Benedetto XVI e gli ebrei un articolo di Sergio I. Minerbi
Testata: Informazione Corretta Data: 11 luglio 2007 Pagina: 1 Autore: Sergio I. Minerbi Titolo: «Bnedictus XVI and the jews»
Riportiamo un saggio di Sergio I. Minerbi pubblicato in inglese sulla rivista The Israeli Journal of Foreign Affairs, volume 1, n. 2, 2007, pp. 63-81.
Relations between the Vatican and the Jews have two major aspects, the theological aspect and the political. The theological aspect is related to the history of the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jews since the birth of the Christianity. The political aspect is mainly related to issues concerning, first and foremost, Palestine and the holy places and later, the State of Israel. Joseph Alois Ratzinger1 first addressed the theological questions, but as soon as he became Pope, had to deal with the political ones as well.
The Double Meaning of the Term Reconciliation
The issue of the relationship between the Church and the Jews preoccupied Ratzinger for many years, and he wrote two articles on this issue. The first, "Reconciling Gospel and Torah: the Catechism", of April 1, 1996, utilizes the word “reconciling” in its title. This word has a double meaning for Christians. One is to "make friendly after estrangement".2 The other meaning is to unify Jews and Christians under the cross, as used by Saint Paul: "…and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God trough the cross".3 In other words, "to reconcile" means to convert Jews to Christianity. Cardinal Ratzinger begins his document by saying that “the history of the relationship between Israel and Christendom is drenched with blood and tears. It is a history of mistrust and hostility, but also – thank God – a history marked again and again by attempts at forgiveness, understanding and mutual acceptance”. At the beginning of this text, he asks a rhetorical question: “Could it be that the core of the faith of Christians themselves compels them to intolerance, even to hostility toward the Jews, and conversely, that the self-esteem of the Jews and the defense of their historic dignity and deepest convictions oblige them to demand that Christians abandon the heart of their faith and so require Jews similarly to forsake tolerance?”. Cardinal Ratzinger continues, and asks whether Christian faith can not only tolerate Judaism, but accept it in its historic mission. Cardinal Ratzinger does not explain what he has in mind when he speaks about the "historic mission" of the Jews. Is it historic because it belongs to the past and no more to the present? Do the Jews nowadays still have a mission to accomplish or not?4 Another question is whether there can be true reconciliation without the Jews' abandoning their faith. Cardinal Ratzinger's midus operandi is to ask questions but avoid answering them. This allows him to present a thesis yet at the same time not state his opinion explicitly. Jews never demanded that Christian abandon their faith, since Judaism is not a missionary or expansionist faith. Cardical Ratzinger's equation of the Christian persecutor and the persecuted Jew is unacceptable, especially after 2,000 years of unremitting Christian repression of Jews. It is absurd to accuse the Jews of being so intolerant as to demand that Christians abandon their faith, a demand entirely fabricated and invented by Cardinal Ratzinger. Jews were never in a position to force Christians to convert, nor did they wish to do so. Cardinal Ratzinger mentions that even in modern, liberal descriptions, the Pharisees, who were the Jewish priests of the time, are described as the representatives of a rigid set of rules, while Jesus is described as a freedom fighter, who believed in a new law and order. Cardinal Ratzinger writes: "The death on the cross is thus theologically explained by its innermost solidarity with the law and with Israel; the catechism in this regard presents a link to the Day of Atonement and understands the death of Christ itself as the great event of atonement." Later on in the same article, Cardinal Ratzinger says: “Jesus’s blood raises no calls for retaliation but calls all to reconciliation…I cannot draw any detailed conclusions of the mission of the Jews and Christians in the modern secularized world…Jews and Christians should accept each other in profound inner reconciliation.”5 In the entire nine-page article, Cardinal Ratzinger exploits the double meaning of the term ‘reconciliation’, at times using it in the same way as St. Paul had used it. Cardinal Ratzinger leaves his words impregnated with double meaning: must the Jews and the Christians reach an understanding on an equal basis or must the Jews at the end of the process realize they have to convert to Christianity? The second article, published in 1998, dealt with the topic of interreligious dialogue and Jewish-Christian relations. In it, Cardinal Ratzinger writes about interreligious ecumenism and endeavors to answer the question of whether unity and diversity can be bound together. He quotes Panikkar, according to whom "Israel’s insistence on a personal God, whom it knows by name, is ultimately a form of iconolatry, despite the absence of images of God".6 By saying this, Cardinal Ratzinger attacks the very roots of Judaism, as though behind the belief in one God there is really a pagan belief. In this way, he is trying to undermine the Jewish faith itself, and prove that the only monotheistic religion is Christianity. This is a falsifying and empty strategy; it is all the more strange since Chistianity is the faith that believes in the Holy Trinity, and whose churches are filled to the brim with statues, pictures and relics. According to Cardinal Ratzinger, through Jesus, the Bible of Israel has reached the gentiles and has been turned into their bible. “Even if Israel cannot join Christians in seeing Jesus as the Son of God, it is not altogether impossible for Israel to recognize him as the servant of God who brings the light of his God to the nations. The converse is also true: if Christians wish that Israel might one day recognize Christ as the Son of God…they ought to acknowledge the decree of God, who has obviously entrusted Israel with a distinctive mission….”. Cardinal Ratzinger concludes: "Mission and dialogue must no longer be antitheses, but must penetrate each other. Dialogue is not random conversation, but aims at persuasion, at discovering the truth. Otherwise it is worthless”.7 This was not the first time that Cardinal Ratzinger claimed that the aim of interrelgious dialogue should be to discover the truth. A few years earlier, in an interview in the Catholic weekly Il Sabato, he said: “There is a dialogue when one moves towards the truth…Jesus is the truth, which is why he is the dynamic force of history towards which we must move”.8 Few people noticed this open declaration at the time, but Ratzinger can certainly not be blamed for a lack of clarity. With these arguments in mind, one wonders what Cardinal Ratzinger, as the new Pope, meant when he sent a telegram to the chief Rabbi of Rome, Riccardo di Segni, in which he wrote that he trusted in the help of God “to continue the dialogue and strengthen the cooperation with the sons and daughters of the Jewish people”.9 What kind of dialogue did he have in mind? If the Pope's intention was to persuade the rabbi that Christianity was the only true faith, it would be better for such a "dialogue" not to have taken place at all. In other words, relations would have remained at the level of mutual respect between the two religions and nothing more.
