Lecture Tonight at 6PM – Refreshments and Kosher Wine will be from Supersol. This is the first public act of Jewish-Christian encounter in Dolan’s new role in NYC.  (He sent me a very nice note upon his arrival.) This will either be very good or a nothing since neither speaker is, in any way, a theologian or visionary. One side is a sociologist embracing the self-focused individualism of American religion, the other side is a defender of the collective and authority but a real nice guy, a gregarious public figure.

Catholic-Jewish interchange will be the subject of the 17th annual Nostra Aetate Dialogue, which will take place at 6 p.m. on Thursday, Nov. 5, at the McNally Amphitheatre on Lincoln Center campus. The discussion, “The Future of Catholic-Jewish Interfaith Dialogue,” will feature Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York, and Arnold M. Eisen, Ph.D., the seventh chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary. Edward Bristow, professor of history at Fordham University, will serve as moderator.
The event is co-sponsored by the Archbishop Hughes Institute on Religion and Culture and the Jewish Community Center in Manhattan. Admission is free and open to the public.The Nostra Aetate Dialogue can be traced to the Nostra Aetate (In Our Time) document, a declaration by the Second Vatican Council stressing the importance of relationships between the church and non-Christian religions.
The Archbishop Hughes Institute on Religion and Culture was established in 1995 to foster Catholic-Jewish dialogue and in addition to the Nostra Aetate Dialogue, hosts the annual Russo Lecture.

On October 28:

1510 Francis Borgia, Spanish duke and Jesuit priest was born.

Saint Francis Borgia. He is depicted performing an exorcism in this painting by Francisco Goya.

1538 The first university n the New World, the Universidad Santo Tomás de Aquino in the Dominican Republic, was established.

1664 The Duke of York and Albany’s Maritime Regiment of Foot, later to be known as the Royal Marines, was established.

1697 Canaletto, Italian artist, was born.

1846 Georges Auguste Escoffier, French chef, was born.

1848 The first railway in Spain – between Barcelona and Mataró – wass opened

1886 President Grover Cleveland dedicated the Statue of Liberty.

1890 New Zealand’s first Labour Day celebrations took place.

1893 Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 6 in B Minor, Pathétique, received its premiere performance in St. Petersburg.

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky by Nikolay Kuznetsov, 1893

1903 Evelyn Waugh, English writer, was born.

1914 Jonas Salk, American biologist and physician, was born.

1918 Czechoslovakia was granted independence from Austria-Hungary.

1927 Dame Cleo Laine, English singer. was born.

1929 Joan Plowright, English actress was born.

1941 Hank Marvin,lead guitarist for The SHadows, was born.

1942 The Alaska Highway (Alcan Highway) was completed through Canada to Fairbanks, Alaska.

1946 Australian politician, former leader of the Liberal Party, John Hewson, was born.

1948 – Swiss chemist Paul Müller was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his discovery of the insecticidal properties of DDT.

1954 The modern Kingdom of the Netherlands was re-founded as a federal monarchy.

1955 Bill Gates, American software executive, was born.

1960 Landon Curt Noll, Astronomer, Cryptographer and Mathematician: youngest to hold the world record for the largest known prime 3 times, was born.

1965 Nostra Aetate, the “Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions” of the Second Vatican Council, is promulgated by Pope Paul VI; it absolves the Jews of the alleged killing of Jesus, reversing Innocent III’s 760 year-old declaration.

1967 Julia Roberts, American actress, was born.

1970 Gary Gabelich set a land speed record in a rocket-powered automobile called the Blue Flame, fueled with natural gas.

1970 Britain launched its first (and so far, only) satellite, Prospero, into low Earth orbit atop a Black Arrow carrier rocket.

1982 Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) won elections, leading to first Socialist government in Spain after death of Franco.  Felipe Gonzalez became Prime Minister-elect.

2007 Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner became the first woman elected President of Argentina.

Sourced from NZ History Online and Wikipedia.

Pro-life Catholics usually take the attitude toward pro-choice Catholic politicians that they are ‘renegade Catholics,’ acting outside the teaching of the Church regarding the definition of human life. We marvel that ‘dissidents’ continue to function within Catholic circles, unchallenged, receiving communion, teaching at Catholic schools, and even living in Catholic seminaries and convents.

Why is error so persistent? Isn’t Catholicism clear?

The misunderstanding apparently goes both ways. Recently the ‘renegades’ turned the tables and openly castigated pro-life Catholics for their lack of charity in vigorously protesting the Catholic funeral afforded the popular senator Ted Kennedy, who never repudiated his support for abortion. Some thought to be ‘traditional’ in the Catholic hierarchy participated in the laudatory funeral, to the renewed surprise of Novus Ordo pro-life activists. (Does not their surprise bone ever get weary?)

It’s almost diabolical. Or, is there some competing Catholic teaching that contradicts the obvious one that an unborn child is protected by the commandment against murder? Is there some teaching that supports pro-choice Catholics and allows those who disregard abortion to freely function by all levels of the Catholic hierarchy? How do pro-choice Catholics justify their voting records? And what can pro-life Catholics do besides wag their fingers and chant ’shame shame shame!’ on the internet?

Pro-choice politicians rarely risk public statements detailing the theology informing their voting records, but there have been chinks in the wall. Nancy Pelosi, for example, on Meet the Press, explained her support for abortion this way: “This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god.” (Punctuation as in original transcript.)

In other words, Pelosi is honoring a woman’s right to practice the religion of her choice, as guaranteed by our constitution–and, here’s the teaching that contradicts the commandment against murder: by the constitutions of Vatican II.

Vatican II made a right of the tolerance that had been practiced for reasons of charity or prudence on a case-by-case basis. Dignitatis humanae, the Declaration on religious freedom, asserts throughout that religious decision are strictly up to the individual and that no one must use any form of coercion to influence those precious decisions.

It is said in the declaration, for example, that “government is to see to it that equality of citizens before the law, which is itself an element of the common good, is never violated, whether openly or covertly, for religious reasons.” The word ‘right’ is used forty-eight times in the document regarding absolute religious freedom; one paragraph (n. 4) notes that “society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection” and therefore the right of the government, not the Church, to define what is an abuse. Pelosi’s government does not define abortion as an abuse, and hence Nancy says she may, and even must, as a good Vatican II Catholic, honor the religions of all, even if they involve the sacrifice of one small human life. When Pelosi explains her voting record by saying abortion is ‘between a woman and her god,’ she clearly cites the woman’s freedom of religion to make such a decision.

The Church has not clarified Dignitatis humanae or numerous other constitutional references to ‘freedom of conscience,’ ‘freedom of religion,’ ‘freedom to choose,’ to clearly and unequivocally state that abortion, polygamy, divorce, and gay sexuality are not covered by the council’s insistence on ‘freedom’ and do not merit the excessive ‘respect’ continually demanded by Council documents. Unless this teaching is clarified, Nancy Pelosi is legitimately reflecting the diversity of her electorate. Vatican II commands her to do so in the novel teaching that religious freedom is an absolute right rather than charity toward many religious expressions of other faiths on a case by case basis, which the Church had always taught before the Council, but which may never be demanded as a right in those instances where the public good is so much at stake.

Other theologians take the ‘right’ to abort as an issue of Church and state as well, as evidenced by an article in a 1999 article in Christian Ethics Today by Dr. John M. Swomley, professor emeritus of social ethics at St. Paul School of Theology in Kansas City. The pro-abort article takes the Vatican and active pro-life Catholics to task for their opposition to abortion specifically as a violation of the principle of separation of Church and state and emphasizes how important, unique, and precedent-setting this separation has been in the history of the United States and then for the world. The lynch pin to such separation is, of course, a presumed ‘right’ to practice whatever religion one chooses, however erroneous, with the state the neutral peacemaker between ideologies.

This new “right” is clearly novel. The popes of the nineteenth century formally condemned ‘religious freedom’ over and over as a liberal error. Pius IX, for example, in Quanta cura, explicitly denounced the proposition that “liberty of conscience and of forms of worship is a right proper to every man,” almost the exact words later elevated by Vatican II to the level of doctrine.

Thus freedom of worship is central to the continuation of abortion. Joe Biden gave an explanation similar to Pelosi’s for his voting record. Arguing that it was impossible to ban abortion, Biden said,  “That’s sort of reflected as close as anybody is ever going to get in this heterogeneous, this multicultural society of religious people as to some sort of, not consensus, but as close it gets.” John Kerry said that, although he was an altar boy, he must cite freedom of religion as the basis for his pro-choice voting record: “I can’t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith.” He is in this backed up by the US constitution. But he is also backed up by the new teaching of the Church. According to Vatican II’s teaching on freedom of religion, he really can’t set limits on the belief of others, and there are plenty of lay Catholics, theologians (among them Miguel Diaz, the new US envoy to the Vatican), religious sisters, priests, bishops, and cardinals who agree with him, and vote for him, by the same justification.

That it makes it easier to live the good life in secular America is only icing on the cake. Otherwise it’s possible there could be blood.

Commonweal magazine called  pro-abort Catholic politician Patrick Leahy, Vermont, a “John Courtney Murray Catholic,” Murray being the American peritus at the Council who gave us the teaching on the supremacy of the secular state over the religious state, with all religions subject to the state, which would ensure ‘equality before the law’ among them, at a time when there were still Catholic states, and it killed them, or rather it removed their justification by their own faith, so that others could kill them. This is the teaching of the Council’s Nostra aetate. Commonweal meant it as a compliment. The Church has not yet disabused Commonweal of the notion by repudiating John Courtney Murray and all he represented for the fall of the Church in the last forty years.

One does not know how many deaths beyond the unspeakable fifty million lives lost to abortion it will take to disabuse us of Murray’s tired hippy talk that ‘mankind’s conscience’ will always lead us to the good secular state, the state best suited for the modern world. The secular state doesn’t even provide us with a decent economy–because it keeps killing its future taxpayers and consumers!

And we are paralyzed as well as broke. Politically, the US is at a stalemate. We cannot get the health care we need. We cannot get the divorce reform laws we need to protect the institution of marriage, or even agree on a definition of marriage. We cannot get laws against the tsunami of pornography debasing our children. We cannot get banking industry reform, or tort reform. We cannot get even medicare reform, because we have a viciously secular government that has (as critics of the Council at the time pointed out would be the inevitable result of such a radical amputation of church from state), a nasty impulse to kill human beings to solve problems. Even the most humble of the elderly knows what that means: it means when times really get tough, like now, they’re coming for you. And so the elderly are acting up at town hall meetings. And they should. And they vote. So we’re paralyzed. And stressed.

Church and state have too many overlapping concerns to be completely separated, with the state elevated over the Church, as Vatican II does. It causes chaos. We’re living it.

Nor was total separation of Church and state ever the traditional teaching of the Church. For example, Leo XIII wrote, in Immortale dei  (n. 25), that human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, conduct themselves as if God did not exist. And yet Vatican II elevated the secular state to the model for the world, rather than teaching us how to live and fight for the faith in a secular world. Vatican II capitulated. It is true our times are more difficult regarding the separation of church and state, and it is true that the US is the most difficult, the most secular, of all.

But that does not mean we change the teaching, only the tactics. Unless we’re cowards. Vatican II caved.

But it can be fixed. Other temporary lapses have been fixed in the history of the Church. And then we can begin the work of re-building.

Traditionalist pro-lifers have stood shoulder to shoulder with Novus Ordo pro-lifers outside abortion mills, we have worked together in drives to collect funds and clothing for pregnant women, we have journeyed the many miles to Washington every year, and we have had our martyrs. We know each other to be sincere.  It is time for these Novus Ordo pro-life soldiers to listen to their traditional comrades and attend to the doctrinal issues from the sixties that give a platform to abortion forces.  We must all stand up and tell the Church:

Fix Vatican II!

We must write them letters the way we write to politicians. We must send them emails. And blog them and twitter them. Tell our pastors. Tell our bishops. Fix Vatican II! Quit acting as if it were all fine! Look at how it is being used, and fix it, before Catholicism disappears and the world ends. Just break down and restate the teaching according to Tradition, so that we’re all on the same page, and let’s get on with the work of evangelization!

First and last, we must pray the rosary as hard as we can that the coming talks between SSPX and the Vatican, which will address exactly these issues (in spite of Austrian bishop Schonborn’s assertion they’d be ‘off the table’), are successful on the side of SSPX.  That might be painful for some Novus Ordo pro-life activists. But investigate further, and think about the very strong  possibility that these novel teachings are the secret heart of our difficulties, from Notre Dame to health care reform. Clarity would force pro-abort Catholic politicians (and their Catholic voting base, and their Catholic media base) to find another way to explain their defection from traditional teaching on the absolute sanctity of human life–they’d at least have to stop calling themselves Catholic, which our confusion on doctrine allows them to do, or vote for life. For it is not their defection, but Vatican II’s first, that began our economic, political, moral, spiritual meltdown.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said it so much better, in They Have Uncrowned Him. You can get it here  along with other good Catholic books, or on Amazon.

EL TALMUD: LAS ENSEÑANZAS DE ODIO Y RACISMO DE LOS PÉRFIDOS JUDÍOS (I)

Por Mendo Crisóstomo

¿Qué piensan los judíos sobre los que no somos judíos?

Las personas que conocen la cosmovisión judía saben que, para ser judío, no es necesario creer en nada metafísico o espiritual, sino sólo en el Talmud.

Para ser judío, no hace falta creer en Dios, sino sólo en el Talmud

Según ellos, un judío es quien tiene madre judía, aunque a los que no son “judíos puros” (de padre y madre judíos), los tienen en rango inferior.

Para los judíos, un judío pierde la condición de judío cuando adora a dioses considerados extranjeros, y pierde especialmente su condición de judío si se le ocurre bautizarse, acción que consideran la más abominable.

Para este pueblo maldito, un judío puede no creer ni siquiera en Dios y, aun así, ser tenido por un gran judío.

El mandato más importante para los judíos es la reproducción, tener hijos. Ni siquiera tienen necesidad de servir a un dios.

Los judíos consideran que, para ser buen judío, aparte de pertenecer a estirpe judía, basta con creer y obedecer el Talmud, y sentirse miembro de la comunidad judía internacional.

Incluso una importante secta judía ya oficialmente reconocida por el resto de judíos en el sínodo judío celebrado a finales del siglo XIX tiene como algo específico el ateísmo. A esa secta había pertenecido Karl Ysidor Mardochai Levy, alias Karl-Heinrich Marx, y de ella es hijo el comunismo, con el afán, confesado por Marx en sus cartas a Engels y en una nota publicada en La Gaceta Renana, de apoderarse de los bienes de los no judíos para dominarlos y hacer que se maten entre sí las distintas clases sociales de los no-judíos.

Por eso no nos extraña que todos los grandes capitalistas y, a la vez, todos los grandes jerarcas comunistas hayan sido judíos.

El judío Ysidor Levy creó una ideología para derramar sangre y robar a los no-judíos, cumpliendo los preceptos talmúdicos

¿Por qué atacó Marx la religión? Simplemente porque los judíos consideran que el judaísmo no es una religión y dicen que a veces se utiliza ese término para no entrar en profundidades…

Pero ellos defienden a ultranza el errado concepto de que toda religión es mala…y con razón, pues está claro que su cosmovisión es, por antonomasia, una antirreligión.

Los judíos suelen decir que el judaísmo consiste esencialmente en la “iniciación de un pueblo entero —un pueblo superior dicen ellos— en las normas mitzvót que lo acercan gradualmente al Kadósch Barúch Hú.”

Por ejemplo, ¿por qué los judíos excomulgaron al célebre Spinoza?
No por panteístico ni por heterodoxo, ya que en materia de ideas heterodoxas y “contra Dios” o “ateísmo”, superaba a Spinoza el antiguo Elishá ben Avuiá, maestro talmudista, que negaba la existencia de Dios y sin embargo era respetado como judío.

Elisha era “comunitario”, porque hablaba mal de Dios, pero estudiaba el Talmud y la enseñaba a otros judíos: Era judío, se sentía miembro de la comunidad judía internacional y nadie consideró necesario excomulgarlo. En cambio, Spinoza no siguió el Talmud, al menos conscientemente; por eso fue perseguido.

Oponerse a las enseñanzas cristianas y perpetuar el poder mundial judío contra todos los demás pueblos, llamados por ellos Goyim (ganados), tales son los propósitos del rabínico Talmud

Si el lector conoce algún rabino y lo encuentra algún día de buen humor, le animo a que le pregunte y verá lo que le dice…

Así pues, para los judíos el judaísmo es una especie de sistema racial-familiar de vida, tenido por modo de vida integral en la unión y cooperación supremacista con una comunidad de judíos que entre sí  se identifican y se hallan por encima de los no-judíos, a los que despectivamente llaman goyim (que significa literalmente “ganados”).

El Talmud es, pues, de obligado cumplimiento para todo judío. Está totalmente comprobado que se trata de invenciones rabínicas posteriores a Cristo y redactadas para oponerse al plan de Salvación de Jesucristo y preparar la supremacía mundial judía contra otros pueblos  (especialmente contra el Catolicismo).
Sin embargo, ellos no cejan en su empeño de mentir diciendo que se trata de la tradición oral transmitida desde Moisés.

