|Note: During the month of April I will be covering Pope Benedict XVI’s apostolic visit to the United States (April 15-20) at BenedictinAmerica.blogspot.com.|
“Bending my Stiff Neck” – Vox Nova‘s Nate Wildermuth — an ‘absolute pacifist’ (to the point of condemning even justifiable defensive force, and with whom I have had scores of debates) — wrestles with the words of the Holy Father:
Over the past three days, I’ve had my 1000% daily recommended dose of ‘Pope’: waving “hi” and “bye” at the National Shrine, attending the mass at Nationals Stadium, reading his flurry of speeches/addresses/homilies over and over again, and most importantly – praying that the Holy Spirit will open my heart to learning from our Church and its leader. But I wasn’t quite prepared for the opening salvo of our Holy Spirit, coming in the Pope’s words at the White House:
“Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience — almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad.”
These words crushed me.
How could the Pope repeat United States propaganda, and express admiration for US bloodshed? I racked my mind for ways to interpret his words in another way, but I couldn’t. …
I have so much to learn.
After a great deal of reflection and prayer, my heart has moved, my neck has bent. I have seen something startling: we live in a society where “defense of life” and “nonviolence” are mostly mutually exclusive, and because the defense of life must take priority over a commitment to nonviolence, most Christians are duty-bound to defend life with the least amount of violence possible.
Did I just write that? I did. But only after three days of gut-wrenching prayer!
I am not suggesting that violence is good, or even Christian. I am suggesting, however, that the circumstances of our society require us to choose defense of life over nonviolence. In other words – if the only way I can defend life is to use a gun, then I must use a gun.
Strikes will not stop robbers from breaking into our homes. Nonviolent communication will not stop those who do not wish to communicate. We have no nonviolent alternatives to police forces or militaries. We have no nonviolent alternatives to courts and prisons. Nonviolent means of defending life are mostly confined to idealistic exhortations to “love your enemy and trust in God’s grace to work miracles.”
Nonviolent means of defending life must be reasonable, passing the common sense rule, being as readily available as the gun in Target, or a call to 911. To criticize those who use violence to defend life when there are no other ways to defend life is . . . well . . . possibly scandalous.
Instead of offering concrete ways of defending home and family without violence, I have condemned all violence in every situation. I forced people into a corner – demanding they renounce violence while giving them nothing in its place – asking them to be “like a worm at the bidding of a bully.”
My advocacy of nonviolence has consisted in saying, “no, no, no!” to America. But our Pope tells us that Christianity is not “no, no, no,” but is “yes, yes, yes!” All his words and actions reverberate within the great “yes” that is Christ our hope. Not one word of “no” passed through his lips over the past three days, even as he spoke of evil. Instead, he proposed solutions aimed at transforming our society into one of peace and justice – a world where men and women can finally embrace nonviolence, “a world where it is easier to be good.”
It is time for me to do the same.
It’s amazing what a Pope can do. I feel like I’ve been through a war, and that this little reflection is but a brief respite. But thank God, and praise Him. He is GOOD.
Praise to Benedict XVI for teaching by the force of his words and presence what positively reams of blogging and combox debating could not. And to Nate as well for his thoughtful post (and courage in publishing it).
I can relate (to some extent), Nate — my father’s side coming from a Mennonite background and being politically-left / pacifist, I had to likewise reconcile long-held assumptions.
Just as Catholic tradition makes a distinction between ‘killing’ and ‘homicide’, it seems to me that rather than condemning any and all use of armed force as “violence” [= evil], the Catholic tradition rather evaluates the use of force, judging its worth according to moral criteria.
The former has often been dubbed the “‘dirty hands’ tradition” (whereby to pick up a gun, even defensively, is to unavoidably involve one’s self in sin), the latter the “just war tradition” of moral-reasoning and a moral evaluation of armed force. (My father examined this in an essay “War and the Eclipse of Moral Reasoning” back in 2002).
None of this discounts the witness of pacifists — who by their actions and adherence to nonviolence anticipate and manifest in this reality a time where the lion will truly “lay down with the lamb”, where all swords will be “beaten into plowshares.”
Probably no movie illustrates this ongoing debate between the two traditions than one of my favorite movies, Robert Bolt and Roland Joffé’s 1986 film The Mission.
* * *
- Good Wars
by Darrell Cole. First Things October 2001.
Thank you for your gracious words of welcome on behalf of the people of the United States of America. I deeply appreciate your invitation to visit this great country. My visit coincides with an important moment in the life of the Catholic community in America: the celebration of the two-hundredth anniversary of the elevation of the country’s first Diocese – Baltimore – to a metropolitan Archdiocese, and the establishment of the Sees of New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Louisville. Yet I am happy to be here as a guest of all Americans. I come as a friend, a preacher of the Gospel and one with great respect for this vast pluralistic society. America’s Catholics have made, and continue to make, an excellent contribution to the life of their country. As I begin my visit, I trust that my presence will be a source of renewal and hope for the Church in the United States, and strengthen the resolve of Catholics to contribute ever more responsibly to the life of this nation, of which they are proud to be citizens.
From the dawn of the Republic, America’s quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the Creator. The framers of this nation’s founding documents drew upon this conviction when they proclaimed the “self-evident truth” that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights grounded in the laws of nature and of nature’s God. The course of American history demonstrates the difficulties, the struggles, and the great intellectual and moral resolve which were demanded to shape a society which faithfully embodied these noble principles. In that process, which forged the soul of the nation, religious beliefs were a constant inspiration and driving force, as for example in the struggle against slavery and in the civil rights movement. In our time too, particularly in moments of crisis, Americans continue to find their strength in a commitment to this patrimony of shared ideals and aspirations.
In the next few days, I look forward to meeting not only with America’s Catholic community, but with other Christian communities and representatives of the many religious traditions present in this country. Historically, not only Catholics, but all believers have found here the freedom to worship God in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, while at the same time being accepted as part of a commonwealth in which each individual and group can make its voice heard. As the nation faces the increasingly complex political and ethical issues of our time, I am confident that the American people will find in their religious beliefs a precious source of insight and an inspiration to pursue reasoned, responsible and respectful dialogue in the effort to build a more humane and free society.
Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience – almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad. The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate. It also demands the courage to engage in civic life and to bring one’s deepest beliefs and values to reasoned public debate. In a word, freedom is ever new. It is a challenge held out to each generation, and it must constantly be won over for the cause of good (cf. Spe Salvi, 24). Few have understood this as clearly as the late Pope John Paul II. In reflecting on the spiritual victory of freedom over totalitarianism in his native Poland and in eastern Europe, he reminded us that history shows, time and again, that “in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation”, and a democracy without values can lose its very soul (cf. Centesimus Annus, 46). Those prophetic words in some sense echo the conviction of President Washington, expressed in his Farewell Address, that religion and morality represent “indispensable supports” of political prosperity.
The Church, for her part, wishes to contribute to building a world ever more worthy of the human person, created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen 1:26-27). She is convinced that faith sheds new light on all things, and that the Gospel reveals the noble vocation and sublime destiny of every man and woman (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 10). Faith also gives us the strength to respond to our high calling, and the hope that inspires us to work for an ever more just and fraternal society. Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders and those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation.
For well over a century, the United States of America has played an important role in the international community. On Friday, God willing, I will have the honor of addressing the United Nations Organization, where I hope to encourage the efforts under way to make that institution an ever more effective voice for the legitimate aspirations of all the world’s peoples. On this, the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the need for global solidarity is as urgent as ever, if all people are to live in a way worthy of their dignity – as brothers and sisters dwelling in the same house and around that table which God’s bounty has set for all his children. America has traditionally shown herself generous in meeting immediate human needs, fostering development and offering relief to the victims of natural catastrophes. I am confident that this concern for the greater human family will continue to find expression in support for the patient efforts of international diplomacy to resolve conflicts and promote progress. In this way, coming generations will be able to live in a world where truth, freedom and justice can flourish – a world where the God-given dignity and rights of every man, woman and child are cherished, protected and effectively advanced.
Mr. President, dear friends: as I begin my visit to the United States, I express once more my gratitude for your invitation, my joy to be in your midst, and my fervent prayers that Almighty God will confirm this nation and its people in the ways of justice, prosperity and peace. God bless America!
Last month Michael Sean Winters wrote a piece entitled Not Eye to Eye: Wholly Different Angles on the World (Washington Post March 30, 2008), playing up the differences between Rome and the United States on everything from the war in Iraq to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to third world debt relief and economic development to the United Nations itself.
To which George Weigel responded: “Michael Sean Winters [wins] the pole position in this year’s chase for the coveted Father Richard McBrien Prize in Really Inept Vaticanology* (National Review March 31, 2008), in which he concluded:
Far from Jeremiah against the Great Satan Bush, Benedict XVI is going to teach the world a lesson about moral reason as the “grammar” by which the world can have a conversation about the world’s future. There are truths built into the world and into us, he will remind Americans and the U.N.; thinking together about those truths is one way to change noise into conversation and incomprehension into dialogue.
