Against The Grain

DarwinCatholic on "A Pro-Choice Catholic I could Support"

2008-05-13T01:05:00.002-04:00

"A Pro Choice Politician I could Support", by DarwinCatholic:

I think it essentially goes without saying (though not quite, which is why I'm saying it) that there are situations in which a Catholic would in good conscience vote for a pro-choice politician despite that politicians pro-choice stance. The USCCB in its document "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" repeats a traditional understanding of how one may vote for a politician who supports certain evils if one disagrees with those positions, and if one holds that there are sufficiently grave considerations which cause one to believe that it is most to the common good to elect that politician despite his holding some objectively evil beliefs.
However, it seems to me that in discussing the upcoming election, several Catholics in public and intellectual life (Douglas Kmiec very much among them) have attempted to make the case that one should support Obama not despite his stand on abortion, but rather because an Obama administration will be able to make progress towards a more truly pro-life society in a way that recent Republican administrations have not been able to. I disagree with people who take the former position, though I can certainly respect them, but I take serious objection to those who take the latter, and this post is intended to address them. ...

Must-read post of the day.

Irena Sendler 1910-2008: "Righteous Among the Nations"

2008-05-13T00:25:00.004-04:00

The face of a guardian angel - Irena Sendler 1910-2008

Irena Sendler, Lifeline to Young Jews, Is Dead at 98 New York Times May 13, 2008:

Irena Sendler, a Roman Catholic who created a network of rescuers in Poland who smuggled about 2,500 Jewish children out of the Warsaw ghetto in World War II, some of them in coffins, died Monday in Warsaw. She was 98.
The death was confirmed by Stanlee Stahl, executive vice president of the Jewish Foundation for the Righteous, an organization that supports rescuers of Holocaust victims.
Mrs. Sendler was head of the children’s bureau of Zegota, an underground organization set up to save Jews after the Nazis invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939. Soon after the invasion, approximately 450,000 Jews, about 30 percent of Warsaw’s population, were crammed into a tiny section of the city and barricaded behind seven-foot-high walls.
On April 19, 1943, the Nazis began what they expected would be a rapid liquidation of the ghetto. It took them more than a month to quell the Warsaw ghetto uprising. By then, only about 55,000 Jews were still alive; most of them were sent to death camps.
Also by then, however, Mrs. Sendler’s group of about 30 volunteers, mostly women, had managed to slip hundreds of infants, young children and teenagers to safety.
“She was the inspiration and the prime mover for the whole network that saved those 2,500 Jewish children,” Debórah Dwork, the Rose professor of Holocaust history at Clark University in Massachusetts, said Monday. Professor Dwork, the author of “Children With a Star” (Yale University Press, 1991), said about 400 children had been directly smuggled out by Mrs. Sendler. ...

The Wikipedia entry has further details:

In December 1942, the newly created, the newly created Children's Section of the Żegota (Council for Aid to Jews), nominated her (under her cover name Jolanta) to head its children's department. As an employee of the Social Welfare Department, she had a special permit to enter the Warsaw Ghetto, to check for signs of typhus, something the Nazis feared would spread beyond the ghetto. During the visits, she wore a Star of David as a sign of solidarity with the Jewish people and so as not to call attention to herself.
[Sendler] cooperated with the Children's Section of the Municipal Administration, linked with the RGO (Central Welfare Council), a Polish Relief Organization tolerated under German supervision. She organized the smuggling of Jewish children from the Ghetto, carrying them out in boxes, suitcases and trolleys. The children were placed with Polish families, the Warsaw orphanage of the Sisters of the Family of Mary or Roman Catholic convents such as the Sisters Little Servants of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Mary at Turkowice and Chotomów. Some were smuggled to priests in parish rectories where they could be further hidden. She kept lists of the names, hidden in jars, in order to keep track of their original and new identities.
Arrested in 1943 by the Gestapo, she was severely tortured and sentenced to death. The Żegota saved her by bribing the German guards on the way to her execution. She was left in the woods, unconscious and with broken arms and legs. Officially, she was listed on public bulletin boards as among those executed. Even in hiding, she continued her work for the Jewish children.

Related

Life in a Jar: The Irena Sendler Project - a website by rural Kansas school students who -- initially skeptical about the claim to have saved 2,500 children -- started a research project:
They found that Irena Sendler, as a non-Jewish social worker, had gone into the Warsaw Ghetto, talked Jewish parents and grandparents out of their children, rightly saying that all were going to die in the Ghetto or in death camps, taking the children past the Nazi guards (in body bags, saying they were ill, or using one of the many means of escape from the Ghetto-the old courthouse for example), and then adopting them into the homes of Polish families or hiding them in convents and orphanages. She made lists of the children's real names and put the lists in jars, then buried the jars in a garden, so that someday she could dig up the jars and find the children to tell them of their real identify.
The Nazi's captured her and she was beaten severely, but the Polish underground bribed a guard to release her, and she entered into hiding. The students wrote a performance (Life in a Jar) in which they portrayed the life of Irena Sendler. They have performed this program for numerous clubs and civic groups in the community, around the state of Kansas, all over the U.S. and in Europe (225 presentations as of November 2007). The community of Uniontown has little diversity and no Jewish students in the school district. The community was inspired by the project and sponsored an Irena Sendler Day. The students began to search for the final resting place of Irena and discovered she was still alive and living in Warsaw, Poland. Irena's story was unknown world-wide, even though she has received esteemed recognition from Yad Vashem in the 1960's and support from the Jewish Foundation for the Righteous in New York City. Forty-five years of communism had buried her story, even in her own country.
From that time on they would take a jar to every performance and collect fund for Irena and other Polish rescuers. ...
A TV movie about the life of Holocaust hero Irena Sendler is being readied for production and will air next season on CBS:
"The Irena Sendler Story" is based on an authorized biography of the woman credited with rescuing some 2,500 Jewish children from the Nazis by smuggling them out of the Warsaw Ghetto, producer Hallmark Hall of Fame said Monday. ...
John Kent Harrison, who became familiar with Sendler's bravery while in Poland three years ago filming a CBS miniseries about Pope John Paul II, wrote the script for the Sendler film and will direct.
The movie is drawn from the 2005 book "Mother of the Children of the Holocaust: The Irena Sendler Story," written by Anna Mieszkowska.
I'm no hero, says woman who saved 2,500 ghetto children The Guardian March 15, 2007:
Mrs Sendlerowa, who is in a Warsaw nursing home, insisted she did nothing special.
In an interview she said: "I was brought up to believe that a person must be rescued when drowning, regardless of religion and nationality."
"The term 'hero' irritates me greatly. The opposite is true. I continue to have pangs of conscience that I did so little."
Irena Sendler Tribute by Yad Vashem ("The Righeous Among the Nations").