¿Qué piensan los judíos de los no-judíos? Veamos, en bilingüe, algunos pasajes del Talmud:

אמר   רבי  יוחנן  גוי  שעוסק  בתורה  חייב  מיתה

"Si alguno viere a un cristiano en dificultades o ahogándose en aguas, no acudas en su ayuda. Si se le viere cercano a la muerte, no lo salves de la muerte." Hilkhot Akum X, 1

“El Rabbí Jochanan dice: Un goy que escudriña dentro de la ley es reo de muerte”

Sanedrín, 59, a.

אסור  לרחם  עליהם  שנמר  ולא  תחנם  לפיכך  אם  ראה  גוי  עובד  כו ם  אובד  או  טובע  בנהר  לא יעלנו׃  ראהו  נטוי  למות  לא  יצילנו  אבל  לאבדו  בידו  או   לרפחו  וכיוצא  בזה  אסור  מפני   שאינו  עושה  עמנו  מלחמה

“No es lícito que tengas piedad de ellos, porque se ha dicho: ‘No tendrás piedad de ellos.’ Por ello mismo, si alguno viere a un cristiano en dificultades o ahogándose en aguas, no acudas en su ayuda. Si se le viere cercano a la muerte, no lo salves de la muerte. Con todo, no está bien matarlo con tus propias manos lanzándolo a un pozo o de algún modo similar a éste, puesto que no están en guerra con nosotros”

Hilkhot Akum X, 1

מה  שאמרו  הנביאים  בחרבן  אדום  באחרית   הימים  על  רומי   אמרו  כמו   שפי  בישעיה  בפרשת  קרבו  נױם   לשמוע  כי  כשתחרב  רומי  תהיה    גאלת  ישראל

Los judíos enseñan a sus hijos que: "Incluso el mejor de entre los gentiles merece ser matado" Abhodah Zarah 26, b. Tosephoth

“Todo lo que los profetas predijeron sobre la devastación de Edom en los últimos días, eso es lo que comprendieron que se refería a Roma, como expliqué en Isaías en el verso ‘Acercaos naciones y escuchad’. Porque, en efecto, cuando sea devastada Roma, vendrá la redención de los israelitas”.

Rabbí Davidh Kimchi, Obadiam.

כשר   שבגױם   הרוג

“Incluso el mejor de entre los Goyim merece ser matado”

Abhodah Zarah 26, b. Tosephoth.

בדא בעכ  ום   אכל  המוסרים  והאפיקורוסין  מישראאל  מצןה   לאבדן  ביד  ולהורידן  עד  באר   שחת  מפני  שהן  מצירין  לישראל   ומסירין  את  העם  מאחררי  ה

“Éstas cosas se dirigen a los idólatras. Pero también a aquellos israelitas que se apartaron de su pueblo o se convirtieron en epicúreos, a todos ellos estamos obligados a aniquilarlos y perseguirlos incluso hasta los infiernos. Porque ellos acongojan a Israel…”.

Hilkhoth Akum X, 2.

הסיר  חיות   הקליפות  ותמיתם  ואז  תעלה  עליך   השכינה  כאילו  הקטרת  קטורת

“Destruye la vida del cristiano y mátalo, pues así serás tan grato a la Divina Majestad como aquel que le hace una ofrenda de incienso”

"Destruye la vida del cristiano y mátalo, pues así serás tan grato a la Divina Majestad como aquel que le hace una ofrenda de incienso" Sepher Or Israel 177, b.

Sepher Or Israel 177, b.

REFLECTIONS ON COVENANT AND MISSION REVISITED

Seven years later,
the USCCB [now] addresses
one of the more embarrassing and controversial documents
in recent memory,
“Reflections on Covenant and Mission,”
originally released on August 12, 2002,
by delegates from the Bishops’ Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs (BCEIA),
a sub-committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB),
and the National Council of Synagogues.

It created quite a sensation [in 2002 and afterwards] and was presented by many in the media as an official document declaring, in essence, that not only were Catholics not to evangelize Jews, the Old Covenant was just as valid as the New Covenant established by Jesus Christ. The Boston Globe, for example, ran the headline, “Catholics reject evangelization of Jews” the following day. In this case, the media could not be criticized for misrepresentation or hyperbole, for the document was a mess of ambiguity, confused theology, and, dare I say, outright falsehoods. (For some helpful background and context, see Christopher Blosser’s page about the document and the resulting controversy the Ratzinger Fan Club site.)

When the document came out, I was working at editor of Envoy magazine. I wrote a piece about it, stating:

Before looking at some of the problems with “Reflections On Covenant and Mission,” it must be pointed out that the document carries little, if any, authoritative weight. It is, after all, a reflection, not a papal encyclical or declaration from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In fact, after the first wave of media attention and controversy, Cardinal William Keeler, the U.S. Bishops’ Moderator for Catholic-Jewish relations, took pains to point out that the document was not authoritative and  “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). The purpose of publicly issuing the considerations which it contains is to encourage serious reflection on these matters by Jews and Catholics in the U.S.” (Accessed at www.ncbuscc.org. Dated Aug. 16, 2002).

Unfortunately, most people, including many Catholics, do not understand the various levels of authority attached to different official Catholic documents. They do not always understand that there is a huge difference between a dogmatic constitution or papal encyclical, and the reflections of a USCCB sub-committee. Although such reflections can be important and may benefit the Church in different ways, they are not infallible and they do not necessarily reflect the teaching of the Universal Church. Such reflections can even contradict the established doctrine of the Catholic Church.

What’s The Point?

The document is part of an ongoing, twenty year long interreligious dialogue between the USCCB and certain Jewish groups. One of its goals is to state that “campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.” Although this is somewhat ambiguous, the delegates are apparently referring to coercive or aggressive forms of proselytism that do not respect the religious freedom of the individual. Of course, it would be difficult to find many Catholics today who support the forced baptisms and conversions that sometimes took place in past centuries.

The document also reflects on the relationship between the Old and New Covenants.  Quotes from Pope John Paul II explain that Jews are “the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God,” “the present-day people of the covenant concluded with Moses,” and “partners in a covenant of eternal love which was never revoked.” This might surprise some readers, but this recognition of God’s faithfulness to His covenant with the Jews has been the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church. This is based, in part, on St. Paul’s teaching in chapter 9 through 11 of his Epistle to the Romans.

The more difficult issue, which the document seeks to address, is what this recognition of the Old Covenant means for evangelistic efforts by Catholics. Put bluntly, do Jews need Jesus? Is it wrong for Catholics to tell Jews that Jesus is the one Lord and Savior? Do Jews need to be baptized and become Christian? In addressing these questions the document becomes confusing and contradictory.

Those confusing and contradictory qualities have now been addressed officially in a four-page document, “A Note on Ambiguities Contained in Reflections on Covenant and Mission” (PDF document), released on June 18, 2009, by the Committee on Doctrine and Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The accompanying statement says,
Bishop William Lori, chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine and Pastoral Practice, stated that there were two key points at issue.

“The USCCB reaffirms what the Holy See has stated repeatedly: that while the Catholic Church does not proselytize the Jewish people, neither does she fail to witness to them her faith in Christ, nor to welcome them to share in that same faith whenever appropriate.” Bishop Lori said. He added that current debates over the question of how Catholics understand the covenant with Moses in relation to Christ were equally important. The covenant with Moses, that continues to be adhered to by Jews today, is fulfilled, Christians believe, in Jesus.

“As followers of Jesus, we see his covenant as fulfilling God’s plan for the salvation of all peoples, both now and at the end of time,” Bishop Lori said.

Archbishop Gregory commended the on-going work of scholars and pastors in Catholic-Jewish dialogue. “Pope John Paul II once referred to Jews as ‘our elder brothers and sisters in faith’”, he said. “By continuing our study together, we hope to deepen our understanding of Jesus and our relationship with each other in God’s redemption of the world.”

The note itself states:
Since Reflections on Covenant and Mission is not an official statement of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, it was not subject to the same review process that official documents undergo. In the years since its publication, however, some theologians, including Catholics, have treated the document as authoritative. This has proven problematic because the section representing Catholic thought contains some statements that are insufficiently precise and potentially misleading. Reflections on Covenant and Mission should not be taken as an authoritative presentation of the teaching of the Catholic Church. In order to avoid any confusion, the USCCB Committee on Doctrine and the Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs have decided to point out some of these ambiguities and to offer corresponding clarifications.

Here are some of those issues, as stated in the clarifying document:
• The document [Reflections on Covenant and Mission] correctly acknowledges that “Judaism is a religion that springs from divine revelation”5 and that “it is only about Israel’s covenant that the Church can speak with the certainty of the biblical witness.”6 Nevertheless, it is incomplete and potentially misleading in this context to refer to the enduring quality of the covenant without adding that for Catholics Jesus Christ as the incarnate Son of God fulfills both in history and at the end of time the special relationship that God established with Israel. (par. 5)

• Reflections on Covenant and Mission provides a clear acknowledgment of the relationship established by God with Israel prior to Jesus Christ. This acknowledgment needs to be accompanied, however, by a clear affirmation of the Church’s belief that Jesus Christ in himself fulfills God’s revelation begun with Abraham and that proclaiming this good news to all the world is at the heart of her mission. (par. 6)

• Reflections on Covenant and Mission, however, renders even the possibility of individual conversion doubtful by a further statement that implies it is generally not good for Jews to convert, nor for Catholics to do anything that might lead Jews to conversion because it threatens to eliminate “the distinctive Jewish witness”… (par. 9)

When I first read Reflections on Covenant and Mission nearly seven years ago, I was struck by the fact that it avoided any mention whatsoever of Dominus Iesus, the CDF document issued just two years earlier, on August 6, 2000, by then-prefect Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. That important document was, of course, very controversial; one reason is that it thoroughly dismissed the sort of ambiguous, fuzzy, and flighty theological noodlings that claimed (often in with an indirect and overly academic fogginess) Jesus Christ is not the unique Son of God, sole Savior of mankind, and only way to God the Father. It is, I think, an essential document for Catholics to read carefully, for it shines a bright light into the many doubting and even dissenting corners often found in both Catholic schools and parishes. Here is what I wrote about it and Reflections back in 2002:

What About Dominus Iesus?

Although the Catholic Reflection in the document contains twenty-five footnotes, not one of them quotes Dominus Iesus, the controversial “Declaration on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church” issued by Cardinal Ratzinger and the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith in August 2000. That important document was confirmed by Pope John Paul II and carries substantial doctrinal weight. It is a cogent, unambiguous explanation of what the Church teaches about Jesus Christ, His centrality as Savior, the mission of the Church, and the relationship between the Church and other religions. You can access the entire document here.

In light of the confusion over the “Reflections on Covenant and Mission,” I would like to quote a few sections from Dominus Iesus at length. The first clearly affirms the unique and singular work of Jesus Christ, and the importance of entering the Church through baptism:

Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”. This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”. (Dominus Iesus, 20)

The second quote addresses the question of how non-Christians might be saved. It emphasizes that the Church can never be seen as one possible way of salvation among many, nor can any other religion be seen as equally valid and substantive as Christianity:

With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself”.  Theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully.  Their work is to be encouraged, since it is certainly useful for understanding better God’s salvific plan and the ways in which it is accomplished. However, from what has been stated above about the mediation of Jesus Christ and the “unique and special relationship” which the Church has with the kingdom of God among men — which in substance is the universal kingdom of Christ the Saviour — it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God. (Dominus Iesus, 21)

While other religions do contain many elements of truth, they do not possess an equal assurance of the means of salvation:

If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation. (Dominus Iesus, 22)

Finally, in addressing interreligious dialogue, Dominus Iesus again stresses the unique nature of Jesus Christ, the need of all men for the Church, and the vital place of the sacraments in the work of salvation:

In inter-religious dialogue as well, the mission ad gentes “today as always retains its full force and necessity”.  “Indeed, God ‘desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth’ (1 Tim 2:4); that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the promptings of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. Because she believes in God’s universal plan of salvation, the Church must be missionary”. Inter-religious dialogue, therefore, as part of her evangelizing mission, is just one of the actions of the Church in her mission ad gentes. Equality, which is a presupposition of inter-religious dialogue, refers to the equal personal dignity of the parties in dialogue, not to doctrinal content, nor even less to the position of Jesus Christ — who is God himself made man — in relation to the founders of the other religions. Indeed, the Church, guided by charity and respect for freedom, must be primarily committed to proclaiming to all people the truth definitively revealed by the Lord, and to announcing the necessity of conversion to Jesus Christ and of adherence to the Church through Baptism and the other sacraments, in order to participate fully in communion with God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus, the certainty of the universal salvific will of God does not diminish, but rather increases the duty and urgency of the proclamation of salvation and of conversion to the Lord Jesus Christ. (Dominus Iesus, 22)

Not surprisingly, the recent note of clarification is already being criticized by the Anti-Defamation League:
“This document, if taken at face value, reintroduces the notion that Catholics can use interfaith dialogue as a means to invite Jews to Christian baptism,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.  “If so, then it is unacceptable, for such a statement would foster mistrust between Jews and Catholics and undermine years of work building a positive relationship based on mutual trust and respect of our differences in faith.”

Foxman’s argument, as it were, is nonsensical. How, exactly, does the potential for an invitation “foster mistrust”? On the contrary, authentic trust—whether in interreligious dialogue or anything else—can only be based on truth and honesty. The Catholic Church believes and teaches that Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Word of God and the unique Savior of mankind. That belief cannot be set aside and treated as though it either doesn’t exist or has no meaning for a dialogue about what Catholics and others believe. If Mr. Foxman is afraid that Jews will be coerced into becoming Catholic, he is paranoid and overreacting. If he is afraid that some Jews might actually be attracted to the Catholic Faith, he is insecure. If he thinks the Catholic Church should change her beliefs because of his hypersensitivities, he is arrogant and disrespectful. If he thinks the Catholic belief about Jesus Christ and salvation is unimportant, he is clueless.

How often, by the way, do you hear of the Catholic Church complaining that Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, and other groups should not express their belief that they possess the truth?

Finally, two good books by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger related to these issues are Many Religions, One Covenant and Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions.

UPDATE: Dr. Jeff Mirus does a nice job explaining the significance and unusual character of the note of clarification.

by Carl Olson
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
THE IGNATIUS PRESS BLOG

*******************************************************

A Significant USCCB Self-Correction
Jun. 23, 2009
by Dr. Jeff Mirus
CATHOLIC CULTURE . ORG  Commentary

Last Thursday’s publication of “A Note on Ambiguities Contained in Reflections on Covenant and Mission” marks a very significant step in the renewal of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The “Note” clarified the doctrinal ambiguities in an ecumenical statement on Catholic-Jewish relations issued under Cardinal William Keeler back in 2002. For several years, Cardinal Keeler had served as the USCCB Moderator for Catholic-Jewish Relations, overseeing among other things an ongoing dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Jewish community in the United States.

There was nothing wrong with publishing the results of that dialogue, which was correctly identified as representing not a “formal position” of the Conference but rather “the state of thought among the participants.” This was enough to give it historical interest. But what was wrong was the failure to publish an official Catholic commentary along with it, a commentary to show that the ecumenical understanding reached by the participants did not fully satisfy the demands of the Catholic Faith.

Because of this failure, the inevitable happened. Theologians started referring to Reflections on Covenant and Mission as authoritative. Still, after all this time the statement could easily have been ignored. That the USCCB’s Committee on Doctrine and Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs should seek formally to compensate for the statement’s weaknesses seven years later is a tribute to how far the US bishops have come in their commitment to Catholic teaching.

According to the “Note”, the “principal ambiguities in question involved the description of the Church’s mission and, in particular, what evangelization means with regard to the Jewish peopple.” As you would expect, there was a great reluctance to state that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Covenant between God and Israel, and that both individual Jews and the Jewish people as a whole are called to embrace Christ. Granted, the Jewish case is different than that of the gentiles, for the Jews already had a legitimate Divine Revelation when Christ came. Thus while the gentiles were called to accept the Revelation of Jesus Christ without ever living under the Old Covenant, the Jews were called—as it were—to mature into the New Covenant which so gloriously fulfilled the Old.

This reluctance led the Doctrine and Ecumenical committies to find Reflections on Covenant and Mission incomplete, ambiguous and even erroneous on the following five counts:

1. The document is incomplete and misleading to acknowledge that “Judaism is a religion that springs from divine revelation” in such a way that the “enduring quality of the covenant” is emphasized “without adding that “Jesus Christ as the incarnate Son of God fulfills both in history and at the end of time the special relationship that God established with Israel.” (#5)
2. Similarly, the document ought not to have acknowledged “the relationship established by God with Israel prior to Jesus Christ” without adding “a clear affirmation of the Church’s belief that Jesus Christ in himself fulfills God’s revelation begun with Abraham and that proclaiming this good news to all the world is at the heart of her mission.” (#6)
3. In attempting to define the Church’s mission as broader than an “invitation to a commitment of faith in Jesus Christ and to entry through baptism into the community of believers”, the document unfortunately develops a vision “in which the core elements of proclaimation and invitation to life in Christ seem virtually to disappear.” An example is the emphasis on evangelization as “a mutually enriching sharing of gifts devoid of any intention whatsoever to invite the dialogue partner to baptism”. (#7)
4. In emphasizing religious freedom and freedom of conscience, and in asserting that the Church does not have a policy that “singles out the Jews as a people for conversion”, the document “fails to account for St. Paul’s complete teaching about the inclusion of the Jewish people as a whole in Christ’s salvation.” For example, St. Paul teaches that when “the full number of the Gentiles comes in…all Israel will be saved” (Rm 11:25-26). (#8)
5. Moreover, the document “renders even the possibility of individual conversion doubtful by a further statement that implies it is generally not good for Jews to convert, nor for Catholics to do anything that might lead Jews to conversion because it threatens to eliminate ‘the distinctive Jewish witness’.” (#9)

Twenty or thirty years ago such doctrinal clarifications would never have been made. Even seven years ago it was possible to issue the statement without the required doctrinal context. But not any more. If you’re looking for evidence that things are slowly getting better in the Church in America, this “Note” fills the bill. It even flies in the face of political correctness to do it.

