LECTURE IN THE SERIES “THE YEAR OF CARDINAL BEA” ON THE OCCASION OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF HIS PASSING AT THE “CARDINAL BEA CENTRE FOR JUDAIC STUDIES” AT THE PONTIFICAL GREGORIAN UNIVERSITY IN ROME
CARDINAL AUGUSTIN BEA AS A PROTAGONIST OF RECONCILIATION
BETWEEN CATHOLICS AND JEWS
Reflections on his significant legacy
Rome, 10 April 2019
The legacy of Jesuit Cardinal Augustin Bea is so vast and noteworthy that it is not an easy task to do justice to it in a brief lecture. One would need to mention his time as Provincial of the Upper German Province of the Jesuits and his scholarly work as a professor for the Old Testament and as Dean of the Pontifical Bible Institute. During this period, he accomplished work of great merit by linking Catholic exegesis to the issues and methods of that time, thus advancing the renewal of exegesis, above all by applying the historical-critical method and including auxiliary disciplines such as oriental sciences and biblical archaeology. One would need to convey Cardinal Bea’s ecumenical commitment, which he practiced as the president of the newly founded Secretariat for Christian Unity and which earned him a fine honorary title: the “Cardinal of Unity”.[1] Not only was the “Ecumenical Directory” published during his term of office, in 1967, it also included the preparation of permanent dialogues with other Christian churches and above all it paved the way for the historical encounter between Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras in Jerusalem and the subsequent end to the mutual excommunications of the church in the East and the West just before the end of the Second Vatican Council. One would need to mention the great effectiveness of Cardinal Bea’s participation in the Second Vatican Council. Not only was he a member of the central preparatory commission, he also exercised significant influence via the Secretariat for Christian Unity on the creation of important Council documents, such as the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, “Dei verbum”, the Decree on Ecumenism “Unitatis redintegratio”, the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to non-Christian Religions, “Nostra aetate” and the Declaration on Religious Freedom, “Dignitatis humanae”. And finally, let us not forget that Pope Pius XII honored him by making him his confessor from 1945 to 1958. It would be impossible to elaborate on all of these achievements here and they can therefore only be mentioned briefly.[2] From the immense legacy bequeathed to us by Cardinal Bea I have chosen to focus on his leading role in the theological reevaluation of Judaism, the fruit of which is tangible in his fine book entitled “The Church and the Jewish People”.[3]
1. Cardinal Bea’s Commitment to the Conciliar Declaration on Judaism
With respect to the draft submitted to the Council Assembly entitled “Declaration on Jews and non-Christians”, in his relatio held in the Council Hall on September 25th, 1964, Cardinal Bea emphasized that the content of this draft was most certainly one of the topics “for which so-called public opinion shows great interest”; this led him to the conclusion that “many will deem this Council to be a success or a failure based on whether this document is approved or rejected”[4]. Naturally, this emphasis on the document’s crucial significance can only be understood against the background of a confidential remark made by Cardinal Bea following the promulgation of the declaration: “Had I been able to foresee all of the difficulties we would encounter, I do not know if I would have had the courage to go down this road.”[5] Today we should be grateful that Cardinal Bea was unable to foresee all of these difficulties, which were indeed enormous. In order to grasp the explosiveness and enduring novelty of this declaration today and do justice to Cardinal Bea’s great contribution, one needs to briefly review the long and convoluted history of the birth of this declaration and the equally complicated history of the text itself[6], which ultimately led to the promulgation of “Nostra aetate”.
