Other articles from this issue | Version in English | Version in French

Documentation

ANTISEMITISM AND UNFAITHFUL INTERPRETATION OF THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES –
Good Friday Homily by Raniero Cantalamessa, OFM Cap.,St. Peter’s Basilica, Rome, April 10, 1998(1)


In his apostolic letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente which, like a star, is guiding the Catholic Church towards the Jubilee of the year 2000, Pope John Paul II has written: “As the second Christian millennium is ending it is right that the Church acknowledge, with a deep awareness, the sinfulness of its children...The Church cannot cross the threshold of the new millennium without urging its faithful to purify themselves through repentance from errors, infidelities, inconsistencies and delays.” (n. 33) Among these failures the sin against the Jewish people is particularly significant. At the end of the Symposium on Christians and antisemitism, which took place at the Vatican from Oct. 30 to Nov. 1, 1997, the Pope affirmed: “For too long erroneous and unjust interpretations of the New Testament regarding the Jewish people and their supposed guilt have circulated in the Christian world, generating feelings of hostility toward this people. This contributed to the dulling of consciences so that, when the wave of persecution inspired by pagan antisemitism erupted in Europe..., the spiritual resistance of many was not that which humanity had a right to expect from the disciples of Christ.” (Oct. 31, 1997)

For a long time the theological foundations of our faith have permitted a clear assumption of this responsibility without undermining in any way our faith in the Church which is itself “holy and immaculate”. (cf. LG, 8: “sancta simul et semper purificanda.”) However, in the Church’s request for pardon there is also a theological implication which must not go unnoticed. When the Church assumes responsibility for the sins of its children, she performs what may be the most beautiful act possible on earth: she exculpates God, she proclaims that God is innocent, “anaitios o Theos! God is without fault”; it is we who have sinned. She says with the prophet: “Saving justice is the Lord’s; we have only the look of shame we bear!” (Bar 1:15)

Throughout the centuries Good Friday was the main cultural context for misunderstanding of and hostility toward the Jews. It is therefore right that the work of reconciliation and “purification of memory “ begin on Good Friday. St. Paul offers this interpretation of the event of the Cross: “He himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the barrier of separation...to reconcile them both to God in one Body through the Cross, thereby putting to death the enmity...For through him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.” (Eph 2:14-18) The two people referred to are, of course, the Jews and the gentiles.

This prophetic vision of the apostle was greatly obscured by the events of life. In a second century C.E. Good Friday homily in Asia Minor, Melito of Sardis cast the first unnuanced accusation of deicide against the Jews: “What have you done, Israel? During your great feast you have killed your Lord. O listen, you descendents of the nations, and see. Your King is outraged. God is murdered...by the hand of Israel.” (About Easter, 73-96: Sch 123) Already at the time of Melito the genre of the Improperia, or the Reproaches, was being developed through this anti-Jewish polemic. Later this genre was incorporated into the Latin liturgy of the adoration of the Cross. One by one God’s miraculous actions on behalf of Israel are enumerated and the ingratitude of the people is juxtaposed to each: “He delivered you out of Egypt, but you... He fed you with the manna in the desert, but you...”

It is true that in this and other similar texts much must be attributed to rhetoric, particularly to the polemical genre in vogue at the time. But the seed was planted and it left its mark in the liturgy (as in the infamous adjective used in the prayer for the Jews, which has now been abolished), in art and even in folklore, all contributing to the negative stereotype of “the Jew”. The Byzantine icon of the crucifixion almost always shows two feminine figures at the foot of the cross. In some cases both are turned toward the Cross but, more frequently, one is looking at the Cross and the other has turned her back to it or is actually being forced away from the Cross by an angel. The figures represent the Church and the Synagogue – a representation contradicting Paul’s affirmation that Christ died on the Cross to unite the two realities, not to divide them.

As Pope John Paul II has noted, these developments left Christians less vigilant in our century when Nazi hatred was unleashed against the Jews. They served, indirectly, to facilitate the Shoah, the Holocaust. But long before this tragic ending, the polemics served to justify countless persecutions and much suffering inflicted upon the Jewish people by Christian nations and even by institutions of the Church.