Personally, I’m inclined to agree with Weigel: Benedict is simply not coming to the U.S. to give President Bush a whuppin’ over Iraq, much as the thought would make critics like Winters giddy with delight. By the same token, contrary to the speculations of the press he’s not necessarily going to “read the riot act” to Catholic educators, as much as it satisfy those frustrated with seeing their college campus play host to ‘The Vagina Monologues.’
Well, it appears that Michael Sean Winters has resumed his crusade against Catholic conservatives — this time in a piece for Slate.com entitled “God’s Rottweiler” Becomes the Church’s “Beloved German Shepherd”: How Pope Benedict has disappointed the right (April 11, 2008):
When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected Pope Benedict XVI on April 19, 2005, Catholic conservatives in America were licking their chops. “The ‘progressive’ project is over,” Catholic neocon George Weigel triumphantly announced. William Donohue, the eccentric, right-wing president of the Catholic League, said of Catholic liberals, “We expect that the weeping and gnashing of teeth will begin soon.”
Three years later, as American Catholics prepare for the pope’s visit next week, those same conservatives in the United States have been disappointed. They had hoped Benedict would confront liberal tendencies in the church. Some, like Weigel, sought to purge the presbyterate of gays whom they blamed for the sex-abuse scandal. They wanted the ecclesiastical equivalent of court-packing, with the pope appointing only conservatives to major posts. But Benedict has defied them in his appointments, in his views on capitalism and the war in Iraq, and even in his approach to other faiths. “No one would call Benedict the darling of the left, but he has been moderate, pastoral, tolerant, nuanced,” says Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete, a theologian and U.S. leader of the Catholic group Communione e Liberazione.
According to Winters, conservative distress began “almost immediately” with Benedict’s naming of Archbishop William Levada to fill his old job as prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (“the Vatican’s doctrinal watchdog”), and later with his appointment of Bishop Donald Wuerl as Archbishop of Washington D.C., “a moderate who has opposed turning the communion rail into a political battle station.”
While Fr. Neuhaus did express his reservations about the appointment of William Levada to the CDF, there’s little indication that he is particularly dismayed by his performance at this point. Indeed, in the few years under Levada the Congregation has released some substantial and laudable documents, reasserting the Catholic understanding of the Church and its ecumenical relations in 2007 as well as critiquing politicized “liberation theology” in the form of its cautions regarding the works of Fr. John Sobrino.
In 2006, Weigel praised Weurl’s appointment, describing him as (a man who can make the church’s convictions make sense in terms that non-Catholics — and less-than-fully-on-board Catholics — can understand” (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette); more recently, he referred to Wuerl as a “quieter, more restrained personality [and] takes the role of the bishop as chief teacher of the church very seriously” (Washington Post April 2008).
Readers should note that Michael Sean Winters and “Catholic conservatives” have some past history — in April 2006, Winters published a similar rant in The New Republic entitled “Benedict the Ecumenical” (of course implying that conservatives aren’t, at least not in the way that Mr. Winters envisions). Fr. Neuhaus gave a brief response in First Things:
The gist of the now-familiar spin is that Pope Benedict has turned out to be a pussycat, much to the consternation of those of us who wanted him to be the biblical raging lion seeking whom he may devour.
It is all nonsense, of course. But I can see the hoped-for partisan utility of it. Mr. Winters is writing a book on how the Democrats can win back the Catholic vote. Readers may judge the elegance of his reasoning.
and St. Blog’s own Amy Welborn gave a thoughtful rebuttal:
So the point is that a general admiration of and support for a Pope doesn’t preclude questions or even disappointment. Levada was, indeed, a surprise choice, I maintain still, mostly because of his, let us say, low-key theological reputation. There were other theological heavyweights who were at the top of most people’s lists. The Niederauer appointment [as Archbishop of San Francisco] prompted a little more consternation, but I’d say for most, it’s balanced out by some other, quite interesting appointments in the US.
But what I’m saying is that in essence, this is a false conflict. “Conservatives” had a complicated relationship with the previous pope. The general tone and approach of Benedict’s papacy has not really surprised anyone who knows him or his work – read the material from last spring by the likes of Weigel, Neuhaus and Fessio, (and I read a great deal of this and more for a book chapter I wrote) and they all, to a man, said, “This is not going to be the Panzer Pope. Public perception does not match reality.” Most observers from the end of the spectrum that Winter is trying to score points on are delighted by Benedict, his clarity of teaching, his focus on preaching the Gospel, his uncanny understanding of his audiences, and most of his administrative moves.
* * *
Returning to Winters’ current piece, he claims that “Pope Benedict shares virtually none of the core political beliefs of American neocons,” — struggling to bolster his claims with a series of claims he imagines Fr. Neuhaus, George Weigel and Michael Novak ((assuming by “American neocons” Winters is referring to the distinctly religious ones) would find repugnant. The whole attempt is laughable were it not so ridiculous.
Consider the first: “In his book Jesus of Nazareth, he warned against “[a] capitalism that degrades man to the level of merchandise.'”
In the same sentence, Benedict goes on to speak of “the perils of wealth, and we have gained a new appreciation of what Jesus meant when he warned of riches, of the man-destroying divinity Mammon which grips large parts of the world in a cruel stranglehold.”
There is nothing in which a Catholic conservative would disagree with — in fact, as I’ve made the case previously ( Pope Benedict’s Critique of Capitalism Against The Grain September 2007), Ratzinger’s criticisms are reminiscent of Pope John Paul II’s condemnation of neo-liberalism — a system which he described as being rooted in “on a purely economic conception of man” and which “considers profit and the law of the market as its only parameters” (Ecclesia in America). It is this very kind of “capitalism” that is opposed by Novak, Neuhaus and company, who likewise agree that the economic sector should reside “within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious.”
Likewise, there is nothing particularly objectionable in Benedict’s visit the United Nations (“not the neocons’ favorite organization”) — Winters omits the fact that the Vatican itself has had a somewhat rocky relationship with the United Nations. For example, in as late as 2006, it refused to sign the U.N.’s “Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities” on account that it also affirmed the right to “sexual and reproductive health.” As Archbishop Celestino Migliore wryly noted, “in some countries reproductive health services include abortion, thus denying the inherent right to life of every human being, affirmed by article 10 of the convention.”
Winters writes with the hope that Benedict will use the United Nations as a pulpit to denounce U.S. foreign policy in Iraq. However, while he might indeed include Iraq in a “checklist of Vatican diplomatic concerns”, John Allen Jr. believes that
It will be Benedict’s argument [at the United Nations] that what the world desperately needs today is a global moral consensus – that is, a consensus on fundamental moral truths that are universal and unchanging that can serve as a basis for things like protection of human rights and human dignity. I think his analysis is that in an era in which you have several important players on the world stage – China and Iran come to mind – arguing that the whole concept of human rights is a sort of Western cultural artifact, I think the pope believes that the construction of a kind of moral consensus that we can all agree upon based on truths about human nature and open to the wisdom of spiritual traditions and religious traditions is a critical priority. And I think that probably will be the heart of that speech.
Again, a point on which the so-called “Catholic neocons” and Benedict are in mutual agreement. (See also Russell Shaw’s recent article: Benedict to the UN: In Defense of Natural Law InsideCatholic.com, April 11, 2008).
But there is one claim made by Winters that is particularly disingenuous:
“According to one American present during a spring 2004 Vatican meeting with U.S. bishops, then-Cardinal Ratzinger laughed when he heard of denying politicians communion based on their political views. After all, popes have, over the years, given communion to Communist mayors, gay legislators, and countless pro-choice politicians.
First, anybody who has read Ratzinger’s 2004 letter to Cardinal McCarrick and the USCCB (Worthiness to receive Holy Communion: General Principles”) understands that Pope Benedict takes the unworthy reception of the Eucharist.
Secondly, writing on this very subject last year, John Allen summarized Benedict’s position as follows:
In the abstract, Benedict clearly seems to feel that a Catholic politician who knowingly and consistently supports legislation that expands access to abortion is in violation of church teaching, and thus should not receive communion. Moreover, the pope seems prepared to support bishops who apply this principle to specific cases.
However, Allen adds, it is not clear that Benedict is not ready to “impose this position on bishops convinced of the wisdom of a different pastoral course in other cases” — which is something altogether different than the “wink and a nod” towards self-proclaimed “pro-choice Catholics” that Winters attributes to him here.
In short, we have an article that tells us more about how Michael Sean Winters feels about those dreaded “neocons” than what Pope Benedict actually thinks.
