Vatican II, The Passion of the Christ, and the future of Catholic-Jewish dialogue *.(Essay)

Berger, Alan L. "Vatican II, The Passion of the Christ, and the future of Catholic-Jewish dialogue *.(Essay). ." Journal of Ecumenical Studies. 43.1 (Wntr 2008): 17(14). Academic OneFile. Gale. Florida Atlantic University. 3 Dec. 2008
<Click here to view article>.

Abstract:
Catholic-Jewish dialogue has been empowered and imperiled by two major events of the past forty years. Both Vatican II, convened by Pope John XXIII, and the controversial Mel Gibson film The Passion of the Christ concern antisemitic stereotypes, especially the ancient deicide charge. Vatican II sought its elimination; however, Gibson's film, an attack on the council's reforms, stresses deicide. Sixty years after the Shoah, this revival of what Jules Isaac termed "the teaching of contempt" casts doubt on the future progress of Catholic-Jewish relations. This essay explores the possible contours of future dialogue, inquiring how the post-Holocaust bridges built between the two communities can withstand the storm caused by the revival of premodern Catholic theological dogma.

Full Text: © 2008 Journal of Ecumenical Studies
Vatican II (1962-65) was one of the most important religious events of the twentieth century. Given impetus by the horrors of the Shoah, the courage of Pope John XXIII (about whom Hans Kung observed, "in 5 years he renewed the Catholic Church more than his predecessors had in 500 years"), the work of Jules Isaac in identifying and refuting what he termed "the teaching of contempt," and the determination of Cardinal Augustin Bea--Vatican II meant that the church could no longer ignore the world. (1) Convened initially in order to deal with liturgical reform and ecumenism, the council issued Nostra aetate (hereafter, N.A.; "in our time"), (2) a paradigm-shattering document, especially so in its fourth section, which committed the church to reassessing its theology of Judaism. N.A., although by and for the church, has a dramatically universal resonance. It can be understood within the context of what Judaism terms "Heshbon ha-Nefesh" ("a reckoning of the soul").

Now that forty years--a biblical generation--have passed, it is clear that this document was the key that opened the door of possibility for meaningful Catholic-Jewish dialogue. Rabbi A. James Rudin attests that, because of N.A., "[t]here have been more positive [Catholic-Jewish] encounters since 1965 than there were in the first nineteen hundred years of the Church." (3) One small measure of this turnabout is the fact that a conference such as this one on the occasion of the document's fortieth anniversary, dealing with the impact of N.A. on the new era of interreligious relationships (and others like it being held in various venues, including Jerusalem) would have been impossible forty years ago. Yet, unresolved and perhaps unresolvable issues remain that pose at least two questions: What does each of the faith communities perceive as a dialogue, and what are its anticipated outcomes? I shall return to these questions later.

Many in the Jewish community wonder about the meaning of church apologetics. Mindful of the plethora of positive developments in the dialogue and the growing areas of joint study and social-justice efforts, a fundamental question remains about how church proclamations inform the dialogue on three issues: Antisemitism, the Shoah, and the role of Israel. The controversy surrounding Mel Gibson's 2004 film The Passion of the Christ--intentionally released on Ash Wednesday--and the enthusiastic response to it among many in the Christian (although by no means exclusively Catholic) community reveal that the issue of Antisemitism and the Shoah still separate the two faith communities. In what follows I shall argue that, whereas we live after the Flood, we still have not been granted a full vision of the Rainbow.

Antisemitism

Addressing the persistent and pernicious issue of Antisemitism on the twentieth anniversary of N.A., Edward H. Flannery inquired how a dialogue could prosper in the face of two unspoken questions that each partner implicitly raises. One partner wonders, "Why are they so persecution-minded and concentrated on their troubles?" The other partner wonders, "Why are they so indifferent and callous about the persecution of my people?" (4) In view of the trauma to Catholic-Jewish relations induced by reactions to The Passion of the Christ, Flannery's inquiry assumes added urgency twenty years after he first posed it. Gibson may or may not be an Antisemite, but one thing is certain: This film would not have been made by an individual interested in fostering any of the dimensions of the 1974 Implementing Guidelines relating to N.A., particularly those concerning its declaration of the special relationship between Christianity and Judaism and the recognition that genuine dialogue demands the legitimacy of self-definition.

