💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › reports › vatijew.txt captured on 2023-06-16 at 20:14:10.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Catholics, Jews, and Vatican II:
A New Beginning
Historiography 401
Dr. Schultz
May 7, 1991
Thomas Beaudoin
1
Catholicism is the world's largest Christian religion and
Judaism is the religious father of Roman Catholicism. The
interface and reconciliation of these faiths is very important to
modern ecumenism and world peace. This paper will look into just
one small attempt at reconciliation between these two religions.
This attempt at reconciliation will be explored by describing the
documents concerning Jewish/Christian relations from Vatican II,
1962-1965, analyzing these documents and some accompanying
critiques, and establishing a synthesizing measurement of (1) the
actual language employed in the final document regarding relations
with Judaism and (2) how the stances taken in the documents differed
from the recent history of Roman Catholic/Jewish relations
and (3) answer the question: Did this document yield significant
ecumenical progress or little but verbal fence-sitting from the
Catholic Church?
I. The Document
The Second Vatican Council was a "solemn and holy
2
circus" of priests, abbots, bishops, and cardinals hailing from
San Francisco to Mongolia, assembled to discuss current
controversies in the secular world that were impacting the Catholic
religious body worldwide. Initiated by Pope John XXIII and
continued by Pope Paul VI, a Vatican decree on the Jews was
originally a small part of a Declaration on ecumenism in the
opening session, but it drew so much attention and debate that
it was inserted into a declaration on non-Christian religions in
1
the fourth session.
The text of the "Declaration on the Relationship of the
Church to Non-Christian Religions" was hotly debated in the
years following its promulgation by the Second Vatican in
October, 1965. Since many authors twist the text in the
interest of polemics and apologetics, we shall take a little
bit of space to devote ourselves to some of the key literal
pronouncements from the document, in order to have a firmer
base from which to measure it against recent history.
The Vatican's pronouncement opens with a general
3
statement about other religions, including the recognition
that "other religions to be found everywhere strive variously to
answer the restless searchings of the human heart," and that "The
Catholic Church rejects nothing which is true and holy in these
2
religions." The Church's spiritual relationship to the Jews
is spelled out through the metaphor of the "root of that good
olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild olive branches
of the Gentiles," acknowledging that the Church "...cannot forget
that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the
people with whom God in his inexpressible mercy deigned to
3
establish the Ancient Covenant." Regarding Jewish guilt for
Jesus' death, the Declaration asserts that "...authorities of the
Jews and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of
Christ." "Still," it continues, "what happened in His passion
cannot be blamed upon all the Jews then living, without distinction,
nor upon the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people
of God, the Jews should not be presented as repudiated or cursed by
4
God, as if such views followed from the Holy Scriptures."
4
Finally, the statement reads "Mindful of her common
patrimony with the Jews, and motivated by the gospel's spiritual
love and by no political considerations, she deplores the hatred,
persecutions, and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the
5
Jews at any time and from any source."
II. Recent History of Relations Between Catholics and Jews
Zionism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries,
6
a "movement to reassemble the Jews in their ancient homeland,"
was not popular with many Catholic Church leaders. Pope Pius X
had harsh and unmistakable words in 1904 for a visitor, Theodore
Herzl, the father of Zionism. "We [the Church] cannot favor
this movement. The Jews did not recognize Jesus, our Lord, and
7
we therefore cannot recognize the Jewish people." Pius X further
promised that "If you come to Palestine and settle your people
there, we will be ready with priests and churches to baptize all
8
of you."
Between the world wars, increasing Zionist activity
5
caused significant nervousness in Vatican City. Their fears
were based on anxiety over a compromise of the protection of
Christian holy places and a rollback of Christian influence
on the region in general at the hands of the Zionists. On July 4,
1922, a German Papal Embassy report elaborated the Church's
position, claiming -- with a tone hauntingly like that of the
Middle Ages -- that the Church was not in favor of Jews gaining
"privileged and predominant positions" over Catholics. The report
also emphasized the concerns about Catholic safety in a Jewish
state and concluded with a message that would ring loud and clear
in Jewish ears for many years: "Zionism as a power factor is...
not acceptable, because it is the mischief-maker of social peace
in Palestine, as well as the destroyer of the natural rights of the
9
native population of Palestine."
