Cardinal Koch on Jewish-Catholic dialogue since Vatican II
Cardinal Kurt Koch, who heads the Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations with
the Jews, gave a lecture on Wednesday at the Pontifical ‘Angelicum’ University on
the past 50 years of Christian-Jewish dialogue since the Second Vatican Council. The
lecture, organised by the University’s John Paul II Center for Interreligious Dialogue
and the Russell Berrie Foundation, was entitled ‘Building on Nostra Aetate’ the landmark
declaration which marks the Magna Carta of the Church’s relationship to the Jewish
people. In his talk, the Swiss Cardinal reviewed developments that have taken place
since then and explored some open theological questions in the dialogue between the
two faiths.
Listen to Philippa Hitchen’s interview with Cardinal Kurt Koch:
Read the full
text of Cardinal Kurt Koch's lecture at the Pontifical University of St Thomas Aquinas:
Building on “Nostra aetate”: 50 Years of Christian–Jewish Dialogue
I
am honoured to be here today to present the John Paul II Lecture on Interreligious
Understanding, the fifth in a series of prestigious annual lectures organised by the
John Paul II Center for Interreligious Dialogue held at the Angelicum University.
In a special way, this University is committed to fostering ecumenical and interreligious
dialogue at the academic level. The John Paul II Center is a partnership between the
Angelicum and the Russell Berrie Foundation, and I am very pleased to acknowledge
the presence of Angelica Berrie, President of the Foundation, whose name seems to
reflect the joint aspirations that motivated the creation of the Center. I would like
also to mention in this context the Russell Berrie Fellowship Program, which aims
to develop the exchange of insights and the bonds of friendship and mutual understanding
that we hope will resonate well beyond the academic environment. The focus of this
presentation will be the historical developments in the Jewish–Catholic dialogue made
possible by the Conciliar document “Nostra aetate”. “Nostra Aetate”: YES to
our Jewish roots, NO to anti–Semitism
On the Catholic side, the Declaration
of the Second Vatican Council on the relationship of the church to the non–Christian
religions, “Nostra aetate”, can be considered the beginning of a systematic dialogue
with the Jews. Still today it is considered the “foundation document” and the “Magna
Charta” of the dialogue of the Roman Catholic Church with Judaism, so my tour d’horizon
of the Jewish–Catholic conversation must begin there. It did not develop in a
vacuum, since on the Christian side there had already been approaches to Judaism both
within and outside the Catholic Church before the Council. But after the unprecedented
crime of the Shoah above all, an effort was made in the post–War period towards a
theologically reflected re–definition of the relationship with Judaism. Following
the mass murder of the European Jews planned and executed by the National Socialists
with industrial perfection, a profound examination of conscience was initiated about
how such a barbaric scenario was possible in the Christian–oriented West. Must we
assume that anti–Jewish tendencies present within Christianity for centuries were
complicit in the anti–Semitism of the Nazis, racially motivated and led astray by
a godless and neo–pagan ideology, or simply allowing it to run its course? Among Christians
too there were both perpetrators and victims; but the broad masses surely consisted
of passive spectators who kept their eyes closed in the face of this brutal reality.
The Shoah therefore became a question and an accusation against Christianity: Why
did Christian resistance against the boundless brutality of the Nazi crimes not demonstrate
that measure and that clarity which one should rightfully have expected? Have Christians
and Jews today the will and the strength for conciliation and reconciliation on the
common foundation of faith in the one and only God of Israel? What significance does
Judaism have in the future for churches and ecclesial communities, and in what theological
relationship do we stand today in connection with Judaism? Soon after the end of
the Second World War, the Christian side confronted the phenomenon of anti–Semitism
at the International Emergency Conference on Anti–Semitism which took place at Seelisberg
from 30 July to 5 August 1947. About 65 persons, Jews and Christians from various
denominations, met for wide–ranging reflection on how anti–Semitism could be eradicated
at its roots. The meeting at Seelisberg aimed at laying a new foundation for the dialogue
between Jews and Christians, and giving a stimulus towards mutual understanding. The
perspectives which have become known as the “Ten Points of Seelisberg” have over time
become path–breaking, and in one way or another found their way into the Council declaration
“Nostra aetate”, even though in this text a decidedly theological framework was given
to the relationship with Judaism. This declaration in fact begins with a reflection
on the mystery of the church and a reminder of the deep bond which links the people
of the New Covenant with the tribe of Abraham in a spiritual way. “Nostra aetate”
and the “Ten Points of Seelisberg” both emphasise that the disdain, disparagement
and contempt of Judaism must be avoided at all costs, and therefore the Jewish roots
of Christianity are explicitly given prominence. At the same time the two declarations
converge – each naturally in a different way – in rejecting the accusation which has
unfortunately survived over centuries in various places, that the Jews were “deicides”. In
the Christian sphere, coming to terms with the Shoah is certainly one of the major
motivations leading to the drafting of “Nostra aetate”. But other reasons can surely
also be identified: Within Catholic theology following the appearance of the encyclical
“Divino afflante spiritu” by Pope Pius XII in 1943, biblical studies were opened up
