Showing posts with label supercessionism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label supercessionism. Show all posts

Sunday, October 16, 2011

ADSS 8.360 Burzio to Maglione. The Slovak bishops' statement

In ADSS 8.343, Giuseppe Burzio informed Cardinal Maglione that the Slovak Catholic bishops were preparing a joint statement as a response to the deportation of the Slovak Jews.  A statement by the bishops was published on 26 April 1942, and a copy sent to Rome the following day.  Burzio informed Maglione that the bishops had some difficulty getting their statement approved by the Government.  It took the personal intervention of priest-president Tiso to get the bishops' letter executed.  The Interior Minister, Alexander Mach wanted the bishops to align their statement with government policy, becoming an endorsement of the regime's policy.  This the bishops refused to do. 

Reading the statement would have been cold comfort for Jews who had not converted to Catholicism.  There is barely a word of consolation.  Rather there is a regurgitation of traditional Catholic anti-Judaism based on the ancient teaching of contempt and supercessionism mixed with an acceptance of late-nineteenth century pseudo-racial theories of Jewish proclivities to domination in economics and their negative impact on the public life of a Christian state.  At no point do the bishops condemn deportation as a way of solving "the Jewish Question".

My reading of the statement leads me to suggest that it was a case of an episcopate that was concerned to exercise some pastoral care for converted Jews, but were not passionate about helping the vast majority of Slovakian Jewry.

This document makes for heavy and hard reading.  What Pius XII thought of it when Maglione most assuredly passed it on can only be imagined.  From what we know of the man, it would have likely been a sense of great disappointment.

ADSS 8.360

Reference: Report number 890 (AES 3617/42, original)

Location and date: Pressburg (Bratislava) 27.04.1942

Summary statement: Joint letter of the Slovak bishops against the race laws and indicates two sections deleted by the government.

Language: Italian

Text:

With respect to my report number 862 of 9 March 1942 (1) I have the honour to report to Your Eminence that Their Excellencies, the bishops of Slovakia have prepared a joint letter to illuminate the faithful on the attitude of ecclesiastical authorities towards the Jewish question and the measures taken by the government against the Jews.

This letter, or rather statement, appeared in the newspaper “Katolicke Noviny” of 26 April 1942, and I have attached a translation. (2)

At first, permission to publish the letter was refused, but following an intervention by the President of the Republic, the Minister of the Interior, Alexander Mach, informed the bishops that the prohibition to publish had been withdrawn provided that they made some changes to the text of the statement. (See Attachment 2 at the dotted spaces) “… and we will not cease to insist that because they are dispensed from the requirements of the Jewish Code they are not deported from Slovakia” (3) and “it is therefore, not possible to approve, so we have raised a warning voice against those who violate the provisions of private property honestly acquired and who violently destroy the relationships of the family” (4) or to follow on with the following conclusion: “This is not to say that we will not affirm that existing laws do not violate natural or divine law. Likewise we do not intend to assert that we have violated the private property of the Jews honestly acquired, since it is well known that Jews are rich. Since the bonds of family are not broken indefinitely, there is nothing to object in the measures which have arisen in the Jewish question among us”.

This statement is so blatantly contrary to the truth that the bishops could not accept it as an alternative, and preferred to publish their statements, by removing the text of the two phrases highlighted. (5)


References for the first part:
(1) ADSS 8.343
(2) Follows the cover note from Burzio.
(3) The original place in the attached statement is marked “A”
(4) This passage was inserted into the original text at “B”
(5) Burzio added to his report two letters to representatives of the Holy See, Spain and Italy in Bratislava. The letters contained detailed information on the persecution of the Jews and urged a collective approach.

Attachment: The Bishops of Slovakia to the Catholic Faithful 26.04.1942

In recent times, the attitude of Catholic ecclesiastical authority to the anti-Jewish measures has been noted in newspapers, on radio and in public opinion.

There have been attacks on church authorities with accusations that they have allowed Jews to be baptised and have intervened with the government for the Jews themselves. On the other hand, instead, it was stated that the attitude of Catholic circles was identified with the action of the government and supported the elimination of Jews from public life and their expulsion from Slovakia. When the Government began transporting the Jews, and as the improbable news spread widely, people wondered who the bishops and priests could allow the carrying out of such barbaric acts.

These various and conflicting voices have prompted the Catholic authorities to calm Catholic public opinion and declare the following:


1. Jews were not baptised en masse by Catholic priests. Some Jews, under the influence of contingencies, have asked for acceptance into the Church, renouncing what they had been before, to them were given precise explanations and the imposition of conditions for their acceptance in the Church itself.