In the beginning there was the encounter between Pope John XXIII and the Jewish historian Jules Isaak on June 13th, 1960, on the occasion of which the latter submitted a memorandum to the Pope with the urgent request for a new perspective on the relation of the Church to Judaism.[7] Just a few months after this conversation, Pope John XXIII, for whom reconciliation with the Jewish people was a heartfelt concern, ordered the preparation of a declaration on Judaism to be submitted to the Council, and it was to Cardinal Bea that he assigned this duty.[8] Since according to these instructions the draft proposal referred to Judaism only, which met with the objection of some Arab Council Fathers, it was decided to situate the draft regarding the Jews in the wider context of the position of the Church on non-Christian religions in general and to add it to the decree envisaged on ecumenism in the form of a fourth chapter. This relocation would have been quite sensible indeed, since in the history of Christianity the first division must be perceived in the separation of Church and Synagogue, which the Catholic theologian Erich Przywara referred to as the “Ur-Riss” (original schism)[9]. However it was a move that fell foul of many Council Fathers. Moreover, the Council Fathers from the Middle East demanded that Islam too be included in the declaration; and there were other Council Fathers who suggested that all non-Christian religions be covered. Due to these objections and to other new difficulties which arose, thus requiring a further review of the text, the declaration on the Jewish people ultimately became the fourth article of the Council declaration on “The Relation of the Church to non-Christian Religions”, which bears the title “Nostra aetate”. This declaration was approved by the Council Fathers on November 28th, 1965, with a well-nigh unanimous vote of 2221 votes in favor to 88 votes against and subsequently promulgated by Pope Paul VI.
Having reflected briefly on the challenging history of the drafting of the declaration before and during the Second Vatican Council, the fact that it was ultimately promulgated must called a small miracle, which clearly would probably never have come to pass had it not been for the committed participation of Cardinal Bea. He himself interpreted this complex history according to his very own style of religious realism, based on the biblical parable of the mustard seed, which he perceived in the simple, brief declaration envisaged on the position of the Church regarding the Jewish people. And yet, over the course of the Conciliar consultations, this tiny seed grew into what was “almost a tree”, “on which many birds have already found their nest”, which is to say that all non-Christian religions “occupy their own place” on it[10]. But the interpretation of this parable is also based on the premise that the fourth article, dealing with the relationship of the Church to Judaism, is not only the starting point but also the heart and center of “Nostra aetate” in its entirety. In his highly esteemed reports on the deliberations of the Council which he drew up at the time, Council peritus Joseph Ratzinger deemed this article, and rightly so, to be proof of the fact that “a new page had been turned in the book of mutual relations” between the Church and Israel[11]. The fundamental significance of “Nostra aetate” is indeed to be seen in the fact that this was the very first time in the history of Christianity that an Ecumenical Council had expressed itself in such an explicitly positive way with respect to the Church’s relationship to Judaism. This begs the subsequent question of what constitutes this fundamental turnaround, tantamount to the most important milestone in the history of the relationship of the Church to the Jewish people.
2. Categorical Rejection of Antisemitism and Antijudaism
“The relationship of the Catholic Church to the Jewish people, a problem almost two thousand years old – indeed, a problem that is as old as Christianity itself – has become more acute, above all due to the cruel extermination of millions of Jews by the Nazi regime, thus making it imperative that the Second Vatican Council afford it attention.”[12] With these words, Cardinal Bea referred in no uncertain terms to the first important circumstance which led to the drawing up of “Nostra aetate” and to the change in the relationship of the Church to the Jewish people accomplished thereby. This circumstance was the necessity for historical processing of the disaster wrought by the Shoah, the mass murder of European Jews planned and carried out by Nazi Germany with industrial perfection. In the light of this unsurpassable low point in the history of the hatred and persecution of the Jews, we Christians must honestly regret that it was only after the unparalleled crimes of the Shoah that a true change in thinking took place, expressed in the clear and definitive no to antisemitism in “Nostra aetate”, in which the Church, “moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone”[13].
