Rev. Ralph Wiltgen: The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II

[Stone]

THE THIRD SESSION
September 14 to November 21, 1964

JEWS AND MOSLEMS


Pope John XXIII received Cardinal Bea in private audience on September 18, i960, three months after the foundation of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, and gave him an explicit oral mandate to prepare a special Council schema dealing with the Jews. The schema was ready for presentation to the Central Preparatory Commission in June 1962, but the Commission did not take it up. As Cardinal Bea explained later, this was “not because of ideas or doctrine expressed in the schema, but only because of certain unfortunate political circumstances existing at the time.”

What had happened was that a member of the World Jewish Congress had given the impression to the press that he might attend the Second Vatican Council as an official observer. No official action had ever been taken in the matter, either by the World Jewish Congress or by the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. Had the author of this story been an American or a European, little notice might have been taken of it; but he was from Israel and had served in the Ministry of Religion. The story was immediately taken up by the Arab press, and the Vatican was charged at great length with establishing political ties with Israel. The time was therefore judged inopportune for discussing and releasing a schema on the Jews.

The only mention made of the Jews at the first session was by Bishop Mendez Arceo, of Mexico, on December 6, 1962, two days before the session ended. He suggested that the Council should define the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jews.

Later that same month, Cardinal Bea sent a long report to Pope John on the question. He stressed especially that the only point at issue in any document that the Council might prepare on the Jews would be a purely religious one. He maintained that there would be no danger of the Council’s becoming involved in the grave political problems arising out of Zionism or the relations between the Arab nations and the state of Israel.

Pope John sent Cardinal Bea a reply in his own hand, dated December 23, 1962, saying, “We have carefully read this report of Cardinal Bea, and we agree with him completely on the importance of the matter and on the responsibility which we have to give it due consideration.”

On the strength of Pope John’s reaction, the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity set to work putting the final touches to its draft, entitled “A Document on the Purely Religious Relations Between Catholics and Jews.” But no official action was taken in the matter before Pope John’s death, early in June 1963.

Cardinal Bea submitted the final text to the Coordinating Commission after Pope Paul VI had declared, at the end of June, that the Council would be continued. But no action was taken during the second session. And as late as October 18, 1964, three weeks after the opening of the third session, the Coordinating Commission still had made no decision about the distribution of the document or the manner in which it should be presented.

On November 8, 1964, a communique was issued by the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, stating that that morning there had been distributed to the Council Fathers a draft on “the attitude of Catholics toward non-Christians, particularly toward the Jews.” The communique went on to say that the draft would form Chapter 4 of the schema on ecumenism. The document, continued the communique, “cannot be called pro-Zionist or anti-Zionist, since it considers these as political questions and entirely outside its religious scope. In fact, any use of the text to support partisan discussion or particular claims, or to attack the political claims of others, would be completely unjustified and contrary to every intention of those who have composed it and presented it to the Council.”

It was also pointed out in the communique that the part that the Jewish leaders of Christ’s day had played in bringing about the crucifixion “does not exclude the guilt of all mankind. . . . The personal guilt of these leaders cannot be charged to the whole Jewish people either of Christ’s time or of today.” Therefore it was unjust, the communique said, to accuse the Jewish people of “deicide” or to consider them “accursed” by God.

The title of the draft, however, was misleading, because it spoke of “the attitude of Catholics toward non-Christians,” whereas the draft itself dealt exclusively with the Jews.

On November 12, 1964 ,1 arranged a press conference for Mr. Zachariah Shuster, the European director of the American Jewish Committee. He called the distribution of the draft on Catholic-Jewish relations “certainly one of the greatest moments in Jewish history.” He was confident “that Jews of this generation will feel fortunate to have witnessed this historic step on the part of the Church.” During the three years that the draft had been in preparation, he said, the Vatican had solicited the views of the most competent scholars and religious leaders, both Christians and Jews. “One may confidently say that there is not one Jewish group or trend or leading Jewish thinker that has not expressed his, or its, views, to the authorities in Rome at their request.” He was particularly satisfied that the document contained “a total rejection of the myth of Jewish guilt for the crucifixion.”

Before taking up the individual chapters of the schema on ecumenism, the Council discussed it in a general way, beginning on November 18.

