took and mixed in with three measures of flour until
all of it was leavened." Matthew 13:33
Catholics and Jews Again in the News
Originally published in E-Leaven, February 8 , 2009, Issue
3
by John F. Kane
It's been hard to miss the latest falling out between Jewish groups and the Vatican - concerning the Pope's revoking of the excommunication of a schismatic Bishop who turns out to be a Holocaust denier. Some may also be aware of other recent sources of conflict and tension such as Catholic statements about the violence in Gaza and the Pope's reinstatement of "traditional" Catholic language praying for the conversion of Jews in the Good Friday liturgy. These and other events have contributed to a sense among some observers that the growing reconciliation between Catholics and Jews since Vatican II (in the early 1960s), and especially during the papacy of John Paul II (1978-2005), has been slowing or is even being reversed.
My discussion here of such tensions may itself be controversial since I have been a participant in "Catholic-Jewish" relations throughout my life, and in recent years have been a fairly passionate participant. Thus, while I shall strive to be as objective as possible, I will not hesitate to express personal judgments. I realize that others may see things differently. I encourage them to write in reply and will, unless they do not wish it, publish such replies in a follow-up issue.
1. Frankly I think the Pope really goofed in his removal of excommunication for the Holocaust-denier Bishop. Jewish groups are right to be offended and others right to be astounded. I suspect (hope) it will be a short lived "media event" that will not cause significant damage. Leaven readers probably noted the Pope's "next day" conciliatory message to Jews, with its strong statement about the reality of the Holocaust and its strong affirmation about the continuing importance of reconciliation between Catholics and Jews. And the even more recent Vatican scrambling demanding that the man recant.
Here's my personal suspicion about why the Pope went ahead with the removal of excommunication even though he or others in the Vatican should have known about the man's views on the Holocaust. (I stress that this is mostly my speculation, not reported facts.) Reconciling with this schismatic group has been on the Vatican's agenda for some time, and this "intra-Catholic" goal was, for the moment, more important for Rome than its relations with Judaism. Why? Because the status of bishops (and thus of priests) is utterly central to the Pope's understanding of Catholicism, and thus of his own primary responsibilities as Pope. Having bishops who are validly ordained by a schismatic Archbishop represents a serious threat to the official or orthodox understanding of the "divinely ordained structure of the Catholic Church" - and thus to the unity of the Church. So the fact that this Bishop is a Holocaust denier was probably less important to the Vatican than the fact that he is a validly ordained Bishop who must be brought back within the Catholic structure of authority.
Most Leaven readers probably don't care as much about this authority structure and this understanding of Catholic unity. Indeed, the most fundamental issue dividing so-called "conservative" and so-called "liberal" Catholics today concerns the nature and exercise of church authority. Thus the "liberals" are miffed that the Pope spends so much energy mending fences with conservative extremists while in many other ways he alienates even moderately liberal Catholics. Most non-Catholic observers (such as Jews and secular media folks) simply don't "get" the Vatican's obsessive concern for what probably seems a fairly "medieval" and arcane understanding of church structure and authority. Thus their surprise and outrage.
2. The tiff about restoring the "traditional" wording of a prayer in the Good Friday liturgy is actually more significant than it seems.
The "traditional" prayer that I grew up with not only prayed for the conversion of Jews, but labeled them "perfidious" - something dropped from Benedict's restoration. The old Latin may actually have meant "unbelieving" (referring to the obvious fact that Jews do not accept Jesus as God and Savior), but the English translation that millions of Catholics once heard now seems the equivalent of the Muslim term "infidel." I honestly don't think that that term was heard by most American Catholics in anti-Semitic ways, though some tell me there was lots of anti-semitism among "ordinary" Catholics back in the day. Nor do I think that "passion plays" (re-enacting the events of Jesus' passion and death and typically depicting "Jews" as responsible), any more than Mel Gibson's more recent and notorious film, led most American Catholics towards anti-Semitic attitudes. Again, I may be wrong about that. Yet I also have to say that until recently most Catholics, at least in this country, remained blithely ignorant of their Jewish neighbors' far longer memories of accusations about being "Christ killers" which often reached a pitch around Good Friday and led to real persecution and pogroms.