Above all, we Christians must regret that the National Socialist persecution of Jews did not arouse in our midst the compassion for the suffering of others which we would have had every reason to feel. After all, Hitler hated Christianity just as much as he hated Judaism, he even likened Catholicism to the Trojan Horse of Judaism in Christianity, as can be clearly seen in Goebbels’ published diaries, in which he writes about Hitler: “The Führer is deeply religious, but entirely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay, as a branch of the Jewish race, as an absurdity which he intends to gradually leave high and dry in all areas. He hates Christianity, which has turned the free, intact, antique temple into a dark Cathedral complete with a crucified Christ grimacing in pain.”[14] These words are irrefutable proof of the fact that the Shoah must be deemed the horrendous low point of a godless, anti-Christian and neopagan ideology, aimed not only at destroying Judaism, but also the Jewish heritage of Christianity, as Pope Benedict XVI pointed out on the occasion of his visit to the extermination camp of Auschwitz-Birkenau in referring to this sinister context: “By destroying Israel, by the Shoah, they ultimately wanted to tear up the taproot of the Christian faith and to replace it with a faith of their own invention: faith in the rule of man, the rule of the powerful.”[15]
In recognizing the tragic common fate of antisemitism and antichristianism, we Christians should be deeply ashamed to realize that with his joint rejection of Judaism and Christianity Hitler evidently grasped the true essence of Christianity and its inner relation to Judaism much more aptly than we Christians were able to ourselves. We Christians have every reason to confess that Christian resistance against the boundless inhuman brutality of racism-inspired National Socialism did not display the clarity and extent which one could and should have expected by rights; and we Christians have every reason to seriously explore the issue of our shared responsibility for these horrendous developments. If it wishes to reply in all honesty, the Church must admit to an antijudaism in Christian theology which was effective for centuries and furthered a widespread antisemitic apathy against Jews, so that a longstanding anti-Jewish heritage was profoundly ingrained in the depth of the souls of many Christians[16]. This burdensome heritage was expressed above all in the condemnation of Jewish deicide and subsequently in the assumption that by virtue of salvation history, the Church as the new people of God had overcome the people of God of the Old Testament, thus making them obsolete and causing them to pale in the shadow of the new, just as we no longer depend on moonlight once the sun has risen. This is doubtless the reason why “Nostra aetate” puts such great emphasis on dealing with these two themes: “True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.”[17]
Traditional antijudaism was certainly not the reason for the dissemination of the National Socialist hatred of the Jews, but yet it created a mindset providing an important premise. Overcoming it calls for a great show of responsibility on the part of the Church, which must fight all forms of antisemitism, especially since we see a frightening revival of antisemitic movements in various European societies today. This begs the question as to whether the word “deplorare” (“discard”) in “Nostra aetate” is perhaps ultimately too weak and should actually be replaced by the word “condemnare” (“condemn”) today. All post-Council Popes have certainly gone in this direction, as they have always condemned antisemitism in no uncertain terms. Pope Francis in particular never tires of emphasizing that it is impossible to be a Christian and an Antisemite at the same time. The Catholic Church follows “Nostra aetate” faithfully and therefore the Jews should know that they have a reliable partner in her in the struggle against the scourge of antisemitism.
3. Remembering the Jewish Roots of Christianity
“Nostra aetate” not only contains a categorical “no” to all forms of antisemitism but also a decisive “yes” to the Jewish roots of Christianity. The declaration’s purpose is not only to deal with practical and pragmatic aspects, but also to discuss all issues of Jewish-Christian relations on a solid biblical foundation. Or, in Cardinal Bea’s own words: The Council declaration “Nostra aetate” was meant to “to restore clearly to the consciousness of those who believe in Christ these truths about the Jews, expounded by the Apostle Paul and contained in the patrimony of the faith”[18]. To this end, “Nostra aetate” explicitly refers to Paul’s image of the “root of the good olive tree, onto which the gentiles have been grafted as wild shoots“. This vivid and expressive image used by Paul in the eleventh chapter of his Epistle to the Romans is the decisive key to reflecting on the relation between Israel and the Church of Jesus Christ in the light of the faith, to relate Israel and the Church to one another in so doing and to do justice to both the unity and the difference alike in this relation. With this image, “Nostra aetate” also reminds us that it was “through the people, with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant”, that the Church received the revelation of the Old Testament. The declaration thus confirms the “spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews” in a very positive way.
