Otros artigos deste número | Versión en inglés | Versión en francés
The Cross In Jewish-Christian Relations
Edward H. Flannery
The year 1096 was a fateful year for the Jewish People. It was the date of the first Crusade, that religio-military campaign, called by Pope Urban II, to rescue the holy places from the hands of the Muslim "infidels". The Crusade acquired its name from the word crux, the latin root of the word cross. As the recognized symbol of the Christian faith, it was the banner behind which the crusaders undertook their march to the Near East. Seized with religious fanaticism, these "men of the cross", their banner aloft and Deus vult (1) on their lips, massacred many Jewish communities along their way, the "infide) at home" as Jews were described at the time. In some cases an option was allowed, baptism or death. The cross no longer aloft was now used, we might say, as a hammer to force Jews to the font. Ten thousand Jews are estimated to have been killed. It was the first massive flow of Jewish blood, a flow which did not cease until merged with that of the six million of the Shoah in our own time.
The harrowing experience left the Jewish Community stunned, angered and depressed. Christians were now seen as assassins, inhuman and capricious. The breach between Christians and Jews was widened beyond repair and, as oppressions and massacres continued, so remained until the second half of the present century. And the Cross remained for Jews a symbol of anger and fear.
Interestingly, these and other such historical data might never have come to my attention but for a personal experience that took piace a few years earlier in New York City. I was in the company of a young Jewish couple. Spying a huge cross shaped with lighted windows on the Pan Am building during the Christmas season, the young lady remarked, "That cross makes me shudder". When asked what she meant, she simply said: "It's like an evi) presene". This young lady, I knew, was not anti-Christian. I quickly saw that she was actually doing me a confidence, in her hope that she could for the first time unbreast herself to a Christian of a deep source of fear and anger visa-vis this Christian symbol without fear of a rebuff. The episode was my introduction to JewishChristian relations, and also the first of a number of such instances in which Jews confided to me their discomfort with crosses and crucifixes in public places or in buildings hosting JewishChristian conferences and workshops. In recent days the ecumenica) problem that the Cross poses has come to the surface. In the controversy over the Carmelite convent at Auschwitz, a dispute arose about the towering cross erected near the convent, but on that occasion nothing was said on either sfide except that the cross should or should not be there.
THE CROSS: AN ECUMENICAL PROBLEM:
The foregoing stories give some indication of the chasm that Christians have carved between Jesus and His people and of the depth of alienation that has affected Jewish-Christian relations throughout the centuries. They also present an ecumenical problem that stili confronts us today. When an especially sacred symbol of one faith-tradition engaged in dialogue with another kindred faith tradition is seen by one as a sign of love and redemption but by the other as a source of hatred and fear, botti are faced with an ecumenical problem of the first order.
The stories, however, provide no hint of the theological origin of the unfortunate episodes they relate, which will be our main concern in this essay, for it is only in an understanding of the theology of the Cross that these scandalous happenings can be adequately appraised, and only therein will the ecumenical problem be resolved. It is an oddity of the Jewish-Christian dialogue, now a quarter of a century old, that the problem of the different reactions of Christians and Jews to the Cross has been given a wide berth. It has rarely been touched but indirectly, as, for example, part of the scriptural problem of Jewish involvement in the crucifixion, in passion plays, and antisemitic practices. This issue of SIDIC is one of the first to take up the issue ex professo.
It is understood that throughout this essay the Cross is to be identified with the Cross of Christ Crucified as conceived in Christian teaching. One is aware of C.G. Jung's investigations of the cross as a pre-Christian archetypal symbol of religious mythology in which it appears as a multifaceted symbol that includes such images and representations as the Tree of Death, the Tree of Life, the Mother, Life itself, et cetera. Among other examples Jung notes those medieval legends which transform the Tree of Death into the Tree of Life and medieval artists' portrayals of Christ hanging on a tree rooted in the grave of Adam (2). Such hybrids of Christian doctrine and ancient mythical symbolism are not to be understood reductively, having, as they do, no historical connection withthe crucifixion of Jesus on a Roman cross at the end of the first third of the first century of the Common era. There is, however, nothing to prevent one from discerning here a psychological support for Christian faith and piety emanating from the depths of the human psyche. Grafia perficet naturam. (3).