The Dominus Iesus Document
On August 6, 2000, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by then Cardinal Ratzinger, published a document entitled Dominus Iesus. This document supported the mission among the non-Catholics and claimed that the only way to salvation was by joining the Catholic Church. Even Rabbi Leon Klenicki of New York acknowledged that if Cardinal Ratzinger chose to underline the idea that Jesus was the only way to salvation, then “we are in trouble” in terms of ongoing dialogue with the Catholics. A short while later, Cardinal Walter Kasper, chairman of the Committee for Religious Relations with the Jews, criticized Dominus Iesus during the interreligious meeting held in New York in May 2001. Referring to this document, Kasper said: “The passage about mission creates a major problem for dialogue, especially on doctrinal issues, and vindicates the concerns of Orthodox Jews who have largely avoided such discussions”.10 In a joint statement at the end of the New York meeting, Kasper said that the document was an internal Catholic one and did not cast doubt upon Jewish salvation; the Jewish covenant was not obsolete and it was still effective for the salvation of the Jews, and he added that “there is no missionary activity on the part of the Church aimed at converting the Jews”. Pleasant as those words wew Jewish ears, Kasper's view contradicted Cardinal Ratzinger's writings. In the Notes for Preaching and Catechesis, added in 1985 to the declaration Nostra Aetate, it was stated that “the Church and Judaism cannot be seen as two parallel ways of salvation” (# 7).11 Cardinal Ratzinger's Dominus Iesus said of non-Christian religions that the Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions but stresses the “unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ and the Church”. Thus, according to this document, there are no alternative paths to salvation in other religions. The document states: “It is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God.” (par.10) The Church’s ambigous attitude towards other religions is particularly strident, and leaves no room for a real dialogue between equals.
Reading the Bible – Jewish Salvation and Christian Salvation
In 2001, the Pontifical Biblical Commission published an important document to which Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the preface. He raised several problems, among them, the right of the Christians to claim they are the legitimate heirs to the Bible; the question of whether Christians renounce the providing of a Christian interpretation to the Bible, which can be regarded as pretentious; the necessity of renewed respect for the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament. Ratzinger goes on to say that "the criticism of the Jews in the New Testament is not stronger than the accusations against Israel in the Torah and the Prophets, and therefore this is an internal criticism inside the same Old Testament."12 We find the same intention of inserting Christianity into the Old Testament in another book by Cardinal Ratzinger, in which he claims that "the New Testament is merely an interpretation of the Tanach, starting with the story of Jesus". According to Cardinal Ratzinger, the Tanach during Jesus' time had not yet achieved its final form and taken on the quality of definitive canon.13 Such a claim is historically doubious, since most researchers agree that the Tanach was completed with the book of Daniel, about 167 BC., i.e. about 200 years before the crucifixion of Jesus. By defining the New Testament as "internal in the Old Testament" and Jesus, himself, as belonging to the period during which the Tanach was still being written, Cardinal Ratzinger wanted to propose a new version of the old theory of supercession, according to which the Church is the true Israel. On the one hand, it seems that Ratzinger expresses a new appreciation for the Jewish reading of the Bible, as well as recognition that there can be different routes to salvation. On the other hand, as is Cardinal Ratzinger’s custom, his own question remains unanswered while undermining the content of the previous one.
