations between the Catholic Church and other religions, and in the fourth paragraph, specifically to the special relationship with Judaism. (In fact, prior to the Council, Pope John XXIII had already commissioned Cardinal Augustine Bea to write a Tractatus de Judaeis.) The Council’s declaration made way for a long and promising dialogue between the Catholic Church and Jews, ‘‘our elder brothers in the faith of Abraham,’’ as Pope John Paul II described them. After recalling the Church’s roots in biblical Israel and the patriarchs, the fourth section of Nostra Aetate went on to define the mandate for dialogue in a clear and precise way. ‘‘Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.’’ Now, more than forty years later, it can be said that this dialogue has led to important developments and that mutual respect between Jews and Christians has been greatly strengthened thanks to meetings, both academic and private, at international and local levels. We have come a long way, but there remains a lot to do. We need to continue our efforts

................. 16673$

PREF

10-23-07 10:17:03

PS

PAGE ix

x / Preface

to improve the ties between Jews and Christians and continue to discover the spiritual and theological heritage that unites us. I am grateful that the Pontifical Gregorian University had, in 1978, already initiated a project corresponding to the main themes outlined by Nostra Aetate. The foundation of the Cardinal Bea Centre for Judaic Studies has contributed significantly to the study of Judaism and Jewish-Christian relations. The Jewish-Christian dialogue has developed in two directions: the dialogue ad extra, with Jewish people from all over the world, and the dialogue ad intra, which promotes, within our Church, the study of documents relating to Judaism and the results achieved from the dialogue. To support the dialogue ad intra, the Cardinal Bea Centre organized a series of lectures in 2004 and 2005, entitled The Catholic Church and Judaism from Vatican II to Today, marking the fortieth anniversary of Nostra Aetate. I was honored to contribute to this series with a lecture, ‘‘Paths Taken and Enduring Questions in Jewish-Christian Relations Today.’’ Thanks to the close collaboration between the Cardinal Bea Centre and a leading institute in the United States, the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College, many of the lectures in the series were, shortly after their delivery, translated from their original Italian and made available in English on the Boston College Website. These translated lectures have been collected, refined, and updated in this volume and represent important contributions to the study of the Christian-Jewish dialogue and the Christian theology of Judaism that continues to develop in many academic circles. I extend my thanks to the Cardinal Bea Centre and the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning for making these essays available in English. Cardinal Walter Kasper President, Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews

................. 16673$

PREF

10-23-07 10:17:04

PS

PAGE x

Introduction Philip A. Cunningham, Norbert J. Hofmann, Joseph Sievers

It has been over forty years since the issuance of the conciliar declaration Nostra Aetate, and over thirty years since the establishment of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. Perhaps the time has come to take stock, albeit in a provisional way, of the current relationship between the Catholic Church and Judaism, the changes that have taken place, and emerging new perspectives. Clearly, such an assessment requires a broad and flexible approach to all the relevant topics. At the start, it is important to understand the recent developments in the relations between Jews and Christians in terms of history. The initial calls for an urgent change of direction began after the abject horror of the Shoah. Without doubt, the recent progress, not only in CatholicJewish dialogue but also in Christian-Jewish dialogue more generally, has to be considered in its historical dimensions. In addition, the dialogue that has emerged in the past decades has taken place at the highest institutional levels of both religious communities. In this regard, both the great impetus provided by John Paul II for a special relationship between Christians and the Jewish people and the new charter for the political and diplomatic relations between the State of Israel and the Holy See need to be taken into account. Just as significant have been the efforts to strengthen a reciprocal understanding and the development of

................. 16673$

INTR

10-23-07 10:17:06

PS

PAGE xi

xii / Introduction

friendly relations at the grassroots level that have begun both within religious communities and in the civic society of many countries. We also cannot omit or forget the difficulties, obstacles, and resistance to dialogue and mutual understanding that still exist in a variety of forms and at different levels, even in the most progressive religious and social contexts. An evaluation of the changes that have taken place in theological thinking is also needed. The change initiated by the Second Vatican Council and Nostra Aetate has undoubtedly produced far-reaching results. The recognition of Christianity’s Jewish roots and of Jews as ‘‘brothers in faith’’ was a significant turning point, which has led to a profound rapprochement between the Catholic Church and Judaism and also to a doctrinal rethinking of the Christian faith. This new culturalhistorical context has also encouraged some in the Jewish world to reconsider Jesus and Christianity from a Jewish perspective. The situation in both the Christian and Jewish communities is dynamic and varied. The increasing number of studies and debates on the interfaith relationship demonstrate the vitality and the urgency of the questions posed, even if diffidence and resistance also exist. With a view to a preliminary analysis of the changes that have taken place in the relations between Judaism and Christianity, and in order to shed some light on unresolved problems and controversial issues, a series of public lectures were organized at the Pontifical Gregorian University in conjunction with the fortieth anniversary of Nostra Aetate. The series was organized by the university’s Cardinal Bea Centre for Judaic Studies, a center that since its origins in 1978 has sought to promote the study of Jewish traditions and Jewish-Christian relations. The lectures took place in Rome (a significant fact in itself), but have an international scope, due to the presence of scholars and prominent figures from abroad, as well as to the range of perspectives presented. Almost concurrently with the lecture series, and thanks to a close partnership between the Cardinal Bea Centre and the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College, a process was devised to translate a number of the lectures from Italian into English and to make them available to the English-speaking world on the Boston College website. Thanks to the diligence of Dr. Thomas Cattoi, then a doctoral student in the Boston College theology department, the translating work was efficiently undertaken in collaboration with the directors of the respective centers. This endeavor represents one of several instances of transatlantic

................. 16673$

INTR

10-23-07 10:17:06

PS

PAGE xii

Introduction / xiii

cooperation between the two universities. The Jewish-Christian dialogues in Europe and North America have distinctive features and histories that can support and inform each other. The Cardinal Bea Centre and the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning seek to promote such fruitful mutual enrichment through our ventures together and with other universities on both continents. This volume, published by Fordham University Press, assembles the lectures from the original series in more polished and partly updated English versions. They have been reorganized by themes, and their new thematic order allows easier comparison between the different approaches to common questions. The essays in part 1, Reflections on the Relationship between Jews and Christians, were presented by wellknown leaders in interfaith relations from the Catholic and Jewish worlds and provide a comprehensive account of the relations between Judaism and the Catholic Church after Nostra Aetate. They highlight hopeful aspects, obstacles still to be overcome, as well as possible future directions. Part 2, The Need to Remember, emphasizes the necessity to reexamine the painful past, with all its consequent prejudices, in order to enable a sincere and fruitful dialogue. The contributions in the third part, Toward a Christian Theology of Judaism, illuminate, from various points of view, perspectives of Christian theology on Judaism. They show that a new and deeper understanding between the two religions has profound implications for Christian thought—both in terms of biblical theology and exegesis and also at the doctrinal and pastoral levels. In part 4, The Post-Shoah Catholic-Jewish Dialogue, the most significant moments in the Jewish-Christian dialogue of the second half of the last century are outlined: the publication of Nostra Aetate, the work of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, and the encounters between scholars and influential leaders in the two religious communities. Part 5, The New Relationship between the Holy See and the State of Israel, deals with the official diplomatic relations recently established between the Vatican and the State of Israel and analyzes their history as well as their current status. Finally, it was considered timely to include in an appendix some of the original documents on the relations between the Catholic Church and Judaism in the past decades. Appendix 1 presents for the first time in English all the various drafts that led up to the Council declaration Nostra Aetate. They have been gathered and in part translated from the Latin originals by Dr. Maria Brutti, to whom we extend our gratitude.

................. 16673$

INTR

10-23-07 10:17:07

PS

PAGE xiii

xiv / Introduction

Appendix 2 comprises the statements presented at the end of the sessions of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee (on subjects of theological and social interest). Appendix 3 provides the statements that have been issued by the Joint Commission of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel’s Delegation for Relations with the Catholic Church and the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. Appendix 4 contains the Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Israel, signed in 1993. While an attempt has been made to include the most recent documents, some of which were not yet available at the time of the lecture series, it has not been possible to update totally the individual lectures, which therefore reflect the situation at the time they were delivered. Various institutions and many individuals have contributed to the organization and publication of the lectures. We are very grateful to the American Jewish Committee, which generously supported the Rome lecture series as well as its publication in both Italian and English; to the Gregorian University, which provided the logistical support for the series of lectures and the production of the texts, with particular thanks to Ms. Flavia Galiani, the secretary of the Cardinal Bea Centre for Judaic Studies; to the Documentation Centre SIDIC, Rome, which collaborated substantially in the initiative; to Boston College, for helping to prepare English versions of the texts; and to Fordham University Press, for making these important essays accessible in the English-speaking world. We are especially thankful to all the distinguished speakers who, with great willingness, participated in the project in a sincere spirit of dialogue.

................. 16673$

INTR

10-23-07 10:17:07

PS

PAGE xiv

Part 1

Reflections on the Relationship between Jews and Christians

................. 16673$

PRT1

10-23-07 10:17:13

PS

PAGE 1

................. 16673$

PRT1

10-23-07 10:17:14

PS

PAGE 2

1. Pa t h s Ta k e n an d E nduring Questions in Jewish -Christian Relations Today: T hir t y Years of the Commission for Religious Re l a t i o n s wi t h t h e Jews Cardinal Walter Kasper

More than forty years have passed since the promulgation of Nostra Aetate and thirty years since the creation of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. I am convinced that I do not exaggerate when I say that these events mark one of the most surprising developments of the twentieth century, which changed to a great extent the two-thousand-year history of Jewish-Christian relations, with momentous consequences for the whole world. The urgency of better Jewish-Christian relations is even greater in these times of tragic and bloody conflict between Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East, a conflict that cannot leave anybody indifferent because of so many innocent victims on both sides. In this context, we are not called to deal with the political aspects of this conflict, but they cannot totally be put aside because they evoke fundamental ethical problems and are intimately linked with the religious dimension, which is the only mandate of our Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. Some people are of the opinion that this conflict forebodes the end of the dialogue or at the least brings it almost to an impasse. I do not share this pessimistic vision. On the contrary, this tragic conflict highlights the very urgency of the dialogue between the

................. 16673$

$CH1

10-23-07 10:17:59

PS

PAGE 3

4 / Cardinal Walter Kasper

three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The Middle East conflict serves to demonstrate what is already often said: there cannot be peace in the world without peace between the world religions. This insight clarifies the challenge and the urgency of the work of our Pontifical Commission. I hope that it is not arrogant to say that even in this conflict our Pontifical Commission is and wants to be a small and modest sign of hope, a small light shining in the darkness.

1. The Beginning of a New Beginning However, before discussing our present endeavors, I would like to trace the origins of our Commission. It is a truism worth recalling that only those who know history can understand the present and master the future; it is also worth recalling that the work of the Commission was challenging from the very beginning. It was indirectly initiated by Pope John XXIII, who was elected to be a pope of transition, an interim pope so to speak, but who was himself to be the architect of transition in the Church and indirectly in the world, for since his pontificate, it is the Church itself that lives in an interim situation and in a situation of transition. One of the most fundamental shifts he made was the beginning of a new era in relations between Christians and Jews. ‘‘I am Joseph, your brother,’’ he told Jews whom he met soon after his election. On Good Friday in 1959, he abolished from the liturgy the ancient prayer for the ‘‘perfidious Jews.’’ This was a new and unaccustomed tone after so many centuries where the relations between Jews and Christians were anything but brotherly and friendly. The first approaches toward each other, after the long period characterized by a ‘‘teaching of contempt,’’1 were made—paradoxically—in the Nazi concentration camps, where often Jews and Christians were confronted with a barbaric neopagan totalitarian system and together discovered their common heritage and common values. Then there were courageous forerunners who prepared and paved the way: Jews such as Leo Baeck, Franz Rosenzweig, Martin Buber, Jules Isaac, Schalom Ben-Chorim, Joseph Klausner, David Flusser, and many others, and Catholics like Jacques Maritain in France and Gertrud Luckner in Germany. Pope John XXIII himself as Apostolic Nuncio in Istanbul during the Second World War personally intervened to save Jewish lives. His

................. 16673$

$CH1

10-23-07 10:18:00

PS

PAGE 4

Paths Taken and Enduring Questions in Relations Today / 5

own background therefore lent solid credibility on which to usher in an age of new relations. To implement such a new start can be challenging—even for a pope. Popes have, according to Catholic doctrine, the fullness of jurisdiction within the Catholic Church, but it would be more than naı¨ve to think that a pope himself is not conditioned by those around him. Pope John XXIII was fortunate to find an able cooperator in Cardinal Augustin Bea, a fine, highly regarded, German Old Testament scholar, and at the same time a man who knew the curia and how to deal with it, a man gifted with wisdom, prudence, and courage, human sensitivity, and a restless spiritual mind. In 1960, the pope appointed him the first president of the then Pontifical Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. It was only in 1974, however, that the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews was established within what is now called the ‘‘Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.’’ The work of the then Secretariat and later of the Commission was challenging from the outset. The challenges grew when Pope John XXIII, after a memorable visit of Jules Isaac in June 1960, decided that the Second Vatican Council, which he had convoked to the great surprise of the curia and the whole Church, should publish a declaration about the Jews. He charged Cardinal Bea to prepare it. The way ahead was to become a thorny one. After the document had made its passage through the Council, Cardinal Bea told a friend, ‘‘If I had known all the difficulties that lay ahead, I do not know whether I would have had the courage to take this path.’’ There was vehement opposition both from outside and from within. From the inside, the old, well-known patterns of traditional anti-Judaism emerged; from the outside, there was a storm of protest, especially from Muslim countries, presenting serious threats to their small Christian minorities. In order to save the furniture from the burning house, it was decided to integrate the envisaged declaration as one chapter in a ‘‘Declaration about the Non-Christian Religions,’’ to be known later as ‘‘Nostra Aetate.’’ Yet this was a compromise, for Judaism is not one religion among the non-Christian religions, but as the fourth section of the declaration made very clear, Christianity has a particular and a unique relation with Judaism. We cannot define Christianity and its identity without making reference to Judaism, which is not the case with Islam, Buddhism, or any other religion. Judaism belongs to the very roots of Christianity. To

................. 16673$

$CH1

10-23-07 10:18:00

PS

PAGE 5

6 / Cardinal Walter Kasper

share this conviction, to formulate it, and to find a majority within the Council was not an easy accomplishment. It was not only the wellknown French Archbishop Lefe`bvre who raised opposition, but many others, especially from countries with Muslim majorities. In the end, there were two famous major decisions of the Council: on the one hand, the rejection of all kinds of antisemitism and, on the other, the remembrance of the Jewish roots of Christianity, our common heritage as sons of Abraham in faith. During his long pontificate, Pope John Paul II pursued these insights energetically and deepened both aspects. Antisemitism is for him a fierce violation of human rights. It is against the dignity of every human person, which is not contingent on descent, culture, religion, or sex. It also is in strict contradiction of what is expounded on the very first page of the Bible, where God created the human person, and this means created every single human person, in his own image and likeness. Therefore, every human person possesses an infinite dignity that deserves absolute respect from his or her neighbor. Antisemitism is a sin. John Paul II repeated again and again in many circumstances throughout his twenty-six-year pontificate that the Jewish people are the chosen and beloved people of God, the people of God’s covenant, which due to God’s faithfulness is never broken and is still alive. When he visited the Great Synagogue of Rome in 1986, he called the Jews ‘‘our elder brothers in the faith of Abraham.’’ On the first Sunday of Lent in 2000 and in the moving scene at the Western Wall in Jerusalem a few days later, he prayed for forgiveness for all the sins that Christians had committed against Jews. He called the Shoah the Calvary of the twentieth century. Thus both these pontificates, those of John XXIII and John Paul II, have initiated—it is our hope—a new historical period of partnership between Jews and Christians in the new century and in the new millennium. Both popes strove to demonstrate that conversion, a new beginning, and reconciliation are possible.

2. What Happened in the Meantime To make reference to some of the important statements of Pope John Paul II is to make clear that the challenges did not come to an end at the closure of the Council in 1965. The obstacles, opposition, conflicts, and problems, and consequently the challenges, continued. However,

................. 16673$

$CH1

10-23-07 10:18:01

PS

PAGE 6

Paths Taken and Enduring Questions in Relations Today / 7

enormous progress was made. To have a fine conciliar statement is one thing. To make it known and have it received in the body of a worldwide Church, and even more so to implement it at the grassroots level, is another thing. The decades after any Council are shaped by lively debate and sometimes obstinate conflict regarding the right interpretation and the appropriate realization of the Council, and this was no different with respect to the fourth section of the declaration Nostra Aetate. The Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews— after Cardinal Bea, guided by Cardinal Johannes Willebrands and Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy—committed itself unreservedly. The Council’s declaration was only the beginning of a new beginning, and it was necessary to build on the foundation that the Council had laid and to translate the conciliar message not only into the different languages but also into very different individual situations and contexts. The present young generation was not yet born when the Council ended in 1965; it represents for them quite remote history. So we must transmit the Council’s message again and again to the new young generation. Overcoming antisemitism and fostering positive and friendly relations between our faith communities cannot be done once and for all because it is a permanent educational task. Alarming signs over the last few months of a new rising antisemitism have tragically shown that much has still to be done, and new efforts have to be undertaken in order to introduce the conciliar vision at the grassroots level. Over the years, the Pontifical Commission has published a series of helpful documents: ‘‘Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate No. 4’’ (1974), ‘‘Notes on the Correct Way to Present Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Teaching in the Roman Catholic Church’’ (1985), and ‘‘We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah’’ (1998). Documents are important, but they are not everything. Documents can become dead letters; in contrast, dialogue thrives on personal, faceto-face encounters. In addition to many individual encounters, the Pontifical Commission has initiated regular and positive, mostly friendly, but sometimes (and how could it be otherwise?) also conflictual contacts with Jewish institutions. I make mention of the ongoing and fruitful relations with, for example, the International Catholic-Jewish

................. 16673$

$CH1

10-23-07 10:18:01

PS

PAGE 7

8 / Cardinal Walter Kasper

Liaison-Committee (ILC) and therein the International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations (IJCIC). It would be an illusion, however, and in any case absolutely impossible that everything could or even should be done at the highest universal level. The Catholic Church exists—as the Council affirmed—‘‘in and out of local churches,’’ which have their own responsibilities. Thus, in the aftermath of the Council, many individual bishops’ conferences established commissions for dialogue with Judaism and in turn issued important declarations. The collection of all these texts takes up two substantial volumes. The Pontifical Commission follows, inspires, motivates, and sometimes initiates such activities on the national and local level. While dialogue has been pursued over the last decades, especially in the context of North American Judaism, we now try to promote such dialogue in Europe, too. The Jewish-Christian dialogue in Latin America is also being followed with interest. In 2002, the International Council of Christians and Jews met in Montevideo, Uruguay; the meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison-Committee in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in July 2004 was without any doubt a highlight in our mutual relations and would not have been possible without strong support from the local level. The ILC recently concluded its first meeting on the African continent, having convened in November 2006 in Cape Town. Among the new endeavors to be undertaken, I would like to mention only two. I will begin by mentioning first the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the State of Israel (1993), prepared and made possible by a preceding Fundamental Agreement. Relations in the years since have been strong enough to withstand difficult pressures and even tensions in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which also seriously impacts Christians in the Holy Land. This remains an abiding challenge, and we can only hope for an imminent just and peaceful solution that would be in the interest of all sides. Despite the context of this dramatic situation, it is a source of happiness that we have been able to initiate an official Jewish-Christian dialogue in Israel itself, including members from Israel appointed by the Chief Rabbinate, as well as representatives from the Vatican. It is our conviction that weapons cannot solve the conflict, that they only feed hatred on both sides and instigate a vicious cycle of violence. There is no alternative to dialogue, a process that respects the legitimate interests of both sides and aims at reconciliation and sustainable peace.

................. 16673$

$CH1

10-23-07 10:18:01

PS

PAGE 8

Paths Taken and Enduring Questions in Relations Today / 9

It has been even more difficult to confront the second task and challenge: the dialogue and reflection on the Shoah. This was a tragedy and atrocity of unprecedented proportions, a genocide in the midst of Europe that raises many questions and leaves us ultimately speechless. For Jews, the memory of the Shoah and its millions of victims has become a common point of reference and a constitutive element of their identity. For Christians, it has become the object of shameful repentance and, thorough historical and theological reflections, the starting point for our own conversion and new relations with the Jewish people. Our Commission took up these challenges and, after the publication of insightful statements of some bishops’ conferences and long discussions and controversies, issued what is perhaps its most important document, ‘‘We Remember’’ (1998). This text not only found respect, but it also encountered harsh criticism from the Jewish world. This is not the context to repeat all the arguments, pro and con. I only repeat what my predecessor, Cardinal Cassidy, said, ‘‘This is the first word; it’s not the last word.’’ Who will dare to pronounce the last word? In the end, we must all remain silent out of respect for the victims and for the unfathomable mystery of the hidden God. It is He only who can and will say the last word at the end of all time. This does not exonerate us from doing what we have the capacity to do. We are indeed obliged to do whatever is possible to prevent such an atrocity in the future. Therefore, we must clarify the Shoah’s historical circumstances as much as humanly possible, not in order to accuse and to blame or to defend and to apologize, but in order to learn and to apply that learning to the future.

3. Future Tasks and Challenges Let me conclude with some observations on future challenges and tasks. I remarked above that the establishment of our Commission was only a beginning of a new beginning. Still, today, more than thirty years after this memorable new beginning, we are still only at the beginning. Difficult problems remain and new challenges arise. Among the remaining difficult problems, there are first of all historical problems that relate to our common, often difficult, history. Besides the Jewish impact on Christian history, liturgy, and Bible study, and also on literature, philosophy, and art, there is also the much less known

................. 16673$

$CH1

10-23-07 10:18:02

PS

PAGE 9

10 / Cardinal Walter Kasper

Christian influence on Judaism, which constituted itself in its post-biblical rabbinic form after the destruction of the temple. Although this development often occurred in opposition to Christendom, it nevertheless was later influenced by Christianity. There are, additionally, all the questions relating to the Holocaust. There is still a lot of research work to do. Second, there remain fundamental theological problems. We are still very far away from a comprehensive Catholic theology of Judaism, including the problem of whether there are one or two covenants. This means that the question of the theological relationship between Judaism and Christianity remains unsolved. In the fundamental conceptions that are constitutive for their respective identities, Jews and Christians, despite all they have in common, are and remain different. Therefore, we should not approach the Jewish-Christian dialogue with naı¨ve expectations of a harmonious understanding. It will remain a difficult dialogue.2 Yet it is precisely when we do not simply ignore our otherness, but rather bear with it, that we can learn from each other. There is still considerable ignorance on both sides, and ignorance is one of the roots of reciprocal prejudice. For that reason, we are at present considering how to include some basic knowledge of Judaism in the training of future priests; conversely, the training of future rabbis should include some basic knowledge of Christianity. As the third and final point, which for me at this moment and in this context is the most important one, I would like to mention our practical cooperation. I think it was a most significant step and a sign of the progress we made in Buenos Aires that we were able to embark on a practical social and charitable form of cooperation. Together, we successfully endeavored to help children who have suffered the most in the tremendous economic crisis in Argentina. We hope that in the future, we can extend such activities in other parts of the world, too. The rabbinic tradition has expressed what is meant here in the sentence, ‘‘He who has saved one human being has saved the world.’’ In this, Jews and Christians—for so long adversaries when not merely indifferent to each other—should strive to become allies. They have a great common heritage to watch over: the common image of the human person, its unique dignity and responsibility before God, the understanding of the world as creation, the concept of justice and peace,

................. 16673$

$CH1

10-23-07 10:18:02

PS

PAGE 10

Paths Taken and Enduring Questions in Relations Today / 11

the worth of the family, and the hope of definitive salvation and fulfillment. In this perspective, our dialogue in the future should not deal only with religious questions of principle, nor should it be dedicated only to clarifying the past. Our common heritage should be profitably made available in response to contemporary challenges: the sanctity of life, the protection of the family, justice and peace in the world, the problem of terrorism, and the integrity of creation, among others. After the tragedy of the Shoah, Jews and Christians alike are challenged to intervene and are responsible for preventing a similar human catastrophe. ‘‘It is our task to pass on to the new generations the treasures and values we have in common, so that never again will man despise his own brother in humanity and never again will conflicts or wars be unleashed in the name of an ideology that despises a culture or religion. On the contrary, the different religious traditions are called together to put their patrimony at the service of all, in the hope of building the common European home together, united in justice, peace, equity and solidarity.’’ So said Pope John Paul II to the European Jewish-Christian Congress in Paris on January 28–29, 2002. Jews and Christians together are a beacon of hope. For they can testify from the bitter and painful lessons of history that—despite otherness and foreignness and despite historical guilt—conversion, reconciliation, peace, and friendship are possible. May our century thus become a century of brotherhood—shoulder to shoulder. Shalom!

................. 16673$

$CH1

10-23-07 10:18:02

PS

PAGE 11

2 . Progress and Issues of the D ialogue f r o m a Jewish Vi e w p o i n t Rabbi Dr. Riccardo Di Segni

1. Small Steps and New Beginnings The recent work of the delegations of the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel’s Commission for Relations with the Catholic Church is one of the most significant signs of the progress made in Jewish-Christian dialogue. This is not only because of the presence of official representatives on the part of an Israeli governmental entity, but also and especially because of the involvement of part of the Orthodox rabbinic world at a level that would have been inconceivable even a few years ago; from the Jewish point of view, this is probably one of the most important signs, if not the most important one, of a changed perception of the terms of the problem on the part of the rabbis. The path of our relationship has been marked in these years by ceremonies that have grown ever more numerous, by public acts, declarations, conferences, meetings, and publications, but a problematic element of our relationship remained unresolved: the answer of Orthodox Judaism. This problem is still far from being solved, but the participation of some Israeli chief rabbis is a sign of a readiness to listen and to adopt a more trusting attitude for the future. Next to the great official events, one ought not to forget those that look like small steps, but perhaps it is from these

................. 16673$

$CH2

10-23-07 10:18:04

PS

PAGE 12

Progress and Issues of the Dialogue from a Jewish Viewpoint / 13

very small steps, unaccompanied by the hype of the media, that something new shall begin, ultimately blossoming into what shall be the correct relation between Jews and Christians in the medium term and long term. The first open question in Jewish-Christian relations is the definition of who are the parties involved in this dialogue, and who they represent; this is clear in the Catholic Church, but not yet apparent in other Christian churches. Among Jews, the variety of different movements makes the question even more complex.

2. The Complexities of Difference and Asymmetr y If someone thinks that the reluctance of many in rabbinic circles to engage in certain forms of dialogue is unjustified or ungenerous or is surprised at how slowly their reactions come through, that person fails to understand the fundamental characteristic that defines the relation between Jews and Christians. It is not a relationship among equals and it is not a symmetrical relationship. In the same way, the relationship between father and son cannot be symmetrical, or the relationship between one who is numerically large and one who is small, or between those who for centuries were dominant and those who for centuries were barely tolerated. It is especially asymmetrical because of the very essence of the two faiths: for the Christian, it is impossible to conceive of a faith that is not rooted in the original faith of Israel, but in which the Incarnation breaks through; for Judaism, that Incarnation entails a negation of the original faith. For the Christian, the encounter with Judaism entails a rediscovery of the roots of his faith; for the Jew, the encounter with Christianity confronts him with something entirely different, grown out of what are effectively his own religious roots. Theologically, the Christian cannot do without Israel; the Jew, in his faith, must do without Christ if he does not want to deny his own faith. It is because of this fundamental theological asymmetry, and of all the consequences that it has brought about in the course of history, that the relations between Jews and Christians, as they have developed from the times of the Second Vatican Council, have been, with few exceptions, a great process promoted first and foremost by the Christian churches, but which has seen the various components of Judaism sometimes skeptical, sometimes reluctant, and sometimes collaborating with enthusiasm, but almost always in the role of the invited guest. The Jew Jules Isaac who knocked at the Vatican’s door was not a rabbi motivated

................. 16673$

$CH2

10-23-07 10:18:05

PS

PAGE 13

14 / Rabbi Dr. Riccardo Di Segni

by the desire to understand the truths of the other religion or to impose his own; he was a historian, who had personally been a victim of an enormous injustice, and who asked for the preaching of hatred to stop. Even this was a manifestation of the fundamental asymmetry mentioned above; it was not simply an encounter between the representatives of two worlds in conflict with each other, but the encounter of the persecuted community with the institution that historically continued to show itself as inspiring hostility. Strictly speaking, Jules Isaac was not seeking dialogue as it would later develop (and as he had already anticipated), but the end of the teaching of contempt. To this request, the Catholic Church, as well as many other churches with her, has answered with a decisive and ever intensifying commitment to the removal of the teaching of hatred and with an invitation to dialogue and reconciliation. Inevitably, however, the Church often did this in her own language, with her own mentality, with her culture and vision of the world, in the light of her own exigencies. All this is often different from the Jewish point of view—or indeed from the many different Jewish points of view that exist in the present world. For this reason, the dialogue between Jews and Christians, which was a historical turning point of the end of the millennium, must still work through and experiment with all the complexities of difference and asymmetry. It is necessary to understand that every step of the dialogue, from the definitions of the agendas and the goals to the ceremonial aspects of the great public events (which are of no minor importance in a society dominated by the mass media), must be based on shared rules. It is necessary to decide clearly in advance where we want to arrive and how we want to proceed. Otherwise, instead of solving problems, the result is to cause further tension, resistance, and exclusion. The example of the two commissions representing Israel and the Vatican that are working at present does in some way go in the opposite direction, showing the good fruits that can be attained through a readiness to listen and through having previously spelled out the limits and objectives of dialogue.

3. Ambiguous Theological Agendas? The thoughts expressed thus far cannot conceal the fact that there are still numerous difficulties; I shall try to explain some of them from a Jewish point of view. The first is the perception of a certain degree of

................. 16673$

$CH2

10-23-07 10:18:06

PS

PAGE 14

Progress and Issues of the Dialogue from a Jewish Viewpoint / 15

uncertainty as to the Christian theology of Judaism and as to the real intentions of the Christian churches toward us. The recent developments of Christian theology have led to all sorts of overtures, as well as to a substantial reevaluation of the sacredness of Christianity’s own Jewish roots, from which derives a completely changed attitude toward Jews that is characterized by both respect and love—and this is a decisive datum that goes beyond the generic respect for religious differences that the Church has been expressing over the past decades. Beyond this, however, for us who observe this process from the outside, the exact Christian perspective on the matter remains rather hazy, and there remain a variety of different theological standpoints. There is part of a sentence in Nostra Aetate that is hardly ever cited, but that reveals the core of the problem: ‘‘Although the Church is the new people of God . . . ,’’ states the document. This is in some way a reprise of the old adversus Israel theme, which in its conciliar formulation leaves open the problem of whether the existence of a ‘‘new’’ people of God means that the old one can no longer be considered as such or whether the old and the new people are both called to play a role in the history of salvation. Cardinal Augustin Bea, who courageously defended this conciliar document, had no doubts on this matter. He once explained that ‘‘of course it is true that the Jewish people is no longer the people of God in the sense of being an institution of salvation for humanity.’’1 Of course, from that time, the thought of the Church has evolved and become more nuanced. Some claim that there is now clarity, or sufficient clarity, or at least a lively dialectic between the different positions that therefore makes dialogue possible. Others underscore instead that in the Church there is an effective prevalence of more rigorist positions, and from this they argue that an atmosphere of real trust is lacking and thus a sincere dialogue cannot take place. A third group argues that it is impossible to ask of the Church that she change what is after all her essence, and thus that dialogue must avoid addressing all these questions. A famous rabbi of our times, a descendant of illustrious dynasties of Chassidic masters, and one of the first to become personally involved in Jewish-Christian dialogue (I am talking of Abraham Joshua Heschel), claimed that ‘‘the Church’s faith in Jesus makes Judaism incomplete; if this faith is denied, Christianity is false. There is no dialogue on this point.’’ According to this point of view, dialogue ought not to touch the principles of faith. It does not even have to touch the

................. 16673$

$CH2

10-23-07 10:18:06

PS

PAGE 15

16 / Rabbi Dr. Riccardo Di Segni

principles of religious self-consciousness, the way in which the community of faith defines its relationship with God, unless this selfconsciousness encompasses within itself any aggressive attitude toward others. The problem that Jewish observers raise concerning the evolution of Christian theology is not that of principles, which are not to be discussed, but the aggressive potential that can be hidden under these principles. How is it possible to preach dialogue in a context of respect for each other’s identity (not only one’s own, but also and especially the identity of our interlocutor), when contrasting—and alarming—signs are sent out at the same time? Or, more clearly and directly, is the Jew who converts to Christianity a model of dialogue or its negation? For example, the massive ecclesiastical efforts that took place around the beatification, and later the canonization process of Edith Stein, show us a Church that still proposes as a ‘‘model of heroic virtues’’ the converted Jew (or Jewess) and sanctifies the image of the latter even to the point of using the expression (which for us is profoundly disturbing) of a ‘‘new Esther.’’ To refer to another, even more recent example, a prestigious Catholic publishing house has published the autobiography of a controversial chief rabbi of Rome, who converted to Catholicism in 1945, and was prepared for baptism by a small group of important prelates connected to the Pontifical Gregorian University, among whom was also Augustine Bea. The publication of this work has been accompanied by a lively marketing campaign on the part of the Catholic media, as well as by highly appreciative reviews in both the specialized and the general press. On the part of an important journalist, there has even been a proposal to put forth the former rabbi as a candidate for beatification. What I wish to stress is that, more than forty years after Nostra Aetate and more than thirty years after the establishment of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, I believe I have not come across (and I would be glad if anyone were to correct me on this point) a single article by a Catholic author where it was said that the times have changed, and that a rabbi who converts to Christianity is no longer an aim of and an ideal for the Catholic Church. 4. The Depth of Christian Reform in Moments of Crisis Another critical point for dialogue is the contradiction between the many results obtained and the fragility of what we have achieved. One

................. 16673$

$CH2

10-23-07 10:18:07

PS

PAGE 16

Progress and Issues of the Dialogue from a Jewish Viewpoint / 17

of the first necessities was to change radically the didactic of anti-Jewish hostility, and especially to eliminate the charge of deicide. We must, of course, acknowledge that the Church has worked very hard to favor a different presentation of the Jewish people as well as a new climate for Catholic-Jewish relations. Together with many other Jews, I am a daily witness of this changed climate, of this respect that goes deeper than the surface, of an attitude of esteem, admiration, and affection toward Jews that is obviously derived from a different type of religious education. It is certainly a process that requires time and patience, and thus we are still far from the ideal, though occasionally, doubts arise as to whether this ideal is really a priority. I cannot cancel my memories of what happened a little while ago, when controversy raged around the ‘‘passion’’—I mean the one represented in a movie. I certainly do not want to go back and discuss that movie again. What is necessary to reflect upon is the reaction of the Church and of the Vatican at the time of the polemic. While Cardinal Kasper, avoiding direct comment on the movie, declared in an interview that this was a good occasion to reaffirm the recent teachings of the Church,2 the reactions and rumors that were spreading in other official contexts were certainly quite different. The sad impression that the Jewish world received from all this is that when confronted with strong mystical experiences and huge interests of a pastoral nature, and also of other types, the problem of the correct relationship with the Jews seems to be the last thing to worry the Church. At such times, the Church seems to think that a generic reference to the official documents (contradicted by the facts) is sufficient to patch up the damage. In line with what was said by Cardinal Kasper, this could be a good occasion not only to reaffirm the teachings of the Church, but also to reflect on the meaning that they really have in moments of crisis.

5. The Limits of Dialogue Moving on from what one hopes to have been an isolated incident to a reflection on more fundamental issues, I believe that it is no longer possible to avoid some radical implications of the dialogue. Even if we still have to overcome a number of basic hurdles, such as the fight against antisemitism, the climate of the dialogue is now very different; it is more mature and it confronts us with difficult choices. There is the

................. 16673$

$CH2

10-23-07 10:18:07

PS

PAGE 17

18 / Rabbi Dr. Riccardo Di Segni

question of the limit, of the sense of the absolute and the relative, of what we can ask from the other without offending him or compromising his integrity, but without being forced to compromise on principles. Theology and law, which is what we call halakhah, have their own inner rules that determine how they are shaped and how they evolve, and they are only tangentially touched upon by contingent reality, no matter how important is the latter. Thus dialogue should not, or effectively could not, directly influence their development. Then there is the question of truth. Do any of us possess the whole truth or only a part? This is a decisive question because if each of us possesses only a part of the truth, then by coming together we would possess more of it.3 I do not know whether this would be a fruitful option for Christianity. Certainly, for Judaism, it would amount to its end. So, again, we are confronted with the asymmetry of our encounter and of our dialogue. In any case, there must be limits, both in what we can expect from our interlocutors and in our readiness to accommodate opinions different from ours; there must be spaces of freedom so as to think of our faiths in a way that is neither arrogant nor aggressive, but that remains always strong and without compromises. Dialogue can follow the rules of diplomatic courtesy, but it is not a diplomatic negotiation based on reciprocal concessions. A risk that is always on the horizon is that of proposing the simplified image of a universal religion or of a sort of United Nations of the religions where all the faiths are the same. I have in mind the results of a recent survey (Piepoli Institute, September 19, 2004) on the religious beliefs of the inhabitants of the city of Rome, in which 48 percent of the people who were interviewed was of the opinion that ‘‘the religions are all more or less equivalent.’’ It is not only ignorance, it is the consequence of an oversimplifying attitude, which is today very common, that confuses respect for the dignity of everyone and for the differences of opinion with the intrinsic value that one is to give to one’s own convictions. This is a reality that ought to worry all religious interlocutors because it evidences a relativism that has already been denounced and condemned many times. More than everything else, however, this attitude worries us because a general weakening of the religious sense works to the disadvantage of the numerically weaker part. In the course of history, as at the end of the fifteenth century in Spain, we have paid a harsh price for this.

................. 16673$

$CH2

10-23-07 10:18:08

PS

PAGE 18

Progress and Issues of the Dialogue from a Jewish Viewpoint / 19

Another risk is that, if one only thinks in terms of numerical preponderance, the minorities are merely considered as some curious small variants, so that the voice of the majority can speak for all. Interreligious dialogue, though, does not follow the rules of democratic coexistence. In politics and in ethics, we can and we must fight together for the sake of common values, but we should not lose awareness of our identity when our opinions differ. We have not, for instance, supported the insistent Catholic request that the European Constitution refer to Judeo-Christian roots, since it is not by inserting a hyphen between Judeo and Christian that we solve the problem of what we have in common and what we can give to others because, remembering our own history, we could not forget that the Jews have often had to taste the bitter fruits of those Christian roots. It would have been much more useful to organize a preliminary dialogue between the two worlds of Judaism and Christianity on this theme. I believe that if we fight together for the sake of something, in the conviction that everyone has a particular role to play, without being merely dragged in by the other, our strength toward the world becomes enormous. In the field of ethics, and of bioethics in particular, we cannot reduce everything to a common vision. The differences that exist between us, for instance, in stem-cell research and application, in the great majority of cases do not allow us to form a common front. However, it is exactly here, in relation to a problem that is never discussed in the context of our dialogue, that dialogue ought to help us to clarify the issue and to work together for the formulation of a law that respects differences of opinions and that is not merely the expression of a numerically strong majority.

6. A Jewish Theology of Christianity? Frequently, Christians involved in interreligious dialogue speak about the need for a ‘‘Christian theology of Judaism.’’ In this, one can see another asymmetry. There is never much reference to a ‘‘Jewish theology of Christianity.’’ Does this theology exist? Of course it exists. Over the past years, has there been any breakthrough in this type of theological reflection? Of course there have been breakthroughs, as in the past, though they have not necessarily paralleled those of Christian theology. These breakthroughs have been much slower and much more dialectical. At the moment of their reencounter, when Esau invited Jacob to

................. 16673$

$CH2

10-23-07 10:18:08

PS

PAGE 19

20 / Rabbi Dr. Riccardo Di Segni

travel together, the patriarch Jacob answered his elder brother that he needed time, that he would follow in his own time, according to his own rhythms (Gen. 33:14). Today, Israel answers Christians in the same way. The dialogue, which does not have to be theological, inevitably confronts Israel with the theological question of how to define the other. This is a problem that shall have to be solved from the inside, on the basis of the inner dynamics of Judaism, outside the context of interreligious dialogue; it is a problem that Israel, in its own time, shall have to face. In Judaism, however, theology (a term absent from its classical vocabulary) cannot be detached from halakhah, the law, which is much more important and binding. In the past centuries, the harshness of the attitudes toward the Jewish community did in some way make it easier to embrace certain radical stances of opposition. The rules that we have inherited were formulated in different times and places and reflect contrasting opinions as to the role of Christianity, the nature of its beliefs, the risks of dialogue, the possible limits, and the way in which certain concessions can be justified. It is necessary that today, even on these themes, halakhah has again to take up its guiding role and determine how we are to behave, reopening the discussion and putting forth the answers. But halakhah has its own rules, and the results cannot be programmed in advance on the basis of political expediency.

7. Conclusion: Two Biblical Images At the level of doctrine, we can allow ourselves a greater margin of freedom. Certainly, on the basis of the texts, there are itineraries that we can choose, if with some caution, to undertake new doctrinal reflections. I want to propose two, rich in symbolic interpretations. First, the Prophet Isaiah (49:14) reported Zion’s lament: ‘‘Zion says: the Lord has forsaken me, the Lord has forgotten me.’’ The answer to the lament is a consolation: there is neither abandonment nor oblivion because God is for Israel like a mother, in fact, even more than a mother who does not abandon her little one. A Master of the Talmud (TB Berakhot 32b) asked why there are two words in the lament: abandonment and oblivion; he then explained that it is like a man who has abandoned the first wife for another and has forgotten the first.

................. 16673$

$CH2

10-23-07 10:18:10

PS

PAGE 20

Progress and Issues of the Dialogue from a Jewish Viewpoint / 21

It is an odd explanation that somehow contradicts what comes afterward in the text, where the symbolic relations are those between mother and son and not those between husband and wife. It still remains an interesting image, however (though perhaps women nowadays will find it mildly disturbing); in the same way as a man can have more than one wife, establishing a special affective relationship with each one of them, so God can unite Himself to different peoples after having been united to Israel, which was his first companion. There is no limit to divine love, but still, we must decide whether at every new union the previous partner has been repudiated and neglected forever or whether she remains forever loved. The prophetic text seems to support the second hypothesis; in the end, this rabbinical reflection does not exclude for God the possibility of nonexclusive affections. Indeed, with some irony, we could imagine that in the same way as it often happens in polygamic families after the initial rivalries between the different wives, the latter might decide to form an alliance to control or to resist the husband. It would be an unforeseen and paradoxical historical evolution. The second possibility is that in Genesis 27:45, we are told that when Esau threatened to kill his brother Jacob as soon as their father Isaac was dead, their mother Rebekah ordered Jacob to flee, saying, ‘‘Why should I be deprived of both of you on the same day?’’ The two could be Isaac and Jacob or, according to the rabbis, Jacob and Esau, the latter perhaps having been condemned for his crime. Rashi, taking up an idea from the Talmud (TB Sota 13a), says that at that moment Rebekah had been vouchsafed a spirit of prophecy and had intuited—so deduces the midrash on the basis of the biblical narrative—that effectively, many years later, the twin brothers would die (or would be buried) on the same day. The words of Rashi let us think of another important matter. Of the two brothers, there is not one who shall disappear before the other, maybe by being swallowed by the other. We are destined to remain forever together, in good as well as in bad fortune, and as long as either of us lives, the other shall live as well. Let us always remember this perspective, and let us try to transform the destiny of our forced coexistence into an invitation to positive, and not destructive, confrontation, as well as to beneficent growth for us and for all of humanity.

................. 16673$

$CH2

10-23-07 10:18:11

PS

PAGE 21

22 / Rabbi Dr. Riccardo Di Segni

At this crucial moment in human history, when those who in a sense we used to consider the descendants of Esau are putting back into the sheath the sword prepared for Israel, and when the descendants of Ishmael are taking it up again after centuries of relative calm, the sense of our human origins and of our responsibilities must prevail over all other considerations; echoing the words of the prayer of Isaiah (64:7): ‘‘Now, O Lord, you are our Father; we are the clay and you are our creator; and we are all a work of Your hands.’’

................. 16673$

$CH2

10-23-07 10:18:11

PS

PAGE 22

3. Jewish Perspective s on Christianity Rabbi Giuseppe Laras

1. Introduction: Today’s Context of Interreligious Dialogue

I would like to preface my considerations with a general observation that is also meant to be an expression of hope for the future. JewishChristian dialogue—despite the limits, the flaws, the disappointments, the criticisms, and the attacks that it continues to provoke—is a dynamic reality; we are not in a situation of stasis. I would also like to quote, applying it to us, a verse from the Book of Deuteronomy (5:3), ‘‘We, all of us who are alive here this day,’’ are armed more with goodwill and hope than with wisdom and certainties. The comparison between Christianity and Judaism typical of the past centuries is not that of today; yesterday, there were theological disputes, and the Jews were unilaterally asked to attend public assemblies where they had to justify their continued allegiance to the faith of their fathers. Today, Jews and Christians in the spirit of dialogue meet in very different circumstances and with markedly different attitudes. It is nonetheless difficult to deny that from a part of the Jewish world, rabbinic and nonrabbinic, there is still a certain resistance, a difficulty about entering into a relationship with Christianity in the context of the initiatives of dialogue. This happens for a series of reasons; some of them are clear and evident, some are less so, but do nonetheless exert a determining influence on our relations.

................. 16673$

$CH3

10-23-07 10:18:02

PS

PAGE 23

24 / Rabbi Giuseppe Laras

There is, of course, still the fear or the suspicion that the true goal of the Christians is to attract the Jews to Christianity through dialogue or that through these contacts those Jews who are less religiously motivated, and thus are more fragile, may be induced to abandon their religion and to embrace Christianity. I have the impression, from a preliminary and substantial point of view, that the true reason behind this resistance is not tied to a subliminal fear or reluctance, but is connected with considerations of a doctrinal type: unlike Christianity in relation with Judaism, Judaism does not need Christianity to understand or to comprehend itself. Today, there is a tendency to talk of an ‘‘asymmetrical relationship’’ that connects Jews and Christians at the level of dialogue. In other words, for a Christian, the encounter with Israel means the rediscovery of one’s own roots, so that Christianity is more clearly defined, understood, and, so to speak, better justified. For a Jew, the encounter with Christianity does not carry the same significance. On the contrary, in this second case, the encounter with the other becomes a source of tension and contradiction as soon as the figure of Jesus comes under discussion (how could it be otherwise?)—a figure that, understood as divine and messianic, contrasts with Israel’s monotheistic and messianic understanding. It is also necessary to add that within Christianity’s religious doctrines, where we meet with openness and readiness to change as well as with resistance and hesitation, there are still serious difficulties whenever one tries to define and to indicate the role of the people of Israel. As an example, I am thinking of the interpretation given by the Church to the return of Israel to its land after two thousand years of galut (exile): is it a providential event within a theological vision or a historical and contingent event within a political perspective? I could continue to discuss these issues, adding yet other considerations, but instead, I would like to turn to a different matter. No longer assessing the Christian theological understanding of Judaism, I will attempt, starting from inside the Jewish tradition, to outline and evaluate the main points of a Jewish theological understanding of Christianity. Such Jewish understanding, even if essential, is not univocal; it is contradictory and is still being worked out. Its elaboration is certainly a very difficult and delicate task, whose starting point is the study of the definitions of Christianity given by the Jews in the past; I am thinking here especially of the Talmudic and the medieval periods.

................. 16673$

$CH3

10-23-07 10:18:02

PS

PAGE 24

Jewish Perspectives on Christianity / 25

2. Talmudic Approaches to Christianity The question upon which all discussions converged, and thus also the main problem to be solved, was whether Christians had to be considered idolaters or not. In the Talmud, we find a distinction between the goyim (including the Christians) living in the land of Israel and the goyim living outside the land of Israel. In order to absolve the former from the accusation of idolatry, it was necessary to make sure that they truly did not practice idolatry; for the second, the presumption that they were not idolaters was sufficient. There is a passage in the Talmud (B Hullin 13b) that seems to say this: ‘‘The idolaters outside Israel are not idolaters, since what they do is to practice, out of habit, the rituals of their ancestors.’’ I have translated into everyday language a technical expression that means while ‘‘performing certain practices,’’ they do not show a clear intention of celebrating idolatrous rituals. Why do we find this difference of evaluation between those living in the land of Israel and those who are outside of it? Most likely, the Christians of the Holy Land mentioned in the Talmud are the early Judeo-Christians, the Jerusalem church of James, those who had known and practiced the Jewish religion and had subsequently abandoned it. These people, therefore, knew what they were doing; they knew that they were violating the precept of the yihud ha-Shem (the unity of God), according to which God (ha-Shem) is One (ehad), a precept that concerns those who are born Jews and not those who are outside the people of Israel. According to some, there is a subtle distinction: the descendants of Noah (those non-Jewish individuals who obey universal moral laws) are subject to the prohibition of idolatry but are not obliged to embrace monotheism. Thus shittuf (the association of other divine figures to the one God, as in the case of Jesus) can be practiced by them without breaking the prohibition of idolatry, considering that they are not obliged to profess monotheism.

3. Medieval Sephardic Approaches to Christianity With the passage of time, especially in medieval Europe, this situation would undergo a radical change. Idolatry in the proper sense of the term would disappear, and with it also the necessity to fight it. Christians and Muslims would control Europe (the Muslims until the fall of Granada in 1492). The Jews would have to deal with them in their different roles

................. 16673$

$CH3

10-23-07 10:18:03

PS

PAGE 25

26 / Rabbi Giuseppe Laras

as rulers and as representatives of different religions. What is the Jewish approach toward Christians and Christianity in the medieval period? Does this approach change from that of the Talmudic period or does it remain unchanged? In general, one must distinguish between the Sephardic rabbis residing in areas under Islamic influence and the Ashkenazic rabbis residing in areas under Christian influence. The Sephardic front is authoritatively represented by Maimonides, who, if compared with the diversified position of the Talmud, takes a more radical and univocal stance, eliminating the distinction between the inhabitants of the land of Israel and those living outside Israel, treating all Christians as ‘‘idolaters’’ tout court. Next to this negative vision of Christian theology, Maimonides does, however, give a more open and moderate assessment of the messianic role of Christianity and Islam in the world. Here is, for instance, a passage from the Treatise on Kings, which does not appear in all editions of the Mishneh Torah because in most of them it was censored: To understand the thoughts of the Creator of the world is not possible for man, because our ways are not His ways and our thoughts are not His thoughts (Is 55:8); nevertheless, all the words of Jesus of Nazareth and of the son of Ishmael [Mohammed] who came after him are aimed at paving the way to the King-Messiah and at preparing the whole world to serve God together, as it is written: ‘‘because I shall then transform the language of the peoples into a pure language, so that all shall invoke the Name of the Lord and shall serve him in harmony together’’ (Zeph 3:9).1 Following the line of thought begun by Yehuda ha-Levy in the Kuzari, Maimonides lets Christianity and Islam, so to speak, do a ‘‘qualitative leap’’: he includes the two religions within a sole providential plan that sees them as protagonists in a preparatory journey of all of humanity toward the messianic event.

4. Medieval Ashkenazic Approaches to Christianity In the so-called Ashkenazic world, where we find personalities such as Rashi, the Tosafists, and other rabbinical authorities who carry much weight in the French-Germanic environment, it is emphasized that the Christians (in whose countries the Jews lived) are not idolaters. We can

................. 16673$

$CH3

10-23-07 10:18:03

PS

PAGE 26

Jewish Perspectives on Christianity / 27

therefore see a rather marked distinction between the evaluation of the Christians given by the Sephardic world represented by Maimonides and the evaluation given in general by the highest authorities of the European Ashkenazic world. According to the latter, the Christians are not idolaters, or they do not know of any idolatrous practice, or—echoing the well-known claim by Rabbi Yohanan mentioned earlier (B Hullin 13b)—‘‘what they do is to practice out of habit the rituals of their ancestors’’ without any intention of thereby carrying out idolatrous practices. In this delicate context, we ought to mention a rather odd circumstance. In a very important halakhic text (the Tur by Ya’aqov ben Asher), the controversialist and jurist Joseph Caro explicitly mentions that ‘‘at the present time [the sixteenth century], Christians believe in the Creator of the world and thus are not to be considered idolaters.’’ However, in another work of his, the codifying treatise Shulhan Arukh, the same Joseph Caro completely fails to mention his conviction as a halakhic norm. Within this complex horizon, the position of the famous fourteenthcentury scholar from Provence, Rabbi Menachem ben Shelomo haMeiri (1249–1315) represents a special case. He thinks that Christianity has nothing to do with idolatry and that the prohibitions mentioned in the Talmud about idolaters do not concern Christians. Thus he writes, ‘‘even if their faith is different from ours, they do not belong to the category of idolaters’’; ‘‘they believe in the existence of God the Blessed One, in His uniqueness and omnipotence, even if in some respects, from the point of view of our faith, they incur in some errors.’’ Elsewhere, too, ‘‘in our time, in the majority of cases, even if sometimes they take oaths in the name of important dead personages [the saints], they nonetheless do not consider them deities’’ and thus there is no idolatry. Meiri’s position is certainly remarkable and authoritative, even if these conclusions of his, which appear wholly to exclude Christianity from the problem of idolatry, seem to be rather unique.

5. Conclusion In such a tormented context, characterized by contradictory positions and thoughts, sometimes oriented toward a more moderate appraisal, sometimes toward a more critical judgment of the Christian religion, Maimonides’ ambivalent opinion—negative on the theological level,

................. 16673$

$CH3

10-23-07 10:18:03

PS

PAGE 27

28 / Rabbi Giuseppe Laras

but more positive in its messianic perspective—appears to be the clearest and most straightforward affirmation of the involvement of Christianity in a providential role of a universalist messianic type. This opinion continues to represent a major stepping stone in the path that Christianity and Judaism walk together, though along parallel paths and with distinct trajectories. Maybe even the category of the ‘‘descendants of Noah,’’ which is admittedly rather inadequate and weak, may still be used to think of Christianity in Jewish terms and to reconcile conceptually (and not only conceptually) the two religions. Let us not forget that in the past century, in the heart of the European continent that some thought the most civilized, we witnessed the explosion of the Shoah, with its burden of suffering and death—and the idea of dialogue came as a consequence of the Shoah. As I said, dialogue continues and must be sustained because it is a unique opportunity to think and to speak together; the only road that is open for both of us to travel so as to be present, together, whenever God shall so desire. ‘‘Things that are hidden belong to the Lord our God’’ (Deut. 29:28). As far as we are concerned, we should not behave as if we were in a rush; we ought not to have too many certainties (personally, I have more questions to ask than answers to offer); we ought not to be tempted to ‘‘wake up love’’ (Sg. 2:7) before it is time. Thanks to our faith, we must be optimistic; we must be trusting and we must be convinced that, when the moment shall come, God shall open our eyes and our hearts, showing us the truth. Thus, we must be ‘‘alive’’ and walk together in the direction of that goal, with sentiments of love, respect, and humility.

................. 16673$

$CH3

10-23-07 10:18:04

PS

PAGE 28

4. Reflections t oward Jewish -C hristian Dialogue Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini

1. The Need for Theological Rethinking and Mutual Understanding

Bruno Forte has outlined the fundamental elements of a Christian theology of Judaism that provide a positive reading of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity.1 Such a theology must not succumb to extremist temptations, either of an exclusivist nature (according to which Christianity has nothing to do with Judaism and should simply forgo any connection with the First Testament) or of an inclusivist bent (by which Christianity implies that God’s plan favoring the people of Israel has been replaced with another plan of salvation that does not consider Israel). The wealth of data from Bruno Forte’s paper shows that the problem is extremely complex—in fact, we are most likely only at the beginning of a radical theological rethinking of the relations between Judaism and Christianity in line with the directions that have especially come from the Second Vatican Council. This rethinking or reappraisal takes place only slowly and takes time to be assimilated by local communities. For instance, at an interfaith meeting held at Grottaferrata, Rome, on October 17–19, 2004, it was remarked ‘‘that there is not a wide enough awareness in our respective communities of the momentous change that

................. 16673$

$CH4

10-23-07 10:18:06

PS

PAGE 29

30 / Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini

has taken place in the relationship between Catholics and Jews.’’ Similarly, Rabbi David Rosen has acknowledged that the progress made through dialogue is little known among Jews at the grassroots level, and the same is true to some extent among Christians. Thus it was thought necessary at a recent interfaith dialogue to declare once more that ‘‘we are not enemies, but unequivocal partners in articulating the essential moral values for the survival and welfare of human society.’’2 Here one recalls the painful history of the past, with centuries of closures, ostracisms, reciprocal misunderstandings, and calumnies. It is a history that we cannot remember without a deep sense of sorrow and humiliation, all the more so as we gradually realize how, in this respect, many Christians have behaved in opposition to the Gospel and thus have obscured the truth and the love that ought always to flow from the Church of Christ. Today, things are changing, but we need time and energy, especially because of current events that give the virus of antisemitism the opportunity to spread and provoke condemnatory theories and judgments. In this perspective, I would like to discuss the following questions: How can a local church, given the existing negative stereotypes, help people to overcome them? How can it develop a climate of friendly collaboration, respect, and reciprocal esteem, which can in its turn provide the cultural background for a healthy theological reappraisal? The point here is that it is not only for specialists to discuss the relations between Jews and Christians, but also that there is a need to find some points of reference for a common ecclesial agenda and for dialogue between ordinary Christians and Jews that provides a context for the efforts of the theologians and the exegetes. What is at stake here is not merely the greater or lesser vitality of a dialogue in exclusive circles, but something that concerns all Christians. We must make sure that the Christian faithful gain a renewed awareness of their bond with the children of Abraham, with all the resulting consequences for the doctrine, the behavior, the liturgy, and the spiritual life of the Church, as well as her mission in the world today. It is necessary for the Church to elaborate a better self-understanding of her own nature and mission in relation with the Jewish people. Before anything else, this necessitates a heightened attention to what Jews think and say about themselves. As I indicate some elements that may foster such understanding, I cannot but refer to my experience as the archbishop of Milan, which

................. 16673$

$CH4

10-23-07 10:18:06

PS

PAGE 30

Reflections toward Christian-Jewish Dialogue / 31

lasted for over twenty years, during which time I had numerous occasions to meet members of the Jewish community. For these opportunities, I also have to thank the Chief Rabbi, Professor Laras, whom I remember with great cordiality and gratitude. These initiatives gradually created an increasingly open and friendly environment, characterized by reciprocal attention and a sincere desire to foster mutual esteem and understanding.

2. Four Imperatives for Friendship and Reconciliation My experience tells me that it is possible to make progress on the road of friendship and reconciliation, but four things are necessary for this goal to be achieved. The Christian Bible. Christians must know not only the New Testament, but also the texts of the First Testament, and must be able to interpret them in the light of the Gospel so as to see the continuity between the things that are narrated, promised, and foreseen in the Hebrew Bible and the events of the Christian Church. It is clear that this reading is typically Christian. At the same time, it enables a reappraisal of the content of the pages of the First Testament and it sets forth a path of continuity laying the foundations for an evermore profound dialogue. Post-biblical Judaism. Christians must acquire an understanding of post-biblical Judaism, which, until very recently, was almost totally lacking in the Catholic Church. For this reason, it is necessary—and I have said it more than once—not only to know the books and the traditions that after the destruction of the Temple continued to maintain in life a specifically Jewish hope, but also to widen our horizons to the entire history and customs and artistic, scientific, literary, and musical talents of the Jewish people. We must cultivate an attitude of esteem and of love toward this people. Simple repudiation of antisemitism is not enough. We need to develop motivations for a friendship that in the heart of the other increasingly reads the thoughts that we share and that finds a space for the differences, making sure, however, that these differences do not lead to conflict or marginalization. To this purpose, we shall have to devote numerous cultural initiatives. First of all, in the formation of future priests, it shall be necessary to emphasize the knowledge of biblical and post-biblical Judaism. In recent years, a certain progress has been made in this direction, but much remains to be

................. 16673$

$CH4

10-23-07 10:18:06

PS

PAGE 31

32 / Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini

done, especially because up to now, only a few have received this type of formation. Collaboration with Jews. Christians and Jews need to work together to realize concrete initiatives of charity, of service, of justice, and of peace. Christian ethics and Jewish ethics are for the most part identical and pursue the same objectives. It is for this reason that it is possible for Jews and for Christians to work together in many fields and thus to establish those conditions of mutual trust that are the principal path for interreligious, intercultural, and even political dialogue. Intercession. Where there are conflicts, as at present between Israelis and Palestinians, it is necessary to remain in the middle and to work so that all violence may cease and everyone may learn to understand the pain of the other in addition to their own. For this reason, I have chosen to live in Jerusalem most of the time, and I have set as my main priority the prayer of intercession. I mean ‘‘intercession’’ in the etymological sense of ‘‘walking in the middle,’’ without deciding on the rights and wrongs of one side or the other: walking in the midst—in prayer. This, indeed, is a prayer of intercession so that the people of the Middle East, and in particular, Jews and Palestinians, might discover ways of mutual trust and dialogue. When people tell me that this prayer is not answered because one does not yet see peace, I respond that this is not true. In Jerusalem, there are many initiatives of dialogue, of encounter, and of listening. Jerusalem is not only a city of conflict, as it appears from the mass media, but also a city of love and of prayer. I have been particularly struck by my encounter with an association of Palestinian and Jewish families, each of which has had a member killed in the war or because of terrorism.3 These families meet regularly so as to understand each other’s grief and to propose initiatives of dialogue, reconciliation, and peace. I believe that everything was begun by the mother of a Jewish girl whose daughter strongly desired peace and who, at the age of fourteen, was already taking part in peace demonstrations. At the age of sixteen, this girl was killed by a terrorist. The mother, who was in a state of shock, realized that she must not abandon herself to her grief nor yield to desperation and the desire for revenge. Thus she set out to look for and to visit the families of both Jews and Arabs who had experienced a similar tragedy. In this way, groups of Arabs and Jews were started that enjoy great credibility among other families because they bear a great sorrow with suffering and dignity and turn it into a resource to overcome their conflicts. Among other

................. 16673$

$CH4

10-23-07 10:18:07

PS

PAGE 32

Reflections toward Christian-Jewish Dialogue / 33

things, this group managed to enable a great number of Jews and Arabs to talk to each other, giving them the opportunity to get in touch with each other on the phone. This has led to thousands and thousands of phone calls between members of the two peoples. I mention this story to illustrate that creative initiatives to overcome the barrier of hatred never cease and are capable of accomplishing remarkable things.

