|
Jews
Don’t Need Jesus?
A
Special Planet Envoy Critique of
“Reflections
on Covenant and Mission”
On
August 12th, delegates from the Bishops’ Committee on Ecumenical
and Interreligious Affairs (BCEIA), a sub-committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), and the National Council of Synagogues
released a document titled “Reflections on Covenant and Mission.”
The next day a Boston Globe article reported that the document
was the dawn of a new era in Catholic teaching, one in which the necessity
of belief in Jesus Christ is limited to certain groups and unnecessary
for others:
Citing teachings
dating back to the Second Vatican Council, and statements by Pope
John Paul II throughout his papacy, the United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops declared unequivocally that the biblical covenant
between Jews and God is valid and therefore Jews do not need to be
saved through faith in Jesus. (Michael Paulson, “Catholics reject
evangelization of Jews.” Boston Globe. August 13, 2002).
When
I first read this newspaper report, I assumed the reporter had misunderstood
the actual contents of the document. After all, the media is not known
for always interpreting official Catholic documents with accuracy
and balance. Once I had read the document, however, I was distressed
to find that the reporter was not far off the mark in his understanding
of what the delegates of the BCEIA had stated.
Within
a couple days Envoy was receiving e-mails and phone calls from
Catholics expressing concern, confusion, and even anger about the
document and the media response. One caller told us of a lengthy conversation
he had with an Evangelical Protestant radio talk show host. The host
explained that the document was just further proof the Catholic Church
was embracing indifferentism and was rejecting the Gospel of Jesus
Christ more openly than ever before. There have been reports of similar
reactions from other non-Catholic Christians.
A
Little Perspective
Before
looking at some of the problems with “Reflections On Covenant and
Mission,” it must be pointed out that the document carries little,
if any, authoritative weight. It is, after all, a reflection, not
a papal encyclical or declaration from the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith. In fact, after the first wave of media attention and
controversy, Cardinal William Keeler, the U.S. Bishops’ Moderator
for Catholic-Jewish relations, took pains to point out that the document
was not authoritative and “does not represent a formal position taken
by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) or the
Bishops' Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs (BCEIA).
The purpose of publicly issuing the considerations which it contains
is to encourage serious reflection on these matters by Jews and Catholics
in the U.S.” (Accessed at www.ncbuscc.org.
Dated Aug. 16, 2002).
Unfortunately,
most people, including many Catholics, do not understand the various
levels of authority attached to different official Catholic documents.
They do not always understand that there is a huge difference between
a dogmatic constitution or papal encyclical, and the reflections of
a USCCB sub-committee. Although such reflections can be important and
may benefit the Church in different ways, they are not infallible
and they do not necessarily reflect the teaching of the Universal
Church. Such reflections can even contradict the established doctrine
of the Catholic Church.
What’s
The Point?
The
document is part of an ongoing, twenty year long interreligious dialogue
between the USCCB and certain Jewish groups. One of its goals is to
state that “campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity
are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.” Although
this is somewhat ambiguous, the delegates are apparently referring
to coercive or aggressive forms of proselytism that do not respect
the religious freedom of the individual. Of course, it would be difficult
to find many Catholics today who support the forced baptisms and conversions
that sometimes took place in past centuries.
The
document also reflects on the relationship between the Old and New
Covenants. Quotes from Pope John Paul II explain that Jews are “the
people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God,” “the present-day
people of the covenant concluded with Moses,” and “partners in a covenant
of eternal love which was never revoked.” This might surprise some
readers, but this recognition of God’s faithfulness to His covenant
with the Jews has been the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church.
This is based, in part, on St. Paul’s teaching in chapter 9 through
11 of his Epistle to the Romans.
The
more difficult issue, which the document seeks to address, is what
this recognition of the Old Covenant means for evangelistic efforts
by Catholics. Put bluntly, do Jews need Jesus? Is it wrong for Catholics
to tell Jews that Jesus is the one Lord and Savior? Do Jews need to
be baptized and become Christian? In addressing these questions the
document becomes confusing and contradictory.
What
Is Evangelization All About?