One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
In the same preface, Cardinal Ratzinger also asks: "Does the way the Jews were presented in the New Testament contribute to the creation of hostility towards this people, and encouraged the ideology of those who wished to exterminate it?" This question is a very important one, and many researchers have stressed the great influence the Church's hatred against Jews had upon Nazi antisemitism.14 At a 1997 conference in Rome, Cardinal Roger Etchegaray went so far as to say that antisemitism "was strengthened in a Christian climate due to pseudo-theological arguments that diminished the resistance capability of numerous Christians, when Nazi antisemitism started with all its brutality of genocide".15 In the various documents from the time of John Paul II, the request for forgiveness is not made in the name of the Church itself, but, rather, in the name of those who have harmed the Jews. The Church artificially differentiates between pagan antisemitism (their interpretation of Nazi antisemitism) and its own anti-Judaism. Indeed, the Church did not call for the murder of the Jews over the centuries, instead preferring to keep the Jews as a living reminder of the crime their ancestors allegedly committed. Nevertheless, one cannot ignore the fact that hatred of the Jews was supported and channeled by the Church for centuries through forced baptism, the sermons Jews were obliged to attend, the enclosure of Jews in ghettoes and even by the burning at the Inquisition’s stake of New Christians suspected of wishing to return to Judaism. There is no doubt that Christian antisemitism, both Catholic and Lutheran, is at the heart of Nazi antisemitism, even though it did not reach the same extremisms. For hundreds of years, secular Christian society accumulated hatred towards the Jews at Sunday mass. Against this backdrop, it was easy for the Nazis to persecute the Jews. The Nazis relied on the local population in some of the countries they conquered, such as the Baltic states and Ukfraine; in Germany itself, antisemitism was so deeply rooted in the population that objections to the Nazi deeds disappeared very swiftly.
The Visit of the Chief Rabbis
On June 9, 2005, two months after his election, the Pope invited the leaders of the Jewish world to meet with him. On this occasion, the various leaders gathered under the auspices of the International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations (IJCIC). The Pope called for an increased understanding between Christians and Jews, and denounced any manifestation of hatred, persecution or antisemitism. 16 On September 15, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI received the two Chief Rabbis of Israel, Shlomo Amar and Yona Mezger, at his Castel Gandolfo summer palace. The Israeli press reported that the meeting had taken place following the initiative of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. According to the press, the rabbis raised two issues during this meeting: they asked the Pope to mention the need to fight antisemitism in his speeches, and then they told him of the burning of synagogues in the Gaza district.17 It is interesting to note, that the Pope spoke directly. He referred to the Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Israel, which had been signed on December 30, 1993. The Pope said that he expected this agreement to be implemented. According to the Catholic press, he said that the State of Israel must respect its commitments towards the Holy See and the Catholic Church. They referred to a contractual commitment, according to which an honest negotiation must be held in order to reach an agreement regarding the fiscal issues of the Church’s property in Israel.18 The two years mentioned in the Fundamental Agreement have long since elapsed, and a conclusion has yet to be reached. The solution is clear: following Italy’s example, Israel should agree to the principle that establishments solely dedicated to religious practices would be exempt from the majority of taxes, while those which also provide services, such as hotels or gas stations, should pay taxes like every other entity. In its dealing with Jews, the Holy See tends to mix theological arguments with political issues that are generally dealt with between states. Clearly, theology and politic must be kept distinct.
Pope Benedict XVI, the Shoah and the Visit to Auschwitz
To respond the criticism the document Dominus Iesus, Ratzinger published an article on December 29, 2000 in the semi-official daily of the Vatican, L’Osservatore Romano, in which he wrote: "Even if the most recent, loathsome experience of the Shoah was perpetrated in the name of an anti-Christian ideology, which tried to strike the Christian faith at its Abrahamic roots in the people of Israel, it cannot be denied that a certain insufficient resistance to this atrocity on the part of Christians can be explained by an inherited anti-Judaism present in the hearts of not a few Christians".19 What follows, then, is that the Nazi persecution against the Jews was like a giant billiard game. While Jews were being killed, the real targets were the Christians. Despite the incredibly distorted logic of this idea, it was not a new one for Ratzinger. In an interview with Peter Seewald, first published in German in 1996, he said: "The Holocaust was not carried out by Christians, nor in the name of Jesus, as those responsible for it are forces hostile to Christianity, and it was planned as a first step to the destruction of Christianity…It is important to say, and it shouldn’t be silenced, that the extermination of To respond the criticism the document Dominus Iesus, Ratzinger published an article on December 29, 2000 in the semi-official daily of the Vatican, L’Osservatore Romano, in which he wrote: "Even if the most recent, loathsome experience of the Shoah was perpetrated in the name of an anti-Christian ideology, which tried to strike the Christian faith at its Abrahamic roots in the people of Israel, it cannot be denied that a certain insufficient resistance to this atrocity on the part of Christians can be explained by an inherited anti-Judaism present in the hearts of not a few Christians".19 What follows, then, is that the Nazi persecution against the Jews was like a giant billiard game. While Jews were being killed, the real targets were the Christians. Despite the incredibly distorted logic of this idea, it was not a new one for Ratzinger. In an interview with Peter Seewald, first published in German in 1996, he said: "The Holocaust was not carried out by Christians, nor in the name of Jesus, as those responsible for it are forces hostile to Christianity, and it was planned as a first step to the destruction of Christianity…It is important to say, and it shouldn’t be silenced, that the extermination of the Jews by Hitler purposefully carried an anti-Christian meaning…The Christian antisemitism did lay the ground to all this to some extent, and this can not be denied".20 In view of these words, the silence