3. Stages toward Reconciliation To ensure that such a path becomes possible, it is necessary to proceed by stages. Prayer. The first stage is prayer. We know that humanity is not alone in the drama of history. Unexpected dimensions of faith, of love, and of hope reveal themselves to Jews as well as to Christians. For Jews, every moment or situation in life carries the possibility to worship the name of the Most High, to give witness to His Holy Name. In this, an important role is played by the feasts that recur in different periods of the year, starting, of course, with Passover. Christians need to understand this constant Jewish attitude of adoration of the name of God. To vivify our celebration of the Eucharist, to celebrate the liturgy with all its precious values, Christians ought to understand better the prayers and the spirituality of Jews. Conversion of the Heart. The second stage is the conversion of the heart, in Hebrew teshuvah. For the Jew, every day is made for the teshuvah of the individual and of the community. Indeed, for we Christians, too, every day is an opportunity to begin to ask God and our brothers and sisters to accept our sorrow for the evil that we have done and the good that we have forgotten to accomplish. Let us approach our Jewish brothers and sisters with humility, acknowledging the history of their suffering, their martyrdom, and the persecutions that they have endured. Let us abandon tendentious interpretations of passages in the New Testament and other writings. Let us eliminate the misunderstandings that still make us suspicious of our reciprocal goodwill. Actually, we all ardently desire the same thing: to be authentic, to be faithful to the truth as we know it. Study and Dialogue. The third stage is that of study, and subsequently, of dialogue. In its search for truth, humanity builds schools, research centers, and universities. In the past, Judaism produced Talmudic reflection and all its attendant treatises. Now it has established many

................. 16673$

$CH4

10-23-07 10:18:07

PS

PAGE 33

34 / Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini

thriving institutes that focus on research and dialogue in Jerusalem and in many other parts of the world. The Church cannot ignore the results of these developments as they are presented in the religious, juridical, and philosophical texts of post-biblical Jewish literature. The Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome has had for many years a close relationship with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in order to give to its students, future professors of biblical studies, an opportunity to attend at least for one semester an institution that is prestigious in the field of Jewish studies. So far, about one thousand students—many of them now professors in seminaries throughout the world—have profited from this program. I am convinced that a deeper understanding of Judaism and its various currents is vital for the Church, not only so as to overcome a centuries-old ignorance and to begin a fruitful dialogue, but also to deepen the Church’s self-understanding. In particular, I would like to emphasize how important it would be for the theology of Christian praxis to study the problems derived from the interruption of the contribution that the theology and the praxis of Jewish-Christians gave to the early Christian community. It is a fact that the first great schism, that between Jews and Christians, has deprived the Church of much help that it would have received from the Jewish tradition. To mention just three consequences of this failed interaction: 1. The ongoing difficulty of Christian praxis to formulate with precision the right attitude of individuals and of the community toward the technical, economic, and political power of this world. 2. The difficulty of Christian praxis to develop a balanced attitude toward the body, toward sex, and toward the family. 3. Finally, Christian spirituality struggles to find the right relationship between messianic eschatological hope and the hopes and the expectations of individuals and communities in relation to justice, human rights, and so forth. The endless discussions of opinions and practical implications on these matters (it is sufficient to think of the laws on artificial insemination and on the use of embryos in research) ultimately stem from the unhealed wound inflicted by that first schism. We can thus understand why Saint Paul could say in the Letter to the Romans that the recomposition of unity between the Jewish and the Christian traditions shall be ‘‘a resurrection from the dead’’ (Rom. 11:15).

................. 16673$

$CH4

10-23-07 10:18:08

PS

PAGE 34

Reflections toward Christian-Jewish Dialogue / 35

A Universally Open Dialogue. The fourth stage is a dialogue characterized by universality and openness to all. Judaism and the Christian churches cannot stop at a dialogue that excludes other interlocutors. The very nature of this relationship implies that it must be open first of all to Islam because of the historical, cultural, and religious roots that it shares with Christianity and because of the shared ancestry in Abraham. Here we cannot expect short-term results or strategic preferential advantages. On the contrary, we must begin to propose shared values so as to discover aims and instruments of dialogue, knowing that in this way we are doing a service to humanity as a whole. In this dialogue, the city of Jerusalem has a fundamental importance. In an apostolic letter concerning this city, John Paul II has emphasized that ‘‘for the Jewish people who live in the State of Israel . . . we must ask for the desired security and the due tranquillity that is the prerogative of every nation’’ and also, on the other hand, that ‘‘the Palestinian people . . . have the natural right in justice . . . to be able to live in peace and tranquillity with the other peoples of the area.’’ The Holy Father stresses that the Holy City of Jerusalem, so dear to Jews, Christians, and Muslims, ‘‘stands out as a symbol of coming together, of union, and of universal peace for the human family’’ and goes on to express his desire that ‘‘there should be found with goodwill and farsightedness, a concrete and just solution by which different interests and aspirations can be provided. . . .’’4 In their encounter in October 2004, among other things, the representatives of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the members of the Commission of the Holy See declared, referring to some recent episode: Jerusalem has a sacred character for all the children of Abraham. We call on all relevant authorities to respect this character and to prevent actions which offend the sensibilities of religious communities that reside in Jerusalem and hold her dear. We call on religious authorities to protest publicly when actions of disrespect towards religious persons, symbols and Holy Sites are committed, [ . . . ] We call on them to educate their communities to behave with respect and dignity towards people and towards their attachment to their faith.5 In this context, Judaism offers many examples of openness to dialogue not only with Islam, but also with other religions, as well as with science and philosophy. Among Christians, as far as this dialogue is

................. 16673$

$CH4

10-23-07 10:18:08

PS

PAGE 35

36 / Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini

concerned, we ought to mention the recent names of Louis Massignon and Charles de Foucauld, and, closer to our time, of Giorgio La Pira, Monsignor Rossano, Cardinal Willebrands, and Cardinal Bea. Education. The fifth stage is that of initiatives at the academic level, as well as at the level of actual instruction. The introduction to Jewish religion and culture can be fostered in a variety of ways. At the academic level, one might promote meetings and research projects, coordinating what already exists. In schools, one might use the possibilities present in school curricula and in future textbook revisions. A further possibility would be to organize professional development or continuing education courses for the clergy and catechists and the establishment of courses in seminaries and dioceses. Social, Political, and Cultural Collaboration. If the different stages that I have listed are followed in succession, it will also be easier to implement the last stage, which is the creation of points of convergence for social, political, and cultural collaboration. We can thus hope that in promoting and defending the life and the freedom of all people, Jews and Christians shall (more often than in the past) find themselves standing side by side because of shared religious impulses and common ethical principles. The joint declaration of the meeting of bishops and rabbis mentioned above notes how biblical teaching demands that the goal of justice (tzedek u-mishpat) be pursued through the ways of charity and compassion (hesed we-rahamim); this necessitates an effort to go beyond the letter of the law (lifnim mi-shurat ha-din) for the good of society as a whole. Thus they ask that special attention be given to the challenges of poverty, disease, and marginalization; that we fight the unequal distribution of resources and a globalization bereft of human solidarity; and that we work toward the peaceful resolution of conflicts, thereby emphasizing our responsibilities in the face of the threat of terrorism in all its forms.6

4. Outcomes What do we expect as the outcomes of these stages? To propose some common long-term objectives might appear presumptuous if we did not trust the Spirit of God, Who, from the very beginning, hovered over the primordial waters. He is the One Whom we continue to invoke: ‘‘Send your Spirit, O Lord, and renew the face of the earth’’ (Ps. 104:30).

................. 16673$

$CH4

10-23-07 10:18:09

PS

PAGE 36

Reflections toward Christian-Jewish Dialogue / 37

The first common objective is to be witnesses of the love of the Father throughout the whole world. All people are equal objects of the love of God. In this mutual witness, we are thus united by a goal that draws us all. If we Christians believe that we are in continuity and in communion with the patriarchs, the prophets, those exiled to Babylon, and the Maccabean martyrs, it is necessary that this communion be realized in all possible ways. This includes communion with those Jews who began to codify the Mishnah at Yavneh and redacted the Talmud at Babylon, and with those Jews who were persecuted by the Crusaders and who were tried on the accusation of ritual murder. Going beyond all these events and errors of the past, we must move toward a common goal when we shall be one single people that the Lord shall bless, saying: ‘‘Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my heritage’’ (Isa. 19:25). A second objective is to engage in common service on the basis of our respective covenantal duties. Both Jews and Christians are called to carry out a service toward humanity as a whole. This service constitutes a ministry that can effectively be called priestly, a mission that can unite us without dissolving our individual identities, until the coming of the Messiah, whom we both invoke with the words Marana-tha. If we want to try to describe this priestly ministry of Israel and the church, we can use the concept of ‘‘sanctifying His name,’’ in other words, the decision to make the holiness of God present in ourselves, in families, in society, in creation. Judaism has developed a careful reflection on the precepts that sanctify every moment of life and on the intention of the heart that constitutes its vivifying soul. Among the many potential areas of involvement in service, we can emphasize the defense and protection of human life at every stage, from birth to death; commitment to voluntary social service; the pursuit of different forms of nonviolence; assistance to populations in conditions of serious need; aid to the sick and to drug addicts; the education of the young; and the fostering of the arts, of culture, and of science. In all these efforts, we are guided by the fundamental desire to promote the peace that comes from justice. In his address to the representatives of the Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities who were meeting in Fribourg, John Paul II noted that this peace is based on justice, on respect for everyone’s rights, as well as on the elimination of the causes of enmity that are hidden in the human heart.7

................. 16673$

$CH4

10-23-07 10:18:10

PS

PAGE 37

38 / Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini

If the Christian Church feels called, especially in Europe, to be a critical conscience of society, it shall always find the support of the profound religious and ethical teachings of Judaism. If the Church wishes to promote everywhere the dialogue of peace and to be a universal meeting place of all people in the name of Christ, in whom all things shall be recapitulated, it is especially with regard to Judaism that this dialogue and this peace are first of all to be promoted. Jews and Christians, in full respect for the diversity of the specific content of their faiths, must set out to accomplish this fraternal collaboration with intensity and depth. The more they succeed in this task, the more meaningful their presence shall be for the Europe of the third millennium and for the role that Europe has toward the rest of the world.

................. 16673$

$CH4

10-23-07 10:18:11

PS

PAGE 38

Part 2

The Need to Remember

................. 16673$

PRT2

10-23-07 10:17:19

PS

PAGE 39

................. 16673$

PRT2

10-23-07 10:17:19

PS

PAGE 40

5 . T h e Di f f i c u l t Apprenticeship of Diversity Anna Foa

1. A Complex Equilibrium The history of the relations between Jews and Christians in the long centuries that preceded Nostra Aetate is a history that begins with the rise of Christianity and stretches over a period of almost two thousand years. In the impossibility of tracing even a rough sketch of this history, I will merely show a few of its aspects and then concentrate chiefly on what happened after the eighteenth century. The latter period marked the beginning of the gradual secularization of society, while the relationship between the Jews and the Church entered a profound crisis that would not be healed until the Second Vatican Council and the decisive turning point of Nostra Aetate. There is an image that can be considered emblematic of the relationship between Jews and Christians in these centuries: that of the Church and the Synagogue, which adorns many medieval cathedrals. On one side, we see the Synagogue, in the guise of a distraught woman, with a blindfold on her eyes to indicate her blindness before the Messiah whom she refuses to acknowledge; on the other side of the same portal, we find the Church, a triumphant, towering figure eager to display her victory over the Synagogue. This is an iconographic pattern that fully represents the Christian idea of substitution: the Church supersedes the Synagogue, Christianity is the new Israel. If the Church is triumphant,

................. 16673$

$CH5

10-23-07 10:18:08

PS

PAGE 41

42 / Anna Foa

it is because the Synagogue has lost her strength, she is blind, and she is fallen. This is a fundamental theme of Christian theological growth in the first centuries, clearly defined as early as the third century—a theme that represents on the one hand the theological liquidation of Judaism, seen as defeated and as replaced by Christianity in the divine election, but that on the other hand is also able to find a place for Judaism within the economy of salvation: the Jews must be present within Christian society, although in a state of subordination and dependence. As symbols of error, they will be privileged witnesses to the truth of Christianity: the place iconographically represented by the blind and distraught Synagogue.1 Of course, next to this justification of the presence of Judaism in society, we find other theories, including theological ones, such as the eschatological idea that the ultimate conversion of the Jews was necessary to bring about the final Apocalypse. The formula represented in this image, however, is the one that best expresses this relationship, as it indicates subordination, but also equilibrium. The two images are placed on the two scale pans, even if the pan of the Synagogue is lower than the other, to emphasize its submission. In the thirteenth century, in the bull Etsi Iudeos, this submission would be indicated with the Latin formula of perpetua servitus, where servitus is meant not in a literal, but in a moral, religious sense: the subordination of error to truth. This equilibrium would remain in place for centuries.2 At its origins, however, there was a deliberate choice. It was not an obvious move, since there was really nothing necessary or ineluctable in the fact that the Church decided to maintain the Jews in its bosom. First of all, it was the choice of the Western, Roman Church, more than of its Eastern counterpart, where the presence of the Jews was rather forcefully confrontational, where synagogues were destroyed, and where violent episodes were much more frequent. With Gregory the Great, at the end of the sixth century, the Western Church definitively opted for the presence of Judaism in its midst, basing its theological pronouncements concerning the Jews on the theories of Paul and Augustine. It was not at all obvious that the Jews ought to have been there; similarly, it would not be obvious that there would have to be heretics, or Muslims, in a world based on religious uniformity where no diversity—save that of Judaism—was foreseen.

................. 16673$

$CH5

10-23-07 10:18:08

PS

PAGE 42

The Difficult Apprenticeship of Diversity / 43

The persistence of the Jewish presence thus constituted a choice, based on a series of theological reasons, as well as on the pronouncements of Roman law destined to be assimilated by canon law. By making this choice, however, the Church laid the foundations for an apprenticeship of diversity, or, in other words, found itself forced to face an instance of diversity, a diversity that was blindfolded, distraught, subordinate, and in perpetual servitude, but a diversity that even the most monolithic Christian societies had to face wherever there were Jews. Of course, the complex reasons for this presence were not easily understandable for those who had no familiarity with the subtleties of theology or for the common people (Christians who disagreed with the Church concerning a particular aspect of the faith), who saw heretics burn and infidels live, or who saw the Crusaders, at the end of the eleventh century, leave to go and free the Holy Land from the infidels without first getting rid of the infidels who lived within their own society. Hence, many contradictions, many conflicts, and many spontaneous persecutions were begun from below. Despite all this, the foundations were laid for this process of apprenticeship of diversity. I am firmly convinced that the Christian West would have had a different history if it had not made this choice or if it had not encompassed this diversity within itself, even with all the tragic episodes, the persecutions, and the violence that accompanied the choosing. The fact that they lived in the Diaspora, in the West, did of course change the history of the Jews, but at the same time, it changed profoundly the history of Western culture. It introduced a sort of dialogue. Of course, there was a whole range of possibilities, and the dialogue, or the relationship between the two worlds, represented an infinitesimal segment of it, which, more than being abstract, belonged to the dimension of daily life, of society, and of all that escaped control. Dialogue, however, was still possible, and it has been a part of this history.

2. The Question of Conversion In this complex equilibrium, there were many factors that tended to shift the rules of the game. The chief factor was the drive to conversion, the exercise of pressure on Jewish minorities to accept the Christian religion. This proselytizing pressure on the Jews does not begin immediately, even if in theory the will to convert is an essential aspect of

................. 16673$

$CH5

10-23-07 10:18:10

PS

PAGE 43

44 / Anna Foa

Christianity. In fact, for the whole of the first millennium until after the beginning of the Crusades, there is no real pressure from the Christian world. The two worlds remain impermeable, and conversions are chiefly a problematic or disturbing element. In the centuries of the early Middle Ages, the neophytes are generally individuals who convert out of a religious choice and who do not draw any economic or social advantages from their choice. In fact, they find themselves uprooted, people trusted by no one because they have passed from one world to another. The situation changes only after the Crusades. Conversions, previously isolated and individual phenomena, now involve great numbers of people and are often forcibly obtained. Everything begins during the massacres of the Jews in the German region of the Rhineland, which were perpetrated by marginal groups of crusaders and accompanied by forced conversions. There were some who refused to convert and thus sanctified the Name (kiddush haShem); there were others who accepted baptism and saved their own lives. There was only one historical precedent, going back to the seventh century, when the kings of the Visigoths had ordered the conversion of all Spanish Jews to Catholicism. In this episode, about which we know very little, the initiative had come from the political power, in the guise of the Visigoth king Sisebut and his successors, who had just converted from Arianism to Catholicism. They were thus motivated by the zeal of newly converted, despite the fact that their action was radically opposed to the Christian belief—underscored shortly before by Pope Gregory the Great—that the sacrament of baptism could not be conferred against the will of the recipient. In 694, at the Synod of Toledo, the Spanish Church would nonetheless ratify the validity of these conversions, even as it reaffirmed the prohibition to convert Jews by force. In practice, while there was a theoretical injunction against forcing specific individuals to accept baptism, once this sacrament had been conferred, one could no longer go back without effectively apostatizing. Once introduced into the canons, this principle would pose a huge problem for Christianity: How should one relate to those whom you are forcing to convert with your sword at their throat? Are you able to trust them when you force them to remain loyal to a baptism administered under duress when the alternative is to be tried for apostasy? How would you be able to trust their religious faith?

................. 16673$

$CH5

10-23-07 10:18:11

PS

PAGE 44

The Difficult Apprenticeship of Diversity / 45

This is a problem that would characterize the whole history of relations between Jews and Christians, and which flows from the conflict between the principle of the spontaneity of conversion and the principle that considers the sacrament of baptism valid regardless of the manner in which it was administered. The contradiction would be perpetuated by the formulations of canon law, even if it would be partially solved by the distinction between absolute force, which renders the baptism invalid as it affects the sacramental character of the action, and relative force. The cases of absolute force, however, are so rare that it is extremely difficult to prove their existence. According to regulations introduced into canon law, baptism can be considered administered with absolute force, and thus null and void, only when the recipient’s hands and feet were tied and he or she continued to protest with a loud voice that he or she did not want to be baptized. In all other cases, even if threatened with death, the force that is being exercised is relative, and consent is an option, so that such a baptism is valid. This distinction was invented at the end of the eleventh century, and in fact, before then, those who had been forced to convert by the bands of the crusaders under pain of death quickly returned to Judaism as soon as the circumstances allowed it. The German bishops, on their part, exercised no opposition, being well aware of the risks implicit in the existence of a great number of people converted by force. The problem would later reemerge, and this time the choice of the Church would be different. In 1267, Pope Clement IV issued the bull Turbato Corde, by which those who had converted, as well as those Jews who helped them to return to Judaism, were put under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition. We are now in the historical context in which heresies were tearing apart Western Christianity, and the tribunals of the Inquisition had already been working for a few decades to test the orthodoxy of beliefs held by Christians. On the one hand, the Inquisition could not exert any jurisdiction upon the Jews, whom the Church did not consider heretics, but rather members of a religio licita; on the other hand, the Inquisition tried all that it could to extend its control to the Jewish world, too. In this sense, the bull of 1267 opened many possibilities to the Inquisition, but at the same time, it made the issue of forced conversions much more problematic. The history that began at this point is a tragic history; the ‘‘judaizing’’ converts were hunted down by tribunals, who then proceeded to torture them to force them to admit their apostasy and then burned them

................. 16673$

$CH5

10-23-07 10:18:11

PS

PAGE 45

46 / Anna Foa

at the stake. The judaizers were declared heretics, thus creating the judaizing heresy. Until then, the most tragic episodes of the relations between the Christian world and the Jews had met the opposition of the Church and its hierarchy; now, however, a spiral of violence and persecution would begin, which for centuries would represent one of the main elements of insecurity for the life of the Jewish communities, and for which the Church, and only the Church, was directly responsible.

3. Identifying Signs, Burning the Talmud, and Charges of Ritual Desecrations and Murders

In the same period, the question of a ‘‘distinctive sign’’ became more and more pressing. Invented in the Islamic world to identify infidels— Jews and Christians—it was appropriated by the Church in 1215, although not applied for a long time. The purpose of the ‘‘distinctive sign’’ was initially to distinguish Jews from Christians and to avoid promiscuities of all sorts (especially those of a sexual nature) between the two groups. In time, this sign, in the eyes of Christians and even more so of Jews, would acquire a humiliating connotation. The sign emerges in a general context where the distinction between Jews and Christians was disappearing because there was no specificity or relevant difference in terms of physical appearance or dress. This was especially true in Italy, though in the rest of Europe, and in Germany in particular, the difference in dress remained pronounced. Let us look at miniatures. In those from the German cultural area, Jews can be distinguished by their hat or their clothes. The Italian miniatures, especially those from the Renaissance period, show instead Jews playing musical instruments and wearing clothes and ornaments that are wholly similar to those worn by Christians.3 In this world where it was impossible to distinguish Jews and Christians, the friars, and especially the Franciscans, fought strenuously to impose on reluctant cities the observance of the ‘‘distinctive sign.’’4 The signs were everywhere different: yellow rollers (remember that yellow is a sign of infamy), yellow or red hats, certain types of cloaks, and even for women circular earrings, which, according to the Franciscan preacher Giacomo della Marca, constitute for them ‘‘the sign of circumcision.’’5 On their part, Jews mounted a long and constant resistance to the practice of wearing these signs, trying to avoid it in all possible ways.

................. 16673$

$CH5

10-23-07 10:18:12

PS

PAGE 46

The Difficult Apprenticeship of Diversity / 47

Another factor that especially from the thirteenth century onward became a point of contention was Jewish books, especially the Talmud. The offensive began among Spanish Dominican friars and French sovereigns, and it was only in the sixteenth century, and not without hesitation, that the Roman Church made this hostility its own. In 1553, in Rome, the Talmud was publicly burned at the stake. Later on, despite various attempts, especially during the pontificate of Sixtus V, to merely censor the Talmud, the popes ended by banning it completely. Unlike the German Jews, who could continue to read their books, the Jews of the State of the Church would have to do without the Talmud for three centuries. Such a restriction could not but have very strong repercussions on the intellectual life and the transmission of knowledge, as well as on the daily life of the Italian Jews. The Church carries direct responsibility for this ban, too, at least from 1553. In contrast, it is impossible to ascribe to the Church direct responsibility for the accusations of ritual murder or desecration of the host— accusations that, often with the support of the local clergy, were raised against Jewish communities between the late Middle Ages and the first centuries of the modern era. Thus the Jews were accused, in the majority of cases collectively, of ritually murdering a child in the period of Passover to perpetuate the murder of Christ or even to use its blood for the preparation of unleavened bread. Jews were similarly accused of profaning the consecrated host, as we can reread in the splendid images of the polyptych by Paolo Uccello in Urbino, commissioned by the Franciscans and inspired by a case that had taken place in Paris two centuries earlier. In the first panel, we see a woman, who reclaims her robe from a Jewish pawnbroker, handing him, in exchange, a consecrated host taken away during a Mass. In the following panels, we see the frying of the host by a Jewish family, as well as their arrest. The case ends with the whole family—including the children—burnt at the stake, while the woman, repenting before dying, is able to save her soul, albeit not her life. This is an edifying tale, whose pattern is analogous to the accusation of ritual murder. In other legends, the profaned host shows the face of the Christ child. The accusation raised against the Jews is that through these desecrations they intend to destroy Christianity itself. It should be stressed, however, that the medieval Church distanced itself from these accusations, especially those of ritual murder. Thus, the papal bulls of the thirteenth century strongly affirm the belief that the Jews are innocent of

................. 16673$

$CH5

10-23-07 10:18:12

PS

PAGE 47

48 / Anna Foa

these charges. At the end of the nineteenth century, it would not be like that, and the Church would make the old ‘‘medieval’’ accusations its own. In Rome, these events only took place once, when in 1554 a child was found crucified in the Teutonic Cemetery, close to the Vatican, and the crowds accused the Jews of the murder. The Church, however, paid no attention to the voices of the people and proceeded to find the real authors of the murder, which had no ritual aspect at all.6

4. Expulsions and Ghettos In the middle of the sixteenth century, only a few regions in Europe still had Jewish communities in their territory. England had already expelled all Jews at the end of the thirteenth century, France at the beginning of the fourteenth, Spain in 1492, and the Spanish dominions in Italy between 1492 and the first decades of the sixteenth century. By then, Jews lived only in a part of Italy and in Germany. In the course of the sixteenth century, they would be expelled from large parts of Germany, especially from Lutheran towns, as well as from the region of Milan in Italy. Elsewhere in Italy, too, they were more and more often forced to live in ghettos, surrounded by walls and gates. The first ghetto, as is well known, was that of Venice, created in 1516. The most famous ghetto was that of Rome, created by Paul V in 1555 with the bull Cum nimis absurdum.7 This was the longest lasting and most significant ghetto because it was developed by the Church in a complex theological project and because the model of Rome’s ghetto was followed in all other ghettos that almost everywhere in Italy would hem in Jewish space in the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. For the Church, the ghetto obeyed a rationale that went beyond the mere separation of Jews from Christians. Pressures to convert, forced sermons every Saturday by preachers who came into the ghetto for this purpose, and activities of the Inquisition that kept an eye on the observance of the norms of separation turned the ghetto into a sort of openair prison, whose purpose was mainly to control the Jews for however long it took to convert them all and so end the Jewish question forever. Of course, as we know, the project failed. It is true that in the period of the ghettos there were numerous individual conversions of Jews, but they were insufficient to really break the identity of the community, especially in a context of confinement where a community’s reaction to

................. 16673$

$CH5

10-23-07 10:18:12

PS

PAGE 48

The Difficult Apprenticeship of Diversity / 49

external pressure naturally tends to reinforce rather than fragment cohesiveness. In the end, the old equilibriums were re-established even in the ghetto, though for the Jews these equilibriums were much costlier than before. The ghetto was organized in a punitive manner, starting from highly restricted spaces, which do not allow any luxury, even to the wealthier members of the community. Jewish bankers might, for instance, have the money to purchase paintings or tapestries, but could not have walls on which to hang them.8 In this way, the economy of the ghettos was forced to become increasingly centered on the practice of loaning at interest. In 1682, when the Church closed the Jewish banks, Rome’s ghetto fell into even more abject misery.

5. The Rise of Modernity In the meantime, however, the world was changing and with it also relations with the Jews. The Jewish presence in Europe, reduced to its lowest level in the sixteenth century, would grow and expand over the following two hundred years. Many Jews, especially from Germany, chose to move to Eastern Europe. Others moved to the Netherlands, still others ‘‘went back’’ to England and France. The latter, at least initially, were mainly Jews from Portugal, in other words, the descendants of those Jews who had been forcibly converted in the Iberian Peninsula between the fifteenth and the sixteenth centuries. They were therefore ‘‘marranos,’’ who had undergone generations of outward Christian observance and who were now looking for a place where they could safely go back to their Jewish identity, which had been suppressed in the past. The experience of forced conversion, far from generating new Christians, was actually the cause of a rebirth and renewal of the Jewish world.9 In Italy, as the Church was confronted by the emerging new culture and growing secularization and consequently adopted a defensive attitude that was radically hostile to modernity, the equilibrium between the Jews and the Christian world would become increasingly static and oppressive. In Rome, the ghetto remained closed in a sort of immobility, prevented from having any exchange with the outside world—an outside world that was itself becoming fossilized and increasingly losing touch with the more lively and dynamic currents of European society. To use Benedetto Croce’s famous definition of the Spanish domination in Italy, we could talk, with reference to Rome’s ghetto in

................. 16673$

$CH5

10-23-07 10:18:13

PS

PAGE 49

50 / Anna Foa

the eighteenth century, of one decadence superimposed on another. The closure and hatred directed by the Church toward modernity was accompanied by a growing suspicion toward Judaism, which seemed allied to the process of secularization that threatened the Church’s social hegemony. The more the outer world grew secular, the more the Church’s relation with the Jews became problematic. In the middle of the eighteenth century, a pope who is nonetheless considered a representative of the more progressive wing of the Church, Benedict XIV Lambertini, sanctioned the Church’s increasingly repressive attitude toward the Jews, questioning the Church’s traditionally radical rejection of the accusation of ritual murder, as well as the caution with which in the past Rome had handled the cases of baptisms that were administered invitis parentibus (against the parents’ wishes). In particular, this last practice, which removed from the authority of their parents those children who had been baptized so that they could receive an adequate Christian education, paved the way for increasingly frequent episodes where minors were baptized or children were separated from their families—authentic kidnappings with the purpose of securing conversions.10 The famous Mortara case, which ensured the papacy’s loss of favor in European public opinion and was ultimately instrumental in ending the popes’ secular power, was preceded and accompanied by numerous similar cases. Edgardo Mortara, a six-year-old Jewish child, was separated from his family in Bologna in 1858 because a maid, who had just been dismissed, had claimed that she had secretly baptized him. Taken to Rome and brought up in the Vatican under the protection of Pius IX despite the protests of European public opinion, he became a priest and died in 1940 in a monastery in Belgium, three months before Belgium was invaded by the Nazis. It might be worth asking how the Nazis would have treated the Jewish priest Mortara, if, in a sort of tragic irony of history, he had not died just before the crucial distinguishing factor between a Jew and a non-Jew became blood and no longer baptism. Let us go back to the middle of the eighteenth century, a period during which the situation of the Jews in Rome was markedly deteriorating. In 1774, new norms made life and work in the ghetto increasingly difficult, setting up new obstacles for their relations with the outside world. By the end of the century, the papacy saw the Jews as the main advocates of modernity, as the supporters of Enlightenment and revolution. This was untrue, as within the ghetto, only a few Jews could gain

................. 16673$

$CH5

10-23-07 10:18:13

PS

PAGE 50

The Difficult Apprenticeship of Diversity / 51

access to the thought of the Enlightenment, and again, only a few would actively support the French and the Jacobins during the Republic of 1798. Only the papacy imagined a sort of alliance between modernization, Enlightenment, and Judaism—an alliance that, at least in the Roman context, had no reason to exist, and that the same Jewish world, generally unfamiliar with the new ideas, itself struggled to understand fully. After Napoleon’s invasion and the imprisonment of the pontiff, the gap between Christians and Jews appeared unbridgeable. The post-Napoleonic Restoration actually widened it further because of its punitive measures against Jews and liberals and its commitment to reinstate the discriminations wiped away by the revolution. If the Roman Jews, newly imprisoned in the ghetto, were still struggling to understand the project of emancipation and make it their own, the rest of the Italian Jews were fully committed to it, doing so in the only way open to them, by supporting the process of establishing an Italian state and participating actively in the national Risorgimento. In 1848, the Savoy monarchy was the first Italian regime to grant full and definitive emancipation to Jews, together with Protestants. After this point, the Church began a vigorous campaign against this emancipation, which in its eyes appeared like the negation of the relationship that it had enjoyed with the Jews for centuries, the negation of the subordination of the Jew as the very condition of his presence. This was, in other words, the negation of the blindfolded and distraught Synagogue. For the Church of the nineteenth century, the very notion of equality for the Jews was blasphemy, much as it was for liberalism, freedom of thought, and the whole project of modernity that it attacked and could not accept. In 1870, with the end of the Church’s temporal power, the emancipation of Italian Jews was brought to completion. The Jew became a citizen like others, with the same rights and the same duties. The radical fracture between the Church and the Italian state would only begin to heal after thirty years, with the attenuation of the non expedit in 1904, and finally, with the Concordat of 1929. The fracture between the Church and the Jews that had come about from the eighteenth century would, however, remain in place longer. The Church’s anti-emancipation polemic was accompanied in the last decades of the nineteenth century by the growth of a Catholic antiSemitism that was much more aggressive than its medieval counterpart

................. 16673$

$CH5

10-23-07 10:18:14

PS

PAGE 51

52 / Anna Foa

or even that of the Counter-Reformation. The pages of Catholic magazines of the end of the century took up again the accusation of ritual murder at the very moment in which this type of accusation was again reappearing in large parts of Eastern Europe, giving rise to trials and pogroms. The ancient grievances against the Talmud were also taken up again, now that the Church no longer banned the reading of this text. The Jesuit magazine Civilta` Cattolica stands out for the virulence of its denigratory campaigns. In December 1899, Anglicans and Catholics from England asked Leo XIII to reissue the papal bulls that in the Middle Ages had declared the falsity of the accusations of ritual murder so as to put an end to this dangerous calumny. The pope, however, merely forwarded this hot potato to the Holy Office, which answered that ‘‘it was not in the position to give the desired response.’’

6. The Twentieth Centur y The first decades of the new century did not substantially change the nature of this anti-Jewish attitude, which inevitably ended up blending, at least in part, with the anti-Semitism that was spreading through Europe. Of course, the racial ideology of the Nazis and traditional Catholic anti-Judaism always remained distinct, but there were many arenas where they could meet and join. One of these was the hostility to the emancipation of the Jews, which explains perhaps, at least in part, the lack of a reaction from the Catholic world and from the Church hierarchy when confronted by laws that represented effectively the overhaul of the process of emancipation, a radical de-emancipation. Thus, after the fall of fascism, the Jesuit historian Tacchi Venturi, speaking in an unofficial manner, could still express the wish on the part of the Church that not all that was contained in the racist laws would be abrogated, since they were also based on principles that belonged to the tradition of the Catholic Church and that the latter continued to uphold.11 Immediately afterward, the Church abandoned this position against emancipation, accepting the principle that no political discrimination ought to accompany religious differences. Even at that moment, however, we believe that the Church only accepted this principle reluctantly. As evidenced by the first years after the Second World War, it took a very long time before the Church would truly understand that what

................. 16673$

$CH5

10-23-07 10:18:14

PS

PAGE 52

The Difficult Apprenticeship of Diversity / 53

had happened in Europe with the Shoah demanded a radical reevaluation of its relationships with Jews. The same delay, on the other hand, can also be seen in the rest of the European world. Only later, beginning at the end of the 1950s, did the understanding of the Shoah and of antisemitism gave rise to that process of rethinking, which would lead to the rejection of the century-old ‘‘teaching of contempt,’’ as well as to the milestone represented by Nostra Aetate.

................. 16673$

$CH5

10-23-07 10:18:15

PS

PAGE 53

6. T h e Shoah as a Shadow upon and a Stimulus t o Je w i s h-Christian Di a l o g u e Massimo Giuliani

I do not believe that it is an exaggeration to claim that the Shoah, or Holocaust, inasmuch as it represents the climax of a long history of discrimination and persecution against the Jewish people in the West, constitutes the most painful issue and the most unsettling problem among those Jews and those Christians who are involved in a serious and sincere interreligious dialogue. This pain, however, which flows from a historically enlightened memory, and the anxiety that emerges in any ethically formed conscience, are already an integral part of the commitment to dialogue. In other words, they are already constitutive and constructive elements of that readiness to listen and to interact with the other, without which no dialogue, no encounter, is possible. In fact, the reciprocal attention of Christians and Jews to the memory of the pain that was inflicted and endured during the Shoah, and to the anxiety induced by the gradual realization of the immediate and remote causes of that tragedy, are required to ensure that our attention is authentic and our dialogue sincere. It is, of course, true that the Jewish-Christian dialogue does not have to focus only on this memory nor halt in the face of this anxiety; nevertheless, in this dialogue, the Christians ‘‘begin’’ from this memory, well expressed by the document of March 16, 1998, We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah, issued by the Vatican’s Commission for

................. 16673$

$CH6

10-23-07 10:18:15

PS

PAGE 54

The Shoah as a Shadow upon and a Stimulus to Dialogue / 55

Religious Relations with the Jews: ‘‘While bearing their unique witness to the Holy One of Israel and to the Torah, the Jewish people have suffered much at different times and in many places. But the Shoah was certainly the worst suffering of all. . . . The fact that the Shoah took place in Europe, that is, in countries of long-standing Christian civilization, raises the question of the relation between the Nazi persecution and the attitudes down the centuries of Christians towards the Jews.’’1 The honesty of raising this question and to assess all those attitudes implies a readiness to subject oneself to the judgment of the historians, if not of history, and effectively, it has meant an examination of oneself, of one’s own Christian self-understanding, which has in its turn led to suffering and anxiety. More than one voice, in fact, has questioned the belief that ‘‘history,’’ even that entirely written in lowercase letters, can be used as a criterion to evaluate the faith or to assess the behavior of the Christians in the past, taking away from God the right to read human consciences and to judge all events. To answer this objection, which is legitimate but excessively spiritualistic, one must reflect on the unique character of the Shoah and the meaning of the witness to which both Jews and Christians have been called by God at different times and in different ways.

1. Heshbon ha-nefesh : The Examination of Conscience and the Historical Assessment

Christian wisdom has always taught the value of the so-called ‘‘examination of conscience,’’ the pious practice with which Christians, until not so many years ago, ended each day as if, finding themselves in front of God, they had to give an account of their actions and omissions. There was a certainty that each person’s conscience was a sufficiently authoritative tribunal to evaluate and to judge. However, what would be the value of listening to our conscience if we ignored the words of warning and the judgments upon our conduct coming from our neighbor? It is a commonly accepted psychological-hermeneutical truth that we live and grow thanks to the acknowledgment and the constant dialogue with our family and our social, professional, and political environment. Our life is constantly under the judgment of our parents, of our superiors, of our colleagues, of our subordinates. For a believer, our life is constantly under the judgment of God, already at this very moment. That

................. 16673$

$CH6

10-23-07 10:18:15

PS

PAGE 55

56 / Massimo Giuliani

which the theological eschatologies call ‘‘the day of judgment’’ is effectively anticipated in every prayer or is celebrated in worship at different moments in the liturgical year. Once more, let us take as our paradigm the experience of Israel. In Judaism, the ten days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are called ha-yamim ha-nora’im, the ‘‘days of awe,’’ during which every Jew feels called to judgment and thus must give an account of himself and undergo teshuvah (return/repentance). This calling to judgment, however, does not merely have an individual value. It is even more evident at the level of the community through the experience of the fasts that recall the collective tragedies (the destruction of the two temples, the threat of Haman, etc.), in other words, the acts of God’s punishment and God’s mercy. The mission of Israel is constantly under the judgment of God, but in an equally constant and urgent way, it is also under the judgment of the nations, which are the ultimate beneficiaries of this mission (Gen. 12:3: ‘‘In you [Abraham] all the families [the nations] of the earth shall be blessed’’). This is Israel’s universal vocation, the deepest meaning of its testimony, and it is what Hitler intended to uproot: the memory of Israel’s election as well as Israel’s duty of testimony. This condition of being under the constant judgment of the nations is almost an existential condition, an examination that never ends, the price of its very election. Called to be ‘‘light to the nations’’ (Is. 42:6; 49:6), Israel must in a certain sense give an account of itself. It ought to be responsible, as Levinas says; the director of human resources (to echo the title of a novel by Abraham Yehoshua, Shlichuta shel hamemune al mashabei enosh) must respond to the rest of the nations who look toward Israel as one looks toward the East in search of light. What does this mean? Perhaps that the testimony of Israel must ‘‘pass the exam’’ of the nations? No, because the source of this testimony is God’s beckoning Word. Nonetheless, Israel is not free to avoid this examination, since the fixed gaze of the nations preserves the very truth of that mission; it is the final assurance of the value of that testimony. In biblical and rabbinic understanding, God does not hesitate even to use the nations against Israel, to remind the bnei’ Yisrael of their call and of their truth, and to call them back to their responsibility. Some contemporary thinkers have even applied this traditional paradigm to the Jews who lived in Nazi Germany and saw in Hitler an instrument of God’s punishment. This is not the place to discuss or to

................. 16673$

$CH6

10-23-07 10:18:16

PS

PAGE 56

The Shoah as a Shadow upon and a Stimulus to Dialogue / 57

question this theological model, but it shows how far the awareness of being constantly under the twofold judgment of God and of the nations can go (today we would call this the twofold judgment of God and of history). In other words, the truth about us is not and cannot be merely selfreferential, but it becomes a ‘‘call to our truth’’ to the extent to which we open ourselves to the other. We accept his perspective and agree to remain under his gaze. Simply put, we become ourselves when we accept that the other looks at us and thereby passes his judgment upon us. The self-understanding of Christians and in general the testimony of the churches are not exempt. Their truth is not mere self-reference, but is open to divine alterity and responsibility toward those who are destined to receive this truth. Why, then, should we be surprised if the words and the acts and the omissions of the Christian community are observed, scrutinized, judged, critiqued, and sometimes even marginalized or ridiculed? Is this not the order of things, the order of that diaconia that offers without imposing anything, which gives without worrying to receive a compensation, which scatters seeds on every soil despite knowing that neither the growing of fruits nor their gathering ultimately depends on us? The request of pardon made by John Paul II to the Jews who were discriminated and persecuted in the name of the cross of Christ is emblematic of this ‘‘maturity’’ of the testimony and the conscience of Christians, who do not fear the judgement of history, but, on the contrary, deliberately subject themselves to it to get rid of their selfreferential excesses and to deepen their understanding of the truth about themselves. This gesture, whose climax was the visit to the Western Wall in Jerusalem and which is one of the highest symbols of the message of the Jubilee in the year 2000 of the Christian era (5760 of the Jewish calendar), is a major event in the history of Jewish-Christian dialogue, together with the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate (1965), the visit of Pope John Paul II to the Synagogue in Rome (1986), the establishment of official diplomatic relations between the State of Israel and the Holy See (1993), and the already mentioned document We Remember (1998).

2. The Shoah: The Bankruptcy of Christian Teaching?

It is in this readiness to live under the gaze of the other, subject to his judgment, that Christians can and must listen to the critique of

................. 16673$

$CH6

10-23-07 10:18:17

PS

PAGE 57

58 / Massimo Giuliani

Christianity that some important thinkers of contemporary Judaism have developed in light of the tragedy of the Shoah. These critiques, unlike the polemic about the ‘‘silence’’ and the alleged ‘‘sins of omission’’ of Pius XII, are not very recent, but date from the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, when, among many Jews and Christians, in Israel as well as in Germany and in the rest of Europe, people preferred not to talk of the tragedies that had taken place because of a deep-seated need to forget the horrors of the war and the hell of Auschwitz. I shall only quote a few authors, beginning with Emmanuel Levinas, who in 1950 wrote, without any anti-Christian feeling, but with a detached sense of European history: In the midst of so many other horrors, the extermination of six million defenseless beings, in a world that in two thousand years Christianity has not been able to make better, in our eyes robs its conquest of Europe of much of its prestige. Of course, we must never forget the purity of individual acts by Christians, and there were an impressive number of them who were faithful to the spirit of France in saving the lives of us, the survivors, during those terrible years. We cannot forget the courage of the Church hierarchy in France. But Christianity’s failure on the political and social level cannot be denied.2 And two years later, in 1952, speaking of the ‘‘poor’’ nineteenth century, when ‘‘the European moral conscience did exist,’’ he defined it in opposition to the twentieth century as a ‘‘happy period in which centuries of Christian and philosophical civilization had not yet revealed, in the Hitlerian adventure, the fragility of their works.’’3 Even harsher is the critique of the Orthodox Jewish thinker Eliezer Berkovits, who goes so far as to speak of ‘‘moral and spiritual bankruptcy of Christian civilization and of the Christian religion.’’ In the 1979 volume With God in Hell, Berkovits writes: After nineteen centuries of Christianity, the extermination of six million Jews, among whom there were a million and a half children, carried out in cold blood in the very heart of Christian Europe, encouraged by the criminal silence of virtually all members of the churches (including the infallible Holy Father of Rome), was the natural climax of this bankruptcy. A direct line leads from the first act of oppression against the Jews and against Judaism in the 4th century to the Holocaust in the 20th century.4

................. 16673$

$CH6

10-23-07 10:18:17

PS

PAGE 58

The Shoah as a Shadow upon and a Stimulus to Dialogue / 59

Even the philosopher Emil L. Fackenheim, who never failed to emphasize the courageous actions against Nazism and in favor of the persecuted Jews by Christians such as Canon Bernhard Lichtenberg of Berlin, or the theologian of the Confessing Church Dietrich Bonhoeffer, could not, despite everything, stop himself from asking what could the Christians have done? His answer was that maybe in 1942 it was too late, but it was not too late in 1935: . . . when the Nuremberg Laws attributed the status of ‘‘Aryan’’ to everyone, except the ‘‘non-Aryan’’ Christians, and the Church accepted this at the cost of abandoning the ‘‘non-Aryans’’ to their vogelfrei destiny. Truly—if the term kairos designates for the Christian those moments when faith is called into play—truly 1935 was an authentic kairos. But the Church missed it.5 These judgments, harsh, but morally legitimate if one accepts a dialogical view of interreligious relations, show how the Shoah has been perceived from the very beginning as the emblem of the failure and of the bankruptcy of the Christian message, and how the memory of such an event—which John Paul II has called an ‘‘indelible stain’’ and an ‘‘unspeakable iniquity’’6 —can become, at a psychological, but also quite often at a more religious level, an obstacle to a balanced relationship between the two communities of faith, as well as a hindrance in the dialogue. At the same time, however, the growing awareness of this obstacle has been the occasion of a profound change in Christian praxis and in Christian doctrine, a change that led to an effective epochal transformation. Before his death, this was acknowledged even by the same Fackenheim, with words that inaugurate, so to speak, a way in which both Jews and Christians can look at that event. According to the German-Canadian-Israeli philosopher, . . . after the neo-pagans had perpetrated such an assault upon our two faiths, Judaism and Christianity, it was unavoidable that whatever had divided us in the course of almost two millennia had to come to an end. A new Jewish-Christian reality had to be born, a new link between the two covenants, the Jewish and the Christian one, between what, decades later, the Protestant theologian Roy Eckardt would call the elder and the younger brother.7 Today, as if in a miracle, we live this new reality—a different historical relation between Judaism and Christianity—a reality that has been

................. 16673$

$CH6

10-23-07 10:18:18

PS

PAGE 59

60 / Massimo Giuliani

shaped by the growing awareness of the moral and religious meaning of the Shoah and that has been able to transform that tragic event from the supreme obstacle to dialogue into a, so to speak, privileged instrument to understand what had to be changed and what had to be emphasized and appreciated anew. It is almost impossible in a brief space to summarize the various, different, and complex stages of this process of transformation (caused largely by the Shoah), which, by using religious language, we can call a Christian ‘‘path of teshuvah.’’ So as not to pass over this phenomenon entirely in silence, I shall select a few passages, which I believe are among the most significant, and which, if read synoptically, can justify the synthetic expression adopted by Fr. Francesco Rossi De Gasperis, one of the living protagonists of Jewish-Christian dialogue, and in his own way a guide to this itinerary of teshuvah: ‘‘never before’’ in the church, in the different churches of the Christian oikumene, have ‘‘people talked in this way’’ of the Jews and of Judaism. In fact, ‘‘the hard work, the slowness and the effort of the journeys followed by the different Christian communities to correct their path and once more to discover, appreciate and acknowledge with gratitude their holy root, testify how far we have strayed from it over two millennia of Christianity.’’8 Would the Shoah have taken place if such self-correction in the institutions and in Christian consciences had begun earlier? Who knows?

3. ‘‘Never Before Have People Talked in This Way’’ To document the general impact of the Shoah on Christian self-understanding, as well as on the more focused accompanying theological reflection, would require a critical assessment of the entire history of recent Jewish-Christian relations, especially from the 1980s onward. It is during that decade, in fact, that special attention to the tragedy of the Jews in the Second World War emerged in different parts of the world. It is in those years that a debate takes place concerning the uniqueness of that event in relation to history in general, as well as to three-thousand-year-old Jewish history. It is at that moment that all churches— including the Catholic Church—begin to include the Shoah on the agenda of seminaries, conferences, or study days devoted to Jewish themes. I am not saying that before this the issue of the Shoah was not considered at all, but it is only in the 1980s that it becomes the central

................. 16673$

$CH6

10-23-07 10:18:18

PS

PAGE 60

The Shoah as a Shadow upon and a Stimulus to Dialogue / 61

theme of Jewish contemporary self-understanding and, as a consequence, it also acquires a crucial role in the religious and cultural relations between Jews and Christians, especially in North America and Europe. I would like to mention here a number of emblematic episodes that took place in the Catholic Church, and I apologize for the arbitrary nature of my sample, which I hope shall nevertheless be historically illuminating. In August 1987, on the eve of his trip to the United States, John Paul II wrote to the president of the American Bishops’ Conference, Archbishop John L. May, underscoring that ‘‘the nation of Israel, her sufferings, and her Holocaust are today before the eyes of the Church, of all peoples and of all nations, as a warning, a witness, and a silent cry . . . [showing] to what terrible consequences the lack of faith in God and a contempt for man, created in his image can lead.’’9 At the same time, Protestant churches became readier to reassess their own ‘‘theologies of Judaism’’ with very innovative documents and positions. In Washington, D.C., in addition, the foundations had been laid a short time before for the new Holocaust Memorial Museum, which, thanks to its position on the Mall in that nation’s capital, effectively includes the Shoah among the elements of the pluralist ‘‘civil religion’’ in the United States. These seeds of reflection on the Shoah would mature at a pastoral as well as at a more properly theological level. It was also in the course of the 1990s that a number of Catholic episcopal conferences made similar pronouncements concerning the question of the Shoah, thereby effectively obviating for the failure of the newly published Catechism of the Catholic Church to refer to this tragedy. One ought to note especially the text composed in 1994 by the Hungarian bishops and signed by them together with the Ecumenical Council of the Churches of Hungary, which defines the Holocaust as ‘‘an unpardonable sin’’—an expression that numbers among the harshest ever used by the Catholic hierarchy to condemn the Shoah. In 1997, it was the turn of some members of the French episcopate to make a ‘‘declaration of repentance’’ toward the French Jews at the memorial of the Drancy camp. In this declaration, one can read something that, in an ecclesiastical context, is both unprecedented and remarkably brave: Today we confess that such a silence was a sin. In so doing, we recognize that the church of France failed in her mission as teacher of consciences and that therefore she carries along with

................. 16673$

$CH6

10-23-07 10:18:19

PS

PAGE 61

62 / Massimo Giuliani

the Christian people the responsibility for failing to lend their aid, from the very first moments, when protest and protection were still possible, as well as necessary, even if, subsequently, a great many acts of courage were performed. This is the fact that we acknowledge today. For, this failing of the church of France and of her responsibility toward the Jewish people are part of our history. We confess this sin. We beg God’s pardon, and we call upon the Jewish people to hear our words of repentance.10 If there were not this multiplicity of acknowledgments of responsibility, some less emphatic such as that of the Polish episcopate, some more explicit as the French one just mentioned, the very words of the pope would be less credible and the solemn request of God’s forgiveness made on March 12, 2000, would appear merely perfunctory. On this occasion, John Paul II, in the name of the whole Church, declared his sorrow for ‘‘the behavior of those [Catholic Christians], who, in the course of history, have caused these children of yours [the Jews] to suffer,’’ thereby making a request of forgiveness that was immediately followed by a commitment to work toward ‘‘genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.’’ How can we not hear in these words the equally brave echo of the insight of the Protestant pastor Martin Stoehr, who understood that Christians could neither leave Auschwitz behind nor go beyond it unless accompanied by the Jewish victims? Truly, never before in the twothousand-year-long history of Christianity had such things been said. The fact that the magnitude and the gravity of the Shoah, made explicit in an irrefutable array of documents and historical studies, are here reflected in public gestures and pronouncements on the part of the Catholic Church and other churches, clearly signals the truth of what Levinas had written as early as 1950: ‘‘The religious amplitude [of the Shoah] is destined to mark the world forever.’’11 In the context of an interreligious symposium of representatives of Judaism and different Christian communities held in Jerusalem in 1994, similar words would be used by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who claimed that ‘‘after Auschwitz the mission of reconciliation and acceptance permits no deferral.’’12 This idea is taken up by the cardinal also in another authoritative document, the preface to the text of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, published in 2001. Here, the cardinal remarks that the Shoah has also modified the

................. 16673$

$CH6

10-23-07 10:18:19

PS

PAGE 62

The Shoah as a Shadow upon and a Stimulus to Dialogue / 63

traditional Christian approach to biblical exegesis and Scriptural hermeneutics. [T]he shock of the Shoah has put the whole question [of Christian Old Testament hermeneutics] under a new light. Two main problems are posed: Can Christians, after all that has happened, still claim in good conscience to be the legitimate heirs of Israel’s Bible? Have they the right to propose a Christian interpretation of this Bible, or should they not instead, respectfully and humbly, renounce any claim that, in the light of what has happened, must look like a usurpation? The second question follows from the first: In its presentation of the Jews and the Jewish people, has not the New Testament itself contributed to creating a hostility towards the Jewish people that provided a support for the ideology of those who wished to destroy Israel?13 These are questions, therefore, which induce Christians—provided they have understood the deep significance of the greatest tragedy in Jewish history, and in virtue of the link that spiritually and forever ties the people of the Bible and of the Talmud to those baptized in the name of Jesus Christ—to rethink their very identity, to rethink their own interpretation of revealed Scripture, and thus to rediscover ‘‘the holy root that bears us’’ (Rom 11:18), Israel ‘‘after the flesh’’ (9:5), Israel in human history, which the Apostle Paul discussed with intense theological and existential pathos. The Shoah, from being an obstacle to JewishChristian dialogue, has become not only a stimulus to rediscover and to reappraise Israel, its texts, and its traditions, enabling Christians to dialogue with the Jews, but also a sting and a key for an analysis and a ‘‘work on oneself’’ that somehow encompasses all components of Christian identity—from the hermeneutics of Scripture to Christology, from ecclesiological reflection even to liturgy.

4. What Are the Implications of the ‘‘Great Teshuvah’’ of the Church in Light of the Shoah?

Before pondering the theological and pastoral implications for Christians and for Jews of the fact that the Shoah was the climax of the long history of anti-Judaism and antisemitism of Christian Europe, it is perhaps necessary to stop and reflect upon the religious significance of that attempt of total extermination of the Jewish people. It is only by gazing

................. 16673$

$CH6

10-23-07 10:18:20

PS

PAGE 63

64 / Massimo Giuliani

into that abyss of evil—independent of our theodicies and our philosophies of history—from the common root of our Abrahamic faith that perhaps we shall be able to understand the radical nature of those implications. It is again Fackenheim who helps us in this effort of ‘‘gazing into the abyss of evil’’ without getting lost in it, as happens to those who for too long stare at the Gorgon. In a paper given at an international symposium on ‘‘Good and Evil after Auschwitz’’ held at the Gregorian University in Rome in September 1997, Emil Fackenheim said: The Holocaust was an assault on the covenant of Abraham, the only truly radical one ever made. [ . . . ] Theology is familiar with controversy about Sinai, with the Jews defending their covenant and Christians and Muslims viewing it as just a stage in an ongoing Heilsgeschichte. But assailing Abraham’s covenant, the very start of all Heilsgeschichte, and, moreover, threatening to terminate it forever? This was unprecedented, and no theology was prepared. But is Abraham’s God not also the God of the Christians? And is not Ishmael [the ancestor of all Muslims] the patriarch’s very own son? The Nazi attack on the Jews was also a visitation on Christians and Muslims, but they failed to recognize it and abandoned the Jews.14 In this passage, Fackenheim alludes to the episode of the great trial in Genesis 22, where God asks Abraham to sacrifice his only son, the beloved Isaac. An extremely harsh trial, but one for which Abraham proved ready, and because of this readiness, Isaac was saved from his father’s knife by the intervention of God. This same story, known as the akedah or ‘‘binding of Isaac,’’ enabled Jewish theology to lament how, at Auschwitz, millions of young Isaacs, equally innocent and equally ignoring the significance of this ‘‘divine trial,’’ were not saved as the beloved son of Abraham. None of those akedot had the ‘‘happy end’’ of the biblical story, and more than a million Jewish children died a martyr’s death without even being able to choose martyrdom. Now Fackenheim goes beyond this complaint against heaven for the miracle that did not take place. The Jewish philosopher goes as far as involving Christians and Muslims in the terrible scene of the collective akedah of Auschwitz, accusing them of indifference if not of complicity with the murderer’s knife. In this way, these ‘‘younger brothers’’ of the Jewish people, whose revelations—New Testament and Quran—are deeply

................. 16673$

$CH6

10-23-07 10:18:20

PS

PAGE 64

The Shoah as a Shadow upon and a Stimulus to Dialogue / 65

rooted in the common biblical-Jewish heritage, have in some way failed the test, and, unlike Abraham, they risked—to use Wittgenstein’s famous metaphor—cutting the branch on which they were sitting, or, if you prefer, to uproot the olive tree on which they were grafted. If we turn this reflection into its positive counterpart, Fackenheim seems to suggest that only those wise enough to defend the Jews from similar aggressions, only those who do not abandon the Jews in the moment of danger, are defending the covenant of Abraham to which they have been admitted out of God’s grace. As it goes to the root, or in other words, to the covenant that originated humanity’s Heilsgeschichte, and as it connects and effectively short-circuits the three symbolic locations of Zion, Sinai, and Auschwitz, this reflection enables us to understand better how, in the shadow of the Shoah, there are a number of religious and theological implications for the Christian churches. There is no doubt, too, that the ‘‘great teshuvah’’—the request of pardon, and especially the overcoming of the ‘‘teaching of contempt’’ toward the Jews, changed into a teaching of esteem and reciprocal dialogue—represents the first and the most important of these implications. Nonetheless, starting from this turn, new questions have arisen, new hermeneutical horizons have opened. To these questions and to these horizons, Christian theologies are still struggling to respond, and this is certainly understandable. If, indeed, while most theologians and Christian thinkers agree that, after the Shoah, it is no longer possible to ‘‘do theology’’ as if Auschwitz had not taken place, nonetheless, only few have been able to indicate a direction for a theological itinerary integrating the lesson of the Shoah, able to rethink Christian identity in light of the teaching of esteem for the Jews, or ready to articulate the uniqueness of Christian redemption with the acknowledgment of the autonomy and the legitimacy of the redemptive and salvific economy of the Jewish people. If the Shoah has forced the Christians to rethink the role of the Jews in the context of the Christian economy of salvation and redemption, and to reassess in a new perspective the different meanings of the Scriptures inherited from the Jewish traditions, it is inevitable to raise the following questions, as was done by the interconfessional group Teshuva` in Milan.15 A. Once we accept the principle of the enduring validity of the Sinaitic covenant, how are we to redefine our Christian identity?

................. 16673$

$CH6

10-23-07 10:18:21

PS

PAGE 65

66 / Massimo Giuliani

B. What are the consequences for the Christian faith once we acknowledge the autonomy of the Old Testament in relation to the New? How are we then to establish a hermeneutical relationship between the two Testaments? C. What are the ecumenical opportunities for the churches as they set out together to redefine their identity in relation to Israel? Of course, to answer these questions and to explore the new horizon of ‘‘religious sense’’ disclosed by the Shoah is an arduous and troubling task because one is starting from a crisis, a ‘‘historical judgment’’ that for Christianity, as we saw above, has proved to be very harsh. However, it is the biblical tradition that teaches us that to start again is an experience typical of the covenant with the God of Israel, that to undertake teshuvah means to change direction, that to move into the desert of our certainties leaning on the sole strength of the Word is the very heart of the experience of faith. Very relevant here are the words of Martin Cunz, a pastor of the Swiss Reformed Church and a European protagonist of Jewish-Christian dialogue, who, alas, left us far too soon. Cunz was not only a practitioner of this dialogue, but also a theoretician, a critic, a theologian, in the strong sense of the term, of the new relation between the living Israel and those who believe in the Gospel of Christ. In his words, he castigates the theological laziness of those who fear to let themselves be questioned and who think it easier to defend the fort of their identity; in his words, however, we also find the balm of true intuition, of purified vision, of intelligence that goes beyond itself. In the words of Cunz, After Auschwitz, we are like the people of Israel, who, under the guidance of the highest functionary of their religion (Aaron) had danced around the golden calf, in front of the Word of God shattered into a thousand fragments. Jews and Christians today must ascend Mount Sinai to encounter again the God of Israel and to re-write the Torah, no longer written by the hand of God, but by our hands.16 As I have already discussed elsewhere, we do not have to write a ‘‘theology of the Shoah,’’ and not even, it appears, a ‘‘new Christian theology of Judaism’’ (although, perhaps, of such a theology one senses the need, exactly because it would be new). To put the Shoah on the agenda of every future theology does not mean to add one more theme

................. 16673$

$CH6

10-23-07 10:18:22

PS

PAGE 66

The Shoah as a Shadow upon and a Stimulus to Dialogue / 67

to Christian theological reflection, but to adjust the whole perspective of doing theology: The encounter with Israel and its suffering caused by centuries of Christian anti-Jewish hostility forces the community of Jesus’ followers to rethink itself at the very root, or better to rethink the root itself that bears it, according to Paul’s expression (Rom. 11:18). In this sense, the Shoah is truly a Jewish, as well as a Christian event. It belongs to the one history of salvation of humanity that is believed in, though in different ways and on the basis of different Scriptures, by Jews, by Christians, and by Muslims.