“The Pope likes New York and what it stands for”, asserts Jeff Israely in a rather decent article on the Roman Pontiff by the American press (“The American Pope” Time April 3, 2008), examining Benedict’s relationship with the American people and his perspectives on the relationship between “church and state” within our country:
“I think he’s really fascinated by the city and what it represents,” says Raphaela Schmid, a Rome-based German with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who knows him. “It’s about people being two things at once, like Italian Americans or Chinese Americans. He’s interested in that idea of coexistence.”
Israely disputes the idea that the so-called “Vatican enforcer” harbors an antagonism toward “the democratic, pluralistic values that constitute (on our good days) the American brand”:
… A survey of the 80-year-old Pontiff’s writings over the decades and testimonies from those who know him suggests that Benedict has a soft spot for Americans and finds considerable value in his U.S. church, the third largest Catholic congregation in the world. Most intriguing, he entertains a recurring vision of an America we sometimes lose sight of: an optimistic and diverse but essentially pious society in which faiths and a faith-based conversation on social issues are kept vital by the Founding Fathers’ decision to separate church and state. It’s not a stretch to say the Pope sees in the U.S.–or in some kind of idealized version of it–a civic model and even an inspiration to his native Europe
According to Israely, during his stint as peritus during the Second Vatican Council, Joseph Ratzinger was sympathetic to the arguments of the U.S. delegation (John Courtney Murray?) in the debate over religious freedom:
Conservatives opposed [religious freedom]: states must sponsor faith, and the faith should be Roman Catholic. The Americans argued that religious liberty was morally imperative and–from experience–that in a multireligious state, Catholicism could best thrive when the government could not play favorites. The council sided with them, and Ratzinger, anticipating a world composed of jostling religious pluralities, heartily approved. In a 1966 analysis, he wrote, “In a critical hour, Council leadership passed from Europe to the young Churches of America and [their allies],” who “were really opening up the way to the future.”
Israely admits that Ratzinger’s appreciation for the American conception of religious freedom “did not extend to an acceptance that all roads to salvation are equal or to a license for democracy within his church” (how could it, really?) — nonetheless:
[Benedict] came to respect the way Catholic leaders in the U.S. went about their business. A current (non-American) CDF official notes that the U.S. church is the only one that keeps a “serious” doctrinal office rather than an unthinking rubber stamp or an old-boys’ club; when conflicts arise, its bishops are actually prepared to discuss them. Moreover, says Levada, “he seems to recognize that we’re plain speakers. We don’t hide behind words.”
The Pope also admires the Americans’ role as, in the words of one cleric, “intellectual first responders,” especially as the country’s great network of Catholic hospitals wrestles with novel problems of medical ethics. “Through the great sphere of worldly experience that the Church has in America,” Benedict wrote, “as well as through her faith experience, decisive influences can be passed on.” He has shown his comfort with the direct and thoroughly American approach by appointing Americans to the No. 1 and No. 3 spots in his powerful former office [The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith].
It bemoans the European Union’s refusal to acknowledge Christianity in a draft constitution, and Pera wonders about bringing back some kind of multidenominational “Christian civil religion.” In response, Ratzinger cites Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America and makes the case that America’s Founding Fathers were pious men of different denominations who wrote the First Amendment prohibiting state establishment (that is, sponsorship) of religion precisely because sponsorship would stifle all non-established creeds–which they hoped would achieve full and varied flower.
Of course, no such bloom would occur if the American soil were not already faith-saturated. But Ratzinger believes in America’s “obvious spiritual foundation,” its natural, Puritan-instilled DNA. He is well aware that this is eroding; he thinks we watch too much TV and fears that American secularization is proceeding at an “accelerated pace.” But he insists that there is a “much clearer and implicit sense” in the U.S. than in Europe of a morality “bequeathed by Christianity.” He has also given earnest thought to the mechanics of this civil religion, specifying that to affect the moral consensus, it is not enough for Catholics to rub shoulders with other Christians; they must translate their concerns from doctrinal language into a “public theology” accessible to all.
As far as his Apostolic Journey to America is concerned, Israely believes Benedict will be “less interested in scolding American Catholics than in talking up ‘new religious communities … being formed who quite consciously aim at a complete fulfillment of the demands of religious life'” — schools of burgeoning Catholic orthodoxy like Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula, Calif.; Christendom College in Front Royal, Va.; and Ave Maria University in Ave Maria, Fla — “eruptions of non-state-related religious vitality at which he thinks we excel.”
There are a few points in Israely’s article which betray his liberal sympathies — as when he says “There are times when Benedict’s love affair with American religious pluralism seems a bit naive, especially when it clashes with his nonnegotiable doctrinal stands” or “downplaying the idea that Catholics may legitimately balance church teaching against the demands of their conscience.” But on the whole I think it worth the read. Israely closes:
John Paul II described faith and reason as the twin wings that lift the church. And yet a balanced takeoff has remained elusive. The U.S. is one of the few places where it seems to happen regularly. “America is simultaneously a completely modern and a profoundly religious place. In the world, it is unique in this,” says a senior Vatican official. “And Ratzinger wants to understand how those two aspects can coexist.” Almost all the things the Pope likes about us–our faith in the real value of plainspokenness, our pluralistic piety and even our wrangles around applying religiously grounded moral principles to increasingly abstruse science–can be understood in light of this quest. If he finds answers in the U.S., they could help define his papacy.
When he arrives on U.S. soil on April 15, we in the press will no doubt be parsing Benedict’s every sentence for his opinions on U.S. policy or remonstrance of American morals. But the most important waves emanating from this contact may reverberate well beyond tomorrow’s news cycle. John Paul II and the U.S. played as anticommunist co-leads on the 20th century stage. This Pope, more a student of global drama than an eager protagonist, knows that rising religious conflict may be the 21st century’s great challenge. He also appears to sense that American power alone won’t solve it–but that the power of American values still might. In rummaging through our founding precepts for a path for his own purposes, he might find something important for us to remember too.
Ratzinger/Benedict on “Separation of Church & State”
- “A Tocquevillian in the Vatican”, by Dr. Samuel Gregg:
Upon being inducted into the Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques of the Institut de France in 1992, then-Cardinal Ratzinger remarked that Tocqueville’s “ Democracy in America has always made a strong impression on me.“
Describing Tocqueville as “le grand penseur politique,“ the context of these remarks was Ratzinger’s insistence that free societies cannot sustain themselves, as Tocqueville observed, without widespread adherence to ”des convictions éthiques communes.“ Ratzinger then underlined Tocqueville’s appreciation of Protestant Christianity’s role in providing these underpinnings in the United States. In more recent years, Ratzinger expressed admiration for the manner in which church-state relations were arranged in America, using words suggesting he had absorbed Tocqueville’s insights into this matter.
- Biblical Aspects of the Question of Faith and Politics homily delivered on 26 November 1981 for Catholic members of the Bundestag in the church of St. Wynfrith (Boniface).
- Why Church and State Must Be Separate An excerpt from “Theology and the Church’s Political Stance” in Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger Church, Ecumenism and Politics: New Essays in Ecclesiology (NY: Crossroad, 1988 — republished by Ignatius Press in 2008).
- Benedict XVI on Religion and Public Life Zenit News Service Sept. 17, 2005 – which included his June 2005 remarks to Italian President Carlo Ciampi on church-state relations.
- On October 17, 2005, in a letter to the president of the Italian Senate, Marcello Pera (with whom he co-authored Without Roots: Europe, Relativism, Christianity, Islam), Pope Benedict expressed his support for a “healthy secularity of the state” — or that which guarantees “to each citizen the right to live his own religious faith with genuine freedom, including in the public realm” and includes “a commitment to guarantee to all, individuals and groups, respect for the exigencies of the common good, [and] the possibility to live and to express one own religious convictions.” (The full text of the letter can be found here).
- Secularity: On Benedict XVI and the Role of Religion in Society | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | January 9, 2007 (on Benedict’s lecture to 59th Study Conference of the Union of Italian Catholic Jurists).
Ratzinger on Europe
- Europe: Its Spiritual Foundation: Yesterday, Today and in the Future Inside the Vatican, June-July 2004.
- “No Weighing, No Disputing, No Such Thing”: Ratzinger and Europe, by Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | August 11, 2007
On Good Friday, Cardinal Walter Kasper, head of the Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations With the Jews, published an article defending Benedict XVI’s revisions to the “Good Friday Prayer for the Jews” in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: “Das Wann und Wie entscheidet Gott”, March 21, 2008.
A reader of this blog, Dr Thomas Pink of King’s College London, has kindly provided its translation into English, along with his extended observations in the form of a guest post below:
- Concerning the article’s standing: I doubt this would have been published in the FAZ, a leading German paper of record, and the one highbrow broadsheet that has consistently given a platform to Benedict and to Benedict-supporters in the German Catholic Church – Die Zeit and the Sueddeutsche Zeitung are much more hostile – during the Triduum, and not long before the Secretary of State’s Friday Statement, without some sort of vetting and acquiescence from the Pope.
