D'autres articles de cet numéro | En anglais | En français
Reflections on the Catechism of the Catholic Church
Eugene J. Fisher
Introduction
The new universal Catechism of the Catholic Church will be, according to all indications, influential in Catholic religious education efforts for years to come. Its purpose, if I may put it so, is to provide a "base line" for the content of religious education programs and materials. While it may be used by adults and as teacher background, or for advanced students in some cases, in its present form it is unlikely to be used directly in elementary or even secondary level classrooms as a text. The French edition was published in November of 1992 and the English is expected soon. The following comments of necessity rely essentially on my own personal translation of the French edition (Paris, Mame/Plon). So it may not be the best translation the reader will encounter.
One can say in general that the Catechism reflects rather well the present status questionis of Catholic teaching on Jews and Judaism. It does not in any sense seek to "back away" from the Second Vatican Council, but rather to consolidate post-Conciliar official teachings to date. It attempts to integrate into its approach the teachings of the Holy See's Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews of 1974 and 1985. In the process it reflects also areas where these documents are unclear rather than not seeking to move forward the discussion beyond the present state of the official documentation. In imposing this limitation on itself, one may say, it does not always live up to the fullness of the vision of Pope John Paul II on Catholic-Jewish relations, but is rather more cautious in some areas than is the Pope, who has on more than one occasion taken very conscious steps forward in understanding (cf. E. Fisher and L. Klenicki, John Paul II on Jews and Judaism 1979-1986, USCC Publications, 1987). In fairness the Catechism perhaps ought to be judged on the basis of the goals which it has set for itself, rather than those which one may consider to be the ideal.
Two key sections of the Catechism are devoted to implementing major elements of Nostra Aetate No. 4 in the light of the 1974 and 1985 statements of the Holy See's Commission. These are, first, the treatment of Article 4 of the Creed ("suffered under Pontius Pilate," paragraphs 574-600) and, following a discussion of the "catholicity" of the Church, its paragraphs on "the Church and Non-Christians" (839-848).
The material in the section of the Creed dealing with responsibility for the death of Jesus is, in effect, an extended argument debunking from a variety of perspectives any sense of collective Jewish guilt for Jesus' death. Its attack on misunderstandings among Christians about Judaism and religious stereotypes of the Jews as a people, I believe, is pointed and will be effective in ending any lingering sense of the ancient deicide charge. Its opening paragraphs, 574 and 575, especially the latter, in effect distill major passages from the 1985 Notes, although the text rather curiously fails to cite that document specifically. It seeks here to establish that there were real differences between Jesus' teaching and that of his contemporaries, but also that there existed a wide range of teaching in common, especially with the Pharisees, a notion that will not be new to the readers of the present publication but may come as a surprise to some in other parts of the Catholic world.
Thus, while arguing that "some" Pharisees, Herodians, priests and scribes joined together to "accuse Jesus of blasphemy and false prophecy, religious crimes which the law punished with death by stoning" (574), the next section aims to distinguish clearly between "some" and "the people" as a whole.
Many of Jesus' works and words were thus to be a "sign of contradiction" (Luke 2:34), but for the religious authorities of Jerusalem, whom John's gospel often calls simply "the Jews" more than for the common People of God. It is certain that Christ's relations with the Pharisees were not only polemical. Pharisees warned him of the danger he courted (Lk. 13:31). Jesus praised some among them, such as the scribe of Mark 12:34, and he ate often at the homes of Pharisees (Lk. 7:36; 14:1). Jesus confirmed doctrines imparted by this reforming party within the People of God: the resurrection of the dead, forms of piety (almsgiving, fasting and prayer), the custom of addressing God as Father, and the central character of the commandment of love of God and neighbor (575).
Interestingly, throughout these two passages, which reflect so much on Jewish beliefs, the text of the Catechism cites only New Testament passages and not the passages from the Hebrew Scriptures on which Jesus and the Evangelists themselves relied. Section 576 asserts (without references to either Testament) that "in the eyes of many in Israel, Jesus seemed to call into question essential elements of the Chosen People's way of life". While one could question the three examples given as fully adequate either to the New Testament or to Pharisaic/rabbinic "oral tradition" to which they refer rather vaguely, what is most important here is the acknowledgement that the controversy would have been only with "some" or "many" among the People, not with the People of God, Israel, as such. While I would have preferred here the inclusion of the point made so well in the 1985 Notes that certain of the types of controversies listed in this paragraph may have actually reflected later controversies between the early Church and nascent rabbinic Judaism at the end of the first century rather than Jesus' own time, the Catechism's consistent attempt to break down negative collective images of Jews and Judaism goes directly to the heart of the ancient polemic and will make a real difference in future textbooks. This will be perhaps more true in some other countries than in the U.S.A., of course, as the American textbook studies show we are already well advanced in textbook revision following the mandates of the Council and the Holy See.