– though with cautious beginners’ steps – to historical–critical biblical interpretation,
which implies that one began to read the biblical texts in their historic context
and within the religious traditions prevailing in their time. This process ultimately
found its doctrinal expression in the Conciliar decree on divine revelation “Dei verbum”,
or more precisely in the instruction that the exegete should carefully research what
the authors of the biblical texts really intended to say: “Those who search out the
intentions of the sacred writers must among other things have regard for literary
forms. For truth is proposed and expressed in a variety of ways, depending on whether
a text is history of one kind or another, or whether its form is that of prophecy,
poetry or some other form of speech.” The precise observation of historical religious
traditions reflected in the texts of sacred scripture had as a consequence that the
figure of Jesus of Nazareth was located ever more clearly within the Judaism of his
time. In this way the New Testament was placed entirely within the framework of Jewish
traditions, and Jesus was perceived as a Jew of his time who felt an obligation to
these traditions. This view also found its way into the Council declaration “Nostra
aetate”, when it states with reference to the Letter to the Romans (9:5), that “Jesus
stems according to the flesh from the people of Israel, and the church recalls the
fact that the apostles, her foundation stones and pillars, sprang from the Jewish
people, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ to the world.”
Since “Nostra aetate” it has therefore become part of the cantus firmus of Jewish–Christian
dialogue to call to mind and to emphasise the Jewish roots of the Christian faith.
During his visit to the Roman synagogue on 13 April 1986 Pope John Paul II expressed
this in the vivid and impressive words: “The Jewish religion is not something ‘extrinsic’
to us but in a certain way is ‘intrinsic’ to our own religion. With Judaism we therefore
have a relationship we do not have with any other religion. You are our dearly beloved
brothers and in a certain way it could be said, our elder brothers.” However, it
was not only theological insights which led the Christian side to seek theoretical
and practical rapprochement with Judaism. In fact, political and pragmatic reasons
also played a not inconsequential role in this. Since the foundation of the State
of Israel in 1948, the Catholic Church sees itself confronted in the Holy Land with
the reality that it has to develop its pastoral life within a state which decidedly
understands itself as Jewish. Israel is the only land in the world with a majority
Jewish population, and for that reason alone the Christians living there must necessarily
engage in dialogue with them. In this regard the Holy See has consistently pursued
two goals, that is enabling on the one hand unhindered pastoral activity of the Catholic
congregations in the Holy Land, and on the other, free access to the sacred sites
of Christians for Christian pilgrims. That requires in the first instance political
dialogue with the ruling executive of the State of Israel, which from the Jewish perspective
must naturally always be embedded in a dialogue with the religious authorities of
Judaism. Christians seem to be rather inclined to differentiate and delimit political
and religious affairs from one another, while Judaism strives to converge and integrate
the two dimensions. Whatever motives and factors may have individually led to the
drafting of “Nostra aetate”, the declaration remains the crucial compass of all endeavours
towards Jewish–Catholic dialogue, and after 47 years we can claim with gratitude that
this theological re–definition of the relationship with Judaism has directly brought
forth rich fruits throughout its reception history. It seems that as far as content
is concerned the Council fathers at that time took into consideration almost everything
which has since proved to be significant in the history of the dialogue. On the Jewish
side it is particularly positively emphasised that the Conciliar Declaration took
up an unambiguous position against every form of anti–Semitism. It is not least on
that basis that the Jews are and remain borne up by the hope that they can rest assured
that in the Catholic Church they have a reliable ally in the struggle against anti–Semitism. With
regard to the reception history of Conciliar documents, one can without doubt dare
to assert that “Nostra aetate” is to be reckoned among those Council texts which have
in a convincing manner been able to effect a fundamental re–orientation of the Catholic
Church following the Council. This of course only becomes clear to us when we consider
that previously there was in part a great reluctance regarding contacts between Jews
and Catholics, arising in part from the history of Christianity with its discrimination
against Jews extending even to forced conversions. The fundamental principle of respect
for Judaism expressed in “Nostra aetate” has over the course of recent decades made
it possible for groups who initially confronted one another with scepticism to step
by step become reliable partners and even good friends, capable of coping with crises
together and overcoming conflicts positively. Other Vatican documents
as follow–ups of “Nostra aetate”
The dialogue endeavours which developed
gradually after the Council were entrusted in the Roman Curia to the Secretariat for
Promoting Christian Unity, for the understandable reason that the leader of this Secretariat,
the German Curia Cardinal Augustin Bea, had in the year 1960 – before the Council
– been commissioned by Pope John XXIII to prepare with his staff a draft for a Council
document dealing with the new relationship of the Catholic Church with Judaism. As
is well known, this project led to the Council Declaration “Nostra aetate”, which
of course focussed on the relationship of the Church with all non–Christian religions.
