We are unfortunately getting another look at the confusion and chaos that ensures when the pope decides to take the role of a conversationalist in dialogue with the world rather than as guardian of the deposit of faith. It has only been a few months since the condom debacle surrounding the pope's comments in Light of the World provoked anger and confusion throughout the Catholic world; now, we have the pope speaking again in Jesus of Nazareth Vol. 2, this time about the ever-sensitive question of evangelism and the Jews. Here, the pope makes the claim that the Church "must not concern herself" with the evangelization of the Jews; their conversion is in the "hands of God" who will bring them all in at the "proper time." Until then, "Israel retains its own mission." Let's take a look at the quote from the pope in context:
In this regard, the question of Israel’s mission has always been present….Here I should like to recall the advice given by Bernard of Clairvaux to his pupil Pope Eugene III on this matter. He reminds the Pope that his duty of care extends not only to Christians, but: “You also have obligations toward unbelievers, whether Jew, Greek, or Gentile” (De Consideratione III/1, 2). Then he immediately corrects himself and observes more accurately: “Granted, with regard to the Jews, time excuses you; for them a determined point in time has been fixed, which cannot be anticipated. The full number of the Gentiles must come in first. But what do you say about these Gentiles?. . . …(De Consideratione III/1, 3).
Hildegard Brem comments on this passage as follows: “In the light of Romans 11:25, 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 the full number of the Gentiles comes in’ (Rom 11:25)….(quoted in Sämtliche Werke, ed. Winkler, I, p. 834).
The prophecy of the time of the Gentiles and the corresponding mission is a core element of Jesus’ eschatological message. The special mission to evangelize the Gentiles, which Paul received from the risen Lord, is firmly anchored in the message given by Jesus to his disciples before his Passion. The time of the Gentiles—“the time of the Church”—which, as we have seen, is proclaimed in all the Gospels, constitutes an essential element of Jesus’ eschatological message.
….In the meantime, Israel retains its own mission. Israel is in the hands of God, who will save it “as a whole” at the proper time, when the number of the Gentiles is complete….the evangelization of the Gentiles was now the disciples’ particular task…. (Jesus of Nazareth, Vol 2, pp. 44-46).
The first thing to remember is that, of course, when the pope privately publishes a book on his own initiative it is not an act of the Magisterium of the Church but an action of Pope Benedict the man as a private theologian expressing his own opinions. Benedict reminds us of this in the forward of the first Jesus of Nazareth book:
It goes without saying that this book is in no way an exercise of the Magisterium, but is solely an expression of my personal search “for the face of the Lord” (cf. Ps 27:8). Everyone is free, then, to contradict me. I would only ask my readers for that initial good will without which there can be no understanding. (Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. 1, Forward, xxiv)
I applaud the pope for reminding his readers of this fact, and I can assure him that we will grant him this initial good will in looking at the assertions he puts forward here.
Unfortunately, many within the Church and without, those who see the pope only as the Church's "spokesman" and are unable to distinguish between authoritative and non-authoritative statements, or between the pope as a teacher and the pope as a man, are already saying that the pope has changed the Church's teaching or are otherwise giving his comments more authority than they deserve. A great example of someone in this latter category is this article from the Archdiocese of Washington, in which a certain well-known Monsignor, though acknowledging that the pope's comments do not reflect Magisterial teaching, seems to think that the pope's personal, non-Magisterial reflections in this book necessitate some sort of internal assent. After admitting that the pope's comments were "surprising", "completely new" and even that the implications of the pope's comments "trouble" him, the Monsignor goes on to say:
"I trust the Pope and must now consider how I must amend my prior thinking based on his observations...Nevertheless, I cannot simply regard him as any sort of theologian with whom I may dispute. He, even when he speculates outside the formal magisterial structures, commands my respect and my soul ought to be teachable even in these matters."
The Monsignor is of course right that the thought of the pope, even as a private theologians, commands respect, and that our souls ought to be teachable. But does Pope Benedict's private reflections command such respect that we are compelled to "amend our prior thinking" on something so important as the Church's evangelical mission? And are we to regard these "surprising" and "completely new" ideas of the pope as something with which we cannot dispute, as the Monsignor says, when the pope himself tells us that "everyone is free, then, to contradict me"? Either the pope is being disingenuous and exercising false humility in saying that he is open to contradiction here (which I cannot imagine), or the Monsignor, despite his admirable docility, is still granting much more authority to the pope's book than is merited.