ANTI-JUDAISM IN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY:
a - Some distinctions
The alienation of Christians and Jews began in theology, specifically in theological antiJudaism. This harsh term has, by wide consensus, been accepted to dente no more than theological disagreement with tenets of Judaism. A distinction is necessary, however. A first kind of anti-Judaism comprises those inevitable disagreements which Christianity had with Judaism by virtue of its own beliefs. No negative effect is necessarily involved in such disagreements. Another stage is that composed of differences which owing to the leve) of their negativity and intensity of effect exceed the bounds of acceptable theological disagreement and move, as it happened in the earlier centuries, into the realm of defamation. Anti-Judaism in such cases becomes Christian antisemitism. Defamatory references appear, for example, in passages of the New Testament where Judaism and some of the Jewish leadership are branded as reprobate, rejected of God, and satanic. They pose a serious scriptural and pastora) problem for Christianity that has not been solved.
B - Charge of Deicide
Such passages pale in significance when compared to the charge of deicide that evolved in the course of the anti-Judaic/anti-semitic polemic that followed in their wake. This deplorable accusation defined the crucifixion of Jesus as the handiwork of the Jewish People. Jews were soon publicly portrayed as Christkillers, hence slayers of God (deicides), accursed, and scattered throughout the world in punishment for their blasphemous cime. This theological myth proved to be the most virulent motivator of the millenial oppression and murder of Jews throughout Christian history. For Jews, understandably, the tragic fate visited upon them became largely symbolized by the Cross, the gibbet of Jesus' death — a symbol of hate and fear.
The Second Vatican Council's rejection of the deicide accusation in its statement on the Jewish People in Nostra Aetate, 4, in 1965 is, to be sure, an initiative in which to rejoice. Nonetheless it is possible to savour it with mixed reactions. Despite its obvious merits, it is difficult not to view it as too little too late. After all, the accusation had already done its frightful damage, and well before the statement was issued, reasonable and informed persons had consigned it to the dustbin of history. Moreover one may question whether the statement and others that followed are sufficiently imbued with, or have been followed up by, that spirit of repentance and reparation which the part played by the Church and by Christians in the agelong oppression calls for. This observation is not intended to make light of this and other statements and initiatives made by the Churches to undo the wrongs, but rather to point to the serious disproportion that separates them from the enormity of the oppression that brought them about. One may wonder whether, despite the new and humbler stance the Church has adopted vis-a-vis herself in the Council, she has inadvertently allowed a strain of the old triumphalism to live on, at least in relation to the Jewish People. One may cite in this respect the Vatican's cool policy toward the State of Israel, whose existence and meaning is so centra! to Jewish beliefs and hopes.
Question can also be put on the promulgation of the new positive teachings. To what extent ha-ve they been made to reach the Christian people? Sufticiently to bring them into the seminaries, classrooms, and pulpits, and in this way to the pews and thereby into the home? The final aim of the Jewish-Christian interface is not, or should not be, solely theological but also pastoral. Theological understanding is of great importance, but it is not the ultimate goal, which is rather the reconciliation of the Jewish and Christian peoples.
C - Jewish Reactions to the Cross
Negative Jewish reactions to the Cross are not limited to its association with the deicide myth. Thanks to numerous conversations in Oneg Shabbat (4) about these reactions I was led to conclude that in many cases they derive from it, but not in all. Some of those with whom I spoke were under the impression that whenever Christians see the Cross, they al ways think of Jews as culprits — an eloquent testimony to the enduring efficacy of the deicidal accusation. Others claimed they simply saw ft as a symbol of Christianity, Christianity sensed as the historic enemy of the Jewish People. There is no myth involved here. From the earliest days of Christian history, before the deicide notion had fully evolved, Jews were judged guilty of unbelief. Their refusal to accept Jesus as Messiah and accept baptism took a heavy tool on Jewish life. The deicide tradition aside, the charge of unbelief took on life of its own and cast the Jews in a precarious position. Their supposedly stubborn disbelief in Jesus as Messiah, considered damnable in itself, was soon viewed as a challenge to the Christian faith and a source of temptation to Christians.