This means that Article 4 of “Nostra aetate”, which deals with relations with Judaism,
forms both the starting–point and the heart of this Declaration. Towards the end of
the Council, a special secretariat was formed for inter–religious dialogue, with the
task of promoting relations with Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism and other non–Christian
religions, so that today in the Roman Curia there is a Pontifical Council for Inter–religious
Dialogue, and within the Council for Promoting Christian Unity a Commission for Religious
Relations with the Jews. While this special Commission, which was founded by Pope
Paul VI on 22 October 1974, is organisationally aligned with the Pontifical Council
for Promoting Christian Unity, it is structurally independent and entrusted with the
task of accompanying and promoting the religious dialogue with Judaism. This structure
is in general positively assessed by the Jewish dialogue partners. It also makes good
sense from a theological point of view to combine this Commission with the Council
for Promoting Christian Unity, since the separation of Church and Synagogue can be
considered the first schism in the history of the church, or as the Catholic theologian
Erich Przywara has called it, the “primal rift”, from which he derives the later progressive
loss of wholeness of the Catholica: “The rift between the Eastern and the Western
church, the rift between the Roman church and the pluriversum of the Reformation (the
countless churches and sects) form part of the primal rift between Judaism (the non–Christian
Jews) and Christianity (the ‘Gentiles’ in the language of the Pauline letters).” Already
in the year it was founded, on 1 December 1974, the Commission published its first
official document with the title “Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing the
Conciliar Declaration “Nostra aetate” (No.4)”. The crucial concern of this document
consists in giving expression to the high esteem in which Christianity holds Judaism
and stressing the great significance of dialogue with the Jews for the church, as
stated in the words of the document: “On the practical level in particular, Christians
must therefore strive to acquire a better knowledge of the basic components of the
religious tradition of Judaism: they must strive to learn by what essential traits
the Jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience.” On the
basis of the testimony of faith in Jesus Christ, the document reflects on the specific
nature of the dialogue with Judaism, reference is made to reciprocal connections existing
in the liturgy, new possibilities for rapprochement in the spheres of teaching, education
and training, and finally suggestions are made for common social action. Eleven
years later on 24 June 1985, the Commission was able to present a second document
with the title “Notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching
and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church”. This document has a stronger theological–exegetical
orientation in so far as it reflects on the relationship of the Old and New Testaments,
demonstrates the Jewish roots of Christian faith, explicates the manner in which “the
Jews” are represented in the New Testament, points out the commonalities in liturgy,
above all in the great festivals of the church year, and alludes to the relationship
of Judaism and Christianity in history. As the title indicates, the focus of this
document lies on the way Judaism is handled as a subject in preaching and catechesis
in the Catholic Church. Of particular interest is the fact that this document also
makes reference to the State of Israel, which has a special significance for observant
Jews, but at the same time again and again provokes political tensions. With regard
to this “land of the forefathers” the document emphasises: “Christians are invited
to understand this religious attachment which finds its roots in biblical tradition
without however making their own any particular religious interpretation of this relationship.
The existence of the State of Israel and its political options should be envisaged
in a perspective which is not in itself religious, but in their reference to the common
principles of international law”. The permanence of Israel is however to be perceived
as an “historical fact” and as a “sign to be interpreted within God’s design”. The
third and latest document of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews
was presented to the public on 16 March 1998. It deals with the Shoah under the title
“We remember. A reflection on the Shoah”. The major impetus for this text came from
the Jewish side. It delivers the harsh judgement that the balance of the 2000 year
relationship between Jews and Christians is rather negative, it recalls the attitude
of Christians towards the anti–Semitism of the National Socialists and focuses on
the duty of Christians to remember the human catastrophe of the Shoah. In a letter
at the beginning of this declaration Pope John Paul II expresses his hope that this
document will really “help to heal the wounds of past misunderstandings and injustices.