That’s of course surmise on my part, but it would be amazing if this were not the case. Moreover the references to the 1970 prayer and the significance of its retention for the continuing validity of Nostra Aetate are completely in line with the Friday Statement.
That does not mean of course that this is a formal doctrinal statement, or that the Pope would choose to express himself formally in the same terms. Benedict seems very tolerant of varieties of theological expression and viewpoint that he might not himself fully share, within the limits of what he sees as orthodoxy, especially in informal theological commentary.
Kasper’s emphasis and choice of terms are certainly not those of Cardinal Schoenborn’s recent Tablet defence of the Christian evangelization of Jews (Judaism’s way to salvation March 29, 2008). But I do not see any serious theological conflict between them or between either and Benedict.
- If there is an internal theological target being aimed at by Kasper, it is very clearly dual covenant theology. This is the view, increasingly widespread in certain US and German theological circles involved in Jewish dialogue, that the Jews have their own saving covenant distinct from and independent of that offered by Christ to the Gentiles, and that therefore there is no ground for Jews to convert to Christianity and enter the Church. Jewish conversion is not something for which the Church should call, pray, or strive. The dual covenant camp, theologians such as Pawlikowski et al, try and base all discussion on Nostra Aetate, and interpret this actually very short and vague declaration in isolation from preceding documents of the Council. They treat Nostra Aetate as a whole New Pentecost on its own, from which among Church documents all future Judaeo-Christian dialogue is supposed uniquely to develop, and on which whatever speculative theological structure they fancy can then be erected as new ‘Church teaching’. Kasper will not have this, and reinforces the standing of Nostra Aetate by relating it to the rest of the Council, and in particular to the greater authority of Lumen Gentium. But the content of Lumen Gentium is flatly opposed to dual covenant theology, as we can see from Lumen Gentium paragraph 9, a passage that very clearly states Catholic teaching on the relation of the Jewish people to the Church and the New Covenant:
“[God] therefore chose the race of Israel as a people unto Himself. With it He set up a covenant. Step by step He taught and prepared this people, making known in its history both Himself and the decree of His will and making it holy unto Himself. All these things, however, were done by way of preparation and as a figure of that new and perfect covenant, which was to be ratified in Christ, and of that fuller revelation which was to be given through the Word of God Himself made flesh. “Behold the days shall come saith the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel, and with the house of Judah . . . I will give my law in their bowels, and I will write it in their heart, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people . . . For all of them shall know Me, from the least of them even to the greatest, saith the Lord.” (Jeremiah 31) Christ instituted this new covenant, the new testament, that is to say, in His Blood, calling together a people made up of Jew and gentile, making them one, not according to the flesh but in the Spirit. This was to be the new People of God.”
Dual covenant theology, it seems to me, cannot survive this passage.
Notice that here the Council quotes Jeremiah chapter 31 as a prophetic foretelling of the New Covenant. It is important that Kasper refers, via discussion of St Paul, to Jeremiah 31 too, as a prophetic foretelling of the future salvation of the Jews – which, by the Pauline argument, will consist in the future saving reincorporation of the Jews into the olive tree of salvation from which they have become cut off. That olive tree, then, in the context of Jeremiah 31 is Israel (as Lumen Gentium para 9 later on also terms the Church – the ‘New Israel’) considered as the People of Jeremiah‘s New Covenant. There is only one covenant for the Jews to return to, one shared with the Gentiles.
Another point that Kasper emphasizes repeatedly from the start is that Jesus really is the Christ, that is, the Jewish Messiah. But the logic of dual covenant theology is surely to put this in some doubt. (Or so I’ve always thought – and so Luke Timothy Johnson at least seems willing to move towards concluding: see this amazing piece in which Luke Timothy Johnson says, it seems, that Jews should not let Christians persuade them into seeing Jesus as truly the Jewish Messiah).
- The 2008 prayer clearly is viewed by Kasper (and one presumes Benedict as well) to concern the conversion of the Jewish people as a whole. This final conversion of the Jewish people as a people involves, surely, the disappearance of Judaism as a distinct religion that is rejecting of Jesus. And then the prayer so considered really is eschatological, not because the Jews don’t need the knowledge of Christ as much as do Gentiles, or are saved through another covenant, but because of mysterious divine action which will be reversed only by a returning Christ. And here Kasper’s scriptural argument looks pretty hard to challenge, is deeply Pauline, and is clearly nothing to do with dual covenant theology.
- Clearly St Paul in addressing the synagogues was aiming at conversions, and moved on only when he did not find them. This crucial use as an example of witness of St Paul distances Kasper’s view of and endorsement of witness as a replacement for mission from any view that Catholics should never aim at or hope for or pray for Jewish conversions. It also links witness – with conversion as a possible goal – to interreligious dialogue as being mutually consistent, in just the way that liberals and some Jewish groups dislike. This fits with the fact that the Friday Statement pointedly refused to distance the Church from aiming at Jewish conversions in the here and now.
A mission to the Jews is being understood by Kasper, then, in rather a narrow sense – as Catholic institutional bodies or institutional events directed specifically at the conversion of the Jews as a whole people, that is, at a level involving the disappearance through conversion of a Jesus-rejecting Judaism as such. His detachment of the Church from Jewish mission in this sense does not apply, and is not applied by him to cover other forms of witness, such as Paul’s visits to individual synagogues as part of a project of securing conversions generally, or Christian persuasion in the context of more general dialogic interaction.
- Hence in this field, traditionalist mistrust of Kasper seems misplaced, and is based on a misunderstanding. What he (and Benedict?) are doing is clearly detaching the Good Friday prayer from addressing the salvation of this or that Jewish individual, and centering it on the final salvation of the Jewish people as a people, that event that ends the existence of Judaism as a religion distinct from and in disagreement with Christianity. Kasper is saying that the Church is praying for just this event, but that it is not the business of the Church to attempt of itself to engineer conversion at this level, except indirectly through its mission to the Gentiles. But at the same time the eschatological reading of this prayer for the conversion of the Jewish people as a whole has no implication for projects of conversion at other levels.
Many orthodox Catholics have been suspicious of Kasper’s use of an eschatological reading of the Good Friday prayer to distance the Church from any mission to the Jews in the present. They have viewed this as involving a location of the eschatological exclusively in some future never-never, and so as contrary to Benedict’s teaching in this area and a weakening of it. For in the Pope’s important March 15th 2006 address — Benedict’s Wednesday General Audience, March 15, 2006 — Benedict very much talks the language of Lumen Gentium paragraph 9, and views the Church precisely as the New Israel into which, from the very beginning Jews as well as Gentiles are called to enter, emphasizing that the eschatological time is now, the time after Christ’s incarnation. So Benedict is placing the eschatological time now, and is calling for conversion now. While since Kasper is denying a mission to the Jews, he is assumed by many Catholics to be eschewing, in opposition to the Pope, any call for Jewish conversion now, and must also, again in opposition to the Pope, be placing eschatological time in some indefinite future.
But the reality is different. It turns out that what matters in Kasper’s use of the notion of eschatological time is not when it happens. Eschatology for Kasper picks out not an endlessly distant future – as Kasper says, God decides the when and the how, so it is not for us (or Kasper) to locate the eschatological presumptuously in some future never-never. Rather the eschatological for Kasper picks out a level at which, though the Church must call and pray for Jewish conversion and salvation, the direction of events is entirely in God’s hands. The final disappearance of a Judaism rejecting of Jesus, whenever it happens – it could be now or it could be at any future date, but Kasper explicitly says we are to pray that it comes, Maranatha, soon, which hardly excludes now – is an event of this level. But witness to the Jews (with as with St Paul the possible goal of individual conversions) is not an event of this level, and it very much remains the responsibility of the Church and of individual Catholics. There is no difference with Benedict.
The 1962 and 1970 liturgies: united in prayer for Jewish conversion
It is very important that prayers for Jewish conversion occur in the 1970 liturgy, in the new Liturgy of the Hours. My thanks to Gregor Kollmorgen of the New Liturgical Movement for drawing attention to the following examples:
- E.g.: – Preces for Lauds of December 31st: “Christe, Deus et homo, qui Dominus es David et filius ejus, prophetias adimplens, te rogamus, ut Israel te Messiam agnoscat.” (Christ, God and man, who art the Lord of David and his son and fulfillest the prophecies, we beg thee, that Israel accept thee as the Messiah.)
- – Preces for II Vespers of Christmas: “Qui, a saeculis exspectatus, in plenitudine temporis venisti, manifesta praesentiam tuam iis, qui adhuc te exspectant.” (Thou, who hast been expected through the ages, and hast come in the fulness of time, manifest thy presence to those, who still look out for thee.)