*******************************************

The radical traditionalist response to
REFLECTIONS ON COVENANT AND MISSION
BY CHRISTOPHER BLOSSER
THE CARDINAL RATZINGER FAN CLUB

On August 12, 2002 the Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, USCCB and the National Council of Synagogues published a document, Reflections on Covenant and Mission, consisting of separate Roman Catholic and Jewish reflections on the the topic of the covenant and its missiological implications. The Roman Catholic participants generated a large and understandable amount of excitement and controversy by proposing that “campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.”

The participants cited as basis for this proposition specific examples from Nostra Aetate and guidelines for the implementation thereof; Pope John Paul II’s recognition of “the permanence of the Jewish people’s covenant relationship with God” and the “continuous spiritual fecundity” of rabbinical Judaism from the Middle Ages to the present day; a paper by Prof. Tommaso Federici for the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee in Venice, examining mission and witness of the Church in light of Nostra Aetate 1; and statements by Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Religious Relations with the Jews.

As might be expected, the document was imbued by the press with a greater degree of authority than it actually possessed by many in the press, construed and portrayed as a formal declaration of the Bishops of the USCCB. In the days and months Catholics witnessed a variety of responses and discussions — some more calm, sober and reflective than others. The National Catholic Register held a symposium on the question “Should Catholic Evangelization Target Jews?” (Oct. 6-12, 2002), with predominantly critical responses to the document. Cardinal Avery Dulles responded as well in the pages of America (Oct. 14, 2002).

So great were the critical responses and overall confusion generated by Covenant and Mission that Cardinal Keeler was moved to issue a hasty clarification to the press that RCM represented “the state of thought among the participants of a dialogue”, which was not to be taken as a formal statement by the USCCB or the Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs (BCEIA), but whose intended purpose was to “encourage serious reflection on these matters by Jews and Catholics in the U.S.”

The radical traditionalist response to Reflections on Covenant & Mission

Radical Traditionalists also responded in a flurry of vehement and righteous protest against Reflections on Covenant and Mission, deeming it a convenient example of the post-conciliar Church’s slide into apostasy under John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger. In the words of Christopher Ferrara, Covenant & Mission can only be considered “a response to the Vatican’s green light on the repudiation of the Church’s mission to the Jews.” 2 Meanwhile, Robert Sungenis of Catholic Apologetics International alleged that the document was “one in a long line of Vatican attempts to advance the Zionist agenda and change Catholic teaching”, launching into a long tirade of Zionist conspiracy-theorizing that made use of anti-semetic material, slanders against the Talmud and references to Holocaust revisionists. 3

Radical Traditionalists like Christopher Ferrara, Robert Sungenis, and John Vennari all adhere to a hardline supercessionist perspective of Catholic-Jewish relations — which is to say, if they had their way, there wouldn’t be any, at least with contemporary Jews and rabbinical Judaism. While the Guidelines for the implementation of Nostra Aetate call for Catholics to “acquire a better knowledge of . . . the religious tradition of Judaism, [and] strive to learn by what essential traits the Jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience”, these three authors have occupied themselves with hurling invectives against the Talmud 4 and perpetuating theories of a Zionist conspiracy that has subsumed the post-conciliar Church. And neither are they thrilled by Pope John Paul II’s efforts to reconcile Catholics with the Jewish people. As Ferrara put it in a recent article in The Remnant 5:

When Pope John Paul performed the March 12 act of apology for sins “against the people of Israel,” he prayed “God of our fathers, you chose Abraham and his descendants to bring your Name to the Nations: we are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant. We ask this through Christ our Lord.”

Father Fahey’s writings, which are based on the consistent teachings of the Popes, reveal the gross deficiencies of this prayer, no matter how well-intentioned it may have been. In truth, only Roman Catholics can honestly be called “sons of Abraham,” since it is only the Catholic religion which is faithful to the Faith of Abraham regarding the coming of the Redeemer. Only Roman Catholics can truly be called the “People of the Covenant,” since Christ superseded the Old Covenant with His New Covenant by His Passion, Death, Resurrection, and the establishment of His one true ecclesia.28

Thus, the March 12 “prayer for forgiveness” was a bizarre inversion of what should have taken place. It is the Jewish Rabbis who should have been on their knees reciting this same prayer, asking Heaven’s forgiveness for causing God’s “children to suffer” by their de-Christianizing effect on the nations and for their opposition to Christ and His Kingship. It is the Jewish Rabbis who should have vowed to “commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant,” in other words, to repudiate their blasphemous Talmudic errors and convert to the New Covenant of Jesus Christ, the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

The ‘Fr. Fahey’ Ferrara refers to is Fr. Denis Fahey, held in high regard by many radical traditionalists (including the Society of St. Pius X), and waged a personal campaign against against “Jewish naturalism”, or ” the naturalistic Messianic domination of [The Jewish] nation over all the others”. 6 It is interesting to note that Sungenis, Ferrara and Vennari, when speaking about the Jews, have all referred to Fr. Fahey’s peculiar definition of anti-semitism, which is what I would like to address next.

The radical traditionalist exploitation of Fr. Fahey’s definition of “anti-semitism”

Fr. Fahey adhered to a specific and personal definition of anti-semitism as that comes in quite handy for radical traditionalist critics to dismiss accusations that they personally dislike the Jews. As Vennari says in a recent article in Catholic Family News:

One of the finest writers who dealt with the subject of anti-Semitism was the eminent scholar, Father Denis Fahey. In his 1953 book The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, Father Fahey discussed the true nature of the word. He explains that “anti-Semitism” means hatred of Jews as a race and as such is sinful. “The Jews, however,” says Fahey “use the word to designate any form of opposition to themselves, and they strive persistently to associate irrationality and want of balance with the term. They evidently want the world to believe that anyone who opposes Jewish pretensions is more or less deranged.” 7

According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, “anti-semitism” was coined in 1879 by Wilhelm Marr to designate anti-Jewish campaigns in central Europe at that time. Although it is a misnomer (implying discrimination against all semites), it is commonly understood to mean “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group” (Merriam-Webster).

Fr. Edward Flannery’s Anguish of the Jews, a classic study of anti-semitism

In 1964 Fr. Edward Flannery published The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty Three Centuries of Anti-Semitism, according to whom:

The distinguishing mark of anti-semitism is a hatred, contempt and stereotyping of the Jewish people as such. . . . it should be distinguished therefore from indiscriminate hostility to which all peoples and groups have been prey; from anti-Judaism, a theological construct, with which it has often been intermingled; and from anti-Jewish manifestations that may lead to — or in history have led to — but do not possess the attributes specified above. 8

Flannery’s book documents many kinds of anti-semitism, from the classical anti-semitism of Greeks & Romans (motivated by offense at the Jewish refusal to conform to the religious and social standards of Hellenistic culture) to the religious anti-semitism and anti-Judaism of the Christian Church (manifesting itself in persecution, pogroms, massacres, social degradations, and forced baptisms) to anti-semitism of modern times (motivated by economic resentment and racial hatred, and culminating in the Holocaust).

The Anguish of the Jews, revised and updated in 1984, is considered to be a classic history of the subject. Upon reading Flannery’s history one can only conclude that Fahey’s equasion of anti-semitism with racial hatred, while etymologically correct, is gravely insufficient.

Furthermore, Ferrara, Sungenis and Vennari’s deferral to Fahey’s definition of anti-semitism as exclusively racial hatred, conveniently enables them to dismiss other forms of anti-semitism and/or anti-Judaism, especially and including the “teaching of contempt” — the tradition of theological interpretation which provided a religious basis for Christian persecution of the Jews over the course of history, and formally repudiated by the Church in Nostra Aetate.

Just what radical traditionalists think of “teaching of contempt” is illustrated in John Vennari’s response to Rabbi Klenicki, whom he encountered while attending a Jewish-Christian dialogue meeting:

[Rabbi Klenicki] told us that Catholic theology had been poisoned by “triumphalism” and by what he called “anti-Judaism”. He referred to the Catholic teaching of the Middle Ages as the “teaching of contempt”. This so-called “teaching of contempt” is nothing more than the traditional Catholic doctrine that Christ put an end to the religion of the Old Covenant by fulfilling it, and superseding it with the New Covenant through the establishment of His one true Church. . . . Rabbi Klenicki, however, complained that the traditional Catholic teaching led to the belief that Jews were not saved, which led to the belief that Jews were inferior, which led to the belief that Jews were contemptible, “which led” he said “to Auschwitz”.

Thus, the Rabbi advanced the false claim that it was the teaching of the Catholic Church that was ultimately responsible for the extermination of Jews in Nazi concentration camps under Hitler. 9

This relation of the “teaching of contempt” to the Holocaust was examined by the Vatican in the document We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah. Although the Church asserted that “The Shoah was the work of a thoroughly modern neo-pagan regime. Its anti-Semitism had its roots outside of Christianity”, it did consider the question “whether the Nazi persecution of the Jews was not made easier by the anti-Jewish prejudices imbedded in some Christian minds and hearts”, and recognized that “the spiritual resistance and concrete action of other Christians was not that which might have been expected from Christ’s followers.”

For Vennari, however, the notion that certain teachings within Christianity fostered contempt for the Jews and led to the lack of Christian resistance to (and in some cases complicity with) persecution of the Jewish people under the Nazis, is simply preposterous.

A brief explication of “the teaching of contempt”

The ‘teaching of contempt’ was popularized by the French-Jewish history professor Jules Isaac, who with the advent of the Nazi invasion of France began to research the subject of the inexplicable silence and apathy of Christians toward Nazi persecution of European Jews, spurred by the loss of his wife and most of his family in 1943 in the Nazi death camps.

In 1947 Prof. Isaac published Jesus and Israel, a 600 page analysis of anti-semitism and Christianity which compared the texts of the Gospels with Catholic and Protestant scriptural commentaries conveying a distorted picture of Jesus’ attitude toward Israel and Israel’s attitude toward Jesus, and which he believed were largely responsible for the anti-semitic conditioning of European Christians. That same year, he met with Jewish and Catholic intellectuals to submit his Eighteen Points: specific recommendations for the purification of Christian teaching regarding the Jews.

In 1949, following the papal authorization to substitute the term “perfidis judaeis” with the milder “unfaithful” or “unbelieving” in the Good Friday prayer for the Jews, Isaac had an audience with Pope Pius XII to present his Eighteen Points and petition for further changes. In the years that followed Jules Isaac published several more works, including one on the fundamental differences between pagan and Christian anti-semitism, which argued that the latter, because it was theological, was more pernicious and persistent.

Prof. Isaac went on to meet Pope John XXIII in a private audience and petition for the formal removal of the “teaching of contempt” from Christian tradition — a hope which was to be realized in Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate, which not only issued a formal condemnation of the charge of deicide but conveyed a positive vision of the relationship between the Church and the Jewish people.

The first book by Isaac to be published in English is simply titled The Teaching of Contempt: Christian roots of Anti-Semitism, a basic presentation of his study of the subject. According to Isaac contempt for the Jews manifests itself in three main themes in Christian tradition:

* The first theme is the “dispersion of Israel as a sign of providential punishment,” beginning with the capture of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D, which Christians understood as God’s retribution for the crucifixion of Christ.
* The second theme is the “degenarate state of Judaism at the time of Jesus”, in which Christianity portrayed the Jewish religion in Jesus’ time as “desiccated, ossified, reduced to mere formalism and ritual . . . legalism without a soul, without ferver, without true aspiration towards God.”
* The third theme was the “crime of deicide”, and the application of collective guilt upon the Jewish people as a whole. Christianity came to depict the Jews “as Cain, as Judas, as a murderous people, a ‘deicide’ people . . . an abomination to the Christian world.” Thus the role of Pontius Pilate and the Roman soldiers would be increasingly subordinated to that of the Jews in the preaching and teaching of the Church fathers.

In this small book Jules Isaac would present each of these themes in the historical writings of the Church, from the time of the fathers through the twentieth century — and he would counter each of them in turn with historical evidence to the contrary, as well as appealing to the scriptures themselves and the spirit of Christ:

Christ is said to have pronounced a sentence of alienation and condemnation upon the Jewish people. But why, in contradiction of his own gospel of love and forgiveness, should he had condemned his own people, the only people to whom he chose to speak — his own people, among whom he found not only bitter enemies, but fervent disciples and adoring followers? We have every reason to believe that the real object of his condemnation was a certain pharisaism to be found in al times and in all peoples, in every religion and in every church. 10

Resisting radical traditionalists’ vilification of the Jews

Recognizing the contribution of certain interpretations in Christian tradition to fostering a contempt of the Jews, Vatican II responded to the Shoah by calling for a re-evaluation of the historical Judaism of the Old Testament, a condemnation of the charge of deicide, and an appreciation for the positive aspects of contemporary rabbinic Judaism and the witness of the Jewish people in our day and age.

The supercessionist theological conception of the relationship between the Old and New Covenant perpetuated by traditional Catholics like Ferrara and Sungenis, depicting the Jewish people as being utterly abandoned by God and the Jewish Covenant as revoked, must be firmly countered by the recognition of Israel’s continuing covenant relationship with God, as expressed by the Church in light of St. Paul’s reflections on the enduring mercy of a God who is faithful to his promises:

For Paul, Jesus’ establishment of “the new covenant in [his] blood” (1 Co 11:25), does not imply any rupture of God’s covenant with his people, but constitutes its fulfilment. He includes “the covenants” among the privileges enjoyed by Israel, even if they do not believe in Christ (Rm 9:4). Israel continues to be in a covenant relationship and remains the people to whom the fulfilment of the covenant was promised, because their lack of faith cannot annul God’s fidelity (Rm 11:29). Even if some Israelites have observed the Law as a means of establishing their own justice, the covenant-promise of God, who is rich in mercy (Rm 11:26-27), cannot be abrogated. Continuity is underlined by affirming that Christ is the end and the fulfilment to which the Law was leading the people of God (Ga 3:24). For many Jews, the veil with which Moses covered his face remains over the Old Testament (2 Co 3:13,15), thus preventing them from recognising Christ’s revelation there. This becomes part of the mysterious plan of God’s salvation, the final outcome of which is the salvation of “all Israel” (Rm 11:26). 11

One of the best summaries of this new vision of the Jewish-Christian relationship is found in the reflections of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

Certainly, from the very beginning, relations between the infant Church and Israel were often marked by conflict. The Church was considered by her own mother to be a degenerate daughter, while Christians considered their mother to be blind and obstinate. Down through the history of Christianity, already-strained relations deteriorated further, even giving birth in many cases to anti-Jewish attitudes, which throughout history have led to deplorable acts of violence. Even if the most recent, loathsome experience of the Shoah was perpetrated in the name of an anti-Christian ideology, which tried to strike the Christian faith at its Abrahamic roots in the people of Israel, it cannot be denied that a certain insufficient resistance to this atrocity on the part of Christians can be explained by an inherited anti-Judaism present in the hearts of not a few Christians.

Perhaps it is precisely because of this latest tragedy that a new vision of the relationship between the Church and Israel has been born: a sincere willingness to overcome every kind of anti-Judaism, and to initiate a constructive dialogue based on knowledge of each other, and on reconciliation. If such a dialogue is to be fruitful, it must begin with a prayer to our God, first of all that he might grant to us Christians a greater esteem and love for that people, the people of Israel, to whom belong “the adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; theirs are the patriarchs, and from them comes Christ according to the flesh, he who is over all, God, blessed forever. Amen” (Romans 9:4-5), and this not only in the past, but still today, “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29). In the same way, let us pray that he may grant also to the children of Israel a deeper knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth, who is their son, and the gift they have made to us. Since we are both awaiting the final redemption, let us pray that the paths we follow may converge. 12

Conflicting Messages from the USCCB and the Vatican

It is one thing to contend on the basis of this new appreciation for Jews and Judaism as expressed in Nostrae Aetate to call for the cessation of proselytism and missionary tactics which infringed upon human dignity and religious freedom. It is quite another to argue, as do the authors of Reflections on Covenant and Mission, that the Jewish people are exempt from the Church’s missionary mandate to spread the gospel to the nations.

In spite of the objectionable content found in radical traditionalist portrayal of the Jews, I believe they are correct about this: it must be admitted that with respect to the question of whether a mission — understood as catechesis and the invitation to baptism — to the Jews was acceptable in the Catholic Church today, we are receiving conflicting messages by prominent members of the clergy, not only those of the USCCB but within the Vatican itself. For even though Cardinal Keeler has rejected the popular misconception that Covenant and Mission represented a formal teaching of the Catholic Church, prominent members of the dialogue are contributing to that very impression by publicly agreeing with and promoting the conclusions of the authors.