By referring to the roots of the Church in Israel and recalling the common spiritual patrimony, the deepest reason for the new perspective on Catholic-Jewish relations becomes visible, which is already apparent in the first sentence of the fourth article of “Nostra aetate”: “As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham's stock.” With this biblically founded reflection on the mystery and the mission of the Church, “Nostra aetate” emphasizes the community in the history of salvation shared by Judaism and Christianity. The significance of this perspective is that the new people of God of the Church cannot be understood to be a cancellation or replacement of the old people of God, but rather as its fulfillment. The same is true of the relationship between the New and the Old Covenant: the New Covenant, to us as Christians, is not the replacement but rather the fulfillment of the Old Covenant.
How serious the Council was about founding the relationship between Judaism and Christianity on the history of salvation is also demonstrated by the fact that this aspect found its way too into other important texts produced by the Second Vatican Council as well. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, “Lumen gentium”, establishes the emergence of the Church from Israel, the people of God who are still the chosen ones, in articles 9 and 16; and the Dogmatic Constitution on the Divine Revelation “Dei verbum”, in articles 14-16, contains the same conviction, in a reversal based on revelation theology. In this context it is easy to recognize that such links to other significant Council documents lend additional weight to the “Nostra aetate” declaration.
By founding the relations between Judaism and Christianity on salvation history, the Council furthermore conveys the view that this relationship should not be dismissed as a mere variation on interreligious dialogue, thus preventing its unmistakable uniqueness from finding expression.[19] On the contrary, the Church has a unique and exceptional relationship to Judaism, which exists with no other religion. It is exceptional above all because the relationship to the Covenant people of Israel is part of the inner identity of the Church and the Church can therefore not understand itself without referring to Judaism, a conviction expressed by Pope John Paul II on the occasion of his visit to the Synagogue of Rome on April 13th, 1986 in equally impressive and urgent words: “The Jewish religion is not something <external> to us; rather, in a way, it belongs to the inner realm of our religion. Our relation to it is thus unlike that which we have to other religions. You are our preferred brothers, and one could also say the you are our older brothers.”[20]
4. Necessary Reception and Theological Deepening of “Nostra aetate”
It would be impossible to express the fundamental conviction of “Nostra aetate” in terms more apt than those pronounced by Pope John Paul II. The declaration is deemed to be the founding document and a reliable compass for the reconciliation between Christians and Jews. “Nostra aetate” is doubtless one of the Council documents to achieve the greatest historical effect. Following over fifty years of reception of this Magna Charta of Jewish-Catholic dialogue, one can safely say that it has borne much fruit, and this allows us to conclude that it already implies most everything that proved to be significant later on. Therefore “Nostra aetate” can be deemed to be a quite prophetic text, as foreseen as early as during the Council deliberations by Cardinal Bea himself. For what he perceived with prophetic sensitivity at the time was reconfirmed time and again in the years that followed.
This is true not only despite the extreme brevity of the declaration, but also due to the fact that the text is relatively general, lending itself to diverse interpretations and even requiring interpretation, while at the same time relying on its inherent surplus of meaning. Looking back on the history of its receptions, though, this is exactly where its strength lies.[21] Above all the Popes who came after the Council were the leading architects of a wide-ranging deepening and promotion of the auspicious perspectives laid down in “Nostra aetate”, so that these Popes can be deemed to be the protagonists of the implementation of “Nostra aetate”. In this connection, it is for example important to mention the statement made by Pope John Paul II to representatives of the Jews in Germany on November 17th, 1980, which is not yet to be found in “Nostra aetate” but represents a legitimate and positive evolution of its basic convictions: “The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God [cf. Rom. 11:29], and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, between the first and the second part of her Bible.”[22]
The four documents produced by the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews founded by Pope Paul VI in 1974 with the obligation to accompany and promote the religious dialogue with the Judaism also represent further interpretations and later updates of article 4 of “Nostra aetate”. The document published by the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 2001, entitled “The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible”, also deserves a special mention. It is with great gratitude that we can confirm that documents expressing an opinion on the Jewish-Catholic dialogue have now been produced by the Jewish side as well[23]: following the document “Dabru emet” (“Speak the Truth”), published by relatively liberal Jews in the USA as early as in the year 2000[24], representatives of orthodox Judaism brought forth the important document “Between Jerusalem and Rome” in 2017.[25] The latter contains a reply to the Conciliar declaration “Nostra aetate” which is appreciated to be the turning point in the relations between the Catholic Church and Judaism.