The Church, in principle, can not refuse anyone, when baptism is honestly required. Christ founded the Church for all nations and all peoples. The Church of Christ is catholic and universal and it is therefore necessary to preach to all the truth of Christ. Of course the sacrament of baptism can only be granted to those with sinless thought and the inner conviction to become a member of the Church. To have the opportunity to obtain this conviction, a long period of preparation, called the catechumenate, which under the usual arrangements should last several months (3-10), according to the intelligence and religiosity of the catechumens. After this preparation the Church can administer baptism, but always with the special permission of the bishop. The bishops always remind the clergy, who request permission to administer baptism to Jews, fulfilling their responsibility before God, if indeed the Jew is perfectly prepared, if he has the appropriate religious disposition and he is not acting to acquire temporary political or material benefit.

We must emphasise that only the Church is authorised to decide whether or not to grant the administration of the sacrament of baptism. This exclusive right of the Church has been defended in difficult times in the past and does not allow limitations even in the future.

When the Catholic Church welcomes anyone into its ranks, it signals not only all the duties of a Catholic-Christian, but guarantees that they enjoy the same rights as other members of the Church, simultaneously requesting that these rights be recognised by all.

2. This is our opinion and understanding of the baptism of the Jews.

Some Jews when they were baptised drew no advantage, but were persecuted from other Jews, often with excommunication and expulsion. These baptised Jews, sever all ties with an ancient tradition and intended to become a genuine part of the Christian community. They live a Christian life and fulfil their religious duties.

These Jews are regarded by us as believers, like all others, and it is our duty to take up their defence. It is in the interests of those baptised, who have taken up their religious duties, we have intervened. [A] (6)

3. Our attitude towards the other Jews and the measures taken against them is summed up on these principles:

The tragedy of the Jewish nation is that of not recognising the Redeemer and of having prepared a terrible and infamous death on the cross. The Redeemer himself, shedding tears at the lack of faith of the Jewish people, predicted as punishment their dispersal throughout the world. After the fall of Jerusalem, the prediction of Christ came to pass. For nearly two millennia the Jews have lived in larger of smaller groups among the nations of the world. In all this time never, never have they merged with other nations, living as a foreign element. Their attitude of hatred of Christianity did not change, and lately in the bloody persecution of Christians in Russia and in Spain, the Jews had an important part. Add to this that nations sometimes showed their discontent and their anger against the Jews in a too harsh and brutal way, that conflicted with Christian principles.

Even we have witnessed the pernicious influence of the Jews. In a short time they have controlled almost all the economic and financial life of the country to the detriment of our people. Not only economically, but also in the cultural and moral fields, they have damaged our people. The Church cannot be opposed if the state with its legal provisions impedes the harmful influence of the Jews.

In old Hungary, in the years 1848 to 1896, the laws dealing with political ecclesiastical matters also accepted the law on hospitality to Jews. Ecclesiastical groups protested against the law, since they feared the harmful influences of the Jews on public life. Government circles at the time and a greater part of public opinion accused the Church of being backward. The facts, however, have proved the Church right.

In resolving this difficult issue it can not be forgotten that Jews are men, and that they must be treated humanely. Care must be taken firstly that the legal order is not violated nor the laws of God. It is the natural right of every individual to be formed with honest work, to use private property according to Christian teaching. It is also the right of everyone to have their own family. If one decides for family life they must fulfil all their duties arising from this state and enjoy all the rights according to Christian principles. [B]

We have considered it necessary to declare the above so that the Catholic public was aware of the point of view of Catholic circles and so that our believers have a clear view of the attitude of the Catholic Church on the Jewish question, after the various, and not always beneficial, voices that have been heard.

References for the second part:
(6) Refer to note 4.
(7) Refer to note 5.

Deportation of Slovak Jews (from Yad Vashem)


Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Judeophobia and some reactionary Catholics

Earlier this month I posted comments on Pope Benedict XVI's new book Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week, where the pope repudiated any and all charges of Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus.  There has been near universal praise for Benedict's writing. 



However, it should not come as a surprise that there are some who do not share the view of the pope and mainstream Catholic teaching.  One such group is the Society of St Pius X, a fringe group of disaffected Catholics who believe the Church has been in error since Vatican II. 