of Pope Pius XII is most inexplicable - not only did he refrain from defending the Jews, he did not even see it fit to defend his own believers, who, according to Ratzinger, were the real target of the Nazis. One should not think lightly of the fact that Ratzinger chose to present the murder of the Jews by the Nazis as an act carried out with anti-Christian intentions. It is quite possible that the purpose behind this expression was to turn the Catholic Church into the victim of the Nazis, as Pius XII had done in his speech to the Cardinals, of June 2, 1945, a few days after the end of World War II, when he finally broke his silence. In his speech, Pius XII delineated the relations between the Church and the Nazis, and pointed at the morality of his activity during the war. According to him, he had strengthened the position of the Catholic Church in Germany. He mentioned the systematic attacks of the Nazis against the Church until the 1937 encyclical of his predecessor; he further mentioned the passion of the Church under Nazi rule, and claimed that he had done his utmost to help the victims. He stressed that the Church had never been a partner to the Nazis but could be included among those persecuted by them.21 By affirming that the Nazis actually wanted to attack Christianity, the Pope tries to deprive the Jewish victims of their own martyrdom, in addition to replacing the Jewish identity with the Christian one. Significantly, by the same logic, Catholics are exonerated of any guilt for the Shoah. Paul Blanquart writes: "Saying that while attacking Jews, Nazism also wanted to attack Christians, he enters into the issue which makes the Church benefit from the horrors of Auschwitz".22 Thus, the Church cannot be blamed for not having done enough for the Jews. This unsustained claim rests on the Church's convenient interpretation of the Nazis' hidden intentions against the Catholics. The fact remains, though, that the Jews alone were targeted for systematic mass-murder. Their only "crime" was being Jews. On August 19, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI visited the synagogue of Cologne. He was thus following in his predecessor’s footsteps, who had been the first Pope ever to have visited a synagogue. Benedict XVI begun by saying that he wished to continue “the road of friendly and improved relations with the Jewish people” which had been delineated by his predecessor. The Pope mentioned the eviction of the Jews from Cologne in 1424 as well as in the twentieth century, “the bleakest period of German and European history, a period during which an insane racist ideology, born of neo-paganism, led to a planned effort and a systematic actualization of the eradication of the European Jewry.” Benedict XVI mentioned the new signs of antisemitism and xenophobia while “the Church was committed to deference, honor, friendship and peace between all people.” He added that he wished to “encourage a sincere and trustful dialogue between Jews and Christians, for only in this way will it be possible to arrive at a shared interpretation of disputed historical question, and, above all, to make progress towards a theological evaluation of the relations between Judaism and Christianity. […] This dialogue, in order for it to be real, should not minimize the current discrepancies, and precisely those points over which we differ should give rise to mutual respect."23 On Sunday, May 28, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI visited Auschwitz and Birkenau, the second Pope to do so since his predecessor, John Paul II, visited the camp on June 7, 1979. At this German death camp, more than a million people were murdered during World War II; more than 90 percent of them were Jews. In his speech, Benedict XVI quoted a sentence from John Paul II, who had said at the same place: "Six millions Poles lost their life during Second World War - a fifth of the nation".24 By using the term ‘six million’, combining the three million Polish Jews with the three million ethnic Poles, the Pope was, in effect, appropriating the Shoah. This is consistent with the fact that the Church has been systematically trying to present itself as a victim of Nazism, thereby exonerating it from any responsibility for the killing of the Jews. Echoing the words of John Paul II, Benedict XVI recalled Edith Stein saying that as "a Christian and a Jew, she accepted dying together with her people". The idea that any victim of Auschwitz "accepted" death is horrifing. Moreover, the Pope’s claim that Edith Stein was both Christian and Jewish is pure syncretism, a concept that Jews would be right in rejecting. This is a further step in the effort to Christianize the Shoah. The German Pope also refrained from launching an appeal to the German people to recognize its own fault in participating in the war and in the killing of Jews. On May 8, 1985, Richard von Weizsäcker, then President of Germany, delivered a speech saying to his citizens: "Who could remain unsuspecting after the burning of the synagogues, the plundering, the stigmatization with the Star of David, the deprivation of rights, the ceaseless violation of human dignity?".25 For Benedict XVI all the culpability for the Holocaust is to be ascribed to "a group of criminals who reached power by false promises". In his mind, there is no moral guilt, and certainly no collective guilt, for the German people. Neither the driver of the train to Auschwitz, nor the guards of the escort, nor even those who had designed the gas chambers or produced the Zyklon-B was guilty. In fact, nobody saw anything or understood what was going on. "Where was God in those days?" asks Pope Benedict XVI. The question is in accordance with John Paul II and Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger, who wanted to bring Europe back to its Christian roots because, as they saw it, Auschwitz was the result of the lack of faith in God. More importantly, if God was silent or even absent, how could anyone expect simple German soldiers do anything to help the victims? At Auschwitz, Benedict XVI generally followed the path delineated by John Paul II, but refrained from repeating the very strange description of Auschwitz as the "Golgotha of the modern world".26 A seven-meter high cross remains on the spot as well as a smaller cross on the building of the Kommandatur in Birkenau. The determination to Christianize the Shoah remains crystal clear. It is important to note that Benedict XVI, himself, later modified his own speech on two issues. Three days after his speech at Auschwitz, he said in Rome: "Hitler exterminated more than six million Jews". Thus, he corrected his predecessor's words, from which he had taken the quotation about the six million victims, "a fifth of the Polish nation". Moreover, the Pontiff issued an appeal not to succumb on the temptation of racial hatred, which is at the core of the worst forms of antisemitism. We should appreciate the Pope's attempt at historical accuracy and accord the Jewish victims their proper place in the history of the Shoah.