Prayer Request for Dale Price

2008-05-12T15:22:00.002-04:00

Prayer request for Dale Price (Dyspeptic Mutterings):

He woke up with what he thought was indigestion or heartburn but it didn't get better. His first EKG came back fine, but they're keeping him until tomorrow morning (at least) to do a stress test then.
I know you and at least most of your readers are the praying type; that would be great.
Thanks,
Heather Price

Feast of Pentecost - 2008

2008-05-11T19:10:00.000-04:00

We read in the Acts of the Apostles that the disciples were gathered together in prayer in the Cenacle when the Holy Spirit descended upon them with power like wind and fire. They then began to proclaim the glad tidings of Christ's resurrection in many languages (cf. Acts 2:1-4). That was the "baptism in the Holy Spirit," which had already been announced by John the Baptist: "I have baptized you with water," he said to the crowds, "but he who comes after me is more powerful than me. (...) He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 3:11).
In effect, Jesus' whole mission was aimed at giving the Spirit of God to men and baptizing them in the "bath" of regeneration. This was realized through his glorification (cf. John 7:39), that is, through his death and resurrection: Then the Spirit of God was poured out in a super-abundant way, like a waterfall able to purify every heart, to extinguish the flames of evil and ignite the fire of divine love in the world.
The Holy Spirit Descends on the Disciples - by Gustave Dore

The Acts of the Apostles present Pentecost as a fulfillment of such a promise and therefore as the crowning moment of Jesus' whole mission. After his resurrection, he himself ordered his disciples to stay in Jerusalem, because, he said, "In a short time you will be baptized in the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:8); and he added: "You will have the power of the Holy Spirit, who will descend upon you and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all of Galilee and Samaria unto the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8).
Pentecost is, thus, in a special way, the baptism of the Church who undertakes her universal mission beginning from the streets of Jerusalem with prodigious preaching in the different languages of humanity. In this baptism of the Holy Spirit the personal and communal dimensions -- the "I" of the disciple and the "we" of the Church -- are inseparable. The Spirit consecrates the person and at the same time makes him a living member of the mystical body of Christ, participant in the mission to witness to his love.
And this is actualized through the sacraments of Christian initiation: baptism and confirmation. In my message for World Youth Day 2008, I invited young people to rediscover the presence of the Holy Spirit in their lives and, therefore, the importance of these sacraments. Today I would like to extend this invitation to everyone: Let us rediscover, dear brothers and sisters, the beauty of being baptized in the Holy Spirit; let us be aware again of our baptism and of our confirmation, sources of grace that are always present.
Let us ask the Virgin Mary to obtain a renewed Pentecost for the Church again today, a Pentecost that will spread in everyone the joy of living and witnessing to the Gospel.

Pope Benedict XVI, on the Solemnity of Pentecost May 11, 2008

Well, I for one welcome our Puppet Overlords ...

2008-05-08T02:01:00.003-04:00

Closing Liturgy of the 2008 West Coast Call To Action Conference[Video] |
Discussion @ Amy Welborn's

A "Salute" to Archbishop Timothy Paul Broglio

2008-05-08T01:13:00.002-04:00

By way of some grumbling from Commonweal magazine about the "military-ecclesiastical complex" we get a link to Salute: The magazine for the Archdiocese of the Military Services, USA [PDF format].

The current issue features special Coverage of the Installation of Archbishop Broglio -- interviews with the Archbishop, his family and friends; the Archbishop’s homily for the Mass of Installation.

The interview with Archbishop Broglio is particularly fascinating, as he tells of his background as Secretary of the Apostolic Nunciatures in Côte d’Ivoire (West Africa, 1983-87) and in Paraguay (1987-90), followed by an eleven year stint with Cardinal Angelo Sodano in the Vatican ("he confirmed for me that authentic ministry in the Church is not about honors or positions, but service"):

AMS: You certainly have had extensive experience in dealing with all kinds of people and all kinds of situations, hard ones too, around the world, from the highest level of the Church, to some of the poorest parishes of the Church. How has this prepared you for this new assignment? The Military Archdiocese, after all, is a perfect example of the “global Church.” What are your goals?
AB: The Holy See has decided to give me another challenge. When I was first approached with the proposal of being named Archbishop for the Military Services in the United States, I was overwhelmed. I really am not sure exactly how I responded, but knew that, if asked, I would accept.
That afternoon, Divine Providence arranged that I accompany two young Puerto Rican priests to the Rooms of St. Ignatius in Rome. Privately, while there, I repeated Ignatius’ prayer “Take, Lord, my liberty, my understanding, my entire will. Give me only your grace which will be enough for me.” Once again, I placed my ministry in the hands of Almighty God.
As I learn more about the AMS, I am convinced that I can offer my talents and make a contribution. While the situation and the characteristics change for military personnel and their families, our ministry is still basically pastoral. I bring thirty-two years of ordained ministry to these new responsibilities, but more importantly the conviction that Jesus Christ established His Church as the instrument for the salvation of humanity. “Woe to me, if I do not preach the Gospel,” St. Paul tells us. My first goal is to facilitate the ministry of our chaplains and thereby minister to the military and their families. ...

Also of note is an article entitled "Christ in the Combat Zone" -- a Chaplain reporting on his second tour to Iraq.

The Vatican, The Anbar Awakening and the "Protector of the Chaldean Catholics"

2008-05-01T06:26:00.008-04:00

A quick recap: In September 2006, Sheikh Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha formed the Sunni Anbar Awakening, an alliance of tribes in the Anbar province, to counter -- with training by and cooperation with U.S. military -- the presence of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. “I swear to God, if we have good weapons, if we have good vehicles, if we have good support, I can fight Al Qaeda all the way to Afghanistan,” he was reported to have said ("An Iraqi Tribal Chief Opposes the Jihadists, and Prays" March 3, 2007).

As Steve Schippert noted at the time, most Americans were oblivious to Sattar's contributions to the counter-terrorist effort ("This Is Counterterrorism, Senator" National Review April 25, 2007):

The most significant local ally of Coalition and Iraqi government in Anbar province — and surely in all of Iraq — is Sheikh Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, or, more properly, Sheikh Abd al-Sattar, where “Abd” translates into “slave” or “totally subordinated” (to God, of course). Sheikh Abdul Sattar is instrumental in fighting and defeating al Qaeda; the incredibly influential Ramadi man sees al Qaeda as terrorists who seek to destroy his country and who are exploiting and murdering his people, Sunni and Shia alike. Al Qaeda wants him dead more than any other man in Iraq, and they have tried numerous times to kill him.
Sattar said recently, “The time for dictatorship is gone, and we are welcoming the new dawn of democracy and freedom here.” He is a powerful Sunni from Anbar province, and, on Iraqi national television, he has pledged his allegiance to Prime Minister al-Maliki — a Shia — and to the democratically elected Iraqi government. In an overt (and televised) gesture of his determination and solidarity with the Iraqi government, Sheikh Abdul Sattar sliced the palm of his hand with a knife and proceeded to pound the blade into the table before him.
The perceived civil war in Iraq is in many ways more a product of foreign Iranian and al Qaeda instigation than internal Iraqi hatred. Had al Qaeda not bombed the Shia al-Askari Mosque and had Iran not provided arms and funds to both sides of the ensuing sectarian killings, there is no telling where Iraq would be right now. It certainly was not in civil war then. Both Iran and al Qaeda require chaos and instability in order to achieve their aims in Iraq. Sattar’s mission is to foil their plans.