Among issues the Society believe point to mainstream Catholicism's departure from the "true faith" are inter-religious dialogue and the Church's relationship with Jews and Judaism.  The article below is from the Society's US website and contains a mish-mash of pseudo-theologies that have been comprehensively rejected by the Catholic Church at Vatican II and in the teaching of the popes since.

It is worth recalling that one of the Society's bishops is Richard Williamson, a known Holocaust denier.  Even though SSPX has distanced itself from Williamson, it is no coincidence that the supercessionist theology taught by the Society would encourage people such as Williamson to indulge in their offensive judeophobias.

The article makes for some rather disturbing reading.

Gesture to the Jews from Benedict ...as Pope or Professor?


Pope Benedict XVI has made a sweeping exoneration of the Jewish people for the death of Jesus Christ in his new book, the second volume of Jesus of Nazareth. This should not be surprising since it follows Nostra Aetate, which initiated a revolution of the Church’s relations with Jews. In this new book, Benedict attempts to explain, biblically

For Benedict, the responsibility of Christ’s death is allocated instead to the “Temple aristocracy” and a few supporters of Barabbas who were responsible. Benedict asks: “How could the whole [Jewish] people have been present at this moment to clamor for Jesus’ death?” He deconstructs the famous phrase of the crowd: “His blood be on us and on our children”, a phrase frequently cited as evidence of the collective guilt that the Jews bore and the curse they carried as a result. Benedict, however, argues that Jesus’ blood “does not cry out for vengeance and punishment, it is not poured out against anyone, it is poured out for many, for all.”

He has visited the Nazi concentration camp of Auschwitz in Poland and Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial, in spite of the fact that Jewish groups oppose the beatification process of Pius XII, whom they claim should have done more to prevent the Holocaust.

Finally, Benedict approvingly quotes the Cistercian abbess Hildegard: “The Church must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews, since she must wait for the time fixed for this by God.” Until God’s plan comes to fruition, Benedict says, the “particular task” of the disciples of Christ is to carry the Faith to the Gentiles, not to the Jews.

Concerning Pope Benedict’s interpretation, the following reflections are offered:

The responsibility of the Jewish people as such for the death of Christ has been the constant teaching of the Magisterium, based on Scripture and the Church Fathers. St. John speaks three times in his Prologue of the rejection of Christ by His own (meaning His own people or nation). Romans XII speaks of the rejection of Israel for the profit of the Gentiles. See also St. Augustine’s Treatise 49 On John, near the end: “The chief priests and the Pharisees took counsel together...’If we let Him alone as He is, all will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.’ Fearing the destruction of temporal things, they took no thought of eternal life, and so they lost both. After the Lord’s Passion and glorification the Romans did indeed take away both their place and their nation, by assault on the city and dispersal of the people.” The Fathers connected the punishment of the loss of the nation to the crime of deicide, perpetrated by the highest ranking political and moral authority: the Sanhedrin.

It is important to distinguish today between the Jewish race (which has little to do with Christ’s crucifixion), present day Israel (including the Zionists who were forced to emigrated mostly from Russia), and the Jewish religion (led by rabbis, the doctrinal successors of the Sanhedrin which rejected Christ).

As the Messiah was the whole purpose of Israel, His acceptance by many Gentiles turned them into the true Israel (according to St. Paul) and, similarly, His rejection by many Jews could not but be their undoing, since “God is not mocked.”

Such theological interpretations, based on Romans XII, or the Jewish responsibility for Christ’s death have certainly not been the justification for any alleged Jewish persecution by the Church in the Middle Ages. Witness the sermons of St. Bernard, forbidding the killing of Jews; if there was any pressure from the side of the Church, it was not against them but on their behalf.

Regarding the idea of dialogue vs. conversion, the late Cardinal Dulles provided a blunt assessment about ten years ago: the Church cannot curtail the scope of the Gospel without betraying Herself.

John Vennari (editor of Catholic Family News) recounts hearing a Jewish rabbi (note 1) say that the Gospel account of the Passion is not accurate: that the Pharisees were not hostile to Our Lord, but that they were trying to warn Christ against Pilate’s treachery. Mr. Vennari also reports that this rabbi from the Anti-Defamation League works in union with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops which allows him to teach these falsehoods to Catholics everywhere through the United States.

Footnote


1)  John Vennari said the Rabbi’s name was Rabbi Leon Klenicki, who died in 2009. In 2007, Pope Benedict named Rabbi Klenicki a Papal Knight of the Order of St. Gregory the Great.