This is one of those John Allen pieces that sets me off from the very title of the article. He starts from a non-existent premise, on which he has been quite insistent all these years, although this Pope has never considered inter-religious dialog to be theological at all. He said so very clearly in his letter Preface to Marcello Pera's book. And still, commentators like Allen ignore it. As though he really does not mean it!
Nor should it take the Pope to say so, because it is obvious that inter-religious dialog - talking to the non-Christian faiths, whose belief set in terms of theology is very different from ours, even if certain ethical values are identical - is very different from ecumenical dialog - talking to other Christian denominations, who all share the Christian faith.
In the latter case, their theology has evolved in some essential ways away from the common Christian theology that was generally shared until the Great Schism, in the case of the Orthodox, and the Reformation, in the case of the Protestants. Therefore, if there is to be Christian reunification, the theological differences have to be reconciled first. So that's a necessity in the ecumenical dialog.
Not so with non-Christian faiths, because they are not into dialog with Christianity so that they can change one iota of their belief set! Nor does the Catholic engagement in inter-religious dialog imply any room at all for theological osmosis and syncretism!
Even the average Jew and average Catholic cannot possibly think inter-religious dialog is anything other than practical cooperation in doing good things. It would never occur to them that inter-religious dialog was intended to give a theological 'tweak' to their respective beliefs so that it conforms more to that of the others!
A theologian-pope
sidelines theology
January 22, 2010
If it's true that only a soldier can fully grasp the horrors of war, perhaps it likewise takes a theologian to appreciate the limits of theology.
That may help explain a striking paradox about the papacy of Benedict XVI: He's a true theologian-pope, yet a core element of his legacy will be
to sideline theology as the focus of Catholicism's engagement with other religions.
[When was it ever the focus as such? Cardinal Ratzinger made it very clear from the time of the first Assisi 'kumbaya' that other faiths offering sacrifices at a consecrated Catholic altar was a questionable practice that does nothing to promote dialog, but could be taken as an encouragement towards syncretism - taking bits and pieces here and there from the different faiths that can be woven together and agreed on by everyone! Something like the 'world religion' that Hans Kueng would eventually propose and has been trying to promote - with little success, apparently. No one who has a profound conviction in his faith would settle for any syncretic substitute!]
Another chapter was added to that legacy this week with the Pontiff's Jan. 17 visit to the Great Synagogue of Rome,
the first time a Pope made the trip since John Paul II's groundbreaking visit in 1986.
[Of course it was "the first time a Pope made the trip etc...", because there has only been one other Pope after John Paul II! What a meaningless statement.]
Understandably, media attention was concentrated on debates over Pope Pius XII, the wartime pontiff whose alleged "silence" on the Holocaust is among the most polarizing issues in Catholic-Jewish relations. In late December, the Vatican announced that Benedict XVI had signed a decree of heroic virtue for Pius, moving him a step closer to sainthood.
On that score, the visit seemed to mark the birth of a new star in the Jewish world: Riccardo Pacifici, President of the Jewish Community in Rome, who had the rare opportunity to challenge the Pope in public.
"The silence of Pius XII on the Holocaust is still painful," Pacifici said in a speech welcoming Benedict to the synagogue. "Perhaps he could not have stopped the trains of death, but he could have transmitted a signal, a final word of comfort, for our brothers and sisters on their way to the ovens of Auschwitz."
{Di Segni and Pacifici availed of their status as the host for the affair - certainly not unexpected of them, and given their emotional hypersensitivity over anything that has to do with the Shoah, one cannot even reproach them for it. Rabbi Di Segni did avoid mentioning Pius XII by name, but his reference to the 'silences of humans' was obvious.
But Pacifici went all out to pose a direct, rather graceless challenge. Perhaps he thought that praising the actions of Italian priests and nuns who helped the Jews would 'balance' it off. But it does not. It makes it worse. Because he cannot credit the nuns and priests and yet deny any credit to their direct superior who obviously authorized (and financed) their activities - Pius XII was also Bishop of Rome and Primate of Italy, not just the Pope.
Not to mention that the 'silence' hypothesis is prima facie fallacious, as I argued in my immediate reaction to Pacifici's accusation. A blatant fallacy that I would expect any Catholic reporter to rebut on the spot when reporting it! But to which Allen gives a pass!]
To be sure, Pacifici and the Pope's other hosts made it clear that Jewish-Catholic ties will survive tensions over Pius XII, and he acknowledged the courage of many Catholics in risking their lives to save Jews. (Members of Pacifici's family were sheltered by the Sisters of Martha in Florence).