5. Toward a ‘‘Religious Memor y’’ of the Shoah: Some Suggestions for Christians

Over the past few years, Europe has given strong signals to prevent the Shoah, with its burden of suffering and its warning that something similar must not happen again, from falling into oblivion and from becoming only one of the many memories of our past. Thanks to the testimony of the survivors, to the work of the historians, and to the intensified ‘‘critical conscience’’ of the whole Western world—a conscience sustained by the acknowledgment of our responsibility and guilt toward that past—the Shoah is remembered every year with public ceremonies, school lessons at all levels, and articles and books. The institution of January 17 as a day of memory is a fact that clearly manifests this acquired sensitivity: the Shoah is a part of our history and its ‘‘sad lesson’’ is by now part of the civil identity of the citizens of Europe. However, this very fact, which is so politically new and so culturally forward-looking, necessarily leads to the following question: Is there not the risk that the civic memory obscures and removes the equally needed religious memory of the event? Or that the necessary and universalizing cultural dimension obfuscates the more specifically theological dimension of this event, forgetting in the end the essentially religious—and thus Jewish—dimension of the victims of Nazism? Of course, it is not the duty of the civil authorities to remember this dimension or to work toward the development, next to the civil one, of a religious memory of the Shoah. It is instead the urgent task of the religious authorities, and especially of the pastoral and theological leadership of the churches, to make sure that a new awareness is developed of the deep link between Jews and Christians in the wake of that terrible attempt to cut forever, at the root, the plant of Israel. In Italy, January 17

................. 16673$

$CH6

10-23-07 10:18:23

PS

PAGE 67

68 / Massimo Giuliani

is a day purposefully set aside to make Jews and Judaism better known to Catholics, and thus is an appropriate occasion to remember also the tragedy of the Shoah. Perhaps, though, there is something else that ought to be done so that, next to the civil memory, a religious memory is also developed that could strengthen the link of affection and esteem uniting the diverse world of Christianity and the equally diverse world of Judaism. In this regard, it is always useful to reread the suggestions given twenty-five years ago by Alice Eckardt in an article that warned Christians of the dangers implicit in a wrong manner of constructing the memory of the Shoah. The very history of the two-thousand-year-old relations between Christianity and Judaism (and not the current obsession with political correctness applied to the life of the churches) suggests that there exist appropriate and inappropriate ways of presenting and of talking of the Shoah and of Jewish suffering. After explaining how this event ought not to be separated from the return of the Jews to an autonomous national life in the land of Israel with the reestablishment of an independent state (1948), Eckardt insists that both these historical events affecting the life of the contemporary Jewish people are to be considered ‘‘faith-orienting experiences,’’ in other words, experiences capable of orienting, or reorienting, the Jewish and also the Christian faith. Keeping this in mind, what suggestions are there for Christians, who, having understood its importance, are about to build a memory—a civil and also a religious one—of the Shoah in the course of educational encounters as well as during ceremonies or liturgical acts in sacred places? In this context, I would like to emphasize three suggestions given by Eckardt, suggestions that I believe have not lost their value with the passing of time. 1. First of all, Christians who are constructing the memory of the Shoah must take care lest they ‘‘Christianize’’ the event. What does this mean? Simply, to make sure not to usurp the historically and essentially Jewish character of a tragedy in which, as Elie Wiesel often reminds us, ‘‘if not all victims were Jews, nonetheless all Jews were victims.’’ It is easy, at a religious level, to make others’ memory into one’s own for good purposes, to show that we are also involved. True, Auschwitz was also a Christian event in the sense we saw above: Christian anti-Judaism certainly contributed to paving the road that led the European Jews into

................. 16673$

$CH6

10-23-07 10:18:23

PS

PAGE 68

The Shoah as a Shadow upon and a Stimulus to Dialogue / 69

the ghettos, into the concentration camps, and finally into the gas chambers and the crematoria . . . and the murderers were Christians or children of Christians. Christians were also the so-called by-standers, the indifferent and passive observers of that tragedy. Despite this, the memory of the Shoah remains before any other consideration a collective and inalienable memory of the Jewish people, and as such constitutes a patrimony of sacred pain that one must not violate, not even in the name of God, or even worse, in the name of a different interpretation— namely, a Christian one—of the God of Israel and of His revelation. Wise and theologically significant is how one could characterize the decision of Pope John Paul II to ask the Carmelite nuns at Auschwitz to move their convent so as not to ‘‘occupy,’’ even if only physically, the space of the pain and the memory of the Jewish victims, who in that camp were the greatest majority. To accept the Shoah as a challenge for Christian theology means not to de-Judaize the event and to open the mind and the praxis of the Church to a different relation with the people of the biblical covenant that was never revoked, and that in fact was renewed by the Jews despite Hitler and despite the Nazi project of extermination. 2. Second, Christians who construct a religious memory of the Shoah ought to beware lest they transform it into a triumphant demonstration of the truth of Christianity over Judaism. Here it is not just a question of banning every attitude that suggests that the Shoah shows how the Jews were being ‘‘punished’’ by God for having refused Christianity, which would be the worst possible example of theological supersessionism, and which is an even more unacceptable idea inasmuch as it constituted an ‘‘indirect cause’’ of the centuries of Jewish suffering that culminated in the Nazi extermination camps. There is also a need to avoid those Christological excesses for which the suffering of the Jews is considered meaningful in the light of the passion of Christ, as if Auschwitz were nothing but a stage in the Christian economy of salvation. Even the memory, which in itself is fully legitimate, of the saintliness of Maximilian Kolbe and Edith Stein cannot obfuscate the general image of Auschwitz, where Jews were prevented not only from living, but also from dying as martyrs. A good example of this risk is the story of inappropriate ‘‘baptizing’’ of the child hanged at Auschwitz that Elie Wiesel relates in his book Night.

................. 16673$

$CH6

10-23-07 10:18:24

PS

PAGE 69

70 / Massimo Giuliani

3. From this example we can derive a third suggestion, which Eckardt summarizes in this way: do not use Jewish texts to criticize them or to interpret them so as to satisfy an (allegedly) Christian perspective. Maybe this is merely an extension of the first two principles, but it is opportune to stress this explicitly in the light of the tendency, often seen in liturgical contexts, of Christians to appropriate Jewish symbols or customs, such as the menorah or the Christian celebration of the Jewish Passover or Christians wearing the tallith.17 It is necessary instead to respect the otherness of Judaism, the word of the witnesses, the meaning of their scriptures. To use the Shoah as an example to contrast love, presented as a specifically Christian value, and justice—or sometimes even revenge—presented as a positive/negative value typical of Judaism seen as intrinsically inferior to love, is an erroneous manner in which to use the memory of the Shoah, something that in fact also offends the theological truth of Judaism as well as of Christianity. Even the use of the Bible to explain the Shoah can be dangerous, inasmuch as it becomes a clumsy and ineffectual attempt to justify the unjustifiable. To conclude, I would like to go back to the final words of the document We Remember, which, in its sobriety, clearly expresses also that sense of restraint—that flight from any triumphalism, as well as from theological excesses and suffocating embraces—which Jewish-Christian dialogue needs in order to grow and to become stronger at all levels wherever the hope is expressed that ‘‘our sorrow for the tragedies that the Jewish people had to suffer in our [twentieth] century may lead [Catholics, but also, I believe, all Christians] to establish new relations with the Jewish people.’’ We hope—as we read in this text—‘‘to transform our awareness of the sins of the past into a firm commitment to a new future, in which there shall no longer be any anti-Jewish feeling among Christians or anti-Christian feeling among Jews, but rather reciprocal, shared respect. . . .’’18 The text Dabru Emet, the repeated visits of bishops to the synagogues and the Jewish communities in the world, the practical collaboration between Jews and Christians to build a true ‘‘friendship’’ between the two Abrahamic faiths, as well as their increasing openness to dialogue with Islam in this difficult moment of world history, are all signs of hope that say yes, we are doing the right thing. Truly a new spirit blows over the world: ‘‘See, I now create something new in the world’’ (cf. Is. 65:17).

................. 16673$

$CH6

10-23-07 10:18:25

PS

PAGE 70

Part 3

Toward a Christian Theology of Judaism

................. 16673$

PRT3

10-23-07 10:17:21

PS

PAGE 71

................. 16673$

PRT3

10-23-07 10:17:22

PS

PAGE 72

7. Israel and the Church — T h e Two Ex p l o r e r s o f t h e Promised L and: Toward a Christian T heology of Judaism Archbishop Bruno Forte

1. Introduction: A Thought-Provoking Image from the Book of Numbers

A certain biblical passage, reread from the point of view of the Church Fathers, can help to introduce the question that concerns us: What relationship does Christian faith see between Israel and the Church? The question is indeed quite complex and could be addressed in a variety of ways: What is the reason for the significance and the continued relevance of Israel for the Church? Ought one to think of an economy of salvation based on a single covenant within which they both move, or is the covenant characterized by a plurality, and so the sense of the election and the significance of the promises changeable and progressive? Finally—from a Christian point of view—is it right to ask questions as to the possibility and the modality of a close or remote ‘‘conversion of Israel,’’ or ought we to conceive of a separate path to salvation for the chosen people? The biblical image that helps us throw some light on this intricate forest of questions is that taken from the Book of Numbers, where two explorers come back from the land of Canaan, bringing with them a pole from which hangs a cluster of grapes, in addition to the fruit of the pomegranate and the fig-tree: ‘‘They also reached the Wadi Eshcol, where they cut down a branch with a single cluster of

................. 16673$

$CH7

10-23-07 10:18:16

PS

PAGE 73

74 / Archbishop Bruno Forte

grapes on it, which two of them carried on a pole, as well as some pomegranates and figs’’ (Num. 13:23). The Fathers of the Church in the patristic era chose to see the pole carried by the two explorers as symbolic of the wood of the cross, from which hangs Christ: Figura Christi pendentis in ligno,1 while in the two bearers, united and separated by this wood, they recognized Israel and the Church: Subvectantes autem phalanguam, duorum populorum figuram ostendebant: unum priorem, scilicet vestrum, terga versum Christo dantem; alium vero posteriorem, racemum respicientem, scilicet noster populus intelligitur.2 On the one hand, since they march one behind the other, the one who goes in front only looks ahead of himself and therefore symbolizes Israel, the people of hope and the people waiting for the new and future things assured by God in His promises. The one who comes behind, on the other hand, sees the one who walks in front of him, as well as the horizon that the latter embraces, through the cluster hanging from the pole, and thus prefigures the Church, who in Christ crucified has the hermeneutical key of ancient Israel and the promise made to the patriarchs. Highlighting the difference, the image manifests nonetheless the continuity existing between the two peoples, not only because of the pole that both explorers bear, but also because of the common horizon to which their gaze is turned. The idea of continuity shall also be emphasized—with a later, poetic remark—through the supposition that the joy of desire lets both sing the same ‘‘hosanna.’’3 United in the song of hope and expectation, Israel and the Church walk together, distinct and at the same time united by the cross of Christ. Three elements of continuity together with discontinuity between Israel and the Church are here stressed in this dense patristic reading: the eschatological character of biblical revelation in the First Testament as much as in the New Testament; the community-oriented notion of salvation, determined by the founding principle of the covenant between the eternal God and His people; and the messianic significance of the two peoples, of the one who waits as well as of the one who contemplates the fulfillment of the promises.

2. The Eschatological Character of Divine Revelation What unites the two explorers as they walk is first of all the horizon to which their gaze is turned: the Truth for whose sake it is worth living is before their eyes. Toward this Truth they move their steps; it is this

................. 16673$

$CH7

10-23-07 10:18:16

PS

PAGE 74

Toward a Christian Theology of Judaism / 75

Truth that their hearts seek. However, in order to be so, this very same Truth has come and has given itself up to the measure of the human possibility to understand it, has spoken the language of humanity, and has inflamed their hearts of flesh with desire. The premise to the acknowledgment of the Truth in the Word of the living God is, therefore, for Judaism as well as for Christianity, the possibility that the infinite becomes finite to communicate itself in the fragility of our words. This conviction is expressed by the Jewish Masters with a recurrent axiom: ‘‘What is small can contain what is large.’’4 Christian wisdom uses very similar words: Non coe¨rceri maximo, contineri tamen a minimo, divinum est.5 This conviction is at the basis of the doctrine of tzimtzum, central to Jewish mysticism, and of the idea of kenosis of the Word, which is at the center of the Christian message.6 Isaac Luria is the Kabbalist who in the second half of the sixteenth century put at the center of his teaching the image of the divine ‘‘contraction’’: the act of creation is thought by him in terms of God ‘‘making space’’ within Himself for the creature that otherwise could not have existed. If not in the lap of God, who contracted Himself to let the world arise, analogous to the way in which a mother welcomes a new life in her womb, where could the world ever have dwelt? ‘‘Tzimtzum’’ is thus the act of divine contraction, of that making itself small on the part of the One who is without limits that thereby enables the creature to exist before Him in freedom. Thus, the tzimtzum of the Eternal One is the other name of His love for humanity, the expression of that mercy that the Hebrew language significantly expresses with the term rachamim (‘‘maternal love’’), and which is also respect and humility of the Creator before the creature. Because of this love, the Lord does not consider it beneath His dignity to ‘‘pitch His tent’’ among His people, and effectively to make the history of Israel the history of His commitment to the redemption of the world. Presentations of the doctrine of the divine presence (Shekinah) can be quite moving. Consider for instance the following passage: ‘‘Wherever Israel was exiled, the Shekinah, so to speak, accompanied them in their exile. They went into exile into Egypt, and there went the Shekinah . . . they went to Babylon, and she went with them . . . they went to Elam, and the Shekinah accompanied them . . . when however they shall return, the Shekinah shall return with them.’’7 St. Francis’s invocation ‘‘You are Humility’’ (in Praises of the Most High God) indicates how this message deeply corresponds to the

................. 16673$

$CH7

10-23-07 10:18:17

PS

PAGE 75

76 / Archbishop Bruno Forte

Christian soul, for which the highest confirmation of God ‘‘pitching His tent’’ in the fragility and smallness of the human horizon lies in the ‘‘kenosis’’ of the Word: The Word is said to be in this world by way of ‘‘self-emptying’’ (cf. Phil. 2: 6ff.), thanks to the act through which—in no way forced by the infinitely great—the Son has let Himself be contained by the infinitely small. This self-contraction is truly divine! This ‘‘ecstasis’’ of the divine, this ‘‘going out’’ of what is infinite into the finite, is at the same time the highest imaginable invitation to the creature to ‘‘go out’’ ecstatically from this world, to ‘‘transcend’’ all boundaries toward the Mystery, in a move that amounts to being rapt away by truth, and by that beauty that saves, a rapture made possible by the ‘‘curtailment’’ of the Word in the flesh. The whole dwells in the fragment, the infinite erupts into the finite: the crucified God is for Christian faith the form and the splendor of eternity in time. On the cross, the Verbum abbreviatum (literally, ‘‘the abbreviated Word’’)—‘‘kenosis’’ of the eternal Word—reveals the salvific potential of the ‘‘smallest Infinite’’! Now, the presence of God amidst His people, His ‘‘self-curtailment’’ to destine Himself to humanity, expresses itself above all in the Word (dabar). For the faith of Israel, the Word of God is inseparably the Word that speaks, creates, and saves. Even from a simple approach to the texts, it is evident that the term ‘‘dabar’’ refers us not only to the noetic content, but also to the operative efficacy of the Word, which does what it says, exerting a profound impact on the transformation of the heart and on the events of history. The ‘‘informative’’ character is added to the ‘‘performative’’ character: it is in virtue of this density that one can understand how profound the link between words and events in the economy of salvation is. Thus, if on the one hand all the decisive stages of Israel’s history are introduced by the Word, on the other hand the faith of the chosen people can express itself simply through the narration of the salvific events, the mirabilia Dei, concrete manifestations of the Word of revelation (Dt. 26:5–10). In this light one may also understand the strongly dynamic and personal character of the idea of revelation driven through the experience of the Word in the history of Israel: the revelation through the Word is the advent of the living God in the sign of His words, the God who not only reaches and transforms the human condition, turning it into a history of redemption and salvation for all those who welcome the Word, but also into an experience of exile and condemnation for those who reject it.

................. 16673$

$CH7

10-23-07 10:18:17

PS

PAGE 76

Toward a Christian Theology of Judaism / 77

The gift of the Word according to Christian faith reaches its highest point in the event of the incarnation of the Word: ‘‘And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us; and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth’’ (Jn. 1:14; note that even for the Word there is a Shekinah, a ‘‘pitching a tent’’). In the succession of the times of the Word, this is the ‘‘fullness of time’’ (Mk. 1:15; Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:10), the hour when revelation is accomplished. The Word become flesh realized precisely the two meanings of the Old Testament notion of dabar: Jesus the Christ not only speaks God’s words, but is the Word of God, the eternal Word become human, which communicates itself and introduces us to the quickening experience of the divine depths in the gift of the Spirit. From the noetic/informative point of view, Jesus presents himself as the prophet and the master, who announces the truth about the Father and about humanity: ‘‘No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him’’ (Mt. 11:27). From the dynamic/performative point of view, Jesus is the Word become flesh, which has planted its tent in our midst (Jn. 1:14) and which speaks with the authority of the one who realizes what he says (Lk. 4:18–21). His person is so utterly inseparable from what he announces that to welcome his words is equivalent to welcoming him and the Father who sent him, while rejecting his words amounts to rejecting the salvation that he has brought (Mk. 16:15ff.). Judaism and Christianity are thus both faiths based on a response to the Word of God, religions of the Book entirely dependent on Scripture, despite the different ways in which they construe the fullness of divine self-communication. Apart from being Word, however, the biblical God is also Silence:8 the divine Silence is not the silence that elicits awe, to which alludes the silent scripture of the heavens (see. Ps. 19:2), nor is it the mysterious presence, whereby the Eternal One comes to subvert all possible expectations, offering Himself to His chosen one in the ‘‘tiny whispering sound’’ (1 Kgs. 19:11–13). The concealment of the divine countenance is not merely the psychological experience of His absence or a series of historical events linked to the time of ruin when God appears to withdraw His protection from the chosen people. The divine Silence has a theological value. It is a language, an invitation to believe and to give oneself up to the absent Presence and to persevere in an abandonment to the sought-after divine Countenance, even when this Countenance makes us experience all the tragic weight of His concealment:

................. 16673$

$CH7

10-23-07 10:18:17

PS

PAGE 77

78 / Archbishop Bruno Forte

‘‘For I will trust in the Lord, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob; yes I will wait for him’’ (Is. 8:17). This silence means to experience in the drama of failure that the language of God is not just the language of the Word and of our answer, but it is also the disturbing language of silence. It is for this reason that in biblical revelation, one can distinguish the presence of at least two different fundamental conceptions of God: ‘‘the God of the suspended bridges’’ and ‘‘the God of the broken arch’’: One concept, serene in the assurance of a conciliatory ending, places opposite the Alpha of one bank an Omega on the other, as firmly anchored in solid ground as the symmetrical arches of a suspension bridge. . . . The other concept introduces into this too fine a structure the element of insecurity: not protecting the bridge against any accidental knocks, not guaranteeing the man who crosses it against any risk, were it even a mortal one, providing no assurance as to the final outcome. . . .9 The God of the broken arch hands back to humanity the dignity of risk because He hands over the responsibility of the future without guaranteeing anything to it, making it attentive to the value of the present work, independently of any promised result or recompense. God has withdrawn into silence, not in order to avoid man but, on the contrary, in order to encounter him, but it is an encounter of silence with silence. Two beings, one of whom attempted to elude the other in the luminous face-to-face, find one another in the silent reverse of the hidden face. . . . Silence, ceasing to be a refuge, becomes the place of supreme aggression. Liberty summons God and man to an inevitable encounter within the opaque universe of silence.10 The times of divine Silence are the times of human freedom because in their painful ambiguity they place man alone in front of his choices, wholly free from the God who withdraws Himself. The scandal of divine Silence reveals therefore to Israel its God as the God of freedom, who does not guarantee anything, does not make assurances, but invites humanity to participate and to risk everything in its work (mitzvah: precept), who does not give any final result for granted. Thus it is the continuous intersecting of the divine Silence and of the Word of God that makes of the ethics of Judaism inseparably the ethics of freedom and

................. 16673$

$CH7

10-23-07 10:18:18

PS

PAGE 78

Toward a Christian Theology of Judaism / 79

the ethics of the pure Law, of the commandment loved even more than God, since God can withdraw Himself and be silent, but the Word continues to make demands and to expect to be obeyed. ‘‘Loving the Torah even more than God means precisely having access to a personal God against Whom one may rebel—that is to say, for Whom one may die.’’11 Even at the heart of the New Testament revelation, however, lies the language of silence. The Christian Gospel itself offers in full measure where the Silence of God reaches its abysmal apex, broken only by the cry of the ninth hour, on that cross that is supreme scandal for the Jews, but is no less folly for the Gentiles, unacceptable compromise of God with human suffering. The God who has come among human beings did not offer Himself under the forms of human greatness and wisdom, but, on the contrary, annihilated Himself, choosing what is weak and foolish to confound the strength and the wisdom of the world. The motivations of this radical absconditas Dei sub contrario (‘‘concealment of God under His contrary’’) are first of all those of negative theology: the negative expresses the divine less inadequately, exactly because it excludes any confusion between human conceptions of greatness and the divine transcendence. This motivation, however, must be tied to a more properly Christological one, which is the effective absconditas Dei in Christ and in his cross: it is the dialectic of revelation, the selfmanifestation of the divine in its contrary, according to the original meaning of the term re-velatio (‘‘second veiling’’). In Latin, the prefix re- has the double meaning of repetitive action and of change of status (analogously to the prefix apo in Greek): revelatio, like the Greek apokalypsis, simultaneously indicates an obscuring and a falling of the concealing veil, the unveiling of what is hidden, and the re-veiling of what is manifested. The re-velatio, therefore, does not eliminate the difference between the worlds that through it come into contact: God remains God and the world remains the world, even if God enters into human history and humanity is given the possibility to partake in the divine life. This indicates that, if in revelation God manifests Himself in the Word, beyond this Word, which is authentic divine self-communication, there is and remains a divine Silence. The Word comes out of Silence and it is in Silence that it comes to be heard; as there is a coming of the Word from the silent Origin, so is there a destination, a ‘‘taking place’’ (advenire) of the Word, which is the locus of its Advent. The Word exists between two silences: the altissima silentia Dei (‘‘the deepest silences of God’’)

................. 16673$

$CH7

10-23-07 10:18:18

PS

PAGE 79

80 / Archbishop Bruno Forte

of the Christian mystical tradition. It is precisely this dialectic game of Word and Silence that has been lost in the theological tradition of modernity. Indicative of this destiny, which has devastating consequences, is the very history of the word used to express the divine selfcommunication: from the moment when the term Offenbarung— evocative of the act of self-opening (etymologically, ‘‘pregnancy or disclosure of what is open,’’ from offen, open, and the verb ba¨ren, which in medieval German indicates the condition of ‘‘bearing in one’s womb,’’ ‘‘being pregnant’’)—has been accepted as the equivalent of revelatio in the language that controls the critical thought of modernity, the problem of revelation has become that of welcoming the manifestation of what is open, down to the Hegelian interpretation, where revelation becomes the phenomenology of the Absolute Spirit. From the perspective of the Offenbarung, the advent of God is conceived as an unrestrained self-exhibition: by speaking Himself, the absolute Mystery would then hand over Itself to the world’s grasp; the entrance of the eternal in time would have turned history into God’s curriculum vitae Dei, the process undergone by God to become Himself. In this way, however, any continuity is lost with the original biblical revelation in which the revelatio is the self-offering of the God who is revealed and concealed; always master of our desire. The God of revelation is the One who, giving Himself, simultaneously conceals Himself from our gaze and invites us into His silent and recollected depth. The God of the advent is the God of the promise, of the exodus and of the kingdom. Thus His revelation is not a total vision, but a Word that discloses the abysmal paths of Silence. The renewed relationship with Judaism, which has a long expertise in the divine Silences, becomes therefore a precious school for Christian thought, where the latter can reappropriate the dialectical and eschatological idea of revelation and so retrieve the paths of Silence whence the Word comes and to which the Word leads. For Judaism, as well as for Christianity, the words in which the divine Word dwells are then to be searched in a continual process of ‘‘transcendence,’’ striving to reach the concealed Origin and the Advent that they preserve. Then we can understand why Judaism searches for the seventy meanings hidden in each one of God’s words, and the Christian interpretation of Scripture looks out for its multiple meanings in an infinite game of allegorical and symbolic echoes. Thus the science of hermeneutics— intended as ‘‘transcendence’’ of the Word, which alone searches for its

................. 16673$

$CH7

10-23-07 10:18:19

PS

PAGE 80

Toward a Christian Theology of Judaism / 81

deeper meanings, the vital worlds whence it comes and that it expresses—is born out of the Judeo-Christian tradition of the ‘‘infinite reading’’ of Scripture.12 If the gaze of the two explorers is always turned toward the ultimate horizon and toward the ultimate homeland, no ecstasis of completion, no seduction of possession can stop their journey. Judaism and Christianity are religions open to the abyss of the divine Truth, which is accessible in absolute obedience to the biblical revelation preserved and transmitted by the holy people.

III. The Community-Oriented Character of Salvation Inasmuch as He demands the effort of an inexhaustible interpretation, one can say that the God of Judeo-Christian revelation is not the God of easy and ready-made answers, but an exacting God, who in the act of love and self-donation simultaneously conceals Himself and calls us to leave ourselves behind in an exodus without return that leads into the abysses of His silence, which is the first and the last: a God who makes those who love Him think. The relationship with Him necessitates, therefore, to be lived in a living community, which, preserving and acknowledging His language, could then teach it to its members, so that they could preserve it and creatively transmit it in their turn. This community is the people of God, the qahal of Israel, the Church of the disciples of the One who was crucified and has risen, both established and sustained by the words of the sacred language, in which God’s revelation is forever fixed. The value ascribed to this linguistic-communitarian belonging depends not on the language effectively used in the ordinary life of the believers, but on their constant and necessary learning of God’s language through the words—transmitted and faithfully translated from the sacred original—in which the Word said itself. To belong to this community is not a sacrifice of the intellect, but a hermeneutic condition for its fruitful exercise: the faith that unites all believers is food that nourishes our asking and our listening, as well as a womb that receives, preserves, and interprets our understanding of the Word of life, which is an understanding encompassing the whole of reality. We can now understand the care with which Judaism and Christianity have always affirmed and preserved the language of their divine origins:13 the question ‘‘which language was spoken in the Garden of Eden by Adam, Eve, God, and the serpent?’’ is for the Jew as well as for the

................. 16673$

$CH7

10-23-07 10:18:19

PS

PAGE 81

82 / Archbishop Bruno Forte

Christian only apparently a rhetorical question. The answer of Augustine—who unhesitatingly indicates Hebrew—is meant to tie the language of the first Adam to the language of the new Adam, Christ, to show that in Him is accomplished the new creation. In reality, however, the theological density of the claim has even wider consequences, since the unity of language expresses the unity of God’s people and establishes on one hand the mutual communion of the believers in the Israel of the election and the Church of the disciples, while on the other hand it lays the foundations for the providential relation between Israel and the Church. The proof of what I am saying is the fact that, when antisemitism gained the upper hand in the Christian consciousness, other answers emerged to the question of the language of Eden, thereby confirming that, as soon as one loses the unifying strength of the language created by God to speak Himself to humanity, the truest identity of His people in history is also lost. For Judaism and Christianity, this belonging to the holy people constitutes the hermeneutic circle that most fully introduces to the treasures of Truth: far from mortifying reason, the shared faith stimulates and exalts it. In God’s salvific design, Israel has a decisive and central role, as people and the Church itself cannot comprehend its own identity and its own mission without situating itself in relation to what Paul calls the ‘‘holy root’’ (Rom. 11:16). With a daring image, which manifestly contrasts with what is experienced, the Apostle sees the wild olive shoot grafted onto the olive tree, and not, as would be natural, the good plant grafted onto the wild one: this reflects the decisive importance that Paul ascribes to the Jewish plant, not hesitating to remind the Christian community that it is not the latter that bears the root, but rather the contrary (Rom. 11:18). The very refusal of Israel is considered by the Apostle as a providential condition so that salvation reaches out to the Gentiles (v. 11), who in their turn shall make Israel jealous and eventually lead to their reintegration (v. 14). The deepest motive for this mysterious design is located by Paul in the faithfulness of the God of the Covenant: ‘‘For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable’’ (v. 29). The complex history of the theology of salvation, which undergirds these reflections, affirms therefore the continuity between Israel and the Church, no less than the novelty that constitutes the people of those who believe in Christ. To think through the relation between the two peoples within God’s salvific design, as well as their specific roles

................. 16673$

$CH7

10-23-07 10:18:20

PS

PAGE 82

Toward a Christian Theology of Judaism / 83

in it, is thus the question that remains open, and that ever since the beginning of Christianity was posed to our conscience of faith, a faith always sustained by a God faithful to His promises.14 The continuity is manifest first of all at the level of language: the very terms ‘‘Church’’ and ‘‘People of God’’ have Old Testament roots. The community of Israel is indicated with the virtually equivalent expressions ‘edah and qahal, of which the former evokes a community gathered together, while the latter emphasizes the active moment of convocation. The Septuagint shall usually translate these terms with synagoge and ekklesia, and it shall be the latter expression—indicative of the religious moment when the assembly of the Lord is established— that shall become of common use to indicate the community gathered by God through the announcement of the paschal faith (‘‘Church of God’’), also because in a Greek context the term ‘‘synagogue’’ had become the proper name of the Jewish religious community and of its place of gathering. The distinction between ‘am and goyıˆm, designating respectively the chosen people and the other peoples, was translated into Greek by means of the two terms—which had entered the language of the New Testament—laos and ethne, used to indicate the people of God on the one hand, and the pagans—or the Gentiles—on the other. Already this terminology shows the extent to which the Church understood itself in continuity with Israel. Like Israel, the Church views itself as a people living in a condition of exodus, assembled in the twelve tribes: ‘‘But now I am standing trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our ancestors. Our twelve tribes hope to attain to that promise as they fervently worship God day and night; and on account of this hope I am accused by the Jews, O king!’’ (Acts 26:6–7). The choice of the Twelve (Mk. 3:13–19 and the synoptic parallels) indicates how Jesus himself understood his community in continuity with Israel and how his community lives its eschatological hope consistently with this understanding (cf. Acts 21:12–14). Jerusalem—seen in the Jewish tradition as the gathering point of those who are dispersed and as the holy place of the salvation accorded by God—remains in the consciousness of Christians the eschatological city that descends from the heavens (cf. Gal. 4:26ff.; Acts 21:2), while at the same time it is also the historical center where the redemption is accomplished and where the preaching of the Gospel to all the peoples began. Even the New Testament idea of the kingdom of God, content and heart of Jesus’ preaching, is deeply rooted in the Old

................. 16673$

$CH7

10-23-07 10:18:21

PS

PAGE 83

84 / Archbishop Bruno Forte

Testament, and in the same way as Israel is not identified with the reign of the Eternal One, the Church knows that it is only the seed and the warrant of the kingdom (see the parables of the kingdom in Mt. 13). Before everything else, however, it is the relationship with God that is the chief element of continuity between the communities of the old and of the new testaments: both are the people of God. The Eternal One destined Himself for Israel in the bond of the covenant, and Israel acknowledges that it exists because of Him and for Him, as His own property, His ally, His refuge among the people, ‘‘a priestly kingdom and a holy nation’’ (Ex. 19:6; see also 1 Pt. 2:9 and Acts 5:10). It is similarly the experience of salvation that gives to the Church the conviction that it is the people of God, conceived with the same category used for the chosen people: flock, field of God, chosen vineyard, God’s edifice, His dwelling place, holy temple, ‘‘Jerusalem that is above’’ and ‘‘our mother’’ (Gal. 4:26; Acts 12:17), bride whom the Lord ‘‘loved and for whom He handed Himself over so as to sanctify her’’ (Eph. 5:25–26).15 In the same way as Israel acknowledges its mission to be the people among the peoples, sign and instrument of the salvation of the Eternal One for all the peoples, even if in a constant tension between particularism and universalism, so the Church shall see herself called to bring the message of salvation even unto the ends of the earth, as a sign lifted up among the nations (Mk. 16:15ff.; Mt. 28:18–20). As Israel lives in the vigilant and hopeful expectation of the fulfillment of the promises of God, so the Church is the people of hope, in a tension between the ‘‘already’’ of the gift of the Lord and the ‘‘not yet’’ of the universal shalom (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:20–28; Acts 22:17–20). ‘‘Thus—remarks St. Thomas Aquinas—the Patriarchs of the old covenant belonged to the same body of the Church to which we belong now.’’16 Is it then possible to say that there is a single covenant, from which the one people of God in history is born? The continuity between Israel and the Church seems to authorize us to think in these terms;17 the decisive argument would be the irrevocability of the election and the faithfulness of the Eternal One to the covenant established with His people. Exactly because they are both people of God, the communities of the First and of the New Testament, united in a single plan of divine grace and mercy, would then be one single people journeying toward the same eschatological homeland and called to an identical task of messianic witness. The event of Christ would then not constitute a rupture,

................. 16673$

$CH7

10-23-07 10:18:22

PS

PAGE 84

Toward a Christian Theology of Judaism / 85

but a deepening and above all a broadening, in virtue of which the encounter with the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob shall be made possible for all peoples. In this perspective, the schism that has historically taken place between Israel and the Church would not be in line with God’s intended plan, according to which the two communities ought to continue to fulfill their task in reciprocal communion under the sign of the one single project for the salvation of the world: Israel as root, enduring testimony of the mystery of election that sets apart and consecrates, and the Church as tree, whose branches reach out to the wind and to the sun in the space of time, which is always fruitful in ever new seasons. Jesus Christ, especially in His aspect of suffering servant and of crucified messiah, would then be the link between the two communities: synthesis of the history of suffering of the chosen people in His passion and source of the mission reaching out toward the fulfillment of redemption in His resurrection. From this point of view, in Him, ‘‘Torah made flesh’’ (Jacobus Schoneveld), the deepest meaning of the Law has become transparent to all the peoples, and this meaning is the injunction to live in the presence of God as authentic images of Him. While certainly inspiring, this reading does not avoid two risks: on one hand, it takes up again the old theme of ‘‘supersession,’’ according to which the Church realizes explicitly what is implicit in Israel, and thus takes up its place in the mystery of redemption; on the other hand, it effectively reduces the novelty of Christianity to a ‘‘quantitative’’ dimension, in the sense that what was new in Jesus’ message was that it ratified the inclusion of the pagans in the gift of the covenant and in the authentic and liberating practice of the Law. In both cases, the thesis, according to which there has always been only one covenant, might help us to appreciate the profound continuity between the Church of the Old and the Church of the New Testament, but it cannot explain adequately the novelty that, in distinguishing them, actually ties them together. It is thus necessary to acknowledge the discontinuity in all its significance: ‘‘What for the one [Judaism] stood unconditionally at the end of history as its most distant aim was for the other [Christianity] the true center of the historical process, even if that process was henceforth peculiarly decked out as Heilsgeschichte.’’18 If for Israel—the explorer who walks in front—the ‘‘already of the faith’’ is the covenant established by God with the patriarchs, and the ‘‘not yet’’ of the hope is the

................. 16673$

$CH7

10-23-07 10:18:22

PS

PAGE 85

86 / Archbishop Bruno Forte

eschatological fulfillment of the promises of the Eternal One in the universal shalom. For the Church—the explorer who follows behind the other—the ‘‘already’’ is the advent of the Son of God in the flesh and the realization of His Paschal mystery, which shall find its full and definitive fulfillment when Christ shall recapitulate everything in Himself and hand over everything to the Father and God shall be all in all (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28). Toward this ‘‘not yet’’ of the last Advent, which shall be the glorious return of the Lord, the Church journeys in its pilgrimage through time. In this way, however, the two people remain tied together in the sign of an extremely productive messianic tension.

4. The Messianic Character of the Two Peoples For Christian faith, Jesus is the Messiah expected by the Jewish hope, the fulfillment of the promises made to the patriarchs, and, at the same time, the promise of a new and definitive fulfillment, which shall be consumed in the glory of the eschaton. In this sense, the Church knows that it bears in itself the hope of Israel, as it is waiting for the full realization of the messianic promise; and at the same time, it is aware of its difference from the people of the Old Covenant, because it acknowledges that the end time has already started in the history of Jesus, Lord and Christ, and because it views itself as receiving and simultaneously as enacting this eschatology that is about to be realized. The awareness of this novelty, even in continuity with the people of the Old Covenant, is clearly enacted in the New Testament: the Church sees itself—in contrast to Israel according to the flesh (1 Cor. 10:18)—as ‘‘the Israel of God’’ (Gal. 6:16), issue of Abraham and heir according to the promise in virtue of the fact that it belongs to Christ, the Messiah who has come (see Gal. 3:29 and Rom. 9:6–8). The fact that this novelty is emphasized leads one to think of two covenants: the Old Testament is followed by the New, while the economy of the Sinaitic covenant is replaced by the new and eternal covenant ratified by the blood of Christ on the cross.19 It is this ‘‘two-covenant theology’’ that inspired the opposition between Judaism and Christianity, pushed to the point where the Church is seen as the New Israel and where the survival of the chosen people is emptied of all significance. It is therefore necessary to emphasize that the two covenants are and remain within the single salvific plan of God, who gathers His people in history. It is for this reason that Judaism and

................. 16673$

$CH7

10-23-07 10:18:23

PS

PAGE 86

Toward a Christian Theology of Judaism / 87

Christianity remain always ‘‘open institutions’’ in virtue of their radical dependence on the divine initiative in history: Christianity is an institution which is open and relates to all men and periods of history; it exists and is still growing and becoming. . . . A Christian who would understand and proclaim his Church as a mere system, as a static and closed institution, degrades and reduces it. . . . Christianity is open especially toward Judaism. The Church is linked to Judaism in an [sic] unique manner. . . . Christians must study Judaism and take it seriously in its own right and in its relationship to Christianity. Christians must listen, wait, and believe. . . . Judaism, too, is an open community, a trait already conferred upon it by the Tanakh. . . . Like Christianity, Judaism’s openness is directed mainly toward the future.20 The two explorers of the Land of Canaan shall therefore continue to walk toward the same destination, mysteriously united by the cross of Christ and by the same song: not one against the other, nor simply one next to the other, but the one for the other, both turned toward the eschatological fulfillment of the promises of God.21 How, though, shall this come about? The decisive claim consists in the acknowledgment of the historical-salvific peculiarity as well as of the permanent religious significance of Judaism as a crucial datum for the Christian faith. To have forgotten or neglected this fact, which finds its basis in the convictions expressed by Paul in his Letter to the Romans (ch. 11), has been the cause not only of immense suffering for the Jewish people, made the target of rejection and persecution that culminated in the tragedy of the Holocaust, but has also resulted in the impoverishment and alienation of Christianity itself. One understands at this point why many of the interpretations proposed in the past to understand the relationship between Israel and the Church must be abandoned or discarded. From the historical point of view, the interpretive models whereby the Christian community related itself to the Old Testament have gone from the dualism of opposition between the Old and the New Israel to the simple allegory of substitution or the instrumental use of the testimonies of the Old Testament, and finally to move on to the search for an authentic complementarity.22

................. 16673$

$CH7

10-23-07 10:18:23

PS

PAGE 87

88 / Archbishop Bruno Forte

The dualistic model opposes the New Testament to the Old: Marcion and the heretical movement that drew inspiration from his thought, which developed around the middle of the second century, are its most emblematic representatives, with their thesis expressed through a forced reading of Luke 5:36–39: ‘‘One does not pour the generous wine of the Gospel into the old wineskins of Judaism.’’23 In this perspective, the work of Jesus would have consisted in freeing people from the oppressive domain of the Law and from the implacable divine justice so as to offer them the good news of mercy and forgiveness, reaching also those who are far through the supreme, loving gift of His death on the cross. In the Antitheses, whereby he prefaced the biblical canon that he had established, Marcion classified and selected the texts of Scripture on the basis of this fundamental dualistic criterion, thinking that in this way he could demonstrate the cruelty of the God of the Jews, against which the superiority of the Gospel would shine all the more.24 Because of its tendency to exalt the novelty of the Gospel, because of its strong Paulinism, and because of the radical nature of its judgments, Marcionism, though officially condemned by the Church, would go on to exert a great influence on Christian religious consciousness and would doubtlessly be one of the remote causes of the antisemitism that shall not cease to beset the Church. The Gnostic inspiration behind it, in virtue of which revelation is subjected to a more or less arbitrary assessment based on a rationally established criterion, shall, however, lead many to the realization that a dualistic model of interpretation is ultimately incompatible with the religious consciousness of the Church, which could not tolerate the cancellation of the Old Testament as it would thereby lose its own roots. In the course of the centuries, the allegorical model of interpretation was also to be developed by Christian theology to counter the perceived arbitrariness of the dualistic approach. In this perspective, the Old Testament is accepted and studied with love, but it also undergoes an instrumental use, whose goal is to explain every aspect of the letter of the Old Testament in the light of the Spirit of the New Testament. In this work of symbolization and of a progressive integration between the historical and the Christological plan, the Alexandrian School, with Clement and Origen, would be particularly influential; here the letter conceals a spiritual meaning. The resort to allegorical exegesis pushes

................. 16673$

$CH7

10-23-07 10:18:24

PS

PAGE 88

Toward a Christian Theology of Judaism / 89

the interpreters to acknowledge—sometimes in a rather forced manner—what is not said in what is said (allegory, after all, is ‘‘to say otherwise’’).25 The result of this procedure shall be the emptying of the Old Testament of its own meaning, an emptying accomplished not from the outside, by means of a simple suppression, but from the inside, inasmuch as its own original intentionality would be eliminated and a new one introduced, which in many cases would be utterly foreign to the original meaning. In this way, the substitution of Israel by the Church would be accomplished within the very text that establishes the identity of the Jewish faith. Even Christianity, however, suffered from this tendency, which weakened its historical foundation; conditioned by Graeco-Hellenistic dualism, the allegorical approach, spiritualizing the letter, eventually dehistoricized the Christian faith. If what is said in the New Testament is already present in the Old, under the form of type or allegory, ‘‘not only is the redemptive history that the Old Testament contains dissolved as such, but even the unique incarnation of Jesus Christ and the unique apostolic preaching of this incarnation are no longer taken seriously.’’26 In the dualistic model, there is a logic of opposition, while in the allegorical model, there is a logic of effective substitution. In the socalled anthological model, what prevails is a process of integration; the rest of Israel, seen as the best that the Old Testament was able to express, is taken up and integrated into the spiritual identity of the Church. What takes place here is again an instrumental use of the Old Testament and of its testimonies; one resorts to them in full respect of their historical significance, but one does so selectively, privileging what seems more universally valid or what appears more easily interpretable in a Christological key. Here Israel is not completely denied, but there is an effective partial cancellation. Even here the risk that emerges is the emptying of the Old Testament and its pure and simple assimilation to the New. An interpretation in this direction of the formula ‘‘the New Testament was concealed in the Old, the Old becomes manifest in the New’’27 would again suppress the dynamism whereby the divine economy is realized, weakening the historical character proper to the Judeo-Christian understanding of revelation. The origin of this interpretive approach appears to go back to the time when the New Testament canon had not been determined or fixed and Christians strove to discern the history of Jesus, center and foundation of their faith, in

................. 16673$

$CH7

10-23-07 10:18:25

PS

PAGE 89

90 / Archbishop Bruno Forte

the only canon at their disposal, that of the Old Testament. From here to the apologetic interpretation of the Old Testament would not take long. What, therefore, must be preserved in the relationship between the Church and Israel is the value of the Old Covenant in itself, as well as the permanent religious significance of Israel, postulated by Paul on the basis of God’s faithfulness to His covenant. Here we see emerging the model of complementarity; the Old Testament has a structural value, appropriated in fact by Jesus Himself, a Jew and actually ‘‘a Jew forever.’’ The vision of reality, characteristic of the holy root, consists in a fundamental element, which the existence of the Jewish people has continued with tenacity to witness in history, despite all attempts at assimilation or suppression perpetrated against them. This element, true center and heart of Judaism, is the covenant with God. Everything for the Jew refers back to the covenant: the good and beautiful world of creation, the difficult freedom of the human condition, and the destiny of the—no matter how unfaithful—chosen people. By listening to the Eternal One as demanded every day and more than once a day in the Shema, everything is oriented to Him. Everything is oriented to the One Who is to be loved with all one’s heart, in other words, in the midst of the conflicts that go through this source of life, which is attracted to both good and to evil; with all one’s soul, unto the gift of oneself; with all one’s strength, without sparing any of our abilities (Dt. 6:4–5). Jesus himself lived this spirituality of the covenant; he is the New Adam, who obeys where the other has failed. Jesus is the ‘‘yes’’ to the covenant (2 Cor. 1:20), the fulfillment in his very person of the covenant of eternal love between God and His people, the Israel realized according to the heart of God. The New Testament truly realizes (literally, incarnates) the Old Testament in the sense that the covenant fulfilled in Jesus makes it possible to understand the covenant in the fullness of its truest meaning. There is no question of one or of two covenants: the economy of the covenant is one and consists precisely in the plan of God’s love for His people, the plan that Paul calls the mystery-kept secret for long ages (cf. Rom. 16:25). The times, however, as well as the forms and the degree of realization change; the covenant with Noah is not the covenant with Abraham, and the latter is not yet that of Sinai. The covenant of Golgotha and of the resurrection does not negate the earlier covenants, but brings them to fulfillment. Thus between the two people of the economy of the

................. 16673$

$CH7

10-23-07 10:18:25

PS

PAGE 90

Toward a Christian Theology of Judaism / 91

covenant there can be nothing but complementarity: the New clarifies, the Old lets itself be clarified, but in its turn is also itself indispensable to understand the light of the New. Thanks to this hermeneutic function, in the light of the New the texts of the Old Testament shall be sometimes fully assimilated, sometimes put in perspective, sometimes referred back to the absolute priority of the love of God; nor shall the novelty of the incarnation of the Son, which surpasses every expectation, ever be forgotten. The Old Testament, however, endures—in its structural value and in its fundamental way of seeing the world, humanity, and history in the light of the covenant with God. This explains why the survival of Israel, tenacious witness among the people of this vision of the world, is neither a threat nor an impoverishment, but indeed a true resource for the Church, while the Church, people of God, does not eliminate what came first, but constitutes the permanent, respectful, and trusting offer of the possible fullness. Therefore, ‘‘since the common spiritual patrimony shared by Christians and Jews is so large,’’ the Second Vatican Council thought it fitting to ‘‘promote and recommend among the two peoples mutual understanding and esteem, which can be especially attained by biblical and theological studies and by fraternal dialogue.’’28 Leaving aside individual spiritual journeys that are always possible and that are rich in prophetic spirit, the two people, like the two explorers of the Promised Land, shall walk together in a sort of reconciliation process that is always in fieri until the time when they shall converge in the single people of the eschatological time, which the Christians expect as the full fruit of the reconciliation accomplished in the blood of the Crucified and Risen Messiah, the sign lifted up to draw all the peoples in the universal pilgrimage of the nations toward the Jerusalem of the final consummation.

................. 16673$

$CH7

10-23-07 10:18:25

PS

PAGE 91

8 . T h e Co ve n a n t T hat Was Ne ve r Re vo k e d: T h e Foundations of a Christian T heology of Ju d a i s m Erich Zenger

1. Fundamental Principles for a New Christian Theology of Judaism

At least in the realm of Catholic and Protestant theology, an ecumenical consensus has been reached on various fundamental principles of a possible Christian understanding of Judaism.1 These fundamental propositions can be summarized as follows. A. At no point in time did God revoke his covenant with Israel. Israel is and remains the chosen people of God, even if it does not accept Jesus as its own Messiah. This ‘‘no’’ to Jesus as Christ on the part of Israel can be understood and also respected by the Christians as indicative of the faithfulness of the Jews to their biblical tradition. The accusation of having killed God, raised for centuries by the Christians against the Jews, was not only historically false, but must also be rejected from a theological point of view. B. It is true that there remain between Christianity and Judaism a number of profound differences as far as their reciprocal understanding is concerned; at the same time, however, these two religions are inextricably bound. The Church has a relationship with

................. 16673$

$CH8

10-23-07 10:18:20

PS

PAGE 92

The Foundations of a Christian Theology of Judaism / 93

Judaism that is unique and that is not matched by the relationship she enjoys with other religions. According to the words of John Paul II, Judaism is not solely an extrinsic reality for the Church, but is in a certain sense intrinsic to Christianity itself.2 These shared horizons are not merely the result of the fact that Christianity has multiple roots in biblical Judaism or that Jesus was a Jew, but they also establish the parameters for a number of shared agendas that are bound to have an impact on Judaism and Christianity in the way these two religions are practiced today. C. The expression and realization of this set of agendas is the Christian-Jewish dialogue. In its aspect as specifically CatholicJewish dialogue, this conversation began to develop, at different levels, in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. Analogously, in Europe and in the United States, there is a Protestant-Jewish dialogue that presents different configurations. The dialogue sets up three goals. 1. A better understanding and awareness of the history of Christianity as a history of crimes against Judaism. 2. A deeper reciprocal understanding. 3. Shared initiatives on the social and political front. D. These basic principles, which find their foundation and the necessity of their formulation in the Bible, amount to a decisive ‘‘no’’ to the hostility and persecution of Jews by Christians that had continued for centuries. At the same time, they also indicate how the Church has come to revise its past understanding of Judaism. Thanks to historical research, today we are in the position to understand better the origins of this flawed approach. 2. A Brief Sur vey of the Traditional Theological Roots of the Christian Hostility toward the Jews

The theology of the covenant in the Letter to the Hebrews The chief reason for the hostility toward Jews on the part of the Church, which led to a theological condemnation of Judaism as early as the second century, was the struggle for the right to present itself as the true religion: a struggle carried out with eagerness by both religions, Judaism and Christianity, after their institutional separation. Here it is necessary to remember how Christianity, as the stronger party not only

................. 16673$

$CH8

10-23-07 10:18:20

PS

PAGE 93

94 / Erich Zenger

numerically, but also in regard to the changed political situation, no longer acknowledged the salvific prerogatives ascribed to Judaism in Scripture, proclaimed itself as the new and true Israel and condemned Judaism to a condition devoid of all salvation, in a state of evil blindness. In some respects, this negative Christian vision drew inspiration from a misunderstood antithesis between ‘‘old’’ and ‘‘new’’ covenant— traceable to the Letter to the Hebrews, especially Hebrews 8:13—which does not correspond to the way in which the letter is interpreted today. Until the mid-twentieth century, this text was considered the locus classicus of the ‘‘theory of substitution,’’ according to which God’s old covenant with Israel had come to an end with God’s new covenant with the Church, which took over Israel’s role in the history of salvation. In Hebrews 8:8b–12, the well-known passage of Jeremiah 31:31–34 concerning the promise of the new covenant is quoted literally (we shall return to this text below). At the same time, however, the citation from Jeremiah is situated in an interpretive frame that not only adopts an essentially critical approach toward Israel, but also even appears to prophesy Judaism’s theological end. Before the citation from Jeremiah, we find in Hebrews 8:6–8a a comparative claim concerning Christ as the mediator of a ‘‘better covenant’’: But Jesus has now obtained a more excellent ministry, and to that degree he is mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted through better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one. God finds fault with them [the Israelites] when he says . . . [here follows the quotation from Jeremiah 31:31–34, after which we read:] In speaking of a new covenant, he has made the first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear [8:13]. Contrary to the interpretation of Hebrews 8 that used to be commonly accepted, in the antithesis between ‘‘first covenant’’ (πρτη διαθκη) and ‘‘new covenant’’ (καιν διαθκη), one ought to read neither a contrast, on a salvation history plane, between a period of pre-Christian salvation and the new epoch of salvation inaugurated by Christ, nor an opposition to a Judaism that is considered superseded by a Christianity that is somehow regarded as ‘‘better.’’ In the horizon of the particular Christology of the Letter to the Hebrews, the author is referring

................. 16673$

$CH8

10-23-07 10:18:21

PS

PAGE 94

The Foundations of a Christian Theology of Judaism / 95

instead to the contrast between the remission of sins connected to temple worship and the reconciliation of the whole of humanity with God that has taken place once and for all through the Christ. The Letter to the Hebrews takes up the conception of the Sinaitic covenant in the cultic-priestly perspective that is typical of the Bible of Israel, and considers temple worship as expressing an ultimately earthly and human expiatory will that has been emptied of value once and for all by Christ on the cross, thereby proving to have been superseded from a salvation history perspective. [Traditional Christian] interpreters used to emphasize that Israel had broken the covenant, and that the people of the old covenant had thereby been rejected by God. While interpreters stress over and over again the themes of Israel’s breaking of the covenant or of the rejection of the people of the covenant, no passage [in the Letter] allows us to say that the author holds these views. In the Letter to the Hebrews there is no theological polemic against all that is Jewish, but rather an ontological relativization of all that is earthly. The concept to be opposed to the new covenant is thus not the ‘‘old covenant’’ in a history of salvation perspective, but rather ‘‘earthly worship’’ in a metaphysical sense.3 Here it is important to note how the Letter to the Hebrews, composed in the last third of the first century (certainly after the destruction of the Temple), is the only book in the New Testament that develops a systematic ‘‘theology of the covenant,’’ and it does so by resorting to the understanding of the ‘‘new covenant’’ for the expiation of sins that was already present in Jeremiah 31. The purpose of this process is to set forth systematically within the horizon of the Bible of Israel the selfunderstanding of the Jewish-Christian community in which this writing originated, as indicated by the fact that the letter is addressed to the ‘‘Hebrews’’ (though this title was presumably added at a later stage). This text offers ‘‘to its readers the understanding of a ‘new covenant,’ giving a theological definition of the salvific position and of the salvation history legitimacy of Christianity. . . . The model of the ‘new covenant’ becomes a pregnant synthesis of the Christian identity.’’4 This Christian identity is not defined by the Letter to the Hebrews in opposition to the surviving Judaism of the time. In fact, the very opposite is the case—the Christian community that is the addressee of this letter finds itself in a relationship of continuity with the salvation history of

................. 16673$

$CH8

10-23-07 10:18:22

PS

PAGE 95

96 / Erich Zenger

Israel. In the Letter to the Hebrews, the concept of ‘‘new covenant’’ is not an ecclesiological but rather a Christological concept; its purpose is neither to reject the Bible of Israel on the ground that it has been superseded, nor to exclude the Jewish people from the covenantal relation. The point of quoting Jeremiah 31:31–34 is rather to proclaim positively the Christian community as the place where the promise of salvation is fulfilled. Thus the intention behind Hebrews 8:13 is not to debate the relation between ‘‘First Testament’’ and ‘‘New Testament’’ or to distinguish the salvation-history dimensions of the ‘‘old’’ and of the ‘‘new’’ covenant; certainly the text is not opposing Judaism and Christianity. Its point is instead to oppose ‘‘the remission of sins by means of temple worship’’ with ‘‘the remission of sins through Jesus Christ.’’ Proto-ecclesial anti-Judaism and its historical influence up to the time of the Second Vatican Council This situation would, however, change with the Letter of Barnabas, presumably written in 130 CE and not included in the canon of Scripture, but which was very influential historically, and with the Dialogue with Trypho by Justin Martyr, a forcefully anti-Judaic work composed around 150 CE. By means of an eclectic exegesis of the pericope of Sinai in Exodus and Deuteronomy, the letter of Barnabas claimed that Israel, because of its apostasy in turning to the golden calf, had actually failed to attain the salvation promised at Sinai, which Christ had then assigned only to Christians. Justin Martyr, for his part, is the first to develop the theory of substitution that in the course of time would gain general acceptance. In Justin, we also find for the first time the concept of ‘‘old covenant’’ (παλαα διαθκη) in the salvation-history sense of an antithesis with the new and eternal covenant, with the purpose of thereby characterizing Judaism and Christianity as irreconcilable opposites. By this time, the Jews are regarded as the old people of the covenant who have been rejected because of their blindness, and the Christians are seen as the new people of the covenant established by Christ. The two people are effectively opposed in terms of an ethical dualism between ‘‘good’’ and ‘‘evil.’’ This anti-Judaic tendency ‘‘becomes stronger in Ireneus of Lyon, who was the first Christian theologian to reflect systematically on the theology of the covenant, and in Tertullian. The model of the ‘old covenant’ becomes in this way permeated with negative and polemical overtones, with consequences that still affect us today. The model of the

................. 16673$

$CH8

10-23-07 10:18:22

PS

PAGE 96

The Foundations of a Christian Theology of Judaism / 97

new covenant no longer functions to situate the coming of Christ in a soteriological and prophetic horizon, but instead becomes a primary legitimizing model for the Church in opposition to Judaism.’’5 Starting from the second half of the second century, the doctrine and teachings of the Church no longer speak of a covenant with God that has not been revoked, but rather of a covenant that has been broken. Post-biblical Judaism, which did not come to share a faith in Jesus as the Messiah, was now regarded as having been rejected by God. The catastrophes that affected Judaism in this time were interpreted by the Christian theologians as a sign of this condemnation. This ancient ecclesial vision of Judaism ensured that even other passages of the New Testament such as 2 Corinthians 3 and Galatians 3–4 would not only be read in the light of this hermeneutic of substitution— contrary to the sense conferred on them by Paul, and especially contrary to the ‘‘theology of Israel’’ elaborated by Paul in Romans 9–11—but also against the self-understanding of Israel based on the First Testament. Unfortunately, this protoecclesial anti-Judaism was not a marginal phenomenon within the Church, but had a very strong impact on theological reflection up to the present day. In fact, this theological position went unquestioned even by highly influential theologians, as we can see even in Karl Rahner. In the ‘‘small theological dictionary’’ that he edited together with Herbert Vorgrimler, we find in the body of the article on ‘‘Old Testament, Old Covenant’’ the following claim, which is particularly relevant for our discussion: ‘‘Jesus brings to completion the law and, in his blood, he determines the end of the old covenant.’’6 In the tenth, completely revised edition of 1976, Herbert Vorgrimler introduced a slight but radical change to this sentence. The latter now claims: ‘‘Jesus brings to completion the law and inaugurates the new covenant with his blood.’’7 In 2000, Herbert Vorgrimler presented a completely new edition of this encyclopedia. Here he summarizes the new theological vision concerning the theme of ‘‘covenant’’ (and effectively the opposition between ‘‘old’’ and ‘‘new’’ covenant) with these words: We must reaffirm that God’s covenant with Israel continues to subsist, and that the salvific promises to the Jews remain forever valid. There is a wide consensus as to the fact that the ‘‘new covenant’’ did not supersede the ‘‘old’’; when one talks of ‘‘covenants’’ or ‘‘pacts,’’ we are not referring solely to these two, but

................. 16673$

$CH8

10-23-07 10:18:23

PS

PAGE 97

98 / Erich Zenger

rather to the many covenants mentioned in the Old Testament. The discussion is rather on the manner in which the promises of salvation connected to the covenant have validity for the disciples of Jesus: the renewal of the only covenant through Jesus the Jew, or the admission of the Christians to the only covenant by virtue of the sacrifice of Christ, or even the extension to believers of the salvific promises of the covenant even if they do not belong to it [according to the flesh].8

The new perspectives of Pope John Paul II The new doctrinal position on the covenant with Israel that God has never revoked characterizes numerous doctrinal statements issued from the time of the Second Vatican Council to the present day. In the speech he gave at Mainz on November 17, 1980, in the presence of the representatives of the German Jewish community, Pope John Paul II used for the first time the definition—quoted many times ever since—of Israel as ‘‘the people of the old covenant never revoked by God.’’9 Similarly, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we find the equally strong claim: ‘‘The old covenant has never been revoked’’ (no. 121; see also no. 839). Since the reference to the people of God of the old covenant, if used in connection with the definition of the Church as the people of God of the new covenant, might appear to justify the mistaken inference that God’s covenant with Israel now plays a secondary role, Pope John Paul II recently has repeatedly replaced the category of ‘‘old covenant’’ simply with that of ‘‘covenant,’’ defining Israel as the ‘‘people of the covenant.’’ On October 31, 1997, addressing participants in a symposium on the roots of Christian anti-Judaism, the Pope paused to reflect on the small numerical size of the Jewish people, which was nevertheless predestined by God to a great dignity and a great task. The pope said: This people is gathered together and guided by God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. Thus its existence is not merely a reality wholly determined by nature or by culture. . . . It is rather a supernatural fact. This people endures against all circumstances and against everything, because it is the people of the covenant and because God—despite human infidelity—is faithful to His own covenant.’’10

................. 16673$

$CH8

10-23-07 10:18:24

PS

PAGE 98

The Foundations of a Christian Theology of Judaism / 99

Similarly, in the fourth mea culpa of the solemn Pontifical Mass at St. Peter’s, on the first Sunday of Lent in the Jubilee Year of 2000, Israel was defined as ‘‘the people of the covenant and of the blessings.’’ The prayer that followed this mea culpa, read on that occasion (as is well known) by the pope himself and later also placed by him on a paper into a crevice of the Western Wall, the so-called Wailing Wall, literally says: God of our Fathers, you chose Abraham and his descendants to bring your Name among the people. We are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer and, asking your forgiveness, we wish to commit ourselves to genuine fellowship with the people of the Covenant.11 This prayer shows clearly that the Second Vatican Council inaugurated a new epoch for relations between the Church and Judaism, whose dynamics and theological potential, however, must still achieve their full development. The direction of this dynamic is what I wish to discuss next. First, I intend to consider the biblical theology of the covenant so as to determine how one ought biblically to define the theological dignity of the covenant that has been recently rediscovered by the Church. In dialogue with the document The Jewish People and Its Sacred Scripture in the Christian Bible, issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission on May 24, 2001, I wish then to outline some of the consequences deriving from this new theological vision of Judaism.