This latter reaction to the Cross presents a more serious ecumenical problem than that posed by the deicide myth, now well on its way out. That Christianity conducted itself as an enemy of the Jewish People cannot be questioned; that it remains that enemy today can be questioned, indeed denied; but that Jews should see it that way is quite another matter. It is noticeable that a goodly segment of Jewish leadership has kept its distane from the newly formed Jewish-Christian dialogue and has failed to join in the new spirit of friendship and cooperation that has characterised much of the upper levels of both Jewish and Christian leadership. Acutely aware of the millenial oppression of their forebears, these reluctant ones are not convinved that the historic enemy has so profoundly changed as to no longer see them as unbelievers or candidates for conversion. For the Christian, some of them believe, the dialogue is of necessity a vestibule of the baptistry. Many of them are willing, however, to wait and see (5).
In sum, the Cross as an archetypal image of Jesus death and of Christianity remains for many Jews a stumbling block on the road to JewishChristian reconciliation, and for Christians, by reason of the ambivalent significance it has acquired in history, an ecumenical problem of first importance. And for both it remains an opportunity to probe more deeply into what separates Christians and Jews both within and without the requirements of self-definition.
(d) A New Situation?
At this juncture the question becomes: given the failures of the past and difficulties of the present, what are the prospects for the future? Is it conceivable that the Cross, though posited at the very center of these failures and difficulties, may acquire a positive and healing role in our ongoing efforts of understanding and rapprochment? Must it always remain a bitter barrier between Jews and Christians? If not, what is needed to bring about this healing reversal? To find answers to questions such as these is the task before us. It is a considerable one. The reflections that follow, taken in its pursuit, are to be undestood as an ali too brief and tentative assay to offer some suggestions that may serve as pointers along the path toward a renewed theology of the Cross that will show forth a truer visage of Christianity and tura the Cross, as Paul hoped, into a source of reconciliation and pesce, especially among Jews and Christians.
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY OF THE CROSS: A Theology of Suffering
For the Christian the theology of the Cross, a theology of suffering, traces its first roots to the Hebrew Scriptures. Israel's history is abundantly marked by this condition. Israel itsellf, a small and powerless people and nation, reveals the power of God. According to many exegetes, Isaiah 53 casts her in a redemptive role as God's suffering servant. The psalmists meanwhile sing of God's mercy toward the weak and oppressed.
Jesus follows in that tradition. The foundation stones of this theology are found in the life and death of Jesus as recorded in the Christian Scriptures. They are four: those sayings and actions of Jesus that exemplify suffering, self-sacrifice, humility and vicarious atonement. Already evident in his life, these marks are re-enacted in his death. Taken as a whole, they are seen as revelatory of Jesus' redemptive work. Jesus, it is important to emphasize, imposed this principle of humility and self-sacrifice upon his followers, promising that the humble "will be exalted" and urging whoever would follow him to "deny himself and take up bis cross daily" (Lk. 9:23).
The Contribution of Paul
It was given to Paul first to extract from the oral tradition elements for a full-fledged theology of the Cross. In numerous passages he extols the Cross, making it all but synonymous with Christianity. Not only is it made the centrai symbol of Christian soteriology but of Christian living and spirituality as well. As did Jesus, Paul places a strong accent on the obligation of Christians to take up the Cross in the sense of accepting all suffering in imitation of Jesus. He himself, Paul tells us, is "crucified to the world" and "the world to him" (Gai 6:14). In virtue of his/her mystical union with Him, the Christian too "has been crucified with Christ" (Rom. 6:6).