- – Preces for Lauds on January 2nd: “Christe, quem ab angelis glorificatum et a pastoribus annuntiatum, Simeon et Anna confessi sunt et praedicaverunt, te rogamus, ut Evangelium tuum a populo promissionis recipiatur.” (Christ, whom the Angels glorified and the shepherds announced, and Simeon and Hannah professed and proclaimed, we beg thee, that thy Gospel be accepted by the people of thy promise.)
The lesson is clear: if Pawlikowski and his dual covenant school were right,, not only would Lumen Gentium, the central constitution of Vatican II, have to go, but the post-Vatican II liturgy of 1970 would as much need revision as that of 1962. (In fact you’d have to change not only the Liturgy of the Hours but probably the 1970 Missal too – such as the New Rite Easter Vigil prayers after the Old Testament readings or prophecies that, just as much as do the similar Old Rite prayers, treat the Church as the New Israel prefigured, with its sacraments, in the history of Israel of old.)
— Dr Thomas Pink
Reader in Philosophy
Director, Centre for Philosophical Studies
Department of Philosophy
King’s College London
First, let’s examine the prayer itself, its revisions, and the reaction of Jewish brethren, since therein lies the controversy. (Using as my source Wikipedia “Good Friday Prayer for the Jews — with all the caveats about employing a public encyclopedia, and not being a liturgical expert I sincerely welcome correction should readers spot a mistake in reporting, translation or history ).
The “Prayer for the Jews” in its original formulation dates back to 1570, reading as follows:
Let us pray also for the faithless Jews [Latin: “perfidia iudaica”]: that Almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts (2 Corinthians 3:13-16); so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.
In 1959, Pope John XXIII removed from the Good Friday liturgy the adjective “perfidi – while correctly translated as “faithless” or “unbelieving”, there was a common misconception that the Latin perfidis was equivalent to “perfidious”, leading to denunciations of the Jews as treacherous.
(For further details, see the German edition of Zenit News service: “The Good Friday intercessions: a long history” February 6, 2008; translation via the blog Catholic Conservation).
According to Zenit News Service:
That same year, [Pope John XXIII] also eliminated from the rite of baptism the phrase used for Jewish catechumens: “Horresce Jusaicam perfidiam, respue Hebraicam superstitionem” (Disavow Jewish unbelieving, deny Hebrew superstition). …
The 1962 missal was promulgated with an apostolic letter issued “motu proprio” by John XXIII “Rubricarum Instructum.” The missal does not make reference to “perfidious Jews.”
On Good Friday in 1963, John XXIII underlined the importance of this decision when the old formulation of the prayer for the Jews was read. The Pope interrupted the liturgy and asked that that the liturgical invocations begin again from the beginning, following the new text.
It was Pope John XXIII’s liturgical innovation that inspired Professor Jules Isaac to seek out an audience with him in 1960 and petition for the repudiation of what he referred to as the “teaching of contempt” — certainly not the official teaching of the Church, but no less pernicious, which he believed culminated in the inexplicable silence and apathy of many Christians toward the Nazi persecution of the Jewish people.
According to various accounts, Isaac met with Pope John for three days. Upon leaving he said to the Pope, “Can I leave with hope?” And the Pope responded, “You are entitled to more than hope.”
On Good Friday in 1963, John XXIII underlined the importance of this decision when the old formulation of the prayer for the Jews was read. The Pope interrupted the liturgy and asked that that the liturgical invocations begin again from the beginning, following the new text.
The Roman Missal adopted by Pope Paul VI in 1969, and put into effect in 1970, reformulated the prayer. Because of a similar potential for misinterpretation, the reference to the veil on the hearts of the Jews, which was based on 2 Corinthians 3:14, was removed. The 1973 ICEL English translation of the revised prayer is as follows:
Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant. (Prayer in silence. Then the priest says:) Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your Church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.
Concerns about the motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum”
On 7 July 2007, the Vatican released Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio entitled, Summorum Pontificum which permitted more widespread celebration of Mass according to the “Missal promulgated by John XXIII in 1962”.
While the term “perfidis” was indeed removed, the 1962 missal’s references to the Jews is still subject to theological criticism. For what it’s worth, a summary of the objections can be found in the Statement of the Discussion Group “Jews and Christians” of the Central Committee of German Catholics (April 4, 2007):
The Missale Romanum of 1962 contains the Good Friday Intercession “for the conversion of the Jews” (pro conversione Iudaeorum). Although this rite no longer includes the denigrating descriptions of the Jews as acting “perfidiously” (perfidus) and/or as “perfidious” (perfidia), the Good Friday Intercession otherwise expresses the overall [demeaning] perspective of the text as it has been prayed in the Liturgy of Good Friday since the Middle Ages. The intercession speaks of the “blindness” (obcaecatio) of the Jewish people and says that the Jewish people walk “in darkness” (tenebrae). This contradicts in a striking way the conciliar declaration Nostra Aetate, which states in chapter 4:
Sounding the depths of the mystery which is the church, this sacred council remembers the spiritual ties which link the people of the new covenant to the stock of Abraham. […] the apostle Paul maintains that the Jews remain very dear to God, for the sake of the patriarchs, since God does not take back the gifts he bestowed or the choice he made. (see Romans 11,28-29; see Lumen Gentium 16). […] the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy scripture. Consequently, all must take care, lest in catechizing or in preaching the word of God, they teach anything which is not in accord with the truth of the Gospel message or the spirit of Christ.
To revive the 1962 Missal with the old Good Friday Intercession means the denial of a substantial theological paradigm change made by the Council: in fact, the biblically-justified new understanding of the relationship of the Church to Judaism with the accompanying change to Church’s own self-understanding. The traditional Good Friday Intercession still beseeched categorically that the Jews would acknowledge “our Lord Jesus Christ, the light of truth.” The post-conciliar revised version is more open: it recognizes the way of salvation of the Jews, founded upon God’s design, even if it asks that the Jews may “arrive at the fullness of redemption.”
Pope Benedict revises again
On February 7, 2008, Zenit News reported that Pope Benedict decided to modify the the prayer for the Jewish people prayed in the Good Friday liturgy according to the 1962 Roman Missal. The changes were conveyed in a note from the Vatican Secretariat of State, published in L’Osservatore Romano.
In the revised form, the prayer now reads in English translation:
Let us also pray for the Jews. May the Lord our God illuminate their hearts so that they may recognize Jesus Christ as savior of all men. Almighty and everlasting God, you who want all men to be saved and to gain knowledge of the truth, kindly allow that, as all peoples enter into your Church, all of Israel may be saved.
(As reported by Sandro Magister), a note in La Civiltà Cattolica explained the reason for the change:
“In the current climate of dialogue and friendship between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people, it seemed right and opportune to the pope [to make this change], in order to avoid any expression that might appear in the least to offend or displease the Jews.”
The note concluded:
“This contains nothing that is offensive toward Jews, because in it the Church asks God what St. Paul asked for Christians: that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ may enlighten the eyes of the Ephesians’ hearts, that they may understand the gift of salvation that they have in Jesus Christ (cf. Ephesians 1:18-23). The Church, in fact, believes that salvation is only in Jesus Christ, as is said in the Acts of the Apostles (4:12). It is clear, besides, that Christian prayer can be nothing other than ‘Christian’, meaning that it is founded upon the faith – which is not that of all – that Jesus is the Savior of all men. For this reason, the Jews have no reason to be offended if the Church asks God to enlighten them so that they may freely recognize Christ, the only Savior of all men, and that they too may be saved by the One whom Shalom Ben Chorin, a Jew, calls ‘Brother Jesus’.”
Not quite the reaction the Vatican expected
John Allen, Jr. reports on the reactions to the prayer’s revision (National Catholic Reporter February 8, 2008):
As is clear from comparing the two versions, Benedict has removed some of the language that critics found offensive: references to lifting “the veil from the hearts,” the “blindness of that people,” and the “darkness” of the Jews. As is also clear, however, the new version does not retreat from asking that Jews may recognize Jesus Christ as Savior, so that it remains a supplication for conversion.
Based on early exit polls, Benedict’s attempt to meet his critics half-way appears to have left almost no one fully satisfied.
As The New York Times noted, some Catholic traditionalists are disturbed – if not by the content of the new prayer itself, then by the precedent that the old Mass can be bowdlerized in response to external pressure. (Some liturgical experts, by the way, think this may be the lasting significance of the pope’s decision. As one put it to me this week, “It shows that the ’62 missal can be reformed, that it’s not inviolable or frozen in time.”)
Many Jewish leaders and organizations are equally disgruntled, because despite what the Anti-Defamation League called “cosmetic” revisions, the prayer still remains an explicit appeal for conversion. The question of missionary efforts directed at Jews has long been perhaps the sorest point in Christian/Jewish relations.