Later pronouncements further emphasized the Church's
antipathy to Zionism. If one letter in 1928 from the Papal
Nuncio in the Netherlands regarding Zionism was prophetic in
its conjecture about Arab response to Jewish rule, it was
6
lacking in tact in its indictment of the Zionists: "Zionism
now pursues a policy which lacks every psychological insight
and is bound to result in opposition and the hostility of
10
the Arabs."
But by 1945, in the aftermath of the Holocaust,
much of the world, including the Church leadership, outraged at
the tales of Nazi atrocities found a new sympathy for -- as it
was called -- the "Jewish question." Zionist leaders met with
Pope Pius XII, who offered the empathy and concern of the Holy See,
but stopped well short of supporting the idea of a Jewish
11
State.
The notion of a modern, political, fully-functioning,
successful State of Israel was extremely troubling to Church
leaders who tended to see biblical Israel as antiquated, faulty,
and finally unsuccessful as a political or religious entity.
On a physical level, the sheer numbers of Jews living
together, strengthening their religion by making it part of the
State's political infrastructure was threatening to Catholics for
7
12
the sheer challenge it presented to hopes of converting the Jews.
Jewish conversion, though, was related to the larger theological
problems that the potential existence of the Jewish State posed to
Roman Catholicism. The destruction of the Temple and subsequent
dispersion and exile of Jews in many countries were seen as signs of
the "accursed" status of the Jews, the result of their failure to
recognize Jesus as the Messiah and also (in the minds of some Church
leaders) owing to the guilt of the Jews -- all Jews -- for Jesus'
13
death. The establishment of the State of Israel would throw a
spanner in the Catholic theological works. The founding of a modern
Jewish state would either have to be treated as a short-lived
historical deviation or else force a major revision of Catholic
theology. These traditional ways of thinking, prevalent among many
of the Catholic clergy, were made of sturdy stuff. Old theology
died hard. The Vatican refused to acknowledge the existence of the
State of Israel after its official statehood was declared by the
United Nations, a diplomatic move that frustrates relations to this
day. Frequent post-1948 Papal references to "Palestine" instead of
8
"Israel" and the Holy See's overt desire for the internationalization
of Jerusalem are still major hurdles to cooperation between Israel
and the Bishop of Rome.
The 1950s and early 1960s were a time of progress and
procrastination in relations between the Catholic Church and
Israel. In 1953, when orthodox Jews in Israel tried to outlaw
Christian missionary schools, the Israeli legislature vetoed the
move. In 1954, the Hebrew language was finally beginning to
make inroads into the Catholic liturgy. Many prayer services
began to be offered in Hebrew, and an increasing number of
priests were learning the biblical language. In 1955, Israel made
its final payment to the Catholic Church for damages incurred
during Israel's 1948 War of Independence in 1955. The Jewish
State's Minister of Religious Affairs presented the historic check
to Monsignor Vergani, Latin Patriarchal Representative. Vergani
made no secret of his personal desire to see an improvement in
relations between the Vatican and Israel. He sprinkled the
diplomatic air with effusive praise in a letter to the Israeli
9
government after receiving the final war reparation: "I wish to
express our thanks for the goodwill, cooperative spirit, and
efficiency displayed..." by the Israelis in their handling of the
Church's outstanding monetary claims. Two years later, in
response to a question from an Israeli journalist, Vergani said,
"Personally, I would favor the establishment of regular diplomatic
14
relations, if the Vatican has no objections."