This
confusion can already be found in an early section titled “The Mission
of the Church: Evangelization,” which states:
Evangelization
refers to a complex reality that is sometimes misunderstood by reducing
it only to the seeking of new candidates for baptism. It is the Church's
continuation of the mission of Jesus Christ, who embodied the life
of the kingdom of God.
Yes,
evangelization is more than getting people to join the Church. But
exactly how do the authors of this document think that people enter
into the “mission of Jesus Christ” and the “kingdom of God”? Baptism
is the normal means by which one enters in God’s family, His Kingdom,
and the life of Christ. This is why Pope Paul VI, in his papal encyclical
devoted to evangelization (Evangelii Nuntiandi, 1975), stated,
In
the Church's evangelizing activity there are of course certain elements
and aspects to be specially insisted on. Some of them are so important
that there will be a tendency simply to identify them with evangelization.
Thus it has been possible to define evangelization in terms of proclaiming
Christ to those who do not know Him, of preaching, of catechesis,
of conferring Baptism and the other sacraments.
Put
another way, the “complex reality” of evangelization has no meaning
without the reality of baptism and the possibility of entrance into
the salvific reality of God’s life. Thankfully, the BCEIA document
does declare “that evangelization, the Church's work on behalf of
the kingdom of God, cannot be separated from its faith in Jesus Christ
in whom Christians find the kingdom ‘present and fulfilled.”’
A
little further on the question is asked: “Ought Christians to invite
Jews to baptism?” The answer is troublesome: “This is a complex question
not only in terms of Christian theological self-definition, but also
because of the history of Christians forcibly baptizing Jews.”
There
are two problems with this remark. One is the implication that “inviting”
someone to baptism can be equated to “forcing” him to be baptized.
Catholics are to invite the unbaptized to become Catholic and receive
the sacrament of baptism – always with charity, tact, and respect
for each individual. Clearly this is different from coercing the unbaptized
to receive the sacrament.
Secondly,
there is no “complex question” relating to Christian self-definition
and baptism. Baptism makes us Christian and makes us “partakers of
the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4). Our Savior, Jesus Christ, wishes
all men to partake of this divine life, and He has made it clear that
the normative means of this is baptism (Jn. 3:1-5; 1 Pet. 3:21). Combining
the issue of “theological self-definition” with the matter of forced
baptisms does not bode well. It indicates the document is more interested
in downplaying the scandal of the Cross for the sake of “mutual understanding”
than it is in pursuing truly honest interreligious dialogue, which
naturally contains tensions and difficulties.
Are
the Two Covenants Equal in Value?
After
discussing the relation of the two covenants, the document states:
Nonetheless,
the Church does perceive that the Jewish people's mission ad gentes
“to the nations”) continues. This is a mission that the Church also
pursues in her own way according to her understanding of covenant.
The command of the Resurrected Jesus in Matthew 28:19 to make disciples
“of all nations” (Greek = ethne, the cognate of the Hebrew
= goyim; i.e., the nations other than Israel) means that the
Church must bear witness in the world to the Good News of Christ so
as to prepare the world for the fullness of the kingdom of God. However,
this evangelizing task no longer includes the wish to absorb the Jewish
faith into Christianity and so end the distinctive witness of Jews
to God in human history.
This
is problematic, to say the least. In essence, the document is saying
Jesus came to save the Gentiles, but is not concerned about saving
the Jews because they already have a saving covenant. It is difficult
to not see this as a capitulation to a politically correct agenda,
especially considering the indifferent phrase, “in her own way according
to her understanding of the covenant.” Well, either the Church’s way
of understanding the covenant is correct, or it isn’t – it cannot
be true for one group of people and not true for another! Yet the
documents appears to say so, a case of having one’s cake and eating
it too.
Equally
disturbing is the interpretation of Matthew 28:19, one that doesn’t
square with the biblical evidence. The Gospels depict Jesus spending
much time and effort telling the Jews that He is the Messiah. While
this proclamation was accepted by some Jews, notably His mother and
the Apostles, Jesus was rejected by the religious authorities and
many of the Jewish people.