However, one aspect must be clarified. During the recent debate engendered by the Pontifical Council document, “We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah”, an outstanding Italian intellectual expressed a radical opinion regarding the controversy. “The source of all anti-Judaism,” he wrote on the front page of a newspaper, “is found in the New Testament, especially in the Letters of St. Paul and in Revelation.” The children of Israel cannot forget that the period of the Patriarchs - the era in which they received the Law and entered into a covenant of loving trust with God - is perceived by Paul as an era dominated by sin and death. And they cannot tolerate that Jerusalem, the holiest of places, is depicted by the author of Revelation as the concentration of physical and metaphysical evil in which the Dragon and the Beast reign. According to the writer the only solution would be to censure St. Paul, to censure Revelation, as well those Gospel texts in which anti-Jewish sentiment is most strongly expressed. Since Christians cannot be asked to do this (to do so would even be a loss), it is up to us to cultivate a true understanding of our religious roots, with a spirit of tolerance, while striving for those universal values which form the basis of all religions and which are common to all. (cf., P. Citati, “Le radici dell’odio contro gli ebrei”, in Repubblica, March 18, 1998)

A calm and peaceful reflection, it would seem! But it appears to contain a fundamental ambiguity. Paul does not consider only the era of the Patriarchs as “a time dominated by sin and death”; he applies this same perception to all of humanity before Christ. In his Letter to the Romans he affirms: “Both Jews and Greeks are under the power of sin.” (Rm 3:9) Within this situation of sin and death he clearly acknowledges the superiority of the Jewish people. “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way! To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.” (Rm 3:1-2) How can we accuse Paul of not recognizing in Abraham “the summit of trusting relationship with God”, since it is precisely because of this that he calls him “the father of all believers”? (cf. Rm 4:16) The problem in Paul’s writing results from the confusing interpretation of his polemic “against the Jews” which, in reality, is a polemic against “the Jewish Christians”. Moreover, what Paul and John said about the Jews fades in comparison with what they said against the pagans. The pagans are defined as “separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenant of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.” (Eph 2:12) And the “Babylon” of the Apocalypse, throne of the Dragon and the Beast, was not meant primarily for Jerusalem, but for pagan Rome, the city “of seven hills.” (Rv 17:9)

I believe the answer to this problem is found in the words of John Paul II in the document quoted above: “For too long erroneous and unjust interpretations of the New Testament regarding the Jewish people have circulated in the Christian world.” Antisemitism is not derived from fidelity to the Christian Scriptures, but from infidelity to them. In this regard, new developments in the dialogue between Christians and Jews are providing a better understanding of our Scriptures themselves. This is a sign of the times. We will see in what sense.

Let us consider the most ancient formula of the paschal mystery, the kerygma. It never mentions the Jews as the cause of Christ’s death. It affirms instead: “He was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.” (Rm 4:25; 1 Cor 15:3) Even the Creeds of our faith, when speaking of the crucifixion and death of Christ, mention the name of Pontius Pilate but are silent about the Jews. Certainly, certain Jewish leaders played an active role in the condemnation of Jesus. A reading of the Passion reminds us of this. But they were material causes. In the measure that we attribute to these material circumstances not merely historical but theological significance, we lose the universal and cosmic meaning of the death of Christ. The drama of the Redemption is trivialized when it is understood as the result of contingent circumstances. John writes: “He is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 Jn 2:2) For the whole world: even for those who do not know, who do not believe!

Another fact is forgotten in the polemic against the Jews: they acted in ignorance (even though this may not imply that they were without fault). On the Cross Christ said: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.” (Lk 23:34) “Now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers.” (Acts 3:17; cf. Acts 13:27) “For had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (1 Cor 2:8) Shall we continue to speak about deicide? Let us do so, for - according to Scripture and our dogma - a deicide happened. But we know that the cause of it was not the Jews but all of us.

If “the roots of hatred against the Jews” are not in the New Testament, where are they? When and how did the division happen? I think it is not difficult to discover. Jesus, the apostles, the deacon Stephen (cf. Acts 7) used vehement polemic against the Jewish leaders. But in what spirit did they use it? When he announced the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus wept, even as he wept at the news of the death of his friend Lazarus. As he dies, Stephen exclaims: “Lord, do not charge them with this sin!”

