Pope Benedict XVI and Catholic Jewish relations

Great Debates
21

Well, technically he doesn’t. As I said, excommunication is only a statement that the Church recognizes that a certain person has cut themselves off from the Church. It’s the person’s own personal decision to live outside the teachings of the Church, and a person can excommunicate themselves without the Pope even knowing who they are. The official declaration is usually reserved for people who publicly turn their back on Church teachings…so in that sense, the Pope can decide who he is going to put on the official list, but once the person does what they need to do to reconcile with Rome, the Pope can’t keep them on the list just because he doesn’t like them. See, no one was excommunicated for being a holocaust denier. As loathesome a position as that is, you won’t find anything requiring belief in the holocaust in the Catechism of the Church…and denying the Truth of Church teaching is the ONLY thing you can be excommunicated for. Being an asshole in other ways doesn’t qualify.

Well, I guess that he could have made the point that the excommunication had nothing to do with the holocaust denial, and neither does the reinstatement, but I don’t think it would help people much in terms of understanding it.

22

I’m sure you’re right about this on technical level, but whenever I hear the term used it’s in a context like “the pope excommunicated Henry VIII”, which makes it sound very much like a conscious action. I mean, didn’t the cardinals and the pope’s adviser get together and discuss whether or not to excommunicate Henry?
I mean, it would be a bit weird to say “my friend John stopped believing in God, and thus excommunicated himself”. That may be the technically accurate definition of the word, but it’s sure not the one that is commonly understood.

23

Henry chose to oppose church doctrine.

24

Well, sure, I imagine there was some deliberation…but I think you have the question wrong. It’s not “should we excommunicate Henry,” but more like, “has Henry proven that he has excommunicated himself.” It’s actually a little bit like how the Church recognizes saints. They can’t “make” someone a saint. Everyone who is in heaven is a saint, so it’s actually God who “makes” saints. What the Church does is recognize that someone is a saint. Anyone that they believe can be presumed to have made it into heaven can be called a saint. That doesn’t mean that your great-grandma isn’t a saint because the Church hasn’t named her as one. In the same way, the Church only recognizes excommunication…they don’t actually do the excommunicating.

It’s not just the technically accurate definition of the word, it is THE defintion of the word, as the Catholic Church uses it. Other religions’ MMV.

25

And now that I think of it, even if you use the word the way you are using it, it doesn’t matter. As I said, a person isn’t excommunicated because they are a bad person, did a bad thing, or hold bad opinions about something that’s outside of Church doctrine. The thing that causes excommunication is delberately defying Church teachings. The thing that gets you on the official list of excommunicants is deliberately and publicly defying Church teachings. That’s all. Even being a murderer doesn’t get you on the list. Publicly advocating murder as an OK thing to do and/or making a statement that the Church’s stance on murder is wrong…that might get you on the list.

26

I’ve of course tried to put this in a context of behaviors that demonstrate that this particular Pope couldn’t give a hoot about the relationship of the Catholic church with other religions, or even with progressive Catholics. No requirement that he does of course. Many popes have not. Few have really. Awful relations with any group that fails to see that they are putting their souls at eternal risk by not accepting Christ into their souls has been just dandy for many popes. A grand tradition. Just so as its clear. Don’t just go and say you care about having good relations when your actions show otherwise.

But please explain more to me about excommunication … I understand there are specific grounds for excommunication. (Not just defying church teachings.) Which one did these individuals violate? Heresy? Use of physical force against the pontiff? Having an abortion? And what did they do to rehabilitate precisely?

27

This pope cares quite a bit about the relations with other religions. His actions do not show otherwise. Only to those who have paid cursory attention to only the most sensationalist headlines does it appear this way. He’s devoted quite a bit of his time to the relationship with other religions. Having a good relationship with other religions doesn’t mean pandering to their every whim. That’s not how it works.

28

Excommunication is the recognition that a person has taken actions that put them outside the body of the church. The church always has viewed the public declaration of excommunication not as a stamp of evil or even punitive in nature, but as a corrective call–the concept being that a person who found himself excommunicated would wish to return to the spiritual benefits offered by the church.
In this case, there was a French archbishop who got into a snit over the Second Vatican Council and wandered off to declare that the Council (and all its actions) were invalid. There followed a period of about twenty years where the popes, (first Paul VI and later John Paul II), tried to woo him back to the fold while noting that he was stretching the bonds to the breaking point. Archbishop LeFebvre ordained a number of priests during this period, which he was competent to do as a bishop. Later, either he or his successor, after his death, also ordained some of those priests to be bishops. For this later act they had no authority and they effectively stepped outside the church at that point. Recently there was an agreement reached between the church and a number of members of LeFebvre’s sect, the result of which was an agreement that those members who renounced some of LeFebvre’s more extreme positions and declared their intention to live in accordance with church rule were to be reconciled to the church and their excommunication lifted. The British loon just happened to be one of several people covered under that agreement, but the press picked up the fact that he was also a loon regarding the Holocaust and, ignoring both the reasons why he was excommunicated and the reasons he was reconciled, declared that the pope was lifting the excommunication on a holocaust denier–which while technically true, was pretty much irrelevant to the events involving the excommunication.