The Policy of Benedict XVI on Terrorism
On July 24, 2005, following terrorist attacks in London on the Pope declared: "Even these days of tranquility and rest have been disturbed by the tragic news of the despicable terrorist attacks that have caused death, destruction and suffering in various countries, such as Egypt, Turkey, Iraq and Great Britain". The Pope went on invoking "the Almighty so that he may stop the murderous hand of those motivated by fanaticism and hatred who have committed them".27 The fact that Israel was not mentioned among those who suffered from terrorist attacks is no coincidence.28 On July 25, Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs registered a formal protest with the Nuncio, the Vatican ambassador in Israel, because the Pope had not mentioned terrorist attacks against Israel. A public protest was published by the foreign office the next day. The Vatican did not remain silent. On July 28, spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls reacted angrily to Israeli criticism. He published a three pages statement, listing all of Pope John Paul II’s speeches and declarations that had supposedly included denunciation of terrorism. In fact, the John Paul II had rarely made any such denunciations.29 In fact, Pope John Pail II never condemned Palestinian terrorism outright. This was not merely a question of style, but a systematic method aimed at avoiding taking a clear stand on the question of the Middle East. This tactic served the Vatican’s political aim of maintaining a seemingly identical stance towards both sides involved in the conflict. One would have expected the Pope to criticize Palestinian terror, just as he did other acts of terror.30 Yet, when the Pope condemns such acts of violence, he spoke of international terrorism, carefully avoiding any mention of acts committed by Palestinians. According to the Italian daily, Corriere della Sera, the incident was resolved after an exchange of letters between Israeli Prime Minister Sharon and the Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, in which it was agreed that both sides had reacted with undue belligerence.31
The Pope’s Speech against Islamic Terrorism
Speaking before the representatives of the Islamic communities of Cologne, Benedict XVI did not sound as conciliatory as his predecessor. Rather, he clearly and directly attacked terrorism committed in the name of Islam. At the beginning of his speech, the Pope stressed his concern regarding the “spreading phenomenon of terrorism”. He went on to say: “Terrorist activity is continuously recurring in various parts of the world, sawing death and destruction. Those who instigate and plan these attacks evidently wish to poison our relations, making use of all means, including religion, to oppose every attempt to build a peaceful, fear and serene life together. Terrorism, of any kind, is a perverse act and cruel decision, which shows contempt for the sacred right to life and undermines the very foundations of civil society". The Pope added that in the past, "relations between Christians and Muslims have not always been marked by mutual respect and understanding… History records many battles waged in the name of God, as if fighting and killing the enemy could be pleasing to him".32 This speech represents the first severe denunciation of terrorist actions and of those who organize them. The Pope accused the terrorist wishing to poison the relationship between Christians and Muslims. He did not mention any specific attack, but his choice of a Muslim audience for his remarks is significant. As early as 1997, in his book The Salt of the Earth, Cardinal Ratzinger spoke in detail about Islam and said: "There is a noble Islam, embodied, for example, by the King of Morocco, and there is also the extremist, terrorist Islam, which, again, one must not identify with Islam as a whole, which would do it an injustice".33 There are at least 20 million Muslims in Western Europe today, and the extremists among them have become Europe’s gravest concern. The utilization of the mosques as havens for the propagation of inflammatory material calling for acts of terror to be carried out by some extremists is especially worrying. In Spain, on March 11, 2004, one terrorist action in Madrid at the eve of legislative elections, succeeded in bringing the Socialist Party to power instead of the People's Party which was most likely to win before the attack. 34 Benedict XVI’s resounding attack against Islamic terrorism could assist the European governments in reaching a stronger policy against terrorism. If the Pope perseveres in this line of thought, then it would be safe to say that Europe’s last line of defense is the Vatican. Nevertheless, as we will see, the Pope did not change the Church's traditional anti-Israeli policy. His firm stand in front of Islamic terrorists does not include a new approach to Israel. Benedict XVI chaired a seminar on the dialogue with Islam at Castel Gandolfo on September 1-2, 2005. To the question whether the Islamic terrorists attacks can be judged anti-Christian, his answer was: "No, generally the intention is much more general and not precisely directed to Christianity".35 On January 9, 2006, the Pope received, as is the custom, all diplomatic representatives at the Holy See on the occasion of the New Year. In his speech he said that “the State of Israel has to be able to exist peacefully in conformity with the norms of international law”.36 Then he dedicated a large part of his speech to international terrorism and said: “The same considerations take on a wider application in today's global context, in which attention has rightly been drawn to the danger of a clash of civilizations. The danger is made more acute by organized terrorism, which has already spread over the whole planet. Its causes are many and complex, not least those to do with political ideology, combined with aberrant religious ideas… No situation can justify such criminal activity, which covers the perpetrators with infamy, and it is all the more deplorable when it hides behind religion, thereby bringing the pure truth of God down to the level of the terrorists' own blindness and moral perversion”.37 This unequivocal condemnation, of international terrorism should be appreciated, especially when set against the expressions of John Paul II, who had often found justifications for the deeds of the terrorists. It is a pity that the same considerations are not applied by the Pope also to the Hizbullah in Lebanon, to Syria and above all to Iran, which is refusing requests to suspend its program for the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