May it enable memory to play its necessary part in shaping a future in which the unspeakable
iniquity of the Shoah will never again be possible.” In the series of Vatican
documents reference must finally also be made to that voluminous text which was published
by the Pontifical Bible Commission on 24 May 2001 and which deals explicitly with
Jewish–Catholic dialogue: “The Jewish People and their Sacred Scripture in the Christian
Bible”. This involves the exegetically and theologically most weighty document of
the Jewish–Catholic conversation and represents a rich treasure–trove of common topics
which have their basis in the scriptures of Judaism and Christianity. The Sacred Scripture
of the Jewish people is considered as “the fundamental component of the Christian
bible”, the fundamental themes of the Scripture of the Jewish people and their adoption
in the faith in Christ are discussed, and the manner in which Jews are represented
in the New Testament is illuminated in detail. In the Foreword the Prefect of the
Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith at that time, Cardinal Josef Ratzinger,
advocates a “new respect for the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament. On this
subject the document says two things. First it declares that the Jewish reading of
the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Scriptures of the Second
Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading, which developed in parallel
fashion” (no. 22). It adds that Christians can learn a great deal from Jewish exegesis
practised for more than 2000 years; in return Christians may hope that Jews can profit
from Christian exegetical research.” Institutional dialogues at global
level and their lines of development
Texts and documents, as important
as they are, cannot replace personal encounters and dialogues face to face. In the
first instance mention must be made of the many initiatives by individual Episcopal
Conferences, local churches and academic institutions, which cannot of course be considered
in detail here, although it is precisely in these places that concrete steps towards
positive collaboration between Jews and Catholics are undertaken. The Holy See’s Commission
is however happy to support such initiatives which assist in intensifying our friendship
with Judaism. In the present context I must however concentrate on the institutional
dialogues which the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews assists
in organising and conducting. Even before the establishment of the Holy See’s Commission,
there were contacts and links with various Jewish organisations which were of course
located within the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. Since Judaism is multi–facetted
and not presented as an organisational unity, the Catholic side was faced with the
difficulty of deciding with whom one should take up actual dialogue, because it was
not possible to conduct individual and independent dialogue with all Jewish groupings
and organisations who had declared their readiness to dialogue. To resolve this problem
the Jewish organisations took up the suggestion by the Catholic side to establish
a single organisation for the religious dialogue. The so–called International Jewish
Committee on Interreligious Consultations (IJCIC) represents on the Jewish side the
official partner for the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews.
It comprises almost all large Jewish organisations, of which not a few have their
seat in the USA. The IJCIC was able to commence its work in 1970, and organised
already one year later the first joint conference in Paris. The conferences which
have been conducted regularly since then are the expression of the so–called International
Catholic–Jewish Liaison Committee (ILC), and they shape the collaboration between
the IJCIC and the Holy See’s Commission. In February of 2011 at the 21st
Conference of the ILC we were able to look back with gratitude on 40 years of institutional
dialogue and celebrate this jubilee once more in Paris. Much has developed over the
past 40 years: confrontation has turned into successful collaboration, the previous
conflict potential has become positive conflict management, and the co–existence of
the past has been replaced by a load–bearing friendship. The bonds of friendship forged
in the meantime have proved to be stable, so that it has become possible to tackle
even controversial subjects together without the danger of permanent damage being
done to the dialogue. This was all the more necessary because over the past decades
the dialogue had not always been free of tensions. We need only recall the crises
provoked in the eighties by the so–called “Waldheim affair” or the planned “Carmel
in Auschwitz”. In most recent times one thinks of the so–called “Williamson affair”
or also the very divergent opinions regarding a beatification of Pope Pius XII, whereby
the attentive observer can hardly avoid the conclusion that on the part of the Jews
the verdicts on this Pope have changed from the original profound gratitude to profound
anxiety only since the drama by Hochhuth. In general however one can observe with
appreciation that in Jewish–Catholic dialogue since the turn of the millennium above
all, intensive attempts have been made to deal with any arising differences of opinion
and conflicts openly and with a positive goal in mind, so that in this way the mutual