3. A Biblical Theology of Covenant as the Foundation of the New Understanding of Judaism

The claims of the Old Testament about covenant offer multiple aspects and dimensions. These appear in different referential situations and as such, through their context, they come to acquire their respective fullness of meaning. . . . Despite this, in all the claims of the Old Testament concerning the covenant, one can discern a common theme: [Covenant] is in all cases the proof of the goodness and the faithfulness of God, who, in electing, makes possible the life of the [Jewish] people and keeps this people in communion with its God. Despite all problems connected with understanding and translating the Hebrew word berit, it is clear

................. 16673$

$CH8

10-23-07 10:18:24

PS

PAGE 99

100 / Erich Zenger

that it indicates an autonomous decision on the part of God, who, in the effectiveness of His bond, goes beyond a [mere] promise sealed by an oath.12 The initiative of the covenant, in all the biblical documents, goes back to God Himself. The covenant is freely established by God, or, in other words, the term ‘‘covenant’’ characterizes first of all a decision that binds God Himself to His people, Israel. Even in those passages where God’s covenant indicates a bond of Israel to its God, so that it is put forth as a reciprocal or bilateral tie, a fundamental asymmetry remains: the people of Israel can neither establish nor destroy the covenant with God because God alone, in His sovereignty and in His love, is the founder and the guarantor of this covenant. On one hand, Israel is the recipient of this covenant, the part that draws benefit from it; on the other hand, because of the covenant, Israel is obliged to submit to God’s utter sovereignty. The covenant is and forever remains a gift from God and a sign of his faithfulness. The Greek translation of the Bible underscores this aspect by choosing to translate the Hebrew term berit not with συνθκη, but with διαθκη; while συνθκη would evidence the reciprocity of the covenant, διαθκη suggests that the covenant starts from God. It is not possible here to delineate in an accurate and detailed way the complex theology of the covenant in the Old/First Testament.13 For the sake of our reflection on the election of the Jewish people to be a covenanted people as the constitutive element of Jewish identity, I think the following points deserve attentive consideration. Linguistic observations on berit It is true that in the First Testament the Hebrew word berit is only used in the singular; however, this same word is used in various contexts. First of all, we come across God’s covenant with Abraham or with the patriarchs; then, there is God’s covenant with Israel, and more precisely with Moses at Sinai; however, there are also God’s covenant with David and God’s covenant with Noah and with his sons and thus with all the creatures that live on this earth. In Sirach 44–50, seven different covenants are listed: with Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Aaron, Phinehas, and David. In Jeremiah 31:31–34, too, there is talk of a ‘‘new covenant’’ that God promises to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. Even the verbs that are connected with the word berit to indicate

................. 16673$

$CH8

10-23-07 10:18:25

PS

PAGE 100

The Foundations of a Christian Theology of Judaism / 101

the realization of the covenant—‘‘to cut, to conclude’’ (karat), ‘‘to give’’ (natan), and ‘‘to found, to establish’’ (heqim)—denote different aspects: a bilateral covenant  a covenant founded on a pact versus a unilateral covenant  covenant of [God’s] promise and grace. These simple linguistic remarks are of great relevance for the important theological question: What kind of relationship exists between these different covenants? More precisely: Are we talking of different covenants, or just of a single covenant in different actualizations? From a terminological point of view, I believe the answer to be quite simple: on one hand, the relevant biblical texts talk of single acts, in which and through which the covenant is realized, and thus in this perspective, berit, before anything else, means ‘‘stipulation’’ or ‘‘establishment of the covenant.’’ At the same time, however, berit also indicates what results from the establishment of the covenant, the bond or the relationship of the covenant. Then, however, to the question whether there is only one covenant or there are many, one must respond, putting forth the following consideration: the single ‘‘covenant pacts’’ reported and promised in the Bible form, in their continuity, a ‘‘history of the covenant’’ between God and the people of Israel, and they constitute a single, complex, and dramatic relationship of covenant between God and His people; thus there is only one unique covenant between God and Israel, of which the Bible of Israel is the witness in the different imprints of its experience of God.

The genesis of the Old Testament conception of the covenant (diachronic perspective) From the point of view of the historical tradition (thus in a diachronic perspective), the conception of God’s covenant emerges clearly for the first time in the Deuteronomic theology of the seventh century bce at the covenant of Horeb or Sinai. On one hand, this concept is inspired by the neo-Assyrian theory of the covenant, according to which the high king binds to himself his vassals through the stipulation of a pact, while granting them his protection in exchange. This conception is transposed to the relation YHWH-Israel by the Deuteronomic theologians. On the other hand, however, it is equally important to remember that the theology of the covenant evolves from the promise of God, who, according to the testimony of Hosea 11:1–11, loves Israel with such intensity that He remains faithful to His people despite the fact

................. 16673$

$CH8

10-23-07 10:18:25

PS

PAGE 101

102 / Erich Zenger

that they continuously deny Him: ‘‘I shall not give vent to the fire of my wrath, not shall I return to destroy Ephraim, because I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst’’ (Hosea 11:9). Here in Hosea, in the eighth century bce, we already effectively find the thesis of God’s unconditional love and faithfulness to His people Israel expressed in the idea that the covenant is not revoked and cannot be destroyed. This conception is deepened at the time of the exile in the sixth century bce through further reflection on God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the founding figures of the people of Israel. This so-called patriarchal covenant, delineated by the theology known as priestly, is in its conception a theology of promise and of grace. In a historical perspective, it is necessary to underscore how both understandings of the covenant began in periods of existential crisis for Israel: after the end of the kingdom of the North in 722 bce and after the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 bce, in other words, in the time of the exile. Thus in virtue of its origin, ‘‘covenant’’ is a soteriological concept.

The texts on the covenant in canonical sequence (synchronic reading) If we read the most important passages on the covenant in the sequence of their First Testament context (thus by means of a synchronic reading), we see that according to the testimony of the Bible, the history of the origin of Israel must be considered in all its fundamental stages as begun and accompanied by the intervention of God, who establishes the covenant. The history of Israel is the history of the covenant, as it deals with the way in which God accompanies the life of His people in history with constant proofs of His faithfulness and goodness. . . . In a way, every single pact establishing a covenant can be considered as renewing and confirming those that came before. The rationale [for each one of these pacts] is merely the changing situation and circumstances of history. No passage allows us to claim that God has abolished or revoked an earlier covenant. It is true that the people, failing to fulfill the obligations of the covenant it had entered, can break it with its disobedience to God’s commands, but the covenant does not cease to be valid for this reason. The covenant is established exclusively by the goodness and the faithfulness of God, not by the response of its human recipients.14

................. 16673$

$CH8

10-23-07 10:18:26

PS

PAGE 102

The Foundations of a Christian Theology of Judaism / 103

Israel can certainly infringe and trespass against the covenant, but cannot break or destroy this relationship because God supports His covenant and is ready to forgive its violation and to renew it. This is very clearly showed in the narrative sequence of Exodus 19–34. When Israel, after the solemn ritual whereby the covenant is established at the feet of Sinai (cf. Ex. 24:3–8), goes on to violate the covenant with its God YHWH by worshipping the golden calf (Ex. 32:9), God reveals Himself in Exodus 34:6–7 as the God of faithfulness and of mercy, who inflicts punishment but at the same time forgives all transgressions and renews the covenant (see Ex. 34:10–28). It is also for this reason that we come across so many references to God’s ‘‘eternal’’ covenant with His people (for instance Gen. 17:7, 13, 19; Ps. 105:8–10, 111:5, 9; and Is. 54:10). The promise of the new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah Even the ‘‘new covenant’’ promised to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah in Jeremiah 31:31–34 will not have the function of superseding the covenant with Israel’s ancestors, but shall constitute its definitive renewal at the end of time. This new covenant, which shall bring the history of God’s covenant with His people Israel to its eschatological completion, is not in a position of discontinuity, but rather of continuity with the Sinaitic covenant. Thus the ‘‘new covenant’’ promised to Israel is a fundamentally ‘‘First Testament’’ category. The ‘‘new’’ covenant is rooted in the ‘‘old’’ one and it leads to the formation of a community based on a covenant with God that lasts forever and can no longer be violated by any transgression. In this context, it is not possible to undertake a detailed exegesis of Jeremiah 31:31–34 or to discuss the different interpretations of this important text. I only note those aspects that I find most relevant for the understanding of Israel as the people of God’s covenant: 1. Within the horizon of First Testament semantics, the adjective ‘‘new’’ means ‘‘intact,’’ as is the mercy of God every morning (Lam. 3:23). ‘‘New’’ also means ‘‘fresh,’’ as this year’s harvest (Lev. 23:16, 26:10; Num. 28:26; Song of Songs 7:14). ‘‘To make something new’’ means ‘‘to renew what is worn out, or exhausted,’’ but not ‘‘to discover something new.’’15 Thus ‘‘new covenant’’ means first of all a covenant of intact, new, vital force

................. 16673$

$CH8

10-23-07 10:18:27

PS

PAGE 103

104 / Erich Zenger

2.

3.

4.

5.

and freshness. In this context, the connotation ‘‘new’’ does not represent here any opposition to ‘‘old’’ in the sense of outdated, or even of no longer existing, but means ‘‘full of new vitality.’’ The ‘‘new’’ covenant is not ‘‘something completely new,’’16 but the relation of the covenant of YHWH-Israel that has been ‘‘renewed’’ by God’s new initiative. As indicated by the formula ‘‘new song’’ (cf. Ps. 33:3, 96:1, 98:1, 149:1), ‘‘new’’ can also indicate an eschatological perspective. If we consider the various covenantal contexts, we come to understand that there is a need for a ‘‘new’’ covenant, and we also come to understand why: the reason is that the covenant, which YHWH had entered with Israel at Sinai during the exodus, has been, and still is, constantly violated. With the realization of the ‘‘new’’ covenant, things must take a different course. The new covenant will be such that the Israelites shall not be able to infringe it. Thus the opposition is not between ‘‘old’’ and ‘‘new,’’ but between ‘‘covenant that is violated’’ and ‘‘covenant that shall no longer be violated.’’ For this reason, the content of this renewed covenant is not different from that of the covenant at Sinai, as confirmed by Jeremiah 31:33 when the text directly quotes what is known as the formula of the covenant at Sinai/Horeb: ‘‘I shall be their God and they shall be my people’’ (cf. especially Dt. 26:16–19). The new covenant does then expect that Israel will conform its behavior to the demands of the Torah. God, however, grants to His people Israel the gift of being able to do so by writing the Torah in their hearts, so that they become so full of the knowledge and the love of God that no violation of the covenant is possible any longer (note the similar considerations in Is. 11:9). The basis of this ‘‘new’’ eschatological covenant is, as in Isaiah 34, God’s readiness to forgive sins, as evidenced in Jeremiah 31:34: ‘‘Indeed I shall forgive their transgression and I shall no longer remember their sins.’’ In Jeremiah 31:32, YHWH claims that He is and remains the ‘‘owner’’ of Israel even when Israel violates the covenant. I believe that this passage indicates clearly that Israel continues to be in a covenantal relationship with YHWH, even as it waits for the promise of the ‘‘new’’ covenant to be fulfilled, during all its history of transgressions and despite it.

................. 16673$

$CH8

10-23-07 10:18:28

PS

PAGE 104

The Foundations of a Christian Theology of Judaism / 105

6. Even if the promise of the new covenant is projected on to the epoch of eschatological salvation, this promise can and must influence the conduct of Israel through all preceding history, as is also the case for the other great biblical promises (including those of the New Testament). Israel, already now, must live out of the strength of this promise. 7. As the eschatological completion of the history of the covenant, the ‘‘new’’ covenant is going to have a configuration and an efficacy that shall be particularly and exclusively its own: God Himself, through the stipulation of this covenant, shall ensure that no one will any longer violate it. The establishment of this covenant shall usher in the time of definitive and perfect salvation. The problematic expression ‘‘Israel as the people of the Old Covenant’’ Considering that the promise of the ‘‘new’’ covenant belongs exclusively to the history of Israel’s covenant, the commonly accepted opposition between Israel as the people of the old and never revoked covenant and the Church as the people of the new covenant becomes rather problematic, given that Israel, in a biblical perspective, is both the people of the old covenant that has not been superseded and the recipient of God’s promise of a new covenant. This is also the vision of the Apostle Paul in his theology of Israel recently rediscovered by the Church (Rom. 9–11). In Romans 9:4, for instance, Paul stresses that [God’s] ‘‘pacts (διαθκαι) . . . and promises (α παγγελαι)’’ belong to the Israelites despite their ‘‘no’’ to the mission of Jesus, in Romans 11:25–32, echoing Exodus 34:9ff. and Jeremiah 31:31–34. [Paul] develops a vast tableau, suffused by a long-term hope for the future, depicting the eschatological salvation of the whole people of Israel. . . . Within a great horizon of hope, the past, the present, and the future of Israel are seen as a unity established by the intervention of God, who is above everything. It is true that in the present God has ‘‘sealed in disobedience’’ the greater part of the Jewish people (Rom. 11:31), but this has happened so as to leave the time to convert the pagans to the Gospel. At the end, however, ‘‘the Savior shall come from Zion’’ (Rom. 11:26b); the Christ that shall manifest himself at the end of time is going to gather around himself the whole of Israel and shall introduce it once and for all to the presence of God. When this shall come to

................. 16673$

$CH8

10-23-07 10:18:28

PS

PAGE 105

106 / Erich Zenger

pass, the promise of covenant in the book of Jeremiah shall be forever fulfilled.17 Christ’s covenant—a soteriological and not an ecclesiological concept At the end of time, ‘‘Christ’s covenant,’’ established in the blood of Christ, shall also realize its universal salvific fullness. This covenant inaugurated by Christ, which is a soteriological and not an ecclesiological concept,18 does not supersede God’s covenant with Israel, but, in relation to the earlier covenants, is a further pact on the part of God, enabling those who believe in Christ to partake of the definitive fullness of eschatological salvation. How one ought to determine more precisely the relationship between the covenant of Israel and the covenant of Christ is a controversial question today that in this context I cannot pursue in all its aspects as I ought. Implicitly, however, I am repeatedly going to touch upon this topic when, in the concluding section, I reflect, in dialogue with the new document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, on a number of consequences of a new theology of Israel.

4. The 2001 Document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission as a New Star ting Point for a Theology of Judaism

The document ‘‘The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible,’’ published on May 24, 2001, is undoubtedly a major turning point in the history of the relationship between Christians and Jews. Not only does this document survey the results of the numerous debates held within the Christian communities over the last decades concerning a new theological understanding of Judaism, but it also offers important stimuli for further theological reelaboration and pastoral praxis. In addition, this document gives an extremely ‘‘official’’ impulse to continue the Jewish-Christian dialogue. Given that the document is addressed to the official Church, one can hope that its perspectives encourage an overhaul of existing theological positions and pastoral traditions even in areas that have to date effectively ascribed hardly any importance to the problem of Jewish-Christian dialogue. It is impossible here to give adequate consideration to this document in all its particular nuances.19 I have thus chosen three elements that I believe are particularly relevant.

................. 16673$

$CH8

10-23-07 10:18:29

PS

PAGE 106

The Foundations of a Christian Theology of Judaism / 107

Israel’s permanent election The document underscores with the utmost clarity how, despite its ‘‘no’’ to Jesus, Israel has been elected forever. With this assertion, the document does not wish merely to put forth an informed and convincing interpretation of the theology of Israel of Rom. 9–11, but also sets out to illustrate the First Testament foundation of this thesis in the sections devoted to Israel’s election (§ 33–36), the covenant (§ 37–42), and the ‘‘perennial subsistence and final salvation of Israel’’ (§ 58–59), sections that are developed on the basis of the Bible as a whole. Later, with regard to Rom. 11, the document goes even further and chooses to interpret Israel’s ‘‘no’’ as an action of God Himself, thereby giving it a positive purpose, so that, on the basis of this ‘‘no,’’ it becomes apparent yet again why God could not and cannot repudiate His people because of this ‘‘no.’’ ‘‘The chosen people’s rejection [of Christ] belongs to God’s paradoxical plan: its purpose is to bring about the ‘salvation of the pagans.’ . . . The Israelites remain ‘loved’ by God and a wonderful future is promised to them; ‘the grace and the calling granted by God are indeed irrevocable’ (11:29). This is the teaching—an absolutely positive one—that Christians must incessantly remind themselves of’’ (§ 59). This means that the Church, confronted with Israel, must leave behind every presumption and supposition of self-sufficiency. Concretely, it also means that the Church must definitively abandon all the varieties of the theory of substitution and disinheritance, and in their place must live its solidarity with Israel as Church: ‘‘far from putting itself in the place of Israel, it remains in a relationship of solidarity with the latter’’ (§ 65). In a note, the document expressly asserts: ‘‘Nowhere in the New Testament is the Church called ‘the new Israel’’’ (n. 301). From this central thesis of the document emerge a few consequences and tasks for further theological reflection, which shall now be mentioned briefly. 1. Judaism can no longer be reduced to a negative foil so as to elevate the self-understanding of the Church and its doctrine. It is obviously necessary to mention the differences between Judaism and Christianity; it is on the basis of these differences that Judaism must continue to exist. However, the pointing out of the differences can no longer be coupled with a condemnatory judgment against Judaism.

................. 16673$

$CH8

10-23-07 10:18:30

PS

PAGE 107

108 / Erich Zenger

2. If Israel, as a community, finds itself, now as in the past, in a relationship of covenant with God, and, as people of the covenant, offers to its members the way and the means of salvation, it is necessary to clarify how this particular salvific path for the Jews relates to the universal salvific path of the Church. I believe that, from the point of view of Catholic dogmatics, it is doubtlessly possible to speak of a special path for the Jews. 3. Given the fact that Israel, as a community, finds itself in the relationship of grace that it received as a gift from God Himself, if the reference to Israel as the elder brother of the Christians is to have any meaning, the one and only God must no longer be proclaimed to Israel. The fact that the relations between Judaism and Christianity are of a different character compared to the relations with the other religions implies that there can be no institutionalized mission geared to Judaism as such. Of course, the Church as a whole and all Christians as individuals must affirm their faith in Jesus as their own path of salvation even when they are in dialogue with the Jews, but this should not be joined by the pathos of trying to free them from their ‘‘false’’ path. This greater openness of the Church toward Judaism must also be accompanied by a readiness on the part of Christianity to give adequate answers whenever Judaism raises a clarifying question. The theological dignity of the Jewish reading of the Bible The document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission demonstrates a great respect for Judaism, but this is accompanied by a specifically articulated theological appreciation of the Jewish reading of Israel’s Bible to the extent that it differs from the Christian reading of the Old Testament. Here the Commission goes much further than its earlier document of 1993, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. It must be acknowledged, however, that the 1993 document did pave the way for the greater openness of today’s declaration; this is clear if we consider what it said about the multidimensionality of the biblical texts or about the constitutive role, for the theological reading of Scripture, of communities of faith and interpretation. In the dynamics of this approach, and given its positive respect for Judaism, it is not surprising that the new document comes to this conclusion: ‘‘Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Sacred Scriptures from the Second Temple period, a

................. 16673$

$CH8

10-23-07 10:18:30

PS

PAGE 108

The Foundations of a Christian Theology of Judaism / 109

reading analogous to the Christian reading which developed in parallel fashion. Each of these two readings is part of the vision of each respective faith of which it is a product and an expression. Consequently, they cannot be reduced one into the other’’ (§ 22). This axiom for the Jewish-Christian relationship implies different consequences as well as a number of questions, which again I can only mention briefly in this context. 1. When it is claimed that ‘‘the Jewish reading of the Bible . . . [is] in continuity with the Jewish Sacred Scriptures from the Second Temple period,’’ we are first of all confronted with the— historically accurate—consideration that the pharisaic-rabbinical Judaism that has been the prevalent form of Judaism from the second century CE until the present in no way represents a break, let alone a betrayal, of the self-revelation of God to which the Hebrew Bible testifies or of the way of life based upon it. Theologically, this means that Judaism, despite its ‘‘no’’ to Jesus, has remained faithful to its origins. Even if only implicitly, the expression (which has enjoyed a long acceptance) of perfidi Judaei finds in this document its theological refutation. 2. When Christians, on the other hand, read the Old Testament so that, for them, the texts indirectly allow one to discern the New Testament witness to Jesus as the Christ, this is hermeneutically acceptable and theologically legitimate within the horizon of the Christian community of faith as long as it is considered a specifically Christian mode of reading. The document rightly points out that ‘‘the Christian reader is aware that the internal dynamism of the Old Testament finds its goal in Jesus, [but] this is a retrospective perception whose point of departure is not in the text as such, but in the events of the New Testament proclaimed by the apostolic preaching. It cannot be said, therefore, that Jews do not see what has been proclaimed in the text . . .’’ (§ 21). 3. If from a Christian point of view it is legitimate to assert the existence of a Jewish and of a Christian reading of the same biblical texts, the question is then raised as to how the two are related to each other. The document offers a very practical answer: ‘‘On the practical level of exegesis, Christians can, nonetheless, learn much from Jewish exegesis practiced for more than two thousand years, and, in fact, they have learned much in the course of history. For their part, it is to be hoped that Jews themselves can

................. 16673$

$CH8

10-23-07 10:18:30

PS

PAGE 109

110 / Erich Zenger

derive profit from Christian exegetical research’’ (§ 22). Here, in a much more concrete way, one could also ask: What concept of truth must be developed in consequence of this twofold reading? Is there a Christian-Jewish biblical hermeneutics that expressly considers this twofold reading and integrates it into the reading of the texts? Reappraisal of the Messianic expectations of Judaism and new suggestions for a dynamic Christology The document offers a serious reappraisal of the messianic expectations of Judaism, as well as new suggestions for a dynamic Christology, which ought in its turn to draw a stronger inspiration from the biblical texts. The document takes up the question of the accusations—repeated so many times from the era of the Fathers of the Church that they have turned into stereotypes—according to which the Jews are not merely blind but actually evil because they failed to accept Jesus, the Messiah sent by God, who, after all, had been announced in their own Bible. The document does not merely attempt to understand the difficult relation between the Christian ‘‘yes’’ to Jesus the Messiah based on the Bible and the Jewish ‘‘no’’ to Jesus, equally understandable on a biblical basis, but also seeks to understand this Jewish ‘‘no’’ as a theological question that is thrown back at Christology. Of course, we should not be surprised by the fact that the document uses here some expressions that must be refined further and that are not always fully coherent; at the same time, we realize that a new field of inquiry for theology has here been opened up—a field that is bound to have important consequences. The following observations seem to me to be most remarkable. 1. The document seeks first of all to offer a sober and thoughtful exposition of the Old Testament passages that can be grouped under the heading ‘‘messianic promises.’’ In particular, it sets out to acquaint us with the way that these promises were understood at the time of Jesus. The nonsystematic character of these expectations in the Old Testament is rightly emphasized, and so is their different weight in the different Jewish groups at the time of Jesus. This means, however, that the messianic character of Jesus was certainly a possible, but not a necessary, interpretation of his

................. 16673$

$CH8

10-23-07 10:18:31

PS

PAGE 110

The Foundations of a Christian Theology of Judaism / 111

coming; in other words, not only does the document stress that Jesus was and is understood as the fulfillment of the promises of the Old Testament, but also that he was not the only possible fulfillment. This would not merely contradict the Old Testament texts, but also the singularity of Jesus as the Messiah, as the document goes on to emphasize: ‘‘The notion of fulfillment is an extremely complex one, one that could easily be distorted if there is a unilateral insistence either on continuity or discontinuity. Christian faith recognizes the fulfillment, in Christ, of the Scriptures and the hopes of Israel, but it does not understand this fulfillment as a literal one. . . . Jesus is not confined to playing an already fixed role—that of Messiah—but he confers, on the notions of Messiah and salvation, a fullness which could not have been imagined in advance; he fills them with a new reality; one can even speak in this connection of a ‘new creation’’’ (§ 21). As far as Judaism is concerned, this implies that its ‘‘no’’ to the Messiah can no longer be interpreted as ‘‘lack of faith’’ or as ‘‘blindness,’’ but rather as a position that takes greater account of other tendencies within its own tradition. What we have already affirmed more than once is valid here as well: not only is it important to acknowledge the Christian-Jewish difference, but one must also understand it in its origins, avoiding premature judgments. 2. The document is particularly cautious when it deals with traditional references to Jesus Christ as the goal and the culmination of the history of salvation. It does present Jesus, with biblical correctness, as the fulfillment of the promises and as sign of the fulfillment that is still lacking but that shall certainly come. When the document notes that primitive Christianity was convinced that ‘‘the eschatological promises of the prophets did not refer merely to the future, but that their fulfillment had already begun in Jesus of Nazareth’’ (§ 11), it opts for a dynamic Christology that takes into account the dimension (also underscored by Judaism) of the condition of the ‘‘nonredemption’’ of the world that can be seen day after day and that accepts the ‘‘not yet’’ to which ultimately belongs the time of eschatological salvation. What this means for soteriology is a serious question that Christian dogmatic theology must now answer.

................. 16673$

$CH8

10-23-07 10:18:31

PS

PAGE 111

112 / Erich Zenger

3. The document rightfully acknowledges that the Jewish ‘‘no’’ to the Christian understanding of Jesus as the Messiah is simultaneously connected to a specifically Jewish form of eschatological expectation, which on one hand can take many forms, and on the other hand, over the centuries, has proven to be Judaism’s vital force, and as such, constitutes a stimulus even for Christianity: ‘‘Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain. It can become for us Christians a powerful stimulus to keep alive the eschatological dimension of our faith. Like them, we too live in expectation. The difference is that for us the One who is to come will have the traits of the Jesus who has already come and is already present and active among us’’ (§ 21). This Jewish eschatological expectation is not a fantasy or something utterly irrelevant for us Christians, but on the contrary, it is a proof of the historical dynamics that is based on the first part of our Bible and which for us became manifest in Jesus. Also, this expectation reminds us that this world of ours is ultimately destined to become the Kingdom of God—a kingdom of justice and of peace. Christians and Jews must make their own specific contribution to it: Jews in the horizon of the covenant of Israel and Christians in the horizon of the covenant of Christ.

................. 16673$

$CH8

10-23-07 10:18:32

PS

PAGE 112

9 . Jewish -C hristian Relations : A Co n c i l i a r Discove r y and It s Methodological Consequences for Do g m a t i c T heology Peter Hu¨nermann

1. The Main Issues The struggle of the Secretariat for Christian Unity under Cardinal Bea to promulgate the declaration De Judaeis, the successful climax of which was the publication of the conciliar document Nostra Aetate, has produced extremely rich fruits. The brief and yet balanced pronouncements of the Second Vatican Council not only had a vast positive resonance and were often referenced by a variety of exegetical and theological publications, but they also opened the way to a lively dialogue between the Church and Judaism.1 The popes themselves, especially Pope John Paul II, the Roman dicasteries, the episcopal conferences, and also individual bishops have addressed this topic and have promoted a critical revision of ecclesiastical history and a deeper theological reflection. The document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (May 24, 2001) is certainly one of the most important of the studies that proceed in this direction and a paradigmatic example of these developments. A close reading of article 4 of Nostra Aetate signals the necessity of correcting a series of propositions that were part of our theological tradition. Note these excerpts:

................. 16673$

$CH9

10-23-07 10:18:31

PS

PAGE 113

114 / Peter Hu¨nermann

Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God’s saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ—Abraham’s sons according to faith (Gal. 3:7)—are included in the same Patriarch’s call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people’s exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles (Rom. 11:17–24). Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles, making both one in Himself (Eph. 2:14–16). . . . As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation (Lk. 19:42), nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading (Rom. 11:28). Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues—such is the witness of the Apostle.2 In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and ‘‘serve him shoulder to shoulder’’ (Soph. 3:9).3 . . . True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ (Jn. 19:6); still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ. Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s

................. 16673$

$CH9

10-23-07 10:18:32

PS

PAGE 114

Jewish-Christian Relations / 115

spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.4 From these passages of the declaration, we can derive three fundamental dogmatic propositions: (1) the beginning of the faith and of the election of the Church of Christ is found in the patriarchs, in Moses, and in the prophets, and that the Exodus prefigures the salvation of the Church; (2) the gentiles who belong to the Church are grafted onto the good olive tree like a wild shoot; and (3) despite the rejection of the Gospel by many Jews, God’s gifts and Israel’s vocation endure. At this point, it is necessary to ask whether a mere material correction of the dogmatic treatments of topics such as ecclesiology is sufficient to respect the new conception of the relationship between the Church of Christ and the Jewish people. Are there other aspects of dogmatic theology that must be changed or revisited? The question emerges also whether the very methodology of dogmatic theology ought not to be renewed so that the whole truth of this relationship may unfold. For example, if the Church and the Jewish people are closely related to each other and the Bible is acknowledged as a common heritage of faith despite the different interpretive traditions, are there no questions that transcend the mere correction of a few propositions that until now were taken for granted? Here, we believe, a number of methodological problems emerge.5 This suspicion is confirmed by a more focused reflection on the points mentioned above. They do not refer to something that from the historical point of view is merely casual or accidental. They are propositions that open a transformed vision of the relationship between the Church and the Jewish people. This is a vision that can be engaged only if the theologian relates it to fundamental theological questions. In fact, it presupposes a specific approach that reveals things unknown until then, opening up a series of questions that are not answered easily. In order to give them adequate attention, it is helpful to attempt a brief overview of dogmatic methodology, leaving aside more detailed questions and focusing on fundamental aspects. 2. An Intermediate Reflection: Fundamental Aspects of Dogmatic Methodology

When one considers the multiplicity of dogmatic publications, the wide diversity of the themes, and the variety of the approaches, a question

................. 16673$

$CH9

10-23-07 10:18:33

PS

PAGE 115

116 / Peter Hu¨nermann

immediately arises: What is theology if not a kind of scientific work concerning topics that in some way are related to the faith or to Christianity? However, what does ‘‘the scientific character of theology’’ mean? Are there any common formal traits that characterize dogmatic theology? To deny the existence of these formal traits would reduce theology to a type of cultural science. The unity of theology and its specific character in the family of the different sciences would be lost. Thus the determination of the formal character of theology is absolutely necessary. In the Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas described this formal character of theology in the following way: theology deals principally with God (principaliter) and with creatures, inasmuch as they ‘‘are referred to God as their beginning or end’’ (referentur ad Deum, ut ad principium vel finem).6 The basis of this determination of the formal character of theology is that God manifests Himself in faith as the prime truth (prima veritas), in other words, not as one of the multiple categorical truths or as a truth like any other. God is the truth that opens itself up and lets all truths flow out. Thus the revelation of God is characterized by this formal structure: God is prima veritas in quantum manifestabilis et manifestativa omnium (the prime truth insofar as it is able to be manifested and to manifest everything). The self-communication or disclosure of God Himself as prima veritas and as authentic human salvation takes place primarily through the events of the economy of salvation, which begins with creation and finds its fullness in the Christ event. In the texts of the Old and the New Testaments, these events of the divine economy have found their authentic expressions. Only through this economy, in other words, through the objecta materialia fidei, the objectum formale fidei (material objects of faith, the formal object of faith)—God as prima veritas—is present. As a matter of fact, the objecta materialia fidei (material objects of faith) can only be believed through this formal perspective and thus through the light of faith. What is the consequence of this conception of revelation for the fundamental structure of theology? Thomas sets out this doctrine and does not develop an argument to prove its principles—which are the articles of faith—but starts instead from these principles to prove other things.7 What does theology prove? Certainly something more than mere deductions or conclusions derived from principles. Theology consists in a deepened understanding of the faith, in the demonstration of the relations of the various aspects of

................. 16673$

$CH9

10-23-07 10:18:34

PS

PAGE 116

Jewish-Christian Relations / 117

faith, and in the inner coherence of faith as a whole, of its material objects. For this reason, theology does not merely use the articles of faith, but also all the resources of intelligence and the results of the philosophical and the historical sciences. Sacred doctrine, however, makes use of this type of authority of the sciences only as an ‘‘external and probable’’ argument. It uses instead the authority of canonical Scriptures in a proper sense and arguing ex necessitate (out of necessity).8 ‘‘Our faith is based on the revelation given to the apostles and to the prophets, who wrote the canonical books.’’9 Theology emphasizes its formal character by acknowledging, from the methodological point of view, the authority of canonical Scriptures as normative in relation to the other instances of faith. All these instances have an irreplaceable function, but this function is secondary, and, so to speak, auxiliary. Melchior Cano, on the basis of this Thomistic conception, dealt with the whole list of loci theologici (grounding sources of theology). Even for him, the authority of sacred Scripture is the highest instance. After that comes the authority of the oral traditions concerning Christ and the apostles. A further instance is the Church, intended as the community of the faithful in its totality, as well as the Councils, the Church of Rome, the Fathers, the theologians. Finally come the loci alieni (the extrinsic sources): the ratio naturalis (natural law), philosophy, history. This doctrine of the loci theologici was further developed by the Second Vatican Council. Thus the testimonies of the faith articulated and received by the Oriental Churches have been acknowledged as an expression of authentic faith. Among the loci alieni, the Church names also contemporary non-Christian culture in its various aspects, as well as the undeniable results of the various modern sciences.10 In Gaudium et Spes, for instance, it is claimed that, through the social sciences, the Church comes to a better understanding of its own message and structure. Apart from having broadened the range of the loci theologici, the Second Vatican Council has also transformed the use made of them by the Church and by theology. Melchior Cano claimed that the loci theologici proprii, properly speaking, represent the principles of faith in the form of propositions. The Council, instead, echoing the contemporary theological consensus,

................. 16673$

$CH9

10-23-07 10:18:34

PS

PAGE 117

118 / Peter Hu¨nermann

teaches that Scripture must be interpreted by keeping in mind the insights of history and philology. Only by properly taking these insights into account it is possible to arrive at the intellectus fidei (faith understanding), which must be clarified and explained. This intellectus fidei cannot be understood just through the propositions and the letter of sacred Scripture. The same goes for the other loci theologici. Thus the doctrine underpinning theological methodology has been deepened in comparison with the conception put forth by Melchior Cano. Such a deepening and change are analogous to the change that Melchior Cano himself had already introduced in comparison with the conception of Thomas Aquinas, without, however, betraying the spirit of the latter. Thus the loci theologici represent an operative nexus, structured by faith in its ecclesial historicity. It is the operative core of theological methodology. Now let us ask: Does the new determination of the relationship between the church and the Jewish people lead to a new understanding of the notion of the loci theologici? So as to evaluate the possible changes in the ambit of theological methodology and of theology’s methodological work, I would propose to proceed through two phases. In the first phase, we shall try to understand whether the Council’s discovery of the relationship between Jews and Christians transforms the loci known until now. In the second phase, we shall evaluate a number of dogmatic treatments and the new problems that they raise. 3. Change of the Loci Theologici through the Council’s Discover y of the Jewish-Christian Relationship

Sacred Scripture I would like to illustrate the change that has taken place in the wake of the Council by reflecting first of all on the first locus theologicus, which is defined by Melchior Cano as ‘‘the authority of Sacred Scripture,’’ contained in the canonical books. According to Cano, sacred Scripture consists of the books of the Old and the New Testament. Today, however, the understanding of the Old Testament and of its relationship with the New Testament appears partially different. In the second century ce, a number of voices can be heard in the Church, which talk of the death of Israel.11 Their logic is that because of its rejection of Jesus Christ, the people of Israel have lost their dignity as the chosen people. It is the Church that now represents the

................. 16673$

$CH9

10-23-07 10:18:35

PS

PAGE 118

Jewish-Christian Relations / 119

people of God. This conception was rapidly received by the Church as a whole and it deeply marked the Christian tradition, among Catholics as well as Protestants. In his Discourses on Religion, Friedrich D. Schleiermacher remarks in his romantic language: ‘‘for Judaism is long since a dead religion, and those who at present still bear its colors are actually sitting and mourning beside the undecaying mummy and weeping over its demise and its sad legacy. . . . It died when its holy books were closed; then the conversation of [God] with his people was viewed as ended.’’12 According to this perspective, the Old Testament is the prehistory of the New Testament, but a prehistory that is definitely over, closed, and almost petrified. Of course, even in the very text of the Old Testament, the divine economy of Israel is characterized as prehistory. Even the document Nostra Aetate reaffirms this thesis: As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham’s stock. Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God’s saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ—Abraham’s sons according to faith13 —are included in the same Patriarch’s call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people’s exodus from the land of bondage.14 There is such a thing, therefore, as a prehistory of Christianity. This prehistory, however, is not simply terminated, dead, and petrified. This prehistory is still effective. To echo Hans-Georg Gadamer, this prehistory has a Wirkungsgeschichte (history of reception) that is still actual and relevant today. What is the theological basis for such a claim? In the Letter to the Romans, Paul claims that the irrefutable promise of salvation and redemption is tied to Jesus Christ, both for the Jew and for the pagan.15 According to Paul, Christ is the Messiah of Israel, and the Gentiles participate in the promise of salvation through his mystery.16 The remission of sins, justification, and rebirth through baptism are new facts, which transform the earlier history of Israel into a prehistory. However, the justice of God (Rom. 1:16), revealed in Christ and

................. 16673$

$CH9

10-23-07 10:18:36

PS

PAGE 119

120 / Peter Hu¨nermann

destined to the faithful—to the Jew first, then also the pagan—is a justice ex fide in fidem (out of faith into faith). The first covenant, the path that leads to Jesus Christ—and Paul exalts the great gifts that God granted to Israel on this path—confronts us with a certain ambiguity in relationship to the new data of God’s economy; not all, but many in Israel close themselves to the novelty of the Gospel of Jesus. Paul defines this dynamic—which he himself experiences during his missionary activity on behalf of the proclamation of the Gospel—with the term porosis, ‘‘hardening.’’ For Paul, porosis does not indicate merely a personal fault. In the Old and the New Testaments, porosis encompasses a series of phenomena that go from personal or collective (factual, historical) insensitivity to an attitude of stubborn resistance to the Spirit of God. Paul observes that Israel’s porosis has— thanks to God’s justice and to His faithfulness—a profound salvific sense: ‘‘For God delivered all to disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all’’ (Rom. 11:32). In the Letter to the Romans (11:25), Paul claims that this porosis shall continue ‘‘until the full number of the Gentiles comes in,’’ and thus ‘‘all Israel will be saved.’’ In this perspective, the term porosis used in the Letter to the Romans is not a moral category; it is a historical-theological category and it manifests a historicaltheological perspective. This Pauline explanation—according to which the Gentiles are grafted onto the good olive tree of Israel and partake of the sap of the root—exerts a double effect upon the prehistory. The latter is the nourishing root that bears the new. This means that the Church is inexorably the Church of the Jews and of the Gentiles. On the one hand, if in Christ there is no longer any division between Jews and Gentiles, the Church is obliged, because of the prehistory, to welcome the Jews who belong to the people of God of today. On the other hand, it is necessary to acknowledge that the Wirkungsgeschichte leads a major proportion of Israel into porosis. Even this porosis, however, shall be an instrument to realize salvation. The manner in which this choice of the majority of Jews constitutes a spiritual itinerary leading to salvation is a mystery known only to God and to His faithfulness. What are the consequences of this relationship compared to the first locus theologicus, the authority of sacred Scripture? Helpfully, contemporary exegesis talks of a ‘‘twofold outcome’’ of the Bible.17 This expression not only reflects the historical results of scientific research on the scriptural canon, but it also has a theological implication. The twofold outcome signals exactly that

................. 16673$

$CH9

10-23-07 10:18:36

PS

PAGE 120

Jewish-Christian Relations / 121

the prehistory has a double Wirkungsgeschichte. In this sense, the Bible exists in a twofold manner: it exists in a New Testament perspective and it exists in a perspective that rejects the Christological event affirming, however, the relationship of Israel with God and the idea that the faithfulness of God to His covenant remains the cause of the redemption of Israel. In this sense, the Bible, the Old Testament, interpreted in a Jewish perspective, must be accepted by the Christian theologian as expression of a hope that has value for the people beloved of God. This acceptance of the Old Testament interpreted from a Jewish perspective includes in itself the profound difference between the Jewish and the Christian tradition. This is because, from a Christian point of view, the Old Testament leads to Jesus Christ. There is an inner tension, even a contradiction within the Christian position. Every relationship, however, even a relationship marked by conflicts and by contradiction, certainly presupposes a common point, a shared foundation. The foundation that we have in mind for this relationship is the fact that the death of Jesus on the cross manifests the very faithfulness of God to his covenant with Israel. It is precisely in the death on the cross—despite the opposition to the message of the Gospel—that God’s unconditional love is manifested.18 Consequently, it is here that for Christian vision we find the hermeneutical lynchpin around which the Jewish-Christian relationship can develop, despite the tensions and tendencies that are at first sight contradictory. It is only from this hermeneutical starting point that one can interpret that relationship adequately, and it is only in this way that one can respect God’s inexhaustible love and His grace as expressed in the death of Jesus. In the eschatological faith in Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, there is a limit, a no—his death. Only if grafted onto this death can the Church have hope in the resurrection (see Rom. 6:5ff.). This is the paradoxical, in fact, the contradictory experience of the disciples. The Paschal events and the experiences expressed in the first Paschal texts do not lead to a mere plausibility of the faith. Those who believe and who affirm the eschatological truth of Christ are called to accept a radical openness, a theological ignorance, the radical impossibility of complete self-determination, the impossibility of turning history into a straight line. Paul says that baptism grafts the faithful onto the death of Christ. This is not only true of the first disciples, but also of those who believe thanks to their testimony. It is through the death of Christ that the Gentiles are grafted onto the good olive tree. It is

................. 16673$

$CH9

10-23-07 10:18:37

PS

PAGE 121

122 / Peter Hu¨nermann

through impenetrable darkness and the obscurity of the night that the salvation of the one people of God shall become manifest. If the sighted Church of the medieval cathedrals does not embrace the blinded Synagogue, the Church shall have no future. The way of faith is a way to be undertaken with Jesus Christ and with his words, which becomes actualized through death and through life.

The authority of the Church Let us now direct our attention to another locus theologicus, which Melchior Cano calls ‘‘the authority of the Catholic Church.’’ Through the rediscovery of the communion with the Jewish people, even this arena, I believe, acquires a different form. At a time when the idea that the Church had taken the place of Israel, that Israel had been rejected by God and no longer played any role in the history of salvation, was an unchallenged theological claim; the authority of the Catholic Church was something self-determined and inward-looking. The Church was the result of the eschatological Gospel and was founded upon itself. Now if instead, the Catholic Church is essentially the Church of the Jews and of the Gentiles, with the Gentiles intrinsically grafted onto the root of Israel, the result is that this Church contains in itself something that is contradictory, an irreducible other. This opposite, this undeniable other marked by porosis, but the bearer of the salvific promises, gives a new shape to the locus theologicus of the authority of the Catholic Church. This authority of the Catholic Church is a relational reality in itself, and in this sense it is relative. The relationship to Israel as root and as group characterized by porosis makes of this authority an authority that is simultaneously eschatological and definitive because it bears witness to the salvation destined to the Jews and to the Gentiles. The Gentiles, however, are warned by Paul that they ought not to grow proud, since, if God has not spared the natural branches, ‘‘He will not spare you either’’ (Rom. 11:21). A porosis, or a cut, is thus a possibility for Israel, as well as for the wild grafted-in branches. This means that instances of ‘‘hardening’’ are possible even in the history of the Church. In other words, even if official magisterial teaching is exact and tradition is transmitted correctly, it is, however, possible that the magisterium and the sensus fidelium could remain blind before the signs of the times, before historical necessities, and unable to give an adequate response to the Spirit that

................. 16673$

$CH9

10-23-07 10:18:37

PS

PAGE 122

Jewish-Christian Relations / 123

blows. In this sense, the word of the magisterium and of the Church would remain sterile, even if outwardly correct. At the same time, the Spirit of God and His justifying grace can ensure that even from these dead words gush forth penance and spiritual life. ‘‘God can raise up children of Abraham from these stones’’ (Lk. 3:8). This is the eschatological hope. The pronouncements of Pope John Paul II concerning the conduct of the Church in history, antisemitism, and the attitude of contempt toward the people of Israel concealed in the life of the Church are an acknowledgment of this ambiguity in the authority of the Catholic Church. The words of Matthew 16:18: ‘‘and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’’ often repeated in a spirit of blind assurance, can only be confessed with the utmost humility and mindful of God’s merciful grace. It is only logical that these reflections on these loci theologici are going to have significant consequences for the shape of attendant loci theologici. In this sense, the rediscovery of the relationship between Israel and the Church compels us to continue emphasizing the Spirit, and not the letter.

4. The New Use of the Loci Theologici The transformation of the loci theologici that we have just discussed leads to a new use of these loci. I would first of all like to illustrate a few problems that concern the dogmatic treatment of God. In the past, as we have seen, traditional dogmatics and the use of the loci theologici was dominated by the concept of a prehistory that was determined, finished, concluded. Thus the Old Testament’s assertions about God belonged to this prehistory. The manner in which the Fathers—one should think of Augustine’s De doctrina christiana—already interpret certain ‘‘offensive’’ passages of the Old Testament is indicative of how dogmatic theology has treated of the mystery of God. The model of Platonic critique of the myths enabled theology to reject anthropomorphic claims about God and to highlight the specific character of the message of the Gospel. It is obvious that philosophical thought possesses a legitimate space in the ambit of dogmatics. The elaboration of the intellectus fidei cannot abandon the use of reason. Without natural reason, theology would be nothing but una sancta rusticitas (a holy coarseness), in the expression of Melchior Cano. On the other hand, if prehistory is an effective

................. 16673$

$CH9

10-23-07 10:18:37

PS

PAGE 123

124 / Peter Hu¨nermann

prehistory, if Israel is truly the root that bears the Church ex Judaeis et gentibus (of Jews and Gentiles), in what way shall God’s own truth become manifest, even in those verses about God that appear ‘‘offensive’’? Contemporary Old Testament exegesis has rediscovered the immense plurality and complexity of the predicates of God in the Old Testament. A simple example: recently, Andreas Michel published a work on God and Violence against Children in the Old Testament19 in which he analyzes a great number of texts that talk of violence against children and then goes on to focus on the texts that speak of God’s violence against children. The problem of how to give an adequate methodological treatment of these texts has yet to be solved. Certainly, however, to ignore these texts, as often happens in the context of dogmatic theology, is no longer tolerable. The problems raised here are not simply problems of moral theology or ethics. The question is much deeper: Whether this way of talking about God might not be something blasphemous for contemporary humanity, rather than a profession of faith in God? Is it possible to deal with these questions without a dialogue with the Jewish interpretation of these texts? Of course, this does not mean that the classical loci alieni ought not to be consulted in this context. Rather, the reference to the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament becomes a ‘‘semi-proper’’ instance, a locus theologicus semiproprius, for theology; ‘‘semi-proper’’ because being part of its root, it belongs to the Church and to its ‘‘patrimony,’’ but only ‘‘semiproper’’ because alienated from Christ. Another example of the new use of the loci theologici could also be found in the treatment of ecclesiology. Earlier on, we recalled what the proper understanding is of the locus theologicus of the authority of the Catholic Church. As Church ex Judaeis et gentibus, which is generated by Israel and which is saved and united through the cross, through the Lord’s Resurrection, and through the effusion of the Spirit, this people of God is a messianic people in the proper and authentic sense of the word. It is interesting that the Second Vatican Council has made use of the term ‘‘messianic people’’ in the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium: Christ instituted this new covenant, the new testament, that is to say, in His Blood (1 Cor. 11:25) calling together a people made up of Jew and gentile, making them one, not according to the

................. 16673$

$CH9

10-23-07 10:18:38

PS

PAGE 124

Jewish-Christian Relations / 125

flesh but in the Spirit. This was to be the new People of God. For those who believe in Christ, who are reborn not from a perishable but from an imperishable seed through the word of the living God (1 Pt. 1:23), not from the flesh but from water and the Holy Spirit (Jn. 3:5ff.), are finally established as ‘‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people . . . who in times past were not a people, but are now the people of God’’ (1 Pt. 2:9ff.). That messianic people has Christ for its head, ‘‘Who was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification’’ (Rom. 4:25).20 From this messianic character, one can derive perspectives for the elaboration of a new ecclesiology. The Church is a messianic people that follows Christ, and it is thus called to participate in His messianic mission. The reconciliation, the forgiveness of sins, and the arrival of the kingdom are all proclaimed messianically, and the people of God must test these truths in the different historical situations. It is the messianic mission described in Isaiah 61:1–4. The testing of the Gospel manifests itself in a manner of life. Thus the pneumatic and charismatic character of the Church must be determined in a new manner. Here the relationship of the Church with the world and with the historical situation of humanity is given an enormous weight. Until now, theoretical ecclesiology was principally interested in showing that the Church is established by Jesus Christ and that it receives its structures through this constitution. If the stress in ecclesiology is put instead on the messianic people that follows Jesus Christ, the testing of the Church and the testing of its structures are founded primarily upon the evolution of the messianic dynamics that characterizes this people. Even if this messianic dynamic is always realized in fragmentary forms, it always remains the fundamental trait. Thus theology, and in particular ecclesiology, finds itself confronted with methodological challenges. Elaborating the messianic aspect that sees Jesus Christ as the Messiah that has realized his messianic role in the form of a servant, we witness the emergence of criteria and forms of life for the Church of today. All the organizational and structural moments of the Church find their significance in the act of serving and in expressing the messianic character of the community of the faithful. As a last example, I would like to touch briefly upon the dogmatic treatment of the theological virtues, especially of faith. It is faith that

................. 16673$

$CH9

10-23-07 10:18:38

PS

PAGE 125

126 / Peter Hu¨nermann

characterizes the righteous ones of the Old Testament, as well as the faithful ones of the New. There is a change in the material objects of the faith in the divine economy, but the faith itself does not change. Both the Fathers of the Church and the medieval theologians would firmly assert this truth. Today further questions are raised: How can one speak of faith, considering that the Old Testament speaks of the covenant of Noah, Melchizedek, and the other patriarchs before talking of the covenant with the people after the exile? What type of ‘‘figures’’ can the faith in God assume? These are questions that touch upon the dialogue with the other religions. Can they be solved without taking into consideration the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament? I hope that these illustrative reflections have demonstrated how the discovery of the Jewish-Christian relationship stimulates new methodological reflections in Christian theology, especially in dogmatic theology.

................. 16673$

$CH9

10-23-07 10:18:38

PS

PAGE 126

Part 4

The Post-Shoah CatholicJewish Dialogue

................. 16673$

PRT4

10-23-07 10:17:25

PS

PAGE 127

................. 16673$

PRT4

10-23-07 10:17:26

PS

PAGE 128

10. Nostra Aetate and t he Discover y of the Sacrament of Ot h e r n e s s Alberto Melloni

1. Introduction What follows is a quick presentation of the preconciliar work that led to the declaration Nostra Aetate. This presentation is almost always indebted to the main existing historiographical literature: from the memories of John M. Oesterreicher,1 to the theological reflection of Eugene Fisher,2 and to the historical work of Giovanni Miccoli and Mauro Velati in the History of Vatican II edited by Giuseppe Alberigo. I invite you to consult these texts for references that this essay does not mention.3 Today we are aware of the extent to which all these reconstructions, or at least some parts of them, are largely of a tentative nature. This is due to the fact that Paul VI chose to open the Archive of the Council to scholarly examination, moving it to a more accessible location within the Secret Vatican Archive; the documents included therein suggest nuances and corrections that are not just marginal and that in the near future shall necessitate a general reconsideration of all the extant evidence, when the papers of the principal actors of the Council will have also been assembled and studied. If I choose to go over the stages of a long and difficult struggle such as the one that led to the document Nostra Aetate, it is because this struggle is full of special significance for the history of the Second Vatican Council: that document would become a document on all religions,

................. 16673$

CH10

10-23-07 10:18:32

PS

PAGE 129

130 / Alberto Melloni

and as such it would be received in the postconciliar period; in its origins, however, we find more problematic issues concerning the relationship between the Church and Judaism. This origin is not merely textual, but, as I shall review toward the end, it is also historical in the deepest sense of the term: the weight of the culture of contempt promoted by official Church teaching,4 the relationship between this tradition and the Shoah,5 the difficulty in discerning that event on the theological level,6 and the burning dilemma of guilt and its polemical use as accusation7— all of this weighs heavily on Nostra Aetate. It explains the determination with which a few Council fathers wanted contra spem (against all hope) a declaration that did not have behind it the long process of doctrinal exploration that had marked other conciliar decisions. It also sheds light on its reception, which in a certain sense experienced a turning point only when John Paul II inserted into the crannies of the Western Wall the text of the mea culpa of the Catholic Church, with a gesture that is itself a parable of the changes undergone by the Roman papacy and at the same time by the Church in its larger ecumenical sense. Before presenting a few, extremely short points of reflection on this topic, I would like to go over the rapid succession of drafts in an order that is still provisional and that requires some detailed work on the texts themselves, as well as on the archive of the general secretariat, and on the papers of Bea, Rudloff, Oesterreicher, Congar, De Smedt, and many others, so as to go from an individuation of sequential segments to a more articulate ‘‘pattern.’’8

2. The Prehistor y The idea to submit for the Council’s consideration the problem of the relationship between the Church and the Jews was an important concern for many of the protagonists of the preparation of Vatican II. Not wholly absent even from the chastened proposita of the Catholic universities,9 the question did not merely torment the German churches, but also the theological culture as a whole—and Jews especially asserted the topic as demanding reform. Beginning in 1955, Jules Isaac had attempted to convince a very reluctant Pius XII of the necessity of a visible rethinking of the Jewish question through the modification of the oratio universalis of Good Friday. The ‘‘Jewish question,’’ having all sorts of implications that were extremely relevant for the time,

................. 16673$

CH10

10-23-07 10:18:32

PS

PAGE 130

Nostra Aetate and the Discovery of the Sacrament of Otherness / 131

would eventually be brought to the attention of the former Vatican legate to Istanbul, who at that time had been actively involved in the effort to rescue the Jews from genocide, and who would in 1958 become pope with the name of John XXIII. It is well known that this attempt to exert pressure on the higher echelons of the Church involved people of very different backgrounds: Catholics who were not particularly appreciated in the wintry end of Pacelli’s pontificate, individuals of Jewish origin who were not always regarded with instinctive benevolence, militant members of the organizations of world Jewry, or of the foreign policy of the recently established State of Israel. Congar is not Oesterreicher, Baum is not Herzog, Riegner is not Isaac, Golda Meir is not Golan—but in any case, it is the summation of these contacts that achieved not only the revision of the ritual of Good Friday, timidly begun under Pius XII,10 but also the decision on the part of John XXIII to charge Cardinal Augustin Bea, S.J., with the task of considering the possibility of a Secretariat for Christian Union, effectively a secretariat for the unthinkable problems and the impossible missions of Roncalli’s curia.11

3. Draft A (see Appendix 1, A) An outline presented by Oesterreicher at the plenary session held in Ariccia by the Secretariat for Christian Union in November–December 1961,12 and a proposal for a declaration worked out by a commission of which Gregory Baum was a member, led to the composition of a first draft (A), which ought to have taken up the suggestions of Jules Isaac welcomed by the Pontiff as an appropriate topic of discussion for the coming council.13 This draft was then presented to the central preparatory commission in 1962. The result was disappointing for a series of reasons that are not reducible to the ‘‘real protests’’ of the Arab countries and the ‘‘clumsy political machination’’ on Israel’s part that are mentioned by Miccoli.14 ‘‘If we discuss the Jews, why not also the Muslims?’’ asked Cardinal Cicognani, then the secretary of state, who still believed in Pius XI’s illusion of a dialogue conceived as an anti-Communist and anti-atheist alliance by those who believe ‘‘at least in God’’ and that reaffirmed that the Church had no reluctance toward a Jew who wishes to embrace the Catholic faith.15 A new ‘‘Isaac draft’’ turned into a ‘‘Bea draft’’ in December 1962, which raised again the question of Jewish-Christian relations, reflecting

................. 16673$

CH10

10-23-07 10:18:33

PS

PAGE 131

132 / Alberto Melloni

an awareness of the fact that in a time (as Congar writes) ‘‘after Auschwitz,’’ further silence is no longer acceptable.16 Bea added further aspects of an ecumenical character; in fact, the recent condemnation of antisemitism on the part of the World Council of Churches as a ‘‘sin against God and humanity’’ added an element of urgency to a theological move demanded both by history and by conscience.17 John XXIII’s approval ensured that the draft abandoned before opening the Second Vatican Council could be taken up again, reopening the discussion on a series of propositions that would emerge in the conciliar sessions during the 70th General Congregation on November 19, 1963, a few months after the death of Pope John and the election of his successor, Paul VI.18 Between these two moments, which were eleven months apart from each other—the dismissal of the first draft and the discussion in the conciliar sessions—the controversy over Hochhuth exploded; the presentation on January 20, 1963, of The Deputy by Rolf Hochhuth had launched the argument about the ‘‘silence’’ of Pius XII. The theatrical drama by the German playwright led to discussions that have little historiographical value, but which are symptomatic of a climate that— though this would only be understood much later—saw the effective convergence of those who wanted to absolve and those who wanted to condemn a single ‘‘culprit’’ for the Shoah.19 Pope Paul VI had intuited the vast implications of the question, which (at its deepest level) projected an image of pontifical government with its back continually to the wall. In fact, he had understood this even before his election; had he decided to write to the English magazine The Tablet in the days of the novendiale so as to defend Pius XII, he would ensure that its editors would have the extraordinary journalistic scoop of publishing in the same edition the announcement of the election of the archbishop of Milan to the throne of Peter and the letter that he himself had sent before the conclave.20

4. Text B (see Appendix 1, B) Despite the intensification of this polemic, Bea (deliberately or by chance) first came to the Council with a text and with a series of arguments that took up, point by point, the theses of December 1962. On November 19, 1963, the cardinal did not hesitate to insist that the declaration De Judaeis, there presented as a part of the text known as De

................. 16673$

CH10

10-23-07 10:18:34

PS

PAGE 132

Nostra Aetate and the Discovery of the Sacrament of Otherness / 133

Oecumenismo (B), had a ‘‘religious’’ goal. He began with a biblical argument against antisemitism, thereby overturning the standard practice of the Catholic anti-Judaic tradition that began with the idea of the ‘‘rejection’’ of the Messiah and ended with ‘‘deicide.’’ Second, Bea branded the so-called biblical foundations of Nazi antisemitism and racism as only a means to an end.21 He suggested that to ‘‘correct’’ the ideas derived from antisemitic propaganda that Jesus’ example of forgiveness ought to be followed. He also denied the biblical foundation of the accusation of deicide leveled against all Jews of the time of Jesus and a fortiori against their descendants. Not the New Testament, therefore, but rather ‘‘motives of the political, nationalistic, psychological, social, and economic order’’ had inspired a doctrine that it was necessary to repudiate in a solemn and formal manner. Nothing was said about the placement of responsibility on religious teaching for the spreading of antisemitism nor about the arguments developed by political antisemitism (the exigency to use ‘‘self-defense’’ from Jewish obstinacy); this was countered by making a point that the Germans understood very well—there could be no such thing as ‘‘collective’’ crimes.22 During the conciliar sessions, there was no explicit vote on this chapter. Opinions were expressed only in the interventions or in written motions: favorable reactions (from the Americans and the Germans) and criticisms (from the Eastern Patriarchs). The series of problems that now we can quite easily disentangle but that were far from clear to the Catholic Church in 1963, included different issues—the need to cut the Catholic roots of antisemitism with a conceptual razor other than denunciation in order to deny racist ideologies their pretended theological foundation. Then there was the problem of the dialogue with Judaism in which Jewish associations and Israeli structures were in objective competition with each other. There was also the problem raised by the fact that pieces of Nazi antisemitism were migrating into the Christian Arab world as a consolidation of their hostility toward the State of Israel. Furthermore, there was the crucial issue of the relationship between Israel and the Holy See; crucial because in developing all sorts of arguments as to the (negative and/or paternalistic) impossibility of granting political autonomy to Jews, the Church in previous decades had fed the antisemitism of the Holy See’s partisans, as well as that of the Catholic universities and the Catholic political parties. Finally, there

................. 16673$

CH10

10-23-07 10:18:34

PS

PAGE 133

134 / Alberto Melloni

was the question of the teaching of contempt that had prevailed as an ‘‘earlier magisterium,’’ which was not simply one of the dimensions of the hatred perpetrated by anonymous ‘‘children of the Church,’’ but was actually part of a tradition recognized and expressed by popes. In this web of questions and ideas, the temptation to solve everything by moving a short sentence against antisemitism into a different context (such as the chapter De populo Dei in the constitution on the Church or the document on the contemporary world) was not incomprehensible, and even the Secretariat had discussed during the preparatory phase the possibility of transferring the theme of the relation between the Church and the Jews to the draft of the constitution on the Church (in the hope of thereby avoiding the necessity to make explicit pronouncements about the State of Israel).23 Nevertheless, instead of encouraging voices of the most unbridled antismitism to be more cautious or to disguise themselves, Bea’s sophisticated theses roused them and brought them into the open. The fact that the theses of an anonymous author who signed himself Un Preˆtre (and who claimed that the genocide had been planned by the Jews so as to weaken ‘‘healthy’’ antisemitism) provoked a scandalized reaction from the Council fathers who had received his pamphlets is certainly not without significance.24 The discussion during the 1963 conciliar session—which was not specific and did not culminate in a vote on the chapter—creates an interpretive difficulty that would not only remain constant throughout the various iterations of what would become Nostra Aetate, but also represents a defining feature of the process of its redaction. The burning character of the topic was such that every passage was accompanied by lively discussions, reflections, and discoveries that ‘‘happen,’’ even if within the conciliar sessions. What effectively happens in 1963 (and it would happen again) is that a not-so-profound discussion paradoxically helps the evolving text more than the analytical discussions reserved to other problems: the struggle among opposing ideas that the Church needs to give itself an explanation of otherness (especially—but not only—religious otherness) is vaster, harsher, and far more direct.