When reading the aforementioned document, one realizes that within Jewish-Catholic dialogue less emphasis is put on the religious and theological dimensions and much more on the cultural and ethical, social and political issues in the hope of achieving good cooperation between Jews and Catholics. In this connection, it is explicitly said that “the differences in teaching are considerable and cannot be discussed or negotiated.” In contrast to this, the Commission of the Holy See for Religious Relations with the Jews published its most recent document entitled “The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable” (Rom 11:29) - A Reflection on Theological Questions Pertaining to Catholic–Jewish Relations on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of “Nostra aetate” (no.4)”, convinced that the time is ripe to deepen the Jewish-Christian discussion of those theological issues – such as the meaning of the Revelation and the relationship between the Old and the New Covenant - which are already present but not explicitly discussed in “Nostra aetate”.
I hope that such dialogue pertaining to theological issues will become increasingly possible, since it is part of Cardinal Augustin Bea’s immense legacy, which he described as follows during the Council: “As regards the Jewish people, it must be emphasized time and again with great clarity that this is by no means a political issue but rather a purely religious one. We are not talking about Zionism nor about the political state of Israel, but rather about the followers of the religion of Moses, no matter where they live on this earth”.[26] Herein lies the deepest reason of what makes the Council document “Nostra aetate” not a political but rather a strictly religious and theological document. The Commission of the Holy See for Religious Relations with the Jews and the “Cardinal Bea Centre for Judaic Studies” are bound to Cardinal Bea’s legacy, meaning that we are connected to the Jewish people primarily for religious reasons. In this context, it goes without saying that in theological dialogues of this kind we must take the reservations of individual Jews with respect to religious issues very seriously, and that therefore these dialogues must be carried out in mutual respect of the religious convictions of the other and in a way that will make peaceful cooperation between Jews and Christians possible. Pope Francis addressed this issue with great sensitivity in his speech on the occasion of the presentation of the document “Between Jerusalem and Rome”, by emphasizing that “despite fundamental theological differences” Jews and Catholics share “common core beliefs”[27]. To deepen these common core beliefs while at the same time respecting the theological differences of both traditions of faith is the legacy and mission of Jewish-Catholic dialogue in the spirit of Cardinal Augustin Bea and in loyalty to “Nostra aetate”.
[1] S. Schmidt, Augustin Bea. Der Kardinal der Einheit (Graz-Wien-Köln 1989).
[2] Vgl. C. Brodkorb, D. Burkard (Hrsg.), Der Kardinal der Einheit. Zum 50. Todestag des Jesuiten, Exegeten und Ökumenikers Augustin Bea (1881-1968) (Regensburg 2018).
[3] A. Kardinal Bea, Die Kirche und das jüdische Volk (Freiburg i. Br. 1966). In English: The Church and the Jewish People (London 1966).
[4] Relatio von Augustin Kardinal Bea über die “Erklärung über die Juden und Nichtchristen”, gehalten in der Konzilsaula am 25. September 1964, in: Die Kirche und das jüdische Volk (Freiburg i. Br. 1966) 148-157, zit. 148.
[5] Zit. bei S. Schmidt, Augustin Bea. Der Kardinal der Einheit (Graz-Wien-Köln 1989) 641.
[6] Vgl. J. Oesterreicher, Kommentierende Einleitung zur „Erklärung über das Verhältnis der Kirche zu den nichtchristlichen Religionen“, in: Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche. Band 13 (Freiburg i. Br. 1967) 406-478.
[7] Vgl. M. Quisinsky., Art. Isaac, Jules, in: Ders. / P. Walter (Hrsg.), Personenlexikon zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil (Freiburg i. Br. 2012) 139-140.
[8] Vgl. D. Recker, Die Wegbereiter der Judenerklärung des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils. Johannes XXIII., Kardinal Bea und Prälat Österreicher – eine Darstellung ihrer theologischen Entwicklung (Paderborn 2007).