Paul, the principle defendant in all of this, goes on to use very moving words: “I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race.” (Rm 9:1-3) Paul, for whom to live is Christ” (mihi vivere, Christus est”), would accept separation and excommunication if it would serve to make the Messiah acceptable to his brethren according to the flesh.

All of this was spoken within the Jewish community, in full solidarity with it, because they belonged to the same religious and social reality. They could say: “Are they Jewish? We also are!” When there is love for each other one can speak in this manner. Were the prophets, beginning with Moses, less severe with Israel? No, they were often more severe than Paul. Many of the most severe expressions in the New Testament are derived from them. The ultimate source of the “Improperia” themselves, according to the literary genre of the sacral process (the “rib”) initiated by God for His people, is in the Old Testament. (cf. Dt 32; Mi 6:3-4; Ps 77; Ps 105)

Were the Jews offended by Moses and the prophets, and did they accuse them of antisemitism? Jews know full well that Moses is ready, if necessary, to be removed from the Book of Life rather than be saved alone, without his people. Basically this is similar to what is happening among us. Dante Alighieri uses vehement expressions against Italians. If a stranger dared to express even a minute portion of this it would be tragic. But we accept his words because we know he is one of us, that he speaks with love, not with hatred.

But what did take place during that transition from the early Jewish-Christian Church to the gentile Church? The gentiles appropriated the polemic of Jesus and the Apostles against Judaism but failed to appropriate their love for the Jews. The polemic continued without the love! When the Church Fathers speak about the destruction of Jerusalem, they do so without tears. The root of the problem lies here, in the lack of love - an infidelity to the fundamental Gospel precept. Until the very eve of the Shoah Christians complained about the anti-Christian sentiments of the Jews, about their opposition to the spread of the Gospel (which, initially, was certainly true), but did not see the “beam”, the hardness in their own heart!

This does not imply a simplistic interpretation of the past. In Tertio millennio adveniente the Pope wrote: “For an accurate understanding of history we must carefully consider the cultural conditions of the time.” At that time the force of truth was considered more important than the right of the individual. Therefore, the intention is not to retreat to the past. The Pope went on to say: “Consideration of the mitigating circumstances does not dispense the Church from expressing profound regret for the weaknesses of her sons who disfigured her face and prevented it from fully reflecting the image of her crucified Savior, from witnessing to his patient love and gently humility.” (TMA, 35) When the Church refers to her “sons”, we know that it also includes her “Fathers”!

When speaking of having wronged our Jewish brethren I refer not only to the guilt of previous generations. I refer also to my own guilt. I still remember the moment of my conversion to this understanding. I was on an airplane, returning from my first pilgrimage to the Holy Land. While reading the Bible I came upon this passage from Ephesians: “No one ever hates his own flesh.” (Eph 5:29) I understood that this also applied to Jesus’ relationship with his own people. Suddenly I was aware that my prejudices or outright hostilities towards the Jews, which I had absorbed throughout my formative years, were an affront to Jesus himself.

Jesus took upon himself everything, except sin. But love for one’s country and solidarity with one’s people are not sin; they are a value. Therefore, in virtue of the Incarnation, Jesus - then known by his Jewish name, Yeshua - loved his people Israel. He loved them with a love stronger and purer than that of any other patriot for his land and his people. I understood that I had to be converted to Israel, “the Israel of God”, as the Apostle said. This is not necessarily identical with the political Israel, even though they cannot be completely separated. I understood that this love is not a threat to other people. It does not ally or form blocks with anybody, because Jesus taught that our Christian heart is to be universally open and to help Israel do the same. “Is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of gentiles also?” (Rm 3:29) […]

In conclusion, let us return to Ephesians. The wall of hatred, which had been destroyed by the Cross, was reconstituted and consolidated through the centuries. We must destroy it once more, through repentance and a request for pardon from God and from our Jewish brothers and sisters. The gestures and words of reconciliation from the leaders of our Church must not remain slumbering in documents. They must be taken to heart by all the baptized. It is for this reason that I took courage to speak today. In the past, during the great missions, a pyre was erected to burn away all pride and vanity. On this Good Friday, let us erect a pyre to destroy all hostility. “Destroy the animosity within ourselves.” Within ourselves, not in others! […]