Alas, the bright light ignited by Vergani flickered in
the stale air of the Vatican's confusing gestures and ultimate
unwillingness to pursue the issue. The Israel Philharmonic performed
Beethoven's Seventh Symphony for Pope Pius XII in 1955, a performance
greeted with an ovation and many laudatory comments from the Pontiff.
Pius met after the concert with several of the musicians, conversing
in Hebrew with some of them. Many newspapers made a big to-do
of the audience with the Pope, hoping that this was a subtle
signal that the Vatican was ready to consider friendly dialogue.
But once again, inactivity in the following months proved that
the gesture was full of pomp and somewhat lacking in
10
15
circumstance.
Construction niceties were exchanged in 1956. When
the Israeli government paved new roads to Catholic holy sites,
Rome announced its plans to build the biggest Catholic Church in
the Middle East in Nazareth. The contract to build the Basilica
of the Annunciation in Nazareth was given to Israel's largest
16
building contractor.
Several grateful and brief letters were sent from the
Vatican in 1957 to the government of Israel, thanking them for
their assistance in providing security for the many Christians
in the Holy Land. But this somewhat warmer good-naturedness
turned a bit chilly upon the issuance in 1958 of the _Pontifical
Yearbook_. This directory of all Catholic dioceses and
ecclesiastics included more than one hundred religious posts
that had not been extant for hundreds of years. The _Yearbook_
also ommitted mention of the modern State of Israel in the book
itself and in its huge index. "The name [Israel], which appears
well over a dozen times in the New Testament, by 1958 had not yet
11
been found worthy of mention in the official reference book of
the Catholic Church." Needless to say, any positive strides in
recent relations between Catholics and Jews were momentarily
17
shelved.
In the autumn of 1958, an ecumenical firebrand stormed
upon St. Peter's stage, setting in motion a massive turning of
the Catholic anti-semitic tide from an unlikely position: the
Papacy. Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, Pope John XXIII, was a
cosmopolitan world traveler with a passion for reform and a
genuine affection and desire to bring Catholics and
Protestants and Christians and Jews back closer together,
declaring that every person has the right to "worship God
in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience,
18
and to profess his religion both in private and in public."
John XXIII, the two-hundred and sixty-second pope, was the first
19
pope to make cardinals of African and Japanese bishops.
He was bold and visionary. "We do not intend to
conduct a trial of the past," he said, "we do not want to
12
prove who was right and who was wrong. All we want to say
is: Let us come together. Let us make an end of our
20
divisions." Toward that end, John XXIII met in 1960 with Jules
Isaac, French professor and author of _The Teaching of Contempt_.
Isaac expressed his desire that the upcoming Council would deal
21
decisively with the question of Christian anti-semitism.
John was a hospitable man, granting thousands of
audiences to non-Catholics, including 120 meetings with Jews
(including the Israeli ambassador!). Dr. Saul Colbi, Director
of the Department for Christian Communities in Israel's
Ministry for Religious Affairs said in 1962, "It was a rare
feeling to be received with full honors by the Swiss and the
Nobile Guards, as an official representative of sovereign Israel.
The more so when one recalls that only 130 years ago, the
President of Rome's Jewish community had to kneel before the pope
22
each carnival time and to receive a papal kick in the pants."
Pope John XXIII was indeed not about to heave his holy
13
elderly foot into the pants of a people he wanted to embrace
spiritually, the Jews. He prayed in 1965,
We are conscious today that many, many centuries
of blindness have cloaked our eyes, so that we can
no longer see the beauty of Thy Chosen People, nor
recognize in their faces the features of our
privileged brethren. We realize that the mark of
Cain stands upon our foreheads. Across the
centuries our brother Abel has lain in the blood
which we drew, or shed tears we caused by
forgetting Thy Love. Forgive us for crucifying
thee a second time in their flesh. For we know
not what we did. (23)
In 1960, John created the Secretariat for Promoting
Christian Unity, an office under the jurisdiction of John's
confidant and fellow ecumenical crusader, Cardinal Bea. Its
purposes were threefold: to enhance inter-Christian
cooperation, to ensure religious liberty, and to promote dialogue
24
with Judaism. Bea and the Pontiff were trodding upon similar
paths in their pursuit of a major reconciliation with their Jewish
brothers and sisters. In a speech in 1962, Bea exclaimed:
The problems which humanity has to face
today are, indeed, so enormous and so urgent that it
is really indispensible to mobilize all those forces
which are in agreement at least on the level of the
religious idea, the idea of God, and the existence
of a moral order. On that ground, they can and they
ought to seek to understand each other. (25)
14
By late 1960, Bea -- with the help and inspiration of Isaac --
drafted what was originally called the "Jewish Declaration." This
document would, after much debate and revision, eventually be accepted
by the Second Vatican Council as part of a larger edict on non-Christian
26
religions.