29

So please educate me (besides about my questions about excommunication and rehabilitation). What has he done in while devoting so much of his time to relationships with other religions? I mean positively. Statements made by way of apologies and explanations of why he wasn’t really meaning to be insulting do not count.

I readily admit to not slavishly attending to everything the Pope does and says. If I missed a huge warming of relations due to his hard work at fostering an interfaith dialog based on mutual respect I’d love to be informed of it.

30

Tom thank you for the context. But was that completely irrelevant to the events involving the excommunication? From this outsider’s POV a major accomplishment of Vatican 2 was its “new beginning” in the relations between the Church and other religions, and in particular to Judaism. In fact, it was that “new beginning” of Catholic Jewish relations that LeFebvre objected to to no small degree.

These beliefs were a major factor in the schism. To discount them as irrelevant is somewhat disingenuous. It instead signals to the world that that part of Vatican 2 is irrelevant to this Pope.

31

No, Lefebvre’s many hatreds were not a major factor in the schism. They were a part of Lefebvre’s personality and I am sure that his views probably attracted people of similar attitudes, but the schism and excommunication were based on specific actions that the Pius X group undertook. The RCC does not chuck out anyone for “attitudes.” Note that Lefebrve lumped together “heretics, schismatics, false religions and declared enemies of the church, such as the Jews, the Communists and the Freemasons”–a pretty diverse bunch. And his xenophobic rantings were hardly the centerpiece of his objections to Vatican II. They were simply more things about which he was angry among dozens of examples–his core objection was that the church declared, (after 400 years of claiming to be the bastion of unchangeable truth), that it was making any changes in the expression of its belief.

Regarding my earlier post: you asked a question about excommunication and I provided a factual answer as to the RCC’s view of it and to the way in which it pertains to the current situation.

The RCC did not excommuncate anyone in the Pius X organization until they violated a specific rule against the action of an illicit ordination of bishops. It is hardly disingenuous to point out that the action of excommunation and the action of reconciliation are both centerd on that act, regardless of the personal loony beliefs of any of the participants. The Pius X boys had been excommunicated for 21 years, but there was an earlier period of 23 years during which they were not excommunicated while holding identical beliefs, but not acting outside church law.

I have not been holding forth that Pope Benedict is a great proponent of ecumenism, so I feel no call to defend that position. I will point out, if pressed, that he has initiated meetings and dialogues with non-Catholic and non-Christian groups on multiple occasions and he has only been in office for four years. I will also acknowledge that he is very much an academic who is pretty tone deaf to the ways in which some of his comments will be perceived. He always expects that his comments will be understood in the dry academic forum in which he expresses them and is repeatedly surprised when people who hear them outside that context get upset. He is supposed to be a caretaker pope, anyway, with the expectation that he is old enough that he will die off soon, letting some younger guy take over. Of course, he could live to be 100, but no one who voted for him can control that. I don’t think that he is unconcerned with carrying out the Vatican II reforms, although he is concerned that some groups on the local level have strayed in their efforts to follow the Council. He probably also has a somewhat different view of the way those reforms were intended to be implemented. So it is clearly possible that he will be an obstacle to some people’s desires for specific reforms, but that only indicates a different view of the reforms, not an apathetic approach to them.

32

There’s this:

http://au.christiantoday.com/article/pope-invites-muslim-scholars-to-visit-vatican/3498.htm

and

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159018,00.html

and

and

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/VaticanJewish_96/5119_96.htm

and

Four Historical Forces Reshaping Jewish-Catholic Relations

So it’s not that he’s ignorant of what’s going on, far from it, he’s one of the most well-read Popes there’s been in a very long time. He’s quite the intellectual, and studies these matters seriously. It’s that he’s not an elected politician and his job is not to pander to a multi-religious electorate. He’s making decisions, for good or for ill, but he’s not ignorant in the matters.

Trying to portray the Pope as a daft old fool is trite.