The Lebanese Crisis
On July 12, 2006, the Hezbullah forces penetrated Israeli territory. In an ambush, they killed three Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two others. This was a clear case of violation of international law by the Hezbullah terrorist organization, based in southern Lebanon. Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano made a statement on July 14, on Vatican Radio, condemning both the terrorist attacks and the military reprisals, and appealing for sincere dialogue. "As in the past", Sodano said, "the Holy See condemns both the terrorist attacks on the one hand and the military reprisals on the other. Indeed, a state's right to self-defense does not exempt it from respecting the norms of international law, especially as regards the protection of civilian populations. The Holy See particularly deplores the attack on Lebanon, a free and sovereign nation, and gives assurances of its closeness to those people who have suffered so much in the defense of their own independence".38 While the State of Israel was being attacked, without any provocation, by guerrillas coming from Lebanon, the Holy See deplored instead the retaliatory attack on Lebanon, "a free and sovereign nation". If Lebanon is really sovereign, it must also be responsible for acts of war initiated from its territory. Since Lebanon has been partially occupied by the Hizbullah, and has been unable to control events on its own territory, the policing of its borders on the Israeli side must be carried out by Israel, and on the Lebanese side by the UN. On July 16, Pope Benedict XVI stated after the Angelus: "At the origin of these devastating confrontations, there are, unfortunately, objective situations of the violation of law and justice. But neither terrorist acts nor retaliation can be justified, especially when these come with tragic consequences for the civilian population".39 In other words, Arab terrorist acts and the Israeli retaliation were one and the same, and neither could be justified. On July 20, 2006, the Holy See published a declaration which called for an immediate ceasefire. The declaration also expressed the wish that humanitarian corridors be opened so that negotiations could put an end to objective situations of injustice.40 On July 23, during the Angelus, the Pope said that a stable peace in the region has three pillars: "The right of the Lebanese to the integrity and sovereignty of their country, the right of Israelis to live in peace in their state, and the right of Palestinians to a free and sovereign homeland".41 According to Msgr. Giovanni Lajolo, Secretary for the Relations with the States of the Secretariat of State, the international conference on Lebanon, which took place in Rome on July 27, only resulted in inviting Israel to exhibit a maximum moderation. Evidently, Lajolo wished a stronger condemnation of Israel. Lajolo stressed that the Holy See wanted an immediate ceasefire and suspension of hostilities, which, at that stage, could only help Hizbullah. At the same time, from the Israeli point of view, the preliminary conditions for a ceasefire ought to have been the liberation of the two kidnapped Israeli soldiers, the implementation of Resolution 1559, including the disarmament of Hizbullah and its replacement by the Lebanese Army on the border with Israel. On August 2, 2006, in San Pietro Square at the Vatican, Benedict XVI said: "Our eyes are full of the chilling images of the tortured bodies of so many persons, mainly children. I think particularly about Cana in Lebanon".42 Any hope for a positive change in the stand of the Holy See towards Israel has thus far proved unfounded. Certainly, the fact that Cardinal Angelo Sodano remained Secretary of State meant that the Holy See's anti-Israeli policy was to be perpetuated. But even after the replacement of Sodano in mid September 2006, this policy may continue as proved by the declarations of the Pope regarding Lebanon. Recent declarations made by some of the 27 German Catholic bishops who visited Israele and the Palestinian territories in March 2007 accurately reflect the prevailing sentiment in the Church. Bishop Gregor Maria Franz Hanke said after the visit to Yad Vashem: "This morning we saw pictures of the Warsaw ghetto and this evening we are going to the Ramallah ghetto". While crossing an Israeli checkpoint, the Archbishop of Cologne, Cardinal Joachim Meisner said: "This is something that is done to animals, not people". Meisner added that the fence erected by Israel reminded him of the Berlin Wall. Some days later, Cardinal Lehman expressed his regret at the bishop's declaration. Nevertheless, coming from German Church hierarchy, such declarations seem especially strident. Comparing Israel's fight against terrorism to the German mass murder of Jews demonstrates not only the bishops' failure to understand the problems in the Middle East, but highlights their "amnesia" regarding their own nation's history. Perhaps this was their way of ridding themselves of a feeling of responsibility for their own past, yet such accusations against Israel will not erase the crimes of the Germans. Antisemitism expressed through Israel-bashing may be politically correct but the disguise is all too thin.