The first speaker was Ignace Cardinal-Patriarch Tappouni, of the Syrian Patriarchate of Antioch, who said that the chapter on the Jews was especially inopportune. He did not understand why the Secretariat headed by Cardinal Bea had presented the chapter at all, since the purpose of the Secretariat was to foster the unity of Christians. In some regions where Christians were in a minority, he said, the chapter on the Jews would cause prejudice against the Church and the local hierarchy. Because of the current political situation and because of ignorance or indifference, the good intentions of the Council Fathers would not be understood, or would be misinterpreted by opposing factions, bringing harm to Christians. He felt that the explanations contained in the chapter would not suffice to counter these dangers.

Peter Cardinal Tatsuo Doi, of Tokyo, speaking on behalf of the Japanese bishops, said that the title of Chapter 4 should be amended to read, “On the Attitude of Catholics Toward Jews and Toward Other Non-Christians ” He felt that the document should state that the Catholic Church respected the truths contained in the religions and ethical systems of non-Christians, and considered them as providential preparations for the Christian way of life.

Patriarch Stephanos I Sidarouss, of Cairo, head of the Coptic Patriarchate of Alexandria, said that a schema on Christians was not the place to speak of the Jewish people. To treat of the Jews might hurt the cause of religion in a particular nation.

Patriarch Maximos IV Saigh also maintained that the chapter was out of place. And if it should be retained “for some reason of which I am not aware,” then a separate section should be devoted to it. If mention was made of the Jews, he said, “then we should also mention other non-Christians—for example, the Moslems.”

Cardinal Meyer, of Chicago, was the first speaker on November 20. He said he believed it was the view of many bishops, especially those from the United States, that the chapter on the Jews should remain right where it was. The questions treated in the chapter, he said, were “intimately connected with both theoretical and practical ecumenism.”

Bishop Angelo Jelmini, of Lugano, Switzerland, speaking for all the bishops of Switzerland, said, “In these days of atheism we should speak not only of Jews, but also of Moslems and of all who believe in God.” He said that the schema on ecumenism was the proper place to treat of the Jews, since the schism between the Synagogue and the Church was the source of all other schisms.

Since the chapter on the Jews had received as mixed a welcome on the Council floor as the chapter on religious freedom, the Moderators decided not to present it for a preliminary vote for fear that it might be rejected. They deferred the discussion until the third session.

It was obvious to all that there had been a threefold reaction to the chapter. One was, “Why treat of the Jews at all?” The second was, “Why treat of the Jews in a schema on ecumenism, which deals with Christian unity?” And the third was, “Why not include other non-Christian religions as well?” The Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and the Council as a whole realized that the only solution was to have a document, distinct from the schema on ecumenism, in which the Jewish and also other non-Christian religions would be mentioned, especially Islam (the religion of the Moslems).

The surprise announcement by Pope Paul at the end of the second session that he would make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land seemed like a stroke of genius calculated to help the Council Fathers resolve this particular problem more calmly. On that pilgrimage, the Pope would spend most of his time in the Arab state of Jordan and some of his time in the Jewish state of Israel. There were bound to be many occasions during that pilgrimage for the Pope to show the Moslems that the Catholic Church was as deeply interested in them as in the Jews.

Pope Paul’s pilgrimage in this respect proved more than successful. He was back in Rome little over a month when Father Farhat, my Lebanese friend at Vatican Radio, on February 17, 1964, delivered a ten-page report to Monsignor William Carew at the Vatican Secretariat of State, entitled “Islam in the Middle East: Some Impressions on the Journey of the Holy Father to Palestine.” The report stated that, by his attitudes, gestures, discourses, and prayers, the Pope had shown the Moslems, “who find it hard to distinguish between the temporal and the spiritual, the political and the religious orders,” that he had come to Palestine for no other reason than “to show respect for the places where Jesus was born, where he lived, where he died, and where he rose from the dead for the salvation of the world.” Father Farhat described Moslem reactions to the Pope’s visit; he had experienced them firsthand, having been sent to the Holy Land by Vatican Radio to report on the pilgrimage. For years to come, he said, Christians would talk to their Moslem friends about the visit of Pope Paul VI to the kingdom of King Hussein, descendant of the Prophet Mohammed.