In this blossoming environment, Jewish-Catholic relations
began to brighten. Under recommendations from the Secretariat, Catholic
publishing houses began immediately to publish "revised and improved"
editions of Catholic textbooks and school literature. The overwhelming
public support from clerics indicated that many Catholic clergy were
more than happy to ride the Johaninne tide. Public clerical remarks
seemed to indicate that John desired to insitutionalize what many of
27
his Catholic flock were already experiencing. Cardinal Meyer of
Chicago observed in 1965 that "a growing sense of responsibility for,
and solidarity with, the Church's Elder Brother can be perceived in
28
Catholic circles today." In July of 1965, Cardinal Raul Silva
Henriquez, Primate of Chile, speaking in Santiago's B'nai-B'rith
Synagogue, said: "In The Lord's inscrutable designs for Israel, you
15
continue to bear a witness of sacrifice, martyrdom, love and liberty,
of the defense of human rights and the dignity of man..." And he
closed with: "God has not forsaken His People, and a splendid dawn of
hope, of peace and liberty, of brotherhood and love, will yet shine
upon Israel. This we desire with all our heart." The next day, a
Chilean newspaper captured the vitality of the new Johannine direction:
"Ten years ago, such a meeting was not only impossible, but the mere
29
idea of it would have been inconceivable." Monsignor Gerry,
Archbishop of Cambrai, Netherlands, remarked "We respect the loyalty
of the Jewish people to its millenial mission as spokesmen of
monotheism and the transcendency of God." Cardinal Frings of Cologne
surmised that "No ecumenical council can order the faithful to love
the Jews. That Christ himself has done, and we can only repeat His
30
wish."
It was only appropriate, then, that after John announced
the commencement of the Second Vatican Council, he ordered the
Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity to draw up a document that
would speak out against anti-semitism and the notion of Jews as
16
"deicides." He had planned for the so-called "Schema on Ecumenism"
to be introduced and ratified during the opening session. He did
not anticipate the resistance and popular debate that would eventually
lead to the construction of a new document called "The Declaration on
the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions," passed in
31
a later session of the Council, after John's death in 1963.
No opposition could undo what John had begun. His
radical leaderhsip no doubt influenced one clergyman, Archbishop
Thomas Roberts of Bombay, to remark a bit sarcastically,
I never could understand what the fuss was about during
the Third Session of the Council, when the guilt of the
Jews was debated. It is so plain that the guilt lay not
with the Jewish people, but with the Jewish priestly
Establishment, that it seems legitimate to wonder whether
the refusal to face up to this may not be a subconscious
reluctance to face up to the analogy in the Church
today. (32)
III. Interpreting the Evidence
The _Declaration_ has been heavily criticized by
religious and laity alike. Two critiques in particular can serve
as critical boundaries, between which the truth about the
potency of the Vatican's actions lies.
17
Paul Blanshard, the Roman Catholic Church's most
infamous conscientious objector, came down in harsh criticism
of the Vatican II reforms in _Paul Blanshard on Vatican II_.