It is too much here to go into the entire history of the Church's relationship to the Jews regarding evangelization, but it is sufficient to say that the idea that the Jews "have their own mission" or destiny outside the evangelical mission of the Church is completely out of line with Tradition. Nevertheless, let us review some of the statements on the Fathers of the Church on the place of Judaism relative to Christianity and their thoughts on the Jewish covenant:
St. Ignatius of Antioch says: "Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to the principles of Christianity. For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, is not of God. Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be ye changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be ye salted in Him, lest any one among you should be corrupted, since by your savor ye shall be convicted. It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God" (Ad Magnesians, X).
The Epistle of Barnabas, although its theology of the place of the Old Testament is slightly outside the pale of orthodoxy, nevertheless makes an important point about how early Christians viewed this issue of the Jews having their own separate mission: "Take heed to yourselves and be not like some piling up you sins and saying that the covenant is theirs as well as ours. It is ours, but they lost it completely just after Moses received it" (IV:6-7).
Tertullian states plainly that the precepts of the Old Law were temporary and were to pass away with the coming of Christ, not that they continue to be valid for the Jews who have their "own mission" with God apart from Christ: "Whence it is manifest that the force of such precepts was temporary, and respected the necessity of present circumstances; and that it was not with a view to its observance in perpetuity that God formerly gave them such a law" (An Answer to the Jews, 4).
Hippolytus tells us that the Jews since Christ walk in darkness: "And then hear what follows:
St. John Chrysostom says, "But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who says so? The Son of God says so. For He said, 'If you were to know My Father, you would also know Me. But you neither know Me nor do you know My Father.' Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?" (Discourse on Judaizing Christians, III: 2).
Concerning reverence for the worship of Judaism, the same holy Doctor says a little later on: "Since there are some who think of the synagogue as a holy place, I must say a few words to them. Why do you reverence that place? Must you not despise it, hold it in abomination, run away from it? They answer that the Law and the books of the prophets are kept there. What is this? Will any place where these books are be a holy place? By no means! This is the reason above all others why I hate the synagogue and abhor it. They have the prophets but do not believe them; they read the the sacred writings but reject their witness-----and this is a mark of men guilty of the greatest outrage" (Ibid., V:2).
Besides these specific witnesses against the idea of a separate mission for the Jews, we could cite many Fathers and popes and councils that teach the necessity of every human person to enter the Catholic Church - namely, that there is no group of persons who are outside the pale of the Church's evangelical activity. All must come to the Faith equally, "the Jew first, and also the Greek" (Rom. 1:16). One from the early 5th century is especially relevant to our discussion.
In the following passage from the Catalog of Statements from the Holy See concerning the Grace of God (early 5th century), we see a statement from the Holy See in which the prayers for the conversion of Jews is lumped in together with the Church's evangelical mission at large. It is a long quote, but worth citing. Notice the context in which the prayers for the Jews are placed:
"For when the leaders of the holy nations perform the office of ambassador entrusted to them, they plead the cause of the human race before divine Clemency, and while the whole Church laments with them, they ask and pray that the faith may be granted to infidels; that idolaters may be delivered from the errors of their impiety; that the veil of their hearts may be removed and the light of truth be visible to the Jews; that heretics may come to their senses through a comprehension of the Catholic faith; that schismatics may receive the spirit of renewed charity; that the remedy of repentance may be bestowed upon the lapsed; that finally after the catechumens have been led to the sacraments of regeneration, the royal court of heavenly mercy may be opened to them. Moreover, the effect of these prayers shows that these are not sought from the Lord perfunctorily and uselessly, since indeed God deigns to attract from every kind of error very many whom, torn from the power of darkness, He transfers into the kingdom of the Son of his love [Col. 1:13], and from vessels of wrath He makes vessels of mercy [Rom. 9:22 f.]. This is felt to be so completely a divine work that the action of the graces and the acknowledgement of praise on account of the illumination or correction of such [persons] should always be referred to God who effects these things" (Denz. 139).