Benedict's restoration of that prayer is part of what some have termed his more "muscular" return to traditional Catholic claims to truth - about Jesus and the role of Catholicism in salvation "for all." Benedict has long been a fierce opponent of cultural and religious relativism. He really does believe in inter-religious dialogue, but sees acknowledgement of conflicting truth claims as central to such dialogue. Thus he is not afraid to offend Jews (and Muslims and others) by echoing John Paul II's call for a more evangelical and missionary Church. He finds no contradiction between, on the one hand, strong support for religious freedom and toleration in the political realm and, on the other, both prayer and missionary action for conversion in the religious realm.
Many other (more "liberal") Catholics part with the Pope on this approach religious pluralism and dialogue. They are struggling towards a sense of interfaith reality which, while eschewing the easy and culturally prevalent secular path of multi-cultural relativism, nonetheless might allow for far greater acknowledgement of the truth of other faiths and might nourish real mutual cooperation as we move into a shared global future.
3. Events in Gaza and, more generally, the recent history of conflict in Israel-Palestine involve more long-standing and perhaps far more serious differences between many Catholics and many Jews.
The Vatican has long had differences with Israel about Jerusalem and about the status of Palestinians. It officially recognized Israel only relatively recently, in 1993 under John Paul II, though it has had significant relations with the Jewish state since its inception. It still speaks of "the Holy Land," a designation some Jews see as an implicit snub of Israel's legitimacy. For years it lobbied for international recognition of Jerusalem as an independent city under shared Christian-Jewish-Muslim authority. It has always been especially concerned about Palestinian Christians, and more generally about human rights for all Palestinians. In recent years it has seemed to share the general European tilt of opinion towards the Palestinians. During the height of the Gaza violence, one highly placed Vatican Cardinal spoke of Gaza as "a huge concentration camp" - a remark which, whether calculated or not, was inevitably taken as inflammatory by Israeli and Jewish sensitivities.
Of course the Vatican has also spoken up for Palestinian rights because of its concern for good relations with Arab and Muslim states that have significant Christian and Catholic populations. Indeed, some observers suggest that Rome, for obvious demographic and geo-political reasons, is increasingly more concerned about relations with Islam (and also Hinduism) than with Judaism. Catholicism is growing far more rapidly in India and Africa than in the West. Thus it is growing in places dominated by or having borders with Islam and Hinduism, and is declining (at least proportionately) in places like Europe where Jewish-Christian relations have long been important. As one commentator recently said: "There are roughly 13 million Jews in the world, and 1.6 billion Muslims; you do the math." And the same "math" figures in Catholic relations with India and also China. Yet such remarks probably only heighten Jewish fears and insecurities.
Until quite recently American Catholics by and large have rejoiced at improving relations with Judaism and with Israel. They shared outrage about the Holocaust and did not question the "traditional" American foreign policy tilt towards Israel. Yet (and this is my judgment), many Catholics in leadership positions (both lay and clerical) have increasingly begun to question that foreign-policy tilt. As I put it to a large Jewish audience a year or so ago, the Catholics I talk to are undergoing an almost "180-turn" in their views on Israel-Palestine. That observation did not win me any friends, but I believed then, and still believe, that it is largely true and needs saying - not to sour Catholic-Jewish relations, but to put them on a more honest footing, and perhaps to enable all of us to work both towards peace with the Muslim world and for greater and more real security for Israel.
Let me put this last point another way. As I see it, leadership Catholics in this country increasingly share so-called "controversial" views about Israel-Palestine which are being vigorously articulated by Jimmy Carter - i.e., that Israel is more responsible for breaking peace agreements and ignoring UN resolutions; and that Israeli settlements' policy is indeed creating a de facto situation of apartheid, reducing Palestinian presence to separated and impoverished cantons or "Bantustans." I also suspect that such views are becoming more widespread in "mainstream" American Protestant leadership circles. I suspect they are not (yet?) shared by most "ordinary" Catholics and Protestants, largely because of the pro-Israel tilt of our political establishment and our media. And I know they are vigorously rejected by strongly pro-Israel American Protestant fundamentalists.
It should not be surprising, then, that there are growing tensions, both globally and in this country, between many Catholics and many Jews. Indeed, I've only presented one Catholic perspective on such tensions. We, at least in this country, need to hear other perspectives - whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or secular. I hope that Leaven might serve as one vehicle for such exchange.