A TIME TO TURN - THE AUSTRIAN EVANGELICAL [PROTESTANT] CHURCHES AND THE JEWS – Declaration of the General Synod of the Evangelical Church A.B. and H.B. [Augsburg and Helvetian Confessions] in Austria.
Vienna, October 28, 1998 (2)



I. November 9th of this year will mark the 60th anniversary of the 1938 pogrom against Jews. This event prompts us Protestant Christians and churches in Austria to again grapple with this century’s dreadful history of the deliberate attempt to annihilate the Jews of Europe. The part played by Christians and churches and their shared responsibility for the suffering and misery of Jews can no longer be denied. The word of the General Synod of 1965 and the “Declaration of Principle of the Evangelical Church H.B.” of 1996 are to be remembered.

II. We realize with shame that our churches showed themselves inured by the fate of the Jews and countless other victims of persecution. This is all the more incomprehensible because Protestant Christians in their own history, especially during the Counter-Reformation, were themselves discriminated against and persecuted. The churches did not protest against visible injustice; they were silent and looked away; they did not “throw themselves into the spokes of the wheel.” (Bonhoeffer) Therefore, not only individual Christians but also our churches share in the guilt of the Holocaust/Shoah. We remember with grief all victims of persecution who were divested of their civil rights and their human dignity, abandoned to an unrelenting pursuit and murdered in concentration camps.

III. The General Synod asks the Jewish congregations (Israelitische Kultusgemeinden) and the Jews in Austria to receive the following assurance:

The Evangelical Churches see themselves obliged to always keep alive the memory of the Jewish people’s history of suffering and of the Shoah.

The Evangelical Churches see themselves obliged to check the teachings, sermons, instructions, liturgies and practices of the church for any antisemitism and to also, through its media, oppose all prejudices.

The Evangelical Churches see themselves obliged to oppose every manifestation of social and personal antisemitism.

The Evangelical Churches, in their relationship with Jews and the Jewish congregations (Israelitische Kultusgemeinden), wish to walk a common way into a new future. Therefore, we make an effort to reconsider and shape the relationship of Protestant Christians and Jews accordingly.

IV. The evolution of antisemitism into the Shoah represents for us Protestant churches and Protestant Christians a challenge that extends to the very roots of our faith. The God of Christians is no other than the God of Israel who called Abraham to faith and chose the enslaved Israelites to be his people. We profess to the permanent election of Israel as God’s people. “God did not terminate this covenant.” (Martin Buber) It exists to the end of time.

We read God’s word in John’s Gospel: “Salvation is from the Jews.” (John 4:22) God himself is the salvation which he gave to his people and which he extends to everyone in the Jew Jesus, whom we confess as the Christ. God “desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim. 2:4) The arguments in the New Testament about the meaning of Jesus and the gospel must not be inaccurately used in anti-Jewish ways. The gentile Christian community suppressed the fact that these were internal arguments among Jews. The church, claiming that Israel had been rejected, considered itself alone to be the chosen people of God. From that time anti-Jewish excesses have permeated the history of the entire church.

In this regard we as Protestant Christians are burdened by the late writings of Luther and their demand for the expulsion and persecution of the Jews. We reject the contents of these writings. The 19th and 20th century biological and political racism was able to utilize Christian anti-Judaism for its religious-ideological confirmation. There was hardly any resistance against this in our churches. Rather, Protestant Christians and pastors were also involved in antisemitic propaganda. If the churches looked after persecuted Jews, it was mainly those who had been baptized. This, our burdened past, demands an about-turn which comprises the church’s interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, its theology, teaching and practice.

V. When we Christians read the Bible of both testaments as a unified whole, we must be very attentive to the Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, which is our Old Testament, understanding that for Jews the New Testament is not Holy Scripture. Our different understandings of Scripture can be tolerated in mutual respect. “The Biblical symbols of hope are an impulse for the common effort around the formation of a world of justice and peace.” (Ecumenical Assembly, Erfurt, 1996). We must be aware that the New Testament – which proclaims Jesus Christ as the redeemer of the world – was written mainly by Jews. Our Lord Jesus Christ was, according to origin, education and his faith in God, a Jew and he must be understood as a Jew. According to the resolution of the Ecumenical Assembly in Erfurt, 1996 the Christian proclamation must learn “to recognize Judaism as a living and diverse entity which existed well before Christianity as well as simultaneously with it. This forbids all arrogant triumphalism.”