This passage is particularly striking because, though naming several categories of persons, it is asking for but a single grace - the grace of conversion, due to the will of God who deigns to attract from "every kind of error" (among which Judaism is listed) men and women to be transferred to the kingdom of His Son. This one grace of conversion is implored for all of the categories of people listed: infidels, idolaters, Jews, heretics, schismatics, lapsed and catechumens. This means that all of these persons stand in need of this grace equally, and that the conversion of the Jew is similar in nature to the conversion of the idolater or infidel, and that all are equally prayed for by the Church. This should suffice to demonstrate that the Church has formally taught that Jews (1) are to be prayed for and evangelized with an aim for conversion, and that (2) as their categorization with all the other groups of persons above should demonstrate, they are not outside the pale of the Church's regular missionary activity as a "special case."
Finally, we can of course cite the Council of Florence: "[The Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock." Again, the conversion necessary for pagans, heretics and schismatics and seen to be the same conversion needed for Jews.
What are we to make of the pope's citation of St. Bernard to the effect that Jews will be brought in by God at their own proper time and that the Church need not concern herself with their conversion? First off, if the pope really wanted to make this point, citing a single letter from St. Bernard is scanty evidence to try to establish this belief as a something even quasi-dogmatic. It reminds me of Nostra Aetete's attempt to cite a very obscure letter of Pope Gregory VII to an Arab prince to establish the "truth" that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God (see the footnote for NA 3). There is always a variety of opinion in the Church on many disputed topics, but I think it is a little disingenuous to bring forward a single letter by a saint or pope and try to use one, solitary quotation to establish a theological theory, especially when there is much evidence to the contrary from more authoritative sources of dogma.
But, even more than this, Bernard does not say in his letter that the Church does not need to evangelize the Jews. Let's look again at the comments of St. Bernard:
"You also have obligations toward unbelievers, whether Jew, Greek, or Gentile...Granted, with regard to the Jews, time excuses you; for them a determined point in time has been fixed, which cannot be anticipated. The full number of the Gentiles must come in first."
What does Bernard mean when he tells Pope Eugenius that "time excuses you"? Does he imply that the pope is "excused" from attempting to evangelize the Jews? I do not think Bernard's words necessitate such an interpretation. Is he excusing the pope from his duty to evangelize, or perhaps excusing the lack of fruit that such evangelization among the Jews is likely to produce? In other words, could he not just as easily be saying, "You have a duty to evangelize all the unbelievers, although in the case of the Jews, don't expect much success, since their is a hardness that has descended upon them, a veil, that will not be removed until the end." Could not St. Bernard's words be just as easily read in such a way? I think such a reading would be more in keeping with the New Testament and the citations from Tradition we have already looked at rather than Benedict's more novel understanding. Note that it is not Bernard himself who applies this teaching about the Church "not concerning" herself with the Jews; it is the commentator Hildegard Brem and also Pope Benedict who infer this from Bernard's letter.
This response has been charitable and somewhat scholarly, and granting the pope the good will he asked for when persons take it upon themselves to feel "free to contradict" him, I hope that he will refrain from speculating upon such sensitive and debated topics in public, as such speculation inevitably leads to confusion among the faithful and a misunderstanding of the Church's teaching to the world, who cannot help but come to conclusion that the Church is changing its teaching. Confusion certainly is the result when the pope takes the role of a conversationalist who is engaged in dialogue with the world, rather than as a teacher whose job is to clarify and defend Catholic teaching. The condom debacle made me wonder whether popes in the modern age should even speak at all outside of the pale of Magisterial teaching, and this new soteriological faux pas is confirming me in this opinion.
So, do the Jews have their own covenant apart from the New Covenant? Can Jews be saved without Christ? Does the Catholic Church teach that Jews don't need Jesus? Tradition says one thing, but the pope is apparently proposing something different. As I have said before, I don't think we will get a more balanced approach to a lot of these issues until time advances to the point where everyone who was in anyway connected with Vatican II is dead and these topics can be discussed without dragging in the vested theological interests of high-ranking ecclesiastics. Until then, let us remember the words of St. Paul, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Rom. 1:16).