Applying this to himself, Paul educes a moral theology daunting in its demands and radical in its reversal of worldly values:
So I willingly boast of my weakness instead, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I am content with weakness, with mistreatment, with distress, with persecutions and difficulties for the sake of Christ; for when I am powerless then I am strong (2 Cor. 1296-10).
We have here the core of a revolutionary mora) Christian theology of voluntary power-lessness and reliance on the grace of God. It stands at the antipode of the theologia gloriae (6) that led in time to a triumphalistic apologetic and missionary impulse which held sway in so much of Christian history to the detriment of the Church's true mission.
Surprisingly Paul, reflecting on a saying of Jesus to be recorded in John 12:32, goes on to see the Cross as a source of reconciliation of all things "in heaven and on earth" (Col. I:20) and of Jews and Christians (Ephs. 2:16). And yet so much does he consider the standards of the Cross to be at odds with the wisdom of the world (I Cor1:17) that it is a "scandal" to Gentiles, and even a "stumbling block" to Jews. One recognizes here the ambivalence of Paul's thought concerning his own people. As his first hopes for their entry into the Church were dashed by their refusal, he carne to see this as a "mystery" (Roms 11:25) but intimates that the refusal was of divine provenance for the salvation of the Gentile world (Roms 11:25, 28). Thus was the Cross at once a source of reconciliation and yet a stumbling block in its path.
Post New-Testament Developments
Little substantive was added to the Pauline theology of the Cross throughout the next millenium and a hall with the exception of Augustine's relating it to humankind's "fallen nature", remediable only by access to the limitless grace of Christ. It was Ieft for Martin Luther to work out an elaborate theology in 1518 when he formulated his theologia crucis (7), which he based largely on Paul's views. Postulating that all theology must be centered on Christ's redeeming death on the cross the theology of the Cross was made the centro Christian teaching. He saw this theologia crucis as a negation of the theologia gloriae that preceded him, which sought God in the work in Creation and led to a soteriology that canonizes good works and righteousness. Such a theology he deemed as nonbiblical and triumphalistic. All theology, he postulated, must be centered on faith in God's redeeming love and human receptivity to his grace.
Luther 's theologia waxed and then waned in Protestant thought. Others found it divisive. More recent times have been more receptive as nonProtestant theologians joined Protestant colleagues in reaffirming it and in exploring the idea of God suffering in His creatures. Twentieth century catastrophes, especially the Holocaust, have facilitated such a development. From a Roman Catholic standpoint Karl Rahner has affirmed the theologia in these words: "The Christian can fulfil his existence only within the context of Jesus' cross", yet holds that the cross must be subordinated to the "always greater unfathomable mystery of God", and allow for "following Jesus by committed action on behalf of the suffering and oppressed". (8).
Some Contemporary Views
Some contemporary theologians have taken the subject in a radical direction. A. Roy Eckardt rejects the belief that the theologia crucis can overcome Christian triumphalism. As the source of the deicide myth, he holds, it disqualifies itself for that role. It has long been his conviction that the defeat of triumphalism devolves rather on discounting the Resurrection of Jesus, but more recently has modified this view to allow for possible nontriumphalist affirmations of it. (9) It is true that some theologians have pressed the Resurrection into the cause of Christian apolegetics, particularly in its controversy with the Synagogue. This only serves to demean it and enhance the triumphalist mindset. The message of the Resurrection is one of hope of eternal fife, not of temporal triumphs. It may well, on the other hand, to some extent temper the dour message of suffering and self-sacrifice of the theologia. This is as it should be, for neither should stand in isolation from the other, and their necessary relationship need not be made to detract from the centrality of the Cross in Christian theology.
