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

The Vatican Office for Catholic-Jewish Relations
C.A. Rijk

As early as 1964, while the text of the Declaration was being elaborated and before its promulgation, the manner of its execution was discussed with Cardinal Bea in the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. The creation of a secretariat in charge of contacts with Judaism and Islam was suggested, possibly under the direction of Cardinal Marella, President of the Secretariat for Non-Christian Religions. Several reasons on the practical and theoretical levels made such a solution impossible. Others proposed a separate section under the direction of Cardinal Bea. However, in practice, this would have raised too many administrative and other difficulties. Finally it was decided to name, within the context of the Secretariat for Unity, a person capable of assuming the responsibility. Time and experience would show how the work was to be channeled independently and within the Secretariat. From the start all were convinced that a certain amount of autonomy would be necessary to avoid ambiguity as much on the theological level as on the practical, as much for the Jews as for the Christians. Consultations as to the right person to fill the position were held from 1964 on and in June of 1966 Ireceived the letter of nomination sent by Cardinal Bea with the express approbation of the Pope. Work was to commence October 1st 1966.

The second Vatican Council had inaugurated a totally new era in the relations between the Church and Judaism. A well-furnished dossier in the Secretariat for Unity contained important documents describing a difficult, complicated, even violent struggle during the Council period. But peace had returned; after much hard work the Declaration became reality. Against the background of history it was a very positive document, even revolutionary; in comparison with the ideal it was a weak text, subject to criticism; on the whole, a good starting-point. Its value would be tested in practice. The work could now begin. Meeting with a group of Jews in New York in March of 1963 Cardinal Bea said:

... The Council, whatever it might wish to do, would have to limit itself necessarily to a question of principle and could not go into details. Only after the Council could the long effort begin to spread the spirit of the Council and the principles promulgated by it, and by degrees to find positive means for improving relations between Catholics and Jews. This would be a long-term task calling for great patience and perseverance, but it is the only way to obtain lasting results. (See: "Aspects of a Peaceful Revolution", Chicago Studies, Vol. 5:2, Summer 1966, pp. 121-33.)

My first rendez-vous with the Cardinal took place in October of 1966. He was still the professor of Sacred Scripture that I had known in days gone by, the somewhat conservative and severe scholar. But now he seemed more human, more open, more fatherly and most welcoming, a very wise and sincere man. From the start he stressed that, even though the office to be concerned with Catholic-Jewish relations had been placed by the Holy Father under the direction of the President of the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians, the work was to be special and to fulfill its proper role within the context of the Secretariat. Jews not being Christians, contact with them is not proper to the work of Christian unity. On the other hand, the unique relation between Jews and all Christians creates a close bond between the unity of Christians and relations with Judaism. In fact, we can see several reasons which justify placing this work within the context of Christian unity. Over and above practical and administrative arguments, besides psychological and historical reasons which must recognize the uniqueness and the historical situation of Judaism, the theological arguments are paramount. As long as the Church considers the Old Testament as the inspired word of God and belonging to the foundation of her faith, there exists a particular and essential bond between the Church, all Christians, and those who find in this book the foundation of their existence, consequently Judaism. Furthermore, experience seems to show that contacts with Judaism can have a favourable influence on the search for Christian unity.

Jewish reactions to the conciliar DeclarationNostra Aetate are well known. A great number of them, especially the most religious, from the outset of the Council were very skeptical as to results because they did not believe the Church could fundamentally change its attitude towards Judaism. After the promulgation — generally considered as an important step forward, even though they were disappointed with the final text — prudence makes them fear lest the attitude proclaimed by the Council might be a new method, more humane this time, to integrate them into Christianity. With continued reservation, they await the application of the Declaration to see if new relations are truly possible. The office being situated within the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians could justify their fears and contribute to the uncertainty. Because of these different reasons, while remaining truly ecumenical in spirit, this office must be clearly distinct and have a certain amount of autonomy. The Cardinal agreed that the structures must not be decided upon in advance, for this initiative had no precedent in the history of the Church. And indeed, the office, now called "The Vatican Office for Catholic—Jewish Relations", is developing in a quite independent way.