I applaud the pope for reminding his readers of this fact, and I can assure him that we will grant him this initial good will in looking at the assertions he puts forward here.
Unfortunately, many within the Church and without, those who see the pope only as the Church's "spokesman" and are unable to distinguish between authoritative and non-authoritative statements, or between the pope as a teacher and the pope as a man, are already saying that the pope has changed the Church's teaching or are otherwise giving his comments more authority than they deserve. A great example of someone in this latter category is this article from the Archdiocese of Washington, in which a certain well-known Monsignor, though acknowledging that the pope's comments do not reflect Magisterial teaching, seems to think that the pope's personal, non-Magisterial reflections in this book necessitate some sort of internal assent. After admitting that the pope's comments were "surprising", "completely new" and even that the implications of the pope's comments "trouble" him, the Monsignor goes on to say:
"I trust the Pope and must now consider how I must amend my prior thinking based on his observations...Nevertheless, I cannot simply regard him as any sort of theologian with whom I may dispute. He, even when he speculates outside the formal magisterial structures, commands my respect and my soul ought to be teachable even in these matters."
The Monsignor is of course right that the thought of the pope, even as a private theologians, commands respect, and that our souls ought to be teachable. But does Pope Benedict's private reflections command such respect that we are compelled to "amend our prior thinking" on something so important as the Church's evangelical mission? And are we to regard these "surprising" and "completely new" ideas of the pope as something with which we cannot dispute, as the Monsignor says, when the pope himself tells us that "everyone is free, then, to contradict me"? Either the pope is being disingenuous and exercising false humility in saying that he is open to contradiction here (which I cannot imagine), or the Monsignor, despite his admirable docility, is still granting much more authority to the pope's book than is merited.
It is too much here to go into the entire history of the Church's relationship to the Jews regarding evangelization, but it is sufficient to say that the idea that the Jews "have their own mission" or destiny outside the evangelical mission of the Church is completely out of line with Tradition. Nevertheless, let us review some of the statements on the Fathers of the Church on the place of Judaism relative to Christianity and their thoughts on the Jewish covenant:
St. Ignatius of Antioch says: "Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to the principles of Christianity. For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, is not of God. Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be ye changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be ye salted in Him, lest any one among you should be corrupted, since by your savor ye shall be convicted. It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God" (Ad Magnesians, X).
The Epistle of Barnabas, although its theology of the place of the Old Testament is slightly outside the pale of orthodoxy, nevertheless makes an important point about how early Christians viewed this issue of the Jews having their own separate mission: "Take heed to yourselves and be not like some piling up you sins and saying that the covenant is theirs as well as ours. It is ours, but they lost it completely just after Moses received it" (IV:6-7).
Tertullian states plainly that the precepts of the Old Law were temporary and were to pass away with the coming of Christ, not that they continue to be valid for the Jews who have their "own mission" with God apart from Christ: "Whence it is manifest that the force of such precepts was temporary, and respected the necessity of present circumstances; and that it was not with a view to its observance in perpetuity that God formerly gave them such a law" (An Answer to the Jews, 4).
Hippolytus tells us that the Jews since Christ walk in darkness: "And then hear what follows:
Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not.And surely you have been darkened in the eyes of your soul with a darkness utter and everlasting. For now that the true light has arisen, you wander as in the night, and stumble on places with no roads, and fall headlong, as having forsaken the way that says, 'I am the way'" (Expository Treatise Against the Jews, 6).
St. John Chrysostom says, "But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who says so? The Son of God says so. For He said, 'If you were to know My Father, you would also know Me. But you neither know Me nor do you know My Father.' Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?" (Discourse on Judaizing Christians, III: 2).
Concerning reverence for the worship of Judaism, the same holy Doctor says a little later on: "Since there are some who think of the synagogue as a holy place, I must say a few words to them. Why do you reverence that place? Must you not despise it, hold it in abomination, run away from it? They answer that the Law and the books of the prophets are kept there. What is this? Will any place where these books are be a holy place? By no means! This is the reason above all others why I hate the synagogue and abhor it. They have the prophets but do not believe them; they read the the sacred writings but reject their witness-----and this is a mark of men guilty of the greatest outrage" (Ibid., V:2).
