Otros artigos deste número | Versión en inglés | Versión en francés

The cross: the sign of God’s all embracing love
Audrey Doetzel, nds

 

This essay attempts a brief overview of efforts and developments in North America, since Vatican Council II, in the Christian presentation of the passion and death of Jesus. SIDIC is grateful to the liturgists and theologians in the United States and Canada who were available for consultation in the preparation of this article.

*The season of Lent annually raises before Christians and Jews the power of religious symbol. A respected American Jewish liturgist defines religious symbols as “words, gestures or things that stand for something beyond themselves, but do so in such a way that the people who recognize the symbols feel deeply, often irrationally, attached or repelled by them.” (1)1 Such has been and continues to be the power of the Cross which, for Christians, holds center stage, especially during Holy Week.

A Catholic theologian acknowledges this power of the Cross: “Our history is filled with expressions of its magnetism for us in painting, poetry, processions and passion plays; in cantatas and hymns, in architecture and scholarship, in liturgies and devotions. The cross tells us not only about Jesus but about the way we construe Christian life. It is a primordial language by which we voice our attachment to the Christ - yet, tragically, we have also used it to speak hatred and justify violence.” (2)2 A prominent Rabbi, viewing the cross on a neighboring church, asks: “Why does it disturb me? The sanctity of the day is marred by an image projecting memories of the past....I am overwhelmed despite my own religious feelings of fellowship and my commitment to an ongoing dialogue with Christians. The cross is there, a challenge to my inner peace!” (3)3

In 1965, through a few clear and succinct words, Vatican Council II called Roman Catholic Christians to new awareness and understanding: “[W]hat happened in [Christ’s] passion cannot be blamed upon all Jews then living, without distinction, nor upon the Jews of today....Christ in his boundless love freely underwent his passion and death because of the sins of all, so that all might attain salvation. It is, therefore, the duty of the church’s preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God’s all embracing love...” (Nostra Aetate, 4).

For more than thirty years Christians in North America have taken this summons very seriously. John T. Pawlikowski, a theologian active in the Dialogue for many years, is today convinced that despite the history of Good Friday in terms of Christian-Jewish relations, it is possible to transform the message of the Good Friday liturgy into one that can reconcile and unite. His vision is hopeful but realistic: “But even if the worst antisemitic excesses connected with Holy Week are now past history, we still face the challenge of ensuring that come Easter Monday the theology of Jewish-Christian bonding affirmed at Vatican II has made it through not merely intact, but even strengthened. After our celebration of Holy Week do our people feel a new sense of linkage to Judaism and the Jewish people, or have classical attitudes been once more affirmed?” Pawlikowski cautions that the realization of this vision requires a concerted effort that goes beyond a few changes in terminology or a few positive prayers for the Jewish people. (4)4

The Liturgical Challenges
North American Roman Catholic liturgists, with the International Commission for English in the Liturgy (ICEL), have been helping prepare revised editions of the Sacramentary and Lectionary. These revisions are in the final stages of preparation for approval. Informed by guidelines prepared by their respective National Conferences of Bishops, these liturgists have brought to their work awarenesses and concerns such as the one expressed in the Canadian Passion Narratives (CCCB, 1987): “[W]hen the passion account is being read or meditated upon, we can unwittingly or unwillingly transmit certain anti-Semitic impressions...All who are called to preach the word of God or to transmit it by the spoken or written word are asked to guard against the possibility of transmitting prejudice or false interpretations of scripture...To avoid anything that could cause negative attitudes toward others, it is recommended that the passion narratives be proclaimed as they are in this lectionary, without any further dramatization. In particular, crowd parts should not be assigned to the congregation; no gestures should be made, banners waved, or other activities carried on during the reading of the text. Care must always be taken to avoid turning the proclamation of the gospel into a historical pageant or passion play.” (5)5

Some liturgists who have reviewed the work of revision are aware that, aside from possibly more options in the choice of Holy Week readings and the removal of the Reproaches (Improperia) from the main body of the text, few changes in the Holy Week liturgies are anticipated. However, they continue to express concern about the prayer for the Jewish people in the Good Friday General Intercessions which conclude the Liturgy of the Word. Though greatly improved by the radical change requested by Pope John XXIII, the present prayer’s petitions that the Jewish people grow “in faithfulness to the covenant” and that they “may arrive at the fullness of redemption” continue to be problematic. Against the backdrop of past theology, remnants of which still inform the majority of worshippers, this prayer is still too easily interpreted in an anti-Judaic manner.