The Lectio Magistralis at the University of Regensburg
On July 12, 2006, the Hezbullah forces penetrated Israeli territory. In an ambush, they killed three Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two others. This was a clear case of violation of international law by the Hezbullah terrorist organization, based in southern Lebanon. Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano made a statement on July 14, on Vatican Radio, condemning both the terrorist attacks and the military reprisals, and appealing for sincere dialogue. "As in the past", Sodano said, "the Holy See condemns both the terrorist attacks on the one hand and the military reprisals on the other. Indeed, a state's right to self-defense does not exempt it from respecting the norms of international law, especially as regards the protection of civilian populations. The Holy See particularly deplores the attack on Lebanon, a free and sovereign nation, and gives assurances of its closeness to those people who have suffered so much in the defense of their own independence".38 While the State of Israel was being attacked, without any provocation, by guerrillas coming from Lebanon, the Holy See deplored instead the retaliatory attack on Lebanon, "a free and sovereign nation". If Lebanon is really sovereign, it must also be responsible for acts of war initiated from its territory. Since Lebanon has been partially occupied by the Hizbullah, and has been unable to control events on its own territory, the policing of its borders on the Israeli side must be carried out by Israel, and on the Lebanese side by the UN. On July 16, Pope Benedict XVI stated after the Angelus: "At the origin of these devastating confrontations, there are, unfortunately, objective situations of the violation of law and justice. But neither terrorist acts nor retaliation can be justified, especially when these come with tragic consequences for the civilian population".39 In other words, Arab terrorist acts and the Israeli retaliation were one and the same, and neither could be justified. On July 20, 2006, the Holy See published a declaration which called for an immediate ceasefire. The declaration also expressed the wish that humanitarian corridors be opened so that negotiations could put an end to objective situations of injustice.40 On July 23, during the Angelus, the Pope said that a stable peace in the region has three pillars: "The right of the Lebanese to the integrity and sovereignty of their country, the right of Israelis to live in peace in their state, and the right of Palestinians to a free and sovereign homeland".41 According to Msgr. Giovanni Lajolo, Secretary for the Relations with the States of the Secretariat of State, the international conference on Lebanon, which took place in Rome on July 27, only resulted in inviting Israel to exhibit a maximum moderation. Evidently, Lajolo wished a stronger condemnation of Israel. Lajolo stressed that the Holy See wanted an immediate ceasefire and suspension of hostilities, which, at that stage, could only help Hizbullah. At the same time, from the Israeli point of view, the preliminary conditions for a ceasefire ought to have been the liberation of the two kidnapped Israeli soldiers, the implementation of Resolution 1559, including the disarmament of Hizbullah and its replacement by the Lebanese Army on the border with Israel. On August 2, 2006, in San Pietro Square at the Vatican, Benedict XVI said: "Our eyes are full of the chilling images of the tortured bodies of so many persons, mainly children. I think particularly about Cana in Lebanon".42 Any hope for a positive change in the stand of the Holy See towards Israel has thus far proved unfounded. Certainly, the fact that Cardinal Angelo Sodano remained Secretary of State meant that the Holy See's anti-Israeli policy was to be perpetuated. But even after the replacement of Sodano in mid September 2006, this policy may continue as proved by the declarations of the Pope regarding Lebanon. Recent declarations made by some of the 27 German Catholic bishops who visited Israele and the Palestinian territories in March 2007 accurately reflect the prevailing sentiment in the Church. Bishop Gregor Maria Franz Hanke said after the visit to Yad Vashem: "This morning we saw pictures of the Warsaw ghetto and this evening we are going to the Ramallah ghetto". While crossing an Israeli checkpoint, the Archbishop of Cologne, Cardinal Joachim Meisner said: "This is something that is done to animals, not people". Meisner added that the fence erected by Israel reminded him of the Berlin Wall. Some days later, Cardinal Lehman expressed his regret at the bishop's declaration. Nevertheless, coming from German Church hierarchy, such declarations seem especially strident. Comparing Israel's fight against terrorism to the German mass murder of Jews demonstrates not only the bishops' failure to understand the problems in the Middle East, but highlights their "amnesia" regarding their own nation's history. Perhaps this was their way of ridding themselves of a feeling of responsibility for their own past, yet such accusations against Israel will not erase the crimes of the Germans. Antisemitism expressed through Israel-bashing may be politically correct but the disguise is all too thin. Pope Benedict XVI delivered a lecture at the University of Regensburg (Germany) on September 12, 2006, in which he quoted a dialogue between the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam. The Pope said: "The emperor must have known that Surah 2, 256 reads: 'There is no compulsion in religion'… he [the emperor] addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. The Pope explained the difference between the Christian God who is also "logo" (reason) and the God of Islam so transcendental and sublime that he is n longer linked to the rule that there should be no constriction in faith. The Pope added: "And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly".43 The Pope's strong speech against the link between religion and violence, typical of Islam today, was not a political error, as some observers wrote at that time. It was, rather, a declaration of war against certain aspects of Islamic fanaticism. Some days later, speaking in Castel Gandolfo on September 17, the Pope said: "I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims. These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought".44 Some see these words as a capitulation but, in fact, the Pope did not retract any of his words and did not apologize to Muslims. that he was sorry if he had been misunderstood, but he did not retract any of his words and he did not present his excuses to Islamic people. His speech was a surprise to many, but it had been carefully crafted. Thirty-eight prominent Islamic authorities sent an "Open Letter to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI",45 with an interesting definition of the Islamic stand. In a comment to this letter, an American Catholic theologian wrote: "[the Islamic authorities] now face a big question of action: how willing are they to challenge, discipline and, if need be, dramatically marginalize the jihadists who preach and commit murder 'without the sanction of God, his Prophet, or the learned tradition?'".46
