That New York Times headline about Catholics witnessing to Jews? Look again ...

GetReligion ^ | December 16, 2015 | Terry Mattingly

[Mrs. Don-o]

Trust me, I know that it is hard to write accurate, easy-to-read articles about complicated Vatican theological documents. This is especially true when dealing with materials focusing on very nuanced issues that continue to cause behind-the-scenes debates among Catholics.

It's even harder to write informative, catchy and, yes, accurate headlines for these kinds of stories.

This brings me to a recent New York Times report that ran with this headline: "Vatican Says Catholics Should Not Try to Convert Jews."

The problem with that headline is that it is simplistic to the point of being inaccurate -- that is, if the goal is for readers to understand the document ("The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable") addressed in this story.

Now here is the ironic part. You can tell that the headline is inaccurate by carefully reading the actual Times story, which means reading past the flawed lede on which the headline is based. Let us attend.

ROME -- Catholics should not try to convert Jews, but should work together with them to fight anti-Semitism, the Vatican said on Thursday in a far-reaching document meant to solidify its increasingly positive relations with Jews.

Then, in the third paragraph, there is this:

Addressing an issue that has been a sore point between the two faiths for centuries, the commission wrote that the church was "obliged to view evangelization to Jews, who believe in the one God, in a different manner from that to people of other religions and world views." It specified that "the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews."

Did you catch the subtle, but very important, difference between the lede and the actual quote from the document?

The lede says that it is wrong for Catholics -- which would mean priests, laypeople and other Catholic individuals -- to try to win Jewish individuals to Christian faith. But what does the document say? It says that the Catholic Church, as an institution, "neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews (italics added)."

So evangelism by individual Catholics talking with individual Jews is acceptable, while organized efforts targeting Jews alone -- perhaps a Catholic version of Jews for Jesus -- are considered out of bounds.

Thus, the headline and the lede need to be corrected to reflect the actual content of the story and the document on which it is based.

If you want to know more about this complicated issue, let me point you toward a Q&A piece by the conservative apologist Jimmy Akin, writing in The National Catholic Register. It contains lots of detailed quotes drawn from the Vatican document, which is precisely what the Times piece is lacking.

Akin explains that, beginning with the title, this document was clearly crafted to reject a concept called "supersessionism," which argues that the "Church has completely taken over the promises of God regarding Israel, so that today the Jewish people have no special status whatsoever."

The document also addresses another theological issue linked to this -- the "two paths to salvation" concept that says that Christians find salvation through Jesus Christ and Jews through their own covenant. "Two paths" theory is, of course, an open door to full-out Universalism, which argues that all religious and nonreligious paths lead to the top of the same eternal mountain (so to speak).

The problem: What to do with the statement (John 14:6) in which Jesus -- a Jew -- states, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me."

Akin notes that this Vatican document addresses this issue head on, in material that really needed to be in the Times report:

... There are not two paths to salvation according to the expression "Jews hold to the Torah, Christians hold to Christ." Christian faith proclaims that Christ's work of salvation is universal and involves all mankind. God's word is one single and undivided reality which takes concrete form in each respective historical context. ...

Since God has never revoked his covenant with his people Israel, there cannot be different paths or approaches to God's salvation. The theory that there may be two different paths to salvation, the Jewish path without Christ and the path with the Christ, whom Christians believe is Jesus of Nazareth, would in fact endanger the foundations of Christian faith.

Confessing the universal and therefore also exclusive mediation of salvation through Jesus Christ belongs to the core of Christian faith. . . . [T]he Church and Judaism cannot be represented as "two parallel ways to salvation."

There are other complicated subjects attached to that issue, but for the purpose of this story the Times team -- in order to cover the material accurately -- really needed to address the "two paths" section of "The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable" and another section that focuses on PERSONAL, as opposed to INSTITUTIONAL, evangelism.

Akin underlines this crucial passage:

Christians are nonetheless called to bear witness to their faith in Jesus Christ also to Jews, although they should do so in a humble and sensitive manner, acknowledging that Jews are bearers of God's Word, and particularly in view of the great tragedy of the Shoah [i.e., the Holocaust] (GCGI 40).

And the logical implication of this is seen in two other statements:

Jesus ... calls his Church from both Jews and Gentiles (cf. Eph 2:11-22) on the basis of faith in Christ and by means of baptism, through which there is incorporation into his Body which is the Church (GCGI 41).

And:

It is and remains a qualitative definition of the Church of the New Covenant that it consists of Jews and Gentiles, even if the quantitative proportions of Jewish and Gentile Christians may initially give a different impression [GCGI 43]

So what is the point, journalistically speaking?

Clearly, at this point, the Times urgently needs a reporter or two willing to listen carefully to the views of doctrinally traditional Catholics, as well as to progressive Catholics. Once again, the goal is not to AGREE with the Catholic doctrines being discussed, but to understand them well enough to cover them accurately and clearly (which is, as I said up top, often very hard to do in a daily newspaper).