Besides these specific witnesses against the idea of a separate mission for the Jews, we could cite many Fathers and popes and councils that teach the necessity of every human person to enter the Catholic Church - namely, that there is no group of persons who are outside the pale of the Church's evangelical activity. All must come to the Faith equally, "the Jew first, and also the Greek" (Rom. 1:16). One from the early 5th century is especially relevant to our discussion.
In the following passage from the Catalog of Statements from the Holy See concerning the Grace of God (early 5th century), we see a statement from the Holy See in which the prayers for the conversion of Jews is lumped in together with the Church's evangelical mission at large. It is a long quote, but worth citing. Notice the context in which the prayers for the Jews are placed:
"For when the leaders of the holy nations perform the office of ambassador entrusted to them, they plead the cause of the human race before divine Clemency, and while the whole Church laments with them, they ask and pray that the faith may be granted to infidels; that idolaters may be delivered from the errors of their impiety; that the veil of their hearts may be removed and the light of truth be visible to the Jews; that heretics may come to their senses through a comprehension of the Catholic faith; that schismatics may receive the spirit of renewed charity; that the remedy of repentance may be bestowed upon the lapsed; that finally after the catechumens have been led to the sacraments of regeneration, the royal court of heavenly mercy may be opened to them. Moreover, the effect of these prayers shows that these are not sought from the Lord perfunctorily and uselessly, since indeed God deigns to attract from every kind of error very many whom, torn from the power of darkness, He transfers into the kingdom of the Son of his love [Col. 1:13], and from vessels of wrath He makes vessels of mercy [Rom. 9:22 f.]. This is felt to be so completely a divine work that the action of the graces and the acknowledgement of praise on account of the illumination or correction of such [persons] should always be referred to God who effects these things" (Denz. 139).
This passage is particularly striking because, though naming several categories of persons, it is asking for but a single grace - the grace of conversion, due to the will of God who deigns to attract from "every kind of error" (among which Judaism is listed) men and women to be transferred to the kingdom of His Son. This one grace of conversion is implored for all of the categories of people listed: infidels, idolaters, Jews, heretics, schismatics, lapsed and catechumens. This means that all of these persons stand in need of this grace equally, and that the conversion of the Jew is similar in nature to the conversion of the idolater or infidel, and that all are equally prayed for by the Church. This should suffice to demonstrate that the Church has formally taught that Jews (1) are to be prayed for and evangelized with an aim for conversion, and that (2) as their categorization with all the other groups of persons above should demonstrate, they are not outside the pale of the Church's regular missionary activity as a "special case."
Finally, we can of course cite the Council of Florence: "[The Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock." Again, the conversion necessary for pagans, heretics and schismatics and seen to be the same conversion needed for Jews.
What are we to make of the pope's citation of St. Bernard to the effect that Jews will be brought in by God at their own proper time and that the Church need not concern herself with their conversion? First off, if the pope really wanted to make this point, citing a single letter from St. Bernard is scanty evidence to try to establish this belief as a something even quasi-dogmatic. It reminds me of Nostra Aetete's attempt to cite a very obscure letter of Pope Gregory VII to an Arab prince to establish the "truth" that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God (see the footnote for NA 3). There is always a variety of opinion in the Church on many disputed topics, but I think it is a little disingenuous to bring forward a single letter by a saint or pope and try to use one, solitary quotation to establish a theological theory, especially when there is much evidence to the contrary from more authoritative sources of dogma.
But, even more than this, Bernard does not say in his letter that the Church does not need to evangelize the Jews. Let's look again at the comments of St. Bernard:
"You also have obligations toward unbelievers, whether Jew, Greek, or Gentile...Granted, with regard to the Jews, time excuses you; for them a determined point in time has been fixed, which cannot be anticipated. The full number of the Gentiles must come in first."