The 1990 “Declaration of the Meeting between Lutheran Christians and Jews” calls for the realization that God himself commissions his people. This missio dei teaches us to understand our own possibilities and obligations. “God authorizes the mutual witnessing of faith in confidence of the free workings of God’s spirit, because he decides about the effect of the faith-witness and about the eternal salvation of all people. He frees us from the compulsion of having to do everything ourselves. This awareness obliges Christians to witness and serve in respect for the conviction and faith of their Jewish dialogue partners.” Because the covenant of God with his people Israel exists only in grace to the end of time, missionary activity among Jews is theologically unjustifiable and must be rejected as a church program. The Christian dialogue with Judaism, the faith in which it is rooted, is to be fundamentally distinguished from a Chistian dialogue with other religions.

VI. 50 years ago the State of Israel was founded. We wish it justice and peace. We hope and pray that this State finds a secure peace with its neighbors, particularly with the Palestinian people, in reciprocal respect of the mutual right of residence, so that Jews, Christians and Muslims can live together peacefully.

We consciously join the recommendation of the Ecumenical Council of the Churches in Austria to observe January 17, the day before the beginning of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, as a day of solidarity with Judaism and thereby include the Jewish people in our intercession.



DECLARATION OF THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONFERENCE OF SLOVAKIA (KBS) ON THE VATICAN DOCUMENT ON THE SHOAH - Tyrnau, March 25, 1998(3)


In Slovakia the Jewish question is a delicate issue, and whoever dares to touch on it touches a painful wound. The history of Slovakia provides evidence of this. Before World War II thousands of Jews lived in Slovakia. There are streets and even entire quarters named after them. In almost all the cities there remain synagogues, one of which is among the largest city houses of worship. This is all evidence of what was once a vibrant religious and social life. Many buildings remain but the people have disappeared. This situation indicates that something happened here which deeply influenced life in Slovakia and the life of its Jewish inhabitants. At least since World War II relationships between Slovak and Jewish people have been tense and strained. We cannot deny that deportations of Jewish citizens took place in our midst and that some Slovak people participated in this or silently observed it.

Representatives of the Slovak Catholic Church have on several recent occasions expressed deep regret for this tragic event. In October, 1987 Cardinal Ján Chryzostom Korec, as bishop without state permission, signed a declaration concerning the deportation of Jews from Slovakia in which he and other representatives of the Slovak nation asked the Jewish people for forgiveness. In 1990 the Bishops Conference of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (CSFR) twice expressed the desire to overcome all vestiges of anti-Semitism by means of truth, repentance and penance.

Today, when Slovakia is having its first experience as an independent state as well as an independent church province, it is understandable that she wants to have a strong foundation. This also involves objectively inquiring into Jewish history in Slovakia. To complete this effort Christians in Slovakia, in an effort to increase national and state solidarity, can take the first step and ask for forgiveness for the injustices perpetrated in their territory. In our growing awareness that it is impossible to understand the roots of Christianity without understanding Jewish tradition, such a step would be a contribution to the program of church renewal in preparation for the third millennium. One of the important aspects of this renewal is a new relationship with the Jewish people which must begin with a plea for forgiveness.

During this time of repentance, inspired by Pope John Paul II, the Catholic Bishops of Slovakia ask our Jewish brothers and sisters for forgiveness, and we also ask all Catholics as well as all Christians and people of good will to join us in this effort to overcome all prejudice. We believe that this act of apology to the Jewish people, in the context of “moral and religious memory”, will be understood as an act of repentance and an act of love of the crucified Christ who is our peace.



_________________

1 For editing purposes brief portions of the homily text have been omitted. The text has been translated from italian
2 Translator’s Note: Evangelische Kirche, as used in the Austrian context, actually means “Protestant Church” rather than evangelical Christianity as understood in North America. Therefore Evangelische Kirche as a proper noun has been translated “Evangelical Church”, while “Protestant” has been used to translate evangelische whenever it is used to modify other nouns. The translation from German is by Fritz Voll.
3 The Declaration was translated from German by Fritz Voll