Jesus and the Law
The section entitled, Jesus and the Law (577- 582) is of great interest in the light of the results of earlier textbook analyses. It appears at pains, again, not to establish a simplistic dichotomy between Jesus and Christianity on the one hand, and Pharisaic and rabbinic Judaism on the other. It seeks to do this in a way that will emphasize Jesus' divine authority over "the Law" while not diminishing Christian understanding of Jesus as "the divine legislator" (580). In short, it wants to avoid the ancient trap of setting the Lawgiver and Law in opposition, a neat but ultimately confusing model of the relationship between the Testaments. One of the ways it attempts to achieve this is by introducing some rather carefully nuanced language into its presentation.
The opening paragraph (577), for example, explains that "in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus presented the Law given by God on Sinai according to the First (Premiere) Covenant in the light of the grace of the New Covenant, solemnly warning at the beginning, "Do not think that I have come to abolish but to fulfil (accomplir). . . " The Catechism then cites in full Matthew 5:17- 19, a much longer biblical citation than is usual for it, seemingly in order to hammer home its antisupersessionist message: to fulfil does not mean to supersede or replace, but to "perfect" and "interpret definitively", as the language suggests in 582.
The Catechism argues, if I read it correctly, that Jesus alone could observe the Law fully or perfectly, because he alone is the Lawgiver "born subject to the law in the person of the Son"; whereas no mere human being could perfectly "fulfil", i.e. entirely observe a Law which is of divine origin. Jesus' "perfect execution" of the Law served to "prepare the people for God's unprecedented intervention... and so reveal the Law's "ultimate meaning" (579).
I believe a catechetical interpretation along these lines can make a helpful contribution to clarifying our teachings on this point. It serves to emphasize Jesus' divine authority without inherently denigrating what it calls "the Law". (It may be noted in passing that the concept of "the Law" as used in the Catechism, while authentically reflecting New Testament usage, does not adequately present Jewish understanding of the Sinai Covenant and its implications for God's People as Torah. But that, again, is yet another reason for Catholics to dialogue with Jews).
Certain other phrasings within this generally interesting interpretation will be of help to Catholic teachers who wish to break down old stereotypes: "This principle of the integrity of the observance of the Law, not only in its letter but in its spirit, was dear to the Pharisees" (579). Paragraphs 447 and 993 also manage kind words on the Pharisees, a point not to be eschewed today given the universally grim portrait of them in the catechisms of the past.
Similarly, we read: "Jesus appeared in the eyes of the Jewish people and their spiritual leaders as a rabbi, who often argued within the framework of rabbinical interpretation of the Law. But at the same time he could not help but offend the doctors of the Law, for he was not content to place his interpretation alongside theirs but taught the people "as one having authority and not as their scribes" (Mt. 7:28-9)" (581). While, again, an awareness of the post-Resurrection perspective of the Evangelist would be of help to the catechist, the essential point made here is vital. The "problem" is not "the Law" (which is, after all, given to the Jewish People by God). Nor is it "the People" (who are, after all Chosen by God to be God's People). It is the divinity of Christ which divides Judaism and Christianity. Hence this section concludes with careful wording: "With the same divine authority he (Jesus) disavowed certain "human traditions" (Mark 7:8) of the Pharisees which "annul the Word of God" (Mark 7: 13)".
Paragraph 582 also seeks a less dichotomized approach to the New Testament's portrayal of Jesus' teachings on the dietary laws: "Jesus perfected (accompli) the purity of foods, so important in daily Jewish life, by revealing its "pedagogical" sense through a divine interpretation... He was challenged by certain doctors of the Law, who did not receive his interpretation of the Law even though guaranteed by divine signs. This was particularly strong for the question of the Sabbath; Jesus recalled, often with rabbinic arguments, that the Sabbath rest is not disturbed by the service of God or neighbor". While, again, there is more anachronism here, the main point being made is quite salient.