As Associate Director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Relations, Eugene Fisher is has often had to publicly address the issue of converting Jews to Christianity. In addition to referring to the paper by Tommaco Federici on the subject mentioned earlier, Fisher has on numerous occasions advanced the argument that the revisions to the Good Friday prayer for the Jews provide a theological basis for the relenquishment of a specific mission.

Beginning with Pope Pius XII’s mandate in 1950 that the term perfideles be translated in liturgical books as “unbelieving” or “unfaithful” rather than “perfidious”; Pope John XIII’s subsequent abolishment of the term altogether, and the extensive revisions of the prayer by the Second Vatican Council, Fisher concludes:

The reform of the Liturgy mandated by the Second Vatican Council, however, re-conceptualized and rewrote the prayer entirely. It now reads:

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.
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.

The phrase, “fullness of redemption,” here, is not historical but eschatological. Like St. Paul in Romans 11 it remands the issue to God’s mercy, to be revealed at the end of time. I believe this was intentional as a way of resolving the question in the present dispensation. So, no, the Church does not wish the conversion of the Jews as a people to Christianity. Otherwise she would at least pray for it. This does not, of course, preclude the acceptance into the Church of individual Jews whose own, personal spiritual lives have lead them to our faith. Such a policy of exclusion would in my opinion be itself a travesty of the principles of religious freedom. 13

Cardinal Kasper’s misrepresentation of Dominus Iesus

Like the Catholic participants of Covenant and Mission, Eugene Fisher also refers to the words of Cardinal Kasper, President of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, in May 2001, responding to Jewish concerns over the missiological implications of Dominus Iesus for the Jewish people. Statements which, because of the nature of his office, carry far more weight than those of Covenant and Mission [emphasis mine]:

Kasper’s declaration, while not quite on the order of the statement of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which it interprets, is nonetheless not simply another “opinion.” It was issued on a formal occasion when the Cardinal was speaking for the Catholic Church to the Jewish People. So it represents the definitive statement by the Holy See itself of the meaning of DI for Catholic-Jewish relations. 14

Kasper notes the postive appreciation of Judaism by Nostra Aetate, and by Pope John Paul II. He correctly notes the unique character of the Church’s evaluation of Judaism among the rest of the world’s religions:

As Pope John Paul II has put it on more than one occasion, “our two religious communities are connected and closely related at the very level of their religious identities” (his addresses of 12 March, 1973, and 6 March, 1982); and during his historic visit to the Synagogue of Rome on 13 April, 1986: “The Jewish religion is not ‘extrinsic’to us, but in a certain way is ‘intrinsic’to our own religion. With Judaism, therefore, we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion. You are our dearly beloved brothers and, in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers”. 15

On the question of the status of the Jewish covenant, Kasper assures them that “the old theory of substitution is gone since II Vatican Council. For us Christians today the covenant with the Jewish people is a living heritage, a living reality.” And since Dominis Iesus was specifically concerned with correcting certain attempts by theologians engaged in dialogue to arrive at a “universal theology” of interreligious relations leading in some cases to indifferentism, relativism and syncretism, the Jewish people have no basis for concern, because Dominis Iesus has no bearing upon the theology of Catholic-Jewish relations.

And yet, contrary to his initial assertion that Dominus Iesus is not directly concerned with Jewish-Christian relations, Cardinal Kasper proceeds to state — on the basis of Dominus Iesus — that the salvific universality of Jesus Christ specifically absolves the Jews of any need to convert:

The only thing I wish to say is that the Document Dominus Iesus does not state that everybody needs to become a Catholic in order to be saved by God. On the contrary, it declares that God’s grace, which is the grace of Jesus Christ according to our faith, is available to all. Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.

This touches the problem of mission towards Jews, a painful question with regard to forced conversion in the past. Dominus Iesus, as other official documents, raised this question again saying that dialogue is a part of evangelisation. This stirred Jewish suspicion. But this is a language problem, since the term evangelisation, in official Church documents, cannot be understood in the same way it is commonly interpreted in everyday’s speech. In strict theological language, evangelisation is a very complex and overall term, and reality. It implies presence and witness, prayer and liturgy, proclamation and catechesis, dialogue and social work . . . which do not have the goal of increasing the number of Catholics. Thus evangelisation, if understood in its proper and theological meaning, does not imply any attempt of proselytism whatsoever. 16

Note Cardinal Kasper’s line of reasoning: Dominus Iesus emphasizes the necessity of evangelization. But evangelization is a highly complex term, and doesn’t necessarily mean “increasing the number of Catholics” (presumably through conversion). Consequently, Jews need not be concerned because DI does not imply any attempt of proselytism whatsoever.

But what does “proselytism” really mean? And is Cardinal Kasper’s understanding of the term correct? — According to 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. Examples of proselytism 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.

But, Cardinal Arinze adds,

There is, however, a use of the word proselytism that is unacceptable. Some people use the word to refer to every effort to propose one’s religion to others, even when the methods used are noble, honest and respectful. It is worng and confusing to use the term in this sense. It is like giving a dog a bad name in order to hang it. It is like wanting to deny and to condemn the right of a person to share one’s religion. This fundamental human right should never be denied to anyone. 17

In light of Arinze’s clarification of the term, Cardinal Kasper’s statement that Dominus Iesus’s promotion of evangelization excludes any attempt at proselytization is faulty — since it equates proselytization with a sharing of the gospel with others and gives the impression to his audience that such is prohibited in Jewish-Christian relations.

Dominus Iesus – mission to all without exception

Does Dominus Iesus’s insistence on the universal salvicity of Jesus Christ imply that Jews are exempt from the Church’s missionary mandate? — Cardinal Kasper answers in the affirmative. A closer examination of the text of the document, and Cardinal Ratzinger’s defense of that document, argue to the contrary.

Cardinal Kasper and Dr. Fisher are certainly correct in noting that the Church teaches that those outside the visible boundaries of the Church can attain salvation through the grace of Jesus Christ. As Pope John Paul II states in the encyclical Redemptoris Missio

The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.

For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal Mystery, went on to declare that “this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God.” 18

Consequently the unique mediation and universal salvicity of Jesus Christ is extended to all humanity beyond the visible boundaries of the Church, and allows the possibility for non-Christians (including the Jews) to respond to that grace by following what light of truth is available to them.

But this is not simply all there is to it: Dominis Iesus, while reiterating the Church’s teaching, follows its assertion of the universal salvicity of Jesus Christ with an equally emphatic assertion that individual salvation through Christ cannot be understood as an isolated process, separate and against the Church:

[20.] Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”. This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.

The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”, since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God’s plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being.Ã For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”;81 it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.

21. With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself”. Theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully. Their work is to be encouraged, since it is certainly useful for understanding better God’s salvific plan and the ways in which it is accomplished. However, from what has been stated above about the mediation of Jesus Christ and the “unique and special relationship” which the Church has with the kingdom of God among men — which in substance is the universal kingdom of Christ the Saviour — it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God. 19

I believe that Cardinal Kasper certainly comprehends the entire meaning of Dominus Iesus. However, when he informs a predominantly Jewish audience that Dominus Iesus means “it is not necessary to become a Catholic in order to be saved by God”, and assures them that “Judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises” — without providing any degree of theological clarification of these points, he assists in fostering an attitude of ambivalence towards the necessity of Jesus Christ and his Church for salvation.

Dominus Iesus’ caution to theologian that “it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions” could certainly be seen as applicable to Cardinal Kasper’s presentation of the Jewish Covenant — especially when this caution is also stated by the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews:

“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). 20

Dominus Iesus, furthermore, is insists the missionary mandate of the Church, which is obligated to proclaim the truth of salvation to all without exception [emphasis mine]:

In inter-religious dialogue as well, the mission ad gentes “today as always retains its full force and necessity”. “Indeed, God ‘desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth’ (1 Tim 2:4); that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the promptings of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. Because she believes in God’s universal plan of salvation, the Church must be missionary”. . . . Indeed, the Church, guided by charity and respect for freedom, must be primarily committed to proclaiming to all people the truth definitively revealed by the Lord, and to announcing the necessity of conversion to Jesus Christ and of adherence to the Church through Baptism and the other sacraments, in order to participate fully in communion with God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus, the certainty of the universal salvific will of God does not diminish, but rather increases the duty and urgency of the proclamation of salvation and of conversion to the Lord Jesus Christ. 21

Defending Dominus Iesus in an interview with Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Cardinal Ratzinger was pressed with the question of the necessity of the Church’s mission, “if, in the end, man can reach God by all paths” — or, in the words of Cardinal Kasper, “one does not have to become Catholic to be saved”). The Cardinal responded:

“Those who seek the truth find themselves objectively on the path that leads to Christ, and thus also on the path to the community in which he remains present in history, that is, to the Church. To seek the truth, to listen to one’s conscience, to purify one’s interior hearing, these are the conditions of salvation for all. They have a profound, objective connection with Christ and the Church. In this sense we say that other religions have rites and prayers which can play a role of preparing for the Gospel, of occasions or pedagogical helps in which the human heart is prompted to open itself to God’s action.

The way of conscience, the keeping of one’s gaze focused on truth and the objective good, is one single way, although it can take many forms because of the great number of individuals and situations. The good is one, however, and truth does not contradict itself. The fact that man does not attain one or the other does not relativize the requirement of truth and goodness. For this reason it is not enough to continue in the religion one has inherited, but one must remain attentive to the true good and thus be able to transcend the limits of one’s own religion. This has meaning only if truth and goodness really exist. It would be impossible to walk the way of Christ if he did not exist. Living with the eyes of the heart open, purifying oneself inwardly and seeking the light are indispensable conditions of human salvation. Proclaiming the truth, that is, making the light shine (not putting it ‘under a bushel, but on a stand’), is absolutely necessary.” 22

John Paul II: no warrant for exclusion

What does John Paul II say regarding a mission to the Jews? The authors of Covenant and Mission and Cardinal Kasper defend their conclusion with an appeal the Pope’s appreciation of Judaism and his (often-quoted) insistence, following St. Paul, that “the covenant has not been revoked.” But as Cardinal Avery Dulles notes in his response to Covenant and Mission:

[Pope John Paul II] declares that “missionary evangelization is the primary service that the Church can render to every individual and all humanity in the modern world” (R.M., No. 2). The call to conversion, says the pope, must not be dismissed as “proselytization” in the pejorative sense of that word, since it corresponds to the right of every person to hear the good news of the God who gives himself in Christ. Conversion to Christ, he notes, is intrinsically joined to baptism as the sacrament of regeneration (No. 47). While he does not “target” Jews in any special way for conversion, he makes no exception for them. He simply assumes, as all Christians must, that if Christ is the redeemer of the world, every tongue should confess him. If Jesus offers a share in his divine life through the sacraments, all men and women, not excluding Jews, should be invited to the banquet. 23

And as Rev. Michael McGarry, C.S.P. observes in his analysis of Redemptoris Missio in relation to the question “Can Catholics make an exception?”:

[Like Pope Paul IV in Evangelii Nuntiandi], Pope John Paul II says nothing about the Jewish people in Redemptoris Missio. Rather the beneficiaries of the Church’s missionary task ad extra are all peoples without exception. (“The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the church…it must be made concretely available to all”). . . . The Pope’s view of the Jewish role in salvation, at least in this document, is decidedly prefatory; Jewish life and religion after the time of Jesus and their continued witness to the world of God’s faithfulness are neither mentioned nor alluded to. However, what is interesting in the Pope’s description of the mission from our focused concern is precisely its emphasis, if not sole direction, towards the Gentiles and not towards Israel.

What are we to conclude, therefore, about what Pope John Paul has said about the Jews in RM?

* Like his predecessor, Pope John Paul II does not call for an explicit mission to the Jews (nor does he exclude the Jews from the Church’s mission);
* The meaning of the Jewish people to and in the world after the time of Jesus is left unmentioned.

The need for further clarification

In spite of the criticisms of Cardinal Avery Dulles and Cardinal Ratzinger, it certainly appears that the exemption of the Jews to the Church’s call for conversion, together with a conception of the Jewish covenant that possesses a salvific status of its own, seemingly apart from the work of Christ or any relationship (however mysterious) with the Church, are representative of the state of mind of Catholic participants engaging in dialogue with Jews today.

So long as prominent members of the Church like Eugene Fisher (associate director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Relations) and Cardinal Kasper (President of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews) express their agreement with the conclusions of Reflections of Covenant and Mission over and against other prominent members of the clergy (Cardinal Dulles and Cardinal Ratzinger, among others), there will continue to be a great deal of confusion in the minds of many laymen — not to mention those outside the Church — on this very question.

The need for further clarification from the Vatican — perhaps by way of a formal doctrinal note from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — on this matter is made all the more imperative, given the manner in which radical traditionalists and others on the Catholic fringe have used the conclusions of Covenant & Mission and Cardinal Kasper in their vehement assault upon the integrity of Pope John Paul II and the Catholic Church.

I firmly believe that Nostra Aetate’s repudiation of the teaching of contempt and the development of a positive appreciation of Jews and contemporary Judaism is one of the greatest achievements of the Second Vatican Council, and that members of those commissions engaging in interreligious dialogue with the Jews have done a remarkable job of bringing about the Church’s reconciliation with our “elder sisters and brothers in the faith.” But such a reconciliation cannot be attained at the cost of reneging on the Church’s obligation to bring the gospel of Christ to all people.

Let us hope and pray that the Vatican will see fit in the future to present a unified response to Reflections on Covenant and Mission, and assist in putting an end to the conflicting messages we are currently receiving.

Disponemos a continuación una entrada con un artículo escrito por el investigador español C. Galicia y publicado en una vieja revista, al que hemos hecho algunos añadidos en fotos e imágenes, así como ciertos énfasis y subrayados en distinta presentación.

Mendo Crisóstomo

EINSTEIN, EL BRIBÓN – EL MAYOR FRAUDE CIENTÍFICO DEL SIGLO XX

Por C. Galicia
Los mitos pueden levantarse y crecer sobre la verdad o, por el contrario, surgir sobre la mentira.

Presentado como líder de la modernidad y de los tiempos futuros, Einstein no fue más que un pequeño bribón.

Este último caso es de Albert Einstein. Reconocido hoy por el sistema dominante de valores como el adalid de la paz y de la bondad humana, y reputado por casi todos como el más grande de los sabios conocidos que en el mundo han sido, su aúreo brillo no es más que una vulgar apariencia.

Presentado como líder de la modernidad y de los tiempos futuros, Einstein no fue más que un pequeño bribón.

“Este niño es retrasado”

El dictamen del doctor cayó como una losa sobre la pobre Pauline, madre del pequeño que con cuatro años apenas balbuceaba alguna palabra suelta.

Años después nacería su hermana Maya, mucho más despierta e inteligente, y que llegaría a acomplejarle influyendo notablemente en su carácter retraído y en su gran capacidad de resentimiento, en sus pésimas calificaciones escolares, etc…, pero también, por aquello de la “ley de compensación” de Jung y Adler, en ese deseo íntimo y profundo de notoriedad y afirmación (incluso de revancha) que le acompañará toda su vida, y que siempre tratará de disimular con un forzado aspecto inocente e inofensivo.
Cada nuevo fracaso hará crecer en él su resentimiento y rebeldía.

"Este niño es retrasado" El dictamen del doctor cayó como una losa sobre la pobre Pauline, madre del pequeño que con cuatro años apenas balbuceaba alguna palabra suelta.

Así, todavía impúber, acusará a “la máquina educativa alemana” de haberle engañado con creencias religiosas falsas (aunque tampoco le valdría la fe judía de sus padres), o falsificará, ¡¡¡ a los 15 años !!!, un certificado médico para no acudir a clase, e incluso renunciará a los 17 años a la nacionalidad alemana para eludir el servicio militar.
Ya de adulto él mismo reconocerá “no haber pertenecido nunca a mi país (Alemania), ni a mi propia casa, ni a mis amigos ni a mi familia”, sino tan sólo a la “tribu” (el movimiento sionista), como a él mismo le gustaba decir.

Quizás por ello no le importó dar a su hija mayor Lieserl en adopción, sin volver a preocuparse de ella en todo el resto de su vida, ni abandonar a su hijo Eduard, que era enfermo mental, en un psiquiátrico de Suiza sin nunca más volver a interesarse por su salud o su destino, ni maltratar de forma habitual a sus otros hijos tal y como siempre han reconocido, ni abandonar a su familia tras regalar a su mujer todo un rosario interminable de humillaciones y adulterios, regalo con que también obsequió a su segunda esposa, Elsa, etc.

En fin, quien desee conocer la edificante vida privada del “Genio” leerá con provecho el libro de Roger Highfield y Paul Carter titulado The privates lifes of Albert Einstein.

no le importó dar a su hija mayor Lieserl en adopción, sin volver a preocuparse...en todo el resto de su vida, ni abandonar a su hijo Eduard...enfermo mental, en un psiquiátrico...sin nunca más volver a interesarse...ni abandonar a su familia tras regalar a su mujer todo un rosario interminable de humillaciones y adulterios

El hombre que había cambiado cuatro veces de nacionalidad (alemana, suiza, alemana de nuevo, británica y norteamericana), se lamentaba de la siguiente forma:

“Quizás mi destino es que siempre me presenten como una bestia negra: soy un judío para los alemanes y un científico alemán para los ingleses“.