Paul van Buren ventures further in conceding no more than an accidental soteriological role to Jesus' death on the cross. Viewing the Crucifixion against the backdrop of the Holocaust, he finds it necessary to deprive it of its traditional theological eminence. Reduced to a "[ragie accident" probably unforeseen by God, Jesus' death is made into an occasion for faith in a victory of God's love over sin and grafting the Gentiles into Israel's Covenant. (10)
These interpretations are wide of the aim of this essay to renew the theologia for purposes of reconciliation. It is improbable that they will recommend themselves to many Christian bodies, without whose acceptance the extensive ameliorations that are needed now would not be forthcoming.
Jewish Critique
Jewish theologians who have studied Christianity steer clear of commenting on Christian theology as such, but have had a considerable amount to say about its value and consequences, whether ethical, social, or psychological. One of the most forceful and penetrating among these is Rabbi Leo Baeck (1873-1956). (11). He considered Paul to be the founder of Christianity, not Jesus, whom he considered entirely within the precincts of Judaism. According to Baeck, who relied heavily on
the rationalist criticism of his time, Paul's borrowings from Hellenistic mystery cults converted Christianity into an admixture of "romantic passivity" and ethical Judaism. He viewed Christianity's emphasis on faith, human weakness, and passivity to divine grace as an unfortunate departure from Judaism's emphasis on works, mitzvot, and )ife on earth. Many Jewish thinkers adopted this generai interpretation of Judaism and Christianity. And many Christian theologians regard it as a misinterpretation of Paul and Christianity. Paul's acceptance of dependence on God and self denial did not derive from mysterycultic mythology but from human experience and the mora) ideai which, he believed, Christians should strive to pursue in imitation of Jesus' self-immolation for others. This Jewish critique of Christianity is obviously not receptive of Paul's theology of the Cross, but it is not out of harmony with those parts of his theology that speak of faith acting in love (Gal. 5:6) and in selfless service of others (Gal. 5:14) — which his critics missed.
TOWARDS JEWISH-CHRISTIAN RECONCILIATION
Is it possible?
Is it possible in view of this survey of the vicissitudes of the theologia crucis in history to approach in its light the question of reconciliation of the Jewish and Christian peoples? Many things militate against it. The spirit of the times would forbid it — a period that glorifies personal and collective autonomy and power and discards selfeffacement as unhealthy, unproductive, even a pathology. To the contrary, it might be asked: is it not a proper function of Christian thought to be counter cultural in ali times? ft may also be pointed out that the Christlike way this theology fosters manifests itself best in a courage and strength that defies the bravest exploits of secular heroes. The early Christians were hardly seen as wimps or losers. Nor were, to mention a merest few in our own time, the Gandhis, Bonhoeffers, Niemoellers, Jagerstaters, the Mother Teresas. If Christ is to be conjured up as a Prometheus, as he has by some, it must be in virtue of those self-effacing ones rather than the Constantines or crusaders who have exemplified the triumphalist strain in the Church. At all events one can be certain that under the influence of an authentic theology of the Cross and its requirements for Christian living Christian history would have been spared the deicide myth, replacement theology, the in hoc signo vinces motif that helped to launch the Costantine era, (12) the Crusades, forced baptisms and sermons, anti-Jewish legislation, the auto de iFe, and the Christian contribution — indirect and unintended but real — to the Holocaust, in short, Christian anti-Semitism.
It is a sad and sobering irony that because of this lapse the people who suffered most grievously throughout Christian history was not the people to whom persecution was promised by its Founder but rather the people from which he carne (Mt. 5:11, 10:23, 23:34; Jn. 15:20). Jews, I might add, were always curious when in Temple talks I told them that they have been our Simon of Cyrene (Mt. 27:32), forced to carry a cross destined for Christians. In explaining this reference I found it regrettable that it was unclear as well to Christians in the audience who, still unaware of what happened to Jews in Christian history, did not understand.
It can be seen in retrospect that in pursuit of its mission the Church could have taken two quite different directions: one particular, that of Christ's universal redemption; another along the path of an evangelization of a more tolerant and spiritually persuasive kind and of selfless service. !t is also apparent that for the greater part of its history the former was taken. True, the inner path was also taken, but in a secondary way, in such wise as to encourage it only for Religious and saintly persons — always a miniscule minority. The theology of the Cross until now has been only partially fulfilled.