Nevertheless, Pacifici's comments also suggest that prominent Jewish leaders do not plan
to sit on their hands as Pius XII moves toward canonization.
[Does anyone expect them to? Of course, there will be a constant organized, as well as unorganized, Jewish lobby to block the beatification and eventual canonization of Pius XII! They are even more determined now, because they thought they had managed to prevent Benedict XVI from acting on the Pius XII cause after all their tantrums last year. But he surprised them because he only used the delay to order his own supplemental investigations, and once the results uncovered nothing negative, he did what he should.
I believe Allen was one of those who openly thought Benedict would leave the Pius 'hot potato' for the next Pope to deal with. That is why they all expressed 'surprise' when the Holy Father moved last December. They thought he would dodge the issue.
The cause for Pius XII is not in his hands now. Once the late Pope's postulators successfully make their case to the Congregation for the Causes of Sainthood - including verification of a miracle - Benedict has no reason to stop or delay beatification just to placate the Jews.]
In his own speech, Benedict XVI offered an indirect defense of his controversial predecessor, asserting that during the war, "The Apostolic See itself provided assistance, often in a hidden and discreet way."
Yet a focus on what wags call the "Pius Wars" overlooks what is arguably the far more consequential element of Benedict's remarks last Sunday. In effect,
Benedict blew past the doctrinal substructure of Catholic-Jewish relations [Not that it ever formally existed!] in order to propose a new platform for political and social action.
Some experts on Jewish-Catholic relations faulted Benedict's speech for its
obvious theological lacunae.
[Why obvious? And why lacunae? Benedict XVI is an exquisitely refined man, with even more exquisite sensibility. He would never have betrayed the sense of the invitation to the Rome synagogue in order to bring up theological disputes! Even with the other Christian denominations, he does not do that directly. There are bilateral theological commissions for that purpose. ]
Fr. John Pawlikowski of the Catholic Theological Union, for example, noted that Benedict's doctrinal remarks were largely a patchwork of quotations from John Paul II (and Vatican II), and that he never addressed the two thorniest doctrinal issues: the continuing theological significance of the Jewish covenant, and the legitimacy of missionary efforts directed at Jews.
[Pawlikowski is one of those critics who should know better but does not! First, what is wrong with citing Vatican II and John Paul II? It is established practice in the Magisterium to cite relevant precedents in the Magisterium itself to emphasize continuity. Second, why would he address 'the thorniest doctrinal issues' at such an occasion? Hardly the time and place.
After all, everything that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has written about Judaism is premised on the continuing validity of God's covenant with the Jewish People - distinct from and not superseded by Jesus's New Covenant with all peoples.
As for the legitimacy of missionary efforts directed at the Jews, both Benedict XVI and Cardinal Walter Kasper made it clear, through the language of the revised Good Friday prayer, that the hope expressed therein for the Jews is the eschatological hope expressed by Paul in the Letter to the Romans, not a missionary hope! When was the last time the Church had any missionary strategy at all for the Jews, anyway? Especially not after Vatican II!]
In effect, however, skipping such matters seems to have been the point.
[DUH!!!!] After a declaration of "esteem and affection" for Jews, coupled with the usual pledges to fight anti-Semitism and to keep the memory of the Holocaust alive, Benedict got down to business in sections six through nine of his speech. There, he proposed the Torah
[No, not the whole Torah - but the Ten Commandments, explicitly] as the basis of a "great ethical code" for humanity, leading Jews and Catholics into "areas of cooperation and witness" on a cluster of issues:
•Resisting the siren song of secularism, "reawakening in our society openness to the transcendent dimension"
•Defending the right to life and the family
•Promoting justice for "the poor, women and children, strangers, the sick, the weak and the needy"
•Acting on behalf of peace, especially peace in the Holy Land
All this amounts to an application of what Benedict has described as
a shift from "inter-religious" to "inter-cultural" dialogue.
[That's a misinterpretation of what the Pope has said. Benedict's sense is that inter-religious dialog is primarily inter-cultural dialog because the substantive issues on which it is possible to work together are cultural and social, not religious.]
In 2008, Benedict penned an introduction to a book by his old friend, Italian politician and philosopher Marcello Pera, in which the Pope wrote:
"Inter-religious dialogue in the strict sense of the term is not possible without putting one's own faith into parentheses, while intercultural dialogue that develops the cultural consequences of the religious option … is both possible and urgent."