The Canadian Passion Narratives also addresses the use of the Reproaches: “Written as though Christ were speaking to the Christian assembly, this medieval song uses words from the Hebrew scriptures in a way that could be possibly misinterpreted as being directed against the Jewish people. For the sake of better relationships in the present and in the future, many worshipping communities choose to omit the optional use of this text.” (6)6 Reflecting the use of an ancient ‘covenant law-suit’ formula, the Reproaches take the form of a dialogue in which God, through the words of the prophets, reproaches the people with their ingratitude by contrasting the great events and themes of the Exodus with the treatment meted out by the people to their Savior and God. Already in 1977 Fr. Lawrence Frizzell urged that the Reproaches, if used at all, be presented with great care. He noted: “As the Church lost awareness of its Semitic roots, the biblical traditions about Israel’s failings were exploited to emphasize the contrast between the Jewish community and the Church. Sometimes the message of Jesus (John 12:47-50) that each person must assess himself in response to God’s word is forgotten...Each person, on hearing the review of sacred history (as in Psalm 106), should recognize himself or herself in the typological references to the past (cf., 1 Cor 10:1-13). The refrain makes the application obvious: ‘Holy God, Holy and Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us.’ ...The Reproaches are not central to the Good Friday liturgy and can be replaced by other hymns. An alternative would be an introduction which stresses that we associate our sins and those of our generation with the failures of past generations both in the Church and in ancient Israel.” (7)7

Liturgists, aware that the Lenten biblical texts are replete with complexities and problems, are increasingly guided by the insights of scholars who emphasize respect for the nature of sacred writings and express caution about removing or changing offensive passages. Raymond E. Brown states: “[R]emoving offensive passages is a dangerous procedure which enables hearers of bowdlerized versions to accept unthinkingly everything in the Bible. Accounts ‘improved’ by excision perpetuate the fallacy that what one hears in the Bible is always to be imitated because it is ‘revealed’ by God, and the fallacy that every position taken by an author of Scripture is inerrant....[A] truer response is to continue to read unabridged passion accounts in Holy Week, not subjecting them to excisions that seem wise to us - but once having read them, to preach forcefully that such hostility between Christian and Jew cannot be continued today and is against our fundamental understanding of Christianity. Sooner or later Christian believers must wrestle with the limitations imposed on the Scriptures by the circumstances in which they were written. They must be brought to see that some attitudes found in the Scriptures, however explicable in the times in which they originated, may be wrong attitudes if repeated today. They must reckon with the implications inherent in the fact that God has revealed in words of men. Congregations who listen to the passion proclamations in Holy Week will not recognize this, however, unless it is clearly pointed out. To include the passages that have an anti-Jewish impact and not to comment on them is irresponsible proclamation that will detract from a mature understanding of our Lord’s death.” (8)8