5. Text C That is the reason why the chapter presented by Bea and that the fathers did not subject to an analytical evaluation eventually underwent a

................. 16673$

CH10

10-23-07 10:18:35

PS

PAGE 134

Nostra Aetate and the Discovery of the Sacrament of Otherness / 135

thoughtful and attentive revision in the plenary session that the Secretariat held at Ariccia at the end of the winter of 1964. In that context (February 27–March 7), fundamental decisions were taken that were reflected in the text that Bea transmitted to the general secretariat on March 23 (Text C). The document De Judaeis was now presented as an appendix to the draft of the declaration of ecumenism.25 The coordinating commission had been informed in the meantime that the Secretariat was ready to work on a scheme on ‘‘monotheistic religions,’’ incorporating new specialists for an elaboration that, Cardinal Bea assured, would then be subject to the body that was now responsible for the new preparation of Vatican II.26 Cicognani, who received Bea’s draft by virtue of his position as president of the coordinating commission, would then present the document De Oecumenismo at the meeting of the same coordinating commission that took place on March 16–17. The old cardinal, who had been a diplomat in the United States and sidelined by Pius XII only to be brought back to a position of eminence by John XXIII, gave voice to all the objections of the Arabs. However, although he stated the need for some changes, he also claimed that it was no longer possible to expunge the document De Judaeis from the draft. The variations that he proposed concerned text B: he asked to eliminate the section critical of the language of contempt and deicide in the name of the letter of the Gospels, and then asked that that space be devoted to the Muslims and to ‘‘pagans generally.’’27 The interventions of those who were present are summarized in a letter written by Cicognani to Bea on the following day, where he suggested that a Declaratio de hebraeis et de gentibus non christianis be written. This text ought to highlight ‘‘the connection between the Jewish people and the Holy Catholic Church, while avoiding in the whole text any reference to deicide,’’ mention ‘‘the other nonChristian peoples’’ . . . ‘‘as children of God,’’ and affirm ‘‘the principle of universal brotherhood and of condemnation of any kind of oppression of peoples and races.’’28

6. Draft C (see Appendix 1, C) The reaction of the Secretariat was actually not hostile to these directions, which was one of a series of ambiguities typical of the period, but at the same time, it did not invite additional persons to take part in the ongoing discussions of its core group that by then was simultaneously

................. 16673$

CH10

10-23-07 10:18:36

PS

PAGE 135

136 / Alberto Melloni

working in Via dell’Erba on three very delicate points (ecumenism, religious freedom, and Judaism). The proof of this is the fact that Willebrands asked Yves Congar and Charles Moeller for an extended version of the text according to the directions of the coordinating committee, and without further obligation on the part of the Secretariat in its plenary form. This extended text was produced extremely quickly, being readied by the evening of March 27, 1964, and in this text, the whole of draft C was preserved, with the exception of the word ‘‘deicide.’’29 Congar, according to his own theological understanding of the problem, proposed to describe a constitutive link between the paternity of God and the fraternity of all the people, a new magna observantia by which a new Christian attitude toward the other religions could be framed; within this framework, according to Congar, were respect for all people and the condemnation of discrimination. The revision by Congar and Moeller was not sent to the conciliar fathers (is this what Willebrands really hoped?), but was handed over by the general secretary, Pericle Felici (who met him on May 2), to Paul VI in person on May 6. A note by Felici denounced Bea’s presumed circumvention of Cicognani’s suggestions: ‘‘The text on the Jewish people has been lengthened beyond the few lines indicated by the Coordinating Commission . . . for the purpose of condemning hatred and harassment of the Jews. But this, according to the instructions given, was to be said separately and in a general way that included all peoples. . . . Finally, the new text urges Christians to avoid every kind of discrimination. But, again according to the instructions given, this should have been an exhortation to all of mankind and not just to Christians.’’30 Paul VI—whom Felici evidently regarded as susceptible to these insinuations with obvious overtones—was not an unprepared or naı¨ve reader, however. A few months earlier, he had returned from the first trip to the Holy Land ever made by a pope. There, in January 1964, he had visited the holy places under Jordanian and Israeli control, but he had never pronounced the word ‘‘Israel,’’ and at the Mandelbaum gate, he had read a strenuous defense of Pius XII. Reviewing the text, he jotted down a formal approval: ‘‘It seems to be good.’’ However, according to a custom that in those weeks had effectively become the pope’s own style, it is far from certain that his corrections to the text actually came from him;31 in many cases (from ecclesiology to the theology of revelation, from religious freedom to the function of the

................. 16673$

CH10

10-23-07 10:18:36

PS

PAGE 136

Nostra Aetate and the Discovery of the Sacrament of Otherness / 137

bishop), he expressed the nuances expected by the minority through the Master of the Sacred Palace, Father Ciappi, or Cardinal Browne.32 Actually, in this case Paul VI asked for corrections, of which Felici would be a far too zealous interpreter. The pope, indeed, asked to eliminate the expression ‘‘whether in the past or in our own time’’ concerning the persecutions of the Jews, because they ‘‘can give rise to endless recriminations drawn from history,’’ and also asked for the addition of a reference ‘‘about the hope for the future conversion of Israel, because such words will show that the condition in which the Jews now live, while worthy of respect and sympathy, cannot be approved as being perfect and final, and because that hope is explicitly expressed in St. Paul’s teaching about the Jews.’’33 These papal instructions (together with the observations of the Latin scholars of the Secretariat for briefs to the principles) were then communicated to Bea on June 1, 1964. They were examined at two levels. Perhaps Willebrands (but it could also have been another person) analyzed them and replied with sarcastic humor to the Latin mistakes that were proposed as corrections; Bea signed (or did he actually write it?) a letter that was extremely harsh both in its tone and in its substance,34 supported by the agreement of the Secretary of State Cicognani, whose disregarded directions were regarded as the source of the changes in the overall thrust of the document.35 In that letter of June 23, Bea emphasized that he expected the preservation of the passage on the persecutions ‘‘whether in the past or in our own time’’ and also stressed that if really nothing is to be said to deny the accusation of deicide, a passage must be included affirming that, ‘‘especially when they [preachers] are explaining the passion and death of the Lord, let them imitate the gentle charity of Christ and of his apostles, who expressly said that even those who were the cause of the Lord’s condemnation, acted thus ‘in ignorance’ (Acts 3:15–17; see Luke 23:24; Acts 13:27), that is, by no means did they fully realize the crime they were committing. Much less is it licit to reproach the Jews of our time for that crime. Only by acting in this manner will Christ’s faithful be in accord with the will of the Lord Jesus who embraces both Jews and Gentiles with one and the same love.’’36 The corrections, quickly leaked in the diplomatic and the journalistic milieux, disturbed people such as Spellman, who did not want a declaration De Judaeis at all costs, but who did not want now to pay the price

................. 16673$

CH10

10-23-07 10:18:36

PS

PAGE 137

138 / Alberto Melloni

of a public debacle that in his view could be suspected of antisemitism. Others who did not like such public statements (such as Cullmann) displayed their indignation. Deep concern was then voiced by those who, like Rudloff, declared in public that an enormous disaster of credibility for the Church as a whole was in preparation.37

7. Felici’s Activism Cicognani, as we said, approved Bea’s move, and brought the text back to the meeting of the Coordinating Committee on June 26–27. Felici— who was convinced that it had been Bea who had alerted the press— enclosed with the text a memorandum on the revision where he notes that he has made inquiries as to the pope’s intentions and he has found Paul VI ready to countenance only an expression that does not let the Jews of today bear responsibility ‘‘for the acts of their ancestors’’ and about which he asks the opinion of the Coordinating Committee.38 During the session, Felici brought forth an immense number of opinions— opinions that, according to him, all came directly from the pope. He voiced an opinion by Paul VI opposed to the quotation of Acts 3:15–17 and another opposed to the discussion among theologians that favored not considering guilty of the death of Jesus ‘‘all the Jews, especially those of our day’’ (sic).39 Of course, the activism of the secretary general unmasked the true author of Montini’s doubt, but it did not manage to gain the upper hand in the discussion. One option was still open: that of Cardinal Lercaro, who suggested to quote the Council of Trent (that is, Christ died for ‘‘the sins of all of mankind’’) and to exclude apertis verbis that it is possible to impute any guilt as to Christ’s death to the Jews of later times—a formulation that was generally liked and that, it was decided, would be immediately sent to the pope for an opinion.40 Over the following days, however, Felici again took the text in hand, always because of a decision by the pope, who was under pressure by the supporters of the Ciappi-Browne line, whose incessant work had the previously mentioned rationale. The sentence by Lercaro was changed into an exhortation not to impute the death of Christ to the Jews of our time, the sentence that claimed that forms of contempt against the Jews are repugnant to the will of Christ was eliminated, and the mention of the common patrimony of Jews and Christians was turned into an expression of appreciation for the patrimony that the Christians have inherited from the Jews.41

................. 16673$

CH10

10-23-07 10:18:37

PS

PAGE 138

Nostra Aetate and the Discovery of the Sacrament of Otherness / 139

A struggle, therefore, was underway around critical points of theological antisemitism; it was not the antisemitism of Arab Christians that caused concern—an antisemitism that was partly dissimulated and partly disguised as a pan-Arabic solidarity, and which even the great Patriarch Maximos IV had largely shared. Even the antisemitism of the Nazi and the Fascist type that was echoed in a few voices was only a secondary factor. The problem was theological antisemitism, with the political implication that the whole respublica christiana in general, and the state of the Church in particular, had inspired this in centuries of history and of culture. In fact, suspicions linger that the pontiff himself supported this point of view: the then theologian of Frings, Professor Ratzinger, argued that the pope is ‘‘convinced’’ of the collective responsibility of the Jews for the death of Jesus, and that therefore the difficulties cannot be eliminated.42 Cardinal Seper said the opposite. The point, however, cannot be reduced to a mechanical delineation of De Judaeis, but to the context of the beginning of that summer that was so difficult for Paul VI, who sensed how the conciliar minority was exerting an evermore violent pressure, and even for the majority, which saw the pope (whom until the previous year they considered ‘‘their own’’) as growing increasingly distant. On July 7, 1964, two declarations were sent to the Council fathers— two declarations that had resulted from the text De Oecumenismo (according to the decision of the Coordinating Committee of April 16, 1964) and that the previous year were merely chapters: the first was De libertate religiosa,43 and the second was a declaration dedicated to the theme De Judaeis et de non-Christianis, which was by now a draft D.

8. Draft D in the Debate of the Council (see Appendix 1, D) I do not wish to linger on the reactions to the July 7 texts sent, but instead rapidly move to the discussions of September 1964. Cardinal Bea went on to present the second declarations to the Council on September 25, a critical moment for the Council that was struggling with the unwritten decision to enter forcefully into a discussion of the relationship with society and with modernity—questions that had been tormenting the Church for almost two hundred years.44 Surrounded by obvious sympathy, Bea presented—hurriedly, because of his role in the imminent departure of the relics of St. Andrew

................. 16673$

CH10

10-23-07 10:18:37

PS

PAGE 139

140 / Alberto Melloni

that were going to be returned to the Orthodox Church,45 —the De Judaeis et de non-Christianis, expecting certain support only from the German episcopate, the more tactical support of the American bishops, and the opposition of the episcopate of the Arab countries.46 Bea set forth his diversified credentials: Bea the Cardinal, Bea the Jesuit, Bea the German, Bea the ecumenist, Bea the scholar of Judaism, Bea the confessor of Pius XII. He focused on the problems connected with the expectations of the public and on the question of credibility touched on by Spellman, while emphasizing that the Church must be faithful to itself. He mentioned indirectly his agreement with Cicognani and went on to tackle the question of where (allegedly) Paul VI stopped: deicide. He rejected the accusation of having involved the press, but acknowledged that the question must be faced in all its brutal frankness, the same frankness with which the newspapers have raised it; to this blunt question on deicide, the Council must answer with a yes or a no. Bea proposed a clear and absolute ‘‘no.’’ Having done this, he went on to assess the possible political implications and—without omitting a mention of John XXIII—went overboard to stress the ‘‘religious’’ character of the text that (an excusatio non petita?) did not seem to be at the center of the debate: ‘‘we are not speaking here of Zionism, or of the state of Israel.’’47 The debate—the first one to be open to the public from 1960 onward—took place on September 28–29, after an epic struggle on religious freedom.48 As Oesterreicher would comment, the problem of all problems was touched on here: ‘‘the encounter of man with man and of man with God.’’49A large proportion of the Council fathers embraced Bea’s vision, but an equally large proportion made a number of reservations that are difficult to characterize: disconcerting, revealing, or merely naı¨ve? The sequence of these comments can be easily found in the Acta Synodalia,50 and it creates a gallery of opinions that is shocking because of the resonance they have with a tradition of Christian antisemitisms of different forms and degrees of danger that go back for thousands of years. To talk of the Jews ‘‘was inopportune’’ (Tappouni); to invite preachers not to talk of deicide is useless because ‘‘No one thinks that way today and the mere mention of it would be tiresome’’ (Bueno y Monreal);51 the text must express the hope that ‘‘some day all nonChristians might be united in the Church’’ (Gdansk);52 it is necessary to invite the Jews to respect the Christians, since ‘‘no-one is unaware

................. 16673$

CH10

10-23-07 10:18:38

PS

PAGE 140

Nostra Aetate and the Discovery of the Sacrament of Otherness / 141

that Jews today still follow the Talmud, according to which other human beings are to be condemned because they are like the beasts,’’ while it is also necessary to affirm that the freemasons, who are accustomed to plot against the Church, are supported and favored by the Jews (Ruffini); an appeal to conversion is invoked (Rwanda); and a father (de Castro Mayer) asks (in scriptis) that the declaration affirm that all discriminations are healthily based on the differences intended by the Creator. For a bishop of Quebec, ‘‘Perhaps only Jewish Freemasonry will find any joy in it, but for political reasons or material interests (the dollar sign).’’53 These interventions not only reflect the tones of reactionary, harsh, and aggressive pamphlets, but they also clash with many voices of support for Bea’s approach: voices from America (Leven, Cushing, Ritter), Yugoslavia (Sˇeper), Mexico (Me´ndez Arceo), France (Elchinger), and Italy (Lercaro); voices which, following Heenan, put forth again the sense of the original proposals that had been distorted by the corrections inserted in June and which tried to reaffirm that the document did not merely respond to an occasional or historical necessity but had a primarily theological dimension, whose goal was to overcome the theories of supersession. The judgment of Henri Fesquet (‘‘a brilliant victory for Cardinal Bea and a severe blow to the Coordinating Commission, which believed the first draft was too strong’’) was reasonable, or at least, so it seemed.54

9. The October Shock So it seemed, because two letters from Monsignor Felici to Cardinal Bea dated October 8–9, following the order of the pope, described how to proceed in relation to the two declarations, which the subcommissions of the Secretariat had already taken up so as to incorporate into them the motions of the fathers: for the De libertate, it appeared that there would be a ‘‘mixed’’ commission including Browne, Lefebvre, Colombo, and Fernandez. For the De Judaeis, the letters commanded compliance with the resolution taken by the supercommission on October 7 and to incorporate the text into the De ecclesia, reviewing, however, its details by October 25 in yet another committee that would include members of the doctrinal commission.55 The whole initiative—Cicognani says so explicitly—came from a request by the pope, which upset the different alignments. Members of

................. 16673$

CH10

10-23-07 10:18:38

PS

PAGE 141

142 / Alberto Melloni

the majority declared their shock; Siri was ready to resist all pressure, whereas Lercaro said that he could accept the absorption of the text into De ecclesia; Agagianian was ready to keep something (even if ‘‘not much is to be expected from the Jews’’); and Felici was ready to say that his superiors had always been opposed to this document, an assertion flying in the face of what John XXIII stood for.56 The way in which Felici summarized this debate and its conclusion for Paul VI was neither faithful nor balanced, but it obtained the nihil obstat approval that ensured that the Secretariat was relieved of all responsibility for De Judaeis, while freedom of discussion was severely curtailed. What had happened is well explained by Silvia Scatena’s immense research on religious freedom, from which Miccoli draws as well.57 This question, too, has not merely a procedural dimension, but also a substantial one—the very identity of the Second Vatican Council. It is from here that we must start because the problem of those weeks is the Council itself, not just a part or a fragment of it. The offensive of the minority that no longer wished to remain a minority put all its hopes on Paul VI and on his intention not to contradict the antimodernist magisterial teaching of the recent popes. From this entanglement, Montini was unable to free himself with actions; in the texts, too, he saw no way out, and that forced him to take up points of view that did not belong to him (and certainly not those of the Melchites who saw themselves as the decisive minority controlling the development of the document).58 Yet at this moment, something more was being decided because in both the discussions on religious freedom and on Judaism; questions were at stake that do not merely relate to the institutions of the Roman Catholic Church but rather concern the status of ‘‘otherness’’ in its life of faith. Bea reacted to this polluting maneuver by showing the weaknesses and contradictions of Felici’s apparently strong and harsh instructions: To whom then should the new text on freedom be handed over? Would this text really be the final version? Who would calm down the anxieties of the episcopates that were waiting for the opinion of the Secretariat? He asked this in writing to the Secretary General and in an even stronger way to the pope, whom he asked for an account of the instructions given to him—a cardinal—vivae vocis oraculo (‘‘orally’’) on October 5 and of those transmitted by Felici. Bea asked the pope for a final word, not without advising him as to the effect that would result if it

................. 16673$

CH10

10-23-07 10:18:39

PS

PAGE 142

Nostra Aetate and the Discovery of the Sacrament of Otherness / 143

were perceived that the pope—who ‘‘has always so scrupulously safeguarded the freedom of the Council’’—was now obstructing the Council’s work. Finally, he also asked whether a simple meeting would be sufficient to bring the document De Judaeis into the De ecclesia.59 On October 13, 1964, after a mind-boggling succession of meetings, confusions, and maneuvers, the crisis appeared in the newspapers, with many details on the opposing groups. At least eight cardinals supported the idea of an audience with Frings that would warn the pope of the danger to De libertate, though not of the danger to De Judaeis, because Bea was not alone in thinking that the transfer of the latter into the De ecclesia could take place without modifying its extension or its content. The result of this would be a letter with thirteen extremely weighty signatures (published in Le Monde on October 17) asking the pope to backtrack from the intentions of the mixed commission on De libertate. Against this, Ruffini reacted, reminding Paul VI of the serious implications of all this for the authority of the pontiff: Perhaps the group does not know that the two declarations on the Jews and on religious freedom have caught the attention of Your Holiness? I am astonished that there is so much interest in favor of the Jews and that there is such extraordinary resoluteness in support of religious freedom which, as it is addressed, does not sound good. Forgive me, Most Blessed Father, if I dare once again open my mind to you (Your Holiness is the Vicar of Jesus Christ and, as such, you have supreme responsibility for every decree of the Council).60 Paul VI, at this point, made a decision. Perhaps he also chose to take actions that would inflame what is called the ‘‘black week’’ of Vatican II, but certainly he chose what to do with the draft on the relationship with Judaism. He distanced himself from Ruffini: ‘‘It seems to Us that We can reassure you in the matter of the letter to which you refer. Its purpose is to protect the rights of the Council not from the Pope, but rather from initiatives, by some individuals, that the letter considers excessive and unauthorized. In any case, it is indeed deplorable that tactless publicity should circulate information that is confidential, thereby distorting its content and meaning.’’61 If this was meant to put De libertate back on track, it also entailed for De Judaeis an even more fundamental reestablishment of the identity and individuality of the conciliar act. Paul VI had already told Bea

................. 16673$

CH10

10-23-07 10:18:39

PS

PAGE 143

144 / Alberto Melloni

on October 11 that the text would no longer undergo clumsy cuts, and the ‘‘nothing new’’ put forth by Felici to Bea on October 13 could lend itself to a more optimistic reading than the one given by Willebrands, who saw in it only good new premises. Among all these there was also the hypothesis to ‘‘save it’’ by including it into the De ecclesia, and was it for this purpose that on October 20 Congar and Moeller met also with Ko¨nig, Pfister, and Neuner? Perhaps so; though soon enough the idea was put forth to save the identity of the document on the relationship of the Church with non-Christian religions by asking new experts to participate.62 10. The Approval of 1964 and the Final Inser tion of Text E (see Appendix 1, E) A new series of changes received the final approval of the Secretariat on October 30 after complex work undertaken by a subcommittee formed for this purpose and by its working groups.63 This subcommittee revealed Bea’s attention to what had emerged in the debate, as well a more general concern for the obvious instances of interference with what was happening in the wider context of the Council. This version (E) was distributed in the conciliar sessions on November 18, 1964 and was approved two days later by interlocution with 1651 placet, 242 placet iuxta modum, and 91 non placet. Both by restoring a few aspects of the earlier drafts64 and by welcoming new suggestions, the declaration in its final form included five unequal parts that went from the common destiny of all humanity to the non-Abrahamic religions, treated under two successive headings—the Muslims and the Jews—and ended with an appeal to universal fraternity. The condemnation of the expression ‘‘deicide people’’ was explicit, and the rejection of anti-Semitism was total. The approval by this vote seems to have taken the Vatican diplomats by surprise. They demanded an article from Bea (whose article on the theme of Judaism for Civilta` Cattolica had been vetoed in the summer of 1962!) so as to discourage any ‘‘political’’ interpretations of the text and to counter the momentum from Syria and elsewhere that, in less controversial times, had already made an observer such as Oesterreicher think of a Jihad.65 In a note of December 7, 1964, to Felici, Cicognani lamented the failure to evaluate Arab reactions, and Bea, who replied, emphasizing the fact that 1,700 fathers had voted in favor, did not miss his opportunity to reject the conditioning collaboration of

................. 16673$

CH10

10-23-07 10:18:40

PS

PAGE 144

Nostra Aetate and the Discovery of the Sacrament of Otherness / 145

‘‘new’’ theologians, behind whose back was already seen a plan by Felici. In fact, the atmosphere was really tense, and there were also instances of opportunism (Gori, for instance) and of alarmism, to which Bea suggested to respond with a formal note before the final approval of the draft. There was also a resistance to backtrack on a point that was crucial for reactionary Catholicism, the right-duty to ‘‘protect’’ the Church from the Jews in conformity with a brief, but certainly inflammatory, tradition of the magisterium; the fact that the resistance was identified with Carli was a sure sign of its agony. The changes were accordingly examined at the beginning of March 1965 by a working group that had already been ‘‘tried out’’ in October and November: Congar, Neuner, Baum, Oesterreicher, and Moeller, who then gave a report at the plenary session of the Secretariat.66 Not only the changes, but also even new sensations: Willebrands explained, for instance, that the Arab reactions had come from a transmission of Israeli radio that had talked of an ‘‘absolution of the Jews’’ from the accusation of deicide, and the Commission intervened on the text by inverting the sentence on the limits of the responsibility for the death of Jesus and the retraction of the accusation of deicide. Even Bea, in a plenary session, wanted to show himself open to the concerns of the Arabs, who, unwilling to distinguish politics and religion, interpreted wrongly the declaration as if it had been a pronouncement in favor of Israel. Along this line—which asked to give an explanation of Acts 3:15, auctorem vitae interfecistis (‘‘you killed the Author of life’’)—it would have been possible to come to drastic changes, against which, however, Sheenan made his voice heard, saying that backtracking from the condemnation of the accusation of deicide would have meant that the whole purpose of the text would have been lost. The conflict was not resolved, and in the end, the Willebrands formula remained in the text, waiting for a further examination in the plenary session of the following May 10. In the meantime, Willebrands and Duprey started a journey in the Middle East that made them more pessimistic, perhaps to induce Paul VI to make a grave faux pas on Passion Sunday, when, preaching in a parish, he talked of the responsibility of the Jewish people for the death of Christ.67 Ratzinger thought of the possibility of a theological turning

................. 16673$

CH10

10-23-07 10:18:41

PS

PAGE 145

146 / Alberto Melloni

point, but maybe this was merely the result of emotional saturation. A few days later, Patriarch Gori, for example, rejected all mediation offered by Willebrands by claiming that nothing could be declared or in fact ought to be declared. Paul VI formulated (or merely handed over?) to Bea a series of extremely embarrassing corrections: he asked ‘‘to omit the sentence neque ut deicidii rei [nor as if they were guilty of deicide],’’ to remain on a generic level when condemning discriminations based on religion, and to reprove (as in morals), but not to condemn (as if it were a heresy) antisemitism. The result in May? Chaos. Also totally chaotic was the plenary session of the Secretariat that month, in which Willebrands gave a report of his journey and Bea talked of the new pressures from the pope: only two possibilities appeared to be left, either to sweeten the text or to postpone everything to the period after the Council. Congar perhaps was not the only one to think so, but his intuition was rather that it was necessary to follow a different path—to elaborate a more organic and more theological act, which would transform into a resource all the lost opportunities and the opportunisms. His project was transmitted to Bea and appeared to be a solution, but it was initially sidelined because Willebrands’ thesis—if it was not possible to do anything, better to postpone—was gaining support in the debate, including the approval of Oesterreicher and of Congar himself.

11. Toward a Text F (see Appendix 1, F) On May 12, after the meeting of the coordinating committee, the debate took a different turn. A less categorical Willebrands and a more inventive Bea sought to find new ways to ‘‘disentangle’’ the problem—and the debate regained momentum. De Smedt pushed for the discussion to continue, even if the price was to include a premise on the ‘‘non-political’’ character of the text; Martin, Charrie`re, and Gran supported him.68 The German Stangl reaffirmed the thesis of Congar—that twenty years after Auschwitz it is no longer possible to remain silent—and Bea read a text with a few suggestions that were perhaps the same as those jotted down by Congar a few days earlier, but he did not go ahead because no one, in such confusion, wanted to risk starting from a text that had not passed though the sessions of the Council. Thus began a period of operative discussion. Votes and formulations followed one another: to eliminate the direct mention of deicide passed

................. 16673$

CH10

10-23-07 10:18:41

PS

PAGE 146

Nostra Aetate and the Discovery of the Sacrament of Otherness / 147

by 15 votes to 9, a vote of control passed by 17 to 6, and to reduce damnat to reprobat passed by 15 to 8; the ‘‘anti-political’’ remarks by De Smedt were also approved. However, the debate said something very important about the situation: If this is the way the Secretariat proceeded, what would happen in the conciliar session? De Smedt proposed to prepare two propositions to bring to the Council if the draft were rejected, but he was not supported in this by Bea, who by this time was set on going to the plenary session with a draft. The outcome of these tormented discussions was text F, which welcomed the proposals of (or those vehicled by) Paul VI: no deicide and no condemnation. A debacle? Perhaps not, but certainly a cause for discontent. Suenens admitted as much to Dell’Acqua and told him of his fears that the pope’s own prestige might be damaged by this whole story: ‘‘Il s’agit en effet d’un texte de´ja` vote´ par une immense majorite´ qui a expresse´ment voulu re´introduire certaines formules que l’on envisage en ce moment de supprimer. Ces modifications, venant du Secre´tariat comme tel, sont formellement oppose´es au re`glement du Concile qui n’admet pas des retouches substantielles post sufragationem. Le Secre´tariat pour l’unite´ ne peut donc les proposer de sa propre autorite´ . . . on ne voit donc pas la possibilite´ de ne pas de´couvrir la couronne.’’ (‘‘We are here talking of a text that has already been approved by an immense majority, which explicitly decided to reintroduce certain formulas that now they want to suppress. These modifications, coming from the Secretariat as such, are formally opposed to the rules of the Council, which do not admit of substantial changes after the vote . . . they do not realize that in this way they can leave the authority of the Pontiff exposed.’’).69 Felici, who received a copy of the letter by Suenens, was of the opposite opinion: let it be known that it is the pope’s will and everything shall be solved—or rather, they can include a reference in draft XIII. This was a moment when the Catholic press played a very special role. The Jesuits of the magazine America asked for clear words, whereas Monsignor Carli, in the review Palestra del clero, asked to ‘‘discuss openly the Jewish question,’’ while in June, much authoritative press gave up on the declaration as dead.70 When, on September 15, the Secretariat took up for the last time the old De Judaeis, which in the meantime had substantially grown, nothing was certain, neither for the declaration nor for the entire final phase of the work, where every

................. 16673$

CH10

10-23-07 10:18:42

PS

PAGE 147

148 / Alberto Melloni

segment of what appeared ready for promulgation appeared vulnerable to fatal attacks.71

12. Is it Approved or Not? (see Appendix 1, G) On September 30, 1965, the fathers were thus to receive a final text, text G, articulated under nine headings that were going to be subject to a vote72 —before which the divisions among the different groups were clearly delineated. Opposed to the text were the members of the Coetus internationalis patrum, who, during the session of October 11, openly campaigned for the non placet, distributing pamphlets with their Suggestiones circa suffragationes mox faciendas de Schemate: ‘‘De Ecclesiae habitudine ad religiones non christianas,’’ an attack on the Secretariat that contained a politically sophisticated move. The conciliar right proposed to soften in a few places three of the four parts destined for the vote, while advancing the cause of only one unqualified rejection: the part that revoked the ‘‘doctrine’’ of deicide. On the first part (the passages concerning dialogue with non-Christian religions), theological reservations were advanced—which Mauro Velati rightly considers ‘‘malicious’’—against the stubborn search for a denominator communis. The opposition of the Arabs, however, had been placated by a few moves. After having appointed to the Secretary for Christian Unity Father Cocq, who had previously been responsible for the Commission on Islam within the Secretariat for the non-Christians, a translation of the draft was prepared that was then handed over to all Arab embassies; these, with the single exception of Iraq, assumed a more accommodating tone, and this exerted an equally calming impact on the position of the Arab bishops, who thought of a common voting declaration (which would fail because of the opposition of the Maronites) and who remarked how the pope’s visit to the United Nations had attenuated certain polemical excesses of pan-Arab nationalism. A variegated area of opposition was instead that of the informal organizations within Judaism that regard as an ill-fated move the choice to omit the term ‘‘deicide,’’ and the reduction of the damnat (referring to antisemitism) to a mere deplorat. Joseph Lichten, for B’nai B’rith, telegraphed the ‘‘consternation’’ of the American Jewish community, and the Texas bishop Leven would be ready to vote against n. 4 for

................. 16673$

CH10

10-23-07 10:18:42

PS

PAGE 148

Nostra Aetate and the Discovery of the Sacrament of Otherness / 149

reasons opposite to those of the Coetus, even though at the moment of the vote they would be confused with them. There were also those who remarked—in the newspapers or in the embassies—that the expensio modorum handed over to the fathers did not explain the reasons for the softening of the text, which paradoxically could end up bringing about a convergence between traditionalist antisemites and disappointed innovators: once more, Nostra Aetate enables us to catch a glimpse not only of an episode in the history of the Council, but also of a whole climate during the conciliar debates.73 Laurentin’s reflections on this issue exemplify how many people at the time failed to realize the implications of what they were doing. He thought that rejecting the draft would have led to an improvement of the relationships with the Jewish world, whereas the approval of the paragraph on deicide and antisemitism would have calmed the opposition on the part of the Islamic world—neither of which assertions corresponded to reality. Even the supporters of the more open and straightforward solutions were unable to grasp the difference between important, but national, organizations and European Judaism, as well as the difference between Judaism in Israel and the State of Israel as such—a State that indeed did find its roots in something different from the explosion of Nazi and Fascist antisemitic ideology and genocide. The sequence of the votes chapter by chapter (October 14–15) did not, however, result in violent shocks. The first paragraphs received 110, 184, and 189 negative votes; some of the paragraphs on Judaism received as many as 245 non placet, which, however, had no consequence on n. 6; and the last paragraph saw a decrease in the front of those opposed, which came to include a mere 58 fathers. The whole of the text was ‘‘punished’’ with 243 contrary votes due to the backlash from a few sectors—the bishops of the Arab world or of the African world, whose religions were not mentioned.74 Perhaps out of fear of irritating the Council fathers before the end, Lercaro had not included Nostra Aetate among the drafts to be taken to the public session on October 28. If it is also true that Paul VI had put a threshold of 300 negative votes to proceed to the promulgation of the text, the ‘‘silence’’ of the Archbishop of Bologna had been wise. After passing the obstacle of the vote, in fact, the Secretariat began forcefully to demand the inclusion of the document onto the agenda of October 28 , showing to the pope even the congratulations of the World Council of Churches and of the American Jewish Committee. Why exert such

................. 16673$

CH10

10-23-07 10:18:43

PS

PAGE 149

150 / Alberto Melloni

pressures? Because there was the possibility of extremely dangerous polemical backlashes; we might be surprised by the letter of Ruffini, who lamented the absence of any mention of Pius X—but was such a letter really destined to leave no trace? How ought we to judge the letter to the pope by Monsignor Gori, who accused the Council of having distorted Rom. 11:28? Was there not the risk of starting a process analogous to that which had disturbed the last moments of the promulgation of De Oecumenismo? This would not happen. The pope accepted the request to broaden the agenda of October 28, and in response to Gori’s remonstrances, he advised that he ought to be reassured, but that nothing ought to be changed. At the final vote, the drafts on the bishops, the priests, and the religious passed with a number of contrary votes between 2 and 4, the draft on Christian education got 35 votes, and Nostra Aetate still received 88 stubborn rejections. Seven years had elapsed since the election of John XXIII.

13. The Sacrament of Otherness As I said at the beginning, much work still needs to be done to understand what is hidden and what emerges in the public debates, in the private struggles in which attempts were made to reject the idea that, 750 years after the Fourth Lateran Council, a Council could approve the document De Judaeis with a different tone than that of Innocent III.75 There is much that must still be simply thought out in order to understand how the impact of the declaration is being received at the various levels that make up the life of the Christian community: from commentaries to the ecumenical world, from papal diplomacy to popularizing pamphlets, from various ‘‘initiatives’’ that transfer the decisions of the Council to the members of the Church, from Europe to the Arab world, and from America to Israel. With due caution, therefore, I limit myself to offer, as a hypothesis, a hermeneutical key that, if confirmed, I think can give a historical account (though even with a few implications that go beyond the level of the mere reconstruction of the facts) of the journey that has briefly been reviewed in these pages. The history of the redaction of Nostra Aetate is in fact marked by the constant interference of ‘‘opportunisms,’’ a term in which not only do I not see any negative nuance, but also where I rather view an ability to adhere to the time in its different realities. In Isaac’s requests there is the desire—certainly worthy of our respect—of a portion of European

................. 16673$

CH10

10-23-07 10:18:44

PS

PAGE 150

Nostra Aetate and the Discovery of the Sacrament of Otherness / 151

Judaism to show itself able to obtain something, something that those who had directly experienced the Shoah as well as the centuries-old conflicts,76 which had remained in place even after the end of the war, were able to intuit with a different degree of urgency; in Cicognani’s perspective, there is the attempt to make prevail a culture of diplomatic mediation that seems, however, incapable of recognizing in the political novelty of the State of Israel something that might mark Judaism and the Middle East forever, even at the cost of a new catastrophe; in the intuition of Bea there is not only something in which a German Jesuit was able to grasp the more theologically profound implications, but also the more immediate ones (if there is such a thing as collective and eternal crimes as claimed by the teaching of deicide, what shall happen with Germany’s Nazi past?); in Israel’s suspicious attitude, there is the need to understand what could be the political gains of an act that could boil down to an embarrassing expression of good intentions, perhaps deserving of some polite appreciation on the part of a rabbi, but which was certainly unworthy of the commitment of a people seeking its own rebirth; and in the Arab reaction, there is the attempt to shorten the leash of the churches, as well as the internal intuition that the time had come to reassert leadership within societies that moved uneasily between re-Islamicization and a reconstruction of a socialist type. In the end, however, what has come out of it all? Was De Judaeis watered down or sold out to the opportunities of the moment? From the point of view of the redaction, this might appear to be the case,77 but in substance, the opposite is true. In the text and in life, in experience and in history, Judaism has become the paradigm not only of interreligious dialogue, but also the paradigm of every difference, the sacrament of all otherness, the locus theologicus where the Christians can show that every ‘‘other’’ alludes in its very alterity to the One who is totally other and yet is totally close to every woman and to every man.78 It is this mystery of salvation that marks ‘‘our age.’’ In the documents of the Second Vatican Council, it is affirmed that our time can respond to the challenge that this mystery represents.

................. 16673$

CH10

10-23-07 10:18:44

PS

PAGE 151

11. T h e Creation and Wo r k of t h e Commission f or Re l i g i o u s Relations with the Jews Cardinal Jorge Maria Mejı´a

The Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews was established by Paul VI on October 22, 1974.1 One ought to remember that the creation of the Commission is in a certain sense both a point of arrival and also a starting point. It seems to me, therefore, that the present essay could be divided into three parts: (1) the precedents of the Commission and its beginning; (2) its configuration in the context of the Roman Curia; (3) and the chief moments of its work between its creation and the end of my period as its secretary, thus between 1974 and 1986. 1. The Precedents The Commission is not the absolute beginning. Already before 1974, during the Second Vatican Council, the very difficult and frequently discussed topic of the relationship with Judaism had come to the fore when the fathers were preparing the document known today by its first Latin words as Nostra Aetate. This declaration mentions the problem of the relationship with Judaism only in the penultimate paragraph, number 4; earlier on, the text speaks of the other non-Christian religions. It appears, therefore, that Judaism is not considered differently from other religions, with the exception of its presentation in the famous introductory statement where we read: ‘‘As the sacred synod searches into the

................. 16673$

CH11

10-23-07 10:18:40

PS

PAGE 152

The Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews / 153

mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham’s stock.’’ In the debate preceding the redaction of the declaration, especially in the various interventions by Cardinal Augustin Bea and other Council fathers, the special character of Judaism and of its relationship with the Catholic Church had also been emphasized. For this reason, when Pope (now Blessed) John XXIII had decided to create the Secretariat for Christian Unity as a preparatory organ for the Council,2 the question of Judaism and of its relations with the Church had been entrusted to its president,3 Cardinal Augustin Bea. This must be noted carefully when we consider subsequent developments. From that moment onward, relations with Judaism were kept distinct and separate from relations with other religions, despite the structure and the thrust of the declaration Nostra Aetate.4 When later the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity became an organ of the Roman Curia, or, in other words, a dicastery, the relations with Judaism remained within the ambit of its competence,5 even if in the meantime another dicastery—known today as the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue—had been created to handle the relations with all other non-Christian religions.6 This must be kept in mind, since within the Secretariat for Christian Unity almost from the very beginning an office with the specific task of handling the relations with Judaism had been established. This office was entrusted by Cardinal Bea to Professor Father Cornelius A. Rijk, who was, therefore, the first individual at the Holy See to be responsible for relations with Jews. At this time, these relations were an absolute novelty and, therefore, still had to find their own way.7 Father Rijk’s work was pioneering, and I am glad to remember here his name and his achievements, independently of his restrictions. All of us who came later are, in one way or another, in his debt. The task of Father Rijk was twofold. On the one hand, under the supervision of Cardinal Bea, he had in some way to institutionalize within the Holy See the absolutely new relationship with Judaism. On the other hand, he had to prepare guidelines so that the Catholic Church and its central governing bodies, as well as the national Episcopal Conferences, could establish these relations, which were equally new, or in fact, totally alien for the great majority of the world’s episcopate.8 One can easily understand the difficulty of both tasks. In fact, there was yet another difficulty: how to choose the right interlocutors within Judaism, which is a complex and certainly not a monolithic reality. This became easier after 1970,9 after

................. 16673$

CH11

10-23-07 10:18:40

PS

PAGE 153

154 / Cardinal Jorge Maria Mejı´a

the creation of the body known as IJCIC, an acronym for the International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations, which included representatives of the main Jewish organizations.10 Simultaneously, the International Liaison Committee was formed to deal with the relations between IJCIC and the Secretariat for Christian Unity. In order to tackle the two tasks mentioned above, it was immediately thought necessary to compose an official document that could facilitate the application of the content and of the new, more open attitude of Nostra Aetate. To prepare the composition of this document, a first meeting of experts took place in Rome from April 9–12, 1969, not long after the creation of the Office for Relations with the Jews. Work on this document continued in the following years and included the participation (which, one could say, was their duty, after all) of the bishops who were members of the Secretariat for Christian Unity. In the meantime, however, the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews had been established in October 1974, and it eventually fell to this Commission to promulgate this document on December 1, 1974, with the title ‘‘Guidelines and Suggestions for the Application of the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate.’’ This document would effectively become the charter of the new Commission.

2. The Commission’s Structure and Place within the Roman Curia

The creation of such a commission was a novelty in the Roman Curia, and it remains one of the merits of the great pontiff Paul VI to have made this decision in an institutional context, in full continuity with the theory of dialogue expounded in his inaugural encyclical Ecclesiam suam.11 At the same time, the pope had created a parallel Commission for Religious Relations with Islam within the Secretariat for Non-Christians.12 Thus the existing office became a Commission with its own identity and structure. In connection with this, it is necessary to note three things: (1) The Commission, like the earlier office, has remained within the Secretariat for Christian Unity (today known as the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity). If, therefore, Judaism can be considered a non-Christian religion, it is not so in the same sense as the other religions to which this label can be applied. Its relation with the Catholic Church and with Christianity in general is completely different.13 It

................. 16673$

CH11

10-23-07 10:18:41

PS

PAGE 154

The Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews / 155

was this consideration that led to the decision to establish this Commission not within the department that handles the other religions, but within the department that deals with other Christian denominations. Maybe this solution is not the best, since it might create the misunderstanding that the goal of these relations is the establishment of unity, as with other Christians; this, as is now clear, is absolutely not the case with Judaism. From another point of view, however, there is a true relationship between ecumenical commitment in the strict sense and the relationship with Judaism, at least in the sense that this relationship is a vocation shared by all Christians and thus can truly help their mutual reconciliation. (2) The Commission, however, unlike the earlier office, is ‘‘distinct’’ from the Secretariat (today’s Pontifical Council), but is ‘‘connected’’ to the latter (these are the terms used in the document that established the Commission).14 It thus possesses its own structure that coincides in part with that of the Pontifical Council, and shares the same president, who, after Cardinals Bea, Willebrands, and Cassidy, is now Cardinal Kasper. The secretary of the Pontifical Council is instead the vice-president of the Commission, who currently is His Excellency Monsignor Brian Farrell, who succeeds Monsignor Charles Moeller, His Excellency Ramo´n Torrella (the recently deceased former archbishop of Tarragona in Spain), Monsignor Pierre Duprey, and briefly His Excellency Monsignor Marc Ouellet (today cardinal archbishop of Quebec). The Commission has its own secretary, today the esteemed Father Norbert Hofmann, who succeeds (in chronological order) Father Pierre Marie Stanislas De Contenson, O.P. (about whom I shall have more to say below); myself; Monsignor Pier Francesco Fumagalli; and Father Remi Hoeckman, O.P. (3) The mandate of the Commission has, from its inception, explicitly referred to religious relations with Judaism. One might ask what is the meaning of this adjective attached to the name of the Commission and how one ought to interpret it. I would like to say that this is not necessarily a limitation; on the contrary, it is perhaps a liberation. Judaism is a religion, and a world religion, in the sense that it is present on all continents; one can say that it has a truly universal vocation, if perhaps not a missionary one. Judaism, however, presents itself as having a special relationship with a state, the State of Israel, a state that had already been in existence for some time (since 1948), when the Council was preparing the declaration Nostra Aetate. The life of this state has

................. 16673$

CH11

10-23-07 10:18:41

PS

PAGE 155

156 / Cardinal Jorge Maria Mejı´a

certainly not been very peaceful nor has it been peacefully accepted by other states, especially its neighbors in the Middle East; in fact, this state had always been recognized as such, but did not have diplomatic relations with the Holy See until 1993. Thus there were a number of political implications, and it was opportune and necessary to distinguish between religious and political matters, the latter of which could be the concern of the office of the secretary of state, while the great religious tradition of Judaism that is so close to our own would be the purview of the Commission. This was the motivation behind the addition of the adjective ‘‘religious’’ to the name of the Commission, which is correctly interpreted in this way.

3. The First Years of the Commission Father Cornelius Rijk, despite the fact that he stayed a while longer at his post at the then Secretariat for Christian Unity, was not chosen as first secretary of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. That task was entrusted to another official of the same Secretariat, the already mentioned Father De Contenson, O.P. He had the duty, as well as the honor, to establish the functioning of the new body in its threefold relation with the Roman Curia, with the universal Church, and with the representatives of Judaism. For the first of these tasks, he received guidance and assistance from his superiors in the Secretariat, Cardinal Willebrands and Monsignor Moeller. For the second of these tasks, he could rely on the work already accomplished by Father Cornelius Rijk; the organs of consultation mentioned above being already in place. Father De Contenson was also helped by a group of consultants who had been chosen among more or less well-known experts on Judaism. For the third task, the establishment of these relations in the universal Church, he could count on different priests and lay people of various origins, who in scattered parts of the world were involved in the same work. Father De Contenson also had the great joy to witness the publication of the ‘‘Guidelines and Suggestions’’ prepared by Father Cornelius Rijk with the valuable and sometimes decisive assistance of the experts. The document was also approved by the various offices of the Curia, which must be consulted to publish documents such as the Commission’s, which are then officially promulgated by the Holy See. Thus Father De Contenson, after Father Cornelius Rijk, laid the foundations

................. 16673$

CH11

10-23-07 10:18:42

PS

PAGE 156

The Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews / 157

on which we who came after him have all been building until the present. If I remember him here in a special manner, it is because he dedicated himself so selflessly to his task, despite the fact that among other commitments, he was also involved in the Leonine Edition of the works of Thomas Aquinas. Because he was thus overworked, he broke down physically. After two years, he died a saintly death, the victim of two heart attacks. I heard that at his deathbed, a confre`re of his asked him whether in his work he had been assisted by the faith of Jews and Christians in the same Lord and God. Father De Contenson answered: ‘‘oui, le meˆme, mais avec une petite diffe´rence’’ (yes, the same, but with a small difference). We Christians believe in the Triune God.

4. Conclusion It is not necessary that I prolong this essay excessively in order to detail what the successors of Father De Contenson have been able to do. This is already contemporary history. For all that concerns my time as Secretary of the Commission, I wish to make three very brief observations. (1) My appointment as the Commission’s secretary was a result of the emergency created by the death of Father De Contenson. From one day to the next, I found myself entrusted with this responsibility, with only a rather inadequate preparation, coming from my earlier work as secretary of the department of CELAM (the Latin American Bishops’ Conference) devoted to ecumenical and interreligious relations, as well as my years as professor of Scripture and Hebrew Language at the Faculty of Theology of the Catholic University of Argentina. More than ever did I realize how much I was in debt to all those who preceded me. I was also aware of how much could be done in the area of the relationship between the Catholic Church (and in particular the Holy See) and Judaism, the type of pastoral work undertaken by the Church that was (and still is) one of the most recent. Among my predecessors and the experts who helped me, I wish to remember Professor Tommaso Federici, Father Roger Le De´aut, and the then rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University, the later Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini. (2) With their help and the understanding and patient support of my superiors at the time, especially the vice president Monsignor Ramo´n Torrella, it was possible to arrive at the publication of a second document, which was more complex and also more complete than its predecessor, but which necessarily presupposes it. I am referring to the

................. 16673$

CH11

10-23-07 10:18:42

PS

PAGE 157

158 / Cardinal Jorge Maria Mejı´a

‘‘Notes on the Correct Presentation of the Jews and of Judaism in Preaching and Teaching in the Catholic Church,’’ promulgated on June 24, 1985. I think that this document is still relevant and helpful as it attempts for the first time, among other things, to explain the significance for us of the connection between religion, land, and state, which is so crucial for the Jewish people and which they continue to emphasize so much.15 The two or three passages in this document that refer to this issue are the result of a fruitful collaboration between the Commission and the Secretariat of State, which is always helpful for the Commission’s work. At that time, the Secretariat of State was under the direction of Cardinal Casaroli, as well as of Monsignor, now Cardinal, Silvestrini, to whom I wish to express my gratitude. (3) The visit of Pope John Paul II to the Great Synagogue of Rome on April 13, 1986, has been one of the three decisive moments of his pontificate concerning the history of relations between the Catholic Church and Judaism. As we all know, the other two are the apostolic trip to Israel during the year of the Great Jubilee, with the prayer at the Western Wall, and slightly earlier in that same year, the request of pardon for all the suffering that the Jews endured at our hands during our common history. To these highlights may be added the establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel in December of 1993. The visit of the Holy Father to the Great Synagogue in Rome was an initiative of his, with whose organization I found myself entrusted. With this visit, during which I had the privilege of accompanying the Holy Father, my time at the Commission also ended; I had been consecrated a bishop on the previous day and had been transferred to the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace as its vice president. The torch was thus passed on to other hands, which have already had, and shall continue to have in the future, the opportunity to continue and to broaden the work of the Commission for the Religious Relations with the Jews as long as the Lord so wishes. Or, perhaps better, until the Lord finally comes. At that point, the work of this Commission shall become unnecessary.

................. 16673$

CH11

10-23-07 10:18:43

PS

PAGE 158

12. T he Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews a nd the International Catholic -Jewish L iaison C ommittee Pier Francesco Fumagalli

When, on October 22, 1974, Pope Paul VI established the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews (CRRJ), a so-called International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee (ILC)1 had already been in place for four years, having been instituted in Rome on December 23, 1970. This committee, which initially included five delegates from each side, would continue its activity without interruption over the following years, holding to date nineteen ordinary plenary sessions and two extraordinary ones. These initiatives have normally been coordinated by a joint executive committee, and the number of ILC members has progressively grown, so that now it includes about twenty-five Catholic experts and delegates and an equal number of Jewish ones. The five initial Jewish delegates were selected by the five bodies that had established the International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultation (IJCIC), whose institution also goes back to 1970;2 the Catholic members had been appointed with the approval of Pope Paul VI. The work of the ILC follows the principles and the norms established in a memorandum, or agreement, signed in Rome at the time of its institution, at the end of a defining four-day meeting that saw the participation of representatives of the then Secretariat (the present

................. 16673$

CH12

10-23-07 10:18:42

PS

PAGE 159

160 / Pier Francesco Fumagalli

Pontifical Council) for Christian Unity; of the Vatican Office for Catholic-Jewish Relations; of the Congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith, for the Oriental Churches, and for Catholic Education; of the Commission (the present Pontifical Council) for Justice and Peace; and of the Secretary of State. The memorandum that was agreed upon at the time begins by acknowledging: In the relationship between Catholics and Jews, the concerns of both groups are religiously based but they extend over the whole complex of what men do wherever they live. A model of the practical development of this relationship must therefore be based on a structure which has religious faith as its premise.3 According to an evaluation given in 1985 by Cardinal Johannes Willebrands, who was one of its chief supporters and animators for two decades, the Committee is the only official linking body we have between the Holy See and the Jewish community.4 Whatever its limitations, it is a symbol and an effective instrument of our relationship. I believe we have still to ponder very carefully how we can make use of it to deepen, foster, apply in many walks of life, such relationship within the ‘‘terms of reference’’ agreed upon in December 1970, in the ‘‘Memorandum of Understanding.’’ . . . [This Committee] is, in fact, the only place where we are able to meet officially appointed Catholic and Jewish representatives (with the asymmetry that is so typical of our relationship), face to face, . . . well conscious of the responsibility the present state of our relationship places on our shoulders, on each side and on both together.5 The work of the ILC up to the present day can be summarized by distinguishing three different stages, the first of which, from 1971 to 1973, was merely experimental and was effectively over as soon as the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews (CRRJ) was established in the following year. During these three years, at meetings held in Paris, Marseilles, and Antwerp, the main topic under discussion was ‘‘people, land, and state,’’ so important in the biblical tradition and with so many concrete implications for the way in which we consider the question of the Middle East and the reestablishment of the State of Israel.

................. 16673$

CH12

10-23-07 10:18:43

PS

PAGE 160

Commission for Relations with Jews and the Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee / 161

After the creation of the CRRJ, there were about twenty years of intense and fruitful dialogue, from 1974 to 1993. During this period, thirteen sessions were held, among which were two extraordinary ones at the Vatican. The focus of all these sessions was the theme of education, as well as human rights, mission and witness, antisemitism, and the Shoah.6 The two extraordinary sessions took place on August 31 and September 1, 1987, and on December 5 and 6, 1990; the latter marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of the promulgation of the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate. The third stage, whose beginning coincides with the establishment of regular diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the State of Israel on December 30 and 31, 1993, includes meetings 15 through 19, from the first one, held in Jerusalem in May 1994 to the most recent one, held in South Africa in 2006.7 This third period, which continues to the present day, is characterized by two mutually interdependent facts: the periodic publication, beginning in 1994, of joint documents on various themes, and a more decisive orientation toward a practical collaboration geared to areas of common interest in the field of social action and antisemitism. As one can see from the ILC’s joint documents, whose original English versions are included in the appendixes to this book, these short texts effectively mark a new phase in the evolution of the official Catholic-Jewish relationship in terms of both their form and substance. The Jerusalem meeting (1994) ended with a declaration on the family; the following ILC encounter at the Vatican (1998) led to the release of a joint text on ecology, while in New York (2001) two declarations were published: a highly detailed document on the holy places of all religions and on religious freedom and a declaration on education. The eighteenth session in Buenos Aires (2004) led to the elaboration of a common text on the themes of charity and justice, entailing also a joint effort to support the Catholic and Jewish centers that in Argentina’s capital organize social, cultural, and charitable activities to help the poor. The 2006 Cape Town meeting received and affirmed a report from Lawrence H. Schiffman and Joseph Sievers, ‘‘Learning about Ourselves while Learning about Each Other: Proposals for Jewish and Catholic Education.’’ The first joint document from 1994 discussed a theme of crucial relevance for both Jews and Christians: the theme of the family, concerning which there is a substantial agreement in the views of the two religious traditions. It is thus useful to take into consideration at least a few opening sentences of this text:

................. 16673$

CH12

10-23-07 10:18:44

PS

PAGE 161

162 / Pier Francesco Fumagalli

Jewish and Christian understandings of the family are based upon the biblical description of the dual creation of the human being— man and woman—in God’s image, and on the dual nature of God’s covenant with the Patriarchs and Matriarchs—as with Abraham and Sarah together. We affirm the sacred value of stable marriage and the family as intrinsically good. We also stress its value in transmitting the religious and moral values from the past to the present and to the future. The Jewish People and the Catholic Church represent two ancient traditions that have supported and been supported by the family through the centuries. We can, today, make together a solid contribution to the overall discussion of these themes in this International Year of the Family. We ought to note how these words effectively assign a normative authority to the Hebrew Bible, and in particular to the Torah, which in its first book (Bereshit or Genesis) provides the principal frame of reference that is shared by both Jews and Christians. This same fundamental orientation reappears also in other texts, as, for instance, in the document of the sixteenth ILC meeting, which took place at the Vatican in 1998. This second joint declaration concerning ecology states, ‘‘Concern for the environment has led both Catholics and Jews to reflect on the concrete implications of their belief in God, Creator of all things. In turning to their sacred scriptures, both have found the religious and moral foundations for their obligation to care for the environment.’’ In this case, too, the explicit biblical reference is to Genesis 1–2, but there are also quotes from three other books of the Torah: Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. A very significant citation of Genesis 1:26 was also developed in the New York 2001 joint declaration on protecting religious freedom and holy sites: Freedom of religion and of conscience, including the rights of religious communities within society, derive from and are rooted in the liberty of persons before God. As Christians and Jews, we find the religious roots of such respect in the dignity of all persons created ‘‘in the likeness of God’’ (Genesis 1:26). Religious freedom is realized through the exercise of specific rights. Among these are: freedom of worship, liberty in public manifestation of one’s belief and the practice of one’s religion, the freedom of religious communities to organize themselves and conduct their own

................. 16673$

CH12

10-23-07 10:18:44

PS

PAGE 162

Commission for Relations with Jews and the Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee / 163

affairs without interference, the right to show the implications of one’s beliefs for society, the right to hold meetings, and the right to establish educational, charitable, cultural and social organizations in keeping with the religious orientation of one’s own religious tradition. In the ILC’s joint declaration from Buenos Aires (2004), one finds for the first time an explicit reference to the parallel passages in the Gospels, as well as to later authoritative sources in both traditions, including recent pontifical documents: Our joint commitment to justice is deeply rooted in both our faiths. We recall the tradition of helping the widow, the orphan, the poor, and the stranger in our midst in accordance with God’s injunction (Ex. 22:20–22; Mt. 25:31–46). The Sages of Israel developed a broad doctrine of justice and charity for all, based upon an elevated understanding of the concept of Tzedeq. Building on the Church’s tradition, Pope John Paul II, in his first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis (1979), reminded Christians that a true relationship with God requires a strong commitment to service of one’s neighbor. The activity carried out by the CRRJ in order to promote dialogue through the plenary sessions of the ILC is of course only a part of the work of the Commission and of the Liaison Committee. The activity of the ILC has been extremely valuable as a support for the work of the Commission toward the elaboration of its three documents: Guidelines and Suggestions (1974), Notes (1985), and We Remember (1998). Beyond all the aspects that Cardinal Jorge Mejı´a recalls with great competence in his article, we can at least mention some of the ecclesial documents promulgated between 1988 and 2004, in which, in one way or another, one of the CRRJ texts is either presupposed or is cited explicitly; this effectively means that reference is also made to the work of the ILC, which has always greatly helped in the preparation and in the—sometimes quite critical—interpretation of these documents. In the text of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace known as The Church and Racism: Toward a More Fraternal Society (1988), a long paragraph is devoted, for instance, to the issues of antisemitism and anti-Zionism. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) discusses in more than one place the relations with the Jews, echoing the

................. 16673$

CH12

10-23-07 10:18:44

PS

PAGE 163

164 / Pier Francesco Fumagalli

conclusions of Catholic-Jewish dialogue, while the Ecumenical Directory, published in 1993 by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, invites all Christians of the various denominations to unite in the fight against antisemitism. Of particular importance have also been the 1997 intra-ecclesial symposium on the theme of Christian anti-Judaism,8 as well as the later documents connected with it in some way: one by the International Theological Commission,9 the other by the Pontifical Biblical Commission.10 Finally, note the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church published by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace in 2004, where, under number 506, the horrible crime of the Shoah is listed among the ‘‘crimes against God and humanity.’’ The heroes of these laborious thirty-five years of activity have been very numerous, since at the gatherings of the ILC national and international experts have always been invited, involving the local churches and Jewish communities, in a perspective that is both interreligious and ecumenical. In general, the ILC executive committee would alternatively meet in Rome and in Geneva. Among the chief Jewish leaders of these meetings one ought to remember especially Gerhart M. Riegner (1911–2001),11 to whom these pages are most fittingly dedicated. The activity of the ILC required a mutual collaboration that increased year after year, involving on the Catholic side all those who were in charge of the CRRJ; on the Jewish side, we ought to remember, among others, the contribution of Fritz Becker and Joseph Lichten in Rome and Jean Halpe´rin in Geneva. In addition, for many years beginning in 1987, the IJCIC thought it best to ask Professor Rabbi Leon A. Feldman of New York, executive secretary of the IJCIC, to follow more closely the activity of the ILC. To offer a particularly meaningful example of the atmosphere in which these meetings were held, we should briefly recall the dialogue that took place in preparation for the extraordinary session of the ILC scheduled to take place in Rome at the end of August and the beginning of September 1987.12 In Rome and at the Vatican, people were then working to prepare the pope’s upcoming apostolic trip to the United States. As happens with some regularity, a last-minute source of concern arose from some recent tensions with international Jewish organizations. During that summer, ill feeling had been caused by the papal audience granted to the Austrian president Kurt Waldheim, who was suspected of having collaborated with the Nazis, and more generally by

................. 16673$

CH12

10-23-07 10:18:45

PS

PAGE 164

Commission for Relations with Jews and the Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee / 165

a certain impression that there was a deliberate strategy to ‘‘Christianize’’ the Shoah or to turn it into something less tragic. The long-standing question of the Carmelite convent in the ‘‘Old Theatre’’ at Auschwitz had provoked outspoken criticism. Similarly, the beatification of Edith Stein in Cologne a few months earlier on March 1, 1987, had been harshly criticized because of the Jewish origins of the Carmelite nun, who had been deported and murdered at Auschwitz like millions of other Jews and who now was being proposed as a model of a martyr for the Catholic faith. For these reasons, Rabbi Mordechai Waxman, president of the Synagogue Council of America and moderator of IJCIC, and Cardinal Johannes Willebrands, president of the CRRJ, agreed to call an extraordinary session of about twenty delegates and experts. This session took the form of a special meeting of the ILC. On the afternoon of Sunday, August 30, Dr. Riegner, together with Rabbi Waxman, Father Pierre Duprey, vice president of the Vatican commission, and the secretary, Father Pier Francesco Fumagalli, met to prepare the details of the sessions in the home of Cardinal Willebrands in Rome. Riegner, after having emphasized the importance of making a new step on the road of dialogue, in a tone that was calm but at the same time vibrant and full of the memory of suffering, came to the main point: in order to overcome the suspicions and the lack of trust on the part of the Jewish communities as to the sincerity of the dialogue and in order to reaffirm the authoritative orientation that the pope gives through his teaching (as he had recently done in Warsaw), the time was ripe for a Church document (maybe even an encyclical letter) that confronted in a comprehensive manner the difficult themes of the Shoah and of antisemitism in its historical and religious roots. All of these topics are linked in some way to the history and the future of Jewish-Christian relations. At the same time, however, Riegner concluded, ‘‘This is not a project that we, as Jews, can suggest or ask you to consider; you alone can autonomously begin such an initiative, which however would certainly have an extraordinarily positive effect on world Jewry; in particular, if announced now, on the eve of the Pope’s trip to the United States, the decision would deeply and positively impress the large and lively Jewish communities of America, which are now agitated by doubts and suspicions as to what the Church really thinks of the Shoah.’’ Riegner stopped. There was a brief silence, full of intensity, a pregnant expectation, redolent with the weight of memories, as happens

................. 16673$

CH12

10-23-07 10:18:46

PS

PAGE 165

166 / Pier Francesco Fumagalli

when two people recognize each other after a long separation. However, it was little more than a moment: the words of Willebrands’s decisive assent sounded brief, but appeared to reflect a long, earlier reflection, as if they had been pronounced to fulfill an ancient expectation, answering a gesture of fraternal trust and truth, a gesture as strong as a cry. From this encounter would come the process of teshuvah and reconciliation that is still in progress now, within which we ought to include the document We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah. Today, among the challenges that the ILC finds itself obliged to face, we also find that one expressed by the Sheikh Abdullah Bin Khalifa alThani, prime minister of Qatar. At the second International Conference on Dialogue between Islam and Christianity, held at Doha from May 27 to 30, 2004, he wishes for conversation between Muslims, Christians, and Jews: ‘‘Interreligious dialogue shall be more complete when the Jewish community shall also take part in this forum.’’