“We are deeply troubled and disappointed that the framework and intention to petition God for Jews to accept Jesus as Lord was kept intact,” said Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League.
John Allen Jr. also mentions “A further constituency” of critics: “liberal Catholics who don’t care for the old Mass for a variety of reasons, as well as veterans of Catholic/Jewish dialogue who see all this as a headache they don’t need.” He cites Fr. John Pawlikowski of the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago:
“Even though only a small number of Catholics may pray the new version of the prayer, it creates a situation of the church seemingly speaking with two voices (the 1970 prayer and the new prayer) that do not dovetail easily. Which represents the more authentic theology of the Catholic Church with regard to the Jewish people? This situation compromises Catholic integrity.”
Pawlikowski elaborates on this in Praying for the Jews: Two Views on the New Good Friday Prayer Commonweal March 14, 2008 / Volume CXXXV, Number 5):
The 1970 Missal, the definitive response to the liturgical changes mandated by Vatican II, further revised the 1965 prayer. It acknowledged the Jewish people’s faithfulness to God, but left open the eschatological resolution of the apparent conflict between Christ’s universal salvific action and the Jews’ ongoing covenantal com-mitment. The 1970 prayer is clearly in the spirit of Nostra aetate, which totally rejected almost two millennia of Christian theological perspectives on the Jews, but failed to offer a definitive replacement. That task was left to subsequent generations of theologians and biblical scholars, work that has in fact been taking place since the end of the council. Two such ongoing efforts are the Christ and the Jewish People consultation, jointly sponsored by Boston College, the Pontifical Gregorian University, the Catholic Theological Union, and the Catholic University of Leuven with the encouragement of Cardinal Walter Kasper; and the multiyear study project on Paul and Judaism at the Catholic University of Leuven.
In an official international Vatican-Jewish dialogue in Venice in 1977, Tomaso Federici, a lay scholar highly respected in Vatican circles, proposed that in light of Nostra aetate Catholicism should formally renounce any proselytizing of the Jews. The official published version of his paper, which appeared several years later, was altered to call for a rejection of “undue” proselytizing.
A few years ago, Cardinal Kasper wrote that there is no need to proselytize Jews because they have authentic revelation and because, in the understanding of Vatican II, they remain in the covenant. But he did add that Catholicism must also retain a notion of Christ’s universal salvific work. Unfortunately, he never pursued how these two theological affirmations might be integrated.
Contrary to Vatican II?
The Discussion Group “Jews and Christians” of the Central Committee of German Catholics, voices similar complaint, calling it “A New Burden on Christian-Jewish Relations”
On the one hand in the prayer of 1970, which is said on Good Friday in the ordinary Rite of the Roman Catholic Church almost everywhere, the church expresses unequivocally her appreciation of the dignity of Israel, God’s chosen people, to whom God has given the promises and a Covenant, that was never revoked and will never be revoked (cf. Rom 9:4 and 11:29 and the Declaration of the Second Vatican Council, Nostra aetate, 4). On the other hand the Church acknowledges that the Jews who are faithful to God’s covenant and live in the love of His name are on the path to salvation. She asks that God lead Israel to fulfillment along this path. The church does not speak here of a Jewish confession of Jesus Christ to be a condition for salvation, because she trusts that their being faithful in God’s covenant will lead the Jews to their salvation. This conviction was also clearly expressed in our discussion group’s statement, “Jews and Christians in Germany: Responsibility in Today’s Pluralistic Society” of 13 April 2005: “According to Christian faith, Jesus Christ is ‘the Yes and the Amen’ (2 Cor 1:20) of God’s irrevocable fidelity to Israel and to the whole world. Nevertheless, there is salvation for Jewish people who do not believe in Jesus as the Christ because of God’s covenant with them.”
Shortly after the release of “Summorum Pontificum”, Avvenire featured an interview with Archbishop Amato of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in which he responded to the view which pitted the extraordinary form of the prayer for the Jews against Nostrae Aetate:
Q: Your Excellency, there are those who accuse the motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” of being anti-conciliar, because it offers full citizenship to a missal in which there is a prayer for the conversion of the Jews. Is it truly contrary to the letter and spirit of the Council to formulate this prayer?
A: Certainly not. In the Mass, we Catholics pray always and in the first place for our conversion. And we strike our breasts for our sins. And then we pray for the conversion of all Christians and all non-Christians. The Gospel is for all.”
Q: But the objection is raised that the prayer for the conversion of the Jews was definitively surpassed by the one in which the Lord is asked to help them to progress in fidelity to his covenant.
A: Jesus himself affirms, in the Gospel of Saint Mark: “Repent, and believe in the Gospel,” and his first interlocutors were his Jewish confreres. We Christians can do nothing other than re-propose what Jesus taught us. In freedom and without imposition, obviously, but also without self-censorship.
Two Ways of Salvation or One?
Reading Fr. Powlakowski and the response of the Central Committee of German Catholics, one receives the impression that Jesus Christ plays no role in the salvation of the Jews; the The Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, however, is quite clear on the correct interpretation of Nostra Aetate on this subject (“On the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church” June 24, 1985):
7. “In virtue of her divine mission, the Church” which is to be “the all-embracing means of salvation” in which alone “the fulness of the means of salvation can be obtained” (Unit. Red. 3); “must of her nature proclaim Jesus Christ to the world” (cf. Guidelines and Suggestions, I). Indeed we believe that is is through him that we go to the Father (cf. Jn. 14:6) “and this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent” (Jn 17:33).
Jesus affirms (ibid. 10:16) that “there shall be one flock and one shepherd”. Church and Judaism cannot then be seen as two parallel ways of salvation and the Church must witness to Christ as the Redeemer for all, “while maintaining the strictest respect for religious liberty in line with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (Declaration Dignitatis Humanae)” (Guidelines and Suggestions, I).
Responding to the “Two Ways of Salvation” thesis (“there is no need to offer the Jews entry into the new covenant in Jesus Christ as God’s covenant with the people of Israel was never revoked, and is alone salvific”), Christoph Cardinal Schönborn stated in The Tablet (Judaism’s way to salvation March 29, 2008):
… according to the New Testament and from the Christian point of view there is only one salvation in Jesus Christ, but two clearly distinguishable ways of proclaiming and accepting this salvation. In this respect it must be made clear that the overture/offer to the Jews to recognise Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah cannot simply be equated with Christ’s mandate to evangelise all (heathen) nations and make them his disciples (cf. Matthew 28: 18-20).
Schonborn reminds us that “There is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call upon him” (Romans 10:12) — at the same time, it does not follow that the difference was abolished; “Even within the Church, St Paul retains a certain diversity of appeal and differentiates between Jews and Gentiles”:
… St Paul distinguishes between the two vocations, between those who believed in Jesus as the Messiah who came “from circumcision” and those who converted to Christ and came “from the Gentiles”. The difference lies in the way in which they communicate with each other in the Church and impart the same blessing to the world which God conferred on human beings through Jesus Christ, “For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the circumcised on behalf of the truth of God, in order that he might confirm the promises given to the patriarchs, and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy” (Romans 15,8-9).
By welcoming the Gospel, the Jews are witnesses of God’s fidelity to his promise, while the Gentiles are witnesses of the universality of his mercy. These two appeals in the Church reflect the twofold way of the same salvation in Christ, one for Jews and one for Gentiles. Thus the same Jesus Christ is simultaneously “a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel” (Luke 2:32).
Consequently, this twofold way of receiving salvation calls for a twofold way of bearing witness to the Gospel message for Christians and a twofold catechumenal way to prepare for the same baptism in the one Jesus.
If the Church has apologized for all forms of compulsion (“proselytism” in the negative sense), it does not follow that they havea abandoned Christ’s mandate to proclaim the Gospel “to the Jews first”; rather,
it means that this mandate must be carried out in the most sensitive way, cleansed of all un-Christian motives. Prayer, the offering of life, tokens of unselfish love and above all recognition of Jewish identity should win “the goodwill of all the people” (Acts 2:47) for the disciples of Jesus so that bearing witness to their faith in Christ, proposed with due respect and humility, may be recognised by them (the Jews) as the fulfilment – and not as a denial – of the promise of which they are the bearers.
Schonborn also recommends in the context of this article Cardinal Dulles’ critique of dual-covenant theology “Covenant and Mission” (America October 21, 2002).
In the past I admit I have been critical of Cardinal Kasper, head of the Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations With the Jews. In the past, he has often served as foil to then-Prefect Cardinal Ratzinger, “watering down” the CDF’s forceful teaching on the salvific role of Christ, his Church and evangelization.
In fact, Cardinal Kasper address at a joint meeting between the Rabbinic Committee for Interreligious Dialogue and the USCCB’s Office of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs seems to have
contributed to such an erroneous “dual covenant” understanding.