Christian Failure to "Take up the Cross"
Why is this? What happened? More than one reason can be given, to be sure, but few will escape the compass of the fact that Christianity has suffered from a failure in its teaching of a crucial component of the theology of the Cross — its moral implementation. The doctrine of Christ's redemptive sacrifice has been faithfully taught, but the moral and spiritual norms it imposes on the Church and on Christian life have been given shortshrift. The "word of the Cross" (I Cor 1:18) calls the Church, its leadership and people, not only to proclaim its faith in Christ's sacrificial death on the Cross but to take up its own cross and, in reliance on Christ's saving grace, manifest his power in humility, suffering and selfless service; in fine, to become a pilgrim Church and a pilgrim people, a "people of God" in via, on its way, in via crucis, its way of the cross. It was a way less travelled.
It is still the way ahead. One of the first destinations should be reconciliation with Judaism and the Jewish People, a reconciliation that will include genuine repentance and reparation. The price on this is no less than a transformation of the Christian mind and heart realized in via crucis along the lines laid down by Paul, Luther, Rahner, and others. And what is required of Jews? For the moment, nothing. (13) One can hope that eventually, if this transformation has taken piace on a wide enough scale, Jews will have lost whatever fear or hatred of the Cross they may have had in virtue of their positive reaction to a new make of Christian. The observable first fruits of such a transformation in some Christians and its resultant in some Jews that have made their appearance in the Jewish Christian interface of the last quarter of a century gives good grounds for believing that our hopes are not a chimera.
A Further Goal
A final question and a leap into the future. Is reconciliation enough? Judaism and Christianity, Jews and Christians are possessed of a spiritual kinship. Worshippers of the same God, possessors of the same basic morality, and bonded by a parent offspring relationship, they are of the same spiritual family. Specially chosen and covenanted by God, both, wittingly or not, are spiritual partners in the divine economy, each in a different way, to proclaim God's word to the whole human family.
If this be so, is mutual understanding and reconciliation of these two peoples a sufficient fin-al goal? All of humanity is entitled to that. It is a law of nature, hence a law of God, that family members are held to a greater bond of love toward one another than that binding them to all humanity. Are not Jews and Christians spiritually held to a bond of familial love, a bond of special affection. Special affection of Christians for Jews and Jews for Christians! This road is a long one. Only the dream of its possibility can move us to correct our focus and quicken our pace. The day may not be that far off when Christians and Jews after centuries of alienation, having stood face to face in dialogue, will be united in fraternal partnership to do what they were always held to do, to bring forth God's reign upon earth.
A Postscript:
In the course of a talk I was giving one evening in a Tempie in Westchester I spied sitting in one of the front seats, the Jewish lady who several years earlier had divulged her negative feeling to me about the cross. After the talk we chatted. She told me she had become involved in JewishChristian circles. Apparently she had lost the discomfort she felt towards Christians. And she told me that the cross no longer made her shudder. It was so clear. It was not the cross she had feared, but Christians of whom the cross was only a symbol. She probably did not realize that her new Christian friends were something the Cross had wrought.
Notes(1) "God wills It".
(2) C.G. lung, Symbols of Transjormalion, (New York: Pantheon, 1956), pp. 233, 269 and passim.
(3) "Grace perfects nature", a Latin scholastic theological adage.
(4) "Joy of the Sabbath" a Hebrew phrase used to describe the socia) gathering after the Sabbath service.
(5) Rabbi Eliezar Berkovits speaks for those who, declining to enter the dialogue, counsel silence. Holding that "honest fraterna/ dialogue now" is "emotionally impossible", he states: "In a hundred years, perhaps, depending on Christian deeds toward Jews, we may be emotionally ready forthe dialogue". See his Faith Ce, the Holocatest (New York: Ktav. 1973) p. 44.