Blanshard's purpose was to evaluate the Second Vatican
Council according to the standards of "traditional American
33
democratic values," a philosophical flaw that causes
Blanshard to make wholly inappropriate criticisms of the Church's
statement on the Jews. In fact, Blanshard's lack of theological
knowledge comes shining through in this book when he ignores
religious concerns by the Vatican about the State of Israel,
concluding instead that modern Catholic anti-semitism was a major
factor in Rome's non-recognition of the Jewish State and the
non-mention of Israel in the final Vatican document. Were John
XXIII not such a peace-loving pope, he probably would have ordered
Blanshard's head on a platter for this ill-founded assertion.
Also when describing the Vatican documents, Blanshard
jumps up and down in anger at the striking of the word "deicide"
from the original text regarding the misrepresentation of Jews
18
in Christian history. He summarily dismisses Rome's argument
that simply employing the word "deicide" in an official Church
document could present serious theological problems for current
and later generations. He once again sounds the knell of
institutional anti-Semitism in the Church, failing to even argue
34
the theological point.
At the other end of the critical spectrum is _The Church
and the Jewish People_ by Augustin Cardinal Bea, John XXIII's hand-
picked director of the Secretariat for Promoting Chrisitan Unity, the
papal office that crafted the declaration on the Jews. Diametrically
opposed to Blanshard's bashing is Bea's blessing of the Vatican's
decrees about the Jews: "We should note the very strong terms in
which this [denunciation of anti-semitism] is couched." Indeed, Bea
denies any anti-semitism inherent in the New Testament, and with the
desire for Christian/Jewish unity that we have seen bea tended to see
the Council's declaration as a bold, complete step toward reconciliation
between Catholics and Jews, even if it was a different version than
35
the one he originally crafted.
19
These two critiques offer valuable insights, but only tell
partial truths. One must conclude that the language of the
_Declaration_ (as described earlier in this paper) is indeed a bit
guarded and distant, lacking in warmth, employing such phraseology
as "spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews" must lead to
"mutual understanding."
The Declaration speaks of being motivated by "the gospel's
spiritual love and by no political considerations." This
reference to politics could have two meanings. It could refer to
a resolution on anti-semitism passed three years earlier by the World
Council of Churches (of which the Roman Catholic Church is not a
member) that caused substantial criticism of the Catholic Church for
its lack of such a statement. Or it could be another reminder of the
Church's hard-headed hesitancy to recognize the State of Israel by
implying no connection between denouncing anti-semitism and
recognizing Israel. Also, the extension of John's papal hand to the
Jews had political significance for the growing number of liberal
20
36
Catholic clergy who -- since the nineteenth century -- had been
demanding religious toleration and freedom of conscience, and also
as a reminder that the Church would not play games of exclusiveness
in its expansion to all parts of the globe.
The phrase "the Jews should not be presented as
repudiated or cursed by God," which appeared in the final draft,
originally included: "or guilty of deicide" in earlier drafts of
the _Declaration_. This phrase was excised before the final draft,
a move blasted by Blanshard and other critics as anti-semitic. A
less emotional response and more careful inquiry would show that to
include (and therefore theologically legitimize) "deicide" in an
official Church proclamation would cause untold theological problems;
the Church could not proclaim that God was dead or could even be
killed.
The Declaration indeed set out official policy that
proved the Church "repudiates all persecutions against any man."
The special mention of Jews in this document is important for
Jews and Christians alike, especially given the haughty attitude
21
of the Church toward Jews in the years immediately preceding
Pope John XXIII. Remember that it was only 60 years earlier that
Pope Pius X, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, declared "We cannot
recognize the Jewish people."
Above all, the Declaration on the Relationship of the
Church to Non-Christian Religions from Vatican II is the
statement of a Church suffering growing pains. It may even be
argued that in many respects, the way to a brotherhood of the two
religions has been largely an intellectual undertaking, with few
37
practical ecumenical results. But history does not usually move
with such swiftness, especially when a long range transformation
is wanted, and in truth, needed. The realization of a new and
enlightened path was in the eye of the Church, but the long road to
fulfillment was just beginning.