Rabbi Irving Greenberg notes that Vatican II hinted that the Jews never forfeited their election; moreover, the Council Fathers combined this with a call or promise to teach the Gospels in a way that would not present Jews as reprobate. This choice had the advantage of leaving gospel authority untouched. (5) However, Section 4 of N.A., following the example of Paul's Letter to the Romans, chapters 9-11, upon which it is based, and which committed the church to reexamining its theology of Judaism, exemplifies the perils of theological ambiguity. Thus, while acknowledging "the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham's stock," the statement attests that "the Church is the new people of God." Rabbi Riccardo DiSegni, chief rabbi of the Jewish Community of Rome, wonders if this is in a sense a reprise of the Adversos Israel position, and he astutely inquires "whether the existence of a 'new' people of God means that the old one can no longer be considered as such, or whether the old and the new people are both called to play a role in the history of salvation." (6) This again raises the ongoing covenantal question: Is there a single or a double covenant? In addition, it brings to the forefront the question: What should the appropriate image for Catholic-Jewish relations be--siblings, fraternal twins, or coemergent religious communities? (7)
Gibson's film exploited the weaknesses and ambiguities of N.A. Vatican II, unfortunately, left open the option for traditionalists who reject both the teachings of the council itself and the legitimacy of all popes after Pius XII to utilize the Gospels in a historically uncritical fashion. Further, the abiding image of the Jewish people, according to this reading, is one of Christ-killers. The deicide charge has followed the Jewish people since its appearance in the Gospel of Matthew. Ironically, Matthew is viewed as the most "friendly" of the Gospels concerning the linkage of Jesus to his Jewish milieu, even tracing his lineage to King David, yet it contains the following infamous declaration: "His blood be upon us and our children" (Mt. 27:24-25). When coupled with the advent of passion plays, this curse has historically led to violence against the Jewish people.

In this context, it is instructive to compare two responses to The Passion. William Donahue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, is a spokesperson for traditional Catholicism. In an open letter to the Jewish community, he described the Gibson film as "magnificent beyond words." Directly addressing the deicide charge leveled against the film, Donahue had this to say: "Anyone who believes in collective guilt or believes that today's Jews are responsible for the behavior of some Jews two thousand years ago is demented." (8) Donahue's intemperate use of the word "demented" aside, Richard Rubenstein--who is assuredly not demented--wrote that he "saw Jesus's sufferings, presented graphically on the screen, as foreshadowing all the agonies my people had endured because of the deicide accusation and the Jews' 'inability' to share in the 'good news' of Christ's promise of salvation." (9) "The accusation of deicide made against Jews," Rubenstein continued, "places unbelieving Jews squarely in the camp of Satan, as does Gibson's film." (10) Clearly the film exposed a major fault line separating Judaism and Christianity.

Vatican II and Its Legacy

Viewing the official statements, promulgations, and responses of the church concerning Antisemitism during the past forty years, one notes an impressive and constructive series of documents that portend great promise for Catholic-Jewish dialogue. To mention the more prominent among them, one need only point to the documentary legacy of N.A. that was promulgated in the 1960's. The Implementing Guidelines to the document appeared in the 1970's. The Guidelines, in turn, were followed a decade later by two important documents: Notes on the Correct Way to Present Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church and The Bishops' Criteria for Evaluation of Dramatization of the Passion. In the 1990's a variety of proclamations appeared, including statements by the Polish, French, and Belgium episcopates. The far better known, but more controversial, We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah was published in 1998, followed two years later by Dabru Emet, a Jewish acknowledgment of the theological change manifest in the Catholic Church. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the Vatican issued The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scripture, which was followed by Walking God's Paths, a DVD that features Jews and Christians in conversation. The dialogue thus appeared well launched and able to face the challenges presented by a new century that had begun in a spasm of religious fanaticism.

With all these positive developments, certain critics began to wonder why the Jews cannot take "yes" for an answer. The church may well begin to wonder what it is the Jews want, and why the church is constantly being prodded. A major issue is the church's own insistence on sending mixed signals. For example, We Remember aroused a storm of controversy over two issues: its distancing of the teaching of contempt from Nazi, race-based Jew hatred, and its defense of Pope Pius XII. Further, while beatifying Pope John XXIII, Pope John Paul II also bestowed that status on Pope Plus IX. Whereas it is true that the church is flee to beatify anyone it chooses, it is also the case that the church sends a universal message with beatification: This person's life, thoughts, and deeds are worthy of emulation. It encourages the faithful member of the Catholic Church to look at the example and follow the way of those whom the church beatifies. Advocating reconciliation and memory is antithetical to the actions that occurred during the pontificate of Pius IX. In the words of Gerhart Riegner, "The beatification of Pope Pius IX was a terrible shock for us." Riegner asks:

[H]ow is it possible to comprehend, after a solemn expression of repentance and asking pardon for all wrongdoings against Jews throughout history, the beatification of somebody who more than anyone else personified the most authoritarian and closed attitude
in the Church and who strongly condemned all modern movements? How hold up as an example for veneration a person who re-established the ghetto of Rome, who renewed all the discriminations of which the Jews were victims in the state and in the church, and who concealed and defended the clandestine conversion and abduction of a Jewish child and his elevation to the priesthood? Are these acts indicative of "unconditional fidelity to revealed Truth"? [John Paul II utilized this phrase in describing Pius IX.] (11)