................. 16673$

CH12

10-23-07 10:18:46

PS

PAGE 166

13. A Si g n of Gr e a t Ho p e : T h e B eginning of t h e Dialogue between t he Ho l y Se e a n d t h e Ch i e f R abbinate of I srael Norbert J. Hofmann

The official dialogue recently established between the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel is one of the latest developments in the relationship between Jews and Christians.1 In the following article, the creation, organization, implementation, and significance of this dialogue will be discussed. Its individual meetings will be considered on the basis of the resulting joint declarations. There will also be comments on the process of the composition of these declarations in order to illustrate the underlying themes of the discussions. Written in the form of a report, this article provides the story of a dialogue in process.

1. Genesis and Histor y of the Dialogue For the first time in history, the two chief rabbis of Israel2 were received in private audience by the Holy Father on January 16, 2004. The highest representatives of Orthodox Judaism of Israel met with the head of the Catholic Church in Rome, during their visit for the Concert of Reconciliation among Jews, Christians, and Muslims organized at the Vatican on January 17, 2004. Having gratefully accepted the invitation to participate in such an event, the two Chief Rabbis Shlomo Amar and Yona

................. 16673$

CH13

10-23-07 10:18:48

PS

PAGE 167

168 / Norbert J. Hofmann

Metzger, Sephardic and Ashkenazi respectively, took the opportunity to express their concerns about the situation of Jews living in Israel to John Paul II. During his historic visit to the Holy Land, in March 2000, the pontiff had already made contact with the two chief rabbis at that time, Israel Meir Lau and Elijahu Bakshi-Doron. The pontiff referred to that very trip during the January 2004 audience, recalling his visit and prayers at the Western Wall in Jerusalem and at the museum and monument of Yad Vashem, dedicated to the memory of the Shoah. The pope’s actions were extraordinarily symbolic and have had a significant, and certainly lasting, impact on the dialogue between Jews and Christians. The meeting of the two chief rabbis and the pope needs to be placed in a much wider context. In fact, contacts between the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel had begun on June 5, 2002. The Holy Father had given the first decisive push toward the establishment of such contacts when, during his visit to Israel, he expressed the wish to establish a dialogue with Jewish institutions. In November 2001, Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Commission, went to the Holy Land and underlined the Vatican’s willingness to enter into a fruitful dialogue with the Jews in Israel. Of course, a number of initiatives already existed (and still exist) in Israel, but none involved high-ranking official representatives. It is understandable that, due to the complex political situation of the country, such a dialogue entails particular difficulties. We need to remember, for example, that Israel is the only country in which a Christian minority lives together with a Jewish majority; consequently, many problems are linked to their respective ethnic backgrounds. In this sense, John Paul II was probably correct in saying that this dialogue is a sign of great hope.3 We can even consider a ‘‘small miracle’’ the fact that, in such unfavorable conditions, the dialogue with Judaism in Israel could have been set in motion at such a high level and that it has already produced encouraging results. Both parties have expressed their willingness to continue the dialogue with ongoing meetings, alternatively taking place in Jerusalem and Rome. All this reveals a new trend, a trend that appears increasingly striking. Overall, Orthodox Judaism is showing a greater readiness for dialogue and appears increasingly open to discussions about religious issues. This new trend also clearly emerged in a meeting held in New York (January 19 and 20, 2004) between rabbis and Catholic cardinals.

................. 16673$

CH13

10-23-07 10:18:48

PS

PAGE 168

A Sign of Great Hope / 169

The official visit of a small group of Catholic cardinals to Yeshiva University was certainly unusual within the context of the relations with Jews. To turn now to a closer look at how the dialogue with the Chief Rabbinate of Israel began and how it has progressed, on June 5, 2002, the two delegations met in Jerusalem for the first time to establish how the dialogue would be organized and to define the themes for discussion. To avoid mass media speculations about the initiative, still in its embryonic state, it was decided not to make the preliminary meeting public. The head of the Catholic delegation was Cardinal Jorge Mejı´a; the head of the Jewish delegation was the Chief Rabbi of Haifa, Shear Yashuv Cohen. The Jewish delegation also included three other rabbis from Israel and the Director General of the Chief Rabbinate. In the Catholic group, other delegates residing in Israel were included: the auxiliary bishop of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Monsignor Giacinto-Boulos Marcuzzo, an Italian residing in Nazareth, and Father (now Archbishop) Elias Chacour, a Palestinian. Both sides also included additional ‘‘diplomatic observers’’: the first ambassador of Israel to the Holy See, Mr. Shmuel Hadas and the Apostolic Nuncio in Israel, Archbishop Pietro Sambi. It was decided to have a limited number of delegates (six or seven members in each delegation) take part in each round of discussions. The small number allows for a very productive dialogue and ensures the active participation of each member.4 At the first meeting in Jerusalem, a list of themes to be discussed was developed and dates were suggested for the subsequent meetings.

2. The Second Meeting, in Rome/Grottaferrata (February 24–26, 2003) The second meeting, scheduled for Rome in November 2002, was postponed for a few months at the request of the Jewish side.5 Therefore, the first ‘‘thematic’’ meeting between the two delegations took place on February 24–26, 2003, at Grottaferrata, near Rome. The agenda included two topics previously agreed on: ‘‘the sanctity of human life’’ and ‘‘family values.’’ Aware of the historical importance of this step, the participants demonstrated great sensitivity and prudence and were able to create an atmosphere of cordiality and mutual trust. On February 27, 2003, a joint press release was issued (see appendix 3, A).

................. 16673$

CH13

10-23-07 10:18:49

PS

PAGE 169

170 / Norbert J. Hofmann

While the first paragraph of this joint declaration briefly illustrates the circumstances of the discussion, the second one seems to function as an introduction for both the document and the dialogue itself. The Jewish representatives wanted to stress in some way the outline and objectives of the budding dialogue. They insisted on the importance of clearly stating that the ‘‘dialogue is a value in itself and excludes any intention of converting.’’ The term ‘‘converting’’ was at the center of the discussion; various alternatives were proposed, such as ‘‘proselytism,’’ ‘‘conversion,’’ and ‘‘mission.’’ For the Catholic side, the use of the term ‘‘mission’’ was completely unacceptable, since the Church understands itself to be a church entrusted with a missionary task and, by its very nature, as having a missionary structure. For Catholics, interreligious dialogue accompanies the missio ad gentes; it does not replace it.6 The church’s task of evangelization and interreligious dialogue are not in contrast. They do not replace each other; neither are they an obstacle to each other.7 The proclamation of Jesus Christ and of his Gospel in every place and for all people should not be confused with the explicit wish to convert Jews to Christianity in an active and conscious way. It was clear that, between Christians and Jews, the wounds left behind by the painful history of forced conversions in the Middle Ages have not yet healed. This brief sentence in the joint declaration bothered some Church representatives. Its formulation should be understood in context, in other words, both in the historical context of the relations between Christians and Jews and in the specific context of the preamble in question. When considering the process of formulating the declaration, its scope and complexity need to be taken into account. After the secretaries of both delegations drafted the first version, the text was discussed at length in a plenary session and modified several times, based on the various contributions. Thus the content of these joint discussions, introduced at the thematic level with two brief statements of about fifteen to twenty minutes, given by a Catholic and a Jewish member respectively, contributed to the final version. For this reason, with regard to point 4.3 (see appendix 3, A), it should be noted that the second paragraph, which addresses the topic of terrorism, was added only later during the discussion. Basically, it picked up again and significantly developed John Paul II’s message on World Peace Day in 2002 that generally condemned terrorism and

................. 16673$

CH13

10-23-07 10:18:49

PS

PAGE 170

A Sign of Great Hope / 171

underlined its incompatibility with religion.8 It is important to remember the historical context of the message, since the events of September 11, 2001, have also left their mark on this document. The Catholic side insisted on the addition of the phrase ‘‘everywhere in the world’’ to exclude any possibility of it being interpreted only in terms of the political situation in Israel. Unfortunately, the mass media did not pay enough attention to this deliberate addition in the wording of the declaration. In the joint discussions, less space was dedicated to the second theme of the document, ‘‘family values.’’ This was exclusively due to a lack of time and not to the fact that the issue was considered less important.

3. The Third Meeting, in Jerusalem (December 1–3, 2003) The topics and the date for this meeting had been decided only one month in advance. Compared to the previous meeting, the Jewish delegation included two more rabbis, while the Catholic delegation had one fewer member.9 The participants, who already knew each other, decided to proceed in the same way as they had in the past. Jerusalem, as a place for the meeting, bestowed a special atmosphere on the proceedings. As the second paragraph of the declaration from this meeting stresses, a climate of mutual respect and friendship had already been established between the two delegations. Originally, the intention was to deal with two themes: ‘‘the education of future generations in the spirit of the sacred scripture’’ and ‘‘the key teachings of the sacred scriptures and their significance for contemporary society.’’ Very early in the discussion, it was decided to deal with the topics simultaneously (see appendix 3, B for the full text of the joint declaration following this meeting). The third paragraph of the declaration does not relate to the principal theme, but rather concerns antisemitism. With growing current interest in the issue, the Jewish delegation insisted on it being introduced into the text and placed within a concrete historical framework, that is, the message from Cardinal Jorge Mejı´a, quoted in the document, which alludes to the car bomb attacks on two synagogues carried out in Istanbul on November 15, 2003, shortly before the meeting. As far as the actual theme of the document is concerned, it was first necessary to clarify what both Jews and Christians considered to be the sacred scriptures. As a result, the more diplomatic expression ‘‘of the sacred scriptures that we share’’ was used. The fifth paragraph was

................. 16673$

CH13

10-23-07 10:18:50

PS

PAGE 171

172 / Norbert J. Hofmann

completely rewritten during the discussions in order to stress the positive aspects of technological and scientific progress. Paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 again present quotes from significant biblical passages that highlight the importance of religious education in promoting fundamental values in society and the example that religious leaders should provide. The ninth paragraph, which specifically refers to the situation in the Holy Land, was introduced relatively late. The fact that the meeting was held in Jerusalem had a considerable influence on the text of the declaration.

4. The Four th Meeting in Rome/Grottaferrata (October 17–19, 2004) The date for the fourth meeting10 was decided at the end of the third meeting in Jerusalem in December 2003, when four possible themes for discussion were also proposed. One of these was selected in the summer of 2004. The theme, ‘‘A Shared Vision of Social Justice and Ethical Conduct,’’ was chosen in conversation with Rabbi Shear Yashuv Cohen during the conference of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee (ILC) on a similar topic, ‘‘Justice and Charity,’’ held in Buenos Aires in July 2004. As usual, the theme was introduced by brief statements, two from the Jewish side and one from the Catholic side. In the first three paragraphs of the joint declaration issued on October 19, 2004 (see appendix 3, C), the continuity of the discussions and the results already attained were stressed. It was also deemed important to recall the cordial and friendly atmosphere that had characterized the meeting. The participants were clearly happy and grateful for the possibility of further exchanges. The Jewish side in particular wanted to reaffirm key points from previous declarations: respect toward the religious identity of others, the condemnation of violence and terrorism perpetrated in the name of religion, and the clear rejection of antisemitism. The wording in the declaration of the second meeting, ‘‘dialogue is a value in itself and excludes any intention of converting,’’ had previously raised some problems; thus a more diplomatic wording was opted for this time: ‘‘a common rejection of any attempts to persuade people to reject their own heritage.’’ The main theme of the meeting is dealt with in the following paragraphs of the declaration. The fourth paragraph is mainly influenced

................. 16673$

CH13

10-23-07 10:18:50

PS

PAGE 172

A Sign of Great Hope / 173

by the Catholic interpretation. The fifth and sixth paragraphs refer to contributions from the Jewish side. On the whole, these three paragraphs reflect the basis of a common Jewish-Catholic position. The possibility of adding a reference to sexual abuse and economic exploitation in the sixth paragraph was considered but then decided against. In the seventh paragraph, the problematic situation of the Holy Land is mentioned, as had also been done in the second declaration. However, this time, a more generic wording was chosen because the word ‘‘peace’’ also has political connotations in some circles in Israel and could be misunderstood. It was then decided to place the whole paragraph within the context of praying for peace. The last point in the declaration mentions the thirtieth anniversary of the establishment of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, which was celebrated after the meeting. The anniversary was celebrated by the Commission together with representatives of the Jewish community of Rome. Inclusion of the reference to the anniversary was, of course, suggested by the Catholic participants, and the Jewish delegation was immediately in favor of including it in the text. At the end of the fourth meeting, the same day on which the joint declaration was made public, a press release was also issued by the press office of the Holy See. It was motivated by the fact that, according to a member of the Jewish delegation, there were rumors in Jerusalem that a ‘‘gay demonstration’’ was being planned in the city. To counter this eventuality, they wanted to reaffirm the sacred character of the city of Jerusalem for the three monotheistic religions of the Book. A second incident was also taken into account during the meeting at Grottaferrata. A few days earlier, a scuffle had been provoked by the irreverent gesture of a Jewish student from a Yeshiva, who had spat at the Armenian Patriarch and grabbed at his crucifix. They wanted to take a position on this matter, which had happened while our discussions were taking place and had received full coverage by the Israeli press, by launching an appeal for the respect of religious people, religious symbols, and sacred places. Originally, the intention had been to hold a press conference in the press office of the Holy See, but since this had not been possible, the following statement was released: Conscious of the fact that there is not wide enough awareness in our respective communities of the momentous change that has taken place in the relationship between Catholics and Jews; and

................. 16673$

CH13

10-23-07 10:18:51

PS

PAGE 173

174 / Norbert J. Hofmann

in light of our own committee’s work and our current discussions on a shared vision for a just and ethical society; we declare: 1. We are not enemies, but unequivocal partners in articulating the essential moral values for the survival and welfare of human society. 2. Jerusalem has a sacred character for all the children of Abraham. We all call on all relevant authorities to respect this character and to prevent actions, which offend the sensibilities of religious communities that reside in Jerusalem and hold her dear. 3. We call on all religious authorities to protest publicly when actions of disrespect towards religious persons, symbols and Holy Sites are committed, such as the desecration of cemeteries and the recent assault on the Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem. We call on them to educate their communities to behave with respect and dignity towards people and towards their attachment to their faith. Both the press release and the joint declaration were issued to the public in the evening of October 19, 2004, at the Pontifical Gregorian University, where the Catholic and the Jewish delegations had been invited for the inauguration of the lecture series The Catholic Church and Judaism from the Second Vatican Council to Today. The speakers that evening were Cardinal Walter Kasper and Dr. Riccardo Di Segni, Chief Rabbi of Rome (see the opening essays in this volume). 5. The Impor tance of This Dialogue When considering the significance of the dialogue between the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, it should first be noted that, from a historical point of view, we are dealing with something completely new. Never before had meetings been held at such a high level between representatives of the Holy See and the main authorities of Orthodox Judaism in Israel. Such openness on the part of Orthodox Judaism in Israel will most certainly have a beneficial impact on the dialogue in other countries as well. Traditionally, Orthodox Judaism has found it difficult to enter into dialogue about religious and theological issues. However, with the emergence of this dialogue, in which it is impossible to neatly separate the purely theological issues from the social or cultural issues, new possibilities begin to open up for the relationship between the Catholic Church and Orthodox Judaism.

................. 16673$

CH13

10-23-07 10:18:51

PS

PAGE 174

A Sign of Great Hope / 175

The fact that, in spite of the difficult situation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, many Jews, especially in Israel, seek a dialogue with the Catholic world is certainly positive. A member of the Catholic delegation is Palestinian by birth; two other members live in Israel. Their knowledge of the concrete situation on the ground therefore plays a part in the discussions. In a meeting with a representative from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs during the course of the third meeting in Jerusalem, the political problems between the Holy See and the State of Israel were openly discussed. This particular dialogue could generate a new openness and therefore, to a certain extent, contribute to a better understanding of each other’s situation. The Christian community represents a small minority in the State of Israel and often finds itself in a difficult situation, especially when it concerns Christians of Palestinian background. Among Israeli Jews, negative stereotypes about Christians appear to persist and to be widespread in the field of education. In light of this, the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel can certainly facilitate a more accurate interpretation of Christianity in the Jewish context. In this regard, too, the visit of Cardinal Walter Kasper to the Chief Rabbinate in May 2004 was important. He made contact with the two chief rabbis of Israel and stressed the relevance of the ongoing dialogue with the Chief Rabbinate by referring to the field of education. Following the attack on the Armenian Patriarch, the chief rabbis of Israel invited the Christian bishops of the Holy Land to jointly and publicly declare the need for mutual respect toward people and symbols of other religions. Such a gesture probably would not have been possible before the dialogue between Jews and Christians was initiated with the participation of the Chief Rabbinate. The willingness to continue to expand on the rich spiritual heritage common to both Jews and Christians is manifested in the various joint declarations, as anticipated by the Counciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate, 4. Each learns from, and is enriched by, the other. Its own identity is strengthened and deepened through contact with the other. These declarations, of course, also mirror the difficult history of the relations between Jews and Christians. Yet an attempt is being made to emphasize what we have in common and to look toward the future with hope. The dialogue between the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel is, undoubtedly, a milestone in the dialogue between Jews and Christians.

................. 16673$

CH13

10-23-07 10:18:52

PS

PAGE 175

................. 16673$

CH13

10-23-07 10:18:52

PS

PAGE 176

Part 5

The New Relationship between the Holy See and the State of Israel

................. 16673$

PRT5

10-23-07 10:17:36

PS

PAGE 177

................. 16673$

PRT5

10-23-07 10:17:36

PS

PAGE 178

14. T h e Vatican and Israel Cardinal Achille Silvestrini

It is not easy to discuss the subject of the relationship between Israel and the Vatican. On the one hand, of course, it is an international, diplomatic relationship. On the other hand, the two parties are unique; the relationship between the two cannot be compared, for instance, to the relationship between France and Spain. We are talking of the Holy See, which is the expression of the highest authority of the Catholic Church (a religious reality). We are also talking of the State of Israel, a state that at the international level is a state like any other, but which at the same time has a special character to the extent that its birth was connected with the return of the Jewish people to its ancestral land (again, a religious reality). Just on the basis of the uniqueness of the two parties, one may intuit the complexity of their relationship, of which the diplomatic relationship is the formal, conclusive act, but an act that was preceded by a long history. In this history, three aspects are decisive. The first is the relationship between the Church and the Jews. This ancient and tormented relationship has gone through radical changes and developments in the last five decades, starting with Pope John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council. The declaration Nostra Aetate clearly expresses this innovation at the beginning of paragraph 4: ‘‘As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham’s stock.’’ From here, we can

................. 16673$

CH14

10-23-07 10:18:51

PS

PAGE 179

180 / Cardinal Achille Silvestrini

understand how the relationship with Judaism has penetrated the depths of the life of the Church. I still remember the emotions present on Good Friday of 1959, when John XXIII suddenly called the master of ceremonies and said, ‘‘Please, eliminate that ‘perfidi’ from the prayer we read on Good Friday.’’ Everything started from that: the visit of Jules Isaac, the work of Cardinal Bea, the visit of Paul VI to the Holy Land in January 1964, down to the visit of John Paul II to Israel. This last event was one of the high points of my ecclesiastical service. I still remember when the pope arrived in the evening at Tel Aviv, welcomed in the most solemn manner by the president, the government, the members of parliament, and the armed forces in a splendor of lights, but a splendor that was still cold. Four days later, when the pontiff left, the same splendor was still there, but at the same time, everyone was deeply moved. It was a striking experience: the prayer at the Western Wall and the visit to Yad Vashem (the Museum of the Shoah). Diplomatic relations had already been established in 1994, but this trip by John Paul II in 2000 represented their completion. The second factor that we must consider is the attention, the solicitude, on the part of the Holy See for the holy places in Jerusalem. This almost jealous attention has always existed. When the establishment of the State of Israel appeared on the near horizon in 1947–48 and the issue was debated by the United Nations, a proposal emerged from the General Assembly that viewed Jerusalem as a distinct entity. With Paul VI and John Paul II, Jerusalem is regarded as a ‘‘holy city’’ for the three religions; they envision a special understanding of the city as a historical and religious reality, so that not only free access to the various places of worship would be guaranteed (something that Israel has always allowed), but also a statute would be drafted making sure that the three religious communities could live and develop together. The third crucial element is the historical-political one: the wars and the prospects for peace in the region. It is not accidental that the decision to establish diplomatic relations between the Vatican and Israel was taken when the Madrid talks were just beginning (1991). The question was then often raised, ‘‘Why does the Holy See not recognize Israel?’’ In fact, I remember that at the Secretariat of State we always took the existence of Israel for granted; there were significant contacts even in the absence of formal diplomatic relations. I remember many events marked by the presence of Israeli delegations: the deaths of John XXIII and Paul VI, the conclusion of the Ecumenical Council, and the

................. 16673$

CH14

10-23-07 10:18:51

PS

PAGE 180

The Vatican and Israel / 181

enthronements of John Paul I and John Paul II. Of course, the question of diplomatic relations remained. It was slow progress, but one that in the end brought significant results. In October 1991, a meeting of cardinals expressed a vote in favor of a moderate, cautious, and progressive normalization of the bilateral relationships between the Holy See and the State of Israel. A little later, between January and July 1992, the apostolic delegate to Palestine had a series of meetings with high-ranking officials of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, establishing two things: a permanent bilateral working commission and the drafting of a list of discussion topics. This list included a series of themes that would later be defined by the Fundamental Agreement: freedom of religion and of conscience, legal and administrative relations, Catholic worship in the holy places, Catholic educational institutions in Israel, means of social communication, the way that Catholics viewed problems related to social welfare, ecclesiastical properties, and fiscal problems. This agenda for the future also included a period for the normalization of diplomatic relations, which is still going on; cooperation in fighting antisemitism; the promotion of pilgrimages to the Holy Land; cultural exchanges; and so forth. The bilateral working commission began its activity. It had two levels: one including officials and experts, and one including the respective deputy foreign ministers. Finally, the project of the Fundamental Agreement was signed on October 31, 1992. One of the goals of the Holy See was to guarantee the juridical security of the Church and Catholic institutions, establishing a normalization of the relationships between them and Israel (of course, the Holy See kept the other churches and Christian communities informed and welcomed their suggestions, even if it did not represent them). A further issue was to define the status of the Catholic entities under the jurisdiction of the State of Israel, then finally, to favor the political developments of the peace process (the Holy See had in fact announced its readiness to participate in the peace negotiations, but this suggestion was dismissed, as there had yet been no negotiations on the status of Jerusalem). In that period, there were many contacts between the Holy See and the Arab countries, which in general wanted to slow this process down; at a certain point, however, the more moderate countries (such as Jordan) started to view this process more favorably (the fact that on October 25, 1994, Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel was not unrelated to these events).

................. 16673$

CH14

10-23-07 10:18:52

PS

PAGE 181

182 / Cardinal Achille Silvestrini

The Fundamental Agreement, for its part, was signed on December 30, 1993, and it became binding on May 10, 1994. Some points of this Fundamental Agreement are worthy of our particular attention (see appendix 4). The preamble, in all its parts, is very significant, underscoring the historical development of the relations between Jews and Christians. Article 1 emphasizes how both the State of Israel and the Holy See recognize the principle of freedom of religion and of conscience. Article 2 affirms a strong condemnation of racism and antisemitism. Article 3 is fundamental from the political point of view; in the first paragraph, the two parties reciprocally acknowledge their respective sovereignty. In the second, in relation to an issue that the Church considered particularly important, the State of Israel acknowledges in its fullness the religious, charitable, and educational activities of the Catholic Church (and the same is done by the Holy See for the State of Israel). Finally, there is an acknowledgment of all the ecclesiastical entities in their juridical personality, and there is mention of the negotiations that would lead to the 1997 agreement. In article 4, there is a reference to the preservation of the status quo as far as the holy places are concerned; as is well known, this status quo goes back to the Ottoman Empire, when the holy places of Christianity started to be regulated by three authorities: Armenian, (Greek) Orthodox, and the Catholic Custody of the Holy Land. The agreement of December 10, 1997, resulted in the later recognition of the juridical personality of the Eastern Catholic Patriarchates (such as those of the Syrio-Catholics and the Maronites), of the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and of their respective dioceses in the territory of Israel. What is still missing is an agreement on fiscal questions (already foreseen as imminent in article 10 of the Fundamental Agreement); negotiations are still taking place, and we hope they shall soon reach a conclusion. Yet another problem that needs resolution concerns the release of residence permits to ecclesiastical personnel. Finally, we need to find an agreement concerning spiritual assistance to people who have no freedom of movement because they find themselves in prison or in the hospital. In any case, the importance of the Fundamental Agreement is beyond question. It clearly shows how, over the past years, closer relationships have come to be established between the Holy See and the State of Israel.

................. 16673$

CH14

10-23-07 10:18:53

PS

PAGE 182

The Vatican and Israel / 183

In conclusion, I would like to mention a few speeches that marked the encounter between Pope John Paul II and the highest religious and political authorities of the State of Israel during the pope’s trip to the Holy Land in March 2000. I was a witness to those meetings, and I must say that they were truly extraordinary occasions. At the airport, in his greeting to President Weizman, the pontiff pronounced a some memorable words: Today, it is with profound emotion that I set foot in the Land where God chose to ‘‘pitch his tent.’’ . . . Many things have changed in relations between the Holy See and the State of Israel since my predecessor Pope Paul VI came here in 1964. The establishment of diplomatic relations between us in 1994 set a seal on efforts to open an era of dialogue on questions of common interest concerning religious freedom, relations between Church and State and, more generally, relations between Christians and Jews. On another level, world opinion follows with close attention the peace process which finds all the peoples of the region involved in the difficult search for a lasting peace with justice for all. . . . We must strive always and everywhere to present the true face of the Jews and of Judaism, as likewise of Christians and of Christianity. President Weizman also said a number of important things: Many generations have passed from the beginning of the history of my people, but to my eyes it is as if only a few days had passed. Two hundred generations have come, one after the other, from the time a man called Abraham came upon the stage of history, and one hundred and fifty generations divide the pillar of fire that marked the redemption of the Exodus from Egypt, from the pillars of smoke which marked the annihilation of the Shoah. Two thousand years ago the people of Israel was exiled from its country, from its land, was dispersed among the nations, in countries all over the different continents. Today I and my brothers and my sisters were born at the time of the return of the Jews to their land, of the reestablishment of their fatherland. We appreciate the contribution of Your Holiness to the condemnation of antisemitism, defined as ‘‘a sin against God and against humanity.’’. . . The State of Israel is today engaged in a peace process which

................. 16673$

CH14

10-23-07 10:18:53

PS

PAGE 183

184 / Cardinal Achille Silvestrini

moves and encourages us. . . . This evening, Your Holiness, You come to Jerusalem, the city of peace, the city of eternity. These are among the words read by the chief rabbis when the pope went to visit them: We welcome one who saw fit to express remorse in the name of the Catholic Church for the terrible deeds committed against the Jewish people during the course of the past two thousand years. . . . We appreciate as well his recognition of our right to return to, and live in, the Holy Land in peace and brotherhood within secure borders recognized by the nations of the world and especially by our neighbors. When the pope went to Yad Vashem, Prime Minister Barak, then the head of the Israeli government, emphasized how the pope had witnessed what had happened in Germany and in Poland: ‘‘You were there and you remembered. . . . And I can say, Your Holiness, that your coming here today, to the Tent of Remembrance at Yad Vashem, is a climax of this historic journey of healing. Here, right now, time itself has come to a standstill—this very moment holds within it two thousand years of history. . . . We may not avoid [this burden of memory], because without memory there can be neither culture nor conscience.’’ The following are a few of the sentences pronounced by the pope on that occasion: In this place of memories, the mind and heart and soul feel an extreme need for silence. . . . My own personal memories are of all that happened when the Nazis occupied Poland during the War. I remember my Jewish friends and neighbors, some of whom perished, while others survived. . . . Here, as at Auschwitz and many other places in Europe, we are overcome by the echo of the heart-rending laments of so many. Men, women and children cry out to us from the depths of the horror that they knew. . . . The honor given to the ‘‘righteous gentiles’’ by the State of Israel at Yad Vashem for having acted heroically to save Jews, sometimes to the point of giving their own lives, is a recognition that not even in the darkest hour is every light extinguished. . . . We remember, but not with any desire for vengeance or as an incentive to hatred. For us, to remember is to pray for peace and

................. 16673$

CH14

10-23-07 10:18:54

PS

PAGE 184

The Vatican and Israel / 185

justice, and to commit ourselves to their cause. . . . As Bishop of Rome and Successor of the Apostle Peter, I assure the Jewish people that the Catholic Church, motivated by the Gospel law of truth and love and by no political considerations, is deeply saddened by the hatred, acts of persecution and displays of antisemitism directed against the Jews by Christians at any time and in any place. The Church rejects racism in any form as a denial of the image of the Creator inherent in every human being (cf. Gen. 1:26). . . . The world must heed the warning that comes to us from the victims of the Holocaust and from the testimony of the survivors. Here at Yad Vashem the memory lives on, and burns itself onto our souls. It makes us cry out: ‘‘I hear the whispering of many— terror on every side!—But I trust in you, O Lord; I say, ’You are my God’’’ (Ps. 31:13–15).

................. 16673$

CH14

10-23-07 10:18:54

PS

PAGE 185

15. T h e St a t e o f Israel and the Ho l y Se e Oded Ben-Hur

It is impossible to try to explain in a short time such a complex issue as the one concerning the relations between Israel and the Holy See. In this regard, I would like to tell an anecdote. An Israeli meets an American friend in Jerusalem, and in typical Israeli style—maybe acting a little too forward—he asks the American when did he arrive, when will he leave, and the reason for his visit. The American replies that he had arrived the day before, would leave the day after, and came to write a book about Israel. The Israeli wonders how can it be possible to write a book about Israel in three days, and when he enquires on the title, he is told, ‘‘Israel: yesterday, today, and tomorrow.’’ The relations between the Holy See and Israel unfold on three levels: 1. The relations between the Holy See as the center of the world’s Catholicism and Israel as the center of the Jewish world. 2. The relations between the Vatican as the center of Catholicism and Israel as a political entity. 3. The relations between the two states. I move very carefully along these three levels. I would like to say that we are moving forward, despite these relations being unprecedented. The relations between the Holy See and the State of Israel are unique and form a special model in the world of diplomacy and political science.

................. 16673$

CH15

10-23-07 10:18:51

PS

PAGE 186

The State of Israel and the Holy See / 187

Thus far, between the Jewish world—Israel included—and the Christian one, there has been a lack of mutual knowledge. This is mainly due to the gap created by hatred, antisemitism, persecutions, crusades, and inqusitions that have left suspicion and fear in the Jewish world. Furthermore, ever since its foundation in 1948, every Israeli government has had to perform the job of a firefighter, constantly fighting against the fire of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sixty years after Auschwitz, Israel still does not have recognized borders and must fight for its legitimization. Israel was born in a context of emergency and it has not known a period of calm and peace since its independence in 1948. Under such conditions, it was quite difficult to plan its relations with the Christian world or with the 200 million Arabs surrounding Israel. Throughout the second half of the twentieth century, there have been attempts by Israel to establish diplomatic relations with the Holy See, but only thanks to the vision and courage of John Paul II was there a formal acknowledgment, which helped formalize those relations in 1994. When I presented my letters of credence, I wrote to the pope that he had created four very important milestones along the path of the tightening of the relations between Jews, the State of Israel, the Vatican, and the Catholic world. 1. The trip to Auschwitz a few months after his elevation to the papacy in 1978, which was considered to be an extraordinary gesture on his part toward the Jewish world and toward Israel. 2. The visit in 1986 to the Great Synagogue of Rome and the embrace of Chief Rabbi Toaff. Walking this short distance, the pope closed a historical cycle, symbolically bringing the whole Catholic Church with him to the first century’s synagogue of Capernaum, where Jesus and St. Peter used to pray. 3. The signing of the Fundamental Agreement between Israel and the Holy See in 1993 (see appendix 3) followed by the acknowledgment of the State of Israel by the Vatican. 4. The papal pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the Holy Year 2000. The Fundamental Agreement establishes the relations between Israel and the Holy See and lays the framework of cultural exchanges, education, the fight against antisemitism, freedom of religion, and pilgrimage. Part of it refers to the legal, financial, and economic rights of the

................. 16673$

CH15

10-23-07 10:18:51

PS

PAGE 187

188 / Oded Ben-Hur

Catholic communities in Israel, to be established later. The signing of the agreement on these issues was expected by the end of 1995, but because of the aforementioned reasons, the issue has not been concluded until today. The relations between us might not have taken off the way they were meant to, but they are on the verge of doing so now, and we hope to achieve good results in the near future. I shall not list all the extant problems lying behind these negotiations. It will suffice to say that they may be divided into three categories. 1. Matters of the taxation of the Catholic communities living in Israel. 2. Matters of property, ownership of holy places and ecclesiastical properties. 3. Legal matters pertaining to access to the Israeli court. We are facing huge difficulties, but I am satisfied with the progress that we are making. Our relations with the Vatican are experiencing a phase of acceleration and we are witnessing a constant improvement. The chief rabbis of Israel and important cardinals often gather in occasions of dialogue between representatives of the Catholic and Jewish religions, meetings that help in building a human infrastructure for the development of our relations, such as called for by the Fundamental Agreement. Recently, we celebrated the thirtieth anniversary of the foundation of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. In this regard, I am happy to announce that we have created the first association of ‘‘Catholic Friends of Israel.’’ Furthermore, in visiting the Italian dioceses, I meet bishops and promote the idea of encouraging pilgrimages to our territories. We have great plans, great programs. Our aim is to strengthen relations with the Catholic world, one of the largest religious communities on earth, with over a billion faithful, representing over one-fifth of the world’s population. Besides the fact that Israel cannot ignore the potentiality of the large number of Catholics, I believe that there are many other good reasons for our cooperation, such as our common roots and converging interests in the academic, scientific, economic, and political fields. In the Middle East, as well as in the rest of the world, we are currently facing the problem of the growth of extremist Islam and Islamic terror that, unfortunately, in Israel we have suffered for a long time.

................. 16673$

CH15

10-23-07 10:18:52

PS

PAGE 188

The State of Israel and the Holy See / 189

This tragic reality prevents the realization of the ‘‘road map’’ to peace. Regrettably, we have to deal with large groups of Palestinian extremists, who hold hostage the Palestinian and the Israeli future, sow terror, and make it difficult for the peace process to evolve. Biased media representations of the reality in our region render it almost impossible for onlookers to distinguish between the causes and the results of the events that are reported. Outside of Israel, it is impossible to grasp the meaning of the fact that an Israeli mother never sends two children on the same bus, thinking that, should anything happen, at least one of the two will come back home safe and sound. This situation creates uneasiness also within the Catholic communities of the Holy Land, which, often threatened and terrorized by their Palestinian brothers, are forced to flee from cities such as Bethlehem. In Israel, by contrast, the Catholic communities are constantly growing. The Israeli government and people are aware of the fact that the future of the Catholic communities in Israel depends on and intertwines with the future of Israel. A strong and prosperous Israel living in peace with its neighbors is the only guarantee for the well-being, security, and prosperity of the Catholic communities living in Israel. As for what concerns the Catholic Church, I believe that it plays a fundamental role in the area. One of its greatest functions would be to encourage an increasing stream of pilgrims in the area, with the purpose of sending a reassuring message of peace and calm and of helping economically Palestinians and the Catholic communities as well as Israel. This streaming of pilgrims would also provide a further reason for the Palestinians to fight the extremists among them, so that there would no longer be terror attacks in Israel. In short, we believe that the flow of masses of pilgrims at this stage renders a tremendous contribution and helps to revive the peace process as well as stimulate the economy in our region. The Catholic Church has always promoted peace all around the world and can really contribute to the solution of the problem of terrorism. This can be achieved only through joint ventures and the cooperation of the international community. Pope John Paul II used to emphasize repeatedly the fact that the peoples of the Middle East, the Arab countries, Israel, and the Palestinians are condemned to live together, and I believe it to be true. One of the most accomplished and well-known Israeli authors, Amos Oz, has compared the relations between Israelis and Palestinians to those existing

................. 16673$

CH15

10-23-07 10:18:52

PS

PAGE 189

190 / Oded Ben-Hur

within a married couple, stating that ‘‘maybe we are not looking for a honeymoon between us; rather, in the best of cases, we are trying to reach a consensual divorce.’’ This consensual divorce appears complicated because usually, in such a case, either the husband or the wife leaves the house. In our case, instead, we shall be divorced and continue to live together, because of the geographical conditions, we will have to share the same dwelling, the same ground, the same water, and the same economy. The dialogue among the peoples of this region was not able to take place for another sad reason—so far, Israel has not found a counterpart on the Palestinian side with whom to dialogue. We know, though, that most Palestinians want peace or wish to be left in peace—which for us is just fine. Maybe the time has come, with the help of the Catholic Church, Europe, and the United States, to achieve a solution. Just as Prime Minister Sharon underscored in 2003, it is in Israel’s interest to withdraw from the territories and dismantle the settlements with the purpose of favoring the creation of a Palestinian State side by side with Israel. In the Middle East, we have already tried every solution except that of peace. Strangely enough, hope can come from an unexpected source, and that is from the fact that both sides, after so many sacrifices, so many deaths, so much bloodshed, and so many disasters, desire to put an end to this long-lasting crisis. Despite all that, we Israelis are optimistic; we cannot afford the luxury of being pessimistic. I would like to quote, in this regard, the words of the first Israeli prime minister, David Ben Gurion, who used to say, ‘‘In Jerusalem, if you do not believe in miracles, you are not realistic.’’

................. 16673$

CH15

10-23-07 10:18:53

PS

PAGE 190

Appendix 1: Drafts L eading to the C onciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate

A. Decretum de Iudaeis (November, 1961)

The Church, the Bride of Christ, acknowledges with a heart full of gratitude that, according to God’s mysterious saving design, the beginnings of her faith and election go as far back as to the Israel of the Patriarchs and Prophets. Thus she acknowledges that all Christian believers, Abraham’s children by faith (see Gal. 3:7), are included in his call. Similarly, her salvation is prefigured in the deliverance of the chosen people out of Egypt, as in a sacramental sign (Liturgy of the Easter Vigil). And the Church, a new creation in Christ (see Eph. 2:15), can never forget that she is the spiritual continuation of the people with whom, in His mercy and gracious condescension, God made the Old Covenant. The Church, in fact, believes that Christ, who ‘‘is our peace,’’ embraces Jews and Gentiles with one and the same love and that He made the two one (see Eph. 2:14). She rejoices that the union of these two ‘‘in one body’’ (Eph. 2:16) proclaims the whole world’s reconciliation in Christ. Even though the greater part of the Jewish people has remained separated from Christ, it would be an injustice to call this people accursed, since they are greatly beloved for the sake of the Fathers and the promises made to them (see Rom. 11:28). The Church loves this people. From them sprang Christ the Lord, who reigns in glory in heaven; from them sprang the Virgin Mary, mother of all Christians; from them came the Apostles, the pillars and the bulwark of the Church (1 Tim. 3:15).

................. 16673$

APP1

10-23-07 10:17:27

PS

PAGE 191

192 / Appendix 1

Furthermore, the Church believes in the union of the Jewish people with herself as an integral part of Christian hope. With unshaken faith and deep longing the Church awaits union with this people. At the time of Christ’s coming, ‘‘a remnant chosen by grace’’ (Rom. 11:5), the very first fruits of the Church, accepted the Eternal Word. The Church believes, however, with the Apostle that at the appointed time, the fullness of the children of Abraham according to the flesh will embrace Him who is salvation (see Rom. 11:12, 26). Their acceptance will be life from the dead (see Rom. 11:15). As the Church, like a mother, condemns most severely injustices committed against innocent people everywhere, so she raises her voice in loud protest against all wrongs done to Jews, whether in the past or in our time. Whoever despises or persecutes this people does injury to the Catholic Church. Source: John M. Osterreicher, The New Encounter between Christian and Jews (New York: Philosophical Library, 1985), 158–59; see also the Latin text in Acta et Documenta Concilio Ecumenico Vaticano II apparando, Series II [Praeparatoria] (Vatican: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1969), pars 2, 3:458. All the texts in this appendix have been collected, in part translated, and edited by Maria Brutti.

B. On the Attitude of Catholics toward Non-Christians and Especially toward Jews (November 8, 1963)

Having dealt with the basic principle of Catholic Ecumenism, we do not wish to pass over in silence the fact that these principles are also to be applied, with due regard to the given situation, to dialogues and acts of cooperation with people who are not Christians, but adore God or, at least, animated by God’s will, try to keep the moral law implanted in human nature following their consciences. This is particularly true of the Jews who, after all, are linked to the Church to an extraordinary degree. The Church of Christ acknowledges with a heart full of gratitude that, according to God’s mysterious saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election can already be found among the Patriarchs and Prophets. For all Christian believers, Abraham’s children by faith (cf. Gal. 3:7), are included in the same Patriarch’s call and the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed in the deliverance of the chosen people out of the land of bondage. The Church, a new creation

................. 16673$

APP1

10-23-07 10:17:28

PS

PAGE 192

Drafts Leading to the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate / 193

in Christ (cf. Eph. 2:15), can never forget that she is the spiritual continuation of the people with whom, in His mercy and gracious condescension, God made the Old Covenant. In addition the Church believes that Christ, our Peace, embraced both Jews and Gentiles with one and the same love and that He made the two one (cf. Eph. 2:14) and by the union of these two in one body (cf. Eph. 2:16) proclaims the whole world’s reconciliation in Christ. Even though a greater part of the chosen people are still far from Christ, it would be an injustice to call this people accursed, since they are greatly beloved by God for the sake of the Fathers and the gifts given to them (cf. Rom. 11:28), or a deicidal people, since the Lord, by his passion and death, washes away the sins of all men, which were the cause of the passion and death of Jesus Christ (cf. Lk. 23:34; Acts 3:17; 1 Cor. 2:8). Yet the death of Christ is not to be attributed to an entire people then alive, and far less to a people today. Therefore, let priests be careful not to say anything, in catechetical instruction or in preaching, that might give rise to hatred or contempt of the Jews in the hearts of their hearers. Nor does the Church forget that Christ Jesus was born of this people according to the flesh, that the Virgin Mary, the Mother of Christ, was thus born, that thus were born the Apostles, the pillars and the bulwark of the Church. Since the patrimony common both to the Church and the Synagogue is thus of such a magnitude, this Sacred Synod wants to foster and recommend in every way mutual understanding and respect which is, above all, the fruit of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues; moreover, in her rejection of injustices of any kind and wherever inflicted upon people, with a maternal heart deplores and condemns hatred and persecution of the Jews, whether it arose in the past or in our own times. Source: Translation from the original Latin text, see Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Ecumenici Vaticani Secundi (Vatican: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1970–1999), pars 5 (1973), 2:431–32.

C. Appendix to the Declaration on Ecumenism on the Jews

(March, 1964) With a heart full of gratitude, the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God’s mysterious saving design, the beginnings of her

................. 16673$

APP1

10-23-07 10:17:28

PS

PAGE 193

194 / Appendix 1

faith and her election can already be found among the Patriarchs and Prophets. For all Christian believers, Abraham’s children by faith (cf. Gal. 3:7) are included in the same Patriarch’s call and the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed in the deliverance of the chosen people out of the land of bondage. The Church, a new creation in Christ (cf. Eph. 2:15) and people of the New Covenant can never forget that she is the continuation of that people with whom God, in His inexpressible mercy, was once pleased to enter into the Old Covenant and to whom He chose to entrust the revelation contained in the Books of the Old Testament.3 Indeed, the Church believes that Christ, our Peace, freely faced His passion and death, because of the sins of all people. Nor does the Church forget that Christ was born of the Jewish people according to the flesh, that the Virgin Mary, the Mother of Christ, was thus born, that thus were born the Apostles, the bulwark and the pillars of the Church. Since the patrimony common both to Christians and Jews is thus of such a magnitude, this Sacred Synod wants to foster and recommend in every way mutual understanding and respect which is, above all, the fruit of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues; moreover, in her rejection of injustices of any kind and wherever inflicted upon people, deplores and condemns hatred and persecution of the Jews, whether it arose in the past or in our own times. May all, then, ensure that in their catechetical work or in their preaching they never present the Jewish people as one rejected, cursed, or guilty of deicide nor do teach anything that could give rise to hatred or contempt of the Jews in the hearts of Christians. For all such words or actions would be contrary to the will of Jesus Christ, who embraces Jews and Gentiles with one and the same love. Source: Translation from the original Latin text, see Acta Synodalia, pars 2 (1990), 5:283–84.

D. Second Declaration on the Jews and Non-Christians

(September 28–29, 1964) On the inheritance common to Christians and Jews The Church of Christ gladly acknowledges that, according to God’s mysterious saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election

................. 16673$

APP1

10-23-07 10:17:28

PS

PAGE 194

Drafts Leading to the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate / 195

can already be found among the Patriarchs and Prophets. For all Christian believers, Abraham’s children by faith (cf. Gal. 3:7), are included in the same Patriarch’s call and the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the deliverance of the chosen people out of the land of bondage. The Church, a new creation in Christ (cf. Eph. 2:15) and people of the New Covenant, can never forget that she is the continuation of that people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy was once pleased to enter into the Old Covenant and to whom He chose to entrust the revelation contained in the Books of the Old Testament. Moreover, the Church does not forget that Christ was born of this Jewish people according to the flesh, that the Virgin Mary, the Mother of Christ, was thus born, that thus were born the Apostles, the bulwark and the pillars of the Church. Further, the Church is always mindful and will never overlook the words of the Apostle Paul relating to the Jews, ‘‘theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises’’ (Rom. 9:4). It is also worth remembering that the union of the Jewish people with the Church is a part of the Christian hope. Therefore, following the teaching of the Apostle Paul (cf. Rom. 11:25), the Church waits with unshaken faith and deep longing for the entry of that people into the fullness of the people of God established by Christ. Since the patrimony common both to Christians and Jews is thus of such a magnitude, this Sacred Synod wants to foster and recommend in every way mutual understanding and respect, which is, above all, the fruit of theological studies, as well as of fraternal dialogues, and, beyond that, in her rejection of injustices of any kind and wherever inflicted upon people, deplores and condemns hatred and persecution against the Jews, whether it arose in the past or in our own times. Therefore, everyone should be careful not to present the Jewish people as a rejected nation, whether in catechetical instruction, in the preaching of God’s Word, or in everyday conversation. Neither should anything be said or done that could alienate human minds from the Jews. Equally, all should be on their guard not to impute to the Jews of our time that which was perpetrated in the Passion of Christ. Source: Translation from the original Latin text, see Acta Synodalia, pars 8 (1976), 3:640–41.

................. 16673$

APP1

10-23-07 10:17:29

PS

PAGE 195

196 / Appendix 1

E. Declaration on the Church’s Relationship to NonChristian Religions (November 18, 1964)

4. [About the Jews] As this Sacred Synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham’s stock. Thus, with a heart full of gratitude, the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God’s mysterious saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election can already be found among the Patriarchs, Moses, and the Prophets. She professes that all Christian believers, Abraham’s children by faith, are included in the same Patriarch’s call and the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed in the deliverance of the chosen people out of the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, can never forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament from the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy was once pleased to enter into the Old Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that wellcultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles (cf. Rom. 11:17–24). Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, our Peace, reconciled the Jews and Gentiles, thus making the two one. The Church always keeps in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: ‘‘theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh’’ (Rom. 9:4–5), the son of Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the bulwark and pillars of the Church, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ’s Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people. Even though a greater part of the Jews did not accept the Gospel, nevertheless, as the Apostle testifies, they are still greatly beloved by God, whose gifts and call are irrevocable, for the sake of the Fathers. In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and ‘‘serve Him shoulder to shoulder’’ (Zeph. 3:9). Since the spiritual patrimony common both to Christians and Jews is thus of such a magnitude, this Sacred Synod wants to foster and recommend mutual understanding and respect which is, above all, the fruit

................. 16673$

APP1

10-23-07 10:17:30

PS

PAGE 196

Drafts Leading to the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate / 197

of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues. Moreover, this Synod, in her rejection of injustices of any kind and wherever inflicted upon people, and recalling that common patrimony, deplores and condemns hatred and persecution of Jews, whether it arose in the past or in our own times. All should then ensure that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the Word of God they do not teach anything that could give rise to hatred or contempt of Jews in the hearts of Christians. May they never present the Jewish people as one rejected, accursed, or guilty of deicide. All that happened to Christ in His passion can in no way be attributed to the whole people then alive, much less to the people of today. Besides, the Church has always held, and still holds, that Christ freely faced His passion and death, because of the sins of all people and out of infinite love. Therefore, Christian preaching is to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God’s all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows. Source: Translation from original Latin text, see ibid., 639–41.

F. Declaration on the Church’s Relationship to NonChristian Religions: Amendments (March and May 1965)

4. [On the Jewish Religion] As the Sacred Synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham’s stock. Thus the Church of Christ . . . acknowledges that, according to God’s mysterious saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are already found among the Patriarchs, Moses, and the Prophets. . . . The Church, therefore, can never forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through this people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy was once pleased to enter into the Old Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that wellcultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles. Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles, thus making the two one in Himself.

................. 16673$

APP1

10-23-07 10:17:30

PS

PAGE 197

198 / Appendix 1

As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation, nor did a greater part of the Jews accept the Gospel; indeed not just a few opposed its spreading. Nevertheless, as the Apostle testifies, the Jews are still greatly beloved by God, whose gifts and call are irrevocable, for the sake of the Fathers. True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews therefore should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this came from the Holy Scriptures. All should then ensure that, in catechetical work or in the preaching of the Word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ. Furthermore, in her rejection of every form of persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecution, or displays of antisemitism directed against Jews at any time and by anyone. Besides, as the Church has always held and still holds, Christ freely faced His passion and death, because of the sins of all people and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. Therefore, Christian preaching is to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God’s allembracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows. Source: Translation from the original Latin text, see Acta Synodalia, pars 4 (1977), 4:693–95.

G. Declaration on the Church’s Relationship to NonChristian Religions (September 30, 1965)

4. As the Sacred Synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham’s stock. Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God’s mysterious saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses, and the Prophets. She professes that all Christian believers, Abraham’s children by faith, are included in the same Patriarch’s call and the salvation of the Church is

................. 16673$

APP1

10-23-07 10:17:31

PS

PAGE 198

Drafts Leading to the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate / 199

mysteriously foreshadowed in the deliverance of the chosen people out of the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, can never forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy was once pleased to enter into the Old Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that wellcultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles. Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles, thus making the two one in Himself. The Church always keeps in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: ‘‘theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh’’ (Rom. 9:4–5), the son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the bulwark and pillars of the Church, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ’s Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people. As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation, nor did a greater part of the Jews accept the Gospel; indeed not just a few opposed its spreading. Nevertheless, as the Apostle testifies, the Jews are still greatly beloved by God, whose gifts and call are irrevocable for the sake of the Fathers. In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and ‘‘serve Him shoulder to shoulder’’ (Zeph. 3:9). Since the spiritual patrimony common both to Christians and Jews is thus of such a magnitude, this Sacred Synod wants to foster and recommend mutual understanding and respect which is, above all, the fruit of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues. True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews therefore should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this came from the Holy Scriptures. All should then ensure that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

................. 16673$

APP1

10-23-07 10:17:32

PS

PAGE 199

200 / Appendix 1

Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecution, displays of antisemitism directed against Jews at any time and by anyone. Besides, as the Church has always held and still holds, Christ freely faced His passion and death, because of the sins of all people and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. Therefore, Christian preaching is to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God’s allembracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows. Source: Translation from the original Latin text, see ibid., 693–95. This text corresponds to that proclaimed by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on October 28, 1965.

................. 16673$

APP1

10-23-07 10:17:32

PS

PAGE 200

Appendix 2: Jo i n t Declarations of t he In t e r n a t i o n a l Catholic -Jewish L i a i s o n Co m m i t t e e ( I LC )

A. Memorandum of Understanding

Vatican City, December, 1970 In the relationship between Catholics and Jews the concerns of both groups are religiously based but they extend over the whole complex of what people do wherever they live. A model of the practical development of this relationship must therefore be based on a structure which has religious faith as its premise. It must be so organized as to respect absolutely the integrity of both our faiths and it finds its justification in a shared responsibility based on biblical faith towards one another and towards the world. Two main areas of concern can be distinguished: 1. Questions concerning our mutual relationship (a) Manifestations of antisemitism in various parts of the world. Obstacles in Jewish-Christian relations. Origin and causes of the lack of mutual confidence. (b) Elimination of antisemitism in all its forms as demanded by the Vatican Declaration Nostra Aetate, particularly in text-books of religious teaching and history in order to present respectfully Judaism according to its own understanding on all levels of teaching and education. Liturgical and para-liturgical texts and expressions should

................. 16673$

APP2

10-23-07 10:17:32

PS

PAGE 201

202 / Appendix 2

be examined with a view to avoiding offensive references to or representations of Judaism, without compromising the legitimate differences between the Church and Judaism. (c) Promotion of mutual understanding by a fair and adequate presentation of our respective faiths in their specific identities through all means of education. At a later stage studies might be undertaken of the common heritage of Jews and Christians in order to further the understanding both of each other and of their common responsibility to humanity and the world. (d) Amongst the problems concerning mutual understanding, special attention should be given to the ways in which the relationship between religious community, people and land are conceived in the Jewish and Christian traditions respectively. 2. Questions of common concern (a) The promotion of justice and peace in the world, as well as of human freedom and dignity; the fight against poverty and racism and all forms of discrimination, and the protection of human rights, both of individuals or groups, should be fields of special collaboration between Christians and Jews. Religious liberty should be a joint concern in all cases where it is threatened or denied. (b) Study should be made of the ways in which Judaism and Christianity as communities deriving from the biblical faith in one God as Creator, concerned with the fate of this world, can face together the problems besetting religion in the modern age. (c) The respective relations of Judaism and Christianity to other world religions should be considered as an important field of study. Special attention should be given in this respect to Islam as the other great monotheistic religion. B. A Common Declaration on Antisemitism 13th Meeting—Prague, Czechoslovakia, September 3–6, 1990 Representatives of the International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations and the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews met in Prague Sept. 3–6. This was the 13th meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee. Before the deliberations began, the Catholic and Jewish delegations made a visit of homage to Theresienstadt, one of the Nazi death camps.

................. 16673$

APP2

10-23-07 10:17:32

PS

PAGE 202

Joint Declarations of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee / 203

The last meeting of this committee took place in Rome in 1985. Difficulties which arose led to a delay of a further meeting until now. However, during these years the steering committee continued to meet on a regular basis to enable its work to proceed. In a special meeting of the Holy See’s commission and IJCIC in Rome in 1987, it was foreseen that the next meeting would seek to lay the basis for the presentation of a Catholic document on the Shoah, the historical background of antisemitism and its contemporary manifestations. The intention to prepare such a document was confirmed by the Holy See’s commission. In this connection, the meeting in Prague discussed the religious as well as the secular basis of anti-Semitism over the past 1,900 years and its relationship to the Shoah. This discussion led to the recognition that certain traditions of Catholic thought, teaching, preaching and practice in the patristic period and in the Middle Ages contributed to the creation of antisemitism in Western society. In modern times many Catholics were not vigilant enough to react against manifestations of antisemitism. The Catholic delegates condemned antisemitism as well as all forms of racism as a sin against God and humanity, and affirmed that one cannot be authentically Christian and engage in antisemitism. At the conference, Jewish and Catholic witnesses to the Shoah spoke of their experiences. They offered testimony that many Christians failed themselves as well as Jews and other victims by too weak a response to Nazi and fascist ideologies. Witness was also given to the many courageous Christian church leaders and members who acted to save Jews, thereby risking their own lives during the Nazi terror. Nor was it forgotten that people other than Jews also perished. The conference acknowledged the monumental role of the declaration of the Second Vatican Council Nostra Aetate as well as later efforts by the popes and church officials to bring about a substantive improvement in Catholic-Jewish relations. Nostra Aetate created a new spirit in these relationships. Pope John Paul II expressed that new spirit in an audience with Jewish leaders on Feb. 15, 1985, when he said, The relationships between Jews and Christians have radically improved in these years. Where there was ignorance and therefore prejudice and stereotype, there is now growing mutual knowledge, appreciation and respect. There is, above all, love between us: that kind of love I mean which is for both of us a fundamental

................. 16673$

APP2

10-23-07 10:17:33

PS

PAGE 203

204 / Appendix 2

injunction of our religious traditions and which the New Testament has received from the Old. While echoing the pope’s recognition that a new spirit is in the making, the delegates called for a deepening of this spirit in Catholic-Jewish relations, a spirit which emphasizes cooperation, mutual understanding and reconciliation, good will and common goals to replace the past spirit of suspicion, resentment and distrust. This spirit presupposes repentance as expressed by Archbishop Edward Idris Cassidy, president of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, when he said in his opening statement: ‘‘That antisemitism has found a place in Christian thought and practice calls for an act of teshuvah (repentance) and of reconciliation on our part as we gather here in this city, which is a testimony to our failure to be authentic witnesses to our faith at times in the past.’’ This new spirit would also manifest itself in the work that the two faith communities could do together to respond to the needs of today’s world. This need is for the establishment of human rights, freedom and dignity where they are lacking or imperiled and for responsible stewardship of the environment. A new image and a new attitude in JewishCatholic relations are required to spread universally the trailblazing work that has been done in a number of communities in various parts of the world. For example, in the United States an ongoing structure engaging in Catholic-Jewish dialogue recently issued a joint document on the teaching of moral values in public education. Furthermore, the Catholic Church there is effectively working to teach Judaism in its seminaries, school texts and educational materials in a positive and objective manner, scrupulously eliminating anything that would go against the spirit of Vatican Council II. Likewise, the Jewish community in the United States, in a growing atmosphere of confidence and trust, has conducted its own self-study of its texts in terms of what Jewish schools teach about Christians and Christianity. Many similar examples of such Catholic and Jewish initiatives in other countries could be cited. Over and above the study of the history of antisemitism, the meeting devoted special attention to recent manifestations of antisemitism particularly in Eastern and Central Europe. It stressed the need to disseminate the achievements of Nostra Aetate and past Catholic-Jewish

................. 16673$

APP2

10-23-07 10:17:34

PS

PAGE 204

Joint Declarations of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee / 205

dialogues in those countries where new political developments have created the possibility for cooperative work. Recognizing the importance of widening the circulation of the teachings of Nostra Aetate, the meeting noted with satisfaction the establishment of joint Jewish-Christian liaison committees in Czechoslovakia and Hungary and the diffusion by the Polish church authorities of official documents concerning Catholic-Jewish relations in their own language. It was stressed that systematic efforts must be made to uproot sources of religious antisemitism, wherever they appear, through the publication of texts, priestly training, liturgy and the use of Catholic media. The liaison committee hopes that the new Catechism for the Universal Church now in preparation could serve as an effective instrument to this end. With regard to the special problems of antisemitism in Eastern and Central Europe, the committee recommended the following: 1. Translation into the vernacular languages and broad dissemination of all relevant church documents on relations with Judaism (notably the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to NonChristian Religions, Nostra Aetate [No. 4], Oct. 28, 1965; the Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate [No. 4], Dec. 1, 1974; and the Notes on the Correct Way to Present Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis in the Catholic Church, June 24, 1985). 2. The inclusion of the teaching of these documents in the curricula of theological seminaries in order to eliminate all remnants of the ‘‘teaching of contempt’’ and the setting up of special courses on the same subject in the seminaries for priests who have not yet received such theological instruction. 3. The monitoring of all trends and events which threaten an upsurge of antisemitism with a view to countering promptly such developments. 4. Ongoing actions aimed at guaranteeing freedom of worship and religious education for all citizens (Christians, Jews and others). 5. Active support of general legislation against discrimination on grounds of race or religion, including antisemitism, and against incitement to religious or racial hatred; promotion of legislative action curtailing freedom of association to racist organizations.