An increasing number of resources are becoming available to conscientious preachers and liturgists who wish to address the complex issues encountered in the Lenten Scripture readings with intelligence and integrity. The major areas which require attention include: a) the first century CE Palestinian world governed by Roman Law; b) the relationship between the early church and the synagogue; c) the apologetic motives which colored the gospels; d) the early church’s struggle for social, economic and political status. Excerpts from Philip A. Cunningham’s Proclaiming Shalom: Lectionary Introductions to Foster Catholic and Jewish Relationship (9)9 illustrate how some of these problematic issues can be addressed succinctly yet effectively:
Luke 22:14-23:56 - “In hearing this account it should be remembered that one of Luke’s purposes in writing his Gospel was to assure Roman authorities that Christians were peaceful law-abiding people who deserved legal recognition. The fact that the founder of Christianity was crucified on the orders of a Roman prefect is embarrassing to Luke. Therefore, he repeatedly stresses Jesus’ innocence and tends to shift responsibility for Jesus’ death onto Jewish figures.” (10)10
Matt 26:14-27:66 - “Due to disputes with the synagogues in his own time, Matthew charges a Jewish crowd with blood guilt for Jesus’ death. We must be careful not to let Matthew’s polemic lead us to wrong conclusions about the causes of the crucifixion. Jesus died because of the sins of all humanity....To appreciate the narrative most fully, we should contrast the faithfulness of Jesus to God with our own failure to be as faithful. Our failure to promote the reign of God adequately means that Jesus is still being crucified in the flesh of the oppressed and victimized peoples of our twentieth-century world.” (11)11

John T. Townsend, an Episcopalian professor of New Testament and member of the Christian Study Group on Judaism and the Jewish People, agrees with Brown that Scripture should not be excised and revised. He also acknowledges that reading certain New Testament passages to congregations who accept Scripture quite uncritically often perpetuates distorted views of Jews and Judaism. To help resolve this dilemma he has written a liturgical interpretation of the Passion in narrative form which is generally faithful to Scripture but which does not reproduce the version of any particular Gospel. He uses the accounts of Matthew and Mark as a base, retaining the rhetorical qualities of Matthew’s narrative, and omitting certain passages which appear to contradict each other or are commonly regarded as problematic due to the nature of an evangelist’s editorializing. In this work Townsend relies on a practice with historical precedent: “[I]t is traditional to recite the story of the Last Supper in a version that follows no one Biblical account...[T]he Passion and Exodus stories appear in the Exultet...but the wording is nonbiblical...Such a liturgical reading should in no way be construed as a factual, historical reconstruction...[A] strictly historical reconstruction of what happened is not possible.” (12)12 Townsend’s liturgical interpretation has been used as an alternative for a biblical Passion narrative as a single reading, in segments, or as a basis for an interpretive homily. The Liturgical Interpretive Narrative is presented with informative introductions and extensive endnotes which enrich it as a resource for Lenten teaching. For effective antiphonal reading, Gabe Huck from Liturgical Training Publications in Chicago has set the Narrative in dramatic arrangement with simple musical score.

The problems encountered in the Holy Week liturgical readings are extended into the Easter season through the early chapters of the Book of Acts which are read from Easter Sunday morning until Pentecost. Unless accompanied by effective preaching and catechesis, some of these passages are all too easily heard as an affirmation of collective guilt against the Jewish people. Again, brief explanations such as those provided by Philip Cunningham can help offset this danger. For example:
Acts 10:34, 37-43 - “Peter proclaims to his fellow Jews that Jesus has been raised from death by God. Although executed by the Romans, Jesus will bring justice and forgiveness.” Acts 3:13-15,17-19 - “Peter, the disciple who had denied Jesus three times, urges the people of Jerusalem to repent for any part they played in the death of the innocent Jesus. He declares that the Messiah’s suffering unleashed the limitless, reconciling power of God in order that people’s sins would be forgiven.” Acts 4:8-12 - “Peter declares that by calling upon the name of Jesus, the healing and saving power of God is invoked. All those who rejected Jesus, starting with Peter himself, must be healed in Christ in order to be able to heal others.” (13)13

In 1987 in Baltimore, MD an interfaith coalition of laity and clergy founded ICJS - the Institute for Christian and Jewish Studies. ICJS offers educational programs on the distinctiveness of and misunderstandings between the Jewish and Christian traditions. In 1994 Christian clergy in the Baltimore area approached ICJS for help with biblical passages they found difficult to preach. In response ICJS offered a Preaching Colloquium to help prepare Christian congregations for Lent and Holy Week. Together with local Rabbis, priests, ministers, pastoral associates and religious educators discussed Lenten Lectionary readings, received scholarly input from Christian and Jewish perspectives, and wrote sample meditations. ICJS now offers a Preaching Colloquium semiannually, once prior to the season of Lent/Easter and once just before the Advent/ Christmas season.