Dialogue requires a commitment to move forward together on the basis of trust. Yet, the church, perhaps unwittingly, appears torn between moving forward and looking back. In May, 2001, I shared a platform in Lublin, Poland, with Archbishop Joseph Zycinski, who had been appointed by Pope John Paul II. The topic was "Christian-Jewish Relations in the Twenty-First Century." Zycinski greeted the audience--nearly 300 college and university students from around the globe, most of whom were not Jewish--with the same words Pope John XXIII used in welcoming a Jewish delegation to the Vatican: "I am Joseph your brother." He then told a story of two young Jewish boys who were sheltered during the Holocaust by Polish Christians. The denouement of the tale was that both boys had subsequently become priests. This story, perhaps meant as inspirational, was in fact theologically jarring and smacked of triumphalism.

Mel Gibson and The Passion of the Christ

A plethora of books, essays, and opinion pieces has appeared that deal with the Gibson film. I do not intend to rehearse their arguments here. (12) Rather, I will simply state two points. First, Gibson's film is the most widely watched passion play in history. It reopens in a spectacular and violent manner old and never fully healed theological wounds. Like its predecessors, this passion play embraces a Manichaean worldview. Jesus and his followers--none of whom is identified as a Jew--are the sons of light. Jews are sons of darkness, mysteriously in league with the devil. Further, Jews have committed the unpardonable crime of deicide, leaving them eternally reprobate. The deicide charge (muted in N.A.'s fourth section, although the word "deicide" is not explicitly mentioned) lies at the core of Gibson's film.
Second, the interview the filmmaker had with Diane Sawyer stated positions that many in the Christian community hold deeply. (13) Gibson made three basic points. His film is based on Gospel accounts of the crucifixion. Thus, his film is, literally, the gospel truth. Consequently, even Christians who criticize the film are, by Gibson's definition, not only anti-Catholic but also, more crucially, antigospel truth.

Second, this film is a statement of Gibson's belief as an authentic, confessing Catholic. In fact, Gibson contends that the Holy Spirit worked through him to direct the film. If this is the case, one is hard put to reconcile it with Gibson's response to Frank Rich's criticism of The Passion--"I want to kill his dog." Gibson's third stated reason for making the film is of a piece with his claim of authenticity. The Passion, he told Sawyer, is "penance" for many years of living a life devoid of spiritual meaning. He attests that he was on the verge of suicide before being saved in order to make this film. In short, Gibson implies that he, like the apostle Paul, had a conversion experience that altered, and saved, his life.

This may well be the case. However, Gibson's film does not appear in a historical vacuum. It comes at a time in the post-Auschwitz world when crucial questions are being raised about the role of religion in aiding extremism, the ugly resurgence of Antisemitism in Europe and its intensification in the Arab Middle East, the call of Pope John Paul II for the church to repent of its sin of the teaching of contempt, an intense discussion about the responsibility of the artist toward history, and the role of film as an art form shaping reality in the postmodern world, defined by an increasingly polarizing culture war. Perhaps most significantly, The Passion appears at a crucial moment in the post-Holocaust history of Christian-Jewish dialogue, coming on the heels of the controversy over access to Vatican documents that deal with the wartime record of Pius XII, the revelations about the killing of Jews by Poles in Jadwabne during the Shoah, the "Convent and Crosses" controversy at Auschwitz, and the canonization of Edith Stein. The fresh winds blowing through the post-Vatican church are being threatened by a gale force howling in the opposite direction.

Erroneously claiming to portray the biblical account of Jesus' passion, Gibson's film--in a best-case scenario--raises fundamental historical and theological questions. For example, how should one read the Gospels? What is the relationship between historical truth and biblical parable? James Carroll refers to this phenomenon as "history remembered" as opposed to "prophecy historicized." (14) Where does Gibson's film leave the dialogue? Will the dialogue of historical and textual scholars with those in their own faith community have a transforming effect on the laity? Can interfaith dialogue weather the twin threats of fundamentalism and secular cultural forces? How these questions are pursued will go a long way toward determining the success of the dialogue.

To return to The Passion, we take note that Gibson, not content with his idiosyncratic Gospel reading, relies heavily on extrabiblical scenes and events. For example, he utilizes extensively the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824), a German Augustinian nun, whose "eyewitness" accounts of the lives of Mary and Jesus appeared in a book edited by Clemons Brentano. Nine years after Emmerich's death, Brentano published The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ after the Meditations of Anne Catherine Emmerich. From this alleged eyewitness to the crucifixion, Gibson takes his androgynous devil figure, the emphasis on Jesus' scourging, a weak-willed and indecisive Pontius Pilate, and a single-minded determination to blame "the Jews" for crucifying Jesus. Furthermore, in Gibson's cinematic representation, there is no indication that Jesus, his mother, and the apostles were Jews. In Gibson's cinematic "Gospel," Christianity emerged full-blown with the appearance of Jesus, when, in fact, this great religious tradition began assuming a distinctive theological form only some two centuries afterward.