At the end of the report, Father Farhat made three practical suggestions. First, he recalled that the Pope, in his statement of September 12, 1963, had said that a secretariat for non-Christians would be established at an opportune time, and asked whether that “opportune time” might not be considered as having arrived. In the second place, he suggested that Moslem observers be invited to the third session, a gesture which would deeply touch the hearts of the Moslems. Thirdly, he proposed a plan to counteract the propaganda accusing the Church of evil intentions for introducing the chapter on the Jews. If carried out, he said, it would also prevent governments in Moslem countries from exploiting the chapter on the Jews to the harm of Christendom. His plan was to balance the chapter on Judaism with a chapter on Islam. This new chapter might then serve as a basis for eventual religious dialogue with the Moslems.

Monsignor Carew, like Father Farhat, had been in Jerusalem at the time of the Pope’s visit, and had also been struck by the religious awe and reverence manifested by the Moslems. He assured Father Farhat that the report would be laid before the Holy Father without delay. After carefully reading it, the Pope asked that a copy be made for Paolo Cardinal Marella, and another for the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity.

On February 27, 1964, the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity met in plenary session. At this meeting, all proposals regarding the chapter on the Jews that had been submitted by Council Fathers either in oral or in written interventions were carefully examined. The Secretariat reached the following conclusions: the schema on ecumenism proper would, as was logical, discuss only the question of unity among Christians; the revised chapter on the Jews would be retained because of internal reasons, because of its importance, and because of the universal expectation which it had aroused; because special bonds united the people of the Old Covenant with the Church, the document on the Jews would be retained as an appendix to the text on ecumenism; that appendix would also deal with relations between Christians and non-Christian religions, with special emphasis on Islam.

Three months later, on Pentecost Sunday, May 17, 1964, Pope Paul invited all ecclesiastical students in Rome to attend a special Mass he was celebrating in St. Peter’s. At the close of his sermon, he mentioned the great efforts made by the Catholic Church to draw closer to separated Christians and to those belonging to other religions. He then said, “In this connection, we shall make a special announcement for you, hoping that it may draw significance and value from Pentecost. It is this: as we announced some time ago, we shall establish here in Rome, in these very days, a Secretariat for Non-Christians. It will have a structure analogous to the Secretariat for Separated Christians, but of course will have different functions. We shall entrust it to the Cardinal Archpriest of this Basilica, who, in addition to the wisdom and virtue which endear him to the Church of Rome and win for him its respect, has a rare competence in regard to the religions of the peoples of the world.”

The “Cardinal Archpriest” referred to by Pope Paul was Cardinal Marella, Roman by birth and a member of the Roman Curia, who had served as Apostolic Internuncio in Japan during World War II, and currently headed the Sacred Congregation responsible for the maintenance of St. Peter’s.

Two days later, on May 19, 1964, Pope Paul VI established the Secretariat for Non-Christians, placing Cardinal Marella in charge.

Two weeks before the opening of the third session, on August 31, 1964, I received a visit from Dr. Joseph Lichten, director of the Intercultural Affairs Department of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. He was deeply concerned over the fact that the phrase exculpating the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ had now been deleted from the Council document, and maintained that the phrase in question was the most important part of the document as far as the Jews were concerned. He had visited various cardinals in Europe on the matter, he told me, and was busy making contacts in Rome. He said further that Cardinal Bea was preparing a special amendment to be presented in the Council hall “on this unfortunate deletion.”

At the eighty-eighth General Congregation, on September 25, 1964, Cardinal Bea gave a report on the revised declaration. The problem, he said, was “whether and in what manner the Jewish people, as a people, are to be considered guilty of the condemnation and death of Christ the Lord.” He disagreed strongly with those who maintained that the chief cause of anti-Semitism was the aforesaid guilt of the Jewish people. He explained that there were many reasons for anti-Semitism which were not of a religious, but of a national, political, psychological, social, or economic nature.

In his theological exposition. Cardinal Bea said that “the leaders of the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem” had been guilty of the death of Christ, as the efficient cause in the historical order; denied that “the entire Jewish people of that time, as a people,” could be declared guilty for what the leaders in Jerusalem had done; and stated that this guiltlessness of the Jews as a people at the time of Christ was all the more true with regard to the Jews of today. The Jewish leaders who condemned Christ to death, he said, were clearly not formally guilty of deicide, since Christ himself (Luke 23=34), St - Peter (Acts 3:17), and St. Paul (Acts 13:27) had all said that those leaders had acted without full knowledge of Christ’s divinity. Before concluding his report. Cardinal Bea called attention to the specific reference to Moslems in the new text.