Part and parcel of the Anbar Awakening's success was the tribal alliance's ability to work cooperatively with Americans -- according to Col. Sean B. MacFarland of the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division:

“If you talk to these sheiks, they’ll tell you that they’re in no hurry to see the Americans leave al-Anbar."
“One thing Sheikh Sattar keeps saying is he wants al-Anbar to be like Germany and Japan and South Korea were after their respective wars, with a long-term American presence helping ... put them back together,” MacFarland said. “The negative example he cites is Vietnam. He says, yeah, so, Vietnam beat the Americans, and what did it get them? You know, 30 years later, they’re still living in poverty.”

In fact, over the course of 9 months, the Sahwah Al Anbar, or "Anbar Salvation Council", was able to expel Al Qaeda from Ramadi (once an insurgent stronghold and the capital of Al Qaeda operations) and the Anbar province in general -- a victory which he dedicated to the victims of 9/11:

"In the month when the terrorists attacked the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, we dedicate the victory of Anbar Province to the families of the victims who suffered that criminal act," the letter said, which was addressed directly to Bush.
"With the help of the president of the United States, we pledge to continue to cooperate and communicate with you to continue to get good results," the letter said.

On September 13, 2007, al-Rishawi was killed along with two of his bodyguards by a roadside bomb near his home in Ramadi, Anbar, Iraq -- 10 days after meeting President George W. Bush at a U.S. base in Anbar. Sheikh Ahmed was selected by his fellow Sheikhs of Anbar province to lead the Sahawa Al Anbar and carry on his brother's legacy ("Iraqis vow to fight al Qaeda after sheikh death" Reuters Sept. 14, 2007).

* * *

This week, a friend forwarded me the following news story from the Arab press: A letter from Pope Benedict XVI to Sheik Ahmed Abu Risha (SahwataliIraq.com).

The article is in Arabic, but the gist of it is that on April 28, 2008, Sheikh Ahmed Abu Risha, President of the revival in Iraq in his official headquarters in the city of Ramadi, met Sheikh Iyad George Aziz, a major leader within the Chaldean Catholic community.

The article references a letter from the Vatican to Sheik Ahmed (delivered to him by Sheikh Iyad), responding to his Christmas and New Year's greetings and expressing the positive desire to join the Muslim-Christian dialogue. The full text of the Vatican's letter:

From the Vatican March 4, 2008
Dear Sheikh Ahmed Basi' Abu Risha,
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI was pleased to receive the Christmas and New Year's message which you sent to him, and has asked me to thank you. He appreciates the sentiment which has prompted you to write him.
In his message for the 2008 World Day of Peace, His Holiness extended an invitation "for every man and woman to have a more lively sense of belonging to the one human family, and to strive to make human coexistence increasingly reflect this conviction, which is essential for the establishment of true and lasting peace." With these sentiments, His Holiness encourages you and all men and women of goodwill in your efforts to promote harmony and reconciliation throughout your region.
With assurance of my prayers and good wishes, I am yours sincerely,
Archbishop Fernando Filoni

* * * As readers are no doubt aware, by virtue of their Christian faith, the Chaldeans have been subject to horrible persecution, the imposition of jaziyah, kidnappings and even targeted assassinations by Al Qaeda in Iraq.

As my source reports, Sheikh Iyad has apparently agreed to join the Sahawa [Awakening], allowing Sheikh Ahmad to add "Protector of the Chaldean Catholics" to his list of formal titles in a public ceremony covered by Arab media:

After hearing Sheikh Iyad's account of the suffering that the Chaldean Catholics have endured in Iraq, Sheikh Ahmad publicly declared that from this time forward they would be under his protection, that anyone who killed a Chaldean will be regarded as one who has killed in a member of his tribe (under the medieval Islamic concept of qisas this is a capital offense), and money will be provided from the Sahawa al-Iraq treasury to rebuild the churches and cemeteries that al-Qaeda destroyed. He justified this by quoting from the Qu'ran and stating that there should be no compulsion in matters of religion because truth stands free from error.

Consequently, in a moment of Muslim-Christian solidarity, it would appear that the Chaldeans have a new and very significant protector from persecution at the hands of Al Qaeda.

Related Reading

"Ramadi from the Caliphate to Capitalism", by Andrew Lubin. Proceedings Magazine Issue: April 2008 Vol. 134/4/1,262 provides an detailed look at how Sheikh Sattar Abdul Abu Risha and his Sons of Anbar, together with the assistance of the U.S. Army's 1st Brigade Combat Team (BCT) and the 1st Battalion, 6th Marines, turned around a city once regarded as "a lost cause" and proclaimed by Al Qaeda as the capital of their new caliphate.
Hope for Iraq’s Meanest City How the surge brought order to Fallujah, by Michael Totten City Journal Vol. 18, No. 2 Spring 2008:
The results of the Anbar Awakening and the surge are plain to see. Since the Fifth Marine Regiment’s Third Battalion rotated into Fallujah in September 2007, not a single American has been wounded there, let alone killed. ...
“The al-Qaida leadership outside dumped huge amounts of money and people and arms into Anbar Province,” says Lieutenant Colonel Mike Silverman, who oversees an area just north of Ramadi. “They poured everything they had into this place. The battle against Americans in Anbar became their most important fight in the world. And they lost.”
(Michael Totten blogs regularly at Michael Totten's Middle East Journal).
Sons of Iraq Screened for ISF, by Spc. Amanda McBride. Multi-National Force Iraq Sunday, 13 April 2008. The "Sons of Iraq" (two thirds of them Sunni, one-third Shia -- formerly "Concerned Citizens Groups") are being transitioned to formal membership in the Iraqi Security Forces:
“There is a phenomenal interest in the ISF,” said Getchell, a native of Bridgewater, Mass. “Those who have been in the Sons of Iraq program are our priority over those who are not part of the Sons of Iraq program. They stepped forward to defend and protect their areas, so they’ve already shown the propensity to be part of the security process.”
In March, Soldiers of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division and Sons of Iraq conducted a combined medical engagement in Arab Jabour, treating residents for minor injuries, such as scrapes, sprains and allergies.

2008-04-20T12:32:00.001-04:00

Note: During the month of April I will be covering Pope Benedict XVI's apostolic visit to the United States (April 15-20) at BenedictinAmerica.blogspot.com.