relations have become stronger and the proverbial wisdom has been confirmed that when
a torn bond is joined together again, the distance between the two ends becomes shorter, Beside
the dialogue with the IJCIC the institutional conversation with the Chief Rabbinate
in Jerusalem should also be mentioned, which is clearly to be soon as a fruit of the
encounter of Pope John Paul II with the Chief Rabbis in Jerusalem during his visit
to Israel in March 2000. The first meeting was organised in June 2002 in Jerusalem,
and since then a total of 11 such meetings have been conducted, which have taken place
in Rome and Jerusalem alternately. The two delegations are relatively small so that
a very personal and intensive discussion on various subjects is possible such as on
the sanctity of life, the status of the family, the significance of the sacred scriptures
for communal life, religious freedom, the ethical foundations of human behaviour,
the ecological challenge, the relationship of secular and religious authority and
the essential qualities of religious leadership in secular society. Since those taking
part in the meetings on the Catholic side are bishops and priests and on the Jewish
side almost exclusively rabbis it is hardly surprising that the individual subjects
are also examined from a religious perspective. This statement is astonishing because
normally within Orthodox Judaism the tendency prevails to avoid religious and theological
questions. The dialogue with the Chief Rabbinate has in this regard enabled a further
opening of Orthodox Judaism with Roman Catholic Church at a global level. After each
meeting a joint declaration is published which in each instance testifies how rich
the common spiritual heritage of Judaism and Christianity is and what valuable treasures
are still to be unearthed. In reviewing ten years of the dialogue we can gratefully
affirm that an intensive friendship has resulted which represents a firm foundation
for the path into the future. The dialogue efforts of the Holy See’s Commission
for Religious Relations with the Jews cannot of course be restricted to these two
institutional dialogues. It is in fact intent on being open to all streams within
Judaism and maintaining contact with all Jewish groupings and organisations that wish
to establish links with the Holy See. The Jewish side shows a particular interest
in private audiences with the Pope, which are in every instance prepared by us. Besides
the direct contacts with Judaism the Commission also strives to provide impulses within
the Catholic Church for dialogue with Judaism and to work together with individual
Bishops’ Conferences to support them locally in the promotion of Jewish–Catholic conversation.
The introduction of the “Dies Judaicus” is a good example of this. Over the past
decades both the “dialogue ad extra” and the “dialogue ad intra” have led with increasing
clarity to the awareness that Christians and Jews are dependent on one another and
the dialogue between the two is as far as theology is concerned not a matter of choice
but of duty. Jews and Christians are precisely in their difference the one people
of God who can enrich one another in mutual friendship. I do not have the right to
judge what Judaism may gain from this dialogue for its own purposes. I can only join
Cardinal Walter Kasper in expressing the wish that it recognise that “separating Judaism
from Christianity” would mean “robbing it of its universality”, which was already
promised to Abraham. For the Christian church however it is certainly true that without
Judaism it is in danger of losing its location with salvation history and in the end
declining into an unhistorical Gnosis. Pope John Paul II and Jewish–Catholic
dialogue
When one envisages the ramifications of Jewish–Christian dialogue,
it becomes apparent that it must again and again be testified by concrete and authentic
persons in order to remain vital. Certainly the documents and dialogues which have
already been mentioned were inspired, prepared and realised by authoritative witnesses
to Jewish–Christian dialogue. But it was always their goal that they should be translated
into concrete reality by the personal engagement of further witnesses. One is reminded
of John M. Oesterreicher, who as a convert dedicated his whole life and work to Jewish–Christian
dialogue and also participated decisively in the drafting of “Nostra aetate”. Many
fruitful initiatives towards the promotion of Jewish–Christian conversation which
took place after the Council in various local churches must also be mentioned with
gratitude. But for the Roman Catholic Church the signal effect emanating from the
papacy is and remains of particular significance. Although Pope Paul VI had already
taken decisive steps towards rapprochement with Judaism, the engagement in this issue
by the leadership of the Catholic Universal Church was only really apprehended by
the wider public in the form of Pope John Paul II. His passionate endeavours for Jewish–Christian
dialogue surely have their roots initially in his personal biography. Karol Wojtyla
grew up in the small Polish town of Wadowice which consisted to at least one quarter
of Jewish. Since everyday contact and friendship with Jews was taken for granted already
in his childhood it was for him as Pope an important concern to maintain his friendship
with a Jewish school friend, and to intensify the bonds of friendship with Judaism
in general. Beyond that, John Paul was able to give visible expression to his concern