Need for Effective Education
The appreciative response to the ICJS Preaching Colloquium underscores the need for more effective seminary education in Holy Week liturgy and preaching. Cognizant of this, Dr. Eugene Fisher included in his book Seminary Education and Christian-Jewish Relations: A Curriculum and Resource Handbook (14)14 two sections entitled “Responsibility for the Death of Jesus” and “Holy Week”. His approach indicates that simply teaching a few facts and details about the Passion and Holy Week will not ensure their effective integration into liturgical celebrations and homilies. By comprehensively treating the following areas - Basic Perspectives: Church Teaching Today; Academic Areas: Attitudes and Understandings; Spiritual Formation; Field Education; Presenting Jews and Judaism in Theological Education - Fisher illustrates that these awarenesses and understandings need to permeate the total academic education and personal formation of those responsible for preaching and liturgical leadership.

An approach simi-lar to Fisher’s is also necessary in preparing those charged with the work of religious education and catechesis. Major studies of American Catholic religion textbooks regarding their portrayal of Jews and Judaism predate Vatican II and Nostra Aetate. Already in 1961, Sr. Rose Thering’s study highlighted the category of “the Jews’ responsibility for the death of Jesus” as one of three major concerns. Dr. Eugene Fisher’s 1976 investigation revealed that, while American Catholic religious education materials were significantly more positive toward Jews and Judaism than prior to Vatican II, negative scores were still found in primary texts in the New Testament period category and specifically in the Crucifixion theme category. Secondary religion texts yielded positive, but low scores in these same categories. In view of his findings Dr. Fisher, in 1984, articulated four warnings about practices which less obviously perpetuate hostility towards Jews and Judaism. His second caution was: “the tacit perpetuation of the deicide charge by failing to adequately treat New Testament polemics.” (15)15

In the most recent textbook study completed in 1992, Philip A. Cunningham used the following directional criteria to determine how the passion is treated in primary and secondary Catholic religion series: 1. Is it made clear that: ‘what happened at his passion cannot be blamed upon all Jews then living, without distinction, nor upon the Jews of today’ (Nostra Aetate, 4)? or, is there explicit or implied assigning of blame to “the Jews” for the death of Jesus? 2. Are the historical and exegetical complexities of the passion narratives: evident, especially in the teachers’ manuals? or, are the biblical texts employed in a facile, uncritical manner so that polemic is perpetuated? 3. Is the Roman role in the crucifixion: made clear by noting that crucifixion was a Roman practice? that the chief priest was appointed by Pilate? that Pilate was not known as indecisive? or, is it minimized by failing to note these items? by portraying Pilate as determined to rescue Jesus? 4. Is it shown: that the New Testament does not mention the Pharisees as being involved in Jesus’ arrest, trial or death? or, is it stated or implied that they were involved? 5. Is guilt for the crucifixion: placed where it belongs theologically: on all humanity? or, are “the Jewish leaders” actually blamed in concrete descriptions of the passion? (16)16

The study of the primary series revealed that, though there was an improvement since the 1976 study in every period and theme category, the treatment of the crucifixion still scored negatively. The secondary series study revealed that while there was relatively little overall change from the 1976 study, the crucifixion category showed an obvious decline. The negative rating was due mainly to the thoughtless repetition of caricature and/or of New Testament polemic.