Nate Wildermuth on Benedict XVI, pacifism and "bending my stiff neck"

2008-04-19T11:46:00.004-04:00

"Bending my Stiff Neck" - Vox Nova's Nate Wildermuth -- an 'absolute pacifist' (to the point of condemning even justifiable defensive force, and with whom I have had scores of debates) -- wrestles with the words of the Holy Father:

Over the past three days, I've had my 1000% daily recommended dose of 'Pope': waving "hi" and "bye" at the National Shrine, attending the mass at Nationals Stadium, reading his flurry of speeches/addresses/homilies over and over again, and most importantly - praying that the Holy Spirit will open my heart to learning from our Church and its leader. But I wasn't quite prepared for the opening salvo of our Holy Spirit, coming in the Pope's words at the White House:
"Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience — almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad."
These words crushed me.
How could the Pope repeat United States propaganda, and express admiration for US bloodshed? I racked my mind for ways to interpret his words in another way, but I couldn't. ...
I have so much to learn.
After a great deal of reflection and prayer, my heart has moved, my neck has bent. I have seen something startling: we live in a society where "defense of life" and "nonviolence" are mostly mutually exclusive, and because the defense of life must take priority over a commitment to nonviolence, most Christians are duty-bound to defend life with the least amount of violence possible.
Did I just write that? I did. But only after three days of gut-wrenching prayer!
I am not suggesting that violence is good, or even Christian. I am suggesting, however, that the circumstances of our society require us to choose defense of life over nonviolence. In other words - if the only way I can defend life is to use a gun, then I must use a gun.
[...]
Strikes will not stop robbers from breaking into our homes. Nonviolent communication will not stop those who do not wish to communicate. We have no nonviolent alternatives to police forces or militaries. We have no nonviolent alternatives to courts and prisons. Nonviolent means of defending life are mostly confined to idealistic exhortations to "love your enemy and trust in God's grace to work miracles."
Nonviolent means of defending life must be reasonable, passing the common sense rule, being as readily available as the gun in Target, or a call to 911. To criticize those who use violence to defend life when there are no other ways to defend life is . . . well . . . possibly scandalous.
[...]
Instead of offering concrete ways of defending home and family without violence, I have condemned all violence in every situation. I forced people into a corner - demanding they renounce violence while giving them nothing in its place - asking them to be "like a worm at the bidding of a bully."
[...]
My advocacy of nonviolence has consisted in saying, “no, no, no!” to America. But our Pope tells us that Christianity is not “no, no, no,” but is “yes, yes, yes!” All his words and actions reverberate within the great “yes” that is Christ our hope. Not one word of “no” passed through his lips over the past three days, even as he spoke of evil. Instead, he proposed solutions aimed at transforming our society into one of peace and justice - a world where men and women can finally embrace nonviolence, “a world where it is easier to be good.”
It is time for me to do the same.
It’s amazing what a Pope can do. I feel like I’ve been through a war, and that this little reflection is but a brief respite. But thank God, and praise Him. He is GOOD.

Praise to Benedict XVI for teaching by the force of his words and presence what positively reams of blogging and combox debating could not. And to Nate as well for his thoughtful post (and courage in publishing it).

I can relate (to some extent), Nate -- my father's side coming from a Mennonite background and being politically-left / pacifist, I had to likewise reconcile long-held assumptions.

Just as Catholic tradition makes a distinction between 'killing' and 'homicide', it seems to me that rather than condemning any and all use of armed force as "violence" [= evil], the Catholic tradition rather evaluates the use of force, judging its worth according to moral criteria.

The former has often been dubbed the "‘dirty hands' tradition" (whereby to pick up a gun, even defensively, is to unavoidably involve one's self in sin), the latter the "just war tradition" of moral-reasoning and a moral evaluation of armed force. (My father examined this in an essay "War and the Eclipse of Moral Reasoning" back in 2002).

None of this discounts the witness of pacifists -- who by their actions and adherence to nonviolence anticipate and manifest in this reality a time where the lion will truly "lay down with the lamb", where all swords will be "beaten into plowshares."

Probably no movie illustrates this ongoing debate between the two traditions than one of my favorite movies, Robert Bolt and Roland Joffé’s 1986 film The Mission.

* * *

Nate Wildermuth blogs at Vox Nova and Catholic Blues.

Related Reading

Good Wars by Darrell Cole. First Things October 2001.

Benedict's Address to the American People at the White House

2008-04-17T16:43:00.001-04:00

Text of the address given by Pope Benedict XVI on the South Lawn of the White House, April 19th, 2008

Mr. President,

Thank you for your gracious words of welcome on behalf of the people of the United States of America. I deeply appreciate your invitation to visit this great country. My visit coincides with an important moment in the life of the Catholic community in America: the celebration of the two-hundredth anniversary of the elevation of the country's first Diocese – Baltimore – to a metropolitan Archdiocese, and the establishment of the Sees of New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Louisville. Yet I am happy to be here as a guest of all Americans. I come as a friend, a preacher of the Gospel and one with great respect for this vast pluralistic society. America's Catholics have made, and continue to make, an excellent contribution to the life of their country. As I begin my visit, I trust that my presence will be a source of renewal and hope for the Church in the United States, and strengthen the resolve of Catholics to contribute ever more responsibly to the life of this nation, of which they are proud to be citizens.

From the dawn of the Republic, America's quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the Creator. The framers of this nation's founding documents drew upon this conviction when they proclaimed the "self-evident truth" that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights grounded in the laws of nature and of nature's God. The course of American history demonstrates the difficulties, the struggles, and the great intellectual and moral resolve which were demanded to shape a society which faithfully embodied these noble principles. In that process, which forged the soul of the nation, religious beliefs were a constant inspiration and driving force, as for example in the struggle against slavery and in the civil rights movement. In our time too, particularly in moments of crisis, Americans continue to find their strength in a commitment to this patrimony of shared ideals and aspirations.

In the next few days, I look forward to meeting not only with America's Catholic community, but with other Christian communities and representatives of the many religious traditions present in this country. Historically, not only Catholics, but all believers have found here the freedom to worship God in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, while at the same time being accepted as part of a commonwealth in which each individual and group can make its voice heard. As the nation faces the increasingly complex political and ethical issues of our time, I am confident that the American people will find in their religious beliefs a precious source of insight and an inspiration to pursue reasoned, responsible and respectful dialogue in the effort to build a more humane and free society.

Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience – almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad. The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate. It also demands the courage to engage in civic life and to bring one's deepest beliefs and values to reasoned public debate. In a word, freedom is ever new. It is a challenge held out to each generation, and it must constantly be won over for the cause of good (cf. Spe Salvi, 24). Few have understood this as clearly as the late Pope John Paul II. In reflecting on the spiritual victory of freedom over totalitarianism in his native Poland and in eastern Europe, he reminded us that history shows, time and again, that "in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation", and a democracy without values can lose its very soul (cf. Centesimus Annus, 46). Those prophetic words in some sense echo the conviction of President Washington, expressed in his Farewell Address, that religion and morality represent "indispensable supports" of political prosperity.

The Church, for her part, wishes to contribute to building a world ever more worthy of the human person, created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen 1:26-27). She is convinced that faith sheds new light on all things, and that the Gospel reveals the noble vocation and sublime destiny of every man and woman (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 10). Faith also gives us the strength to respond to our high calling, and the hope that inspires us to work for an ever more just and fraternal society. Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders and those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation.

For well over a century, the United States of America has played an important role in the international community. On Friday, God willing, I will have the honor of addressing the United Nations Organization, where I hope to encourage the efforts under way to make that institution an ever more effective voice for the legitimate aspirations of all the world's peoples. On this, the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the need for global solidarity is as urgent as ever, if all people are to live in a way worthy of their dignity – as brothers and sisters dwelling in the same house and around that table which God's bounty has set for all his children. America has traditionally shown herself generous in meeting immediate human needs, fostering development and offering relief to the victims of natural catastrophes. I am confident that this concern for the greater human family will continue to find expression in support for the patient efforts of international diplomacy to resolve conflicts and promote progress. In this way, coming generations will be able to live in a world where truth, freedom and justice can flourish – a world where the God-given dignity and rights of every man, woman and child are cherished, protected and effectively advanced.