But
after His death and resurrection did He tell those who were faithful
disciples to witness only to “the nations other than Israel”? Of course
not. He said, “[B]ut you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit
has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem,
and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the
earth” (Acts 1:8). And to that end, the first several chapters of
the Acts of the Apostles describe the efforts of the disciples in
evangelizing the Jews. It wasn’t until later (Acts 10 and following)
that the Apostles begin also evangelizing among the goyim.
The
muddled nature of the document is most vividly displayed in its final
passage. It states, “The Catholic Church must always evangelize and
will always witness to its faith in the presence of God's kingdom
in Jesus Christ to Jews and to all other people,” and then remarks,
“[The Jews’] witness to the kingdom, which did not originate with
the Church's experience of Christ crucified and raised, must not be
curtailed by seeking the conversion of the Jewish people to Christianity.”
Again,
we cannot have it both ways. Either all men need Jesus Christ as Savior,
or they do not. If they do, we must evangelize and witness to all
people, both Jews and non-Jews. If they do not, then the very nature
and mission of Christianity is called into question, along with the
intended purpose of God becoming man, suffering, dying, and rising
again. Catholics are to seek the conversion of all people
to Christianity – not by coercion or force, but by faithful evangelization
and charitable witness.
As
Christians, we are partakers of Christ’s “more excellent ministry”
and of “a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises”
(Heb. 8:6). The New has fulfilled the Old, and God has shown His faithfulness
to the Old Covenant most completely in the New Covenant. To doubt
this in any way, or to suggest that the Old and New Covenants are
equal in value is to seriously misrepresent the unique, singular work
of Jesus Christ and His Church.
What
About Dominus Iesus?
Although
the Catholic Reflection in the document contains twenty-five footnotes,
not one of them quotes Dominus Iesus, the controversial “Declaration
on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church”
issued by Cardinal Ratzinger and the Congregation for the Doctrine
of Faith in August 2000. That important document was confirmed by
Pope John Paul II and carries substantial doctrinal weight. It is
a cogent, unambiguous explanation of what the Church teaches about
Jesus Christ, His centrality as Savior, the mission of the Church,
and the relationship between the Church and other religions. You
can access the entire document here.
In
light of the confusion over the “Reflections on Covenant and Mission,”
I would like to quote a few sections from Dominus Iesus at
length. The first clearly affirms the unique and singular work of
Jesus Christ, and the importance of entering the Church through baptism:
Above
all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now
on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator
and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is
the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith
and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same
time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as
through a door”. This doctrine must not be set against the universal
salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these
two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in
Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.
(Dominus Iesus, 20)
The
second quote addresses the question of how non-Christians might be
saved. It emphasizes that the Church can never be seen as one possible
way of salvation among many, nor can any other religion be seen as
equally valid and substantive as Christianity:
With
respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always
given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship
to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican
Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways
known to himself”. Theologians are seeking to understand this
question more fully. Their work is to be encouraged, since it
is certainly useful for understanding better God's salvific plan and
the ways in which it is accomplished. However, from what has been
stated above about the mediation of Jesus Christ and the “unique and
special relationship” which the Church has with the kingdom of God
among men — which in substance is the universal kingdom of Christ
the Saviour — 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. (Dominus Iesus,
21)
While
other religions do contain many elements of truth, they do not possess
an equal assurance of the means of salvation:
If
it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine
grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a
gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church,
have the fullness of the means of salvation. (Dominus Iesus,
22)
Finally,
in addressing interreligious dialogue, Dominus Iesus again
stresses the unique nature of Jesus Christ, the need of all men for
the Church, and the vital place of the sacraments in the work of salvation:
In
inter-religious dialogue as well, the mission ad gentes “today as
always retains its full force and necessity”. “Indeed, God ‘desires
all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth' (1 Tim
2:4); that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge
of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the
promptings of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation.
But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out
to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. Because she believes
in God's universal plan of salvation, the Church must be missionary”.
Inter-religious dialogue, therefore, as part of her evangelizing mission,
is just one of the actions of the Church in her mission ad gentes.
Equality, which is a presupposition of inter-religious dialogue, refers
to the equal personal dignity of the parties in dialogue, not to doctrinal
content, nor even less to the position of Jesus Christ — who is God
himself made man — in relation to the founders of the other religions.