Lo más triste de todo es que a sus 17 años el pobre Albert Einstein se siente relegado, solo, socialmente inadaptado y fracasado en su más íntima vocación: llegar a ser un músico virtuoso.
A pesar de pertenecer a una rica familia judía que pudo pagarle las mejores escuelas de música de Munich, Milán y Aarau (Suiza), donde aprenderá el elitista método pestalozziano, a esa edad se dará cuenta que nunca pasará de ser un violinista mediocre. Había que buscar otra cosa.
Tenía que triunfar en la vida como fuera. ¡Sí, eso es! Sería un sabio profesor de matemáticas. Y a pesar de los pésimos resultados obtenidos en sus estudios secundarios, logrará al año siguiente ingresar en la prestigiosa Escuela Politécnica de Zurich.

A pesar de pertenecer a una rica familia judía que pudo pagarle las mejores escuelas de música, nunca pasará de ser un violinista mediocre

“Nunca seré doctor”

Pero como las matemáticas no eran su fuerte, se inclinará por la física, logrando licenciarse en 1900 con una nota de 4´91, un aprobado raspado con la necesaria décima por encima del mínimo suficiente para no suspender, siendo su tesina o memoria de licenciatura la que alcance la calificación más baja de todas.
Al año siguiente presentará la tesis doctoral, pero será rechazada. Cambia entonces de tema y se pone manos a la obra, pero resulta otra vez de nuevo un rechazo.

“¡Estoy harto, nunca seré doctor!”, escribía en 1903 a uno de sus amigos.
Sin embargo, su paso por la Politécnica de Zurich no resultará infructuoso. Enseñaban allí, por ventura para él, científicos de la talla de Weber, Wolfer, Hürdwig, Pernet o del gran matemático Herman Minkowski (el compilador de la teoría del espacio cuadrimensional y verdadero autor de la teoría de la relatividad especial). Además, allí conocería a su mujer, Mileva Maric…
Entretanto, Einstein ha comenzado a trabajar en la Oficina Comercial de Patentes de Berna y, aunque sólo lo hace en calidad de técnico de 3ª categoría, eso le permitiría relacionarse con los científicos más importantes de la época y se familiarizará con los éxitos de los nuevos inventos, aumentando su deseo de triunfar.
Al fin, en 1905, consigue ablandar al tribunal con una tesis “breve, anodina y carente del menor interés“ (según comentó uno de los tribunos), titulada Una nueva determinación de las dimensiones moleculares.

¡¡¡ Cinco años para un trabajo de 29 páginas con ideas plagiadas de aquí y de allá !!!
Pero el momento es propicio, idóneo para triunfar, porque el monolítico edificio de la física clásica de Newton se resquebraja por momentos, hace aguas por todos sitios, tocado en su línea de flotación. Además, como él no es nadie, al aventurar hipótesis no arriesga ningún prestigio. Así que, animado por este cúmulo de cosas, el bueno de Albert se enfrasca en el estudio de los grandes del momento: Mach, Lorentz, Weber, Maxwell, Boltzmann, etc., y saca sus propias conclusiones.
Pero a veces la lectura de estos grandes físicos era abstrusa, difícil, cargada de detalles matemáticos. ¿Cómo logró nuestro héroe salir del atolladero una vez y otra careciendo, además, de los conocimientos matemáticos precisos e imprescindibles?

Esta es una pregunta que se han hecho legiones, pero que en verdad tiene una fácil respuesta…

1905, “annus mirabilis”

Año en verdad “milagroso” aquel de 1905 para el joven Einstein. Al menos así lo han calificado todos sus hagiógrafos. Mas, ¿por qué?

Gracias a su relación con el Nobel Wilhelm Wien, jefe de redacción de la prestigiosa revista Annalen der Physik, nuestro genio logra publicar la tesis doctoral antes mencionada seguida de otros cuatro artículos que trastornarán el mundo de la física en particular y toda la epistemología en general.

Uno de los artículos (“Un punto de vista heurístico sobre la producción y propagación de la luz”), donde relacionaba la hipótesis de los “quanta” de Planck (aunque sin citarle, como era su costumbre) con el “fenómeno fotoeléctrico” de Lenard, le hará acreedor en 1922, nada menos, ¡¡¡ al premio Nobel de física !!!
En realidad se le quería premiar por otro artículo titulado Cuerpos movidos electrodinámicamente, donde esbozaba la teoría de la relatividad especial, ya antes expuesta y por separado por Maxwell, Lorentz, Kaufmann, Cherenkof, Poincaré y, sobre todo, por Minkowski, su antiguo profesor de Zurich; pero teniendo en cuenta la poca credibilidad de que gozaba dicha “teoría” entre la comunidad científica, y también porque dicha teoría tenía un número indeterminado de “padres” y no podía ser atribuída a una persona en particular, se juzgó más prudente atribuírselo por la cuántica.

Einstein y sus correligionarios de calaña sionista, liberal, capitalista, mundialista y progresista

Aunque el espaldarazo definitivo como “Pontifex Maximus” de la conciencia universal no le llegará hasta el año 1922 con el Nobel, de hecho, aquellos cuatro artículos de los “Annalen” le dieron un “cachet” y una popularidad inusitada. En todos los círculos científicos e intelectuales de Europa y de América no se hablaba de otra cosa que del joven Einstein y de su “teoría” de la relatividad.
Lo más difícil ya estaba hecho. Había dado con la clave de su tiempo; en una época en que los valores absolutos (amor, honor, patria, familia, Dios…) empezaban a cobrar renovada fuerza en la Europa continental, la idea relativista (aceptable en sí misma), derivando hacia el relativismo subversivo que patrocinará con éxito nuestro “genio”, conmocionará las conciencias y se revelará como un filón inagotable, como el deus ex machina de la causa liberal-capitalista y progresista.

Einstein, al fin, había llegado. Ahora le ofrecían explicar la “Teoría de las radiaciones” en la Universidad de Berna. Y aunque no pueda decirse que sus comienzos como profesor fuesen particularmente brillantes (el primer año sólo se matricularon cuatro alumnos en su asignatura y al año siguiente sólo lo haría uno, el lituano nacionalizado alemán Max Stern), no fue óbice para que, de forma inmediata, se le ofreciera, gracias a los oficios de su buen amigo Kleiner, una plaza de “Privatdozent” en la Universidad de Zurich. Después vendrían Praga, Zurich de nuevo, Berlín, etc.
Año “milagroso” en verdad aquel de 1905, pues ni en los años anteriores ni posteriores a esa fecha volverán a tener sus trabajos ni la altura, ni la originalidad, ni la brillantez (ni tampoco, ojo, el estilo literario) alcanzados por esos cuatro artículos de los “Annalen der Physik”.
Mas a nadie se le oculta que detrás de todo milagro siempre se encuentra un misterio.
¿Cuál era, pues, el misterio de Albert Einstein?

Mileva Einstein, nacida Maric

El primero en sorprenderse por la calidad y la originalidad de aquellos trabajos fue Hermann Minkowski que, como profesor suyo que fue, conocía bastante bien las limitaciones de su antiguo alumno. “¿Einstein? Si hubiera sido Grossman -se decía-, o Wegener, o esa chica tan lista de Mileva… Pero Einstein… que se “fumaba” las clases…“

Todo acabó indicando que las "geniales ideas" pertenecían en realidad a su esposa, Mileva Maric

Sin embargo, factum est illud, y Einstein era su autor… Hasta que en febrero de 1990, en la reunión anual de la American Asociation for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, Asociación Americana para el Avance de la Ciencia), estalló la bomba.
El físico Evans Harris Walker, de Aberdeen (Maryland), y la filóloga Senta Troemel-Ploetz, de la Universidad de Bonn, analizando de forma separada y bajo sus respectivos criterios los trabajos publicados por Einstein en los “Annalen der Physik” en 1905, así como la correspondencia privada entre Einstein y su esposa Mileva, llegaron a la sorprendente conclusión que, tanto las geniales ideas atribuídas al primero, así como el tremendo trabajo de formulación matemática, pertenecían en realidad a su esposa Mileva Einstein, nacida Maric.
Esto explica el sorprendente “bajón” que sufre la obra einsteiniana, tanto en cantidad como en calidad, a partir justamente de 1919, fecha de la separación del matrimonio Einstein.
A partir de entonces, Albert siempre trabajará asociado con otros físicos (como Podolsky, Bose, Nathan, Rose, De Sitter, Infeld, Hoffman, etc.), dando muestras además de una dependencia continua y manifiesta en lo que a formulación matemática se refiere (matemáticos asalariados que trabajaron para él fueron Grossman, Groumer, Lanczos, etc.)
Ernst Strauss recuerda cómo, cuando no entendía algún desarrollo matemático, solía decir: “estoy convencido, pero no convencido”.
Se podrían escribir miles de anécdotas que acreditarían fehacientemente el juicio de Evans H. Walker cuando dice:

“Mileva era mayor que él e inicialmente la líder en iniciativa especulativa“.

Recordemos cómo, por aquel entonces, estudiaba muy poca gente, pudiendo Einstein ingresar fácilmente y ¡¡¡ graduarse !!! en la prestigiosa Politécnica de Zurich.
Sin embargo, Mileva, a la sazón única mujer del curso, tuvo que “dar la talla”, resultando incomparablemente más inteligente y brillante que él. Ambos tenían en común la afición por los clásicos de la física, al igual que un acusado problema de relación social (Mileva era coja de la pierna derecha), lo cual les acercó sentimentalmente. El bribón de Einstein pronto se dio cuenta de que aquella chica era una mina y que, trasladando sus ideas a otros campos (filosofía y política, principalmente), podían tener un buen mercado.
De esta forma, aprovechado sus relaciones y contactos entre la constelación de grupúsculos y cenáculos sionistas, progresistas y mundialistas a los que pertenecía (“Patria Nueva”, “Amigos de la Nueva Rusia”, “Liga del Padronazgo en pro de un Gobierno Mundial”, etc.), le hará encumbrarse.

Un detalle bastante revelador aportado por Senta Troemel-Ploezt es que, cuando Albert y Mileva se separaron en 1919, el decreto de divorció incluyó la cláusula de que, en caso de recibir Einstein algún premio por los artículos publicados en los “Annalen der Physik”, debía entregárselo íntegramente a Mileva.
Y así fue que tres años después Albert Einstein entregó el dinero del premio Nobel a su ex-esposa. Pero lejos de tratarse de un gesto de la proverbial magnaminidad atribuída a “San Alberto Einstein” por sus hagiógrafos, lo fue en realidad por imperativo legal y elemental justicia, toda vez que, como pudo demostrar Mileva ante el juez, Einstein se había estado apropiando desde el periodo inicial de las relaciones (vivieron juntos cinco años antes de casarse) de todos los trabajos e inventos que ella había realizado, valiéndose para ello de su puesto en la oficina de patentes, para patentarlos con su propio nombre e, incluso, ¡¡¡ a nombres de terceros !!!, sin figurar Mileva en ellos para nada, pues, como solía decir el “Genio”:

“Yo no me imagino a una mujer Galileo, ni Kepler, ni Miguel Ángel”.
Pero este asunto no era nuevo, la doctora Troemel-Ploetz, ha demostrado además cómo todo este “affair” fue ya denunciado treinta años antes por el físico serbio y amigo del matrimonio Einsten, Abraham Joffe (Mileva era hija de padres serbios emigrados a Suiza), en un libro en donde testimoniaba haber visto, él mismo, los apuntes y los originales de los manuscritos más tarde publicados en los “Annalen der Physik”, escritos con la caligrafía de Mileva Maric.

Todo evidencia que algo muy gordo y muy turbio se oculta en el mito de Einstein

El simple hecho de que estos sucesos no afecten a la enmarcable figura de “El Genio”, sino que ni siquiera trasciendan y pasen inadvertidos para el gran público, así como el protagonismo alcanzado en la prensa diaria sólo comparable con el ostracismo al que son condenados los científicos disidentes del Dogma, la complicidad de revistas científicas tenidas por “serias” en este feo asunto, así como las cantidades astronómicas de dinero que se gasta Alemania para demostrar… ¿qué?, evidencian per se que algo muy gordo y muy turbio se mueve detrás del mito de Einstein.
Como dice el profesor Thruillier en la revista “La Recherche” (nº 96, enero 1996, pág. 16):

“Todo acontece como si la física relativista fuera, en un dominio particular y concreto, la realización de un programa mucho más amplio: construir un mundo “suprapersonal”, un mundo situado más allá de nuestras sensaciones y nuestras percepciones, pero dotado de una realidad superior“.
Sólo recordemos el papel que en todo este entramado ha jugado el “Council on Foreing Relations” (CFR) de los EEUU, así como la Trilateral.

“Mein Führer ist Cain Weissmann”

Decía Max Weber en “El científico y el político” que “quien hace política pacta con los poderes divinos o diabólicos que acechan en torno al poder… quien busque la salvación de su alma y de los demás se arriesga por el camino de la política, porque el genio de la política vive en tensión con el dios del amor“.
En relación con esta idea, Isidro-Juan Palacios, en la revista “Punto y Coma”, decía que, “también la actividad científica, fuente mágica de poder, ha sido usada por el hombre como vía de usurpación y de autonomía en relación con el espíritu, y por eso también se ha diabolizado”. Parece como si ambas reflexiones hubieran tenido, consciente o inconscientemente, a Einstein como punto de referencia.
“Einstein -reconoce un relativista como Eddington- abolió el infinito, modificó ligeramente sus ecuaciones para hacer que el espacio a grandes distancias resultase curvo, hasta quedar cerrado“.
Y William Popperll, de la Universidad de Columbia, dice que “la luz es para Einstein el nuevo Único, el Absoluto en un mundo donde todo lo demás es relativo“.
Y recapitulando diremos que puesto que ya no existen ni el espacio ni el tiempo por separado, sino el espaciotiempo, es decir el movimiento unido a la velocidad, éste es el concepto fundamental de la física relativista. Por eso ya no hay en el mundo ni reposo ni paz.(…)
El “Genio” atómico había pedido en una carta enviada a Roosevelt la utilización masiva de la bomba de uranio sobre Alemania insistentemente, y no sólo el 2 de agosto de 1939 (antes del estallido de la II Guerra Mundial) como se ha dicho, sino también el 7 de marzo de 1940.

El "Genio" hizo todo cuanto estuvo en su mano para CONSEGUIR el bombardeo de Hiroshima y Nagasaki: las dos ciudades católicas del Japón

“Sólo el poder organizado -había dicho para justificarse- puede hacer frente al poder organizado“. Exactamente la misma frase (y en la misma lengua alemana) que Hitler había pronunciado seis años antes, sólo que éste, que iba muy por delante en investigación y tecnología nuclear que el resto de los países, había prohibido expresamente su uso.
Cuando Einstein asistió en 1921 a una convención sionista en Nueva York, proclamó ante diez mil correligionarios:

“Mein Führer ist Cain Weissmann. Folge Ihn. Ich habe Gesprochen” (Mi líder es Cain Weissmann. Síganlo. He dicho”).

Como se ve, “todo es relativo”, sólo depende desde donde se posicione cada uno.

Anexos al artículo

1) Contumancia einsteiniana
En una jugosa e interesante velada (que Heisemberg nos relata en su libro Diálogos sobre la física atómica) celebrada en casa de Böhr en 1932 en Copenhague, Oskar Klein preguntaba lo siguiente a Böhr:
Klein - “¿No es extraño que Einstein tenga tantas grandes dificultades en aceptar el papel del azar en la física cuántica? (…) ¿La rechaza sólo porque el azar es básico en ella?“

Heisemberg – “…es justamente ese carácter básico el que le perturba. Que no sepamos, por ejemplo, cómo se mueven dentro de un puchero lleno de agua cada una de las moléculas de agua, es algo evidente. Por eso, los científicos tenemos que aplicar en este caso la estadística, de modo parecido a como, por ejemplo, lo hace una sociedad de seguros de vida con sus asegurados… En la física clásica se había admitido que se podía seguir el movimiento de cada molécula y determinarlo según las leyes de la mecánica newtoniana… Pero las cosas no suceden así en la mecánica cuántica. No podemos observar sin perturbar el fenómeno que obsevamos, y los efectos cuánticos de esta perturbación llevan por sí mismos a una indeterminación del fenómeno que queremos observar. Esto es lo que Einstein se niega a aceptar. Él considera que se deberían decubrir en el futuro determinados nuevos parámetros de determinación del acontecer… pero esta pretensión es, sin duda alguna, falsa“.

Böhr - “…no estoy plenamente de acuerdo con eso de que la observación perturba el fenómeno. Más bien debería hablarse de la imposibilidad de objetivar el resultado de la observación, tal como se hacía en la física clásica: distintas situaciones de observación son complementarias entre sí, lo cual quiere decir que se excluyen (o complementan mutuamente), que los resultados de una no pueden compararse unívocamente con los de otra… La complementariedad es un aspecto central de la descripción de la naturaleza que había existido siempre, especialmente en la forma dada por Gibbs, pero a la cual no se había prestado la atención suficiente; mientras que Einstein siempre parte del mundo conceptual de la mecánica newtoniana, o de la teoría de campos de Maxwell, y no ha captado los caracteres complementarios en la termodinámica estadística“.