for reconciliation with Judaism through grand public gestures. Already in the first
year of his pontificate on 7 June 1979 he visited the former concentration camp of
Auschwitz–Birkenau, where in front of the memorial stone with its Hebrew inscription
he recalled the victims of the Shoah in a particular manner with the moving words:
“This inscription awakens the memory of the People whose sons and daughters were intended
for total extermination. This People draws its origin from Abraham, our Father in
faith (cf. Rom 4:12) as was expressed by Paul of Tarsus. The very People that received
from God the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” itself experienced in a special measure
what is meant by killing. It is not permissible for anyone to pass by this inscription
with indifference.” Even more attention was paid by the public media to the visit
by Pope John Paul II to the Roman synagogue on 13 April 1986, which is also accorded
special significance because there was a Jewish community in Rome long before the
Christian faith was brought to Rome. The historical significance of this event however
is based above all on the fact that it was the first time in history the Bishop of
Rome has visited a synagogue, to bear testimony to his respect for Judaism before
the whole world. The gesture of the embrace of the Chief Rabbi Elio Toaff and Pope
John Paul II remains an indelible memory. Also to be seen against the background
of the document “We remember. A reflection on the Shoah” is the prayer for forgiveness
with which the Pope on 12 March in the Holy Year 2000 prayed for forgiveness of guilt
towards the people of Israel in a public liturgy: “We are deeply saddened by the behaviour
of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer,
and asking your forgiveness we wish to omit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with
the people of the Covenant.” In a slightly altered form Pope John Paul inserted this
prayer for forgiveness as a written petition between the stones of the Wailing Wall
in Jerusalem during his visit to Israel on 26 March 2000. The visit to the State of
Israel by the Pope must therefore be evaluated not simply as an historic event, especially
since the diplomatic recognition of the State of Israel by the Holy See had taken
place in December 1993. The pope’s visit to Israel represented instead a unique stimulus
for the promotion of Jewish–Catholic conversation. As the Pope visited the Holocaust
Memorial Yad–Vashem, he commemorated the victims of the Shoah and prayed for them,
he met with survivors of this incomparable tragedy and he entered into contact for
the first time with the Jerusalem Chief Rabbinate. Later he met the two Chief Rabbis
once more on 16 January 2004 in the Apostolic Palace. In addition, John Paul II repeatedly
received Jewish personalities and groups, and during his numerous pastoral journeys
his obligatory program always included an encounter with a local Jewish delegation
wherever there was a sizeable Jewish community. When one reviews in retrospect
the great engagement of Pope John Paul II for Jewish –Catholic dialogue, one can without
hesitation pronounce the judgement that during his long pontificate the course was
set for the future of this necessary conversation and there can be no going back behind
that which was then achieved. It is therefore not surprising that to this day John
Paul II is held in high esteem by the Jewish dialogue partners and the admiration
for him and his work of reconciliation remains unbroken. Pope Benedict
XVI and dialogue with the Jews
There can be no doubt that the great endeavours
by Pope John Paul II for Jewish–Catholic dialogue was theologically legitimated and
supported by the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger. In the course of his duties at that time he himself maintained
personal contact with Jews and published groundbreaking articles on the specific relationship
of Christianity to Judaism within the context of world religions. The foundation for
this view of Ratzinger the theologian lies in his conviction that Sacred Scripture
can only be understood as one single book as he explains himself in a biographical
note: “So the decisive step for me was to learn to understand the connection between
the Old and the New Testament, which is the foundation of all patristic theology.
This theology depends on the interpretation of the scripture, the core of patristic
exegesis is the concordia testamentorum mediated by Christ in the Holy Spirit.” On
this basis it is axiomatic for Joseph Ratzinger that there can be no access to Jesus
and therefore no entry of the nations into the people of God without the acceptance
in faith of the revelation of God who speaks in the Sacred Scripture which Christians
term the Old Testament. It is therefore a core concern for him to demonstrate the
profound connections of New Testament themes with Old Testament message, so that both
the intrinsic continuity between the New and the Old Testament and the innovation
of the New Testament message are clearly illuminated. Joseph Ratzinger’s verdict on
the trial of Jesus in his book on Jesus of Nazareth for example, which has been acknowledged
with particular gratitude on the part of the Jews, namely that the biblical report
of the trial of Jesus cannot serve as the basis for any assertion of collective Jewish
guilt, was already clearly perceived by the theologian Ratzinger: “Jesus’ blood raises