................. 16673$

APP2

10-23-07 10:17:35

PS

PAGE 205

206 / Appendix 2

6. Support of general educational programs which would foresee: a. Inclusion in school curricula of knowledge and respect for different civilizations, cultures and religions, in particular of peoples and denominations inhabiting the national territory concerned. b. Special attention to be paid in education to the problem of racial, national and religious prejudice and hatred. This should include the teaching of the history of the disasters brought about by such prejudice or hatred. c. Elimination from textbooks of all racially or religiously prejudiced content and of material conducive to creating intergroup strife. It was recommended that a special joint commission be established by the competent authorities of the respective communities in each of the countries of Eastern and Central Europe to facilitate and promote these goals. The Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and the IJCIC are ready to assist such efforts. We continue to see the need, already envisaged, for closer and more rapid cooperation and exchange of information between IJCIC and the Holy See’s Commission, in order to avoid future misunderstanding and face together trends and concerns within the two communities. With regard to the Carmelite convent at Auschwitz, we note with satisfaction the declaration of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews made by Cardinal Johannes Willebrands in September 1989, confirming the intention to establish in another location ‘‘a center of meeting, dialogue and prayer, as foreseen in the Geneva agreement of February 1987, which would contribute in an important way to the development of good relations between Christians and Jews.’’ We look to the early completion of the new edifice in which the Carmelite monastery will find its natural setting and hope that all difficulties will be overcome. The Jewish delegation expressed its commitment to the state of Israel and stressed the need for Catholic understanding of the special place Israel has in Jewish consciousness. It manifested its concern with the lack of full diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the state of Israel.

................. 16673$

APP2

10-23-07 10:17:35

PS

PAGE 206

Joint Declarations of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee / 207

Furthermore, the Jewish delegation expressed the hope that Vatican archival material would be made accessible for better understanding of the darkest period in Jewish history. After two millennia of estrangement and hostility, we have a sacred duty as Catholics and Jews to strive to create a genuine culture of mutual esteem and reciprocal caring. Catholic-Jewish dialogue can become a sign of hope and inspiration to other religions, races and ethnic groups to turn away from contempt, toward realizing authentic human fraternity. This new spirit of friendship and caring for one another may be the most important symbol that we have to offer to our troubled world.

C. A Common Declaration on the Family

15th Meeting, Jerusalem, May 23–26, 1994 Jewish and Christian understandings of the family are based upon the biblical description of the dual creation of the human being—man and woman—in God’s image, and on the dual nature of God’s covenant with the Patriarchs and Matriarchs—as with Abraham and Sarah together. We affirm the sacred value of stable marriage and the family as intrinsically good. We also stress its value in transmitting the religious and moral values from the past to the present and to the future. The Jewish People and the Catholic Church represent two ancient traditions that have supported and been supported by the family through the centuries. We can, today, make together a solid contribution to the overall discussion of these themes in this International Year of the Family. The family is humanity’s most precious resource. Today it is faced with multiple crises throughout the world. So that families can meet the obligations placed on them and respond to the challenges facing them, they should have the support of society. The family is far more than a legal, social or economic unit. For both Jews and Christians, it is a stable community of love and solidarity based on God’s covenant. It is uniquely suited to teaching and handing on the cultural, ethical, social and spiritual values that are essential for the development and well-being of its members and of society. The rights and obligations of the family in these areas do not come from the State but exist prior to the State and ultimately have their source in God,

................. 16673$

APP2

10-23-07 10:17:36

PS

PAGE 207

208 / Appendix 2

the Creator. Family and society have living, organic links. Ideally, they will function to complement each other in furthering the good of humanity and of each person. Parents, who gave life or have adopted their children, have the primary obligation of bringing them up. They must be the principal educators of their children. Families have an essential right to exercise their responsibilities regarding the transmission of life and the formation of their children, including the right to raise children in accordance with the traditions and values of the family’s own religious community, with the necessary instruments and institutions. Appropriate marriage preparation and parent formation programs can and should be developed by each of our religious communities on the national and local levels. These can assist parents to meet their responsibilities to each other and to their children, and guide the children to meet their obligations to their parents. Religious communities need to create a variety of support systems for families, just as many of our respective religious rituals have done so effectively over the centuries. The family should provide a place in which different generations meet to help each other to grow in human wisdom. It should enable family members to learn to accommodate individual rights to other requirements of social life within the larger society. Society, for its part, and in particular the State and international organizations, have an obligation to protect the family by political, social, economic, and legal measures that reinforce family unity and stability, so that the family can carry out its specific functions. Society is called upon to support the rights of the family and of family members, especially women and children, the poor and the sick, the very young and the elderly, to physical, social, political and economic security. The rights, duties and opportunities of women both in the home and in the larger society are to be respected and fostered. In affirming the family, we reach out at the same time to other persons such as unmarried persons, single parents, the widowed and the childless, in our societies and in our Churches and Synagogues. In view of the worldwide dimension of social questions today, the role of the family has been extended to involve cooperation for a new sense of international solidarity. While Jews and Catholics have significant differences in perspective, we also have a solid ground of shared values upon which to build our common affirmation of the essential role of the family within society.

................. 16673$

APP2

10-23-07 10:17:36

PS

PAGE 208

Joint Declarations of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee / 209

In turn, these values will only be fully realized through concrete applications in differing cultures and societies. We offer this declaration to our own communities and to other religious communities in the hope that it may be of service to them in their efforts to respond to the challenges which the family is facing today.

D. A Common Declaration on the Environment

16th Meeting, Vatican City, March 23–26, 1998 Across the world people are becoming increasingly aware that certain forms of human activity are leading to environmental damage and seriously limiting the possibility of a sustainable development for all. Climate change, air and water pollution, desertification, resource depletion, and loss of biodiversity are among the consequences. While many have contributed to this damage, all must learn to live in a way which respects the integrity of the delicate balance that exists among the earth’s ecosystems. Nor can we ignore the relation between the effect on the environment of population increase in certain areas and of heightened economic expectation among peoples. Governments, commerce, industry, and agriculture must also collaborate if individuals and communities are to be able to exercise their right to live in a sound and healthy environment. Concern for the environment has led both Catholics and Jews to reflect on the concrete implications of their belief in God, Creator of all things. In turning to their sacred scriptures, both have found the religious and moral foundations for their obligation to care for the environment. While they may differ in interpretations of some texts or in their methodological approaches, Jews and Catholics have found such broad agreement on certain fundamental values that they are able to affirm them together. 1. All of creation is good and forms a harmonious whole, rich in diversity (Gen. 1–2) God created everything that exists, each according to its kind. ‘‘And God saw that it was good.’’ Nothing, therefore, is insignificant; nothing should be recklessly destroyed as if devoid of purpose. Modification of species by genetic engineering must be approached with great caution. Everything is to be treated with reverence, as part of a whole willed by

................. 16673$

APP2

10-23-07 10:17:37

PS

PAGE 209

210 / Appendix 2

God to be in harmony. It was a willful act of disobedience that first broke this harmony (Gen. 3:14–19). 2. The human person—male and female—is part of creation and yet distinguished from it, being made in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26) The respect due to each person, endowed with a God-given dignity, allows for no exception and excludes no one. Life is precious. We are to affirm it, to promote it, to care for and cherish it. When harm is done to the environment, the lives of both individuals and communities are profoundly affected. Any social, economic, or political activity that directly or indirectly destroys life or diminishes the possibility for people to live in dignity is counter to God’s will. 3. The human person, alone of all creation, has been entrusted with the care of creation (Gen. 1:26–30; 2:15–20) The human person has an immense responsibility, that of caring for all of creation. No person or group can use the resources of this earth as proprietor, but only as God’s steward who destined these goods for all. Assuring that individuals and communities have access to what is necessary to sustain life in dignity is an expression of this stewardship, as is a reverent and moderate use of created goods. 4. Land and the people depend on each other (Lev. 25; Ex. 23; Deut. 15) We all depend on the land, source of our sustenance. While human activity renders the land productive, it can also exhaust it, leaving only desolation. In the Jubilee Year, a time for God, liberty is to be proclaimed throughout the land, debts forgiven, and slaves freed. Also the land is to lie fallow so that it, too, can be restored. A recognition of the mutual dependence between the land and the human person calls us today to have a caring, even loving, attitude towards the land and to regulate its use with justice, the root of peace. 5. Both Jews and Catholics look to the future, a time of fulfillment Our responsibility for all that dwells in the earth and for the earth itself extends into the future. The earth is not ours to destroy (cf. Deut.

................. 16673$

APP2

10-23-07 10:17:37

PS

PAGE 210

Joint Declarations of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee / 211

20:19), but to hand on in trust to future generations. We cannot, therefore, recklessly consume its resources to satisfy needs that are artificially created and sustained by a society that tends to live only for the present. We also need to act, together whenever feasible, to assure that sound practices, guaranteed by law, are established in our countries and local communities for the future preservation of the environment. Care for creation is also a religious act. Both Catholics and Jews use water, fire, oil, and salt as signs of God’s presence among us. As part of God’s creation, we offer its fruits in prayer and worship, and the Psalmist does not hesitate to summon all of creation to join in praising God (Ps. 96, 98, 148). Respect for God’s creation, of which we are a part, must become a way of life. We therefore call upon our respective religious communities and families to educate children, both by teaching and example, to fulfill the trust that God has confided to us. The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof; the world and those who dwell therein (Ps. 24:1).

E. A Common Declaration on Protecting Religious Freedom and Holy Sites

17th Meeting, New York, May 4, 2001 Religious freedom under attack In recent years, inter-religious and anti-religious violence has been on the rise. In some places thousands of people have been killed and thousands more left homeless, even made refugees. Assassination of religious leaders and lay workers has become a frequent occurrence. Shrines, monuments and houses of worship have come under attack, been damaged or destroyed. The rights of many hundreds of thousands of believers have been violated. The offenders are occasionally individuals. More often they have been groups, whether mobs, terrorist organizations, or people with authority: police, military personnel or even governments. We are troubled by assaults on religious freedom wherever they occur. We are all the more disturbed when members of our own religious communities have been the offenders. Assembled for this International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee meeting, we affirm once

................. 16673$

APP2

10-23-07 10:17:37

PS

PAGE 211

212 / Appendix 2

again before God and the world community our common commitment to the protection of religious freedom and to the security of holy places.

Respect for holy places From the dawn of human consciousness, men and women have experienced the holy in locations that they have designated as sacred. Throughout recorded history, various groups have felt special attachment to places that they considered holy. The sacred texts of the great historical religions include accounts of specific places where individuals or groups experienced significant encounters with God. Holy places set aside in memory of these encounters with the divine are a part of the character of every religious tradition. The faithful are drawn to them out of reverence for the great events or personalities they commemorate, and as loci for especially fervent prayer. Each of the great religious traditions of humanity has places that it holds to possess special sanctity. Holy places are as much a common feature of the religious traditions of humanity as are sacred time or prayer. Paradoxically, one of the results of the identification of locations as sacred is that these places can become the focus for the tensions between the members of different religious communities. A place that is considered holy by one group can come to be claimed by adherents of another tradition. As a result, holy places can become the source of conflict as much as of spiritual expression. Tragically, as religious communities fall into estrangement or antagonism, the holy places of each community often become the target of violence or vengeance instead of veneration and reverence. People act out their contempt and anger through various forms of violation: occupation, desecration, even destruction. So too, when holy sites are used for military purposes, their sacred character is defiled. One group can take physical possession of the holy place of another and eradicate traces of its earlier identity. Objects of veneration can be defaced. Holy places have been reduced to rubble. As people of faith, we know how important our own holy places are in our religious and communal lives. Each of our communities of faith has also experienced the desecration of spaces sacred to us. We know the intense pain that arises from that experience. It is out of this history that we condemn all violence directed against holy places even by members of our own communities.

................. 16673$

APP2

10-23-07 10:17:38

PS

PAGE 212

Joint Declarations of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee / 213

Protecting religious freedom Freedom of religion and of conscience, including the rights of religious communities within society, derive from and are rooted in the liberty of persons before God. As Christians and Jews, we find the religious roots of such respect in the dignity of all persons created ‘‘in the image and likeness of God’’ (Gen. 1:26). Religious freedom is realized through the exercise of specific rights. Among these are: freedom of worship, liberty in public manifestation of one’s belief and the practice of one’s religion, the freedom of religious communities to organize themselves and conduct their own affairs without interference, the right to show the implications of one’s beliefs for society, the right to hold meetings, and the right to establish educational, charitable, cultural and social organizations in keeping with the religious orientation of one’s own religious tradition. Protecting religious liberty requires the efforts of many parties. Looking at our own task, we must do more as religious leaders to teach our fellow believers respect for people who belong to other religious traditions. Religious leaders should also take initiatives to foster a climate of respect. They must be ready to speak out against violations of religious liberty committed against people of other religions. We encourage religious bodies to institute regular programs of interreligious education, dialogue and exchange. When members of other faiths, particularly minority religions, come under attack, we urge people of good will to speak out in defense of the religious liberty and the human rights of the minority, to offer them support and to share with them public signs of solidarity. Religious leaders should never use their declarations for incitement or make shrines and houses of worship havens for hostile political action. We ask all believers to work amicably across religious lines to resolve religious disputes and to follow the ways of peace together. Complaints about violations of religious liberty, freedom of conscience or the sanctity of holy places should be subject to careful examination and must never be an occasion for recrimination or defamation. Rather we must always strive to establish an atmosphere of openness and fairness in which disputes may be resolved. Governments and political authorities bear special responsibility for protecting human religious rights. Those responsible for law, order and public security should feel themselves obligated to defend religious minorities and to use available legal remedies against those who commit

................. 16673$

APP2

10-23-07 10:17:38

PS

PAGE 213

214 / Appendix 2

crimes against religious liberty and the sanctity of holy places. Just as they are prohibited from engaging in anti-religious acts, governments must also be vigilant lest by inaction they effectively tolerate religious hatred or provide impunity for the perpetrators of anti-religious actions. Armed forces ought to be vigilant in avoiding violent action against religious minorities and attacks against places of worship and holy sites. In the interest of securing religious liberty in times of conflict, armed personnel should be trained to respect the rights of religious minorities and holy sites and held accountable for their actions. When conflicts arise between legitimate defense needs and religious immunity, ways must be found to avoid, or at least minimize the infringement of religious rights. Conclusion We stand together as representatives of the Catholic and Jewish communities of faith in calling on men and women of all faiths to honor religious liberty and to treat the holy places of others with respect. We call on all people to reject attacks on religious liberty and violence against holy places as legitimate forms of political expression. We look forward, prayerfully, to the time when all people shall enjoy the right to lead their religious lives unmolested and in peace. We long for the time when the holy places of all religious traditions will be secure and when all people treat one another’s holy places with respect.

F. Recommendation on Education in Catholic and Jewish Seminaries and Schools of Theology

17th Meeting, New York City, May 4, 2001 Relations between the Catholic Church and the Jewish People have improved significantly in the last half-century. The education of future clergy and lay leaders in both our communities is crucial if coming generations are to sustain and further this progress. In particular, the curricula of Catholic seminaries and schools of theology should reflect the central importance of the church’s new understanding of its relationship to Jews. To that end, we recommend: • Courses on Bible, patristics, early church history and liturgy

should incorporate recent scholarship on Christian origins. Illumining the complex developments by which both the church and

................. 16673$

APP2

10-23-07 10:17:39

PS

PAGE 214

Joint Declarations of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee / 215

rabbinic Judaism emerged from early Judaism will establish a substantial foundation for ameliorating ‘‘the painful ignorance of the history and traditions of Judaism of which only negative aspects and often caricature seem to form part of the stock ideas of many Christians’’ (Notes on the Correct Way to Present Jews and Judaism in Catholic Preaching and Catechesis, §27, 1985). Opportunities for faculty to continue their own learning about JewishChristian relations should be available so that their courses will reflect the richness of contemporary scholarship. • Courses dealing with the biblical, historical and theological aspects of relations between Jews and Christians should be an integral part of the seminary and theologate curriculum, and not merely electives. All who graduate from Catholic seminaries and theology schools should have studied the revolution in Catholic teaching on Jews and Judaism from Nostra Aetate through to the prayer of Pope John Paul II at the Western Wall on March 26, 2000. The Jewish community has yet to undertake a similar effort to promote a basic understanding of Christianity. For historic reasons, many Jews find it difficult to overcome generational memories of antisemitic oppression. Therefore: • Lay and religious Jewish leaders need to advocate and promote a

program of education in our Jewish schools and seminaries— about the history of Catholic-Jewish relations and knowledge of Christianity and its relationship to Judaism. Such knowledge does not mean Jewish acceptance of Christianity’s theological tenets. Encouragement of dialogue between the two faiths does involve recognition, understanding and respect for each other’s beliefs, without having to accept them. It is particularly important that Jewish schools teach about the Second Vatican Council and subsequent documents and attitudinal changes which opened new perspectives and possibilities for both faiths. Educational institutions in both our communities should make every effort as appropriate to their particular contexts to expose students to living Jewish or Christian communities through guest lecturers, field trips, and involvement in local, national and international dialogue groups and conferences. The resources of the Internet should be utilized, especially sites such as www.jcrelations.net and the sites of

................. 16673$

APP2

10-23-07 10:17:39

PS

PAGE 215

216 / Appendix 2

various centers for Jewish-Christian understanding (http://www.bc.edu/ research/cjl/cjrelations/resources/links/).

G. Common Declaration on Tzedeq and Tzedaqah —Justice and Charity

18th Meeting, Buenos Aires, July 8, 2004 Relations between the Catholic Church and the Jewish People have undergone far-reaching change since the Declaration of the Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate (1965). That Declaration highlighted Christianity’s Jewish roots and the rich spiritual patrimony shared by Jews and Christians. Over the last quarter century, Pope John Paul II has used every opportunity to promote dialogue between our two faith communities which he sees as intimately related at the very heart of our respective identities. This fraternal dialogue has engendered mutual understanding and respect. It is our hope that it will continue to resonate in ever-widening circles and touch the minds and hearts of Catholics and Jews—and the wider community. The 18th International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee Meeting was held in Buenos Aires, from July 5–8, 2004. This encounter, convened for the first time in Latin America, has been devoted to the subject of Tzedeq and Tzedaqah (Justice and Charity), in their theoretical aspects and practical applications. Our deliberations have been inspired by God’s command to ‘‘love one’s neighbor as oneself’’ (Lev. 19:18; Mt. 22:39). Drawing from our different perspectives, we have renewed our joint commitment to defend and promote human dignity, as deriving from the biblical affirmation that every human being is created in the likeness and image of God (Gen. 1:26). We recall Pope John XXIII’s advocacy of human rights for all God’s children enunciated in his seminal encyclical Pacem in Terris (1963) and we pay special tribute to him for initiating the fundamental change in the Catholic-Jewish relationship. Our joint commitment to justice is deeply rooted in both our faiths. We recall the tradition of helping the widow, the orphan, the poor, and the stranger in our midst in accordance with God’s injunction (Ex. 22:20–22; Mt. 25:31–46). The Sages of Israel developed a broad doctrine of justice and charity for all, based upon an elevated understanding of the concept of Tzedeq. Building on the Church’s tradition, Pope John Paul II, in his first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis (1979), reminded

................. 16673$

APP2

10-23-07 10:17:40

PS

PAGE 216

Joint Declarations of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee / 217

Christians that a true relationship with God requires a strong commitment to service of one’s neighbor. While God created human beings in their diversity, He endowed them with the same dignity. We share the conviction that every person has the right to be treated with justice and equality. This right includes an equitable sharing of God’s bounty and graciousness (chesed). Given the global dimensions of poverty, injustice and discrimination, we have a clear religious obligation to show concern for the poor and those deprived of their political, social and cultural rights. Jesus, deeply rooted in the Jewish tradition of his day, made a commitment to the poor a priority of his ministry. The Talmud affirms that the Holy One, Blessed be God, always cares for the needy. Today, this concern for the poor must embrace the vast numbers on all continents of the hungry, the homeless, the orphan, victims of AIDS, those without adequate medical care and all those who at present lack hope for a better future. In Jewish tradition, the highest form of charity is removing the obstacles that prevent the poor from rising out of their poverty. In recent years, the Church has emphasized its preferential option for the poor. Jews and Christians have an equal obligation to work for justice with charity (Tzedaqah) which ultimately will lead to Shalom for all humanity. In fidelity to our distinct religious traditions, we see this common commitment to justice and charity as man’s cooperation in the Divine plan to bring about a better world. In the light of this common commitment, we recognize the need to address the following immediate challenges: the growing economic disparity among people, increasing ecological devastation, the negative aspects of globalization, and the urgent need for international peacemaking and reconciliation. We, therefore, salute the joint initiatives of Catholic and Jewish international and national organizations which have already begun to address the needs of the indigent, the hungry, the sick, the young, the undereducated and the aged. Building upon these actions of social justice we pledge ourselves to redouble our efforts to address the pressing needs of all out of our common commitment to justice and charity. As we approach the 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate—the groundbreaking declaration of the Second Vatican Council which repudiated the deicide charge against Jews, reaffirmed the Jewish roots of Christianity and rejected antisemitism—we take note of the many positive changes within the Catholic Church with respect to her relationship

................. 16673$

APP2

10-23-07 10:17:40

PS

PAGE 217

218 / Appendix 2

with the Jewish People. These past forty years of our fraternal dialogue stand in stark contrast to almost two millennia of a ‘‘teaching of contempt’’ and all its painful consequences. We draw encouragement from the fruits of our collective strivings which include the recognition of the unique and unbroken covenantal relationship between God and the Jewish People and the total rejection of antisemitism in all its forms, including anti-Zionism as a more recent manifestation of antisemitism. For its part, the Jewish community has evinced a growing willingness to engage in interreligious dialogue and joint action regarding religious, social and communal issues on the local, national and international levels, as exemplified in the new direct dialogue between the Chief Rabbinate in Israel and the Holy See. Further, the Jewish community has made strides in educational programming about Christianity, the elimination of prejudice and the importance of JewishChristian dialogue. Additionally, the Jewish community has become aware of, and deplores, the phenomenon of anti-Catholicism in all its forms, manifesting itself in society at large. On the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camps, we declare our determination to prevent the reemergence of antisemitism which led to genocide and the Shoah. We stand together at this moment in time, following major international conferences on this problem, most recently in Berlin and at the United Nations in New York. We recall the words of Pope John Paul II that antisemitism is a sin against God and humanity. We commit ourselves to the struggle against terrorism. We live in a new millennium, already stained by the attacks of September 11, 2001, and subsequent terrorist outrages world-wide. We meet on the 10th anniversary of two tragic experiences of terrorism here in Buenos Aires. Terror, in all its forms, and killing ‘‘in the name of God’’ can never be justified. Terror is a sin against man and God. We call on men and women of all faiths to support international efforts to eradicate this threat to life, so that all nations can live together in peace and security on the basis of Tzedeq and Tzedaqah. We pledge that the promises we have made to each other here in Buenos Aires will be implemented and disseminated throughout our communities so that the work of Justice and Charity shall, indeed, lead to God’s greatest gift: peace.

................. 16673$

APP2

10-23-07 10:17:41

PS

PAGE 218

Joint Declarations of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee / 219

H. Common Declaration on Dignifying the Divine Image: Health Care and HIV/AIDS

19th Meeting, Cape Town, South Africa, November 7, 2006 From 4–7 November 2006 the 19th International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee (ILC) Meeting was held in Cape Town, South Africa, hosted by the Archdiocese of Cape Town and the Cape Council of the Jewish Board of Deputies of South Africa. This is the first time the meeting has taken place on the African Continent. The focus of the 19th ILC meeting was ‘‘Dignifying the Divine Image’’: Jewish and Catholic perspectives on Health Care with special reference to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. The choice of the subject reflected the ILC commitment to move from a dialogue purely of discourse to the dialogue of joint action, already reflected in the 18th ILC in Buenos Aires, in 2004. The choice of the location in South Africa reflected both the presence of vibrant Catholic and Jewish communities and also their respective responses and initiatives in relation to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. This was the first ILC meeting since the 40th anniversary of the historic declaration of the Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate, which has significantly transformed relations between the Catholic Church and the Jewish People. During this past year celebratory events were held around the world, as well as an official event in Rome organized by the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. The ILC participants expressed much satisfaction at the level and breadth of these commemorations which testify to the commitment on both sides to advancing their unique bilateral relationship. The ILC participants affirmed the importance of educating the members of their respective communities about the positive changes in the Jewish-Catholic relationship ushered in with the promulgation of Nostra Aetate 41 years ago. This is a task for both Catholic communities—especially in developing countries and areas of rapid growth such as Africa, Asia and Latin America where Jewish communities are not always present—as well as for Jewish communities in Israel and other parts of the world which sometimes have little contact with Christians. Since our last meeting the Catholic-Jewish dialogue has lost one of its principal supporters with the death of Pope John Paul II. On this occasion, we wish to respectfully remember his historic contribution throughout his pontificate to the advancement of the dialogue between the Church and the Jewish People, and between the Holy See and the

................. 16673$

APP2

10-23-07 10:17:41

PS

PAGE 219

220 / Appendix 2

State of Israel. The ILC participants were pleased to note the increasing effectiveness of the dialogue, including the dialogue between the Pontifical Commission on Religious Relations with the Jews and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, which testify to the need felt on both sides to consolidate open and productive exchange on the great questions facing religious belief in the present world circumstances. The 19th ILC meeting began with a public event hosted by the Mayor of Cape Town, the Honorable Helen Zille, and in the presence of South African national, regional and municipal authorities, as well as local religious personalities. In addition to the co-presidents of the ILC, Cardinal Walter Kasper and Rabbi David Rosen, the Chief Rabbi of Israel Yonah Metzger, the Chairman of the International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations Rabbi Israel Singer, the president of the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier, the Chief Rabbi of South Africa Warren Goldstein, and the Chair of the Cape Council of the Jewish Board of Deputies of South Africa, Mrs. Moonyeen Castle and the Premier of the Western Cape, Mr. Ebrahim Rasool, addressed the opening session. The Deputy President of South Africa, Phumzile Mlambo Ngcuka, also spoke to the assembly during the first plenary session. The deliberations of the ILC focused on the imperatives that follow from our common affirmation that all people are created in the divine image. Moreover the very vulnerability of the sick demands special concern on our part. Indeed care of the sick and less fortunate is perceived as the very emulation of the divine attributes. In addition to deepening our understanding of the guiding values of our respective heritages rooted in a common Biblical patrimony, presentations and discussions also focused on specific responsibilities regarding HIV/AIDS. This includes education, treatment, care, especially for the orphans and people affected by AIDS, and the need to eliminate stigmatization and marginalization. While recognizing that our respective traditions may differ regarding possible preventative strategies with respect to HIV/AIDS and related afflictions, we unreservedly unite in calling for unrestricted palliative care and appropriate attention for all those suffering, threatened and victimized by this tragic pandemic. This call goes out especially to governments and all who have the power, means and influence to implement it.

................. 16673$

APP2

10-23-07 10:17:42

PS

PAGE 220

Joint Declarations of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee / 221

Much attention was given to the reasons behind the tendency to stigmatize those affected, and to the need for religious teaching to stress that every person is the bearer of an inviolable dignity because they are created in the image of God. That dignity can never be lost or taken away no matter what the circumstances or personal situation of people. The reality of millions of orphans, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, was seen as a pressing call for greater attention on the part of the international community aimed at enabling the economic and social development of the countries involved. The participants also visited a number of practical projects in the Cape Town area in which the Catholic Church and the Jewish Community are active, in order to identify the best and most effective ways in which they might jointly address the challenge of the pandemic. The ILC also focused on specific issues that followed from the deliberations at the 18th meeting: in particular, the need to expand and intensify cooperation between our communities, to condemn and respond to resurgent anti-Semitism, bigotry and terrorism. We again recall the words of Pope John Paul II that antisemitism is a sin against God and humanity. The delegates resolved to adopt a widespread program of education to make known the significant developments that have taken place in Jewish-Catholic relations since Vatican II. They pledged to conduct these educational efforts in both Jewish and Catholic communities and to mobilize the resources of their respective religious and communal organizations to make this a significant part of their joint and separate agendas. They agreed that different programs must be provided for different age groups, cultural contexts and for the two religious communities, recognizing that education holds the key to mutual respect and joint moral leadership that have become the basis of their relationship. The ILC delegates deplored the rise of radical fundamentalist rhetoric, often coated in religious sentiment and terminology, and they agreed to work for serious, multilateral, interreligious dialogue. We determined to work together towards Pope Benedict XVI’s vision of fruitful interfaith dialogue that promotes authentic respect among cultures and religions. In this context the ILC discussed ways to engage in dialogue among Jews, Christians and Muslims, in some form of trilateral dialogue born out of recognition that while there is an obligation to

................. 16673$

APP2

10-23-07 10:17:43

PS

PAGE 221

222 / Appendix 2

stand up against the violent and prejudicial abuse of religion, combating extremist influences necessitates reaching out to and strengthening the voice of the predominant moderate voices in every culture. At the same time as we face the terror of pestilence and poverty we face the terror of human violence and hatred. In this context we condemn Holocaust denial and reaffirm the commitment to the right of the Jewish State to live in security and peace. In the face of increasing violence in the world, the ILC delegates reaffirmed their commitment to work for justice and peace, especially in the Middle East. Our religious heritages offer us the principles and motivation to do all in our power to overcome the terrorism and violence that surround us through a vigorous defense and promotion of the dignity, security and liberty of every human being. We are convinced that through deepening our own mutual understanding and cooperation, and extending this beyond our bilateral relationship, we may be a force for good, dignifying the Divine Image in our world.

................. 16673$

APP2

10-23-07 10:17:43

PS

PAGE 222

Appendix 3: Joint Statements of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Je w s an d t h e C hief Rabbinate of I srael’ s Delegation for Relations with the Catholic Church

A. Rome, Februar y 27, 2003

1. After a preliminary meeting in Jerusalem on June 5, 2002, high ranking delegations of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel met in Villa Cavalletti (Grottaferrata–Roma) from February 23 to 27, 2003. The discussions, held in a warm and friendly atmosphere, centered on the subject on how to further peace, harmony and religious values in contemporary societies. 2. We acknowledged that the basis for our ongoing dialogue must be truthfulness and honesty, respecting our different religious identities. We are dialoguing as people of faith having common spiritual roots and patrimony. Dialogue is a value in itself and excludes any intention of converting. Following the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and of Pope John Paul II, the Catholic Church recognizes that ‘‘God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues’’ (Nostra Aetate, Nr. 4; see also Rom. 11:28–29). We take into account our different traditions and respect each other in our otherness. We feel the call to proclaim testimony of the One God in the world and we are willing to cooperate in fostering common religious values, peace with justice, truth and love.

................. 16673$

APP3

10-23-07 10:17:38

PS

PAGE 223

224 / Appendix 3

3. The following topics were agreed upon for discussion and cooperation: (a) The sanctity of human life, (b) Family values. 4. The Sanctity of Human Life 4.1. Human life is of unique and highest value in our world. Any attempt to destroy human life must be rejected, and every common effort should be made, in order to promote human rights, solidarity among all human beings, respect for freedom of conscience. 4.2. Our common religious motivation for this central affirmation is based on the biblical statement that the human being is created as image of the living God, in His likeness (cf. Gen. 1:26). God is the Holy One and the Creator of human life, and the human being is blessed and obliged by His holiness. Therefore every human life is holy, sacrosanct and inviolable. According to Leviticus 19:2 God’s holiness constitutes an essential imperative for the moral behavior: ‘‘You shall be holy for I am Holy, the Lord your God!’’ 4.3. To protect human life is an evident ethical consequence of this conviction. Every believer, particularly religious leaders, should cooperate in protecting human life. Any attack against the life of a human being runs contrary to the will of God, is a desecration of God’s Name, directly opposed to the teaching of the prophets. Taking any human life, including one’s own, even in the name of God, is sacrilegious. As was emphasized time and again by Pope John Paul II in his message for the World Day of Peace 2002, no religious leader can condone terrorism everywhere in the world. It is a profanation of religion to declare oneself a terrorist in the name of God, to do violence to others in his name. Terrorist violence everywhere in the world is a contradiction of faith in God, the Creator of man, who cares for man and loves him. 4.4. As religious leaders of faith communities we have an extraordinary responsibility for the education of our communities and particularly the younger generation in the respect of holiness of human life. We should not admit any killing in the name of God who commands ‘‘You shall not kill’’ (Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:17), avoiding fanatical or violent abuse of religion, as Jewish, Christian and Moslem leaders declared in the common statement of Alexandria (January 2002).1 We all should unite our energies towards the construction of a better world for life, brotherhood, justice, peace and love among all. 4.5. There are cultural and educational implications regarding our cooperation in this field. All educators should strengthen their efforts

................. 16673$

APP3

10-23-07 10:17:38

PS

PAGE 224

Joint Statements / 225

in devising programmes to educate the young in the respect of the highest value of human life. Against the present trend of violence and death in our societies, we should foster our cooperation with believers of all religions and all people of good will, in promoting a ‘‘culture of life.’’ 5. Family Values 5.1. The institution of family stems from the will of the Almighty who created human beings in the image of God; ‘‘male and female He created them’’ (Gen. 1:27). Marriage in a religious perspective has a great value because God blessed this union and sanctified it. 5.2. Family and home unity provides a warm and protecting surrounding that nurtures children and ensures their proper education, in keeping with tradition and beliefs. The family unit is the basis for the wholesome society. 5.3. Doubtless the electronic and media revolution has brought about positive changes in society. However, at the same time too often, a negative influence on behavior of society has developed. Adults and young alike are exposed to distorted and perverted aspects of life, such as violence and pornography. As religious leaders we are challenged by these destructive developments. 5.4. More than ever, we are obliged to educate at home and in the school towards family values, following our rich religious traditions. Parents should devote much more time to show their love to their children and guide them towards positive attitudes. Among other important family values we should stress love, unselfishness, care for life and mutual responsibility for children and parents (cf. Ex. 20:12; Deut. 5:16). In such perspective, we cannot agree to alternative models of couples’ union and family. 6. Concluding Biblical Quotation ‘‘For I have chosen him [Abraham], so that he will direct his children and his household after him, to keep the way of the Lord, by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him’’ (Gen. 18:19).

B. Jerusalem, December 3, 2003

1. After two meetings, in Jerusalem (June 2002, Tammuz 5762) and in Grottaferrata/Rome (February 2003, Shvat 5763) the respective high ranking delegations convened in Jerusalem to discuss the theme of ‘‘The Relevance of Central Teachings in the Holy Scriptures Which We

................. 16673$

APP3

10-23-07 10:17:39

PS

PAGE 225

226 / Appendix 3

Share for Contemporary Society and the Education of Future Generations Accordingly.’’ 2. The deliberations took place in an atmosphere of mutual respect and amity and satisfaction was expressed regarding the firm foundations that have already been established between the two delegations with great promise for continuity and effective collaboration. 3. The participants expressed their profound appreciation for the forthright statements emanating from the Holy See condemning violence against innocents and denouncing the current resurgent manifestations of antisemitism, as declared in the statements of the Cardinals of the Vatican’s delegation to the Joint Commission—Cardinals Walter Kasper, Jorge Mejı´a and Georges Cottier. In this spirit, His Eminence Jorge Mejı´a wrote to the Chief Rabbis of Israel ‘‘It is indeed not only cruel but vile and quite incompatible with any acceptable human standards to attack people in their places of prayer.’’ Indeed, at the time of the Joint Commission’s meeting, His Holiness Pope John Paul II issued a powerful appeal ‘‘to all men and women of good will to join your voices with mine as I repeat that the holy name of God must never be used to incite violence or terrorism, to promote hatred or exclusion.’’2 4. The presentations focused on the foundational teaching in the Holy Scriptures which we share, which declare the faith in the One Creator and Guide of the Universe who has formed all human beings in His Divine Image with free will. Humankind is thus one family with moral responsibility for one another. Awareness of this reality leads to the religious and moral duty that may serve as a true charter for human rights and dignity in our modern world and provide a genuine vision for a just society, universal peace and wellbeing. 5. We live in a global village of unparalleled technological and scientific advances. These present us with the challenge to use them for good and blessing and not for evil and curse, God forbid. In this regard, the global system of mass communications serves as a key educational vehicle. It behooves us to constructively utilize this opportunity for global edification, in keeping with our aforementioned shared religious and moral aspirations. 6. It was emphasized that the response to the challenge of promoting religious faith in contemporary society, requires us to provide living examples of justice, loving-kindness, tolerance and humility, in keeping with the words of the Prophet Micah:

................. 16673$

APP3

10-23-07 10:17:40

PS

PAGE 226

Joint Statements / 227

‘‘It has been told to you O man what is good and what the Lord requires of you, but to do justice and loving-kindness and walk humbly with your God’’ (Mic 5:8). 7. Religious education can and must provide hope and direction for positive living in human solidarity and harmony in our complex modern times. Above all, it is faith in God that gives us true security and joy, in keeping with the verse in Psalm 16: ‘‘I have set the Lord always before me . . . therefore my heart rejoices . . .’’ (Ps. 16:8–9). 8. In particular, religious leaders and educators have the special duty to instruct their communities to pursue the paths of peace for the wellbeing of society at large. We issue this appeal especially to the family of Abraham and we call upon all believers to put aside weapons of war and destruction—‘‘to seek peace and pursue it’’ (Ps. 34:15). 9. As religious leaders we share in the pain and sorrow of all who suffer in the Holy Land today—individuals, families and communities: and express our fervent hope and prayers for an end to the trials and tribulations in the Land that is holy to us all. 10. Finally, we urge our own communities, schools and families, to live in mutual respect and understanding and to immerse themselves in the study and teachings of our Holy Scriptures which we share, for the ennoblement of humanity, universal peace and justice. Thus will the words of the Prophet be fulfilled: ‘‘and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation and they shall not learn war any more’’ (Is. 2:4).

C. Rome, October 19, 2004

1. The fourth meeting of the respective high ranking delegations took place in Grottaferrata (Rome) on the theme of A Shared Vision of Social Justice and Ethical Conduct in an atmosphere of amity and cordiality. This encounter was pursuant to the successful previous three meetings in Jerusalem and Rome which had addressed the themes: The Sanctity of Human Life and Family Values; [and] The Relevance of Central Religious Teachings in the Holy Scriptures We Share for Contemporary and Future Society. 2. In their opening welcome, the chairmen of the delegations Cardinal Jorge Mejı´a and Chief Rabbi Shear Yashuv Cohen, expressed their satisfaction and joy that the meetings continue in a spirit of prayer and

................. 16673$

APP3

10-23-07 10:17:40

PS

PAGE 227

228 / Appendix 3

with a deepening relationship of friendship and collaboration between the members of the delegations, which holds great promise for the future. 3. The bilateral committee reiterated its commitment to the principal declarations of the previous meetings which included a call for mutual respect of our different religious identities; and affirmed a common rejection of any attempts to persuade people to reject their own heritage. The committee similarly reiterated the past declarations’ condemnations of violence and terror in the name of religion as desecration of religion itself; as well as of resurgent manifestations of antisemitism, which Pope John Paul II has described as ‘‘a sin against God and humankind.’’ 4. Deliberations of the current meeting focused on the inseparable relationship between Faith and Social Justice based on the belief that all human moral values have their source in God and are rooted in the Biblical teaching that each and every human person is created in the Divine Image (Gen. 1:26). Accordingly, our respective religious traditions categorically reject moral relativism. 5. Furthermore, Biblical teachings require that the goal of justice (zedek umishpat) must be pursued through the ways of human beneficence and compassion (chesed vrachamim). This demands that we strive to go beyond the letter of the Law (lifnim mishurat hadin) for the wellbeing of society as a whole. 6. Accordingly, the Joint Committee called for special attention to be given to the challenges of poverty, sickness and marginalization; the inequitable distribution of resources to combat these; the challenges of globalization without human solidarity; the need for peaceful resolution of conflicts; and our responsibilities in the face of the specter of terrorism in all its manifestations. As people of Faith and moral heritage we are called to respond to the consequences and implications of these as well as the social crisis caused by extreme individualism and materialism. In this regard, special mention was made of abuse of sexuality and of economic exploitation, which lead to new forms of modern slavery, including trafficking in women and children that desecrates the dignity of the human person. 7. As believers in the One God whose name is Peace, prayer was offered up to Him to bring an end to war, bloodshed, violence and suffering in the world—and in particular in the Holy Land. The members of the Joint Committee accordingly called upon their communities and

................. 16673$

APP3

10-23-07 10:17:40

PS

PAGE 228

Joint Statements / 229

leaders throughout the world to similarly intensify prayer and work for the promotion of peace and harmony everywhere. 8. As this meeting took place on the eve of the 30th anniversary of the establishment of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews (on October 22, 1974); the committee took the opportunity to express its appreciation for the role that the Commission has played in the implementation of Nostra Aetate (n. 4) and the subsequent statements and documents advancing Catholic-Jewish reconciliation, cooperation and understanding.

D. Jerusalem, June 28, 2005

I. The opening evening was graced by the presence of the Rishon L’Zion, Rabbi Shlomo Moshe Amar, Chief Rabbi of Israel, who expressed his fervent support for the dialogue to emphasize profound shared values of the two Traditions while not ignoring the distinctions that make us different faith communities. Above all, the purpose of the dialogue is to promote the principles of sanctity and dignity of all human beings and to advance our cooperation for these goals. In their welcome, the heads of the respective delegations, Chief Rabbi Shear Yashuv Cohen and Cardinal Jorge Mejı´a expressed their profound satisfaction at the depth of understanding and friendship that had developed through the meetings of the bilateral committee. II. Opening the deliberations—as this was the first meeting since the passing of Pope John Paul II of blessed memory—the chairmen made special mention of his historic contribution to Catholic-Jewish reconciliation and to the fact that this bilateral committee was the fruit of his initiative. Cardinal Mejı´a noted in addition, the remarkable reference to the former Chief Rabbi of Rome in Pope John Paul II’s will. Appreciation was expressed for the commitment to continue to promote these bilateral relations, on the part of his successor Pope Benedict XVI. III. The theme of this fifth meeting was The Relationship between Religious and Civil Authority in the Jewish and Christian Traditions. Based on the Biblical vision of the distinct roles of Priest, Prophet and King, as well as their respective relationships with the people of God, the following key points were made:

................. 16673$

APP3

10-23-07 10:17:41

PS

PAGE 229

230 / Appendix 3

1. Religious values are crucial for the wellbeing of the individual and society. 2. The purpose of civil authority is to serve and provide for the welfare of the people through respecting the life and dignity of every individual. 3. While emphasizing the importance of democracy in this regard, at the same time it is essential to legally protect society from extreme individualism, exploitation by vested interest groups and insensitivity to the cultural and moral values of religious tradition. 4. Freedom of religion must be guaranteed to both individuals and communities by the religious and civil authorities. 5. The relationship between religion and state must be based on reciprocity, mutual respect and cooperation. 6. Legislation for the promotion of particular religious values is legitimate when done in harmony with the principles of human rights. 7. We have an ethical obligation to demonstrate religious responsibility in these regards, and especially to educate future generations through engaging media opinion makers as well as through conventional educational channels. IV. Discussion focused on the responsibility of the state to guarantee the rights of all religious communities giving special attention to the situation and needs of the Christian communities in the Holy Land, as well as the needs of Jewish communities around the world, facilitating full social and political equality without undermining particular identities.

E. Rome, Februar y 28, 2006

1. At the sixth meeting of this bilateral commission held in Rome, we have addressed the subject of the relationship between human life and technology—conscious of the far reaching advances in medical science and the challenges as well as opportunities that these present. 2. We affirm the principles of our respective Traditions that God is the Creator and Lord of all life and that human life is sacred precisely because, as the Bible teaches, the human person is created in the Divine Image (Gen. 1:26–27). Because life is a Divine gift to be respected and

................. 16673$

APP3

10-23-07 10:17:41

PS

PAGE 230

Joint Statements / 231

preserved, we perforce reject the idea of human ownership of life and of the right of any human party to decide its value or extent. Thus we repudiate the concept of active euthanasia (so-called mercy killing) as the illegitimate human arrogation of an exclusive Divine authority to determine the time of a person’s death. 3. We give thanks to the Creator for the capacities which He has given to humankind to heal and preserve life and for the remarkable achievements facilitated in this regard by contemporary science, medicine and technology. Nevertheless we recognise that these blessed achievements bring with them greater responsibilities, profound ethical challenges and potential dangers. 4. In this regard we reiterate the teachings of our heritages that all human knowledge and capacities must serve and promote human life and dignity and thus be in harmony with the moral values that emanate from the aforementioned principles. Accordingly there must be limits to the application of science and technology in recognition of the fact that not everything which is technically feasible is ethical. 5. Respect and care for human life must be a universal moral imperative guaranteed by every civil society and its laws, thereby promoting a culture of life. 6. While rejecting human assumption of the Divine prerogative to determine the time of death, we affirm the obligation to do the utmost to alleviate human suffering. 7. We urge medical practitioners and scientists to engage with and be guided by the wisdom of religion in all matters of life and death. Therefore we recommend in such matters, in addition to due consultation with the families concerned, that this always take place with the relevant religious authorities. 8. The conviction that we share, that life on earth is but one stage in the soul’s existence, must only lead us to a greater respect for the vessel—the human form—in which the soul resides in this world. Accordingly we totally reject the idea that the temporary nature of human existence on earth allows us to instrumentalize it. In this regard we strongly condemn any kind of bloodshed to promote any ideology— especially if this is done in the name of Religion. Such action is nothing less than a desecration of the Divine Name. 9. Therefore we seek to advance the common good of humanity through promoting respect for God, religion, its symbols, Holy Sites

................. 16673$

APP3

10-23-07 10:17:42

PS

PAGE 231

232 / Appendix 3

and Houses of Worship. Abuse of any of these must be rejected and condemned. 10. At the same time such abuses and the current tensions between civilisations demand of us to reach out beyond our own bilateral dialogue which has its unique compelling character. Thus we believe that it is our duty to engage and involve the Muslim world and its leaders in respectful dialogue and cooperation. Furthermore we appeal to world leaders to appreciate the essential potential of the religious dimension to help resolve conflicts and strife and call on them to support interreligious dialogue to this end.

................. 16673$

APP3

10-23-07 10:17:42

PS

PAGE 232

Appendix 4: Fundamental Agreement b e t wee n t h e Holy Se e a n d t h e St a t e of Israel , December 30, 199 3

Preamble

The Holy See and the State of Israel, Mindful of the singular character and universal significance of the Holy Land; Aware of the unique nature of the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people, and of the historic process of reconciliation and growth in mutual understanding and friendship between Catholics and Jews; Having decided on 29 July 1992 to establish a ‘‘Bilateral Permanent Working Commission,’’ in order to study and define together issues of common interest, and in view of normalizing their relations; Recognizing that the work of the aforementioned Commission has produced sufficient material for a first and Fundamental Agreement; Realizing that such Agreement will provide a sound and lasting basis for the continued development of their present and future relations and for the furtherance of the Commission’s task, Agree upon the following Articles: Ar ticle 1

1. The State of Israel, recalling its Declaration of Independence, affirms its continuing commitment to uphold and observe the

................. 16673$

APP4

10-23-07 10:17:42

PS

PAGE 233

234 / Appendix 4

human right to freedom of religion and conscience, as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in other international instruments to which it is a party. 2. The Holy See, recalling the Declaration on Religious Freedom of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dignitatis Humanae, affirms the Catholic Church’s commitment to uphold the human right to freedom of religion and conscience, as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in other international instruments to which it is a party. The Holy See wishes to affirm as well the Catholic Church’s respect for other religions and their followers as solemnly stated by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its Declaration on the Relation of the Church to NonChristian Religions, Nostra Aetate.

Ar ticle 2

1. The Holy See and the State of Israel are committed to appropriate cooperation in combating all forms of antisemitism and all kinds of racism and of religious intolerance, and in promoting mutual understanding among nations, tolerance among communities and respect for human life and dignity. 2. The Holy See takes this occasion to reiterate its condemnation of hatred, persecution and all other manifestations of antisemitism directed against the Jewish people and individual Jews anywhere, at any time and by anyone. In particular, the Holy See deplores attacks on Jews and desecration of Jewish synagogues and cemeteries, acts which offend the memory of the victims of the Holocaust, especially when they occur in the same places which witnessed it.

Ar ticle 3

1. The Holy See and the State of Israel recognize that both are free in the exercise of their respective rights and powers, and commit themselves to respect this principle in their mutual relations and in their cooperation for the good of the people. 2. The State of Israel recognizes the right of the Catholic Church to carry out its religious, moral, educational and charitable functions, and to have its own institutions, and to train, appoint and

................. 16673$

APP4

10-23-07 10:17:42

PS

PAGE 234

Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Israel / 235

deploy its own personnel in the said institutions or for the said functions to these ends. The Church recognizes the right of the State to carry out its functions, such as promoting and protecting the welfare and the safety of the people. Both the State and the Church recognize the need for dialogue and cooperation in such matters as by their nature call for it. 3. Concerning Catholic legal personality at canon law the Holy See and the State of Israel will negotiate on giving it full effect in Israeli law, following a report from a joint sub-commission of experts.

Ar ticle 4

1. The State of Israel affirms its continuing commitment to maintain and respect the ‘‘Status quo’’ in the Christian Holy Places to which it applies and the respective rights of the Christian communities thereunder. The Holy See affirms the Catholic Church’s continuing commitment to respect the aforementioned ‘‘Status quo’’ and the said rights. 2. The above shall apply notwithstanding an interpretation to the contrary of any Article in this Fundamental Agreement. 3. The State of Israel agrees with the Holy See on the obligation of continuing respect for and protection of the character proper to Catholic sacred places, such as churches, monasteries, convents, cemeteries and their like. 4. The State of Israel agrees with the Holy See on the continuing guarantee of the freedom of Catholic worship.

Ar ticle 5

1. The Holy See and the State of Israel recognize that both have an interest in favoring Christian pilgrimages to the Holy Land. Whenever the need for coordination arises, the proper agencies of the Church and of the State will consult and cooperate as required. 2. The State of Israel and the Holy See express the hope that such pilgrimages will provide an occasion for better understanding between the pilgrims and the people and religions in Israel.

................. 16673$

APP4

10-23-07 10:17:43

PS

PAGE 235

236 / Appendix 4

Ar ticle 6

The Holy See and the State of Israel jointly reaffirm the right of the Catholic Church to establish, maintain and direct schools and institutes of study at all levels; this right being exercised in harmony with the rights of the State in the field of education.

Ar ticle 7

The Holy See and the State of Israel recognize a common interest in promoting and encouraging cultural exchanges between Catholic institutions worldwide, and educational, cultural and research institutions in Israel, and in facilitating access to manuscripts, historical documents and similar source materials, in conformity with applicable laws and regulations.

Ar ticle 8

The State of Israel recognizes that the right of the Catholic Church to freedom of expression in the carrying out of its functions is exercised also through the Church’s own communications media; this right being exercised in harmony with the rights of the State in the field of communications media.

Ar ticle 9

The Holy See and the State of Israel jointly reaffirm the right of the Catholic Church to carry out its charitable functions through its health care and social welfare institutions, this right being exercised in harmony with the rights of the State in this field.

Ar ticle 10

1. The Holy See and the State of Israel jointly reaffirm the right of the Catholic Church to property. 2. Without prejudice to rights relied upon by the Parties: a. The Holy See and the State of Israel will negotiate in good faith a comprehensive agreement, containing solutions acceptable to both Parties, on unclear, unsettled and disputed

................. 16673$

APP4

10-23-07 10:17:43

PS

PAGE 236

Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Israel / 237

issues, concerning property, economic and fiscal matters relating to the Catholic Church generally, or to specific Catholic Communities or institutions. b. For the purpose of the said negotiations, the Permanent Bilateral Working Commission will appoint one or more bilateral subcommissions of experts to study the issues and make proposals. c. The Parties intend to commence the aforementioned negotiations within three months of entry into force of the present Agreement, and aim to reach agreement within two years from the beginning of the negotiations. d. During the period of these negotiations, actions incompatible with these commitments shall be avoided.

Ar ticle 11

1. The Holy See and the State of Israel declare their respective commitment to the promotion of the peaceful resolution of conflicts among States and nations, excluding violence and terror from international life. 2. The Holy See, while maintaining in every case the right to exercise its moral and spiritual teaching-office, deems it opportune to recall that, owing to its own character, it is solemnly committed to remaining a stranger to all merely temporal conflicts, which principle applies specifically to disputed territories and unsettled borders.

Ar ticle 12

The Holy See and the State of Israel will continue to negotiate in good faith in pursuance of the Agenda agreed upon in Jerusalem, on 15 July 1992, and confirmed at the Vatican, on 29 July 1992; likewise on issues arising from Articles of the present Agreement, as well as on other issues bilaterally agreed upon as objects of negotiation.

Ar ticle 13

1. In this Agreement the Parties use these terms in the following sense:

................. 16673$

APP4

10-23-07 10:17:44

PS

PAGE 237

238 / Appendix 4

a. The Catholic Church and the Church—including, inter alia, its Communities and institutions, b. Communities of the Catholic Church—meaning the Catholic religious entities considered by the Holy See as Churches sui juris and by the State of Israel as Recognized Religious Communities; c. The State of Israel and the State—including, inter alia, its authorities established by law. 2. Notwithstanding the validity of this Agreement as between the Parties, and without detracting from the generality of any applicable rule of law with reference to treaties, the Parties agree that this Agreement does not prejudice rights and obligations arising from existing treaties between either Party and a State or States, which are known and in fact available to both Parties at the time of the signature of this Agreement. Ar ticle 14

1. Upon signature of the present Fundamental Agreement and in preparation for the establishment of full diplomatic relations, the Holy See and the State of Israel exchange Special Representatives, whose rank and privileges are specified in an Additional Protocol. 2. Following the entry into force and immediately upon the beginning of the implementation of the present Fundamental Agreement, the Holy See and the State of Israel will establish full diplomatic relations at the level of Apostolic Nunciature, on the part of the Holy See, and Embassy, on the part of the State of Israel. Ar ticle 15

This Agreement shall enter into force on the date of the latter notification of ratification by a Party. Additional Protocol

1. In relation to Art. 14 (1) of the Fundamental Agreement, signed by the Holy See and the State of Israel, the ‘‘Special Representatives’’ shall have, respectively, the personal rank of Apostolic Nuncio and Ambassador.

................. 16673$

APP4

10-23-07 10:17:44

PS

PAGE 238

Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Israel / 239

2. These Special Representatives shall enjoy all the rights, privileges and immunities granted to Heads of Diplomatic Missions under international law and common usage, on the basis of reciprocity. 3. The Special Representative of the State of Israel to the Holy See, while residing in Italy, shall enjoy all the rights, privileges and immunities defined by Art. 12 of the Treaty of 1929 between the Holy See and Italy, regarding Envoys of Foreign Governments to the Holy See residing in Italy. The rights, privileges and immunities extended to the personnel of a Diplomatic Mission shall likewise be granted to the personnel of the Israeli Special Representative’s Mission. According to an established custom, neither the Special Representative, nor the official members of his Mission, can at the same time be members of Israel’s Diplomatic Mission to Italy. 4. The Special Representative of the Holy See to the State of Israel may at the same time exercise other representative functions of the Holy See and be accredited to other States. He and the personnel of his Mission shall enjoy all the rights, privileges and immunities granted by Israel to Diplomatic Agents and Missions. 5. The names, rank and functions of the Special Representatives will appear, in an appropriate way, in the official lists of Foreign Missions accredited to each Party.

FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL FOR THE HOLY SEE

Done in two original copies in the English and Hebrew languages, both texts being equally authentic. In case of divergency, the English text shall prevail. Signed in Jerusalem, this 30th day of the month of December, in the year 1993, which corresponds to the 16th day of the month of Tevet, in the year 5754. [signed by:] Mr. Yossi Beilin, Deputy Foreign Minister for the State of Israel Msgr. Claudio Celli, Assistant Secretary of State for the Holy See

................. 16673$

APP4

10-23-07 10:17:45

PS

PAGE 239

................. 16673$

APP4

10-23-07 10:17:45

PS

PAGE 240

Notes

1. Paths Taken and Enduring Questions in Jewish-Christian Relations Today: Thir ty Years of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews

Cardinal Walter Kasper 1. Jules Isaac, The Teaching of Contempt: Christian Roots of Anti-Semitism (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston), 1964. 2. Editors’ Note: Cardinal Kasper had more fully developed some of these topics in a lecture delivered at Boston College on November 6, 2002, available on the Vatican’s website at: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/ pontifical_councils/chrstuni/card-kasper -docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_200211 06_kasper-boston-college_en.html. See especially section III. 2. Progress and Issues of the Dialogue from a Jewish Viewpoint Rabbi Dr. Riccardo Di Segni 1. Augustin Cardinal Bea, ‘‘Il popolo ebraico nel piano divino della salvezza,’’ Civilita` Cattolica 4 (1965): 209–29, reprinted in L. Sestieri and G. Cereti, eds., Le Chiese cristiane e l’ebraismo, 1947–1982 (Casale Monferrato: Marietti, 1983), 95. See also Augustin Cardinal Bea, The Church and the Jewish People: A Commentary on the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966). Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) appears to follow this point of view when he claims that ‘‘in the Old Testament [the people of God] was the people of Israel, from Christ onwards the new people is that of his disciples’’ (Il Tempo, February 27, 2004, 7). 2. Television interview, CNN International, February 24, 2004. 3. This is suggested in provocative fashion by Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblum, ‘‘Ecumenical Dialogue, Why Bother?’’ Jerusalem Post, January 2, 2004, 20.

................. 16673$

NOTE

10-23-07 10:17:47

PS

PAGE 241

242 / Notes to pages 26–48

3. Jewish Perspectives on Christianity Rabbi Giuseppe Laras 1. Editors’ note: The same verse is cited in Nostra Aetate, 4, in support of an eschatological hope for the day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice.

4. Reflections toward Jewish-Christian Dialogue Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini 1. The notes to this contribution have been added by the editors. See Bruno Forte’s contribution elsewhere in this volume. 2. Statement to the press from the meeting of the bilateral committee of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, Grottaferrata, Rome, October 17–19, 2004. See Norbert J. Hofmann’s contribution elsewhere in this volume and appendix 3. 3. This refers to the group called Parents Circle (www.theparents circle.com). 4. Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Redemptionis Anno, April 20, 1984. English text in Eugene J. Fisher and Leon Klenicki, eds., Spiritual Pilgrimage: John Paul II—Texts on Jews and Judaism, 1979–1995 (New York: Crossroad, 1995), 33–37. 5. Statement to the press from the meeting of the bilateral committee of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, Grottaferrata, Rome, October 17–19, 2004. See Norbert Hofmann’s contribution elsewhere in this volume. 6. Ibid. 7. June 14, 1984. See Fisher and Klenicki, 38.

5. The Difficult Apprenticeship of Diversity Anna Foa 1. On this theme, which is the subject of a vast bibliography, see Piero Stefani, Antigiudaismo. Storia di un’idea (Roma: Laterza, 2004); and Heinz Schreckenberg, The Jews in Christian Art: An Illustrated History (London: SCM, 1996). 2. See Kenneth R. Stow, Alienated Minority. The Jews of Medieval Latin Europe (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992); and Anna Foa, The Jews of Europe after the Black Death (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000). 3. See Roberto Bonfil, Jewish Life in Renaissance Italy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994). 4. See Ariel Toaff, Love, Work, and Death: Jewish Life in Medieval Umbria (London/Portland, Ore.: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1996). 5. See Bernhard Blumenkranz, Le Juif me´die´val au miroir de l’art chre´tien (Paris: E´tudes Augustiniennes, 1966). 6. See Anna Foa, Eretici. Storie di streghe, ebrei e convertiti (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2004).

................. 16673$

NOTE

10-23-07 10:17:48

PS

PAGE 242

Notes to pages 48–61 / 243

7. The fundamental work in this area is the study by Attilio Milano, Il ghetto di Roma. Illustrazioni storiche (Roma: Carducci, 1964). See also Kenneth R. Stow, Theater of Acculturation: The Roman Ghetto in the Sixteenth Century (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2001). 8. On these aspects, see Luciano Allegra, Identita´ in bilico. Il ghetto ebraico di Torino nel Settecento (Torino: Zamorani, 1996). 9. The bibliography on this topic is virtually endless. See, among others, Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, From Spanish Court to Italian Ghetto: Isaac Cardoso: A Study in Seventeenth-Century Marranism and Jewish Apologetics (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1981); Yosef Kaplan, From Christianity to Judaism: The Story of Orobio de Castro (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989); Henri Me´choulan, Amsterdam au temps de Spinoza: argent et liberte´ (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1990); and Nathan Wachtel, La foi du souvenir: labyrinthes marranes (Paris: E´ditions du Seuil, 2001). 10. See, in particular, Marina Caffiero, Battesimi forzati. Storie di ebrei, cristiani e convertiti nella Roma dei papi (Rome: Viella, 2004). 11. Even on this point the bibliography is extremely vast. I shall merely mention the fundamental contributions by Giovanni Miccoli, Santa Sede, questione ebraica e antisemitismo fra Otto e Novecento, in Corrado Vivanti, ed., Gli ebrei in Italia, Storia d’Italia, Annali, 2 (Torino: Einaudi, 1997), 1369–1574; and R. Moro, La Chiesa e lo sterminio degli ebrei (Bologne: Il Mulino, 2002).

