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

From Nostra Aetate to the Notes for Catechists and Preachers - Part III. The elaboration of a tradition
Eugene J. Fisher

In some areas the "Notes" offer a clear and significant advance over earlier documents of the Holy See.' They deal. for example, with key elements of the teaching of .contempt merely alluded to in previous official documents. Jesus' relationship with the Law is shown to be an essentially positive one. The congruence of Jesus' teachings with basic pharisaic beliefs is highlighted. The negative references to Jews and Judaism in the New Testament are frankly acknowledged and a catechetical method for treating them in the classroom firmly established:
._ references hostile or less than favorable to the Jews have their historical context in conflicts between the nascent church and the Jewish community. Certain controversies reflect Christian-Jewish relations long after the time of Jesus."

This specifies for teachers and preachers in a practical manner the general biblical hermeneutic of the Council that
"the Jews should not be presented as repudiated or cursed by God, as if such views followed from the Holy Scriptures,"

Since, as my own rather exhaustive studies of Catholic textbooks have shown, these arc precisely the areas in which the remaining negative references to Jews and Judaism can still be found, the "Notes" should go a long way toward eliminating altogether the remnants of the "teaching of contempt."

In the final section, (IV), the "Notes" begin to specify for the first time the content, only implied in the reference of the 1975 Guidelines, to the fact that Judaism "went on to develop a religious tradition" of its own after the time of Christ. Through the Diaspora (here given a positive theological interpretation as opposed to the traditional negative one that the destruction of the temple and the dispersion of the Jews signified divine punishment for Jewish refusal to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah), the Jewish people, the "Notes" maintain, were able
"to carry to the whole world a witness — often heroic — of its fidelity to the one God... while preserving the memory of the land of their forebears at the heart of their hope" (n. 25).

This statement is truly remarkable. Jewish "hope" had previously been defined — and its validity acknowledged — in an eschatological sense:
"the people of God of the Old and the New Testaments arc tending toward a like end in the future: the coming or return of the Messiah —even if they start from two different points of view... Thus it can be said that Jews and Christians meet in a comparable hope, founded on the same promise to Abraham" (n. 10, italics added).

The Jewish "no" to Jesus as "the Christ" (Messiah) is here put in a larger, more positive framework: God's overall plan for humanity. Indeed, Christians can !earn from this "no," this continuing Jewish witness in and for the world that
"we must also accept our responsibility to prepare the world for the coming of the Messiah by working together for social justice... and international reconciliation" (n. 11).

In this precise sense, the Church no less than the Synagogue is to be seen (II, 4-9) as "awaiting" the "final consumnation", at which point both will "make way for the fulfillment of God's design" (n. 9). Here, the "Notes" seek to frame a non-triomphalist interpretation of the ancient tradition of typology, which is acknowledged as "the sign of a problem unresolved", More work will surely be needed on this topic and, perhaps more important, other theological frameworks for the relationship developed and approved. As the 1975 statement of the U.S. Catholic bishops put it so well:
"There is here a task incumbent on theologians, as yet hardly begun, to explore the continuing relationship of the Jewish people with God and their spiritual bonds with the New Covenant and the fulfillment of God's plan for both Church and Synagogue" (INCCB, Nov., 1975).

The Notes, I believe, intend to foster lust such ongoing theological development.

"The permanence of Israel (while so many ancient peoples have disappeared without a trace)" and the "continuous spiritual fecundity" of the Jewish people in rabbinic, medieval and modern times are seen by the "Notes" as "a sign to be interpreted within God's design." Thus, while for St. Paul in Romans 9:2, the "fact that the majority of the Jewish people and its authorities did not believe in Jesus" is a "sad" one (cf. "Notes," 21, C), it may he part of God's mysterious will (Romans 11:11-12; 30-36). In any event, it is "a fact not merely of history but of theological bearing," concerning which Christians are called in a renewed way today "to plumb the meaning." Earlier in the text (1, 7), the "Notes" had alluded. in the words of Msgr. Jorge Mejia, Secretary of the Commission which issued the document, to "the affirmation about Christ and his saving event as central to the economy of salvation," an affirmation Mejia called "essential to the Catholic faith." This affirmation, Mejia continued in his statement introducing the "Notes" (and carried on the same page in L'Osservatore Romano) "does not mean that the Jews cannot and should not draw salvific gifts from their own traditions. Of course they can and should do so."

Mejia's commentary is crucial for understanding the"Notes." Referring to its brief reference to the Holocaust, for example, Mejia states that Catholics, within the very process of catechesis itself, must begin to grapple with "the dimensions of such tragedy (what is called in Hebrew, the Shoah, the catastrophe) and its significance for the Jews, but also for us," as Catholics, "whom it also obviously concerns". Mejia commends the development of Holocaust curricula "by Catholic offices for education to awaken such awareness, or else to deepen it." As with other sections, the aptly titled "Notes" do not attempt to draw out such a catechesis in detail, but mandate renewed efforts by Catholic educators around the world toward that end.