no call for retaliation but calls all to reconciliation. It has become as the letter
to the Hebrews shows, itself the permanent Day of Atonement of God.” Against the
background of these theological convictions it cannot surprise us that Pope Benedict
XVI carries on and progresses the conciliatory work of his predecessor with regard
to Jewish–Catholic conversation. He not only addressed the first letter in his pontificate
to the Chief Rabbi in Rome but also gave an assurance at his first encounter with
a Jewish delegation on 9 June 2005 that the church was moving firmly on the fundamental
principles of “Nostra aetate” and he intended to continue the dialogue in the footsteps
of his predecessors. In reviewing the seven years of his pontificate we find that
he has in this short space of time taken all those steps which Pope John Paul took
in his 27–year pontificate: Pope Benedict XVI visited the former concentration camp
Auschwitz–Birkenau on 28 May 2006; during his visit to Israel in May 2009 he too stood
before the Wailing Wall, he met with the Chief Rabbinate of Jerusalem and prayed for
the victims of the Shoah in Yad Vashem; and on 17 January 2010 he was warmly received
by the Jewish community in Rome in their synagogue. His first visit to a synagogue
was of course made already on 19 August 2005 in Cologne on the occasion of World Youth
Day, and on 18 April 2008 he visited the Park East Synagogue in New York. So we can
claim with gratitude that no other Pope in history has visited as many synagogues
as Benedict XVI. All of these activities are indeed marked by his own personal
style. While Pope John Paul II had a refined sense for grand gestures and strong images,
Benedict XVI relies above all on the power of the word and humble encounter. That
was given particularly clear expression during his visit to the memorial Yad Vashem
when he deliberately referred to the name of this place and meditated on the God–given
inalienability of the name of each individual person: “One can weave an insidious
web of lies to convince others that certain groups are undeserving of respect. Yet
try as one might, one can never take away the name of a fellow human being.” Also
deserving of special mention is the inimitable spiritual meditation by Pope Benedict
XVI on the Decalogue, which he acknowledged as the “pole star of faith and of the
morality of the people of God”, during his visit to the Chief Synagogue in Rome. In
this way Pope Benedict XVI endeavours again and again through the power of his words
and his spiritual profundity to highlight the multi–facetted riches of the common
spiritual heritage of Judaism and Christianity and to add theological depth to the
guidelines set down by the declaration “Nostra aetate”, to which we will return again
in conclusion. Open theological questions in Jewish–Catholic dialogue
The
Declaration of the Second Vatican Council on Judaism, that is the fourth Article of
“Nostra aetate”, stood, as has surely become clear, in a decidedly theological framework.
That is not meant to claim that all theological questions which arise in the relationship
of Christianity and Judaism were solved there. They did receive there a promising
stimulus, but require further theological reflection. That is also indicated by the
fact that this Council document, unlike all other texts of the Second Vatican Council,
could not in its notes refer back to preceding doctrinal documents and decisions of
previous councils. Of course there had been earlier magisterial texts which focussed
on Judaism, but “Nostra aetate” provides the first theological overview of the relationship
of the Catholic Church to the Jews. Because it was such a breakthrough, the Council
text is not infrequently over–interpreted, and things are read into it which it does
not in fact contain. To name an important example: That the covenant that God made
with his people Israel persists and is never invalidated – although this confession
is true – cannot be read into “Nostra aetate”. This statement was instead first made
with full clarity by Pope John Paul II when he said during a meeting with Jewish representatives
in Mainz on 17 November 1980 that the Old Covenant had never been revoked by God:
“The first dimension of this dialogue, namely the encounter between God’s people of
the Old Covenant which has never been revoked by God and that of the New Covenant
is at the same time a dialogue within our church, as it were between the first and
second book of her bible.” This statement too has given rise to misunderstandings,
for example the implication that if the Jews remain in a valid covenant relationship
with God, there must be two different ways of salvation, namely the Jewish path of
salvation without Christ and the path of salvation for all other people, which leads
through Jesus Christ. As obvious as this answer seems to be at first glance, it is
not able to solve satisfactorily at least the highly complex theological question
how the Christian belief in the universal salvific significance of Jesus Christ can
coherently be conceptually combined with the equally clear conviction of faith in
the never–revoked covenant of God with Israel. That the church and Judaism cannot
be represented as “two parallel ways to salvation”, but that the church must “witness
to Christ as the Redeemer for all” was established already in the second document
published by the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews in 1985.