Mr. President, dear friends: as I begin my visit to the United States, I express once more my gratitude for your invitation, my joy to be in your midst, and my fervent prayers that Almighty God will confirm this nation and its people in the ways of justice, prosperity and peace. God bless America!

How the Right has Disappointed Michael Sean Winters

2008-04-13T02:28:00.001-04:00

Last month Michael Sean Winters wrote a piece entitled Not Eye to Eye: Wholly Different Angles on the World (Washington Post March 30, 2008), playing up the differences between Rome and the United States on everything from the war in Iraq to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to third world debt relief and economic development to the United Nations itself.

To which George Weigel responded: "Michael Sean Winters [wins] the pole position in this year’s chase for the coveted Father Richard McBrien Prize in Really Inept Vaticanology^* (National Review March 31, 2008), in which he concluded:

Far from Jeremiah against the Great Satan Bush, Benedict XVI is going to teach the world a lesson about moral reason as the “grammar” by which the world can have a conversation about the world’s future. There are truths built into the world and into us, he will remind Americans and the U.N.; thinking together about those truths is one way to change noise into conversation and incomprehension into dialogue.

Personally, I'm inclined to agree with Weigel: Benedict is simply not coming to the U.S. to give President Bush a whuppin' over Iraq, much as the thought would make critics like Winters giddy with delight. By the same token, contrary to the speculations of the press he's not necessarily going to "read the riot act" to Catholic educators, as much as it satisfy those frustrated with seeing their college campus play host to 'The Vagina Monologues.'

Well, it appears that Michael Sean Winters has resumed his crusade against Catholic conservatives -- this time in a piece for Slate.com entitled "God's Rottweiler" Becomes the Church's "Beloved German Shepherd": How Pope Benedict has disappointed the right (April 11, 2008):

When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected Pope Benedict XVI on April 19, 2005, Catholic conservatives in America were licking their chops. "The 'progressive' project is over," Catholic neocon George Weigel triumphantly announced. William Donohue, the eccentric, right-wing president of the Catholic League, said of Catholic liberals, "We expect that the weeping and gnashing of teeth will begin soon."
Three years later, as American Catholics prepare for the pope's visit next week, those same conservatives in the United States have been disappointed. They had hoped Benedict would confront liberal tendencies in the church. Some, like Weigel, sought to purge the presbyterate of gays whom they blamed for the sex-abuse scandal. They wanted the ecclesiastical equivalent of court-packing, with the pope appointing only conservatives to major posts. But Benedict has defied them in his appointments, in his views on capitalism and the war in Iraq, and even in his approach to other faiths. "No one would call Benedict the darling of the left, but he has been moderate, pastoral, tolerant, nuanced," says Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete, a theologian and U.S. leader of the Catholic group Communione e Liberazione.

According to Winters, conservative distress began "almost immediately" with Benedict's naming of Archbishop William Levada to fill his old job as prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith ("the Vatican's doctrinal watchdog"), and later with his appointment of Bishop Donald Wuerl as Archbishop of Washington D.C., "a moderate who has opposed turning the communion rail into a political battle station."

While Fr. Neuhaus did express his reservations about the appointment of William Levada to the CDF, there's little indication that he is particularly dismayed by his performance at this point. Indeed, in the few years under Levada the Congregation has released some substantial and laudable documents, reasserting the Catholic understanding of the Church and its ecumenical relations in 2007 as well as critiquing politicized "liberation theology" in the form of its cautions regarding the works of Fr. John Sobrino.

In 2006, Weigel praised Weurl's appointment, describing him as (a man who can make the church's convictions make sense in terms that non-Catholics -- and less-than-fully-on-board Catholics -- can understand" (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette); more recently, he referred to Wuerl as a "quieter, more restrained personality [and] takes the role of the bishop as chief teacher of the church very seriously" (Washington Post April 2008).

Readers should note that Michael Sean Winters and "Catholic conservatives" have some past history -- in April 2006, Winters published a similar rant in The New Republic entitled "Benedict the Ecumenical" (of course implying that conservatives aren't, at least not in the way that Mr. Winters envisions). Fr. Neuhaus gave a brief response in First Things:

The gist of the now-familiar spin is that Pope Benedict has turned out to be a pussycat, much to the consternation of those of us who wanted him to be the biblical raging lion seeking whom he may devour.
It is all nonsense, of course. But I can see the hoped-for partisan utility of it. Mr. Winters is writing a book on how the Democrats can win back the Catholic vote. Readers may judge the elegance of his reasoning.

and St. Blog's own Amy Welborn gave a thoughtful rebuttal:

So the point is that a general admiration of and support for a Pope doesn't preclude questions or even disappointment. Levada was, indeed, a surprise choice, I maintain still, mostly because of his, let us say, low-key theological reputation. There were other theological heavyweights who were at the top of most people's lists. The Niederauer appointment [as Archbishop of San Francisco] prompted a little more consternation, but I'd say for most, it's balanced out by some other, quite interesting appointments in the US.
But what I'm saying is that in essence, this is a false conflict. "Conservatives" had a complicated relationship with the previous pope. The general tone and approach of Benedict's papacy has not really surprised anyone who knows him or his work - read the material from last spring by the likes of Weigel, Neuhaus and Fessio, (and I read a great deal of this and more for a book chapter I wrote) and they all, to a man, said, "This is not going to be the Panzer Pope. Public perception does not match reality." Most observers from the end of the spectrum that Winter is trying to score points on are delighted by Benedict, his clarity of teaching, his focus on preaching the Gospel, his uncanny understanding of his audiences, and most of his administrative moves.

* * *

Returning to Winters' current piece, he claims that "Pope Benedict shares virtually none of the core political beliefs of American neocons," -- struggling to bolster his claims with a series of claims he imagines Fr. Neuhaus, George Weigel and Michael Novak ((assuming by "American neocons" Winters is referring to the distinctly religious ones) would find repugnant. The whole attempt is laughable were it not so ridiculous.

Consider the first: "In his book Jesus of Nazareth, he warned against "[a] capitalism that degrades man to the level of merchandise.'"

In the same sentence, Benedict goes on to speak of "the perils of wealth, and we have gained a new appreciation of what Jesus meant when he warned of riches, of the man-destroying divinity Mammon which grips large parts of the world in a cruel stranglehold."

There is nothing in which a Catholic conservative would disagree with -- in fact, as I've made the case previously ( Pope Benedict's Critique of Capitalism Against The Grain September 2007), Ratzinger's criticisms are reminiscent of Pope John Paul II's condemnation of neo-liberalism -- a system which he described as being rooted in "on a purely economic conception of man" and which "considers profit and the law of the market as its only parameters" (Ecclesia in America). It is this very kind of "capitalism" that is opposed by Novak, Neuhaus and company, who likewise agree that the economic sector should reside "within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious."

Likewise, there is nothing particularly objectionable in Benedict's visit the United Nations ("not the neocons' favorite organization") -- Winters omits the fact that the Vatican itself has had a somewhat rocky relationship with the United Nations. For example, in as late as 2006, it refused to sign the U.N.'s "Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities" on account that it also affirmed the right to "sexual and reproductive health." As Archbishop Celestino Migliore wryly noted, "in some countries reproductive health services include abortion, thus denying the inherent right to life of every human being, affirmed by article 10 of the convention."

