Outros artigos deste número | Versão em inglês | Versão em Francês
On the New Roman Catechism; an Ecumenical Reflection
Daniel Garrone
Introduction
The sections of the new Catechism dealing fully and systematically with Israel, the Jews and Judaism reveal, in my opinion, a fundamental tension.
Although they follow in the wake of Nostra Aetate 4 and of the new rapport between Catholicism and Judaism these new perspectives are blocked by a somewhat traditional structure and content, which naturally provoke the question: "Is it possible to correct the attitude towards Judaism without a critical and thorough revision at all levels of the Christian theological tradition? It is not merely a question of correcting a few mistaken assertions but of radically revising Christian ideological anti-Judaism. In unavoidably simplistic terms the Catechism does not seem to me to take up the challenge of the total rethinking called for by the recognition of the seriousness of ingrained anti-Jewish ideology. It confirms the rejection of certain errors of the past without drawing all the consequences which the new perspectives ought, in my opinion, to entail.
In support of this thesis I would like to give some examples drawn from three important sources: the Hebrew Bible, Jesus and Israel, the Church and Israel.
1. The Hebrew Bible
The Catechism (121-123) clearly states, to the exclusion of all Marcionism, that the Old Testament is divinely inspired, maintaining its everlasting value as the true Word of God and confirming the indissoluble unity of the two Testaments. However, together with these statements, it reaffirms the centrality of the typological interpretation. Why does it not attempt to put greater emphasis, especially in the development of dogma on the acquisitions of modern exegesis which is essentially non-typological even in the Roman Catholic domain? Why not accept the fact that from the one Hebrew Bible come two interpretations which are also and above all spiritual-the Jewish and the Christian? No. 129 affirms the necessity of reading the New Testament in the light of the Old. However the implicit radicality of this assertion is attenuated by the quotation from St. Augustine: "Novum in Vetere latet et in Novo Vetus patet ". To read the New Testament in the light of the Old would, in my opinion, imply a salutary reappraisal, if not a total abandonment, of those ontological, metaphysical, juridical and spiritual categories which have had a determining influence in the first centuries of post New Testament Christianity. It is still possible to ignore the fact that the doctrine of the first centuries is also the result of a split between the Old and New Testaments.
2. Jesus and Israel
The presentation of New Testament data seems to me too holistic in the sense that it does not take account of the fact that the texts bear faithful witness, not only to the life and teaching of Jesus, but also to the choices and concepts of later Christian communities. No. 597 follows N.A.4 in denying the responsibility of the Jews for the death of Jesus and No. 598 sees the account of the Passion as a statement of the fact that all sinners are responsible for the death of Christ. The Church has no hesitation in accusing Christians of serious complicity in the Passion of Christ which it has too often laid at the door of the Jews. In my opinion the document should be fundamentally developed in two directions. Not only must the sins of Christians be considered but also those of the Church. It must look at its past with the same rigorous severity with which the Hebrew Bible presents the various episodes of its history. Jesus is confronted not only by the sins of Christians but also by the infidelity and betrayal of the Church-of the churches. The document should have developed the subject of Christian anti-Judaism. Biblically speaking, there can be no new beginning without conversion, without recognition of wrong doing and the denunciation of error. It seems to me that the new Catechism always tends to reconcile the undeniable novelty of certain statements with the reaffirmation of the continuity, linear and holistic, of the tradition and history of the Church. The newness which proceeds from conversion demands a rupture.
3. The Church and Israel
The relationship of the Church with Israel is studied within the framework of the Theology of the Holy Spirit; more precisely in the ecclesiology section of the catholicity of the Church. Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God (L.G.16). For Israel, being related lies in the fact that it was chosen first, that the Jewish faith is already a response to the Covenant and that Romans 9:4-5 and 11:29 are true of Israel. However, here also, I feel that the expression should be more radical in what concerns Israel. Why not tackle the question (among others) of the manner in which the Church is related to Israel? Why must the reflection on Israel be addressed in a church-centred (ecclesiocentrica) optic? The willingness to make positive statements about Israel is undeniable but these seem to be harmonised with the ecclesiological concentration that is typical of Roman Catholicism, rather than appraised in the context of their critical tension with regard to all ecclesiocentrismo.
These critical remarks could provoke the objection that they do not take sufficient account of the literary genre of catechism and expect it to be an innovative linear research, whereas its aim is to be a synthesis of established doctrine. However, considering the important part that catechetical teaching and traditional theology have played in the teaching of contempt, it is not out of place to expect openness and courage from catechesis and dogma.
*Daniele Garrone, Pastor of the Waldensian Church, is professor of Old Testament at the Waldensian College in Rome. He is also vice-president of the Jewish-Christian Friendship Society of Rome.
These reflections, translated from the Italian, are a synthesis of his comments at a panel-discussion on the New Catechism which was held on 13 January 1994 at SIDIC.