The Christian faith stands or falls by the confession that God wants to lead all people
to salvation, that he follows this path in Jesus Christ as the universal mediator
of salvation, and that there is no “other name under heaven given to the human race
by which we are to be saved” (Acts 4:12). The concept of two parallel paths of salvation
would in the least call into question or even endanger the fundamental understanding
of the Second Vatican Council that Jews and Christians do not belong to two different
peoples of God, but that they form one people of God. On the one hand, from the
Christian confession there can be only one path to salvation. However, on the other
hand, it does not necessarily follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation
because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of
God. Such a claim would find no support in the soteriological understanding of St
Paul, who in the Letter to the Romans definitively negates the question he himself
has posed, whether God has repudiated his own people: “For the grace and call that
God grants are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). That the Jews are participants in God’s salvation
is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ
explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery. It is therefore no accident
that Paul’s soteriological reflections in Romans 9–11 on the irrevocable redemption
of Israel against the background of the Christ–mystery culminate in a mysterious doxology:
“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How inscrutable are
his judgments and how unsearchable his ways” (Rom 11:33). It is likewise no accident
that Pope Benedict XVI in the second part of his book on Jesus of Nazareth allows
Bernard of Clairvaux to say in reference to the problem confronting us, that for the
Jews “a determined point in time has been fixed, which cannot be anticipated”. This
complexity is also attested by the re–formulation of the Good Friday Prayer for the
Jews in the extraordinary form of the Roman rite which was published in February 2008.
Although the new Good Friday prayer in the form of a plea to God confesses the universality
of salvation in Jesus Christ within an eschatological horizon (“as the fullness of
the peoples enters your church”), it has been vigorously criticised on the part of
Jews – and of course also of Christians – and misunderstood as a call to explicit
mission to the Jews. It is easy to understand that the term ‘mission to the Jews’
is a very delicate and sensitive matter for the Jews because in their eyes it involves
the very existence of Israel itself. On the other hand however, this question also
proves to be awkward for us Christians too, because for us the universal salvific
significance of Jesus Christ and consequently the universal mission of the church
are of fundamental significance. The Christian church is naturally obligated to perceive
its evangelisation task in respect of the Jews, who believe in the one God, in a different
manner from that to the nations. In concrete terms this means that – in contrast to
several fundamentalist and evangelical movements – the Catholic Church neither conducts
nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews. In his
detailed examination of the question of so–called mission to the Jews Cardinal Karl
Lehmann rightly discerned that on closer investigation one finds “as good as no institutional
mission to the Jews in Catholic mission history”. “We have an abundant share in other
forms of inappropriate attitudes towards the Jews and therefore have no right to elevate
ourselves above others. But in respect to a specific and exclusive ‘mission to the
Jews’ there should be no false consternation or unjustified self–accusation in this
regard.” The in–principle rejection of an institutional mission to the Jews does not
on the other hand exclude that Christians bear witness to their faith in Jesus Christ
also to Jews, but they should do so in an unassuming and humble manner, particularly
in view of the great tragedy of the Shoah. Prospects
It
must be obvious that within the framework of this conference it is not possible to
delve more deeply into these open theological questions. That a good deal more effort
in theological reflection is required is also affirmed by the project published in
2011, “Christ Jesus and the Jewish People Today“, produced as an initiative of the
Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews by an informally convoked
international group of Christian theologians, to which individual Jewish experts and
friends were invited to participate as critical observers. No matter how worthwhile
this attempt may be to examine anew the specific question of how to conceptually reconcile
the Christian confession of the universal soteriological significance of Jesus Christ
with the equally Christian faith conviction that God steadfastly stands by his covenant
with Israel with historical–soteriological faithfulness, Cardinal Walter Kasper states
realistically in his preface, that even this conversation has in no way arrived at
a conclusion: “We are only standing at the threshold of a new beginning. Many exegetical,
historical and systematical questions are still open and there will presumably always
be such questions.” Jewish–Catholic dialogue will therefore never be unemployed,
especially at the academic level, particularly since the epoch–making new course set
by the Second Vatican Council regarding the relationship between Jews and Christians
is naturally constantly being put to the test. On the one hand the scourge of anti–Semitism
seems to be ineradicable in today’s world; and even in Christian theology the age–old
Marcionism and anti–Judaism re–emerge with a vengeance again and again, and in fact
not only on the part of the traditionalists but even within the liberal strands of
current theology. In view of such developments the Catholic Church is obliged to denounce
anti–Judaism and Marcionism as a betrayal of its own Christian faith, and to call
to mind that the spiritual fraternity between Jews and Christians has its firm and
eternal foundation in Holy Scripture. **On the other hand, the demand by the Second
Vatican Council to foster mutual understanding and respect between Jews and Christians
must continue to be accorded due attention. That is the indispensable prerequisite
for guaranteeing that there will be no recurrence of the dangerous estrangement between
Christians and Jews, but that they remain aware of their spiritual kinship. We will
therefore be grateful for every contribution made here to expand the dialogue with
Judaism on the foundation of “Nostra aetate”, and to arrive at a better understanding
between Jews and Christians so that Jews and Christians as the one people of God bear
witness to peace and reconciliation in the unreconciled world of today and can thus
be a blessing not only for one another but also jointly for humanity.