[So there you have it. Allen remembers - but in his dogged misconception that theological dialog is necessary or even possible with the non-Christian faiths, he chooses to ignore what the Pope has so clearly stated - and continues making an argument for theological dialog with the Jews and Muslims.]
Put in layman's terms, what Benedict is saying is that trying to find
a lowest common denominator of theology upon which Christians and Jews can agree -- or, for that matter, Christians and Muslims, Christians and Hindus, etc. -- will inevitably result in a loss of identity on both sides.
[DUH, DUH, AND DUH! 'Trying to find the lowest common denominator in theology' is a definition for doctrinal syncretism, except that it sounds even more terrible! That's the province of new Age airheads. And of Hans Kueng who proposes a 'world religion' based on good intentions. It might just as well be the Boy Scout Code of Conduct. All very commendable, but not a religion.]
Given that bolstering Catholic identity is the stated priority of his pontificate, that's a no-go. The more profitable enterprise, in Benedict's eyes, is to elaborate a set of shared values,
[With the Jews, these shared values are already there and obvious: The Ten Commandments, as the Pope specifically pointed out last Sunday. And what is there to elaborate further on the Ten Commandments? All the religious history and teachings of Christianity and Judaism are elaborations of it] and then to pool resources to apply those values in social and political debates.
"On this path we can walk together," the Pope said, "aware of the differences that exist between us, but also aware of the fact that when we succeed in uniting our hearts and our hands in response to the Lord's call, his light comes and shines on all the peoples of the world."
That effort to unite hearts and hands, not
to blaze new theological trails, will likely be the "Benedictine legacy" in inter-religious affairs.
[Once again, it is not possible, nor is it necessary, 'to blaze new theological trails' between religions! Does anyone really expect to get the Jews to accept that Jesus is their promised Messiah, much less that he is the Son of God? Or the Jews and the Muslims to accept that Jesus is anything other than 'another prophet'? Or the Jews and the Muslims to accept the Triune God of Christianity? Give me a break! Any such 'conversions' will take place individually, not on a mass basis, and not through organized missionary effort!
As it happens, we already have an example of the Benedictine legacy in action. This week, the Mixed Commission of the Chief Rabbinate in Israel and of the Holy See held its ninth meeting in Rome. The topic? Not Jewish and Christian perspectives on the Bible, or the significance of the Mosaic covenant, or respective attitudes about the Messiah. Instead, it was the effort to carve out a distinctively religious form of environmentalism in contrast to secular environmental movements.
[I'd be curious to know what the topics in the first eight meetings were!]
"Humankind today faces a unique environmental crisis which is substantially the product of unbridled material and technological exploitation," a statement said at the conclusion of the meeting.
"While this challenge must obviously be addressed through the necessary technical means, as well as self restraint, humility and discipline, the participants emphasized the essential need for society to recognize the transcendent dimension of Creation that is critical to ensure sustainable development and progress in an ethically responsible manner."
Painting a spiritual shade of green [YECHHH! When will Allen drop this increasingly gangrenous metaphor?] is an example of inter-cultural dialogue at work, and under Benedict XVI, such projects appear to be the future of inter-faith relations.
This week, I was asked to write a piece for
The Forward, a national Jewish weekly, explaining Benedict XVI's approach to Catholic-Jewish ties. Here's how I concluded the piece, which I think captures the lasting significance of Benedict's synagogue visit once the dust settles on Pius XII:
"Benedict's approach … boils down to this: 'Let's each of us be ourselves internally, and let's see what we can do together in the outside world.'
[That has always been the sense of his interventions for inter-religious dialog. He wasn't saying it for the first time to the Jews, either. He says it to them every time he meets them in groups at the Vatican.]
It might not be everything some Jews (or Catholics, for that matter) would desire, but at this moment in Catholic history, it may well be as good as it gets.
[Does anyone really think that the average Catholic and the average Jew, who sincerely want better relations with each other, 'desire' anything but friendly relations, getting to know about each other's faith better, and perhaps practical cooperation among their leaders? Would they ever think that inter-religious dialog was ever going to result in changing anything in their articles of faith?]
Until I can open a thread for Pius XII and other Popes besides Benedict XVI, I will post these items on this thread to be sure they get attention!
The following comes from Haaretz, Israel's most influential newspaper (published in Hebrew and English editions) generally described as ultra-liberal or extremely leftists, but its op-ed pages are open to a spectrum of opinions, hence this pro-Pius XII article by an Italian-born New York writer.