6. The Shoah as a Shadow upon and a Stimulus to JewishChristian Dialogue

Massimo Giuliani 1. Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah (Vatican City, 1998) para. 2. 2. Emmanuel Levinas, Difficile liberte´ (Paris, 1963); Eng. trans., Difficult Freedom: Essays on Judaism (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), 99. 3. Levinas, Difficult Freedom, 5. 4. Eliezer Berkovits, With God in Hell: Judaism in the Ghettos and Deathcamps (1979), cited in Massimo Giuliani, Il pensiero ebraico contemporaneo (Brescia: Morcelliana 2003), 418. 5. Emil L. Fackenheim, Jewish-Christian Relations after the Holocaust: Toward Post-Holocaust Theological Thought, The Joseph Cardinal Bernardin Jerusalem Lecture (Chicago, 1996), 15. 6. ‘‘Letter of John Paul II to Card. Edward I. Cassidy,’’ in We Remember, 3–4. 7. Emil Fackenheim, Jewish-Christian Relations after the Holocaust, 2. 8. Francesco Rossi De Gasperis, ‘‘Una rilettura da Gerusalemme,’’ in Gianfranco Bottoni and Luigi Nasoni, eds., Secondo le Scritture. Chiese Cristiane e popolo di Dio (Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 2002), 372–73. 9. Eugene J. Fisher and Leon Klenicki, eds., Pope John Paul II—Spiritual Pilgrimage: Texts on Jews and Judaism, 1979–1995 (New York: Crossroad, 1996), 100–101. For Christian documents concerning the Shoah, see also the

................. 16673$

NOTE

10-23-07 10:17:48

PS

PAGE 243

244 / Notes to pages 61–74

two volumes edited by Helga Croner: Stepping Stones to Further JewishChristian Relations (New York/London: Stimulus Books, 1977); More Stepping Stones to Jewish-Christian Relations (New York/Mahwah: Paulist Press/ Stimulus Books, 1985); and sites such as www.jcrelations.net, www.sidic .org, and www.bc.edu/cjlearning. 10. For the original French text, see La Documentation Catholique 94 (1997): 874. 11. Levinas, Difficult Freedom, 12 (translation partially modified). 12. Joseph Ratzinger, Many Religions—One Covenant: Israel, the Church and the World (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999), 22. 13. Joseph Ratzinger, preface to Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2001). 14. Emil L. Fackenheim, ‘‘Abraham’s Covenant under Assault: The Need for a Post-Holocaust Theology, Jewish, Christian and Muslim,’’ in Jack Bemporad, John T. Pawlikowski, and Joseph Sievers, eds., Good and Evil After Auschwitz: Ethical Implications for Today (Hoboken, N.J.: KTAV, 2000), 10–11. 15. Bottoni and Nasoni, Secondo le Scritture, 247. 16. Quoted in Massimo Giuliani, Cristianesimo e Shoah. Riflessioni teologiche (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2000), 23. About Martin Cunz, see in particular 72–79. 17. Alice Eckardt, ‘‘Creating Christian Yom Ha Shoah Liturgies,’’ in Marcia Sachs Littell and Sharon Weissman Gutman, eds., Liturgies on the Holocaust: An Interfaith Anthology (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1996), 6–12. 18. We Remember, para. 5.

7. Israel and the Church—The Two Explorers of the Promised Land: Toward a Christian Theology of Judaism Archbishop Bruno Forte 1. ‘‘A type of Christ hanging from the Cross.’’ So claims for instance Evagrius (the Historian) around 430 in Altercatio inter Theophilum et Simonem, PL 20, 1175. Cf. H. Leclerq, Dictionnaire d’Arche´ologie Chre´tienne et Liturgie (Paris: Letouzey, 1907–53), 3.169–70; Corrado Leonardi, Ampelos. Il simbolo della vite nell’arte pagana e paleocristiana (Roma: Edizioni Liturgiche, 1947), 149–63. 2. ‘‘The two bearers of the pole indicated a type of the two peoples, the one in front representing your people turning his back to Christ, the one behind representing our people looking at the cluster of grapes.’’ Thus again, Evagrius, Altercatio inter Theophilum et Simonem, PL 20, 1175. The same ideas are found in St. Maximus of Turin (middle of the fifth century): Hom. 79: PL 57, 423ff. 3. Yves Congar, ‘‘Ecclesia ab Abel,’’ in Marcel Reding et al., eds., Abhandlungen u¨ber Theologie und Kirche: Festschrift Karl Adam (Du¨sseldorf: Patmos, 1952), 103 n. 65, refers to Peter of Mora (Capuanus; died 1242) and to Adam of St. Victor. The allusion is to Mark 11:9: Qui praeibant et qui

................. 16673$

NOTE

10-23-07 10:17:49

PS

PAGE 244

Notes to pages 74–84 / 245

sequebantur clamabant dicentes Hosanna (those who were going in front and those who followed cried out saying Hosanna). 4. Genesis Rabbah 5.7 and Leviticus Rabbah 10.9. 5. ‘‘What is not subject to anything greater, but can be contained in what is smallest, is divine.’’ Cf. H. Rahner, ‘‘Die Grabschrift des Loyola,’’ in Stimmen der Zeit 139 (1946–47): 321–39. This sentence, quoted in Imago Primi Saeculi Societatis Jesu (Antwerp, 1640); 280, as Elogium sepulcrale S. Ignatii, was used by Ho¨lderlin in 1794 as the opening for the novelistic fragment Hyperion. 6. See the presentation of this tradition in Gershom Scholem, ‘‘Scho¨pfung aus Nichts und Selbstverschra¨nkung Gottes,’’ Eranos Jahrbuch (1956), 87–119. See also his Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (Jerusalem: Schocken, 1941) (repr. New York: Schocken, 1961), 260–65. After having noted the Kabbalists’ overturning of the notion of a ‘‘contraction’’ of the divine presence on Mount Zion (divine contraction ad extra) through the doctrine of the divine contraction ad intra, Scholem notes: ‘‘One is tempted to interpret this withdrawal of God into his own Being in terms of Exile, of banishing Himself from His totality into profound seclusion. Regarded this way, the idea of Tsimtsum is the deepest symbol of Exile that could be thought of’’ (261). 7. Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishma’el, Pish.a 14.99–107. 8. This is the hypothesis of Andre´ Neher, The Exile of the Word: From the Silence of the Bible to the Silence of Auschwitz (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1981). See also Claude Vige´e, Dans le silence de l’Aleph. E´criture et Re`ve`lation (Paris: Albin Michel, 1992). 9. Neher, 135. 10. Ibid., 167, 168. 11. Emmanuel Le´vinas, Difficult Freedom: Essays on Judaism, trans. Sean Hand (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), 145. 12. See Marc-Alain Ouaknin, Tsimtsoum: introduction a` la me´ditation he´braı¨que (Paris: Albin Michel, 1992). 13. See the study by Maurice Olender, The Languages of Paradise: Aryans and Semites, a Match Made in Heaven, trans. A. Goldhammer; rev. and enl. ed. (New York: Other Press, 2002). 14. On the theology of the relation between the church and Israel, see, among others: Augustin Bea, The Church and the Jewish People: A Commentary on the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (London: Chapman, 1966); Norbert Lohfink, The Covenant Never Revoked: Biblical Reflections on Christian-Jewish Dialogue (New York: Paulist Press, 1991); Franz Mussner, Tractate on the Jews: The Significance of Judaism for Christian Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); also his Die Kraft der Wurzel. Judentum-Jesus-Kirche (Freiburg: Herder, 1987); Clemens Thoma, A Christian Theology of Judaism (New York: Paulist Press, 1980). John T. Pawlikowski, Judentum und Christentum, in Theologische Realenzyklopa¨die (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1988), 17.386–403, supplies a comprehensive bibliography as well as an exhaustive survey of the various positions. 15. See Lumen Gentium, 6.

................. 16673$

NOTE

10-23-07 10:17:49

PS

PAGE 245

246 / Notes to pages 84–89

16. Et ita Patres antiqui [veteris Testamenti] pertinebant ad idem corpus Ecclesiae ad quod nos pertinemus, St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III, q.8, a.3, ad 3 (Utrum Christus sit caput omnium hominum, ‘‘On whether Christ is the head of all humanity’’). 17. This is the thesis of the single covenant, put forth, for instance, by authors such as Monika Hellwig, Marcel Dubois, Paul van Buren, Norbert Lohfink, et al. See the accurate survey of John Pawlikowski, Judentum und Christentum, 393–98. 18. See Gershom Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (New York: Schocken, 1971), 1. 19. See John T. Pawlikowski, Judentum und Christentum, 398ff. This is the position of the two-covenant theology, which goes from the rather simplistic oppositions of James Parkes (the experience of Sinai destined to the community and that of Golgotha destined to the relationship between the individual and God) to a wide variety of intermediate positions, among which one ought to highlight that of Clemens Thoma, A Christian Theology of Judaism, who evidences the choices made by Jesus Himself among the various forms of Israel’s messianic expectations (which were far from homogeneous) and sees the novelty of Christianity in the fact that the Prophet from Galilee announces the advent of the kingdom of God and connects it to His person and His work. See also the views of Franz Mussner, Tractate on the Jews: The Significance of Judaism for Christian Faith and Die Kraft der Wurzel. Judentum—Jesus-Kirche, who sees the novelty in the deepest relationship of unity between Jesus and God and thus in the Incarnation, which is read as a radicalization of the promise, rather than as its realized fulfillment. To support his claim, Mussner reminds us of the anticipation of the ‘‘Christology of the Son’’ present in Old Testament Wisdom literature. 20. Thoma, A Christian Theology of Judaism, 173–74 (excerpted). 21. See the hypotheses put forth by Thoma, ibid., in his part III: Jews and Christians Since the Time of Christ. 22. See Carmine Di Sante, L’Antica e la Nuova Alleanza. Il rapporto tra i due Testamenti, in Sergio Quinzio and Carmine Di Sante, eds., Israele e le genti (Rome: AVE, 1991), 53–71. 23. Thus Jules Isaac, in Je´sus et Israe¨l (Paris: Albin Michel, 1948), 123, synthesizes this position. It is the persistent influence of a Marcionite mentality that might make the use of the term ‘‘New Covenant’’ equivocal: see Norbert Lohfink, The Covenant Never Revoked, 13–19ff. 24. See Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God, trans. John E. Steely and Lyle D. Bierma (Durham, N.C.: Labyrinth Press, 1990). Note also the information given by Ireneus of Lyon in Adversus Haereses I, 27, 1–3, classifying Marcion among the Gnostics. 25. See Manlio Simonetti, Lettera e allegoria. Un contributo alla storia dell’esegesi patristica (Roma: Ist. Patristico Augustinianum, 1985). 26. See Oscar Cullmann, Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History, trans. Floyd V. Filson (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1950), 133. 27. See St. Augustine, Quaestiones in Heptateuchum 1.2, q. 73: PL 34, 623: Novum Testamentum in Vetere latebat; Vetus nunc in Novo patet.

................. 16673$

NOTE

10-23-07 10:17:50

PS

PAGE 246

Notes to pages 91–100 / 247

28. Nostra Aetate, 4. For a collection of the most important documents in Christian-Jewish relations, see the two volumes edited by Helga Croner: Stepping Stones to Further Jewish-Christian Relations (New York: Stimulus Books, 1977) and More Stepping Stones to Jewish-Christian Relations (New York: Paulist Press/Stimulus Books, 1985) and the websites www.bc.edu/ cjlearning, www.sidic.org, and www.jcrelations.net.

8. The Covenant That Was Never Revoked: The Foundations of a Christian Theology of Judaism

Erich Zenger 1. See the panoramic surveys by Hans Hermann Henrix, Judentum und Christentum. Gemeinschaft wider Willen (Regensburg: Pustet, 2004); and Rainer Kampling and Michael Weinrich, eds., Dabru emet—redet Wahrheit. Eine ju¨dische Herausforderung zum Dialog mit den Christen (Gu¨tersloh: Kaiser, 2003). For the historical context of the declaration Nostra Aetate, see Erich Zenger, ‘‘Nostra aetate. Der notwendige Streit um die Anerkennung des Judentums in der katholischen Kirche,’’ in Gu¨nther Bernd Ginzel and Gu¨nter Fessler, eds., Die Kirchen und die Juden. Versuch einer Bilanz (Gerlingen: Lambert Schneider, 1997), 49–81. 2. Address at the Great Synagogue of Rome, April 13, 1986. 3. See Knut Backhaus, ‘‘Gottes nicht bereuter Bund. Alter und Neuer Bund in der Sicht des Fru¨hchristentums,’’ in Rainer Kampling and Thomas So¨ding, eds., Ekklesiologie des Neuen Testaments (Freiburg: Herder, 1996), 44. 4. Ibid., 45. 5. Ibid., 51. 6. Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler, eds., Kleines Theologisches Wo¨rterbuch (Freiburg: Herder, 1961), 16. 7. Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler, eds., Kleines Theologisches Wo¨rterbuch, 10th rev. ed. (Freiburg: Herder, 1976), 15. 8. Herbert Vorgrimler, Neues Theologisches Wo¨rterbuch (Freiburg: Herder, 2000), 105ff. 9. Rolf Rendtorff and Hans Hermann Henrix, eds., Die Kirchen und das Judentum. Dokumente von 1945–1985 (Paderborn: Bonifatius/Gu¨tersloh: Kaiser, 1988), 75. 10. Hans Hermann Henrix and Wolfgang Kraus, eds., Die Kirchen und das Judentum. Dokumente von 1986–2000 (Paderborn: Bonifatius/Gu¨tersloh: Kaiser, 2001), 108. 11. Ibid., 154. 12. Christen und Juden III. Schritte der Erneurung im Verha¨ltnis zum Judentum. Eine Studie der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland (Gu¨tersloh: Gu¨tersloher Verlagshaus, 2000), 22. 13. Of course, the publications on the theme of ‘‘covenant’’ are extremely numerous. For the idea of covenant that I am going to develop, see Hubert Frankemo¨lle, ed., Der ungeku¨ndigte Bund? Antworten des Neuen Testaments (Quaestiones Disputatae) (Freiburg: Herder, 1998), 172; Walter Groß, Zukunft fu¨r Israel. Alttestamentische Bundeskonzepte und die aktuelle Debatte

................. 16673$

NOTE

10-23-07 10:17:50

PS

PAGE 247

248 / Notes to pages 100–117

um den neuen Bund (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien) (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998), 176; Norbert Lohfink, Der niemals geku¨ndigte Bund. Exegetische Gedanken zum christlich-ju¨ dischen Dialog (Freiburg: Herder, 1989); Norbert Lohfink, ‘‘Ein Bund oder zwei Bu¨nde in der Heiligen Schrift,’’ in L’interpretazione della Bibbia nella Chiesa. Atti del simposio promosso dalla Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede (Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1999), 273–303; Norbert Lohfink and Erich Zenger, Der Gott Israels und die Vo¨lker Untersuchungen zum Jesajabuch und zu den Psalmen (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien) (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1994), 154; Erich Zenger, ed., Der Neue Bund im Alten (Quaestiones Disputatae) (Freiburg: Herder, 1993), 146. 14. Christen und Juden III, 23. 15. Christoph Levin, Die Verheißung des Neuen Bundes in ihrem theologie-geschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments) (Go¨ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 137, 140. 16. This must be stressed against the claims of Walter Groß in Zukunft fu¨r Israel, 152 (see note 12); this study, which does not always appropriate correctly my earlier contributions, does offer detailed exegetical analyses, but unfortunately fails to bring forth an original theological contribution to the discussion. 17. Christen und Juden III, 30. 18. Christen und Juden III, 42ff.: ‘‘Clearly, in a general New Testament perspective, the notion of covenant is oriented to Christology and to eschatology—not however to ecclesiology.’’ 19. See Erich Zenger, ‘‘‘Das ju¨dische Volk und seine Heilige Schrift in der christlichen Bibel’—Das ju¨ ngste Dokument der pa¨ pstlichen Bibelkommission als Herausforderung der katholischen Dogmatik,’’ in Peter Neuer and Peter Lu¨ning, eds., Theologie im Dialog (Mu¨nster: Aschendorff, 2004), 473–83. 9. Jewish-Christian Relations: A Conciliar Discover y and Its Methodological Consequences for Dogmatic Ideology Peter Hu¨nermann 1. See the series of articles on the state of Christian-Jewish relations in Theologische Quartalschrift 180 (2000): 81–160. 2. Cf. Rom. 11:28ff.; also Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium on the Church, n. 16 (AAS 57 [1965] 20, 4140) [note within Nostra Aetate]. 3. Cf. Is. 66:23; Ps. 66 [65]:4; Rom. 11:11–32 [note within Nostra Aetate]. 4. Nostra Aetate, 4. 5. See Peter Hu¨nemann and Thomas So¨ding, eds., Methodische Erneuerung der Theologie. Konsequenzen der wiederentdeckten ju¨disch-christlichen Gemeinsamkeiten Quaestiones Disputatae (Freiburg: Herder, 2003), 200. 6. STh I q.1, a.3, ad 1. 7. STh I q.1, a.8. 8. STh I q. 1, a. 8, ad 2. 9. Ibid.

................. 16673$

NOTE

10-23-07 10:17:51

PS

PAGE 248

Notes to pages 117–130 / 249

10. See Gaudium et Spes, 44. 11. See. Melito of Sardis, Homilia in Passionem Christi, ll, 762–64; also Walter Groß, ‘‘Der doppelte Ausgang der Bibel Israels und die doppelte Leseweise des christlichen Alten Testaments,’’ in W. Groß, ed., Das Judentum— eine bleibende Herausforderung (Mainz: Matthias-Gru¨newald-Verlag, 2001), 9–25, esp. 14. 12. Friedrich D. E. Schleiermacher, On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers, Richard Crouter, trans. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 211, 213. 13. Cf. Gal. 3:7 (note within Nostra Aetate). 14. Nostra Aetate, 4. 15. Rom. 1:16ff. 16. Rom 1:3ff., 9:5, 15:8. See also Michael Theobald, Studien zum Ro¨merbrief, WUNT 136 (Tu¨bingen: Mohr, 2001), 278–323, 367–95; Willhelm Thu¨sing, Die neutestamentlichen Theologien und Jesus Christus. Grundlegung einer Theologie des Neuen Testaments, vol. 3: Einzigkeit Gottes und JesusChristus-Ereignis (mit Studien zum Verha¨ltnis von Juden und Christen), ed. Thomas So¨ding (Mu¨nster: Aschendorff, 1999), esp. 107–270. 17. See Walter Groß, ‘‘Der doppelte Ausgang der Bibel Israels.’’ 18. See Helmut Merklein, ‘‘Der Su¨hnetod Jesu nach dem Zeugnis des Neuen Testaments,’’ in Helmut Merklein, Studien zu Jesus und Paulus II, WUNT 105 (Tu¨bingen: Mohr, 1998), 31–59, in part also 35–37. 19. Andreas Michel, Gott und Gewalt gegen Kinder im Alten Testament (Tu¨bingen: Mohr, 2003). 20. Lumen Gentium, 9.

10. Nostra Aetate and the Discover y of the Sacrament of Otherness Alberto Melloni 1. John M. Oesterreicher, The New Encounter between Christians and Jews (New York: Philosophical Library, 1986). 2. Eugene J. Fisher, ed., Visions of the Other: Jewish and Christian Theologians Assess the Dialogue (New York/Mahwah: Paulist Press/Stimulus Books, 1994). 3. Giuseppe Alberigo, ed., History of Vatican II [English version edited by Joseph A. Komanchak], 5 vols. (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books; Leuven, Holland: Peeters, 1995–2003). 4. David I. Kertzer, The Popes against the Jews: The Vatican’s Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2001). 5. Donald J. Dietrich, God and Humanity in Auschwitz: Jewish Christian Relations and Sanctioned Murder (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1995); and also Michael A. Signer, ed., Humanity at the Limit: The Impact of the Holocaust Experience on Jews and Christians (Bloomington/ Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2000). 6. Elisabeth Schu¨ssler-Fiorenza and David Tracy, eds., The Holocaust as Interruption (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1984); also Jacob Neusner, Death and Birth of Judaism: The Impact of Christianity, Secularism and Holocaust on Jewish Faith (New York: Basic Books, 1987).

................. 16673$

NOTE

10-23-07 10:17:51

PS

PAGE 249

250 / Notes to pages 130–137

7. Michael Phayer, The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930–1965 (Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2000). 8. On the sources, see Massimo Faggioli and Giovanni Turbanti, Il concilio inedito. Fonti del Vaticano II (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2001). 9. Giovanni Miccoli, ‘‘Two Sensitive Issues: Religious Freedom and the Jews,’’ in Giuseppe Alberigo, ed., History of Vatican II, vol. 4 (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books; Leuven, Holland: Peeters, 2003), 95–193. 10. On the contacts, see Sens 2002/4, with the papers of Jules Isaac. 11. Johannes Willebrands, ‘‘Il Cardinale Agostino Bea: il suo contributo al movimento ecumenico, alla liberta` religiosa e all’instaurazione di nuove relazioni col popolo ebraico,’’ in Simposio card. Agostino Bea (Roma, 16–19 dicembre 1981) (Rome: Pontificia Universita` Lateranense, 1983), 17; for a further reflection on this topic, see Stjepan Schmidt, Augustin Bea. The Cardinal of Unity (New York: New City Press, 1992). 12. Miccoli, 137. 13. The story of the encounter between the pope and Isaac is told in SIDIC (1968) 3: 10–12; the text with the requests handed over to John XXIII can also be found in Jean Toulat, ‘‘Una visita a Jules Isaac,’’ in Rassegna mensile d’Israel 11/12 (1972) [5733], 3–13. 14. Miccoli, 138. 15. Miccoli, 138 and note 164. For the political and diplomatic context, see Alberto Melloni, L’altra Roma. Politica e Santa Sede durante il Concilio Vaticano II (1959–1965) (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2000). 16. Miccoli, 138. For the problem of later theology, see Abraham J. Peck, ed., Jews and Christians after the Holocaust (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982). 17. Miccoli, 138. 18. Ibid., 139. 19. Jacques Nobe`court, ‘Le Vicaire’ et l’histoire (Paris: Seuil, 1964). In the context created by this piece, Paul Rassinier devised a sort of personal negationism, discussed by Florent Brayard, Comment l’ide´e vint a` Rassinier. Naissance du re´visionism (Paris: Fayard, 1996). 20. Miccoli, 140 and note 173. 21. Obviously, he did not refer to the missing encyclical by Pius XI on this topic, published in Georg Passelecq and Bernard Suchecky, L’Encyclique cache´e de Pie XI (Paris: La De´couverte, 1995). 22. Miccoli, 139–40. 23. Ibid., 141. 24. Ibid., 141–42 and note 175. 25. Ibid., 142. 26. Ibid., 143. 27. Ibid. 28. Ibid., 143–44. 29. Ibid., 145. 30. Ibid. 31. See the pope’s own observations in Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Ecumenici Vaticani Secundi (Vatican: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1970– 99), 5.2.572ff. 32. Miccoli, 149.

................. 16673$

NOTE

10-23-07 10:17:52

PS

PAGE 250

Notes to pages 137–147 / 251

33. Ibid., 146. 34. Acta Synodalia 5.2.558. 35. Miccoli, 146. 36. Acta Synodalia 5.2.558; also Miccoli, 146–47. 37. The letter by Rudloff to Paul VI, dated May 10, 1964, is in Acta Synodalia, 6.3.198; see Miccoli, 148. No adequate research has yet been done of the drafts and the notes related to the Rudloff papers. 38. Miccoli, 148. 39. Ibid. 40. Ibid. 41. Ibid., 149. 42. Ibid., 152. 43. Silvia Scatena, La fatica della liberta`. L’elaborazione della dichiarazione ‘Dignitatis humanae’ on religious freedom by Vatican II (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2003). The depth and breadth of the documentary and interpretive references of this text evidence how much work still needs to be done on Nostra Aetate. 44. Miccoli, 152. 45. Ibid., 135. 46. For the diplomatic context, see the index of Melloni, L’altra Roma. 47. Miccoli, 154–55. 48. Scatena, La fatica della liberta`. 49. Miccoli, 155. 50. Acta Synodalia 3.2.567–610, 3.3.9–55. 51. Miccoli, 156. 52. Ibid. 53. Ibid., 157, 165. 54. Ibid., 166. 55. Ibid., 167. 56. Ibid., 178. 57. Scatena, La fatica della liberta`. 58. Miccoli, 176–77. 59. Ibid., 184. 60. Ibid., 189. 61. Ibid., 190. 62. Ibid., 192. 63. Oesterreicher, The New Encounter, 228–33. 64. The synopsis of text C and of its changes is in Acta Synodalia 3.8.637–47. 65. Oesterreicher, The New Encounter, 237–38. 66. Ibid., 247–49. Other documents are also in Fondo De Smedt, nn. 1463–66. 67. For the reactions, see Melloni, L’altra Roma. 68. Fondo De Smedt, n. 1441; there is other material under the nn. 1467–72. 69. Leo Declerck and Eddy Louchez, Inventaire des papiers conciliaires du cardinal L.-J. Suenens, Cahiers de la Revue the´ologique de Louvain 31 (Louvain-la-Neuve: UCL, Faculte´ de the´ologie and Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 275.

................. 16673$

NOTE

10-23-07 10:17:52

PS

PAGE 251

252 / Notes to pages 147–153

70. Oesterreicher, The New Encounter, 253–60. On the reactionary circles, see Nicla Buonasorte, Tra Roma e Lefebvre. Il tradizionalismo cattolico italiano e il concilio Vaticano II (Rome: Studium, 2003). 71. The text that was presented for the attention of the fathers on September 30, 1965, in synopsis with its earlier version, can be found in Acta Synodalia 4.4.690–96. 72. Oesterreicher, The New Encounter, 272. 73. For the reactions of the embassies, see the index of Melloni, L’altra Roma. 74. Oesterreicher, The New Encounter, 274–76. 75. Shlomo Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews’ History (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1991). 76. Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs, eds., To See Ourselves as Others See Us: Christians, Jews, ‘Others’ in Late Antiquity (Chicago: Scholars Press, 1985). 77. This was the thesis of Miikka Ruokanen in The Catholic Doctrine of Non-Christian Religions According to the Second Vatican Council (Leiden, Holland: Brill, 1992). Ruokanen is convinced that Nostra Aetate is characterized by a substantial negation of the salvific potential of non-Christian religions. 78. With reference to this intuition by Barth, an overview of the recent theological discussions can be found in John T. Palikowski, ‘‘Nostra Aetate: Its Impact on Catholic-Jewish Relations,’’ in Thoughts 67 (1992): 372–84, n. 267.

11. The Creation and Work of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews

Cardinal Jorge Maria Mejı´a 1. The official communique´ in the ‘‘Information Service’’ of the Secretariat (today known as the Pontifical Council) for Christian Unity, March 1974: 22, ‘‘Taking into account the development of closer relations concerning matters of religion between the Catholic Church and Judaism and the Catholic Church and Islam, the Holy Father has decided to create two Commissions for relations with these religions.’’ For the reference to Islam, see below. 2. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 52 (1960): 436. 3. Augustin Cardinal Bea, The Church and the Jewish People (London: Chapman, 1966), 22: ‘‘Pope John XXIII received me in audience on 18 September, 1960 and charged the Secretariat for Christian Unity with the task of preparing a Declaration dealing with the Jewish people,’’ having in his mind, of course, the approaching Council. See also Stjepan Schmidt, Augustin Bea: The Cardinal of Unity (New Rochelle, N.Y.: New City Press, 1992), 332–39. 4. This is not the place to discuss the difficult subject of the declaration in the preconciliar and conciliar debates; for this, see Bea, The Church and the Jewish People, 22–27. The future declaration, initially suppressed from the program for the Council, was then placed after the fourth chapter of the draft of the future Decree on Ecumenism, and eventually it developed into an autonomous document during the second and the third sessions of the Council, thanks especially to the patient work of the same Cardinal Bea. See also

................. 16673$

NOTE

10-23-07 10:17:53

PS

PAGE 252

Notes to pages 153–155 / 253

Schmidt, Augustin Bea, 500–35. This report is trustworthy, as Schmidt was a careful historian and at the same time, as Cardinal Bea’s secretary, he was very close to the leading figure in these developments. 5. See the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus (June 28, 1988), art. 138: ‘‘Within the Council [for Christian Unity] a further Department has been established to study and handle the issues concerning the Jewish people from the religious point of view; this Commission is chaired by the President of the Council itself,’’ already in Regimini Ecclesiae Universae (August 15, 1967), art. 94. 6. Established with the Motu proprio of May 19, 1964, later established as an organ of the Holy See in Pastor Bonus, art. 159–62. 7. Father Rijk began his contacts with an ‘‘International Consultative Committee of Organisations for Christian Jewish Co-operation’’ in Vienna on December 6–8, 1967. See ‘‘Information Service’’ (April 1968), 13, containing a brief report of the meeting. 8. This was the case, despite the fact that there already then existed socalled Amicizia/Amitie´/Amistad/Freundschaft between Jews and Christians, i.e., local or national councils of Christians and Jews. It is, however, only after 1974 that episcopal commissions for this purpose were established by Bishops’ conferences. 9. The first official meeting of this entity with the Secretariat for Christian Unity took place on December 20–23, 1970. The two sides redacted a so-called ‘‘Memorandum of Understanding’’ (see appendix 2) to outline the content and the limits of the encounter from the point of view of both sides. Thus began the history of the ‘‘International Liaison Committee’’ between the Catholic Church and IJCIC (‘‘Information Service’’ [February 1971], 11), whose meetings then continued more or less regularly until the eighteenth in Buenos Aires in July 2004, and the nineteenth in Cape Town in November 2006. 10. The organizations represented within IJCIC have a certain continuity, but they were never exactly the same. Of particular importance, however, has always been the World Jewish Congress, whose outstanding president, Dr. Nahum Goldman, Cardinal Bea had already met with privately on October 26, 1960, immediately after receiving from Pope John XXIII the task of handling relations with the Jewish people (Schmidt, Augustin Bea, 337–38, based in part on Goldman’s autobiography). 11. See the text quoted in note 1, with the comment of the ‘‘Information Service,’’ 22–23. 12. See Pastor Bonus, art. 162, as well as the text quoted in note 1. 13. See for this the ‘‘Information Service’’ (March 1967), 24, with all the necessary clarifications, of which the most important is the following (explicitly theological) remark: ‘‘3) theologically, since the Church still considers the Old Testament as a sacred work inspired by God and forming part of the basis of her faith, this forms an essential link between her and Judaism which recognizes the Old Testament as the ground for its existence.’’ One could thus say theologically that the two religions are tied together at the very level of their religious identity. Editors’ note: As indeed Pope John Paul II would go on to say on March 6, 1982. 14. These terms are repeated in the Annuario Pontificio for the year 2004, 1718, where the commission is presented. The text quoted in note 1 said,

................. 16673$

NOTE

10-23-07 10:17:54

PS

PAGE 253

254 / Notes to pages 155–164

‘‘The two Commissions (for Judaism and for Islam) come under respectively, the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity and the Secretariat for Non-Christians.’’ 15. See § 25 of the ‘‘Notes.’’

12. The Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee

Pier Francesco Fumagalli 1. See International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee, Fifteen Years of Catholic-Jewish Dialogue, 1970–1985, Selected Papers (Vatican City/Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana/Pontificia Universita´ Lateranense, 1988); also J. L. Lichten, ‘‘Origine del Comitato internazionale di collegamento cattolicoebraico (1970–1982),’’ in Giovanni Cereti and Lea Sestieri, eds., Le chiese cristiane e l’ebraismo, 1947–1982 (Marietti: Casale Monferrato, 1983), 376– 83. For all the surveys and the general information concerning the activity of the ILC, one may consult the bilingual (English/French) magazine Information Service/Service d’information of the Secretariat, today’s Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity. Information and general documentation on this topic can also be found in Pier Francesco Fumagalli, ed., Fratelli prediletti. Chiesa e popolo ebraico, Documenti e fatti, 1965– 2005 (Milan: Mondadori, 2005). 2. The five Jewish organizations that established IJCIC were the American Jewish Committee, B’nai B’rith International, the Jewish Section of the Israel Interfaith Association, the Synagogue Council of America, and the World Jewish Congress. 3. See appendix 2, A to this volume. The text of the memorandum can also be found in ILC, Fifteen Years of Catholic-Jewish Dialogue, 15–16. 4. Other ‘‘official’’ dialogues have been established subsequently, such as the Joint Commission for Jewish-Catholic Dialogue in Israel launched in Jerusalem in 2002. See the contribution by Norbert Hofmann, which appears next in this volume. 5. See Johannes Willebrands, ‘‘Nostra Aetate: The Fundamental Starting Point for Jewish-Christian Relations,’’ in Fifteen Years of Catholic-Jewish Dialogue, 274. 6. To this particular topic of the Shoah was devoted the whole of the thirteenth meeting—a plenary session held in Prague. Thanks to the initiative of the ILC, the acts of this session were published in Istina 36/3 (Prague, September 3–6, 1990) as ‘‘Apre`s la shoa. Juifs et chre´tiens s’interrogent.’’ 7. Concerning the Buenos Aires session, see Norbert J. Hofmann, ‘‘Dialogo su giustizia e carita`,’’ in Il regno (Bologna: Dehoniane, 1956–), 2004, fasc. 14 (attualita`), 449. 8. See Radici dell’antigiudaismo in ambiente cristiano: Colloquio IntraEcclesiale, Atti del Simposio Teologico-storico (Citta` del Vaticano, 30 ottobre—1 novembre 1997), Atti e documenti 8 (Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2000). 9. International Theological Commission, Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past (1999).

................. 16673$

NOTE

10-23-07 10:17:54

PS

PAGE 254

Notes to pages 164–172 / 255

10. Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (2001). 11. See Gerhart M. Riegner, Never Despair: Sixty Years in the Service of the Jewish People and of Human Rights (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006). 12. This episode is to be the object of a more exhaustive commentary in the book Eredi (Heirs), which I am currently preparing for the publishing house Mondadori.

13. A Sign of Great Hope: The Beginning of the Dialogue between the Holy See and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel

Norbert J. Hofmann 1. Norbert J. Hofmann, ‘‘Vatikan und Oberrabbinat im Dialog,’’ in Freiburger Rundbrief, Neue Folge 11 (2004), 186–93. 2. The Chief Rabbinate, as the highest authority, dates back to the Ottoman Empire. The chief rabbi (Sephardic) functioned as the spokesperson for the Jewish community to the sultan. The structure of the Chief Rabbinate, made up of a council and two chief rabbis (one Sephardic and one Ashkenazi), was established under the British Mandate before the founding of the State of Israel. See Julius H. Schoeps, Neues Lexikon des Judentums (Gu¨tersloh: Bertelsmann, 2000), 621ff. 3. L’Osservatore Romano (January 17, 2004), 5. 4. Discussions normally take place in English, but two members usually speak in French and one rabbi only speaks Hebrew (simultaneous translation is always provided). 5. The Jewish delegation at the second meeting included: Rabbi Shear Yashuv Cohen, Rabbi Rasson Arussi, Rabbi David Brodman, Mr. Oded Wiener, and Mr. Shmuel Hadas. The Catholic delegation included: Cardinal Jorge Mejı´a; Cardinal Georges Cottier, O.P.; Bishop Giacinto-Boulos Marcuzzo; Archbishop Pietro Sambi; Monsignor Pier Francesco Fumagalli; Father Elias Chacour; and Father Norbert J. Hofmann, S.D.B. 6. See Jacques Dupuis, ‘‘Der interreligio¨se Dialog als Herausforderung fu¨r die christliche Identita¨t,’’ in Zeitschrift fu¨r Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 88 (2004): 3–19, esp. 3–8. 7. Dominus Iesus, § 2, AAS 92 (2000): 742–65. 8. See ‘‘Message of His Holiness John Paul II for the Celebration of World Day Peace’’ (January 1, 2002), n. 7: ‘‘No religious leader can condone terrorism, and much less preach it. It is a profanation of religion to declare oneself a terrorist in the name of God, to do violence to others in his name. Terrorist violence is a contradiction of faith in God, the Creator of man, who cares for man and loves him.’’ 9. Representatives of the Jewish delegation: Rabbi Shear Yashuv Cohen, Rabbi Rasson Arussi, Rabbi Yossef Azran, Rabbi David Brodman, Rabbi David Rosen, Mr. Oded Wiener, and Mr. Shmuel Hadas; of the Catholic delegation: Cardinal Jorge Mejı´a, Bishop Giacinto-Boulos Marcuzzo, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, Monsignor Pier Francesco Fumagalli, Father Elias Chacour, and Father Norbert J. Hofmann, S.D.B. 10. Representatives of the Jewish delegation: Rabbi Shear Yashuv Cohen, Rabbi Rasson Arussi, Rabbi Yossef Azran, Rabbi David Brodman, Rabbi

................. 16673$

NOTE

10-23-07 10:17:55

PS

PAGE 255

256 / Notes to pages 172–226

David Rosen, and Mr. Oded Wiener; of the Catholic delegation: Cardinal Jorge Mejı´a; Cardinal Georges Cottier, O.P.; Bishop Giacinto-Boulos Marcuzzo; Archbishop Pietro Sambi; Monsignor Pier Francesco Fumagalli; Monsignor Ambrogio Spreafico; and Father Norbert J. Hofmann, S.D.B. Appendix 3. Joint Statements of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel’s Delegation for Relations with the Catholic Church

1. See http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item967; and Hans Hermann Henrix, ‘‘Wider die Indienstnahme der Religionen durch Hass und Gewalt,’’ in Freiburger Rundbrief, Neue Folge 9 (2002): 166–76. 2. L’Attivita` della Santa Sede nel 2003 (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004) concerning a papal audience for the conference Truth, Justice, Love, Freedom: Pillars of Peace, organized by the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue, December 2, 2003.

................. 16673$

NOTE

10-23-07 10:17:56

PS

PAGE 256

About the Contributors

His Excellency Oded Ben-Hur is Ambassador of Israel to the Holy See. Rabbi D. Riccardo Di Segni is the Chief Rabbi of Rome. Anna Foa is Professor of Modern History at La Sapienza University,

Rome. His Excellency Bruno Forte is Archbishop of Chieti-Vasto and formerly Professor of Dogmatic Theology at the Pontifical Theology Faculty of Southern Italy, Naples. Monsignor Pier Francesco Fumagalli is the former Secretary of the Holy

See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. Massimo Giuliani is Professor of Jewish Studies at the Faculty of Literature and Philosophy of the University of Trent, Italy. Peter Hu¨nermann is Professor Emeritus in the Faculty of Catholic Theology of the University of Tu¨bingen, Germany. Cardinal Walter Kasper is President of the Holy See’s Commission for

Religious Relations with the Jews. Rabbi Professor Giuseppe Laras, the former Chief Rabbi of Milan, is

Professor at the State University of Milan.

................. 16673$

CTRB

10-23-07 10:17:48

PS

PAGE 257

Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini is the Archbishop Emeritus of Milan. Cardinal Jorge Maria Mejı´a is the former Secretary of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. Alberto Melloni is the Director of the Dossetti Library of the Fondazi-

one per le scienze religiose Giovanni XXIII, Bologna, and Professor of Contemporary History at the University of Modena-Reggio Emilia. Cardinal Achille Silvestrini is the Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation

for the Oriental Churches. Erich Zenger is Professor Emeritus in the Faculty of Catholic Theology of the University of Mu¨nster, Germany.

................. 16673$

CTRB

10-23-07 10:17:48

PS

PAGE 258

About the Editors

Philip A. Cunningham, the founding Executive Director of the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College, is a member of the U.S. Bishops’ Advisory Committee on Catholic-Jewish Relations. Norbert J. Hofmann, S.D.B., is Secretary of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. Joseph Sievers is Professor of Jewish History and Literature at the Pon-

tifical Biblical Institute and Director of the Cardinal Bea Centre for Judaic Studies at the Pontifical Gregorian University.

................. 16673$

CTRB

10-23-07 10:17:49

PS

PAGE 259

................. 16673$

CTRB

10-23-07 10:17:49

PS

PAGE 260

Index

Agagianian, Gre´goire-Pierre (cardinal), 142 Alberigo, Giuseppe, 129 Alexandria Declaration, 234 Al-Thani, Abdullah bin Khalifa (sheikh), 166 Amar, Shlomo (chief rabbi), 167–68, 229 America, 147 American Jewish Committee, xiv, 149 Antisemitism, 6, 7, 17, 51–53, 133, 138, 139, 140, 149, 161, 171, 172, 182, 183, 187, 202–7, 218, 226, 228 Anti-Zionism, 163, 218 Augustine of Hippo, 82, 123 Baptism, validity of when coerced, 44–45, 50 Baeck, Leo, 4 Bakshi-Doron, Elijahu (chief rabbi), 168 Barak, Ehud (prime minister), 184 Baum, Gregory, 131, 145 Barnabas, Letter of, 96 Bea, Augustin (cardinal), ix, 5, 7, 15, 16, 36, 113, 130–51 passim, 153, 180 Becker, Fritz, 164

................. 16673$

Ben Asher, Ya’aqov, 27 Ben-Chorim, Schalom, 4 Ben Gurion, David (prime minister), 190 Benedict XIV (pope), 50, Benedict XVI (pope), 221, 229. See also Ratzinger, Joseph (cardinal) Berkovits, Eliezer, 58 Bible, 31, 70, 214, 215, 225–26, 228; relations between two Christian testaments, 87–91, 100–6, 120–21, 203–4; respect for Jewish readings of, 108–10; Jewish readings of as a locus theologicus semiproprius, 124 Biblical revelation, eschatological nature of, 74–81 B’nai B’rith, 148 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, 59 Browne, Michael (cardinal), 137, 138, 141 Brutti, Maria, xiv Buber, Martin, 4 Bueno y Monreal, Jose´ Marı´a (cardinal), 140 Cano, Melchior, 117–18, 122, 123 Cardinal Bea Centre for Judaic Studies, x, xii, xiv Carli, Luigi (bishop), 145

IND1

10-23-07 10:17:51

PS

PAGE 261

262 / Index

Carmelite Convent at Auschwitz, 69, 165, 206 Caro, Joseph, 27 Casaroli, Agostino (cardinal), 158 Cassidy, Edward Idris (cardinal), 7, 9, 10, 155, 204 Castle, Moonyeen, 220 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 61, 98, 163–64, 205 Catholic theology of Judaism, see Christian theology of Judaism Cattoi, Thomas, xii CELAM (Latin American Bishops’ Conference), 157 Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College, x, xii Chacour, Elias (archbishop), 169 Charrie`re, Franc¸ois (bishop), 146 Christian-Jewish dialogue, limits of, 17–18 Christian-Jewish Relations, history of, 9–10, 30, 36, 41–53, 130, 133, 134, 103–4; theological questions, 10, 65–67, 115, 118–26, 207; collaboration on contemporary issues, 10–11, 19, 32, 36, 37, 161, 202, 204, 205, 222, 228; asymmetry of, 13–14, 18, 24; need for prayer in, 33; important for world, 207 Christian theology of Judaism, 10, 15, 29–30, 66–67, 73–91, 92– 112; need for awareness of Jewish self-understanding, 30; need for awareness of the Christian Bible, 31; need for awareness of postbiblical Judaism, 31; ecumenical consensus toward, 92–93; Israel’s covenant as salvific, 108 Christianity and Judaism, unique relations or bond between, 5, 92– 93, 154–55; parting of the ways, 34 Church as ‘‘new people of God,’’ 15, 124–25 Church and Synagogue, images of, 41–42, 51 Ciappi, Mario Luigi (cardinal), 137, 138 Cicognani, Amleto Giovanni (cardinal), 131, 134, 137, 138, 140, 141, 144, 151

................. 16673$

IND1

Civilta` Cattolica, 52, 144 Clement of Alexandria, 88 Clement IV (pope), 45 Colombo, Giovanni (cardinal), 141 Cohen, Shear Yashuv (chief rabbi), 169, 172, 227, 229 Commission for Religious Relations with Islam, 154 Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, xi, xiii, xiv, 3–5, 7–9, 12, 152–58, 168, 173, 188, 206, 229; ‘‘Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing the Conciliar Declaration, Nostra Aetate, 4,’’ 7, 154, 156, 163, 205; ‘‘Notes on the Correct Way to Present Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Teaching in the Roman Catholic Church,’’ 7, 158, 163, 205, 215; ‘‘We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah,’’ 7, 9, 54–55, 57, 70, 163, 165–66; and International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee, 159–66 Concert of Reconciliation (Jews, Christians, Muslims), 167 Congar, Yves, 131, 132, 136, 144, 145, 146 Congregation for Catholic Education, 160 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 160 Congregation for the Oriental Churches, 160 Conversion of the heart, 33 Conversion of Jews to Christianity, 16, 24, 42, 43–46, 48, 50, 108, 137, 170, 172, 228; and Christian mission, witness, 161 Cottier, Georges (cardinal), 226 Covenant(s), 6, 65, 74, 84, 126; between God and Jews as alive and unrevoked, 6, 92, 98–99, 102, 107–8; number of, 10, 90–91, 101, 102; single covenant, 84–86; two-covenant, 86–87; theology of Letter to the Hebrews, 93–96; new covenant / old covenant, 94– 98, 103–5; linguistic considerations, 100–6; as freely

10-23-07 10:17:51

PS

Index / 263

established by God, 100, 102, 108; as soteriological concept, 102; as eschatological, 104–5, 111–12; ‘‘people of Old Covenant’’ as problematic, 105–106; ‘‘Christ’s covenant’’ as eschatological, 106, 111; between God and Jews as salvific, 108 Croce, Benedetto, 49 Cum nimis absurdum, 48 Cunz, Martin, 66 Cushing, Richard (cardinal), 141 Dabru Emet, 70 Day of Judaism, 67–68 De Castro Mayer, Antonio (bishop), 141 De Contenson, Pierre Marie Stanislaus, 155, 156–57 De Smedt, Emiel-Jozef (bishop), 146, 147 Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, see Nostra Aetate. De Gasperis, Francesco Rossi, 60 Deicide charge, 17, 92, 133, 146–47, 148, 149 De Judaeis, see Nostra Aetate Dell’Acqua, Angelo (archbishop), 147 Di Segni, Riccardo (chief rabbi), 174 Duprey, Pierre, 145, 155, 165 Eckardt, Alice, 68–70 Education, 36, 68, 161, 163, 171, 172, 175, 187, 201–2, 204, 205–6, 208, 214–16, 227 Elchinger, Le´on-Arthur-Auguste (bishop), 141 Environment (ecology, creation), 11, 37, 161–62, 209–11 European constitution, 19 European Jewish-Christian Congress, 11 Expulsions of Jews, 48 Fackenheim, Emil, 59, 64–65 Family, 11, 34, 161–62, 169, 171, 207–9, 225 Farrell, Brian (bishop), 155 Federici, Tommaso, 157

................. 16673$

Feldman, Leon A., 164 Felici, Pericle (cardinal), 136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 144, 145, 147 Fesquet, Henri, 141 Foucauld, Charles de, 36 Forte, Bruno (archbishop), 29 Flusser, David, 4 Fisher, Eugene, 129 France, Catholic Bishops of, 61–62 Francis of Assisi, 75 Frings, Josef (cardinal), 139, 143 Fumagalli, Pier Francesco, 155, 165 Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Israel, see State of Israel, relations with the Holy See Gadamer, Hans-Georg, 119 Galiani, Flavia, xiv Gdansk, archbishop of, 140 Ghettos, confinement of Jews to, 48– 49, 50 Goldstein, Warren (chief rabbi), 220 Good Friday, prayer for the ‘‘perfidious Jews,’’ 4, 180 God, unity of, 25; judgment of, 55–57; divine contraction of, see tzimtzum; silence of, 77–80; as ‘‘prime truth,’’ 116 Gori, Alberto (archbishop), 145–46, 150 Gran, John Willem Nicolaysen (bishop), 146 Gregory the Great (pope), 42, 44 Ha-Levy, Yehudah, 26 Hadas, Shmuel, 169 Halpe´rin, Jean, 164 Ha-Meiri, Menachem ben Shelomo, 27 Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 34 Hebrews, Letter to the, 93–96 Heenan, John (archbishop), 141 Herzog, Chaim, 131 Heschel, Abraham Joshua (rabbi), 15 HIV/Aids, 220–21 Hochhuth, Rolf, 132 Hoeckman, Remi, 155 Hofmann, Norbert, 155 Holy See, relations with the State of Israel, see Israel, State of, relations with the Holy See

IND1

10-23-07 10:17:52

PS

264 / Index

Holy sites, 162, 174, 211–14, 231–32 Holocaust, see Shoah Host desecration, charge of, 47 Hungary, Catholic bishops of, 61 Hungary, Ecumenical Council of the Churches of, 61 Identifying signs, 46 Idolatry, 25–27 Incarnation, 13, 77, 89, 91 Inquisition, 45, 48 International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee (ILC), 7–8, 159–66; Memorandum of Understanding, 160, 201–2; joint statements of, 202–22 International Council of Christians and Jews (ICCJ), 8 International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations (IJCIC), 8, 154, 159–66, 206 International Theological Commission, 164 Ireneus of Lyon, 96–97 Isaac, Jules, 4, 5, 13–14, 131, 150, 180 Islam, 26, 35, 42, 64, 67, 70, 202; extremist, 188; dialogue with, 221– 22, 231–32 Israel, land of, 24, 202 Israel, as ‘‘people of the Old Covenant,’’ 105–6 Israel, State of, relations with the Holy See, xi, 8, 131, 134, 140, 151, 155–56, 160, 161, 174–75, 179–85, 186–190, 206; Fundamental Agreement between, 8, 57, 158, 174–75, 181–82, 187–88, 233–39; foundation of, 68, 180 Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 3, 8, 32– 33, 175, 187–90, 227, 228–29 Italian state and papacy, 51 Jerusalem, 35, 171, 173–74, 180, 181 Jesus, 24, 26; Jewish rejection of him as messiah, 92, 110–12, 120–22 Jewish-Christian relations, see Christian-Jewish relations

................. 16673$

IND1

Jewish theology of Christianity, 19– 20, 25 Jews, as chosen people, 6 John XXIII (pope), ix, 6, 131, 132, 134, 140, 142, 150, 153, 179–80, 216 John Paul I (pope), 181 John Paul II (pope), ix, xi, 4–6, 11, 35, 37, 113, 163, 170–71, 180, 181, 183–85, 187, 189, 203–4, 216–17, 218, 219, 223, 224, 226, 228, 229; rejection of antisemitism, 6; teaching that covenant between God and Jews endures, 6, 98–99; visit to Great Synagogue of Rome, 6, 158, 187; prayer at Mass of Pardon, 6, 57, 62, 99, 130, 158; Prayer at Western Wall, 6, 57, 99, 130, 158, 168, 180, 215; visit to Yad Vashem, 168, 180; on Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 35; on the Shoah, 59, 61, 69; church’s intrinsic relationship to Judaism, 93; tensions prior to trip to USA, 164–66; meetings with Israeli chief rabbis, 167, 168 Jordan, 181 Justice and charity, 216–18 Justin Martyr, 96 Kasper, Walter (cardinal), 17, 155, 168, 174, 175, 220, 226 Kenosis, 76 Klausner, Joseph, 4 Kolbe, Maximilian, 69 Ko¨nig, Franz (cardinal), 144 La Pira, George, 36 Laras, Giuseppe (rabbi), 31 Laurentin, Rene´, 149 Lau, Israel Meir (chief rabbi), 168 Le De´aut, Roger, 157 Lefe`bvre, Joseph (archbishop), 6, 141 Leo XIII (pope), 52 Lercaro, Giacomo (cardinal), 138, 141, 142, 149 Leven, Stephen Aloysius (bishop), 141, 148–49 Levinas, Emmanuel, 56, 58, 62

10-23-07 10:17:52

PS

PAGE 264

Index / 265

Lichten, Joseph, 148, 164 Lichtenberg, Bernhard (canon), 59 Life, sanctity of, sanctification of, 11, 37, 169, 210, 224–25, 230–31 Luckner, Gertrud, 4 Luria, Isaac, 75 Marca, Giacomo della, 46 Marcion, 88 Maimonides, 26, 27 Marcuzzo, Giacinto-Boulos, 169 Maritain, Jacques, 4 Marranos, 49 Martini, Carlo Maria (cardinal), 157 Massignon, Louis, 36 Maximos IV (patriarch), 139 May, John L. (archbishop), 61 Meir, Golda, 131 Mejı´a, Jorge (cardinal), 155, 163, 169, 171, 226, 227, 229 Me´ndez Arceo, Sergio (bishop), 141 Messianism, 74, 86–91, 110–12, 125 Metzger, Yona (chief rabbi), 167–68, 220 Miccoli, Giovanni, 129, 131 Michael, Andreas, 124 Modernity, antipathy of church to, 49–52 Moeller, Charles, 136, 144, 145, 155, 156 Mohammed, 26; see also Islam Le Monde, 143 Mortara, Edgardo, 50 Muslims, see Islam Napier, Wilfrid Fox (cardinal), 220 Napoleon and Jewish emancipation, 51 Neuner, Joseph, 144, 145 Ngcuka, Phumzile Mlambo (deputy president), 220 Nostra Aetate, ix, xi, 5, 113–15, 152–53, 154, 179–80, 202, 205, 215, 216, 223, 229; fortieth anniversary of, xi, xii, 3, 217–18, 219; twenty-fifth anniversary of, 161; drafts of, xiii–xiv; origins of, ix, 5; opposition to, 5, 6; as ‘‘beginning of a new beginning,’’ 7;

................. 16673$

church as ‘‘new people of God,’’ 15; as turning point, 41, 53, 57, 99, 202; theological consequences of, 115, 118–26; Old Testament as Christian pre-history, 119; drafting of, 129–51, 191–200; opposition to by Arab countries, 131, 133, 134, 139, 144, 145, 148, 149, 151; opposition to in pamphlets, statements, 134, 140–41, 148–50; expansion of to include all religions, 135, 144; as ‘‘sacrament of Otherness,’’ 150–51 Oesterreicher, John M., 129, 131, 140, 144, 145, 146 Origen, 88 Orthodox Jews and interreligious dialogue, 12, 168–69, 174–75 Ouellet, Marc (cardinal), 155 Oz, Amos, 189 Palestra del clero, 147 The Passion of the Christ (movie), 17 Paul V (pope), 48 Paul VI (pope), 129, 132–50 passim, 152, 154, 159; visit to the Holy Land, 136, 180 Pius IX (pope), 50 Pius X (pope), 150 Pius XII (pope), 58, 131, 132, 134, 140 Poland, Catholic bishops of, 62 Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, 62–63, 99, 106–12, 113, 164; The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, 108 Pontifical Biblical Institute, 34 Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, 153 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, 160, 163 Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, see Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews

IND1

10-23-07 10:17:53

PS

PAGE 265

266 / Index

Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, 5, 153, 154, 164 Pontifical Gregorian University, x, xii, xiv, 16, 64 Pontifical Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, see Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity Porosis (‘‘hardening’’) of Israel, 120–22; of the church, 122–23 Rabbinate of Israel’s Delegation for Relations with the Catholic Church, xiv, 8, 12, 35, 167–75, 218, 220, 223–32 Rahner, Karl, 97 Rashi, 26 Rasool, Ebrahim, 220 Ratzinger, Joseph (cardinal), 62–63, 139, 145–46 Religious freedom, 202, 211–14, 230 Riegner, Gerhard M., 131, 164, 165 Rijk, Cornelius A., 153, 156 Ritter, Joseph (cardinal), 141 Ritual murder, charge of, 47–48, 50, 52 Rosen, David (chief rabbi), 30, 220 Rosenzweig, Franz, 4 Rudloff, Leo (abbott), 138 Ruffini, Ernesto (cardinal), 141, 143, 150 Sambi, Pietro (archbishop), 169 Salvation, community-oriented nature of, 74, 81–86 Schiffman, Lawrence H., 161 Schleiermacher, Friedrich, 119 Schoneveld, Jacobus, 85 Secretariat for Christian Unity, 5, 134, 135, 137, 145, 153, 154, 159–60 Secretariat of State (Holy See), 160 eper, Franjo (cardinal), 139, 141 Sharon, Ariel (prime minister), 190 Sheehan, Daniel (archbishop), 145 Shittuf, 25 Shoah, xi, 4, 9, 11, 52–53, 54–70, 130, 132, 146, 161, 164–65, 184–85, 222

................. 16673$

IND1

Sievers, Joseph, 161 Silvestrini, Achille (cardinal), 158 Singer, Israel, 220 Siri, Giuseppe (cardinal), 142 Sisebut (Visigoth king), 44 Sixtus V (pope), 47 Spellman, Francis (cardinal), 137– 38, 140 Stangl, Josef (bishop), 146 Stein, Edith, 16, 69, 165 Stoehr, Martin, 62 Suenens, Leo Jozef (cardinal), 147 Supersessionism, 42, 85, 94 Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities, 37 Synagogue and Church, images of, see Church and Synagogue, images of Synagogue Council of America, 165 Synod of Toledo, 44 The Tablet, 132 Talmud, banning of, burning of, 47, 52 Tappouni, Ignace (cardinal), 140 Terrorism, 11, 32, 170–71, 172, 188–89, 218, 228 Tertullian, 96–97 Teshuva` (Milanese interconfessional group), 65–66 Theology, nature of, 115–18; ‘‘grounding sources’’ of, 117–18; Nostra Aetate’s impact on its ‘‘grounding sources,’’ 118–26 Thomas Aquinas, 116–18 Toaff, Elio (chief rabbi), 187, 229 Torah, loving more than God, 78–79 Torrella, Ramo´n (archbishop), 155, 157 Turbato Corde, 45 Tzimtzum, 75 Uccello, Paolo, 47 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 61 Velati, Mauro, 129, 148 Venturi, Tacchi, 52 Vorgrimler, Herbert, 97–98

10-23-07 10:17:54

PS

PAGE 266

Index / 267

Waldheim, Kurt, 164 Waxman, Mordechai, 165 Weizman, Ezer (president), 183–84 Wiesel, Elie, 68, 69 Willebrands, Johannes (cardinal), 7, 36, 136, 137, 144, 145, 146, 155, 156, 160, 165, 166, 206

................. 16673$

World Council of Churches, 132, 149 Yehoshua, Abraham, 56 Yeshiva University, 169 Zille, Helen (mayor), 220

IND1

10-23-07 10:17:54

PS

PAGE 267

................. 16673$

IND1

10-23-07 10:17:54

PS

PAGE 268

Index of Scriptural Passages

Old Testament / Tanakh

Genesis 1–2 1:26–30 1:26–27 1:26 1:27 2:15–20 3:14–19 12:3 17:7 17:13 17:19 18:19 22 27:45 33:14

162, 209 210 230 162, 210, 216, 224, 228 225 210 210 56 103 103 103 226 64 21 20

Exodus 19–34 19:6 20:12 20:13 22:20–22 23 24:3–8 32:9 34:6–7 34:9 ff 34:10–28

103 84 225 224 163, 216 210 103 103 103 105 103

................. 16673$

Leviticus 19:2 19:18 23:16 25 26:10

224 216 103 210 103

Numbers 13:23 28:26

73–74 103

Deuteronomy 5:3 23 5:16 225 5:17 224 6:4–5 90 15 210 20:19 211 26:5–10 76 26:16–19 104 29:28 28 1 Kings 19:11–13

77

Psalms 16:8–9 19:2 24:1 31:13–15

227 77 211 185

IND2

10-23-07 10:17:53

PS

PAGE 269

270 / Index

33:3 34:15 96 96:1 98 98:1 104:30 105:8–10 111:5 111:9 148 149:1

104 227 211 104 211 104 36 103 103 103 211 104

Zephaniah (Sophonia) 3:9 26, 114 New Testament

Song of Songs 2:7 28 7:14 103 Sirach 44–50

100

Isaiah 2:4 8:17 11:9 19:25 42:6 49:6 49:14 54:10 55:8 61:1–4 64:7 65:17

227 78 104 37 56 56 20 103 26 125 22 70

Jeremiah 31 31:31–34 31:32 31:34

95 94, 96, 100, 103, 105 104 104

Lamentations 3:23 103 Hosea 11:1–11 11:9

101 102

Micah 5:8

227

................. 16673$

Matthew 11:27 13 22:39 25:31–46 28:18–20

77 84 216 163, 216 84

Mark 1:15 3:13–19 16:15ff 16:18

77 83 77, 84 123

Luke 3:8 4:18–21 5:36–39 19:42 23:24

123 77 88 114 137

John 1:14 3:5ff 19:6

77 125 114

Acts of the Apostles 3:15–17 137 3:15 145 13:27 137 5:10 84 12:17 84 21:12–14 83 21:2 83 22:17–20 84 26:6–7 83 Romans 1:16 4:25 6:5ff 9–11 9:4 9:5 9:6–8

IND2

119 125 121 97, 105, 107 105 63 86

10-23-07 10:17:54

PS

PAGE 270

Index / 271

11 11:11 11:14 11:15 11:16 11:17–24 11:18 11:21 11:25–32 11:25 26b 11:28–29 11:28 11:29 11:31 11:32 16:25

87, 107 82 82 34 82 114 63, 67, 82 122 105 120 105 223 114, 150 82, 107 105 120 90

1 Corinthians 10:18 86 11:25 124 15:20–28 84 15:28 86 2 Corinthians 1:20 90 3 97

................. 16673$

Galatians 3–4 3:7 3:29 4:4 4:26ff 6:16

97 114 86 77 83, 84 86

Ephesians 1:10 2:14–16 5:25–26

77 114 84

Philippians 2:6 ff 76 Hebrews Entire letter 8:6–8a 8:8b–12 8:13

93–96 94 94 94, 96

1 Peter 1:23 2:9 2:9ff

125 84 125

IND2

10-23-07 10:17:54

PS

PAGE 271

................. 16673$

IND2

10-23-07 10:17:54

PS

PAGE 272

The Abrahamic Dialogues Series David B. Burrell, series editor

Donald Moore, Martin Buber: Prophet of Religious Secularism. James L. Heft, Ed., Beyond Violence: Religious Sources of Social Transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Rusmir Mahmutc´ehajic´, Learning from Bosnia: Approaching Tradition. Rusmir Mahmutc´ehajic´, The Mosque: The Heart of Submission. Alain Marchadour and David Neuhaus, The Land, the Bible, and History: Toward the Land That I Will Show You. James L. Heft, ed., Passing on the Faith: Transforming Traditions for the Next Generation of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Rusmir Mahmutc´ehajic´, On Love: In the Muslim Tradition. Phil Huston, Martin Buber’s Journey to Presence. Thomas Michel, S.J., ed., Friends Along the Way: Jesuits Encounter Contemporary Judaism.

................. 16673$

SERI

10-23-07 10:17:58

PS

PAGE 273

................. 16673$

SERI

10-23-07 10:17:59

PS

PAGE 274