Discussions at this meeting later culminated in the 2002 statement, Reflections on Covenant and Mission — which concluded that “evangelizing task [of the Church] no longer includes the wish to absorb the Jewish faith into Christianity” and that “Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God.” The ensuing controversy prompting Cardinal Keeler to later distance himself, stating that the document “does not represent a formal position taken by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) or the Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs (BCEIA).”
In light of which, there are some indications that Cardinal Kasper is “stepping up” in his presentation:
From Catholic News Service: Vatican cardinal defends reformulation of Tridentine prayer for Jews February 7, 2008:
The pope removed language that spoke of the “blindness” of the Jews, which Cardinal Kasper said was “a little offensive.”
“The Holy Father wanted to remove this point, but he also wanted to underline the specific difference that exists between us and Judaism,” the cardinal said.
That difference is that for Christians Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God, he said.
“This difference cannot be hidden. The Holy Father wanted to say, yes, Jesus Christ is the savior of all men, even the Jews. He says this in his prayer,” Cardinal Kasper said.
“But if this prayer, today, speaks of the conversion of the Jews, that doesn’t mean we intend to carry out a mission,” he said.
Rather, he said, the pope’s revised prayer expresses an “eschatological hope” by citing St. Paul’s expectation that when “the full number of the Gentiles” enters the church, then all Israel will be saved.
In effect, Cardinal Kasper said, the pope has removed the “language of contempt” and replaced it with words that express honest differences.
True dialogue between faiths must always accept the identity of the other, he said.
“We respect the identity of the Jews; they should respect ours, which we cannot hide,” he said.
“I don’t see this as an obstacle, but rather as a challenge for true theological dialogue,” he said.
Haaretz reports another conversation with the Cardinal (Vatican rejects criticism of new prayer for Jewish conversion February 7, 2008):
“We think that reasonably this prayer cannot be an obstacle to dialogue because it reflects the faith of the Church and, furthermore, Jews have prayers in their liturgical texts that we Catholics don’t like,”
“I must say that I don’t understand why Jews cannot accept that we can make use of our freedom to formulate our prayers,” Kasper, a German, told the Corriere della Sera.
“One must accept and respect differences,” said the cardinal.
Also, On Good Friday, Cardinal Kasper published a commentary on the new prayer in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung — a full English translation will hopefully be forthcoming, but Dr. Thomas Pink, Centre for Philosophical Studies, King’s College London), provides four key points worth considering:
- Kasper acknowledges that the 2008 prayer brings out important presuppositions of Catholic faith concerning the Jews left only implicit in the 1970 prayer, and emphasises that Nostra Aetate has to be interpreted in the context of all of Vatican II – (including presumably Lumen Gentium para 9, which refers to the Church as a New Israel in which Jew and Gentile are to be united in a new and more perfect covenant?)
[Kasper:] The new formulation of 1962 says nothing new, but only expresses what was hitherto assumed as straightforward, but clearly not sufficiently thematised.f
- Kasper now openly acknowledges that the prayer is straightforwardly for Jewish conversion, something he initially hedged about in a private letter to a US Rabbi.
[Kasper:] The word conversion does not appear in the new formulation of the prayer. But it is implicit in the prayer for the Jews to be enlightened so that they recognise Jesus Christ. It should also be observed that the 1962 Missal provides the individual intercessions with titles; and the title reads as before: ‘Pro conversione Judaeorum – for the conversion of the Jews’
- Kasper still opposes a targeted mission to the Jews. But his rationale, which is Pauline, is not likely to appeal to Catholic liberals. It is nothing to do with the Jews having their own separate means of salvation. Rather, God has hardened the hearts of the Jews against Christ their saviour, and so it is for God not us to unharden them.
[Kasper:] Only He who has hardened the mass of Israel can undo this hardening again. He will do this when the ‘Saviour’ comes from Zion. That is in Paul’s language none other than the returning Christ. For Jews and Gentiles have the same Lord.
- While opposing a targeted mission, Kasper calls for Christian witness to the Jews, on the model of St Paul who on visiting Greek cities, preached to the local synagogue first before addressing the Gentiles (note parallel here with Schoenborn – witness to the Jews precedes that to the Gentiles.)
[Kasper:] The exclusion of a targeted and organised mission to the Jews does not mean that Christians should just sit around. One must distinguish between targeted and organised mission and Christian witness. Naturally Christians should, when appropriate, give witness of their faith and of the riches and beauty of belief in Jesus Christ to ‘their elder brothers and sisters in the faith of Abraham’ (John Paul II). That Paul did also. On his journeys of mission, he went first to the synagogue, and only then when he found no belief there did he go to the Gentiles.
A Rabbi and Priest speak in solidarity
Not all Jews expressed adverse reactions, according to Zenit News Service. Among those expressing understanding and sympathy was Rabbi Jacob Neusner (prominently featured in a chapter of Pope Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth):
Among the reactions, an article published Feb. 23 in the German newspaper Die Tagespost is noteworthy. The article, written by Jacob Neusner, professor of History and Theology of Judaism in Bard College, supports the explanation given by the cardinal, explaining that the prayer does nothing more than express Christian identity.
“Israel prays for the gentiles, so the other monotheists — the Catholic church included — have the right to do the same, and no one should feel offended. Any other policy toward the gentiles would deny gentiles access to the one God whom Israel knows in the Torah,” wrote [Rabbi Neusner]. …
“And the Catholic prayer expresses the same generous spirit that characterizes Judaism at worship. God’s kingdom opens its gates to all humanity and when at worship the Israelites ask for the speedy advent of God’s kingdom, they express the same liberality of spirit that characterizes the Pope’s text for the prayer for the Jews — better ‘holy Israel’ — on Good Friday,” the Jewish professor explained.
“Both ‘It is our duty’ and ‘Let us also pray for the Jews’ realize the logic of monotheism and its eschatological hope,” Neusner concluded.
The full text of Rabbi Neusner’s article was republished by Sandro Magister, alongside a biblically-rich explication by Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the pontifical council for culture:
This intense hope is obviously proper to the Church, which has at its center, as fountain of salvation, Jesus Christ. For the Christian, he is the Son of God and is the visible and efficacious sign of divine love, because as Jesus had said that night to “a ruler of the Jews,” Nicodemus, “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son… God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him” (cf. John 3:16-17). It is, therefore, from Jesus Christ, son of God and son of Israel, that there arises the purifying and fecundating stream of salvation, for which reason one can also say in the final analysis, as Christ does in John’s Gospel, that “salvation is from the Jews” (4:22). The estuary of the history hoped for by the Church is, therefore, rooted in this spring.
We repeat: this is the Christian vision, and it is the hope of the Church that prays. It is not a programmatic proposal of theoretical adherence, nor is it a missionary strategy of conversion. It is the attitude characteristic of the prayerful invocation according to which one hopes also for the persons considered near to oneself, those dear and important, a reality that one maintains is precious and salvific. An important exponent of French culture in the 20th century, Julien Green, wrote that “it is always beautiful and legitimate to wish for the other what is for you a good or a joy: if you think you are offering a true gift, do not hold back your hand.” Of course, this must always take place in respect for freedom and for the different paths that the other adopts. But it is an expression of affection to wish for your brother what you consider a horizon of light and life.
See A Bishop and a Rabbi Defend the Prayer for the Salvation of the Jews by Sandro Magister. http://www.Chiesa. March 7, 2008).
German Jews severe ties
In March 31, 2008, the Jerusalem Post reported that the president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, Charlotte Knobloch, severed relations with the Catholic Church out of disappointment with the prayer:
“As long as Pope Benedict does not return to the previous wording, I assume that there will not be any further dialogue [such as we had] in the past,” said Knobloch. …
The Vatican’s liaison to Jewish groups, Cardinal Walter Kasper, has argued that the prayer is not a missionary statement; rather, the wording reflects the desire of the Catholic Church for all people to be saved through Jesus Christ. Knobloch, however, says that “implicit in the Good Friday prayer is a subtle call to proselytize Jews, which I must characterize as an affront that is arrogant and clearly a backward step in the Christian-Jewish dialogue.”
Der Spiegel also carried an interview with prominent German rabbi Walter Homolka:
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Homolka, you — and around 1,600 rabbis worldwide — are sharply protesting the Vatican’s revival of the Latin Good Friday Prayer, which reads: “Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men.” Do you consider Benedict XVI to be anti-Semitic?
Walter Homolka: He is trying to focus on the specific aspects of his church — that’s his duty. But in this case he has lost his sensitivity. It is insulting to Jews that the Catholic Church, in the context of Good Friday of all things, is once again praying for the illumination of the Jews, so that we can acknowledge Jesus as the savior. Such statements are made in a historical context which is closely connected with discrimination, persecution and death. Given the weight of responsibility that the Catholic Church has acquired in its history with Judaism, most recently during the Third Reich, this is completely inappropriate and must be rejected to the utmost degree.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: What is the effect of Benedict’s new version of the Latin phrase?