Jesus and the Temple
The section, Jesus and the Temple (583-586) emphasizes Jesus' deeply Jewish "respect for the Jerusalem Temple", citing his "pilgrimages to Jerusalem for the great Jewish feasts" (583), his understanding of the Temple "as the privileged place of encounter with God" (584), and finally the idea that Jesus "identified himself with the Temple by presenting himself as God's definitive dwelling among humanity" (John 2:21, Mt. 12:6). The theology here is of course quite distinct from that of Judaism, as well it should be. What is helpful is that it enables not only a high Christology but a profoundly Christian understanding of the destruction of the Temple (585-6) that is not in any way connected to the ancient notion of divine retribution against Jews for their supposed collective role in Jesus' death. Again, this is a most helpful interpretation for catechists, and one which reflects a theme of the 1985 Notes, albeit without direct citation.
[Image: Bronze door of the Cathedral of Montereale (Sicily): The purification of Mary and the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple.]
Jesus and Israel's faith in the One God and Savior
Having disposed of several pseudo- dichotomies, the Catechism in the third section, Jesus and Israel's Faith in the One God and Savior (587-591), seeks to establish what "was the true stumbling block for... the religious authorities of Israel". This it finds in Jesus' "role in the redemption of sins" (587). Commenting in passing that "Jesus scandalized the Pharisees by eating with publicans and sinners as familiarly as with themselves" (588), it argues that "above all in forgiving sins Jesus placed the religious authorities of Israel in a dilemma. For did they not ask in their consternation, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (589) The section concludes with the homiletic insight that "such an exigency of conversion in the face of so surprising a fulfilment of the promises enables us to comprehend the tragic misunderstanding of the Sanhedrin's members estimating that Jesus merited death as a blasphemer. Its members acted thus out of "ignorance" (Luke 23:24; Acts 3:17- 18) and the "hardening" (Mark 3:5; Rom 11:25) of "unbelief" (Rom. 11:20).
If local catechists find sections 587-591 a bit dense, the "In Brief" list summarizes: "Certain Jewish leaders, who did not recognize the God made man (Jn. 1:14), saw in him 'a man who makes himself God' (Jn 10:33); judging him to be a blasphemer, " (594). While much more may need to be said to "unpack" this for local catechists, the attempt to move beyond the polemics of the past while preserving what lies at the heart of Christian faith is both clear and commendable.
The Trial of Jesus
The key treatment of The Trial of Jesus 595- 598) begins with two tight paragraphs detailing various "Divisions among the Jewish Authorities" both in reaction to Jesus' teachings (595) and how to respond to him (596). Para 595 mentions that "among the religious authorities of Jerusalem" were "a good number" who believed in him, such as the Pharisee Nicodemus and "the influential Joseph of Arimathea", concluding with reference to the Book of Acts that "a great many" Jews, among them priests and Pharisees, came to believe in Jesus "after Pentecost". While present day Jews reading the Catechism may not be as pleased with these conversions as are its authors, the point that Jesus had admirers and even followers in all levels of Jerusalem society as well as detractors (who are taken up in 596) is important for insulating Christians against any vestige of the old collective guilt canard against Jews as a people.
Para. 596 teaches that "the religious authorities were not unanimous about the position to hold vis-a-vis Jesus", with "the Pharisees" opting for "excommunication of his followers" (John 9:22), while "the chief priest Caiaphas feared that... the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation", and the Sanhedrin, "having declared Jesus deserving of death as a blasphemer but having lost the right to put anyone to death, handed him over to the Romans".
The next two paragraphs are each considered important enough to merit a title of their own: The Jews are not Collectively Responsible for the Death of Jesus (597) and All Sinners are the Authors of the Passion of Christ (598). The distinction between "Jesus" in 597 and "Christ" in 598, of course, is appropriate since the first is an historical statement while the second is properly theological.
Emphasizing "the historical complexity of Jesus' trial" as "apparent in the Gospels" (597) notes that even the "personal guilt of those involved (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone". How much less then, the Catechism concludes, in what can only be seen as a qal vahomer rabbinic argument, can we "attribute the responsibility for its outcome to all the Jews of Jerusalem? " Further, the New Testament itself ascribes what was done to the forgivable "ignorance" (Luke 23:34; Acts 3: 17) of the participants. "Still less" it concludes, "can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different places and times", based merely on the ratification formula of Matt. 27:25, for (quoting Nostra Aetate No. 4) "what happened in His Passion cannot be blamed upon all the Jews then living, without distinction, nor upon the Jews of today... Jews should not be presented as repudiated or cursed by God, as if such views followed from Sacred Scripture".