The Vatican, insisting on its practice of sending mixed signals on the matter of Catholic-Jewish dialogue, beatified Emmerich in October, 2004. Despite official statements that the case for her beatification rests on the basis of her virtues and not what she wrote, this act will be taken as Vatican approval of Emmerich's views. Consequently, the beatification of a nineteenth-century nun with antisemitic views assumes its place alongside the beatification of Pius IX as an act that may cause many in the Jewish community to question the Catholic Church's understanding of Jewish sensitivities and the meaning of dialogue, while simultaneously reinforcing a still-prominent feeling of uncertainty about the Church's intentions.

Gibson's film is both "anti" and "ante" Vatican II. Carroll portrays the issue in far grimmer terms than merely a rejection of modernism. He contends that the film's aim is "to remove the Holocaust as a defining point of moral reference." Furthermore, Carroll observes that Gibson's message is "'If you want to see what real suffering looks like, check out the battered, flayed Christ. And, by the way, look who caused his misery.'" (15) Thus, Gibson is simultaneously engaged in the fruitless and sterile exercise of comparative suffering and in advancing antisemitic stereotyping. N.A. rightly condemned both practices.
An interfaith scholars' committee, whose members worked independently of one another, critiqued Gibson's script. The committee, appointed by Dr. Eugene Fisher, then of the Secretariat for Catholic-Jewish Relations of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, noted that the script was deficient in several areas. It ignored completely the evidence of scientific and historical scholarship concerning the composition of the Gospels. Further, the script accepts uncritically the alleged visions of Emmerich, substituting her "eyewitness" and bogus account of the crucifixion for the Gospel versions. The scholars also noted the film's linguistic difficulties; for example, the Gospel accounts are in Greek rather than the Aramaic and Latin spoken by the actors. Finally, the scholars all cited the film's potential for instigating Antisemitism. The final script was marginally corrected, but the major response by Icon, Gibson's production company, was twofold: a threat to sue the committee members, and an attempt to impugn the scholars' reputations.

Father John Pawlikowski, a scholar long involved in Catholic-Jewish dialogue and a member of the above-mentioned scholars' committee, utilizes medical terminology in discussing the church's pre-Vatican anti-Judaism. He advocates that "spiritual chemotherapy" be administered against the cancer of Jewhatred. (16) Extending the metaphor, one might view Gibson's film as a "relapse." The disease has returned with--pardon the pun--a passion. Unlike cancer, however, Antisemitism is contagious. A Pew poll taken shortly after the film's release reported a slight rise of nine percent in the number of people who believe that the Jewish people are responsible for the death of Jesus. (17)

As a Jew, I do not feel it proper or responsible to comment on what Christians believe. Pawlikowski observes, however, that Gibson's portrayal of Jesus omits his role as a savior. The message of love is obliterated, and the film offers only a glimpse of the resurrection. Pawlikowski--and not he alone--wonders what kind of God would demand this type of violence in order to send a message to humanity. Gibson's emphasis is not on living a religious life but, rather, on the medieval ideal of enduring unbearable agony, the true contemporary imitatio dei. The director may in fact have been interested in countering other recent artistic images of Jesus as rock star ("Jesus Christ, Superstar") or as homosexual ("Corpus Christi"). Gibson's Jesus is a one-dimensional macho figure who is evidently either above or indifferent to the entire bloody episode.

Catholic-Jewish Dialogue

I believe that, in assessing the state of post-Passion Catholic-Jewish dialogue, it is necessary to distinguish between short- and long-term prospects. Although it seems counterintuitive, I am fairly optimistic about the short term but far less certain concerning the long-term outlook.

The Ba'al Shem Tov (1698-1760), founder of the Hasidic movement in Judaism, contended that evil could be the footstool of good, We live at a time of great change in the post-Vatican II history of Catholic-Jewish dialogue. Much attention, effort, and thought have been, and are being, devoted by both sides to ensure that the dialogue not only continues but also matures. This means that disagreements do not derail interfaith relations; quite the contrary is the case. Disputes may, as the Guidelines suggest, serve to deepen and enrich one's understanding of the faith of others as well as one's own beliefs.

The uproar caused by Gibson's film has--intentionally or otherwise--caused many people to reflect on their own views of religion and to reread sacred texts. Moreover, the light of critical scholarship is being shone on the socio-religious world of antiquity. Crucial archaeological evidence helps the contemporary discussion of ancient texts. The fact that the interfaith scholars' committee recognized the dangers of the deeply flawed Passion script is just one sign of the deepened trust developing between Catholic and Jewish intellectuals; good theology cannot rest firmly on a historically faulty foundation. The many scholarly anthologies dealing with issues raised by the Gibson film critique the film's shortcomings and draw attention to its outright falsifications. Moreover, people are being encouraged to ask questions and to study sources in an ecumenical environment, all of which activity is in the spirit of N.A.'s vision of the church's being engaged with the world.