In the New Testament period category both the primary and secondary series rated a very low positive, down from an already low rating in 1976. Cunningham identified one overarching defect: “the regular practice of quoting or citing polemical New Testament passages without providing sufficient, if any explanation about such verses.” Acts 2:23, in which Peter prophetically accuses the Israelites of killing Jesus through the agency of the Romans, was one of the most popular passages used in this way. While series on both levels cited Nostra Aetate’s denial of widespread Jewish responsibility, they did not seriously work to avoid implying that very thing. (17)17

Cunningham included the Catechism of the Catholic Church in the final stages of his study. Though it includes statements such as “the Jews as a people cannot be held responsible for the death of Jesus,” the Catechism received negative assessments in its use of the New Testament and in its treatment of the crucifixion. Its reliance on theologies rooted in patristic thought encourages negative Hebrew/ Jewish references. Although it affirms that the Gospels developed in three stages, it fails to distinguish disputes occurring in Jesus’ ministry from those that arose between the early church and synagogue decades later - a distinction emphasized by the 1985 Vatican “Notes”. (18)18

In concluding his study, Cunningham insists that teachers be knowledgeable of and able to apply the critical biblical insights needed to treat such sensitive and historically complex issues as the events which led to Jesus’ execution. He stresses the importance of equipping both teachers and students with the ability to cope with the New Testament polemical texts that they will encounter as liturgical readings: “Without adequate education on the social contexts of the New Testament books, anti-Judaic ideas will be purveyed at Christian worship regardless of how benign instructional textbooks are in and of themselves.” He notes that the patristic anti-Jewish framework has vanished from the textbooks. The work remaining to be done is with the originating New Testament polemic. (19)19

Works of Art
While religion textbooks can be reviewed and revised, popular works of art must be approached in a different manner. Commenting on this, ICJS director Christopher M. Leighton noted in 1991: “Critics have argued that even the greatest artistic masterpieces must be restricted or censored if such productions disseminate misunderstandings.” He was speaking in the context of an ICJS Symposium organized in cooperation with the Baltimore Choral Arts Society to explore the relationship between the Arts and religious intolerance. The Symposium used Bach’s St. Matthew’s Passion to focus the topic: “[E]very human innovation can only be understood and appreciated when placed within its historical, theological and aesthetic context. The performance of Bach’s masterpiece provided our community with the opportunity to ponder serious questions from a variety of angles. What criteria do we involve when we judge our most hallowed traditions, when we evaluate our most treasured creations? Can we educate ourselves so that we are immunized from infectious distortions, yet alive and responsive to the power of the work? How are we to weigh the claims of religion and art when they rest uneasily in the balance?” (20)20

In conjunction with this project, Eugene J. Fisher developed a Commentary on the Text for the playbill distributed at the 1991 Baltimore performance of Bach’s Passion of St. Matthew. The introduction to the Commentary provided information on: the passion narratives, their composition and interpretation; the tradition of dramatizing the passion; the nature of “polemical barbs” used by the evangelists. The Commentary itself consists of brief instructive explanations on each of the performance’s seventeen “scenarios”. (21)21 This approach, begun by ICJS, is now becoming a model for other centers in the country.

Movies and videos on the life of Christ, frequently viewed in classrooms and in the home, are of special concern. A project, currently in progress in New York, aims to help transform these potentially problematic teaching-learning experiences into constructive informative occasions. A Christian-Jewish dialogue group is studying popular films/videos on the life of Jesus, including Zeffirelli’s acclaimed Jesus of Nazareth. Special attention is being directed to the passion and death of Jesus, in view of developing a study guide to be used by educators prior to showing these films and videos in a classroom.

Passion Plays in America
Dramatic representations of Christ’s death in the genre of the Passion Play, begun in 13th century medieval Europe, continue to influence American communities annually. While the well-known Oberammergau Passionsspiel exerts its influence by drawing a large majority of its attendees from North America, this production has also left its mark on Passion Plays which have proliferated throughout the USA - some through the efforts of local faith communities, others as purely commercial ventures. The better known among these include: Park Theatre Passion Play, Union City, New Jersey; Black Hills Passion Play, South Dakota and Florida; Val Balfour Passion Play, Virginia; The Great Passion Play, Arkansas; Word of Life Passion Play, New York State; Fall City Passion Play, Washington State.