(6) "Theology of Glory", Luther's expression for the theologies preceding him that glorified Christianity and the Chrurch.
(7) "Theology of the Cross), Luther's expression for the theology of Jesus' redemptive death, which he made the center of his entire theology.
(8) Karl Rahner, Dictionary of Theology (New York: Crossroad, 1981) p. 107.
(9) A. Roy Eckardt, "The Shoah and the Affirmation of the Resurrection of Jesus: A Revisionist Marginai Note" (Unpublished paper delivered at Annual Scholars Conference on the Church Struggle and the Holocaust, Philadelphia, March 1989) pp. 18 & 25.
(10) Paul M. van Buren, A theology of the JewishChristian Reality, Part Christ in Context (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988) Ch. 7.
(l I) See Leo Baeck, Judaism and Christianity (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1958, esp. Chs. 3, 4 & 5. For a critique by L Louis Martyn, see Jewish Perspectives on Christianity, ed. Fritz A. Rothschild (New York: Crossroad, 1990) pp. 21-41.
(12) In 312 C.E. Emperor Constantine won a decisive battle, which one can sa), opened the Constantinian era, an era of dose collaboration of Church and State that was to last up to modem times. Constantine confessed to Eusebius, the Church historian, that before the battle he saw a cross in the sky with the inscription in hoc signo vinces (in this sign you will conquer). The Emperor ordered that the cross be marked on the shields of his almost entirely nonChristian army. See J. Stevenson, ed., A New Eusebius (London: Camelot Press 1970) pp. 298-300.
(13) Nothing, of course, except that those aheady involved, or inclined to be, continue patiently in dialogue and cooperative ventures with their all too few Christian colleagues.
(7) Charles Peguy "Nutre jeunesse" in Oeuvres en Prose 1909-1914, Gallimard, La Pleade, Dijon 1957, pp. 628-629.
(8) Bruno Revel, L'affaire Dreyfus (1894-1906), Mondadori, Verona 1936, p. 50.
(9) C. Pequy, op. cit., p. 646, 515 ff. 525, 533.
(10) The Cardinal of Paris, Jean Marie Lustiger has said "to profane a tomb is an act of aggressive paganism which attacks the heart of Jewish and Christian faith".
(11) Wlodek Goldkorn "Antisemitismo
e anticommunismo" in MicroMega Le ragioni della sinistra n. 4/90,
p. 98.
(12) Edgar Morin and Maria Antoniet
ta Maccioc, "Il demoni di Carpen
tras" Corriere della Sera, 13 May
1990.
(13) Y. Chevalier, op. cit., pp. 270, 16, 371.
(14) Cf. Manna Arendt, Le origini del totalitarismo, Communità, Milano 1967, p. 7.
(15) Y. Chevalier, op. cit., p. 383. 06) Albert Levy, "Apres Carpentras. Un racisme ne va jamMs seul" in La
Presse Nouvelle. Magazine Progressiste Jui f n. 78, June 1990. "L'apres Carpentras" in DDV Le Droit De Vivre n. 551, June-July, 1990.
(17) We have written on this subject with others, e.g. with F. Lovsky "Christiani ed ebrei 35 anni dopo" in R Regno/Attualità, /5 Aprii 1982.
(18) Cf. Renzo Fabris "Il Ghetto di Roma ieri e oggi ecc.", cit. p. 19.
(19) In the Prague citation the expression is used explicitly 5 times and is referred to in at least 4 other places.
* Edward H. Flannery is the Priest Director of Continuing Education of the Clergy of the Diocese of Providence, R.L, member of the Advisory Committee of the Secretariat for Catholic-Jewish Relations and President of the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel. Among other posts Rev. Flannery was the first Executive Secretary of the Secretariat for Catholic-Jewish Relations of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of the USA and consultar to the Vatical Secretariat for Religious Relations with the Jews. He is author of The Anquish of the Jews (Paulist Press) and has contributed chapters to many books.