2) Einstein y la bomba atómica
El Proyecto Manhattan sería el encargado, a principios de los años 40, de llevar a cabo la construcción de las primeras bombas atómicas durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial, bajo el mandato del presidente Roosevelt en los EEUU.
Oppenheimer y Fermi serían dos de las figuras de primerísima fila en el proyecto. Todos sabemos lo que ocurrió después: Hiroshima y Nagasaki fueron completamente destruídas y con ese holocausto quedó inaugurada la era atómica.
Pero no todo fue fácil hasta llegar a aquel instante. Momentos hubo de indecisión, parálisis o pérdidas de tiempo. Y fue en ellos precisamente donde la figura de Albert Einstein jugaría un papel definitivo. Viendo que los progresos sobre la construcción de la bomba iban lentos, los científicos Wigner, Szilard y Tiller, los tres al servicio del poder americano, pidieron a Einstein, ya que gozaba por aquellos años de un notable prestigio internacional, que escribiese al presidente Roosevelt instándole a apoyar sin paliativos las investigaciones para la construcción de la bomba, dotándoles de los medios necesarios. El texto de la carta que Einstein escribió el 2 de agosto, y que le fue entregada en mano al presidente Roosevelt el 11 de octubre de 1939, decía:

“…en el curso de los últimos cuatro meses se ha hecho patente mediante el trabajo de Joliot en Francia, así como de Fermi y Szilard en América, que pueden establecerse reacciones en cadena en una gran masa de uranio, de forma que puedan ser generadas grandes cantidades de energía. Este nuevo fenómeno podría también conducir a la construcción de una bomba de una nueva clase y extremadamente poderosa.
Un nuevo artefacto de este tipo que hiciese explosión en una ciudad o en un puerto podría destruirlos completamente. Un bombardeo masivo de este tipo sobre Alemania garantizará a América una victoria segura en una guerra previsible“.

Como sabemos, la guerra en Europa terminó antes de que las bombas estuviesen listas, pero quedaron preparadas para ser lanzadas sobre el Japón.
Sus efectos devastadores fueron de todos conocidos.
Y de tales efectos se sabe que el propio Einstein se llegó a sentir responsable directo. Fue por ello que volvió a escribir a otro presidente, esta vez a H. Thruman, alarmado no precisamente ante el desarrollo de la bomba de hidrógeno por los norteamericanos, sino ante el anuncio de los sovéticos de desarrollar su propio arsenal nuclear:

“La destrucción de toda la vida sobre la tierra ha entrado dentro del campo de las posibilidades técnicas. Todo parece encuadrarse en esta siniestra marcha de los acontecimientos. Cada paso es consecuencia del anterior, y al final de este camino se perfila cada vez más claramente el espectro de la aniquilación general“…

3) Credo científico de San Alberto Einstein
Citas extraídas de los escritos de Einstein sobre sí mismo (Albert Einstein. Correspondencia 1903/1955. Editorial Hermann, 1962, págs. 8, 12 y 13)
“Einstein, ermitaño de Princeton, el físico que marchó a la búsqueda del movimiento perfecto (como Moisés recibiendo las Tablas de la Ley en el monte Sinaí). Einstein, en la cima de la montaña de Dios, os invita a subir por la escala de Jacob que termina a los pies de Dios“

“La persecución del conocimiento viene a ser una especie de búsqueda mística que nos acerca a la Verdad Suprema. El método científico funda la única verdad que puede prevalerse de razón y objetividad. Yo os muestro la única forma indiscutible de verdad“.

“San Einstein es el Genio místico, el Sumo Sacerdote de la física, el Profeta que os conduce a través de su pasión hacia la verdad y el conocimiento, suprema gracia de nuestra religión cósmica y liberadora, estadio supremo de la ciencia. Mi Gran Obra, sostenida por mis catedrales de las matemáticas, debe haceros descubrir el nuevo paraíso. Por eso es preciso que abandoneis al dios personal (“interviniente” en el curso de los acontecimientos) para así poseer la Verdad-Una“.

LOS JUDÍOS SEGÚN LA DOCTRINA CRISTIANA por G. P. G. (Extraído de Agencia FARO, 10/Abril/2009, Viernes Santo)

Ya en el Nuevo Testamento, la doctrina cristiana sobre los judíos es muy clara. En cualquier caso, ningún católico puede creer nada que vaya contra el sentir unánime de los Santos Padres [1].

"Entonces le respondieron algunos escribas y fariseos: 'Maestro, queremos ver una señal de Ti'. Mas Él, respondiendo, les dijo: 'una raza malvada y fornicaria solicita una señal, y no le será dada una señal, sino la señal de Jonás el profeta" Mt. 12, 38-39

"Los judíos...tenéis como padre al Diablo, y queréis hacer los deseos de vuestro padre. Él es homicida desde el principio y no se mantuvo en la Verdad, porque la Verdad no estaba en él. Cuando habla la mentira, habla de lo suyo propio, porque es mentiroso y padre de la mentira" Jn. 8. 44

El Aquinate, consultado por la Duquesa de Brabante sobre si era conveniente que en sus dominios los judíos fueranobligados a llevar una señal distintiva para diferenciarse de los cristianos, contesta:

“Fácil es a esto la respuesta, y ella de acuerdo a lo establecido en el Concilio general [9],que los judíos de ambos sexos en todo territorio de cristianos en todo tiempo deben distinguirse en su vestido de los otros pueblos. Esto les es mandado a ellos en su ley, es a saber, que en los cuatro ángulos desus mantos haya orlas por las que se distingan de los demás”.

Pío XII, en la encíclica Humani generis (1950), enseña que las enseñanzas de Santo Tomás de Aquino son la guía más segura para la doctrina católica y condena toda desviación de ella.

El Doctor Angélico también sostuvo doctrinalmente que:

“Los judíos no pueden lícitamente retener lo adquirido por usura,estando obligados a restituir a quienes hayan extorsionado … Los judíos por razón de sus culpas están en perpetua servidumbre, losseñores pueden por lo tanto, tomarles sus cosas, dejándoles lo indispensable para la vida” [10].Y además: “A los judíos no se les debería permitir quedarse con lo obtenido por medio de la usura; lo mejor sería que se les obligara a trabajar para ganarse la vida, en vez de no hacer otra cosa que hacerse más avaros” [11].

Y respecto a la postura que los judíos tomaron hacia Nuestro Señor:

"Y respondiendo todo el pueblo dijo: 'Caiga su sangre sobre nosotros y sobre nuestros hijos' " Mt. 27, 25

“Pues veían en Él todas las señales que los profetas dijeron que iba a haber [...] pues veían con evidencia las señales de la Divinidad de Él, mas por odio y envidia hacia Cristo, las tergiversaban; y no quisieron confiar en las palabras de Éste, con las cuales se confesaba Hijo de Dios” [12].

Los concilios de la Iglesia, así como los papas,han ido siempre en la misma dirección del sentir unánime de los Padres y de los santos [13]. Aunque podamos extraer testimonios de todos los papas de la historia que como tales se han manifestado al efecto [14], baste con que citemos a tres: uno a caballo entre la Antigüedad Tardía y la Edad Media (San Gregorio Magno), otro del Renacimiento (San Pío V) y otro de época moderna (Benedicto XIV).

Benedicto XIV, dejando al margen otros documentos [15] en que trata la cuestión judía mostrándose firme en preservar lo que dice la tradición, en la encíclica A quo primum nos enseña:

“Los judíos se ocupan de asuntos comerciales,amasan enormes sumas de dinero de estas actividades, y proceden sistemáticamente a despojar a los cristianos de sus bienes y posesiones por medio de sus exacciones usurarias. Aunque al mismo tiempo ellos piden prestadas sumas de los cristianos a un nivel de interés inmoderadamente alto, para el pago de las cuales sus sinagogas sirven de garantía, no obstante sus razones para actuar así son fácilmente visibles. Primero de todo, obtienen dinero de los cristianos que usan en el comercio, haciendo así suficiente provecho para pagar el interés convenido, y al mismo tiempo incrementan su propio poder. En segundo lugar, ganan tantos protectores de sus sinagogas y de sus personas como acreedores tienen”.

A San Pío V le debemos, entre otras cosas, haber sido el artífice de la victoria de Lepanto y haber extendido el Santo Rosario, además de codificar el rito romano de la Santa Misa. Entre sus numerosos escritos tratando la cuestión judía [16], podemos citar la famosa bula Hebraeorum Gens[17], de la que extraemos lo siguiente:

“El pueblo judío … llegado el tiempo de la plenitud, ingrato y pérfido, condenó indignamente a su Redentor a ser muerto con muerte ignominiosa … omitiendo las numerosas modalidadesde usura con las que por todas partes, los hebreos consumieron los haberes de los cristianos necesitados, juzgamos como muy evidente serellos encubridores y aun cómplices de ladrones y asaltantes que tratan de traspasar a otro las cosas robadas y malversadas u ocultarlas hasta el presente, no sólo las de uso profano, mas también las del culto divino. Y muchos con el pretexto de tratar asuntos propios de su oficio, ambicionando las casas de mujeres honestas, las pierden con muy vergonzosos halagos; y lo que es más pernicioso de todo, dados a sortilegios y encantamientos mágicos, supersticiones y maleficios, inducen a muchos incautos y enfermos a los engaños de Satanás, jactándose de predecir el futuro, tesoros y cosas escondidas… Por último tenemos bien conocida e indagada la forma tan indigna en que esta execrable raza, usa el nombre de Cristo, y a qué grado sea dañosa a quienes habrán de ser juzgados con dicho nombre y cuya vida pues está amenazada con los engaños de ellos”.

"y decretarnos que (estas doctrinas) quedarán PERPETUAMENTE en vigor, y bajo conminación de juicio divino ordenamos y mandamos que también en el futuro todo sea observado firmemente" San Pío V, bula 'Romanus Pontifex', sobre los judíos

Citemos, por último, a San Gregorio Magno[18], por haber conjugado en su persona el ser el último de los Padres latinos y Papa a la vez. Puesto que ahora hay quien cree que los judíos son hermanos en Abraham, no está de más traer a colación la siguiente enseñanza:

“Si nosotros, por nuestra fe, venimos a ser hijos de Abraham, los judíos, por su perfidia, han dejado de serlo” [19].

Lógicamente, también los concilios, tanto locales como universales, siempre que se han pronunciado sobre el problema judío, lo han hecho homogéneamente con las enseñanzas de los Padres, Doctores y Sumos Pontífices.

"Y respondiendo Pedro y los Apóstoles, dijeron a los judíos: Es menester obedecer a Dios antes que a los hombres. El Dios de nuestro padres resucitó a Jesús, a quien vosotros matasteis, poniéndole en un madero" Act. 5, 29-30

De los concilios locales [20] nos limitaremos a citar un par de cánones de concilios toledanos, por la particular autoridad dogmática de valor universal que la Santa Iglesia Romana siempre les ha concedido:

“… Cualquier obispo, presbítero, o seglar, que en adelante les prestare apoyo (a los judíos) … bien sea por dádivas bien por favor, se considerará como verdaderamente profano y sacrílego, privándole de la comunión de la Iglesia Católica, y reputándole como extraño al reino de Dios, pues es digno que se separe del cuerpo de Cristo el que se hace patrono de los enemigos de este Señor” [21].

“los judíos también mataron a Nuestro Señor Jesús y a los profetas… no agradan a Dios y son enemigos de todos los hombres” 1 Tes. 2, 15-16″]

“De la perfidia de los judíos. Aunque en la condenación de la perfidia de los judíos, hay infinitas sentencias de los Padres antiguos y brillan además muchas leyes nuevas; sin embargo como según el vaticinio profético relativo a su obstinación, el pecado de Judá está escrito con pluma de hierro y sobre uña de diamante, más duros que una piedra en su ceguera y terquedad. Es, por lo tanto, muy conveniente que el muro de su infidelidad debe ser combatido más estrechamente con las máquinas de la Iglesia Católica, de modo que, o lleguen a corregirse en contra de su voluntad, o sean destruidos de manera que perezcan para siempre por juicio del Señor” [22].

Finalmente, entre los ecuménicos, baste recordar el IV Concilio de Letrán, concilio importantísimo que definió dogmas como el Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, la Transubstanciación o la existencia del Infierno. Este concilio, ensu canon 68, es diáfano expresando cómo los judíos, malditos de Dios, deben llevar un distintivo especial en sus ropas.

___________________________________________________________________

[1] Pío IV, bula Iniunctum nobis,13 de noviembre de 1564: “…el verdadero sentido de las Sagradas Escrituras tampoco lo aceptaré ni interpretaré jamás sino conforme alsentir unánime de los Padres”. León XIII, encíclica Providentissimus Deus,18 de noviembre de 1893: “los Santos Padres que ‘después de los Apóstoles plantaron, regaron, edificaron, apacentaron y alimentaron ala Iglesia y por cuya acción creció en ella’, tienen autoridad suma siempre que explican todos de modo unánime”.
[2] Oratio IV Adversus Iudaeos.
[3] Oratio VI, 2 Adversus Iudaeos.
[4] El Concilio de Trento establece: “Si alguno no recibiere esos mismos libros íntegros contodas sus partes, como ha sido costumbre leerlos en la Iglesia católica y se contienen en la vieja edición de la Vulgata latina, como sagrados y canónicos, o si sabiéndolo y con deliberación despreciare las tradiciones anteriormente dichas, sea excomulgado”.
[5] San Agustín es el Doctor de la Iglesia más importante de todos los tiempos, después de Santo Tomás de Aquino. Además de su Tratado contra los judíos, su tratamiento del tema no se desvía un ápice del resto de Doctores en todas sus demás obras, donde frecuentemente habla de la cuestión judía.
[6] Epístola IX al emperador Teodosio.
[7] Epístola 363 a la Iglesia de Francia Oriental.
[8] El Papa San Pío X, en la encíclica Pascendi,proclama solemnemente: “Es importante notar que, al prescribir que se siga la filosofía escolástica, Nos referimos a la que enseñó SantoTomás de Aquino: todo lo que Nuestro Predecesor decretó acerca de la misma, queremos que siga en vigor y, por si fuera necesario, lorepetimos y lo confirmamos, y mandamos que se observe estrictamente por todos”. Y el papa Pío XII, en la encíclica Humani generis (1950), enseña que la filosofía tomista es la guía más segura para la doctrina católica y condena toda desviación de ella.
[9] IV de Letrán, año 1215, c. 68.
[10] Opera Omnia. Edición Pasisills, 1880. Tábula 1 a-o, tomo XXXIII, p. 534.
[11] De regimine principum.
[12] Summa Theologica, 3 p., qu. 47, art. 5.
[13] Es famoso el caso de San Juan de Capistrano,muy conocido como “azote de los judíos”; este santo franciscano capuchino, de gran ascetismo y virtud, fue empleado como embajador enmuchas y muy delicadas misiones diplomáticas y con muy buenosresultados. Tres veces le ofrecieron los Sumos Pontífices nombrarlo obispo de importantes diócesis, pero prefirió seguir siendo humildepredicador, pobre y sin títulos honoríficos. Se le confiaron misiones delicadas, como la detracción de los Fraticelli, la lucha en Moravia contra la herejía husita (obra del judío Jean Huss), lasnegociaciones para la incorporación de los griegos a la Iglesia Romana,la vigilancia de los judíos, la contención del cisma de Basilea, etc. Por iniciativa de santos como él, los judíos tenían que llevar un gorrode dos cuernos (pileteum cornutum), que simbolizaba su filiación diabólica (Cf. Jn. 8, 44), así como una estrella amarillaidentificativa para guardarse de su maldad, y se les recluía en guetos. Por la influencia de San Juan de Capistrano, el Papa Martín V, inicialmente indulgente con los judíos por ignorancia, cambió de actitud.
[14] Entre otros: Honorio III (1217 y 1221), Gregorio IX (1233),Inocencio IV (1244), Clemente IV (1267), Gregorio X (1274), Nicolás III(1278), Nicolás IV (1288), Juan XXII (1317 y 1320), Urbano V (1365),Gregorio XI (1375), Martín V (1425), Eugenio IV (1442), Calixto III(1456), Sixto IV (1478), Pablo III (1535, 1542 y 1543), Julio III(1554), Pablo IV (1555 y 1556), Pío IV (enero y febrero de 1562),Gregorio XIII (1577, 1581 y 1584), Sixto V (1586), Clemente VIII (1592y 1593), Pablo V (1610), Urbano VIII (1625, 166, 1635 y 1636),Alejandro VII (1657, 1658, 1662 y 1663), Alejandro VIII (1690),Inocencio XII (1692), Clemente XI (1704, 1705 y 1712), Benedicto XIII(1726, 1727 y 1729), Pío IX (1858).
[15] Tal es el caso de Postremomens (28 de febrero de 1747), Apostolici Ministerii munus (16 de septiembre de 1747), Singulari Nobis consolationi (9 de febrero de 1749), Elapso proxime Anno (20 de febrero de 1751), Probe te meminisse (15 de diciembre de 1751) y Beatus Andreas (22 de febrero de 1755).
[16] Algunos otros son Romanus Pontifex (19 de abril de 1566), Sacrosanctae catholicae ecclesiae (29 de noviembre de 1566) o Cum nos nuper (19 de enero de 1567).
[17] Mediante esta bula, el Papa expulsó a los judíos de los Estados Pontificios (26 de febrero de 1569).
[18] Entre otras cosas, se puede recordar que San Gregorio Magno escribió también una carta a Recaredo en la que le felicita por no haber aceptado un soborno de 30.000 sueldos de los judíos de Toledo,que pretendían manipular al rey para que ejerciese presión en el Concilio a fin de que no se promulgasen leyes de protección frente al peligro judío.
[19] Sermones dominicales de los Santos Padres, Papa San Gregorio Magno.
[20] Aparte del Concilio de Jerusalén, que fue el primero y se dedicó ala condena de la herejía judaizante, contamos con el planteamiento delproblema judío en el Concilio de Elvira (306), el Concilio de Agde(506) celebrado bajo los auspicios de San Cesáreo, el Concilio deClermont (535), el Concilio III de Orleans (538), el Concilio de Mâcon(581), el Concilio Trulano (692) considerado siempre el suplemento delos Concilios Ecuménicos V y VI, el Concilio de Gerona (1078), elConcilio de Oxford (1222), el Concilio de Narbona (1235), los Conciliosde Vienne y Breslau (1267), el Concilio de Mainz (1310), el Concilio deBasilea (1434), etc.
[21] Concilio IV de Toledo, Canon LVIII.
[22] Concilio XVI de Toledo, canon I.