Winters writes with the hope that Benedict will use the United Nations as a pulpit to denounce U.S. foreign policy in Iraq. However, while he might indeed include Iraq in a "checklist of Vatican diplomatic concerns", John Allen Jr. believes that

It will be Benedict’s argument [at the United Nations] that what the world desperately needs today is a global moral consensus – that is, a consensus on fundamental moral truths that are universal and unchanging that can serve as a basis for things like protection of human rights and human dignity. I think his analysis is that in an era in which you have several important players on the world stage – China and Iran come to mind – arguing that the whole concept of human rights is a sort of Western cultural artifact, I think the pope believes that the construction of a kind of moral consensus that we can all agree upon based on truths about human nature and open to the wisdom of spiritual traditions and religious traditions is a critical priority. And I think that probably will be the heart of that speech.

Again, a point on which the so-called "Catholic neocons" and Benedict are in mutual agreement. (See also Russell Shaw's recent article: Benedict to the UN: In Defense of Natural Law InsideCatholic.com, April 11, 2008).

But there is one claim made by Winters that is particularly disingenuous:

"According to one American present during a spring 2004 Vatican meeting with U.S. bishops, then-Cardinal Ratzinger laughed when he heard of denying politicians communion based on their political views. After all, popes have, over the years, given communion to Communist mayors, gay legislators, and countless pro-choice politicians.

First, anybody who has read Ratzinger's 2004 letter to Cardinal McCarrick and the USCCB (Worthiness to receive Holy Communion: General Principles") understands that Pope Benedict takes the unworthy reception of the Eucharist.

Secondly, writing on this very subject last year, John Allen summarized Benedict's position as follows:

In the abstract, Benedict clearly seems to feel that a Catholic politician who knowingly and consistently supports legislation that expands access to abortion is in violation of church teaching, and thus should not receive communion. Moreover, the pope seems prepared to support bishops who apply this principle to specific cases.

However, Allen adds, it is not clear that Benedict is not ready to "impose this position on bishops convinced of the wisdom of a different pastoral course in other cases" -- which is something altogether different than the "wink and a nod" towards self-proclaimed "pro-choice Catholics" that Winters attributes to him here.

In short, we have an article that tells us more about how Michael Sean Winters feels about those dreaded "neocons" than what Pope Benedict actually thinks.

Pope Benedict's appreciation for American religious freedom

2008-04-10T10:35:00.000-04:00

Cross-posted to Benedict in America - Chris]

"The Pope likes New York and what it stands for", asserts Jeff Israely in a rather decent article on the Roman Pontiff by the American press ("The American Pope" Time April 3, 2008), examining Benedict's relationship with the American people and his perspectives on the relationship between "church and state" within our country:

"I think he's really fascinated by the city and what it represents," says Raphaela Schmid, a Rome-based German with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who knows him. "It's about people being two things at once, like Italian Americans or Chinese Americans. He's interested in that idea of coexistence."

Israely disputes the idea that the so-called "Vatican enforcer" harbors an antagonism toward "the democratic, pluralistic values that constitute (on our good days) the American brand":

... A survey of the 80-year-old Pontiff's writings over the decades and testimonies from those who know him suggests that Benedict has a soft spot for Americans and finds considerable value in his U.S. church, the third largest Catholic congregation in the world. Most intriguing, he entertains a recurring vision of an America we sometimes lose sight of: an optimistic and diverse but essentially pious society in which faiths and a faith-based conversation on social issues are kept vital by the Founding Fathers' decision to separate church and state. It's not a stretch to say the Pope sees in the U.S.--or in some kind of idealized version of it--a civic model and even an inspiration to his native Europe

According to Israely, during his stint as peritus during the Second Vatican Council, Joseph Ratzinger was sympathetic to the arguments of the U.S. delegation (John Courtney Murray?) in the debate over religious freedom:

Conservatives opposed [religious freedom]: states must sponsor faith, and the faith should be Roman Catholic. The Americans argued that religious liberty was morally imperative and--from experience--that in a multireligious state, Catholicism could best thrive when the government could not play favorites. The council sided with them, and Ratzinger, anticipating a world composed of jostling religious pluralities, heartily approved. In a 1966 analysis, he wrote, "In a critical hour, Council leadership passed from Europe to the young Churches of America and [their allies]," who "were really opening up the way to the future."

Israely admits that Ratzinger's appreciation for the American conception of religious freedom "did not extend to an acceptance that all roads to salvation are equal or to a license for democracy within his church" (how could it, really?) -- nonetheless:

[Benedict] came to respect the way Catholic leaders in the U.S. went about their business. A current (non-American) CDF official notes that the U.S. church is the only one that keeps a "serious" doctrinal office rather than an unthinking rubber stamp or an old-boys' club; when conflicts arise, its bishops are actually prepared to discuss them. Moreover, says Levada, "he seems to recognize that we're plain speakers. We don't hide behind words."
The Pope also admires the Americans' role as, in the words of one cleric, "intellectual first responders," especially as the country's great network of Catholic hospitals wrestles with novel problems of medical ethics. "Through the great sphere of worldly experience that the Church has in America," Benedict wrote, "as well as through her faith experience, decisive influences can be passed on." He has shown his comfort with the direct and thoroughly American approach by appointing Americans to the No. 1 and No. 3 spots in his powerful former office [The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith].

Israely cites as a prominent example of the Pope's appreciation for America expressed in Without Roots, his 2004 exchange with the president of the Italian Senate, Marcello Pera:

It bemoans the European Union's refusal to acknowledge Christianity in a draft constitution, and Pera wonders about bringing back some kind of multidenominational "Christian civil religion." In response, Ratzinger cites Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America and makes the case that America's Founding Fathers were pious men of different denominations who wrote the First Amendment prohibiting state establishment (that is, sponsorship) of religion precisely because sponsorship would stifle all non-established creeds--which they hoped would achieve full and varied flower.
Of course, no such bloom would occur if the American soil were not already faith-saturated. But Ratzinger believes in America's "obvious spiritual foundation," its natural, Puritan-instilled DNA. He is well aware that this is eroding; he thinks we watch too much TV and fears that American secularization is proceeding at an "accelerated pace." But he insists that there is a "much clearer and implicit sense" in the U.S. than in Europe of a morality "bequeathed by Christianity." He has also given earnest thought to the mechanics of this civil religion, specifying that to affect the moral consensus, it is not enough for Catholics to rub shoulders with other Christians; they must translate their concerns from doctrinal language into a "public theology" accessible to all.

As far as his Apostolic Journey to America is concerned, Israely believes Benedict will be "less interested in scolding American Catholics than in talking up 'new religious communities ... being formed who quite consciously aim at a complete fulfillment of the demands of religious life'" -- schools of burgeoning Catholic orthodoxy like Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula, Calif.; Christendom College in Front Royal, Va.; and Ave Maria University in Ave Maria, Fla -- "eruptions of non-state-related religious vitality at which he thinks we excel."