Criticized particularly by Jewish agencies was the "Notes" reference to the State of Israel. Here, I believe, an unfortunate misunderstanding has occurred which requires further dialogue (as, indeed, other sections of the "Notes" will require expansion and clarification). This is the first time that the Holy See's Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews has commented on the "religious attachment" of the Jewish people to 'Graz Israel, an attachment it affirms as finding "its roots in biblical tradition" and which it mandates, again for the first time, as a proper, even necessary element of Catholic teaching. The "Notes," here, need to be understood carefully within the context of the 1975 U.S. Catholic bishops declaration, to which they specifically refer. (This is the only direct reference in the "Notes" to ally statement of an Episcopal conference, a fact which heightens its significance). The U.S. bishops statement declared:
"In dialogue with Christians, Jews have explained that they do not consider themselves as a Church, a sect, or a denomination, as is the case among Christian communities, but rather as a peoplehood that is not solely racial, ethnic or religious, but in a sense a composite of all these. It is for such reasons that an overwhelming majority of Jews see themselves bound in one way or another to the land of Israel. Most Jews see this tie to the land as essential to their Jewishness. Whatever difficulties Christians may experience in sharing this view, they should strive to understand this link between land and people which Jews have expressed in their writings and worship throughout two millenia as a longing for the homeland, holy Zion."

Also pertinent to interpreting the attitude of the "Notes" toward Israel, as the report of a group of Catholic and Jewish scholars convened by the American Jewish Committee to discuss the "Notes" rightly stated, is Pope John Paul H's apostolic letter of Good Friday, 1984. There, the Pope said:
"For the Jewish people who live in the State of Israel and who preserve on that land such precious testimonies to their history and their faith, we must ask for the desired security and the due tranquility that is the prerogative of every nation and condition of life and of progress for every society."

This clear recognition by the Holy See of the legitimacy of the State, and the "Notes" own affirmation of the religious validity of Jewish attachment to the Land, provide the context for what follows. The "Notes" maintain that consideration of the "political options" of the State (e.g. boundaries) should he guided by "the common principles of international law," which themselves validate "the existence of the state," rather than by "a perspective which is in itself religious." This is a caution for Catholics against biblical fundamentalism. It is in no case a denial of the religious relationship of the Jewish people to 'Ems Israel, or of the validity or necessity of the Jewish state, which it supports. Rather, it mandates teaching about that relationship and about the State (though not necessarily all its policies) affirmatively in Catholic classrooms.

If I have dwelt rather more on the "Notes" in this paper than I had envisioned when first accepting the assignment, this is not only because of their significance but also because of the controversy currently surrounding them. That controversy should teach us, if nothing else, something about the challenge of the dialogue launched by the Second Vatican Council. It is a dialogue, if not in its infancy, at least in its babyhood. Like a baby, it is something entirely new and unique on the world scene: in a sense much more so, for it represents an effort at in terreligious reconciliation never before tried to my knowledge in world history.

The flap over the Notes shows that we arc not yet too sure of one another. We do not understand how to address each other as well as we thought. Catholics, reading the Notes, arc surprised at the vehemence of the Jewish negative response. To Catholics, the Notes appear to be a solid, if imperfect, effort in good faith to move the relationship forward at least one more small step. Jews, reading the Notes, are surprised that Catholics in the main could not have predicted how Jews would react to key passages (e.g. on typology), and wonder further, even once the text is explained, how Catholics could get themselves so lost in the intricacies of theological "balancing" (again, for example, on typology).

Part of this sense of surprise, I would surmise, sterns from our differences of style. Catholicism works itself out, in practice, precisely through the intricacies of theological nuance, Judaism through the equal delicacies of halachic distinction, though Catholicism is no stranger to Law nor Judaism to theological embellishment. The deeper part may be the historical chasm of blood shed and stated principles broken that divide us, despite the shared bridges of hope ("spiritual bonds" in Catholic terminology) that impel us together even as we "fuss and holler," in typical family fashion, at one another.

The key is trust. The very imperfections of the document (as of those which preceded it) reveal the depth of the faith-substance with which the dialogue must yet deal. But the development of trust, on both sides, takes time — and a proven record of delivery. We can, I believe, have a certain faith in the God of Abraham and Sarah and Isaac and Rivkah upon which, in hope, to build that trust. But we will also need a certain measure of patience ("mercy on words" to use Augustine's phrase) regarding what we say and what we mean to say. In such an effort, the presumption must always be in favor of the integrity of the other's intentions. Neither hasty press releases nor unconsul ted promulgations will prove the best tools with which to build our bridges of trust.

The "Notes," as the Holy See's own "anniversary gift" to Nostra Adam, move forward the discussion between our two peoples and, at the same time, invite further reflections and exchange between us They see the "heroic witness" of Jewish fidelity to God's covenant over the centuries as a "sign to be interpreted within God's design."

Such language is reminiscent of the words of Rabbi Gamaliel, as cited in the Book of Acts, with regard to early Christians. Today, we Catholics are learning that Gamaliel's dictum applies equally well to Christian attitudes toward Jews and Judaism. The Sanhedrin, the book of Acts reports, had arrested the Apostles and was trying them on capital charges. Gamaliel,
portrayed in Acts as "a Pharisee.., highly respected by all the people," saved the lives of the Apostles by arguing:
"Fellow israelites, think twice about what you are going to do with these men... Let them alone. If their purpose or activity is human in its origins, it will destroy itself. If, on the other hand, it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them without fighting God himself" (Acts 4:34-39).

Judaism, no less than Christianity, comes from God. This was the central message of the Second Vatican Council, and one to which we Catholics must re-commit ourselves in each generation.

Notes
19. Portions of this discussion on the "Notes" are adapted from my article, "The Second Vatican Council and the Jews: Twenty Years of Dialogue," Jewish Monthly (B'nai B'rith, October, 1985).