[9] E. Przywara, Römische Katholizität – All-christliche Ökumenizität, in: J. B. Metz u. a. (Hrsg.), Gott in Welt. Festgabe für K. Rahner (Freiburg i. Br. 1964) 524-528, zit. 526.
[10] Relatio von Augustin Kardinal Bea, Präsident des Sekretariats für die Einheit der Christen, zur „Erklärung über das Verhältnis der Kirche zu den nichtchristlichen Religionen“, gehalten in der Konzilsaula am 20. November 1964, in: Die Kirche und das jüdische Volk (Freiburg i. Br. 1966) 158-162, zit. 158.
[11] J. Ratzinger, Die letzte Sitzungsperiode des Konzils (Köln 1966) 68.
[12] A. Kardinal Bea, Die Kirche und das jüdische Volk (Freiburg i. Br. 1966) 7.
[13] Nostra aetate, Nr. 4.
[14] Vgl. H. G. Hoeckerts, Die Goebbels-Tagebücher 1932-1941. Eine neue Hauptquelle zur Erforschung der nationalsozialistischen Kirchenpolitik, in: D. Albrecht (Hrsg.), Politik und Konfession. Festschrift für Konrad Repgen zum 60. Geburtstag (Berlin 1983) 359-392.
[15] Benedict XVI, Adress on the occasion of the visit to the Auschwitz Camp, Auschwitz-Birkenau, 28 May 2006.
[16] Vgl. Judaisme, anti-judaisme et christianisme. Colloque de l´Université de Fribourg 16-20 mars 1998 (Saint-Maurice 2000).
[17] Nostra aetate, Nr. 4.
[18] Relatio von Augustin Kardinal Bea über „Die Haltung der Katholischen Kirche zu den Nichtchristen und hauptsächlich zu den Juden“, gehalten in der Konzilsaula am 19. November 1963, in: Die Kirche und das jüdische Volk (Freiburg i. Br. 1966) 141-147, zit. 144.
[19] Vgl. J. Kardinal Ratzinger, Der Dialog der Religionen und das jüdisch-christliche Verhältnis, in: Ders., Die Vielfalt der Religionen und der Eine Bund (Hagen 1998) 93-121.
[20] Johannes Paul II., Ansprache anlässlich des Besuchs der römischen Synagoge am 13. April 1986.
[21] Vgl. Kardinal K. Koch, Judentum und Katholische Kirche. Zu einem fruchtbaren Dialog seit „Nostra aetate“, in: B. Jeggle-Merz und M. Durst (Hrsg.), Juden und Christen im Dialog = Theologische Berichte 36 (Freiburg / Schweiz 2016) 53-83.
[22] Johannes Paul II., Ansprache an die Vertreter der Juden im Dommuseum in Mainz am 17. November 1980.
[23] Vgl. N. J. Hofmann, Eine neue Phase des Gesprächs. Die jüngsten jüdisch-orthodoxen Dokumente zum jüdisch-christlichen Dialog, in: Kirche und Israel 33 (2018) 24-31.
[24] Vgl. E. Kessler, „Dabru Emet“, in: Ders., - N. Wenborn (Hrsg.), A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations (Cambridge 2005).
[25] Eine deutsche Übersetzung der „Erklärung <Zwischen Jerusalem und Rom>. Die gemeinsame Welt und die respektierten Besonderheiten. Reflexionen über 50 Jahre <Nostra aetate>“ findet sich in: Kirche und Israel 32 (2017) 178-186.
[26] Relatio von Augustin Kardinal Bea über die „Erklärung über die Juden und Nichtchristen“, gehalten in der Konzilsaula am 25. September 1964, in: Die Kirche und das jüdische Volk (Freiburg i. Br. 1966) 148-157, zit. 155.
[27] Franziskus, Ansprache bei der Audienz für eine Delegation von Rabbinern zur Vorstellung des Dokuments „Zwischen Jerusalem und Rom“ am 31. August 2017.