Indeed, the Church, guided by charity and respect for freedom, must
be primarily committed to proclaiming to all people the truth definitively
revealed by the Lord, and to announcing the necessity of conversion
to Jesus Christ and of adherence to the Church through Baptism and
the other sacraments, in order to participate fully in communion with
God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus, the certainty of the universal
salvific will of God does not diminish, but rather increases the duty
and urgency of the proclamation of salvation and of conversion to
the Lord Jesus Christ. (Dominus Iesus, 22)
What
Were They Thinking?
Whether you are
a lay person, an apologist, a theologian, a priest, or even a bishop,
it is never easy to proclaim the Gospel. The Gospel is always a challenge,
both to Christians and non-Christians alike. The tendency, in our
human weakness, is to downplay those elements that might upset or
offend other people, or even ourselves. One reason Dominus Iesus
was so controversial is that it did not back away from making claims
that critics derided as “exclusive” and “triumphalistic.”
It seems to me
that this recent document from BCEIA, while filled with good intentions,
suffers from a fear of offending. This timidity
and lack of assurance results in confusion. Although some might say
the confusion comes from the document being a complex, nuanced document,
such is not the case. There are nuances, but there is also confused
and murky thinking. A comparison to the quotes from Dominus Iesus
make this deficiency apparent.
A
contributing factor to the tone and remarks found in the document
might be the recent state of Catholic-Jewish relations. The Catholic
Church has been criticized – sometimes fairly and sometimes not
– for the past failures of Catholics who have persecuted or offended
Jews. Recent attacks on Pope Pius XII, almost all of them false and
slanderous, regarding his actions during World War II have put many
Catholics on the defensive. Some people, among them Catholics, believe
that evangelization is actually an act of arrogance or even oppression.
It could be that some theologians and bishops might be afraid to appear
anti-Semitic or bigoted in any way, leading to a flawed reflection
on Catholic-Jewish relations.
Cardinal
Keeler’s remarks indicate that the USCCB is not pleased with the document.
And there are reports that some bishops are very unhappy with both
its timing and the content. Unfortunately, the document has already
caused more than a few problems, including giving the impression that
the Catholic Church has a relativistic and indifferent approach to
other religions and to her own central doctrines. We must do our part
in correcting these erroneous views and clearly declare our faith
in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the need to evangelize all people,
whether in season or out of season.
Help
Envoy's Apostolate
| Click
here to make a tax-deductible donation! Your donations are tax-deductible
and will go directly to help Envoy Magazine continue its work of bringing
Christ to the World. Envoy's apostolate is to encourage and prepare
Catholics to know their Faith well, to explain it intelligently, defend
it charitably, and share it effectively.
Make a donation now. |
Subscribe
to Planet Envoy's Free E-Newsletter
|
ENVOY
Editor, Carl Olson, wants to hear from you. Send
your letters to the editor, including praise, complaints,
questions, and invective to carl@envoymagazine.com. |
| |
|
Speak
Your Mind!
Visit Envoy's unique and widely read apologetics
and evangelization bulletin board and express yourself.
Share your thoughts on any topic at our popular
Speak Your Mind forum. |
|
Try
It, You'll Like It
Need some spice in your life? Want to get your Catholic
intellectual and spiritual life into high gear?
Interested in snappy, relevant, challenging articles
by today's top Catholic writers and full-color graphics
that will knock your socks off? Good. You're ready
for Envoy Magazine.
Click here
for details on how to subscribe to the best
Catholic magazine of apologetics and evangelization.
|
|
Kick It
Up a Notch
Check out Envoy's quirky top
ten lists and add some laughter to your day. Click
here
for our Top Ten Lists. NOTE: Don't read these
humor bits while you're drinking milk, or you know
what will happen. (Don't say we didn't warn you.)
|
|
FEATURED PRODUCTS:
Annual
Subscription
One complete year of Envoy
Magazine.
_ |
|
Give
a gift subscription
Evangelize your family and friends
with a gift subscription to Envoy. They'll thank
you for it!
|
Pope
Fiction
Answers to 30 Myths & Misconceptions
About the Papacy
_ |
|
Search
& Rescue
This
book will show you how to bring your family and friends
home to the Catholic Church!
|
|
|
|