Zitat aus “Nostra Aetate“: (Siehe auch unseren Beitrag: “Konzilserklärung “Nostra Aetate” über das Verhältnis der Kirche zu den nichtchristlichen Religionen”)

Die jüdische Religion

4. Bei ihrer Besinnung auf das Geheimnis der Kirche gedenkt die Heilige Synode des Bandes, wodurch das Volk des Neuen Bundes mit dem Stamme Abrahams geistlich verbunden ist.

So anerkennt die Kirche Christi, daß nach dem Heilsgeheimnis Gottes die Anfänge ihres Glaubens und ihrer Erwählung sich schon bei den Patriarchen, bei Moses und den Propheten finden.

Sie bekennt, daß alle Christgläubigen als Söhne Abrahams dem Glauben nach (Gal 3,7) in der Berufung dieses Patriarchen eingeschlossen sind und daß in dem Auszug des erwählten Volkes aus dem Lande der Knechtschaft das Heil der Kirche geheimnisvoll vorgebildet ist. Deshalb kann die Kirche auch nicht vergessen, daß sie durch jenes Volk, mit dem Gott aus unsagbarem Erbarmen den Alten Bund geschlossen hat, die Offenbarung des Alten Testamentes empfing und genährt wird von der Wurzel des guten Ölbaums, in den die Heiden als wilde Schößlinge eingepfropft sind (Röm 11,17-24). Denn die Kirche glaubt, daß Christus, unser Friede, Juden und Heiden durch das Kreuz versöhnt und beide in sich vereinigt hat (Eph 2,14-16). Die Kirche hat auch stets die Worte des Apostels Paulus vor Augen, der von seinen Stammverwandten sagt, daß “ihnen die Annahme an Sohnes Statt und die Herrlichkeit, der Bund und das Gesetz, der Gottesdienst und die Verheißungen gehören wie auch die Väter und daß aus ihnen Christus dem Fleische nach stammt” (Röm 9,4-5), der Sohn der Jungfrau Maria.

Auch hält sie sich gegenwärtig, daß aus dem jüdischen Volk die Apostel stammen, die Grundfesten und Säulen der Kirche, sowie die meisten jener ersten Jünger, die das Evangelium Christi der Welt verkündet haben.

Wie die Schrift bezeugt, hat Jerusalem die Zeit seiner Heimsuchung nicht erkannt (Lk 19,44), und ein großer Teil der Juden hat das Evangelium nicht angenommen, ja nicht wenige haben sich seiner Ausbreitung widersetzt (Röm 11,28). Nichtsdestoweniger sind die Juden nach dem Zeugnis der Apostel immer noch von Gott geliebt um der Väter willen; sind doch seine Gnadengaben und seine Berufung unwiderruflich (Röm 11,28-29). Mit den Propheten und mit demselben Apostel erwartet die Kirche den Tag, der nur Gott bekannt ist, an dem alle Völker mit einer Stimme den Herrn anrufen und ihm “Schulter an Schulter dienen” (Soph 3,9) (Jes 66,23; Ps 65,4; Röm 11,11-32).

Da also das Christen und Juden gemeinsame geistliche Erbe so reich ist, will die Heilige Synode     die gegenseitige Kenntnis und Achtung fördern, die vor allem die Frucht biblischer und theologischer Studien sowie des brüderlichen Gespräches ist.

Obgleich die jüdischen Obrigkeiten mit ihren Anhängern auf den Tod Christi gedrungen haben (Joh 19,6), kann man dennoch die Ereignisse seines Leidens weder allen damals lebenden Juden ohne Unterschied noch den heutigen Juden zur Last legen.

Gewiß ist die Kirche das neue Volk Gottes, trotzdem darf man die Juden nicht als von Gott verworfen oder verflucht darstellen, als wäre dies aus der Heiligen Schrift zu folgern. Darum sollen alle dafür Sorge tragen, daß niemand in der Katechese oder bei der Predigt des Gotteswortes etwas lehre, das mit der evangelischen Wahrheit und dem Geiste Christi nicht im Einklang steht.

Im Bewußtsein des Erbes, das sie mit den Juden gemeinsam hat, beklagt die Kirche, die alle Verfolgungen gegen irgendwelche Menschen verwirft, nicht aus politischen Gründen, sondern auf Antrieb der religiösen Liebe des Evangeliums alle Haßausbrüche, Verfolgungen und Manifestationen des Antisemitismus, die sich zu irgendeiner Zeit und von irgend jemandem gegen die Juden gerichtet haben. Auch hat ja Christus, wie die Kirche immer gelehrt hat und lehrt, in Freiheit, um der Sünden aller Menschen willen, sein Leiden und seinen Tod aus unendlicher Liebe auf sich genommen, damit alle das Heil erlangen. So ist es die Aufgabe der Predigt der Kirche, das Kreuz Christi als Zeichen der universalen Liebe Gottes und als Quelle aller Gnaden zu verkünden.

Unser Kommentar:

Es geht hier also um “die jüdische Religion”. Und was ist damit gemeint? Natürlich die “Religion” derjenigen Juden, die JESUS CHRISTUS als (den verheißenen) Messias, als ERLÖSER, als GOTTES SOHN, als GOTT (auch heute noch) ablehnen, die Sein Heilsangebot (auch heute noch) ausschlagen und als Folge davon Sein REICH, Seine HERRSCHAFT, die Kirche, das neue Volk Gottes, bekämpfen. Es geht also um Christus- und damit Gottes- und Kirchen-Feinde. Und es geht um eine Christus-, GOTTES- und kirchenfeindliche “Religion”.
Sind diese Juden “mit dem Stamme Abrahams geistlich verbunden”? Nein! Sie sind, wie die Muslime, nur “fleischlich” mit ihm verbunden, während tatsächlich “alle Christgläubigen, und nur sie, Söhne (Kinder) Abrahams dem Glauben nach sind (Gal 3,7).
Kann die Kirche, “das Volk des Neuen Bundes” mit diesen Juden, die nicht mit dem Stamme Abrahams geistlich verbunden sind, geistlich verbunden sein? Nein! Das neue Volk Gottes kann geistlich nur verbunden sein mit den CHRIST-gläubigen Juden, mit jenen des Alten Bundes also, die echt und wahr und treu an den verheißenen Messias glaubten, und mit jenen des Neuen Bundes, die echt, wahr und treu an CHRISTUS glaub(t)en, die sich taufen ließen und damit “aus dem Lande der (geistigen) Knechtschaft ausgezogen” sind.
Die Kirche, das neue Volk Gottes, hat also “die Offenbarung des Alten Testamentes” nicht von diesen Juden empfangen, die CHRISTUS verleugneten. Und sie wird “genährt von der Wurzel des guten Ölbaums, in den die Heiden als wilde Schösslinge eingepfropft sind”, also nur von jenen Juden, die “Kinder Abrahams dem Glauben nach” sind, wie die Patriarchen, Moses und die Propheten. Aber sie wird nur auch von dieser Wurzel genährt. Niemals ausschließlich. Viel mehr und entscheidend genährt wird die Kirche direkt von JESUS CHRISTUS, dem GOTT-MENSCHEN (dem Sohn der Jungfrau Maria, der nur dem Fleische nach von den Juden, vom “guten Ölbaum”, abstammt) und von dem von IHM bis zum Ende der Welt gesandten HEILIGEN GEIST, dem göttlichen Geist, der vom Vater und vom Sohne ausgeht. Der heilige Apostel Paulus schreibt in seinem Brief an die Römer, Kapitel 9, Verse 4-5: “Sind sie (meine Stammesgenossen dem Fleische nach) doch Israeliten, denen die Gotteskindschaft zuteil geworden ist und die Herrlichkeit und der Bund und die Gesetzgebung und der Gottesdienst und die Verheißungen. Ihnen gehören die Väter an, und aus ihnen stammt dem Fleische nach der Messias, der GOTT ist, über allem, hochgelobt in Ewigkeit. Amen.” Er schreibt dann aber auch: “Denn nicht alle, die aus Israel sind, sind Israeliten. Noch sind alle Kinder, welche Nachkommen Abrahams sind.” (Röm. 9, 7) Die christusfeindlichen und damit gottfeindlichen Juden sind also keine echten “Israeliten” und keine “Kinder Abrahams”. Aus diesen stammen also auch nicht “die Apostel, die Grundfesten und Säulen der Kirche wie die meisten jener ersten Jünger, die das Evangelium Christi der Welt verkündet haben”. Denn diese haben “die Zeit ihrer Heimsuchung nicht erkannt und das Evangelium nicht angenommen, ja haben sich seiner Ausbreitung widersetzt. Diese Juden sind keineswegs “um der Väter willen immer noch von Gott geliebt”, sondern nur jene, die nach göttlicher Vor(her)sehung den Glauben an CHRISTUS annehmen (werden). Man vergleiche dazu Paulus im ersten Brief an die Thessaloniker, 2. Kapitel, 14-16: “Ihr seid ja, meine Brüder, Nachahmer geworden der Gemeinden Gottes, die in Judäa sind in Christus Jesus; denn ihr habt von euren Landsleuten dasselbe erdulden müssen, was jene von den Juden. Diese haben sogar den Herrn Jesus und die Propheten getötet und uns verfolgt. Sie missfallen Gott und sind allen Menschen feind. Sie wollen uns wehren, den Heiden zu predigen, dass sie des Heiles teilhaftig werden. So häufen sie immerfort Sünde auf Sünde. Aber schon ist Gottes Zorn über sie gekommen in vollem Maße.” Und ebenso: Apokalypse 3,9: “Siehe, Leute aus der Synagoge Satans führe ich zu dir, Leute, die sich Juden nennen – doch sie sind es nicht, sondern lügen.” Paulus hatte vor seiner Bekehrung auch zu diesen gehört: Galater 1,13-14: “Ihr habt ja von meinem einstigen Wandel im Judentum gehört: ich verfolgte die Kirche Gottes über die Maßen und suchte sie zu vernichten. Vor vielen meiner Altersgenossen in meinem Volke tat ich mich zuvor in meiner Leidenschaft für das Judentum und zeigte mich als übertriebenen Eiferer für die Überlieferungen meiner Väter.”
Diesen widerspenstigen, verstockten, eifernden Juden gilt, was JESUS nach Johannes 8, 37-47 spricht: “Ich weiß, dass ihr Kinder (Nachkommen) Abrahams seid. Allein ihr sucht mich zu töten, weil mein Wort in euch erfolglos bleibt. Ich rede, was ich bei meinem Vater gesehen habe, ihr aber tut, was ihr von eurem Vater gehört habt. Da erwiderten sie: Unser Vater ist Abraham. Jesus sprach darauf: Wenn ihr Kinder Abrahams seid, so tuet auch Abrahams Werke. Jetzt wollt ihr mich töten, mich, der ich euch doch die Wahrheit verkündet habe, die ich von Gott gehört. So etwas hat Abraham nicht getan. Ihr tut die Werke eures Vaters. Da sprachen sie: Wir sind nicht im Ehebruch geboren. Wir haben Einen Vater, Gott. Darauf Jesus: Wenn Gott euer Vater wäre, so würdet ihr doch mich lieben. Ich bin von Gott ausgegangen und gekommen. Nicht bin ich von mir selbst gekommen, sondern er hat mich gesandt. Warum versteht ihr meine Rede nicht? Weil ihr mein Wort nicht hören könnt. Ihr habt den Teufel zum Vater, und die Begierden eures Vaters wollt ihr erfüllen. Er war von Anfang an ein Menschenmörder und ist in der Wahrheit nicht bestanden, weil in ihm keine Wahrheit ist. Wenn er Lügen redet, redet er aus seinem Eigenen, denn er ist ein Lügner und der Vater der Lüge. Wenn aber ich die Wahrheit rede, so glaubt ihr mir nicht. Wer aus euch kann mich einer Sünde zeihen? Wenn ich euch die Wahrheit sage, warum glaubt ihr mir nicht? Wer aus Gott ist, der hört Gottes Wort. Darum hört ihr es nicht, weil ihr nicht aus Gott seid.” Diese Juden also, die nicht auf Gottes Wort hören wollten, “die jüdischen Obrigkeiten mit ihren Anhängern” waren es auch, die “auf den Tod Christi gedrungen haben”. Und diesen Juden muss man “die Ereignisse seines Leidens (und Sterbens) zur Last legen”. Und den heutigen Juden? Sicher all jenen heutigen Juden, die sich bewusst und überlegt GEGEN Jesus Christus stellen. Aber selbstverständlich haben auch die übrigen Menschen, die Gottes Wort nicht hören (wollen), Anteil, Schuld an den “Ereignissen seines Leidens (und Sterbens)”. Und ALLE (nicht nur die Juden), die wissentlich und willentlich in dieser Ablehnung des ERLÖSERS bis zum Tode verharren, werden von Gott “verworfen und verflucht”. Das ist “aus der Heiligen Schrift zu folgern” und “steht mit der evangelischen Wahrheit und dem Geiste Christi im Einklang”. Das Gegenteil nicht!
Die Kirche hat also mit den christusfeindlichen Juden “kein gemeinsames Erbe”, sondern nur mit den christusgläubigen Juden. Wenn “Antisemitismus” Judenfeindlichkeit besagen soll, dann ist die Kirche, sind die Glieder der Kirche “antisemitisch” gegenüber jenen “Juden, die keine Juden sind”, sondern Anti-Christen, die die Zeit ihrer Heimsuchung nicht erkennen und das Evangelium nicht annehmen, ja sich seiner Ausbreitung widersetzen. Und mit diesen Juden kann die Kirche keine “gemeinsame biblische und theologische Studien” betreiben, kein “brüderliches Gespräch” führen, ohne Verrat an ihrem Auftrag zu üben: “das Kreuz Christi als Zeichen der universalen Liebe Gottes und als Quelle aller Gnaden zu verkünden” – es also auch den noch ungläubigen, verblendeten, verstockten zu PREDIGEN, auf dass auch sie das HEIL erlangen; denn NUR IN IHM IST HEIL, IST RETTUNG, IST ERLÖSUNG, IST EWIGES SELIGES LEBEN!

Cuplikan dari Nostra Aetate artikel 5

Tetapi kita tidak dapat menyerukan nama Allah Bapa semua orang, bila terhadap orang-orang tertentu, yang diciptakan menurut citra kesamaan Allah, kita tidak mau bersikap sebagai saudara. Hubungan manusia dengan Allah Bapa dan hubungannya dengan sesama manusia saudaranya begitu erat, sehingga Alkitab berkata: “Barang siapa tidak mencintai, ia tidak mengenal Allah” (1Yoh 4:8). Jadi tiadalah dasar bagi setiap teori atau praktik, yang mengadakan pembedaan mengenai martabat manusia serta hak-hak yang bersumber padanya antara manusia dan manusia, antara bangsa dan bangsa. Maka Gereja mengecam setiap diskriminasi antara orang-orang atau penganiayaan berdasarkan keturunan atau warna kulit, kondisi hidup atau agama, sebagai berlawanan dengan semangat kristus. Oleh karena itu Konsili suci, mengikuti jejak para Rasul kudus Petrus dan Paulus, meminta dengan sangat kepada Umat beriman kristiani, supaya bila ini mungkin “memelihara cara hidup yang baik diantara bangsa-bangsa bukan Yahudi” (1Ptr 2:12), dan sejauh tergantung dari mereka hidup dalam damai dengan semua orang, sehingga mereka sungguh-sungguh menjadi putera Bapa di sorga.