These “dramatic liturgies” have a unique capacity to portray the struggle between good and evil in human life. The audiences, anticipating a religious and spiritual experience, bring an awe and reverence which also leaves them very susceptible to subliminal or overt anti-Jewish bias. For this reason Christians and Jews have directed much attention to these representations during the past three decades. The critique and revision of Passion Plays is perhaps one of the most tangible fruits of effective and sustained Christian-Jewish dialogue in North America. In February 1968, the Office of the Secretariat for Catholic-Jewish Relations of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, attuned to Church teaching and developments in contemporary scholarship, issued a Statement on Passion Plays. The Statement was updated and expanded in 1974 and in 1984. It was published in its most recent form in 1988 as Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion. (22)22

Since the early 1970’s the American Jewish community, primarily through the efforts of Rabbis Marc H. Tanenbaum and James Rudin of the American Jewish Committee (AJC) and Rabbi Leon Klenicki of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL), has monitored and extensively critiqued the Oberammergau play, urging its ongoing revision. To prepare attendees for the 1990 Oberammergau production Dr. Leonard Swidler of Temple University, with the assistance of Dr. Elliott Wright of the National Council of Christians and Jews and in consultation with ADL and AJC, prepared a set of guidelines: No Place for Hate: A Christian Viewer’s Guide to Oberammergau and Other Passion Plays. The introduction to the guidelines expresses the hope that, since Oberammergau has greatly influenced other Passion Plays, changes made in the Bavarian village will help point other plays toward better futures. (23)23

The Rockaway NY Catholic-Jewish Council, founded by Fr. John Kelly, SM has had representatives of its dialogue group view and critique several Passion Plays including the Park Theatre and Black Hills productions. During their discussion following the Park Theatre viewing Fr. Kevin Ashe, the current producer and executive director of the Park Theatre play, realized that the Jews and the Catholics in the group had seen two very different plays. He was able to perceive the degree to which the production was marked by religious stereotyping and historical misrepresentation. Aware that the Arts are an effective medium of the spiritual and a powerful tool for positive education, Fr. Ashe initiated the fundamental rethinking of a play that has been the pride of Union City’s Holy Family Catholic Church since 1915. Known as “America’s Oberammergau” it is the oldest Passion Play in North America.

To bring the Park Theatre play into line with post-Vatican II teaching, Fr. Ashe opened its text to critical review by a variety of scholars and consultants. These included scholars who had studied and written about Passion Plays (e.g., Dr. Eugene Fisher, Prof. Leonard Swidler, and Fr. John Kelly) as well as Jewish advisers from ADL and AJC. The author of the present version of the play, the director and members of the cast were directly involved in this process of consultation. The revision process - which is still going on - includes attention to the text and also to sets, costuming, choreography, music, lighting, symbols and intonations which frequently impact more powerfully than any message conveyed in words.

Fr. Ashe expresses the hope that Christian-Jewish dialogue groups view the Passion Play as a form of adult education which can help us understand Lent as a time of redemption: “Rethinking and revising this drama has been an educational journey for all of us involved, and I hope it has been the same for our audiences. We do not have to be tied to the failings of the past. We can be historically accurate and at the same time draw attention to the tremendous perennial struggle between good and evil.” (24)24


Fr. John Pawlikowski expresses a similar hope when he states that as Christians gradually achieve a more informed understanding of WHAT crucified Jesus, they will realize that his death can never be understood merely as a theological statement about human salvation. Once the concrete politically exploitative dynamics that brought Jesus to Calvary are understood, his death will symbolize not only the sufferings of all humankind, but in particular the sufferings that his brother and sister Jews, who shared his basic commitment to human dignity, were experiencing in occupied Palestine. (25)25

This brief review of recent developments in North America shows that the Cross, the very symbol which in the past was the deepest cause of division between Jews and Christians, is now serving to bring them together in a common search for truth. This shared commitment to integrity and human dignity is indeed a sign of God’s all embracing love.