33

"These guys?’’ So you really aren’t really following along with the facts. AFAICT, one (only) of the four reinstated guys (a Brit, naturally) has been quoted with loony historical speculation about gas chambers. But feel free to lump the others in.

On the “what has this Pope done to advance relations with . . .” front: What has the chief rabbi of South Africa done to advance relations with Presbyterians? What has the Patriarch of Constantinople done to advance relations with Hindus? In other words, while I am sure the Catholics appreciate outsiders keeping a score card on their internal performance, it is not strictly a sine qua non of the Pope’s job description to answer to non-Catholic sidewalk superintendants/figure skating judges.

34

The problem is that you are putting it in a context that is irrelevant.

One thing that I don’t think has been mentioned about this situation is that a Pope can’t undo an excommunication because he doesn’t agree with the reasons the person was excommunicated. For instance (and this is totally hypothetical), let’s say the previous Pope DID excommunicate someone for being a Holocaust denier. The next Pope can’t come along and say, “well, I don’t have a problem with Holocaust denial, so I’m going to reinstate this guy.” The excommunicated person has to repent of that specific issue. Which, come to think of it, is probably part of the reason you can’t just excommunicate someone because you don’t like their opinions…it has to be much more specific than that…something you can point to that is clearly puts the person outside the fold. It really can’t be the kind of thing that two Popes could differ about from a philosophical standpoint.

I think everything on that list falls under the umbrella of defying Church teachings, but I agree that I wasn’t broad enough in my explanation. As Tomndebb says, it’s about taking actions that cut you off from the Church.

Here is a link in which an explanation of this comes right from the Pope’s mouth. He makes the point that this specific case is a matter ONLY of Church unity. The people who have opposed Vatican II have been a thorn in the Church’s side for a long time, and there are groups even more out there on the loony fringe who even have elected their own Popes (what they believe are the “true” Popes). (Here’s a Wikipedia page about one of them.) As Tomndebb says, a person is allowed not to agree with Vatican II. What they can’t tolerate are actions that lead down the path of rejecting Rome outright.

I think Tomndebb is also pretty accurate in in summation of Benedict’s personality and also in his statement about the Cardinals intending him to be a “placeholder” Pope. My own cynical opinion is that they were also trying to balance out the personality of JPII. He was much beloved by many, but not by everybody. I believe the selection of Ratzinger was an unspoken acknowledgement that both liberals and conservatives, progressives and traditionalists are part of the Church body, and in the interests of keeping all of these people involved in the Church they needed to get someone in there who would speak to the concerns of the traditionalists.

35

Tom, if I sounded unappreciative for the information I apologize. So it seems that the exclusive focus for excommunication was the ordination issue and that other issues really aren’t on the radar. You however state that part of the deal for coming back into the fold was rejecting some of LeFebvre’s positions and agreeing to abide by the Church’s teachings. Which of LeFebvre’s positions were the ones important enough to have them reject since the anti-Semitic bits were obviously not? Was it just that they promised not to do any more renegade ordinations? What of Vatican 2 was it important enough that they promise to respect in the future since clearly dealing with Jews as something other than as “enemies of the Church” wasn’t part of that list?

mswas, I am unaware that any one here has characterized the Pope as “daft” – no, we instead believe him to be very intelligent – just with a set of priorities that does not include dealing with other religions respectfully anywhere near the top. And as a consequence of that relationships are going sour.

I appreciate your little list, but no offense, pretty unimpressive. He responded to a request from a few Muslim leaders for a meeting that was made on his terms. Wow. His visit to Auschwitz was felt by most Jewish leadership to be a missed opportunity for what was not said. (We could have a long discussion about that I know. You probably think we Jews are very unappreciative of what he did say and that there was no need for him to “pander” to us.) Knighting a Jewish leader for his work in interfaith dialog? Aw, that’s nice. Sort of. (Given the history of knights doing the Church’s work kind of ironic, but hey, he probably meant well.) But not really following in the spirit of the previous Pope’s outreaches.

Your final link is closest to the mark. Catholic-Jewish relations are not just very important to this Pope. I’m not sure that that writer’s belief that Catholic-Islamic relations are now of more focus is true though. I don’t think relations outside the Church are on his priority list at all.

I am not claiming that this Pope is a hater. I think that he is just a sort of throwback. His approach seems to be to consolidate his more conservative base around an old school mindset. If doing that insults others or drives some progressives away, then, oh well. Can’t pander by actually discouraging those who think that those of other faiths are enemies of the Church. Nope, that wouldn’t do.