Notes
1. Paul Blanshard, _Paul Blanshard on Vatican II_
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1966), 3.
2. _The Documents of Vatican II_, ed. Walter M.
Abbott, trans. Joseph Gallagher (New York: Herder and
Herder, 1966), 662.
3. Ibid., 664.
4. Ibid., 666.
5. Ibid., 666-667.
6. Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre,
_O Jerusalem_ (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1972), 18.
7. Sergio I. Minerbi, _The Vatican and Zionism_
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 100.
8. Arthur Gilbert, _The Vatican Council and the
Jews_ (New York: The World Publishing Company, 1968),
107-108.
9. Pinchas E. Lapide, _Three Popes and the Jews_
(New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1967), 272-273.
10. Minerbi, _The Vatican and Zionism_, 95.
11. George Emile Irani, _The Papacy and the Middle
East_ (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame
Press, 1986), 79.
12. Arthur Gilbert, _The Vatican Council and the
Jews_, 108-110.
13. Pinchas E. Lapide, _Three Popes and the Jews_,
277-78.
14. Ibid., 296-298.
15. Ibid., 297-298.
16. Ibid., 300.
17. Ibid., 301.
18. E. E. Y. Hales, _Pope John and His Revolution_
(Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc.,
1965), 58.
19. Pinchas E. Lapide, _Three Popes and the Jews_,
308-310.
22
23
20. Peter Nichols, _The Pope's Divisions_ (London:
Faber and Faber, 1981), 207.
21. Malachi Martin, _Three Popes and the Cardinal_
(New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1972), 243.
22. Pinchas E. Lapide, _Three Popes and the Jews_,
313.
23. Ibid., 318.
24. Peter Nichols, _The Pope's Divisions_, 165.
25. E. E. Y. Hales, _Pope John and His Revolution_,
133.
26. Malachi Martin, _Three Popes and the Cardinal_,
243.
27. George Emile Irani, _The Papacy and the Middle
East_, 15.
28. Pinchas E. Lapide, _Three Popes and the Jews_,
331.
29. Ibid., 332.
30. Ibid., 332-333.
31. Vittorio Gorresio, _The New Mission of Pope
John XXIII_ (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1970), 316.
32. Frederick Franck, _Exploding Church_ (New York:
Delacorte Press, 1968), 230.
33. Paul Blanshard, _Paul Blanshard on Vatican II_, 1.
34. Ibid., 129-142.
35. Augustin Cardinal Bea, _The Church and the
Jewish People_ (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), 135.
36. E. E. Y. Hales, _Pope John and His Revolution_,
59.
37. George Emile Irani, _The Papacy and the Middle
East_, 3.
Bibliography
Abbott, Walter M., ed. _The Documents of Vatican II_.
New York: Herder and Herder, 1966.
Bea, Augustin Cardinal. _The Church and the Jewish
People_. New York: Harper and Row, 1966.
Blanshard, Paul. _Paul Blanshard on Vatican II_.
Boston: Beacon Press, 1966.
Collins, Larry and Dominique Lapierre. _O Jerusalem_.
New York: Simon and Schuster, 1972.
Franck, Frederick. _Exploding Church_. New York:
Delacorte Press, 1968.
Gilbert, Arthur. _The Vatican Council and the Jews_.
New York: The World Publishing Company, 1968.
Gorresio, Vittorio. _The New Mission of Pope John
XXIII_. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1970.
Hales, E. E. Y. _Pope John and His Revolution_.
Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company,
Inc., 1965.
Irani, George Emile. _The Papacy and the Middle
East_. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1986.
Lapide, Pinchas E. _Three Popes and the Jews_. New
York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1967.
Martin, Malachi. _Three Popes and the Cardinal_.
New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1972.
Minerbi, Sergio I. _The Vatican and Zionism_. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Nichols, Peter. _The Pope's Divisions_. London:
Faber and Faber, 1981.
24