Aus PI (Politically Incorrect) und Daily Mail Online:

In jede katholische Schule gehört ein islamischer Gebetsraum mit einer Einrichtung für die rituellen Waschungen. Das fordern nicht etwa die Muslime – nein, das fordern die katholischen Bischöfe von England und Wales mit Zustimmung des Erzbischofs von Birmingham und gehen damit weit über alle gesetzlichen Ansprüche der islamischen Minderheit in Großbritannien hinaus.

Die Beweggründe für den vorauseilenden Gehorsam: Die Kirche will sich nicht vorwerfen lassen, religiöse Schulen würden die Segregation vorantreiben. Muslimische Gebetsräume als Mittel zur Integration also. Dass dieser Plan nicht funktionieren kann und nur zu verstärkter Separation führen muss, sollte eigentlich auch den Bischöfen klar sein. Nur ist ihnen offensichtlich ihr Image als Islamversteher wichtiger als die Zukunft ihres Landes.

Die Einrichtung der Gebets- und Waschräume würde die katholischen Schulen viel Geld kosten, klagt Daphne McLeod, eine ehemalige Lehrerin. Wenn muslimische Eltern eine katholische Schule für ihre Kinder wählen, müssen sie damit rechnen, dass das Gebäude nicht islamisch eingerichtet ist, findet sie.

Begeistert sind selbstverständlich die muslimischen Eltern. Majid Khatme, ein muslimischer Vater, begrüßt die Entscheidung der Bischöfe sehr. Er überlegt sogar, ihnen einen Dankesbrief zu schreiben.

Das letzte Wort in der Angelegenheit liegt bei den Schulen selbst. (Spürnase: Skeptiker)

Unser Kommentar:
Den (meisten) katholischen Bischöfen ist eben seit dem II. Vatikanischen Konzil gar vieles, zu vieles nicht mehr klar. Ihre Verblendung hinsichtlich des wahren Lichtes und Abwendung vom wahren Licht und Hinwendung zum Irr-Licht gründet in der theologisch, ekklesiologisch und pastoral völlig unreifen, undurchdachten, leichtsinnigen, fahrlässigen, verfehlten Neuorientierung und Neuausrichtung der Kirche durch die erdrückende Mehrheit der Konzilstheologen, Konzilsbischöfe und Konzilspäpste. Vor allem auch mit ihrer Neueinschätzung und Neubeurteilung der nicht-christlichen “Weltreligionen” und allen “Menschentums” überhaupt, haben sie all diese seither diesbezüglich geschehenen und weiterhin geschehenden und möglicherweise noch zunehmenden “Verrücktheiten” vorprogrammiert. Sie denken und handeln in vielem wie von Sinnen. Namentlich ihre Haltung gegenüber dem Islam ist geradezu “selbstmörderisch”.

The young miss was running late this morning, so on the drive to school I heard NPR’s spot on Pope Benedict’s letter to an Italian conservative author casting doubt, supposedly, on interfaith dialogue. The NYT has a cryptic summary, and David Gibson already has a post up at dotCommonweal.

I wasn’t sure what this story was about. The pope continues to meet and make nice in public in synagogues and with Muslims. Is this just JPII drift? Is a pope now expected to play interfaith politician, masking his real views until he starts chatting up the Right?

Mr Gibson asks, “What is, or should be, the point of interfaith dialogue?”

This may be less a task of answering off the cuff from our feelings and/or fears, and more turning to Nostra Aetate, the Vatican II “Declaration On The Relation Of The Church To Non-Christian Religions.” Naturally, Neil and I have been all over it on this site.

Nostra Aetate 1 suggests the mysteries of life which we hold in common with all religious seekers (and some non-religious people) are good starting points: Who are human beings? What is our purpose? What is moral good and bad?

I think some of the Catholic Right, perhaps including the pope, have lost their way with Church teaching with regard to dialogue with non-Christians. (I hope we all realize we’re not framing this discussion as Catholics versus the rest of the world, right?) Nostra Aetate 2 sums the expectation of the world’s bishops back in the sixties, and I read nothing here that’s not even more applicable today:

The Church, therefore, exhorts her (daughters and) sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these (people).

Dialogue alone isn’t enough; the council bishops advocate collaboration with non-Christians, and they give good reasons for doing so, including a discussion on the basic problems of belief in what the pessimists among us would characterize an unbelieving world. What would collaboration consist of? Muslims have problems in Hindu India, too, don’t they? Muslims fled post-WWII India in great numbers if I recall. Part of the gospel witness of the Church would extend to assisting in charity and perhaps justice in places where we can join with other non-Christians to alleviate suffering and attempt to right wrongs. Collaboration: not just a party, but a way of getting things done more easily with more people working together.

Nostra Aetate 3 devotes itself exclusively to Christian-Muslim relations. It’s worth re-reading; heck, the whole document is the shortest of the Vatican II oeuvre. It would take less than an hour to read and reflect with some little depth. One bit of Muslim-Christian dialogue might center on the nature of orthodoxy and orthopraxis and how these play out in religious Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Christians have not always practiced what they preach; and our image has been tarnished when deeds mismatch the “doxy.” Things like that aren’t unknown in Islam or Judaism, but those faiths place greater emphasis on “right action” above “right belief.” How did that happen? Is it an accident of geography or culture that Europe, perhaps, is a continent of orthodoxy (or those who strive toward it or are defined by it) and that the Middle East is the center of orthopractic monotheism? If it is culture, what might that mean for the future of Muslims in Europe and Christians in places like Africa and Asia?

Even if Pope Benedict and his conservative sympathizers are heated up about Muslim inroads in Europe, it might do Christians well to ponder how close to our own compass of faith we stand. If orthopraxis gets a better credibility because Christian belief and actions sometimes diverge, there’s a lesson to be learned, right?

Bishops act with secrecy to hide sex predators, obstruct a fair hearing of victims, and isn’t this connected somehow to the tradition of secrecy of the curia dealing with theologians? This would seem to fall under the basic human mystery: we know the good, yet we continue to choose the wrong. Nobody is exempt from it, and the pope himself has been damaged politically, if not morally by it.

I would be curious to know what passes for dialogue in these papal visits. Does the Holy Father read the Koran? Does he re-read Nostra Aetate? Do curial officials and other representatives? Do Catholics join with other Christian leaders to present Christianity with a certain unity? If Catholic-Muslim dialogue is all about sharing kuchen and falafel over soft drinks, then sure, the pope is right to question what’s going on.

I’m still not sure if the pope’s letter is a real story with legs, or just a bit of gossip pried out at the end of a lazy weekend. I’m not heartened that Pope Benedict has shown little acumen on the interfaith front. If he’s genuinely concerned about the erosion of Christianity in Europe, he would do better to get serious about conciliar reforms as a central plank for a more serious course of evangelization. In other words, strengthen the faith by building it up, not by tearing down the “not-faith,” the common practice on the Right these days.

Europe’s Christian apathy is rooted in the tragedy of the continent from about the mid-19th century on, culminating in devastating wars up to about 1990. The Church may be relatively clean of serious wrongdoing, but the fact remains that it offered very little to Europeans looking for heroic witness and leadership. Playing it safe with the fascists was a middle road. Joseph Ratzinger’s own choices mirrored the Church: stand with martyrs like Kolbe or Jägerstätter or march with Nazis? He took a middle road. Safe, but not the substance of liturgical red, or even white.

Conceded, it would have taken immense, if not saintly, heroism for a teen to stand against the Nazi drift in Europe. But Anne Frank did it.

Even if Pope Benedict is unread or unconvinced on interfaith dialogue, the council witness alone should be enough to suggest he need not be the point man on this for the Church. Other prelates, if not lay people, are educated, formed, experienced, and willing to serve: this work, this ministry should be delegated to them with full papal endorsement and support.

Before my sister and brother Catholics attempt a public word on this, perhaps a consultation of what the Church actually teaches would be in order. Even if Europe were being overrun, our faith would insist upon it. In fact, that’s the problem of the Great War, WWII, and the Cold War: that Christians, Catholics included, were too eager to set aside core teachings of our faith in face of what admittedly, was a very stern moral test. Do you think Christianity would be in “trouble” if it had taken a fearless stand against fascism, or against the insanity of the Great War? Millions of European Christians, and how few martyrs gave witness.

Rome built its primacy and orthodoxy not necessarily on the culture of the mind, but on the saintly witness of its martyrs. Rome missed a twentieth century opportunity, and should we be surprised we’re tracking low on some important indicators? In the face of it, interfaith dialogue might well do us more good than we realize. Too bad the pope doesn’t seem to agree.

Aus ZENIT.org: ZG08112108 – 21.11.2008
Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-16472?l=german

„Das ist ein lebenswichtiger Dienst in unserer heutigen Zeit“

ROM, 21. November 2008 (ZENIT.org).- Wir veröffentlichen die offizielle Übersetzung der Ansprache, die Papst Benedikt XVI. am 30. Oktober beim Empfang einer Delegation des Internationalen Jüdischen Komitees für Interreligiöse Beziehungen im Vatikan gehalten hat.

***

Liebe Freunde!

Ich freue mich, diese Delegation des Internationalen Jüdischen Komitees für Interreligiöse Beziehungen willkommen zu heißen. Seit über 30 Jahren unterhalten Ihr Komitee und der Heilige Stuhl regelmäßige und fruchtbare Kontakte, die zu größerem Verständnis und größerer Bereitschaft zur gegenseitigen Annahme zwischen Katholiken und Juden geführt haben. Es freut mich, diese Gelegenheit wahrzunehmen, um noch einmal die Verpflichtung der Kirche zur Erfüllung der Prinzipien zu bekräftigen, die in der historischen Erklärung Nostra aetate des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils festgelegt worden sind. Diese Erklärung, die alle Formen von Antisemitismus entschieden verurteilte, stellte einen bedeutsamen Meilenstein in der langen Geschichte der katholisch-jüdischen Beziehungen und eine Aufforderung zu einem erneuerten theologischen Verständnis der Beziehungen zwischen der Kirche und dem jüdischen Volk dar.

Die Christen sind sich heute zunehmend des geistlichen Erbes bewußt, das sie mit dem Volk der Thora teilen, dem von Gott in seiner unaussprechlichen Barmherzigkeit erwählten Volk, ein Erbe, das zu größerer gegenseitiger Wertschätzung, Achtung und Liebe aufruft (vgl. Nostra aetate, 4). Auch die Juden sind dazu aufgerufen zu entdecken, was sie mit all denen gemeinsam haben, die an den Herrn glauben, an den Gott Israels, der sich zuerst durch sein machtvolles und lebenspendendes Wort offenbart hat. Gottes Wort ist, wie uns der Psalmist erinnert, unserem Fuß eine Leuchte, ein Licht für unsere Pfade; es belebt uns und schenkt uns neues Leben (vgl. Ps 119,105). Jenes Wort spornt uns dazu an, gemeinsam Zeugnis für die Liebe, die Barmherzigkeit und die Wahrheit Gottes abzulegen. Das ist ein lebenswichtiger Dienst in unserer heutigen Zeit, die vom Verlust jener geistlichen und moralischen Werte bedroht ist, welche die Menschenwürde, die Solidarität, die Gerechtigkeit und den Frieden gewährleisten.

In unserer unruhigen Zeit, die so häufig von Armut, Gewalt und Ausbeutung gekennzeichnet ist, muß der Dialog zwischen den Kulturen und Religionen zunehmend als eine heilige Pflicht gesehen werden, die allen auferlegt ist, die sich für den Aufbau einer menschenwürdigen Welt einsetzen. Die Fähigkeit, einander zu akzeptieren und zu achten und die Wahrheit in Liebe auszusprechen, ist wesentlich, um Unterschiede zu überwinden, Mißverständnissen vorzubeugen und unnötige Auseinandersetzungen zu vermeiden. Wie Sie selbst im Laufe der Jahre bei den Treffen des »International Liaison Committee« erfahren haben, ist ein Dialog nur dann ernsthaft und ehrlich, wenn er die Unterschiede akzeptiert und die anderen gerade in ihrer Andersheit anerkennt. Ein aufrichtiger Dialog erfordert auf beiden Seiten sowohl Offenheit als auch ein festes Bewußtsein der eigenen Identität, damit jeder durch die Geschenke des anderen bereichert werden kann.

In den letzten Monaten konnte ich zu meiner Freude mit jüdischen Gemeinden in New York, Paris und hier im Vatikan zusammentreffen. Ich danke dem Herrn für diese Begegnungen und für den Fortschritt in den katholisch-jüdischen Beziehungen, die sie widerspiegeln. In diesem Geist ermutige ich Sie, in Ihrer wichtigen Arbeit mit Geduld und immer wieder neuem Engagement fortzufahren. Ich spreche Ihnen meine vom Gebet begleiteten guten Wünsche für das Treffen mit einer Delegation der Kommission des Heiligen Stuhls für die religiösen Beziehungen mit dem Judentum aus, das Ihr Komitee für den nächsten Monat in Budapest vorbereitet, um über das Thema »Religion und Zivilgesellschaft heute« zu diskutieren.

Mit diesen Gedanken, liebe Freunde, bitte ich den Allmächtigen, Sie und Ihre Familien weiterhin zu beschützen und Ihre Schritte auf dem Weg des Friedens zu lenken.

Unser Kommentar:
Nehmen wir zum x-ten Mal zur Kenntnis, dass der Papst, der Stellvertreter Christi, der erste, oberste, wichtigste, entscheidenste Hirte der christlichen Herde, (auch) die Juden, also Nicht-Christen, ja Gegen-Christen, seine “Freunde” nennt, dass er will, dass wir (katholischen) Christen diese seine Freunde auch als unsere Freunde “annehmen” (“akzeptieren”), achten und wertschätzen, dass wir “Unterschiede überwinden”, “unnötige Auseinandersetzungen vermeiden” und “Missverständnissen vorbeugen”, dass wir jede Form von “Antisemitimus”, das heißt auch jede Form von “Antijudentum” oder “Antijudaismus”, das heißt auch jede Form von (christlichem) Anti-Antichristentum als von ihm (und damit von der Kirche) “verurteilt” zu unterlassen haben, dass wir gläubigen Christen gefälligst der “Aufforderung” zu einem “erneuerten” (lies: zu einem neuen, mit dem 2000-jährigen Verständnis nicht mehr übereinstimmenden) theologischen Verständnis der Beziehungen zwischen der Kirche und dem jüdischen Volk nachzukommen haben. Denn “das Volk der Thora”, “das von Gott erwählte Volk”, zu dem er auch seine Freunde, die heute lebenden und bekennenden religiösen Juden, zählt, teile “ein geistliches Erbe” mit den Christen: das “zuerst offenbarte” “machtvolle und lebenspendende Wort Gottes” des Herrn, des Gottes Israels.
Nun hat aber die katholische Kirche ein ganz anderes Verhältnis zu den Schriften des “Alten Testamentes” (dem “zuerst offenbarten Wort Gottes”). Der größte und gewichtigste und alles beeinflussende und entscheidende Unterschied besteht (aber) in deren/dessen Auslegung. Vor allem sehen und erkennen die Christen in diesen heiligen Texten nicht nur die Ankündigung des Messias (vgl. jüdische Messiashoffnung), sondern klar und deutlich die bis ins Details gehenden prophetischen Hinweise auf JESUS CHRISTUS, das WORT GOTTES IN GÖTTLICHER PERSON, den LOGOS, Seine Geburt, Sein Leben, Sein Wirken, Sein Sterben, die Grundlegung und der Aufbau Seiner Kirche, des Reiches Gottes auf Erden, des “neuen Israel”, des Neuen und Ewigen Bundes mit Seinem Volk, den CHRISTEN. Und dieses komplett andere Verständnis des Wortes Gottes (im jüdischen Tanach und im christlichen Alten Testament) verunmöglicht und verbietet es uns Christen, das (gemeinsame) “Wort-Erbe” mit den Juden (geistlich) zu teilen. Mit ihrem das Wesentliche leugnenden und verwerfenden Glauben können sie uns kein “Geschenk” machen. Aus ihrem Unglauben können wir für uns keine Bereicherung schöpfen. Sie ihrerseits allerdings könnten aus unserem katholischen Glauben lernen. Die CHRISTLICHE Interpretation ihrer heiligen Schriften wäre dann für sie tatsächlich “ein Licht für ihre Pfade” und “ihrem Fuß eine Leuchte” und würde ihnen neues Leben, das Leben, das ewige Leben IN JESUS CHRISTUS schenken (vlg. Ps. 119,105). Und nur dann, wenn die bis jetzt anti-christlichen Juden sich zu CHRISTUS, dem HERRN und GOTT des NEUEN ISRAELS bekehren, können sie mit uns “gemeinsam Zeugnis für die Liebe, die Barmherzigkeit und die Wahrheit Gottes ablegen” und sich “für den Aufbau einer menschenwürdigen Welt einsetzen”. Nun aber widersetzen sie sich vehement einer Bekehrung, verurteilen sie entschieden und beharrlich ihre Missionierung durch uns Christen. Daran wird auch ein noch so freundschaftlicher, “entgegenkommender”, sie “in ihrer Andersheit anerkennender” Dialog mit ihnen nichts ändern. Die Christenheit aber wird durch eine solche Aufwertung, durch diese “Schönfärbung”, diese Anerkennung des Judaismus, durch diese Reinterpretation des Alten (neue Lesart: “Ersten”) Bundes fahrlässig geschwächt.