What does Bernard mean when he tells Pope Eugenius that "time excuses you"? Does he imply that the pope is "excused" from attempting to evangelize the Jews? I do not think Bernard's words necessitate such an interpretation. Is he excusing the pope from his duty to evangelize, or perhaps excusing the lack of fruit that such evangelization among the Jews is likely to produce? In other words, could he not just as easily be saying, "You have a duty to evangelize all the unbelievers, although in the case of the Jews, don't expect much success, since their is a hardness that has descended upon them, a veil, that will not be removed until the end." Could not St. Bernard's words be just as easily read in such a way? I think such a reading would be more in keeping with the New Testament and the citations from Tradition we have already looked at rather than Benedict's more novel understanding. Note that it is not Bernard himself who applies this teaching about the Church "not concerning" herself with the Jews; it is the commentator Hildegard Brem and also Pope Benedict who infer this from Bernard's letter.
This response has been charitable and somewhat scholarly, and granting the pope the good will he asked for when persons take it upon themselves to feel "free to contradict" him, I hope that he will refrain from speculating upon such sensitive and debated topics in public, as such speculation inevitably leads to confusion among the faithful and a misunderstanding of the Church's teaching to the world, who cannot help but come to conclusion that the Church is changing its teaching. Confusion certainly is the result when the pope takes the role of a conversationalist who is engaged in dialogue with the world, rather than as a teacher whose job is to clarify and defend Catholic teaching. The condom debacle made me wonder whether popes in the modern age should even speak at all outside of the pale of Magisterial teaching, and this new soteriological faux pas is confirming me in this opinion.
So, do the Jews have their own covenant apart from the New Covenant? Can Jews be saved without Christ? Does the Catholic Church teach that Jews don't need Jesus? Tradition says one thing, but the pope is apparently proposing something different. As I have said before, I don't think we will get a more balanced approach to a lot of these issues until time advances to the point where everyone who was in anyway connected with Vatican II is dead and these topics can be discussed without dragging in the vested theological interests of high-ranking ecclesiastics. Until then, let us remember the words of St. Paul, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Rom. 1:16).
8 comments:
Eventually we will get a Pope who has no personal stake in the last few decades of novelty who will realize the damage that has been done and who will correct it. How long o Lord, how long?
We need to get away from this guilt complex the Jewish establishment has put upon us over the last 100 years. They're always whining that they were so badly treated by us in the past, but they never, in a significant way, owe up to any injustices that they have committed against non-Jews. We need leadership from the top down who will hold both Jews and Gentiles accountable for good and bad behaviours. And they need to encourage the faithful to work against Jewish dominated businesses, such as the entertainment businesses, and groups like the ADL, the AICAP, and the ACLU to lessen the harm these groups to to society at large.
I would read this article, including the comments.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pope-dont-evangelize-jews-really/
I don't think you're reading the Pope correctly.
A couple of other articles that might be worth looking over, too.
http://www.cuf.org/laywitness/LWonline/ja09forrest.asp
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/on-the-relationship-between-the-jewish-people-and-god/
The footnotes on the first and comments on the second are worth looking over, too.
Another view on the condom debacle as well (follow-up comments included).
http://blog.mycatholicfaithdelivered.com/post/A-Moral-Condomdrum.aspx
I think Akin's article agrees with mine. He says that if we interpret these words the way they seem to be coming off, then they are problematic. He at least agrees that they are ambiguous:
So there is considerable ambiguity on this point. I don’t know what Hildegard Brem meant. If she meant we must not evangelize Jewish people or that we should be unconcerned about that subject then I think she is wrong.If she means that we should adopt a policy of minimal evangelization toward them, I am quite uncomfortable with the proposal. If she means that we should make reasonable efforts at evangelization but not be concerned that these will not bear full fruit until the end then I am entirely in agreement.
This last sentence is also the way I proposed we understand St. Bernard's words. At the end of the day, we are still left with an ambiguity, since even such an astute apologist as Jimmy Akin in unsure what Benedict is getting at with these quotes.
Why not write to Akin and ask him to look at your article? I doubt that he would share your opinion that the two of your view this matter in the same way. It's more than just the quote from Brem. Among other things, you have a more of a hermeneutic of suspicion and condemnation with the Holy Father.
Post a Comment