Homolka: He indicates that he believes that the path to salvation, even for Jews, can only go through Jesus, the savior. This opens the floodgates for the conversion of Jews. The Internet is already full of comments by conservative, right-wing Catholics who say: “Wonderful, now we finally have the signal to convert the Jews.” This kind of signal has an extremely provocative effect on anti-Semitic groups. The Catholic Church does not have its anti-Semitic tendencies under control.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: So Benedict is encouraging anti-Semitic tendencies?
Homolka: He is accepting them, at the very least.
Rabbi Homolka is clearly prone to hyperbole, but Germany’s Jews have had a rough time of it in recent years (anti-semitism appears to be on the rise in Germany).
Even so, Van Wallach of the “liberal, hawkish” Jewish blog Kesher Talk questions the outrage over the prayer (“That’s Right, We Bad, We Perfidious: The Upside of the Latin Mass”):
Alarm about the Latin Mass assumes people understand Latin. How many do? Wouldn’t that signal a widespread return to classical learning in the West, instead of a threat to Jews, if Latin revived? If Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ couldn’t ignite pogroms, then I hardly think a few Latin references, however troubling, will cause outbreaks of violence. That only happens when the culture is already well fertilized with Jew hatred. If a society is primed to despise Jews, well, that’s going to happen whether the Mass contains a few references to us or not.
In the great continuum of threats to the physical and mental safety of Jews, the Tridentine Mass ranks right up there banana peels on the sidewalks of Columbus Avenue. My concerns circle back to guys who dream of a Second Holocaust and shoot up JCCs, or proclaims Jews monkeys and pigs — and act on their lunacy. Let’s put our anxiety where the real threats are and not get bent out of shape about Latin.
Vatican plays “damage control”
On April 2nd, JTA (Jewish & Israel News) reported that Pope Benedict XVI was preparing to clarify the Vatican’s position on the controversial Good Friday Prayer for the Jews:
The Vatican will issue a letter within a week aimed at easing Jewish fears that the Catholic Church wants to convert them, said the chairman of the International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations, Rabbi David Rosen.
Rosen, who has seen a preliminary draft of the letter, said it will come from the pope via the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone.
On April 4th, the Vatican press office issued a communiqué released today by the Vatican press office on the publication of the new “Oremus et pro Iudaeis” for the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal:
The Holy See wishes to reassure that the new formulation of the Prayer, which modifies certain expressions of the 1962 Missal, in no way intends to indicate a change in the Catholic Church’s regard for the Jews which has evolved from the basis of the Second Vatican Council, particularly the Declaration Nostra Aetate. In fact, Pope Benedict XVI, in an audience with the Chief Rabbis of Israel on 15 September 2005, remarked that this document “has proven to be a milestone on the road towards the reconciliation of Christians with the Jewish people.” The continuation of the position found in Nostra Aetate is clearly shown by the fact that the prayer contained in the 1970 Missal continues to be in full use, and is the ordinary form of the prayer of Catholics.
In the context of other affirmations of the Council — on Sacred Scripture (Dei Verbum, 14) and on the Church (Lumen Gentium, 16) — Nostra Aetate presents the fundamental principles which have sustained and today continue to sustain the bonds of esteem, dialogue, love, solidarity and collaboration between Catholics and Jews. It is precisely while examining the mystery of the Church that Nostra Aetate recalls the unique bond with which the people of the New Testament is spiritually linked with the stock of Abraham and rejects every attitude of contempt or discrimination against Jews, firmly repudiating any kind of anti-Semitism.
Despite the Holy See’s hope that the statement would clarify any misunderstanding, some remain dissatisfied:
The Anti-Defamation League said a statement from the Vatican that the new formulation of the prayer “in no way intends to indicate a change in the Catholic Church’s regard for the Jews,” did not go far enough.
“On this issue the Vatican has taken two steps forward and three steps backward,” Abraham Foxman, the league’s national director, said in a statement.
According to the head Rabbi of Rome, “We are not satisfied: what we wanted was to hear a Vatican statement in touch with the times and to hear that the Church does not pray for the conversion of Jews, or at least that it will not pray for this until the forever and that God only helps one group of people … [the Vatican’s statement] did not clarify this point: the question remains completely unresolved”.”
* * *
- Back in 2002, I had posted an essay entitled Jewish & Christian Relations: Mixed Signals from the Vatican, on the Vatican’s response to the controversy and confusion over the document “Reflections on Covenant and Mission” by the Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, USCCB and the National Council of Synagogues. Nothing has changed since that time: the same issues — the same conflicting theological perspectives and factions (even within the Jewish-Christian dialogue), are battling it out once again.
In a sense, Benedict’s renewal of the Latin Mass and 1962 Missal and his revisions to the prayer have brought things to a head.
- There seems to be confusion over the terms proselytism and evangelization — Cardinal Francis Arinze, former head of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious dialogue and one quite familiar with the term, proselytism is generally understood to mean the effort to spread one’s religion by methods that are regarded as unnacceptable. These might include coercion by physical (through harrassment and threat of violence), economic (through the promise of material gifts), and psychological (taking advantage of one’s ignorance) means — all of which deserve condemnation since they insult the human dignity of the recipient, infringes upon one’s religious freedom, and does no honor to God.
Search through the history of Christian-Jewish relations, and you will likely find examples of all of the above. However, as Lawrence Uzzell pointed out, proselytism “is most often invoked by those who ultimately oppose all forms of Christian evangelism. If the Apostles had refrained from everything that today is lumped under the term, there would have been no carrying out of the Great Commission and the Church might have died in its infancy. Precisely because it labels all missionary activity pejoratively, the term is no help in distinguishing the legitimate from the illegitimate.” (“Don’t Call It Proselytism” First Things October 2004)
This seems to describe those within the Jewish community (and not a few “liberal Catholic” participants in the dialogue) who lump together any effort to witness the gospel proselytization, for whom the very suggestion that they might be saved, even implicitly, through the sacrifice of Christ is verboten.
- There are those who hold to a strict interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, insisting that those who are not formally and explicitly baptized in the Church are damned (popularly known as “Feeneyism”, roundly condemned by the Church in 1949); there are also those who hold to a radically liberal interpretation of salvation — to the point of suggesting that Christ’s sacrifice is but “one of many” paths to salvation. John Paul II and Benedict XVI (both in his present office as well as in his prior role as Prefect of the CDF) have steered a path between this theological “Scylla and Charybdis.” Two prominent examples of this are John Paul II’s Redemptoris Missio and the now-famous Dominus Iesus, which while agreeing to the possibility of “participated forms of mediation” in salvation, nevertheless stated “solutions that propose a salvific action of God beyond the unique mediation of Christ would be contrary to Christian and Catholic faith.”
- Fr. Peter Phan at least recognizes the “catch-22” for what it is:
“Jews, who do not share our faith in Christ, are in a saving covenant with God,” if anything, exacerbates the problems posed by religious pluralism, since it is claimed that at least one non-Christian religion, namely Judaism, is a way of salvation (“a saving covenant with God”) apart, at least prima facie, from Christ and Christianity.
The challenge for Roman Catholic theologians then is to articulate a coherent and credible Christology and soteriology (theology of salvation) that honors the Christian belief in Jesus as the savior of all humankind and at the same time includes the affirmation that Judaism is and remains eternally a “saving covenant with God.”
Phan advocates a “post-supersessionist Christology” that will “not so much to elaborate a Christian theology of Judaism as such (which may or may not be interested in having its faith validated by Christians) as to reflect on how Christians should understand themselves in reference to Judaism”; that will adamantly reject the idea that “God’s self-gift to and covenant with Israel have been abolished, either because of Israel’s guilt in rejecting and killing Jesus (as implied in the charge of faithlessness and deicide against the Jews) or because of the intrinsic superiority of Jesus’ ministry and of Christianity (the “New” Covenant supplanting the “Old” Covenant)”. I find Phan to be very perceptive in recognizing the challenge, howbeit this has also led him into some troubling speculative territory on religious pluralism, meriting the attention of the U.S. Bishops’ Doctrinal Committee as well as the CDF.
- Kasper’s attack on dual covenant theology: how Vatican II teaches prayer for Jewish conversion Against The Grain April 8, 2008. Dr Thomas Pink of King’s College London, has kindly provided its translation into English of Cardinal Kasper’s article defending Benedict XVI’s revisions to the “Good Friday Prayer for the Jews”, along with his extended observations in the form of a guest post.
- Between the Church and Jews, an Intermittent Dialogue, by Sandro Magister. Chiesa. April 8, 2008: Benedict XVI will receive a friendly welcome at the Park East synagogue of New York. But in Rome, the head rabbi has decided on “a pause for reflection” on relations with Catholic authorities. In an interview, he explains why …