In the long term, however, the prospects for Catholic-Jewish dialogue appear to be far less certain. As the notorious Henry Ford once observed, "History is more or less bunk." (18) Clearly, we never know what the future will bring, but this does not absolve us of the right and the obligation to think ahead. In terms of Catholic-Jewish dialogue, two key questions arise: Will succeeding popes have the same degree of personal commitment to the enterprise as did John Paul II and, to date, Pope Benedict XVI? If not, will the effort be put on the ecumenical back burner? Jewish history records what happened when a new pharaoh arose who did not know Joseph. (19)

Further, Americans increasingly receive their knowledge of history not by reading books but by watching films. This means that whatever "learning" occurs does so by means of passive receptivity that promotes neither critical thinking nor the life of the mind. "Many, if not most, mainline Protestants and Catholics," as Mary C. Boys of Union Theological Seminary has observed, "are at best dimly aware of the substantial rethinking of the past thirty-five years. Anti-Judaism ... remains alive and all too well within the church." (20) Moreover, in times of cultural stress and uncertainty, there is a strong tendency to fall back on stereotypes that give false assurance by demonizing the Other.

In this context it is significant to note that the DVD version of The Passion of the Christ was released in September, 2004. Experiencing the Passion of Jesus, a study guide to the film published by Zondervan, continues the anti-historical view of first-century C.E. religious life in ancient Palestine, while manipulating the reader into an "either/or" view of Jesus as the Christ. In other words, one is either on the side of the true believers--Jesus is the son of God--or one is a sinner. The text seeks to explain neither historical complexities nor theological nuance. It does not take a great deal of imagination to realize that this study guide will fuel negative stereotyping of Judaism.

The challenge confronting the post-Vatican II church is how to respond to such assaults. The record to date is itself ambiguous. DiSegni astutely observed that there is a sad impression in the Jewish world that

[w]hen confronted with strong mystical experiences and huge interests of a pastoral nature, but also other types, the problem of the correct relationship with the Jews seems to be the last thing to worry the church, which then thinks that a generic reference to the official documents [contradicted by the facts] is sufficient to patch up the damage. (21)

The ongoing issue, therefore, is one of implementation. The church has demonstrated its admirable capacity for theological formulation. What we now need is deeds rather than creeds. The Hebrew Union College historian Michael Cook put the matter in perspective by commenting that, when faced with this discrepancy, the Church resorts to "'saturation bombing' of reprinted Vatican II documents." (22) Moreover, the Sydney, Australia, Morning Herald reports that Gibson has been invited to recreate the crucifixion of Jesus in the streets of Sydney if the city is chosen to host the Catholic Church's 2008 World Youth Day.

The Church dare not allow a second institutional moral failure of silence after Auschwitz. The controversy generated by Gibson's film is at the same time an unparalleled "teaching moment" for the Vatican. I note as an aside that, until now, there has been no official comment on the Gibson film from either Hollywood, which represents secularism par excellence, or the Vatican. The late John Paul II was silent after The Passion, as he was when Syrian President Bashir Assad greeted him in Syria with a vicious statement accusing the Jews of deicide. Silence never helps the victim. Rather, it indicates either approval or apathy. Furthermore, the flurry of contradictory statements attributed to the Vatican following Gibson's film did nothing to assuage the concerns of Jews and others about the theological and historical errors of the work. (23) If faith is what makes us human, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks observed, then those who do not share my faith are less than fully human. From this absolutist position, great human catastrophes--typically perpetrated in the name of God--have ensued, including crusades, inquisitions, jihads, and genocides. (24)

Separated by a Common Language

One of the fundamental issues separating Jews and Christians in the dialogue is that we are divided by a common language. A brief look at the matter of repentance and forgiveness illustrates this point. Judaism teaches that there are two types of transgression: that between one individual and another (beyn adam leadam), and that committed by humans against God (beyn adam lemakom). The person sinned against is the only one who may properly forgive the sinner. There is no corporate forgiveness in Judaism. Further, only God can forgive transgressions against the deity. There is, as Professor David Blumenthal has noted, "no spiritual or halakhic mechanism in Judaism by which Jews can formally 'forgive' the Catholic Church, or the community of Catholics, for the centuries of injurious teaching and persecution of Jews culminating in the Shoah." (25)