Given the context of the Church’s historical attitude to and treatment of Jews this current Pope’s actions and attitude are a shame. Not my Pope, so whatever, but I am not happy with the direction that relations are heading.

Sarafeena

But in your link the Pope does not list how these people have repented and what they have done now to undo what they did before (just that they have said they are suffering from it). Isn’t he just undoing what was done before because he doesn’t believe that it was enough to justify the pain of excommunication - unity is more important?

Huerta88 - sorry, but no Rabbi speaks for the Jews like the Pope speaks for Catholics. The Church is a top-down organization. Jews are grassroots in comparison. Jewish religious structures also do not have centuries of persecuting and being complicit in the persecution of Catholics to be cognizant of.

36

Let me quote the part of the statement that’s relevant to what we are talking about:

We don’t know the specific conversations that the Pope had with these individuals, or what they said in way of repentance. I do not believe that your interpretation is correct…that he doesn’t believe it was enough to justify the pain of excommunication. Rather, I suspect that there were conversations that convinced him that these guys are willing to do what they need to do to reconcile with the Church (which in this case is to cease & desist from illicitly ordaining bishops). If that sort of thing continues to go on, I have no doubt that the will be re-excommunicated.

I’m not surprised the Pope isn’t going to come right out and say what was discussed, as it probably is considered a private spiritual matter. In fact, it might even be protected by the seal of the Confessional for all I know. But you can’t just assume that the Pope meant something that he didn’t say.

37

Correct. All I can go by is what he said. Which is that their suffering is enough to reverse it. Not they have done anything else. Nothing else that they have done or changed is mentioned. You cannot “can’t just assume that the Pope meant something that he didn’t say” either.

38

DSeid Actually the general idea is that the church itself is unhealthy because it has abandoned fundamentals. You’re essentially just projecting modern liberal critiques that are in general antagonistic to Catholicism by their very nature. The problem here is that if the Catholic church is to BE the Catholic church then Jews are going to hold it in contempt, because they are unable to let go of past transgressions. So the Catholic Church prioritizing it’s core traditions over its outside relationships is portrayed as a slap in the face when it’s not. The basic assumption is that the church has a responsibility to pander diplomatically. As I see it it’s actually the Jews who are making the big fuss who care little about having a good relationship with the Catholics. That has been a general problem in relations with Jews since the holocaust, Jews expect more than they are willing to give, compromise is always the other side’s responsibility. They don’t want Catholics to want to convert Jews, even though the church’s core mission is the salvation of everyone through Jesus Christ. So essentially they only way you’ll allow a good relationship, is directly proportional to its abandonment of its core purpose. The reality though is that Jews need good relations with the Catholic church more than the reverse. The Pope is not abandoning anything, he is just doing internal house-cleaning of a church that has watered down its message and as such has been losing parishioners and priests in its older parishes in the West, while gaining converts in the third world where the Faith is more immediate and fundamental.

Wanting to convert Jews is no more offensive to Jews than Jews not accepting Jesus Christ is offensive to Catholics. There are some places where disagreement is fundamental and intractable. Recognizing that is essential to a good relationship. It’s not really the church that is abandoning good relationship with the Jews, but the Jews abandoning good relations with the church by having unrealistic expectations. The Vatican is not a political party with a responsibility to an electorate.

Being offended by theological issues that you don’t even believe in to begin with is a bit daft.

39

It’s not that the suffering itself is enough to reverse it, I don’t think. Rather, I think that if a person is extremely upset over excommunication, that indicates a desire to be in communion with the Church, which in turn indicates that they are willing to do what needs to be done to come back to the fold. I suppose that the Pope could use this unhappiness as an indicator that they are willing to take these steps (and, as the Pope himself says, they are expected to take those steps). What this all DOESN’T mean is that the current Pope disagrees with the original reason for the excommunication.

40

First, attempting to get a critical view of De Poop from any one of those links is like trying to get a critical view of Obama from CNN. Can happen, just won’t.

Not to nitpick, ok, to nitpick, I don’t think he’s “ignorant” of what’s going on, note, I said lack of HUMAN understanding as opposed to situational understanding. He gets it, I just don’t think he cares. He’s far too right wing (conservative, if you must) and has been so. To the casual observer, in regard to the heavyhanded rhetoric and ideals weighing Benedict against John Paul is like weighing a pickup truck against a ham sandwich. They made the wrong choice in him. The Catholic church needs a lighter touch, not a heavier one. This is a new and different time in the world, like it or not, the Holy See will HAVE to adapt to the world, because the world will no longer adapt to it.