With a very open mind, keen interest and true confidence, Cardinal Bea left the initiatives to his collaborators. Thus, this work commenced with an overall orientation and journeys to establish contacts with the Middle East, the United States, Canada, and Europe. Repeated personal contacts with concrete reality bring out the numerous and difficult problems which characterize the relations between the Church and Judaism. History is known in its broad lines: the disease of antisemitism which has for centuries infected the minds of Christians and, in this way, even human relations within society. It concerns mainly those countries in which Jews have lived or are living in the midst of Christians. But also where the Jewish population is non-existent, Christian sermons, catechesis and theology are obliged to speak of the Jews because the history of salvation binds us to Judaism. Research has proven that when this is carried out with a false knowledge of Judaism antisemitic mentalities can be formed even in countries where there are no Jews.

All this shows that the relations between the Church and Judaism do not merely concern social relations but the Church as such. Basic problems, theological questions, arise which have a direct bearing on the image the Church presents, on sermons and catechesis, as well as on the theology of the Church, redemption, messianism, etc. In this perspective questions such as these arise: What meaning has Judaism and the Church in this history? What type of collaboration between Christians and Jews is possible on the religious and the practical levels? Here, the Church as such is faced with the continuity of divine Revelation (Old Testament, Tanach) which does not incorporate the revelation received in Jesus. The relations between the two communities should be studied in depth and developed in a truly ecumenical spirit.

Despite some reservation and skepticism, the Jews generally hoped that a new Christian attitude would be adopted after the Council. The same was true of those who are at times opposed to all attempts at rapprochement. Many of them are disappointed because the situation and climate did not change as they had hoped. Numerous concrete cases, texts, and events prove that the esteem and love advocated by the Council are far from realization. It will obviously take much time to put the Council Declaration into practice. Many Jews and Christians do not understand that a real, in-depth change in attitude and mentality can only be brought about slowly. These elements emphasize both the necessity and the urgency to know and recognize Judaism as it is, according to its interpretation of itself.

Cardinal Bea always stimulated the work in its development. He knew neither the details of the question nor the make-up of the Jewish world. But he was keenly interested. He had a greatlove for the land of Israel ("you should go there from time to time"). He asked me to call in regularly, especially after a journey, during which time he would listen, encourage, and guide the work in the closest manner possible. He showed himself a man of great patience and at the same time of quiet and tenacious perseverance: "A centuries-old mentality cannot be changed in two years." The task is two-fold: to establish new relations with the Jews, relations characterized by respect and love; and to do away with traditional prejudices. Thus is a climate of understanding to be created which will lead to a deeper comprehension of the history of salvation. Evidently such a task cannot be accomplished from behind a desk. Close collaboration among all those working in this domain in different countries is necessary. Fortunately, several national secretariats and commissions were formed during and after the Council (the United States, Canada, Latin America, England, Belgium, etc.), joining the numbers of existing Catholic groups or commissions or Jewish-Christian councils (Holland, France, Germany, Spain, etc.). Subsequently the Congregation of Sisters of Our Lady of Sion, with houses and centers in more than fifteen countries, is making serious efforts to become more and more deeply involved in the task outlined by the Council. More than once Cardinal Bea encouraged the religious in this direction. But the number of experts is still limited and the field of activity vast.

In Rome the Cardinal promoted contacts with the organisms of the Holy See. Thus relations were established with the Commission on Justice and Peace, the Liturgical Council, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education. All these contacts, extremely important to the creation of a new climate, are still in the developing stage.

Cardinal Bea followed with great interest the initiatives of different countries to put into effect the Council Declaration not only to help and stimulate there where such was possible but better to understand the question: paratus semper doceri, ever ready to learn (see S. Schmidt, S.J., La Civilta Cattolica, I, 1969, p. 4).

The Cardinal became a symbol of a new era in the relations between Christians and Jews. The Declaration, for which he fought with tenacity and confident perseverance and in a deep spirit of faith, is considered as a first step of world-wide importance, though it was also received with some reservation and criticism. Cardinal Bea was esteemed and honored by Jews and Christians alike. In the twenty rendez-vous I had with him these last two years of his life, I several times accompanied Jews who wanted to thank him for his contribution to the developing attitude in the Church. They were always impressed with his sincerity, keen interest, and captivating personal-ity mirrored in his lively, welcoming eyes. This does not mean that all agreed with his ideas and theological explanation concerning the relations between the Church and Judaism. Here too he was a symbol that a first step had been taken on a long road which he was ready to walk. Even though towards the end of his life, he had expressed the desire to be relieved of many of his duties, he nevertheless wanted to consecrate his life till the last moment to ecumenism and Jewish-Christian relations.

During the last visit I paid him a few weeks before his death, in spite of already being very weak and ill, he insisted: "When there is a question or whatever, telephone me and come". A remarkable person, he did all in his power to bring about a 'peaceful revolution'.