This leaves the notion of mechila, the act of "forgoing the other's indebtedness," (26) which can be granted only if it is deserved. Mechila requires that "the offended party has sure grounds to think that the offending party has done teshuva," (27) that is, has genuinely turned away from that which is evil or hateful and turned toward that which is righteous. In the context of Catholic-Jewish dialogue, noted Blumenthal, teshuva requires that three conditions be met: "[F]irst, desisting from the sin of persecuting Jews, including desisting from teaching doctrines and supporting popular attitudes that encourage, or even tolerate, the persecution of Jews; second, making appropriate restitution where there are material claims that can be compensated; and, third, the reform of character through intellectual-moral analysis, remorse, and confession." (28) The Church can demonstrate the authenticity of its teshuva only through deeds. Consequently, how it deals with Antisemitism, terrorist incidents, the Church's historical record concerning the Shoah, unreturned Judaica such as manuscripts and art, relations with Israel, the nature of Catholic mission, church teachings about Jews and Judaism, and relations with local Jewish communities, according to Blumenthal, are "the action-yardsticks by which Catholic teshuva is measured." (29) Thus far, it appears that this teshuva is stronger in certain areas than in others. In any case, the ebb and flow of dialogue is closely linked with such efforts.

Conclusion

Amid the controversy over the Gibson film, it is important to note the appearance of another, far better, historically accurate, and inspirational passion film. Sister Rose's Passion, (30) a nominee for the 2005 Academy Award for Best Documentary, Short Subjects. It tells the story of Sister Rose Thering, a Dominican nun, who fifty years ago in her Ph. D. dissertation at St. Louis University exposed and critiqued the Christian teaching of contempt that was thoroughly embedded in Sunday School texts, catechisms, and other educational material. In the film, she reports that a bishop told her "Don't hang out [the church's] dirty laundry." She proceeded to do exactly that in exposing the widespread prevalence of such negative stereotypes as the blood libel and the deicide accusation in Catholic educational material.

Sister Rose's dissertation greatly influenced Cardinal Bea, director of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, whose commission worked on the several drafts of N.A. It is no exaggeration to state that her work and her consistent struggle against entrenched Catholic theological conservatism were important factors in helping the Council Fathers understand the Church's role in fomenting the teaching of contempt for the Jewish people. N.A., although facing numerous obstacles toward passage, bears the stamp of her pioneering efforts, especially in underscoring that the Romans, not the Jews, crucified Jesus. Furthermore, she continued to labor tirelessly to convince congregations and parishioners to adopt the Church's new stand. One hopes that this story will be heard far and wide.

Returning to the questions asked at the beginning--how do the communities define the dialogue, and what are the anticipated outcomes?--we can see that at least three notions are significant here. Each party must respect the integrity of the other. The dialogue is an important opportunity for one's own growth in terms of understanding the Other. Further, this understanding applies equally to the opportunities for deepening and enriching the understanding of one's own tradition. The anticipated outcomes are, however, perhaps more ambiguous. For Jews the issue is at least twofold. On a primary level, in the post-Auschwitz world where Antisemitism is still rampant, the concern is physical safety. This concern is reinforced by the vitriolic antisemitic outbursts of the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust denier, who has recently proclaimed that "Israel should be wiped off the map" and that Israelis should return to Europe and establish a nation there. (31) As Saul Bellow noted in To Jerusalem and Back, not even the creation of a Jewish state has changed a basic fact of Jewish life: "[T]he Jews, because they are Jews, have never been able to take the right to live as a natural right." (32)

Jews in the dialogue also utilize the opportunity for teaching the facts about Jewish history and religious practices. For example, although the Vatican has accorded political recognition to the State of Israel, it is less clear whether the church understands the role of Israel in relationship to Jewish peoplehood. The Jewish state is obviously a political fact of life. However, it also has a direct impact on Jewish identity. If the church restricts its understanding of Israel solely to the political arena, it misses a central defining characteristic of post-Holocaust Jewish identity. Michael Kotzin has noted the troubling dimension of what he termed the Vatican's "two track approach, relating to Jews as a religion through dialogue while seeing its relations with Israel purely in a political framework." (33)

For Christian partners in dialogue, the process of theological self-critique is aided immeasurably by seeking to understand Judaism on its own terms rather than by means of negative stereotypes. Certainly, one lesson for Christianity is that Jews, in rejecting the Messiahship of Jesus, are simultaneously affirming their own tradition. Consequently, Catholic-Jewish dialogue can reduce the temptation to embrace supersessionism and to deny the credibility of attempts to convert the Jews. Christians can also affirm the danger of resurgent Antisemitism and embrace the teachings of Vatican II that one cannot be a Christian and an Antisemite. The longer-term outcome of the dialogue upon Christianity is uncertain, and the questions about the theological and demographic asymmetry between Christianity and Judaism remain.

What is the next step for Catholic-Jewish dialogue? Both faith communities live in a world where neither is in the majority. Religious pluralism is a fact of twenty-first-century life. N.A. hinted at this in its comments on non-Christian religions. However, the dialogue has the potential to model a way of ethical and moral existence in a world where religiously sanctioned mass murder and terror have become an inescapable fact of life--and of death. The question arises whether the dialogue can be a moderating voice amid a chorus of violence. Can the dialogue point beyond itself?. Reflections on issues such as covenant, the role of the Other in God's plan for salvation, and how to achieve a world of justice suggest that the dialogue can have universal implications.