There are a few points in Israely's article which betray his liberal sympathies -- as when he says "There are times when Benedict's love affair with American religious pluralism seems a bit naive, especially when it clashes with his nonnegotiable doctrinal stands" or "downplaying the idea that Catholics may legitimately balance church teaching against the demands of their conscience." But on the whole I think it worth the read. Israely closes:

John Paul II described faith and reason as the twin wings that lift the church. And yet a balanced takeoff has remained elusive. The U.S. is one of the few places where it seems to happen regularly. "America is simultaneously a completely modern and a profoundly religious place. In the world, it is unique in this," says a senior Vatican official. "And Ratzinger wants to understand how those two aspects can coexist." Almost all the things the Pope likes about us--our faith in the real value of plainspokenness, our pluralistic piety and even our wrangles around applying religiously grounded moral principles to increasingly abstruse science--can be understood in light of this quest. If he finds answers in the U.S., they could help define his papacy.
When he arrives on U.S. soil on April 15, we in the press will no doubt be parsing Benedict's every sentence for his opinions on U.S. policy or remonstrance of American morals. But the most important waves emanating from this contact may reverberate well beyond tomorrow's news cycle. John Paul II and the U.S. played as anticommunist co-leads on the 20th century stage. This Pope, more a student of global drama than an eager protagonist, knows that rising religious conflict may be the 21st century's great challenge. He also appears to sense that American power alone won't solve it--but that the power of American values still might. In rummaging through our founding precepts for a path for his own purposes, he might find something important for us to remember too.

Further Reading

Ratzinger/Benedict on "Separation of Church & State"

"A Tocquevillian in the Vatican", by Dr. Samuel Gregg:
Upon being inducted into the Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques of the Institut de France in 1992, then-Cardinal Ratzinger remarked that Tocqueville's “ Democracy in America has always made a strong impression on me.“
Describing Tocqueville as “le grand penseur politique,“ the context of these remarks was Ratzinger's insistence that free societies cannot sustain themselves, as Tocqueville observed, without widespread adherence to ”des convictions éthiques communes.“ Ratzinger then underlined Tocqueville's appreciation of Protestant Christianity's role in providing these underpinnings in the United States. In more recent years, Ratzinger expressed admiration for the manner in which church-state relations were arranged in America, using words suggesting he had absorbed Tocqueville's insights into this matter.
Biblical Aspects of the Question of Faith and Politics homily delivered on 26 November 1981 for Catholic members of the Bundestag in the church of St. Wynfrith (Boniface).
Why Church and State Must Be Separate An excerpt from "Theology and the Church’s Political Stance" in Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger Church, Ecumenism and Politics: New Essays in Ecclesiology (NY: Crossroad, 1988 -- republished by Ignatius Press in 2008).
Benedict XVI on Religion and Public Life Zenit News Service Sept. 17, 2005 - which included his June 2005 remarks to Italian President Carlo Ciampi on church-state relations.
On October 17, 2005, in a letter to the president of the Italian Senate, Marcello Pera (with whom he co-authored Without Roots: Europe, Relativism, Christianity, Islam), Pope Benedict expressed his support for a "healthy secularity of the state" -- or that which guarantees "to each citizen the right to live his own religious faith with genuine freedom, including in the public realm" and includes "a commitment to guarantee to all, individuals and groups, respect for the exigencies of the common good, [and] the possibility to live and to express one own religious convictions." (The full text of the letter can be found here).
Secularity: On Benedict XVI and the Role of Religion in Society | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | January 9, 2007 (on Benedict's lecture to 59th Study Conference of the Union of Italian Catholic Jurists).

Ratzinger on Europe

Europe: Its Spiritual Foundation: Yesterday, Today and in the Future Inside the Vatican, June-July 2004.
"No Weighing, No Disputing, No Such Thing": Ratzinger and Europe, by Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | August 11, 2007

Kasper's critique of dual covenant theology: how Vatican II teaches prayer for Jewish conversion

2008-04-08T12:08:00.003-04:00

On Good Friday, Cardinal Walter Kasper, head of the Vatican's Commission for Religious Relations With the Jews, published an article defending Benedict XVI's revisions to the "Good Friday Prayer for the Jews" in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: "Das Wann und Wie entscheidet Gott", March 21, 2008.

A reader of this blog, Dr Thomas Pink of King's College London, has kindly provided its translation into English, along with his extended observations in the form of a guest post below:

Concerning the article's standing: I doubt this would have been published in the FAZ, a leading German paper of record, and the one highbrow broadsheet that has consistently given a platform to Benedict and to Benedict-supporters in the German Catholic Church - Die Zeit and the Sueddeutsche Zeitung are much more hostile - during the Triduum, and not long before the Secretary of State's Friday Statement, without some sort of vetting and acquiescence from the Pope.
That's of course surmise on my part, but it would be amazing if this were not the case. Moreover the references to the 1970 prayer and the significance of its retention for the continuing validity of Nostra Aetate are completely in line with the Friday Statement.
That does not mean of course that this is a formal doctrinal statement, or that the Pope would choose to express himself formally in the same terms. Benedict seems very tolerant of varieties of theological expression and viewpoint that he might not himself fully share, within the limits of what he sees as orthodoxy, especially in informal theological commentary.
Kasper's emphasis and choice of terms are certainly not those of Cardinal Schoenborn's recent Tablet defence of the Christian evangelization of Jews (Judaism’s way to salvation March 29, 2008). But I do not see any serious theological conflict between them or between either and Benedict.
If there is an internal theological target being aimed at by Kasper, it is very clearly dual covenant theology. This is the view, increasingly widespread in certain US and German theological circles involved in Jewish dialogue, that the Jews have their own saving covenant distinct from and independent of that offered by Christ to the Gentiles, and that therefore there is no ground for Jews to convert to Christianity and enter the Church. Jewish conversion is not something for which the Church should call, pray, or strive. The dual covenant camp, theologians such as Pawlikowski et al, try and base all discussion on Nostra Aetate, and interpret this actually very short and vague declaration in isolation from preceding documents of the Council. They treat Nostra Aetate as a whole New Pentecost on its own, from which among Church documents all future Judaeo-Christian dialogue is supposed uniquely to develop, and on which whatever speculative theological structure they fancy can then be erected as new 'Church teaching'. Kasper will not have this, and reinforces the standing of Nostra Aetate by relating it to the rest of the Council, and in particular to the greater authority of Lumen Gentium. But the content of Lumen Gentium is flatly opposed to dual covenant theology, as we can see from Lumen Gentium paragraph 9, a passage that very clearly states Catholic teaching on the relation of the Jewish people to the Church and the New Covenant:
"[God] therefore chose the race of Israel as a people unto Himself. With it He set up a covenant. Step by step He taught and prepared this people, making known in its history both Himself and the decree of His will and making it holy unto Himself. All these things, however, were done by way of preparation and as a figure of that new and perfect covenant, which was to be ratified in Christ, and of that fuller revelation which was to be given through the Word of God Himself made flesh. "Behold the days shall come saith the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel, and with the house of Judah . . . I will give my law in their bowels, and I will write it in their heart, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people . . . For all of them shall know Me, from the least of them even to the greatest, saith the Lord." (Jeremiah 31) Christ instituted this new covenant, the new testament, that is to say, in His Blood, calling together a people made up of Jew and gentile, making them one, not according to the flesh but in the Spirit. This was to be the new People of God."
Dual covenant theology, it seems to me, cannot survive this passage.
Notice that here the Council quotes Jeremiah chapter 31 as a prophetic foretelling of the New Covenant. It is important that Kasper refers, via discussion of St Paul, to Jeremiah 31 too, as a prophetic foretelling of the future salvation of the Jews - which, by the Pauline argument, will consist in the future saving reincorporation of the Jews into the olive tree of salvation from which they have become cut off. That olive tree, then, in the context of Jeremiah 31 is Israel (as Lumen Gentium para 9 later on also terms the Church - the 'New Israel') considered as the People of Jeremiah's New Covenant. There is only one covenant for the Jews to return to, one shared with the Gentiles.
Another point that Kasper emphasizes repeatedly from the start is that Jesus really is the Christ, that is, the Jewish Messiah. But the logic of dual covenant theology is surely to put this in some doubt. (Or so I've always thought - and so Luke Timothy Johnson at least seems willing to move towards concluding: see this amazing piece in which Luke Timothy Johnson says, it seems, that Jews should not let Christians persuade them into seeing Jesus as truly the Jewish Messiah).
The 2008 prayer clearly is viewed by Kasper (and one presumes Benedict as well) to concern the conversion of the Jewish people as a whole. This final conversion of the Jewish people as a people involves, surely, the disappearance of Judaism as a distinct religion that is rejecting of Jesus. And then the prayer so considered really is eschatological, not because the Jews don't need the knowledge of Christ as much as do Gentiles, or are saved through another covenant, but because of mysterious divine action which will be reversed only by a returning Christ. And here Kasper's scriptural argument looks pretty hard to challenge, is deeply Pauline, and is clearly nothing to do with dual covenant theology.
Clearly St Paul in addressing the synagogues was aiming at conversions, and moved on only when he did not find them. This crucial use as an example of witness of St Paul distances Kasper's view of and endorsement of witness as a replacement for mission from any view that Catholics should never aim at or hope for or pray for Jewish conversions. It also links witness - with conversion as a possible goal - to interreligious dialogue as being mutually consistent, in just the way that liberals and some Jewish groups dislike. This fits with the fact that the Friday Statement pointedly refused to distance the Church from aiming at Jewish conversions in the here and now.
A mission to the Jews is being understood by Kasper, then, in rather a narrow sense - as Catholic institutional bodies or institutional events directed specifically at the conversion of the Jews as a whole people, that is, at a level involving the disappearance through conversion of a Jesus-rejecting Judaism as such. His detachment of the Church from Jewish mission in this sense does not apply, and is not applied by him to cover other forms of witness, such as Paul's visits to individual synagogues as part of a project of securing conversions generally, or Christian persuasion in the context of more general dialogic interaction.
Hence in this field, traditionalist mistrust of Kasper seems misplaced, and is based on a misunderstanding. What he (and Benedict?) are doing is clearly detaching the Good Friday prayer from addressing the salvation of this or that Jewish individual, and centering it on the final salvation of the Jewish people as a people, that event that ends the existence of Judaism as a religion distinct from and in disagreement with Christianity. Kasper is saying that the Church is praying for just this event, but that it is not the business of the Church to attempt of itself to engineer conversion at this level, except indirectly through its mission to the Gentiles. But at the same time the eschatological reading of this prayer for the conversion of the Jewish people as a whole has no implication for projects of conversion at other levels.
Many orthodox Catholics have been suspicious of Kasper's use of an eschatological reading of the Good Friday prayer to distance the Church from any mission to the Jews in the present. They have viewed this as involving a location of the eschatological exclusively in some future never-never, and so as contrary to Benedict's teaching in this area and a weakening of it. For in the Pope's important March 15th 2006 address -- Benedict's Wednesday General Audience, March 15, 2006 -- Benedict very much talks the language of Lumen Gentium paragraph 9, and views the Church precisely as the New Israel into which, from the very beginning Jews as well as Gentiles are called to enter, emphasizing that the eschatological time is now, the time after Christ's incarnation. So Benedict is placing the eschatological time now, and is calling for conversion now. While since Kasper is denying a mission to the Jews, he is assumed by many Catholics to be eschewing, in opposition to the Pope, any call for Jewish conversion now, and must also, again in opposition to the Pope, be placing eschatological time in some indefinite future.
But the reality is different. It turns out that what matters in Kasper's use of the notion of eschatological time is not when it happens. Eschatology for Kasper picks out not an endlessly distant future - as Kasper says, God decides the when and the how, so it is not for us (or Kasper) to locate the eschatological presumptuously in some future never-never. Rather the eschatological for Kasper picks out a level at which, though the Church must call and pray for Jewish conversion and salvation, the direction of events is entirely in God's hands. The final disappearance of a Judaism rejecting of Jesus, whenever it happens - it could be now or it could be at any future date, but Kasper explicitly says we are to pray that it comes, Maranatha, soon, which hardly excludes now - is an event of this level. But witness to the Jews (with as with St Paul the possible goal of individual conversions) is not an event of this level, and it very much remains the responsibility of the Church and of individual Catholics. There is no difference with Benedict.

The 1962 and 1970 liturgies: united in prayer for Jewish conversion

It is very important that prayers for Jewish conversion occur in the 1970 liturgy, in the new Liturgy of the Hours. My thanks to Gregor Kollmorgen of the New Liturgical Movement for drawing attention to the following examples:

E.g.: - Preces for Lauds of December 31st: “Christe, Deus et homo, qui Dominus es David et filius ejus, prophetias adimplens, te rogamus, ut Israel te Messiam agnoscat.” (Christ, God and man, who art the Lord of David and his son and fulfillest the prophecies, we beg thee, that Israel accept thee as the Messiah.)
- Preces for II Vespers of Christmas: “Qui, a saeculis exspectatus, in plenitudine temporis venisti, manifesta praesentiam tuam iis, qui adhuc te exspectant.” (Thou, who hast been expected through the ages, and hast come in the fulness of time, manifest thy presence to those, who still look out for thee.)
- Preces for Lauds on January 2nd: “Christe, quem ab angelis glorificatum et a pastoribus annuntiatum, Simeon et Anna confessi sunt et praedicaverunt, te rogamus, ut Evangelium tuum a populo promissionis recipiatur.” (Christ, whom the Angels glorified and the shepherds announced, and Simeon and Hannah professed and proclaimed, we beg thee, that thy Gospel be accepted by the people of thy promise.)

The lesson is clear: if Pawlikowski and his dual covenant school were right,, not only would Lumen Gentium, the central constitution of Vatican II, have to go, but the post-Vatican II liturgy of 1970 would as much need revision as that of 1962. (In fact you'd have to change not only the Liturgy of the Hours but probably the 1970 Missal too - such as the New Rite Easter Vigil prayers after the Old Testament readings or prophecies that, just as much as do the similar Old Rite prayers, treat the Church as the New Israel prefigured, with its sacraments, in the history of Israel of old.)

-- Dr Thomas Pink
Reader in Philosophy
Director, Centre for Philosophical Studies
Department of Philosophy
King's College London