The Visit to Turkey
After his presentation at Regensburg, the Pope traveled to Ankara and Istanbul from November 28 to December 1, 2006. On the eve of his arrival, there were rumors that Muslims in Turkey would organize a mass demonstration against the visit of the Pope. But the Pope, who had not modified an iota of his lecture in Regensburg, decided to go ahead with his visit to an Islamic, albeit secular, country. Prime Minister Recep Erdogan received the Pope at the Ankara airport and the Turkish press displayed sympathy towards the Pope. They understood that the visit of the Pope, no longer opposing the entry of Turkey into the European Union, could become a major source of support for their entry into Europe. For his part, the Pope had proved to all European politicians that one can sharply criticize violent Islam and still be accepted in an honorable fashion in an Islamic country. The Pope's policy of condemning Islamic violence, while showing respect for moderate Islam, is similar to the policy that Israel has supported all along. However, most European governments do not dare oppose Islamic terrorism and prefer to see Israel as the only party responsible for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to believe that Benedict XVI, while clearly condemning Islamic jihad, could necessarily see the State of Israel in a more positive light. The traditional foreign policy of the Holy See remains anti-Israeli, as demonstrated in the recent Lebanese war. One can only hope that with the entry into office of the new Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Holy See will also draw the logical conclusion from the Pope's new approach towards Islam, putting an end to the hostility against the State of Israel.
Statements on Peace in the Middle East
After his presentation at Regensburg, the Pope traveled to Ankara and Istanbul from November 28 to December 1, 2006. On the eve of his arrival, there were rumors that Muslims in Turkey would organize a mass demonstration against the visit of the Pope. But the Pope, who had not modified an iota of his lecture in Regensburg, decided to go ahead with his visit to an Islamic, albeit secular, country. Prime Minister Recep Erdogan received the Pope at the Ankara airport and the Turkish press displayed sympathy towards the Pope. They understood that the visit of the Pope, no longer opposing the entry of Turkey into the European Union, could become a major source of support for their entry into Europe. For his part, the Pope had proved to all European politicians that one can sharply criticize violent Islam and still be accepted in an honorable fashion in an Islamic country. The Pope's policy of condemning Islamic violence, while showing respect for moderate Islam, is similar to the policy that Israel has supported all along. However, most European governments do not dare oppose Islamic terrorism and prefer to see Israel as the only party responsible for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to believe that Benedict XVI, while clearly condemning Islamic jihad, could necessarily see the State of Israel in a more positive light. The traditional foreign policy of the Holy See remains anti-Israeli, as demonstrated in the recent Lebanese war. One can only hope that with the entry into office of the new Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Holy See will also draw the logical conclusion from the Pope's new approach towards Islam, putting an end to the hostility against the State of Israel. On December 13, 2006, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met Benedict XVI for the first time. The subject of their discussion was Mideast peace and the situation of Catholics in Israel. After his 20-minute audience with the Pope, Olmert met Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone. Later, Cardinal Bertone said that the meeting with Olmert was "very positive" and that "the visit to Israel and to the Holy Land is in the Pope's heart but, as we know, it can only take place in condition of peace or at least of a stable and safe truce".47 In the speech for the celebration of the World Day of Peace, on January 1, 2007, the Pope recalled the conflict in Southern Lebanon, declaring that the duty “to protect and help innocent victims and to avoid involving the civilian population was largely ignored". He went on to say: The heart-rending situation in Lebanon and the new shape of conflicts, especially since the terrorist threat unleashed completely new forms of violence, demand that the international community reaffirm international humanitarian law, and apply it to all present-day situations of armed conflict, including those not currently provided for by international law. Moreover, the scourge of terrorism demands a profound reflection on the ethical limits restricting the use of modern methods of guaranteeing internal security.48 The Pope's strong censure of Islamic terrorism stops, not surprisingly, at Israel’s doorstep. Could it be that the Pope is only against the kind of terrorism that is harmful to Christians and condones terrorism which is aimed at Jews? One cannot expect that the Pope, as Cardinal in charge of Catholic doctrine, to be any closer today to Jewish views than the Church has ever been in years past. For the purposes of intereligious dialogue, Jews would be satisfied were he to refrain from his various efforts to either convert Jews to Christianity or appropriate Jewish symbols and history and cloak them in Christian garb. Still, on the political level, one can certainly admire Benedictus XVI's new stand towards Islamic terrorism, even if it does not yet include a more positive attitude towards the State of Israel.
Postscript: April 2007
In Aprile 2007, Msgr. Antonio Franco, the Papal Nuncio in Israel, decided to boycott the Holocaust Remembrance Day events at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum because of the caption under the picture of Pope Pius XII whcih read: "Even when reports about the murder of the Jews reached the Vatican, the Pope did not protest either verbally or in writing". At the last minute, the Nuncio did participate, though it is not known whether this decision was made on his own initiative or on instructions from the Vatican".
Le note dell'articolo di Sergio I.Minerbi si trovano al seguente link