N.A. and its documentary legacy illustrate how far the dialogue has come. For instance, after Auschwitz there is unprecedented openness between the two traditions, a building of trust, the beginnings of theological reflections that portend profound transformation, a joint reading of the Bible, the scholarly quest for origins, the fruitfulness of civil discourse, and the emergence of dialogical groups on international, national, and local levels. Nevertheless, the persistence of Antisemitism, the temptation to triumphalism, the fundamental theological asymmetry, the recognition that we are different in basic ways, the lack of fully comprehending the meaning of Israel, and language itself (Judaism lacks the word "theology," speaking instead of "fear of heaven," yirat Shemayim)--all point to the urgent necessity to continue the important discourse engendered by Nostra aerate.

* An earlier version of this essay was read in Rome at the conference on "Nostra Aetate Today: Reflections 40 Years after the Call for Interreligious Relationships," held at the Pontifical Gregorian University, in October, 2004. I am grateful for the comments of Professor Asher Z. Milbauer and Rabbi A. James Rudin on subsequent drafts, although they bear no responsibility for my conclusions.

(1) Hans Kung, Reforming the Church Today: Keeping Hope Alive (London: T. and T. Clark, 2000), pp. 66-67.

(2) Available at http://www.vatican.va/archive/histcouncils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vatii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html.

(3) A. James Rudin, "The Dramatic Impact of Nostra Aetate," In Eugene J. Fisher, A. James Rudin, and Marc H. Tanenbaum, eds., Twenty Years of Jewish-Catholic Relations (New York and Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1986), p. 15. It should be noted, however, that Nostra aetate fails to mention specifically "deicide," the Holocaust, or the State of Israel.

(4) Edward Flannery, "Seminaries, Classrooms, Pulpits, Streets: Where We Have to Go," in Roger Brooks, ed., Unanswered Questions: Theological Views of Jewish-Catholic Relations (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988), p. 140.

(5) Irving Greenberg, "Anti-Semitism in 'The Passion,'" Commonweal 131 (May 7, 2004): 12.

(6) Riccardo DiSegni, "Steps Taken and Questions Remaining in Jewish-Christian Relations Today" (essay read in the series "The Catholic Church and the Jewish People from Vatican II to Today," Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome, October 19, 2004), p. 3; see http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/center/conferences/ Bea_Centre_C-J_Relations_04-05/DiSegni.htm.

(7) John Pawlikowski raised this question in his plenary address at the conference on "Nostra Aerate Today: Reflections Forty Years after Its Call for a New Era of Interreligious Relations" (Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome, September 25, 2005).

(8) Donahue's remarks are cited by David Berger in "Jews, Christians, and the 'The Passion,'" Commentary 117 (May, 2004): 30.

(9) Richard L. Rubenstein, "The Exposed Fault Line," in J. Shawn Landres and Michael Berenbaum, eds., After the Passion Is Gone: American Religious Consequences (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2004), p. 207.

(10) Ibid., emphasis in original.

(11) Gerhart M. Riegner, Letter to the Editors ("Ecclesia and Synagoga: A New Future"), SIDIC, vol. 33, no. 3 (2000), p. 15.

(12) See the following representative works: Landres and Berenbaum, After the Passion Is Gone; Kathleen E. Corley and Robert L. Webb, eds., Jesus and Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. The Film, the Gospels. and the Claims of History (London: Continuum, 2004); Philip A. Cunningham, ed., Pondering the Passion: What's at Stake for Christians and Jews? (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004); and S. Brent Plate, ed., Re-Viewing the Passion: Mel Gibson's Film and Its Critics (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).

(13) Diane Sawyer, Interview with Mel Gibson on a "Primetime" Special Edition, on ABC-TV, February 16, 2004.

(14) James Carroll, Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews--A History (Boxton, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2001), p. 217.

(15) James Carroll, "Additional Perspectives on Passion of the Christ," sidebar to Amy Hollywood, "Kill Jesus," Harvard Divinity Bulletin 32 (Summer, 2004): 34. It is significant that, in early December, 2005, an announcement was made that Gibson planned a made-for-television (ABC-TV) miniseries about a Holocaust rescuer. It takes no great leap of imagination to ponder the possibility that Gibson might have distorted the message in a way that would have absolved the Christian teaching of contempt for Judaism as sowing the seedbed of the Shoah. In any case, this plan was subsequently dropped.
(16) John T. Pawlikowski, "Gibson's Passion: The challenges for Catholics," in Zev Garber, ed., Mel Gibson's Passion: The Film, the Controversy, and Its Implications (W. Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 2006), p. 130.