Although, again, something of the chronological development of the Gospel accounts as reconstructed by modern biblical scholarship would have been helpful in bolstering the Catechism's arguments at this point, what should be remembered is that it puts explicitly into the category of the Council's strict rubric many of the most problematic passages of John's Gospel, the Synoptics and, especially, the Book of Acts, from which it cites on the way to its conclusion, Acts 2:23, 36; 3:13-17; 4:10; 5:28-30; 7:52; 10:39; 13:27- 28, and 18:6.
Para. 598 focuses unambiguously on the central teaching of the Church in the matter by evoking and quoting at length the passage from the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, the same passage to which Jules Isaac in his writings and in his audience with Pope John XXIII in 1960 sought to draw the Church's attention. As the Catechism aptly summarizes "the Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility in the Passion of Jesus, a responsibility too often laid only on the Jews".
Judaism and the Church - A Special Relationship
The section, The Church and Non-Christians, contains two paragraphs pertinent to our study, 839 and 840. These state the distinctiveness of Judaism among the world's religions from a Christian point of view, summarizing Nostra Aetate No. 4 under the title "The Relationship of the Church with the Jewish People". It adds to the Conciliar text a reference to the revised Good Friday prayer for the Jews as "the first to hear the word of God", an intentionally positive reframing of the ancient prayer, Pro Perfidis Judaeis. "The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is a response to the revelation of God in the ancient Covenant", (citing then Rom 9:4-5 and 11:29)
840 evokes the 1985 Notes quoting from them the key passage:
" When one considers the future, the People of God of the Ancient Covenant and the new People of God tend toward analogous goals: awaiting the coming (or the return) of the Messiah". To this, the Catechism adds "But one side awaits the return of the Messiah, dead and resurrected, recognized as Lord and Son of God, the other side the coming of the Messiah, whose features remain hidden, until the end of time - a waiting accompanied by the drama of the ignorance of the failure to recognize Jesus Christ".
The text at this point cross references para. 597, which as we have seen is a rejection of any sense of collective responsibility by Jews for the death of Jesus, and Para. 674.
The latter Paragraph (674) is found in the treatment of the Creed (Article 7), under the heading, "The Glorious Coming of Christ, the Hope of Israel". The reference is not the clearest in the Catechism, at least for our purposes. The key sentences seem to be:
The coming of the Messiah in glory is suspended over each moment of history (Rom 11:31) until its recognition by "all Israel " (Rom 11:26; Mt. 23:39) since "a hardening has come in part" (Rom 11:25) in "the unbelief" (Rom 11:20) toward Jesus. . . The entry of "the full number (plenitude) of Jews" (Rom 11:12) in the Messianic salvation, in the wake of "the full number (plenitude) of Gentiles" (Rom 11:25) will enable God's people to "realize the fullness (plenitude) of Christ (Eph 4:13) so that "God may be all in all" (1 Cor 15:28).
It is clear to me that the Catechism, for excellent reasons is attempting to bring together what have hitherto been rather divergent chords of interpretation of Romans 9-11, from Nostra Aetate especially. It does this creatively and I think helpfully. The eschatological caveat of the Council and of the 1985 Notes is preserved, along with the Notes' sense of dynamic tension between the "al- ready here" and "not yet". What I am not sure about is whether it has rendered its theologically significant insights into a catechetically practical framing that will be usable in the classroom. But then, these passages do deal with central mysteries classically so called, of the Church's self-understanding, aspects of our thought which have never, even for St. Paul, been easy to encapsulate in mere mortal languages.
It is precisely around such matters, I believe, that the deeper spiritual dialogue between Jews and Christians will one day revolve, although perhaps not for some generations. For, as the Notes remind us, what we are all about as Jews and Christians is being called by God to prepare the way for God's Reign, the Malchuth Shamayim for the coming of which Jesus taught us Christians to pray in the Our Father.
One section of the text that may provide substance for more immediate dialogue is that on the commandment to "remember" (Ex. 20) or "observe" (Dt. 5) the Sabbath (2168-2195). Many scholars date the historic "parting of the ways" between Judaism and Christianity precisely to the move from Sabbath observance to Sunday within the Christian community. The text itself is admirably straightforward, and I think most helpful in preserving the proper distinctions: "Sunday (the Day of the Resurrection: The New Creation) is expressly distinguished from the Sabbath, following it chronologically, each week, and for Christians it replaces the ceremonial observance. It fulfils, in the Passover of Christ, the spiritual truth of the Sabbath and announces humanity's eternal repose in God. Worship according to the Law prepared the mystery of Christ and what was done then prefigured certain attributes of Christ. Those who lived according to the ancient order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day in which our life was raised by him and by his death".