The first of the thirty-four Council Fathers to speak on the revised text was Cardinal Lienart, of France. He said that the Council Fathers from the East were preoccupied with political questions, whereas the matter at hand was an exclusively religious one, to be considered from an ecumenical and pastoral point of view. He was in favor of the text and wanted it to be made even more complete.

Cardinal Tappouni solemnly repeated the grave objections which he and other Eastern patriarchs had raised during the second session. Their observations were not to be interpreted as hostility toward the Jewish religion, he said. Because they foresaw that difficulties would be placed in the way of their pastoral work, however, and because they wished to defend the Council against the unfounded accusation that it was following a particular political line, they felt it necessary respectfully to call the attention of the Council Fathers to the inopportuneness of the declaration. They said that they were fully conscious of the cause at issue and urged the assembly to set the matter aside altogether.

Cardinals Frings, Lercaro, Leger, Ritter; Archbishop Lorenz Jaeger, of Paderborn, Germany; Bishop Pieter Nierman, of Groningen, who spoke for all the bishops of the Netherlands; and Bishop Jules Daem, of Antwerp, Belgium—all urged that the text be retained and improved.

Cardinal Konig, of Vienna, considered the text good, but said that more accuracy was needed in certain sections.

Cardinal Ruffini, of Palermo, said that if Jews and Moslems were to be mentioned in the text, then Buddhists and Hindus should also be mentioned.

Cardinal Meyer, of Chicago, called for the restoration of the previous year’s text, because it was more explicit in rejecting the accusation of deicide. He also wanted the declaration to treat of the Jews exclusively. The sections on the other religions were important, he said, but should be treated elsewhere.

On the same day, September 28, the bishops of Germany issued a statement through their news agency, Katholische Nachrichten Agentur, declaring their support of the Council decree on the Jews, “especially because we are aware of the severe injustice committed against the Jews in the name of our people.”

On September 26, at a Vatican press conference, Archbishop John Heenan of Westminster, then Vice-President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, stated that “the question of the culpability of the Jews for the death of Jesus has been given an altogether exaggerated importance.” He did not believe, he said, that most Christians “think of the Jews, when thinking of the passion and death of Our Lord,” but rather of their sins since “it is of faith that Christ is the victim of sin and that all sinners—Christians as well as non-Christians—are in this sense responsible for his death.”

On the second day of discussion, September 29, Jose Cardinal Bueno y Monreal, of Seville, recalled that Pope Paul VI, in his first encyclical, Ecclesiam suam, had invited Catholics to enter into dialogue with all non-Christians and maintained that the Council could not, therefore, exclude the declaration on the Jews from its acts. However, out of respect for the objections stated on the previous day by the representatives of the Eastern-rite Churches, he said that perhaps all suspicion of politics might be avoided if the title were simply “On Non-Christians,” leaving out any mention of the Jews. The declaration could begin with an invitation by the Catholic Church to non-Christians to dialogue. Then mention might be made of the Jews and Moslems. The religions of India, China, and Japan might also be mentioned by name, and all other religions might be mentioned in general. The declaration might then conclude with a condemnation of every kind of discrimination. Such a change in structure might eliminate the difficulties that had been indicated on the Council floor.

These suggestions were to a great extent followed. The declaration was revised in the course of the third session, and given the title “On the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions.” The text dealt first with non-Christian religions in general, then with Hinduism and Buddhism by name, but briefly. Islam was treated next and at- greater length because of its absolute monotheism and numerous finks with revelation as contained in the Scriptures. The Jews were treated next, at even greater length, because of their singular destiny in the plan of salvation. In conclusion, the text ruled out all discrimination, both in theory and in practice.

On November 20, at the last General Congregation of the third session, a vote was taken on this revised text. There were 1651 affirmative votes, 99 negative votes, and 242 qualified affirmative votes. Between the third and fourth sessions, the declaration was revised in the light of the suggestions submitted with the affirmative votes.

In mid-October 1965, at the fourth session, 1763 Council Fathers expressed satisfaction with the way in which the qualifications had been incorporated in the text, and 250 expressed dissatisfaction. The text then went to Pope Paul, who decided that it should be presented for a final formal vote at a public meeting on October 28. The result of this vote was 2221 in favor, and 88 opposed. The Pope immediately promulgated the declaration.

Cardinal Bea was overjoyed, calling it a “nearly unanimous vote.” It was “providential,” he said, that, through discussion, the text had come to include reference to all non-Christian religions as well as the Jewish religion.