(17) Cited in ibid.

(18) See Ralph Keyes, The Quote Verifier: Who Said What, Where, and When (New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 2006), p. 89.

(19) This is not to equate present and future popes with an ancient Egyptian king. However, it is conceivable that the Church's increasing concern with its constituents in Africa and Asia, for whom Christian-Jewish dialogue is not a vital matter, and where there are insignificant numbers of Jews, will relegate such dialogue to the theological back burner.

(20) Mary C. Boys, Has God Only One Blessing? Judaism as a Source of Christian Self-Understanding, A Stimulus Book (New York and Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2000), p. 266.

(21) DiSegni, "Steps Taken," p. 5.

(22) Michael J. Cook, "An Insider's Account of the Mel Gibson Ordeal," The Chronicle (of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion), no. 63 (2004), p. 15.

(23) Pawlikowski wrote that "... by and large, church leadership failed to expose 'The Passion of the Christ' as a carrier of classical Christian antisemitism. In light of the experience of the Holocaust there was need for a clear-cut repudiation of the film in this regard. Silence, and even outright support of the film, dominated Christian institutional responses despite the fact that many scholars and sensitive lay people did clearly raise the issue of the film's antisemitic potential" (John T. Pawlikowski, "Gibson's Passion in the Face of the Shoah's Ethical Considerations," in Philip A. Cunningham, ed., Pondering the Passion. What's at Stake for Christians and Jews? [Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004], pp. 159-160).

(24) Jonathan Sacks, The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations (New York: Continuum, 2003), p. 46.

(25) David Blumenthal, "Repentance and Forgiveness," Cross Currents 48 (Spring, 1998): 80.

(26) Ibid., p. 79.

(27) Ibid., pp. 80-81.

(28) Ibid., p. 81.

(29) Ibid

(30) Oren Jacoby, director and producer, Sister Rose's Passion (New Jersey Studios, Flemington, NJ, 2004).

(31) A threat made at a Tehran seminar on "World without Zionism," in October, 2005.

(32) Saul Bellow, To Jerusalem and Back: A Personal Account (New York: Viking Press, 1976), p. 26.

(33) Michael Kotzkin, "Facing the Unresolved Issue in Interfaith Dialogue," Forward Forum, October 28, 2005, p. 11. At the Nostra Aetate Today conference, several delegates referred to the Church's lack of attention to the intimate connection between the State of Israel and the Jewish people. This point was made with great eloquence by Professor Ruth Langer of Boston College in her response to John T. Pawlikowski's plenary address to the conference.

Alan L. Berger (Jewish) since 1995 has held the Raddock Family Eminent Scholar Chair for Holocaust Studies and has been Professor of Judaic Studies at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, where he also directs the Center for the Study of Values and Violence after Auschwitz. He founded and directed the Holocaust and Judaic Studies B.A. Program at FAU (1998-2005). He taught in the Dept. of Religion at Syracuse (NY) University from 1973 to 1995, where he founded and directed the Jewish Studies Program. He was the Visiting Gumenick Professor of Judaica at the College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA, 1988-89. He chaired the Annual Scholars' Conference on the Holocaust and the Churches in both 1989 and 1990. He was series editor of "Religion, Theology, and the Holocaust" for Syracuse University Press, 1998-2004, and edits the new series "Studies in Genocide: Religion, History, and Human Rights" for Rowman and Littlefield. Among his books are Crisis and Convenant: The Holocaust in American Jewish Fiction (SUNY, 1985); Judaism in the Modern World (ed. and intro.; NYU Press, 1994); Children of Job: American Second-Generation Witnesses to the Holocaust (SUNY, 1997); Second-Generation Voices: Reflections by Children of Holocaust Survivors and Perpetrators (co-edited with his wife Naomi; Syracuse Univ. Press, 2001); Encyclopedia of Holocaust Literature (co-editor and author; Oryx, 2002); The Continuing Agony: From the Carmelite Convent to the Crosses at Auschwitz (co-editor and author, Univ. Press of America, 2004); Jewish American and Holocaust Literature: Representation in the Postmodern Worm (SUNY, 2004); Forthcoming books include Honey from the Rock: The Next Step in Christian/Jewish Relations (co-author; Paragon House) and Encyclopedia of Jewish American Literature (co-editor; Facts on File). His ninety articles, essays, and book chapters appear in a variety of academic journals, books, and encyclopedias. He has lectured on the Holocaust, American Jewish literature, theology, and Christian/Jewish relations around the world; is an Associate Editor of Studies in American Jewish Literature; and serves on the editorial boards of Literature and Belief and Shofar. He is Associate Director, Association for the Study of Jewish American and Holocaust Literature, and a member of the Commissioner's Task Force on Holocaust Education for the state of Florida. Luther College awarded him the degree of Doctor of Letters Honoris Causa in 1999.

Gale Document Number:A178119206