The final sentence refers to both St. Ignatius of Antioch and to St. Thomas Aquinas. While the reference to prefiguring (i.e. typology) may make some uncomfortable, I believe that dialogue makes such an assertion as this quite necessary. The statement is careful to preface its affirmation of what is after all core Catholic practice with the telling phrase, "for Christians". It therefore does, as I believe it logically must, leave theological "space" for Jews to continue to observe this commandment precisely as they were commanded by God to observe it - i.e., not on the day as the Catechism acknowledges following the Sabbath, but on the Sabbath itself. For us Christians the fact of Jesus' Resurrection and the New Creation became so overwhelmingly central that it had to become the heart of our worship, no less than the Sabbath is for Jews. So understood, the text will be quite helpful, although it could have been enriched by following a suggestion from the 1985 Notes to utilize post-biblical Jewish tradition, in this case on the Sabbath.
I do have a problem here, and it is with the "In Brief" wording, which in this instance appears to be not so carefully stated as the Catechism text itself. 2190, which purports to summarize the above, foreshortens it to: "The Sabbath, which represents the achievement of the first creation, is replaced by the Sunday, which recalls the new creation inaugurated by the Resurrection of Christ". "Replaced" is unfortunate. We still have seven days in the week, not six, as 2175 emphasizes. Indeed, even the language of the Diocese of Rome, Italian, has Sabado for Saturday, not Sunday. Perhaps a future edition will be able to correct this little glitch.
Finally, I might mention some other themes that are developed helpfully in appropriate sections of the Catechism. Briefly, these are:
1. The Jewishness of Jesus and Mary are stressed, for example, in Paras. 423, 39, 488, 531. Textbook studies have shown that this is one of the most important factors in evaluating whether or not a given catechetical series will instill in students a positive attitude toward Jews and Judaism.
2. On several occasions as appropriate, the reader is reminded of the Jewish roots of Catholic liturgy. While, again and understandably, Christ is presented as giving "definitive meaning" to Jewish liturgy (as for example the Paschal meal), the language is carefully non supersessionist and respectful in tone toward the integrity of Jewish liturgy (e.g., 1096, 1226, 1334, 1340, 2175, 2767).
3. The section on the ethics of war and peace contains a direct condemnation of genocide "Deliberate actions contrary to the rights of peoples and universal principles, as well as orders which command them, are crimes. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who follow them. Any extermination of a people, a nation, or an ethnic minority must be condemned as a moral sin. One is morally bound to resist orders which command a genocide" (2313). This is an ethical reflection on the Holocaust, I believe.
4. In several places the text condemns persecution and discrimination "by race or religion" as sinful. These would clearly include anti-Semitism, of course, although I have not personally found the word "anti-Semitism" explicitly in the text.
With regard to Catholic-Jewish relations, the question that will face readers is whether or not to read Para. 60 in the light of Para 63. No. 63 is clearly and consciously in the present tense: "Israel is the priestly people of God... the older brothers and sisters of all who share the faith of Abraham", while Para 60 is ambiguous, read on its own. I rather think that Para. 63's conscious choice of the present tense for the present-day People Israel must determine the overall sense of the passage as a whole, since it is so strongly worded. If so, then No. 60 is an eschatological rather than simple historical predictive statement, "that day when God should gather all his children into the unity of the Church"; in other words, as Nostra Aetate interprets the biblical references. If so, then the nature of the eschatological Church and its form of unity after the Second Coming may well be one not at all anticipated by us living in the pilgrim "stage".
Read carefully Paras 61, 62 and 64 can be seen to be consistent and relatively positive about the relationship between the Church and the Jewish people, without in themselves foreclosing openness to other religions, although I would have to worry a bit about folks who may wish to take some lines out of context. We must, to conclude, avoid a "fundamentalist" interpretation of the Catechism itself.
Eugene J. Fisher is Director of Catholic-Jewish Relations for the U.S. National Conference of Catholic Bishops. (The essay "Reflections on the Catechism of the Catholic Church" by Eugene J. Fisher was commissioned for the publication Professional Approaches for Christian Educators, (PACE), a publication of Brown Publication - ROA Media, Dubuque, Iowa, USA. It appeared in the April 1994 issue of Volume 23 of PACE, and is printed here with permission).