---

Notes
Audrey Doetzel, NDS, a Sister of Sion, works in Jewish-Christian Relations through Relation and Encounter in New York. She is editor of the english edition of SIDIC.
1. Lawrence A. Hoffman, “Religious Symbols: Stumbling Blocks or Stepping Stones to Dialogue?” in Mary Christine Athans, ed., Proceedings of the Center for Jewish-Christian Learning 1993 Lecture Series (St. Paul: University of St. Thomas, 1993): 11.
2. Mary C. Boys, SNJM, “Jesus Through the Ages: Perspectives from the Cross” in Mary Christine Athans, ed., Proceedings of the Center for Jewish-Christian Learning 1995 Lecture Series (St. Paul: University of St. Thomas, 1995): 13.
3. Leon Klenicki, “On Christianity: Towards a Process of Historical and Spiritual Healing. Understanding the Other as a Person of God” in SIDIC Vol. XXIV, Nos 2-3, 1991: 25.
4. John T. Pawlikowski, “Christian Jewish Bonding and the Liturgy of Holy Week” in New Theology Review Vol 10, No 1, Feb. 1997: 100-101.
5. Passion Narratives, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1987, Nos 1,2.
6. Ibid., No 3.
7. Lawrence E. Frizzell, The Reproaches on Good Friday. Unpublished manuscript, 1977:1-4.
8. Raymond E. Brown, A Crucified Christ in Holy Week: Essays on the Four Gospel Passion Narratives (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1986): 15-16. Also by Brown: “The Death of Jesus and Anti-Semitism: Seeking Interfaith Understanding” in Catholic Update, St. Anthony Messenger Press, March, 1997.
9. Philip A. Cunningham, Proclaiming Shalom: Lectionary Introductions to Foster Catholic and Jewish Relationship (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995).
10. Ibid., 47.
11. Ibid., 47.
12. John T. Townsend, A Liturgical Interpretation in Narrative Form of the Passion of Jesus Christ (With a Dramatic Arrangement for Congregational Use) New York: The National Conference of Christians and Jews, Inc., 1985: Introduction to the First Edition.
13. Cunningham, op. cit., 53, 56, 58.
14. Eugene J. Fisher, Seminary Education and Christian-Jewish Relations: A Curriculum and Resource Handbook, Washington, DC: The National Catholic Educational Association, Seminary Department, in cooperation with The Secretariat for Catholic-Jewish Relations, NCCB, and The American Jewish Committee, 1983, 1988.
15. Eugene J. Fisher, “Research on Christian Teaching Concerning Jews and Judaism: Past Research and Present Needs” in Journal of Ecumenical Studies 21/3, Summer, 1984: 425-430.
16. Philip A. Cunningham, Education for Shalom: Religion Textbooks and the Enhancement of the Catholic and Jewish Relationship (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1991): 90-91.
17. Ibid., 106-116.
18. Ibid., 138-148.
19. Ibid., 122.
20. Christopher M. Leighton, Religious Intolerance and the Arts: Bach Under the Microscope - Bach’s Passion of St. Matthew (http://www.icjs.org , 1997).
21. A copy of this Commentary on the Text (Copyright, 1991) is available from: Dr. Eugene J. Fisher, Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 3211 4th St., N.E., Washington, DC 20017-1194.
22. The 1988 statement, Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion appears in the Documentation section of this issue of SIDIC.
23. Leonard Swidler, No Place For Hate: A Christian Viewer’s Guide to Oberammergau and Other Passion Plays. Distributed by NCCJ, 71 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10003.
24. These details about the Park Theatre Passion Play revisions are based on: 1) two 1997 radio interviews with Fr. Kevin Ashe by Fr. Lawrence Frizzell on the WSOU program, The Kinship of Catholics and Jews, sponsored by the Institute of Judeo-Christian Studies, Seton Hall University; 2) a presentation in New York City by Fr. Kevin Ashe on May 21, 1997 at the interreligious conference Passion Plays: Problems and Possibilities co-sponsored by the American Jewish Committee and the Park Performing Arts Center of Union City.
25 cf. John T. Pawlikowski, op. cit., 103-104.