Pius XII: Much-maligned pontiff
By Dimitri Cavalli
From the English edition of
Jan. 22, 2010
Some things never go away. The controversy over Pope Pius XII's actions during World War II was recently reignited when Pope Benedict XVI signed a decree affirming that his predecessor displayed "heroic virtues" during his lifetime.
When the Pope visited the Great Synagogue of Rome on Sunday, Riccardo Pacifici, president of Rome's Jewish community, told him: "The silence of Pius XII before the Shoah still hurts because something should have been done."
This was not the first time the wartime Pope, who is now a step closer to beatification, has been accused of keeping silent during the Holocaust, of doing little or nothing to help the Jews, and even of collaborating with the Nazis. To what extent, if any, does the evidence back up these allegations, which have been repeated since the early 1960s?
On April 4, 1933, Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, the Vatican secretary of state, instructed the papal nuncio in Germany to see what he could do to oppose the Nazis' anti-Semitic policies.
On behalf of Pope Pius XI, Cardinal Pacelli drafted an encyclical, entitled
Mit brennender Sorge ("With Burning Concern"), that condemned Nazi doctrines and persecution of the Catholic Church. The encyclical was smuggled into Germany and read from Catholic pulpits on March 21, 1937.
Although many Vatican critics today dismiss the encyclical as a light slap on the wrist, the Germans saw it as a security threat. For example, on March 26, 1937, Hans Dieckhoff, an official in the German foreign ministry, wrote that the "encyclical contains attacks of the severest nature upon the German government, calls upon Catholic citizens to rebel against the authority of the state, and therefore signifies an attempt to endanger internal peace."
Both Great Britain and France should have interpreted the document as a warning that they should not trust Adolf Hitler or try to appease him.
After the death of Pius XI, Cardinal Pacelli was elected Pope, on March 2, 1939. The Nazis were displeased with the new Pontiff, who took the name Pius XII. On March 4, Joseph Goebbels, the German propaganda minister, wrote in his diary: "Midday with the Fuehrer. He is considering whether we should abrogate the Concordat with Rome in light of Pacelli's election as Pope."
During the war, the Pope was far from silent: In numerous speeches and encyclicals, he championed human rights for all people and called on the belligerent nations to respect the rights of all civilians and prisoners of war.
Unlike many of the Pope's latter-day detractors, the Nazis understood him very well. After studying Pius XII's 1942 Christmas message, the Reich Central Security Office concluded: "In a manner never known before the Pope has repudiated the National Socialist New European Order ... Here he is virtually accusing the German people of injustice toward the Jews and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals." (Pick up any book that criticizes Pius XII, and you won't find any mention of this important report.)
In early 1940, the Pope acted as an intermediary between the British government and a group of German generals who wanted to overthrow Hitler. Although the conspiracy never went forward, Pius XII kept in close contact with the German resistance and heard about two other plots against Hitler.
In the fall of 1941, through diplomatic channels, the Pope agreed with Franklin Delano Roosevelt that America's Catholics could support the President's plans to extend military aid to the Soviet Union after it was invaded by the Nazis.
On behalf of the Vatican, John T. McNicholas, the archbishop of Cincinnati, Ohio, delivered a well-publicized address that explained that the extension of assistance to the Soviets could be morally justified because it helped the Russian people, who were the innocent victims of German aggression.
Throughout the war, the Pope's deputies frequently ordered the Vatican's diplomatic representatives in many Nazi-occupied and Axis countries to intervene on behalf of endangered Jews.
Up until Pius XII's death in 1958, many Jewish organizations, newspapers and leaders lauded his efforts.
To cite one of many examples, in his April 7, 1944, letter to the papal nuncio in Romania, Alexander Shafran, chief rabbi of Bucharest, wrote: "It is not easy for us to find the right words to express the warmth and consolation we experienced because of the concern of the Supreme Pontiff, who offered a large sum to relieve the sufferings of deported Jews ... The Jews of Romania will never forget these facts of historic importance."
The campaign against Pope Pius XII is doomed to failure because his detractors cannot sustain their main charges against him - that he was silent, pro-Nazi, and did little or nothing to help the Jews - with evidence.
Perhaps only in a backward world such as ours would the one man who did more than any other wartime leader to help Jews and other Nazi victims, receive the greatest condemnation.
Dimitri Cavalli is working on books on both Pope Pius XII and Joe McCarthy, the late manager of the New York Yankees.
Too bad there is so much information about what Pius XII objectively said and did, and the testimonials in his behalf, than a standard-length newspaper article can accommodate!.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 24/01/2010 01:38]