If the Times is not willing to hire such reporters, then it would really help the newspaper's coverage if there were conservative Catholics who were willing to seek out Times people and offer insights (with people on both sides recording the exchanges).

Would the Times people listen?

If the goal is journalism, the answer has to be "yes." Liberal Catholics and conservative Catholics have different takes on these kinds of documents and their debates would be illuminating for readers (including legions of journalists elsewhere who read and heed what is printed in the Times).

Talking to worthy, respected voices on both sides would also help the Times avoid the kinds of errors found in this headline which, as I noted, actually conflicts with information quoted in the story.

Correction, please.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Here's the parts of the Vatican statement on "sharing our Christian Faith with the Jews" which the New York Times did NOT see fit to quote:

... There are not two paths to salvation according to the expression "Jews hold to the Torah, Christians hold to Christ." Christian faith proclaims that Christ's work of salvation is universal and involves all mankind. God's word is one single and undivided reality which takes concrete form in each respective historical context.

Since God has never revoked his covenant with his people Israel, there cannot be different paths or approaches to God's salvation. The theory that there may be two different paths to salvation, the Jewish path without Christ and the path with the Christ, whom Christians believe is Jesus of Nazareth, would in fact endanger the foundations of Christian faith.

Confessing the universal and therefore also exclusive mediation of salvation through Jesus Christ belongs to the core of Christian faith. . . . [T]he Church and Judaism cannot be represented as "two parallel ways to salvation."

Christians are nonetheless called to bear witness to their faith in Jesus Christ also to Jews, although they should do so in a humble and sensitive manner, acknowledging that Jews are bearers of God's Word, and particularly in view of the great tragedy of the Shoah [i.e., the Holocaust] (GCGI 40).

Jesus ... calls his Church from both Jews and Gentiles (cf. Eph 2:11-22) on the basis of faith in Christ and by means of baptism, through which there is incorporation into his Body which is the Church (GCGI 41).

It is and remains a qualitative definition of the Church of the New Covenant that it consists of Jews and Gentiles, even if the quantitative proportions of Jewish and Gentile Christians may initially give a different impression [GCGI 43]

The realy mystery is:

Why do so many FReepers truest the New York Times?

[Bodleian_Girl]

Seriously, I’d never follow any religion that puts a stamp of approval on the Muslims and puts Islam in first place.

“841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”330”

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm#

[jjotto]

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html

[Campion]

Seriously, you ought to try reading stuff in context. "In the first place" in this context comes after giving due consideration to Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and Jews -- which is exactly what you'll find if you read the original source of the quote (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium).

After all, if we're going to rip stuff out of context, then the Bible approves of atheism, when it says "There is no God" (Ps 14:1).

[asyouwish]

:-)

[Mrs. Don-o]

Class, discuss.

[GraceG]

Freedom of speech, Christians can talk to Jews about Jesus and Jews can either choose to ignore or listen to them.

Just like how I deal with Jehovah Witlesses.

Of course “Socialist McPope-ington “ is a freaking hack even bringing this up.

[Faith Presses On]

Agreed.

[kinsman redeemer]

Class, discuss.

Oh! You ARE funny!

[Zionist Conspirator]

No, the Catholic Church should not try to convert Jews. Nor should anyone else. But what keeps nagging at me whenever I read stories like these is, since when have Catholics ever "witnessed" to anybody??? When I joined the Catholic Church over thirty years ago I had to take the initiative every step of the way. The Catholic Church passively converts seekers; it does not actively try to convert anyone. I would guess the danger of a Jew being proselytized by Catholics is considerably less than being killed by a meteorite.

Another issue: while it's true that Catholicism's refusal to proselytize among Jews is preferable to the sincere but very wrong attempts of Fundamentalist Protestants, no one is pointing out the danger of engaging in ecumenical activities with the Vatican. Voices are constantly warning against Judaeophilic Fundamentalists and their attempts to combine Judaism and chrstianity. But what about liberal ecumenism such as that sought by the Vatican and the United Religions Initiative?

[kinsman redeemer]

Okay. I read it.

If I tell you what I REALLY think, you won't like it and the thread could turn into a flame war that touches on Mary, the Eucharist, Jesus' brothers, and eventually the whole thread gets shutdown because of "childish behavior."

So, since I don't want that to happen (at least until after a few hundred posts - hopefully to THIS post, whereupon metmom will make fun of the poor, unfortunate soul), I'll begin by saying this:

• The headline is simplistic and inaccurately captures the intent of the original document,
  
• There is ONE and only one way to heaven. It has been the same since the beginning of time (read Heb 11 for yourself)
  
• My previous observation vis-a-vis "since the beginning of time" raises a lot of complicated issues that none of us (-- although some of us will try --) are qualified to address with complete authority). These include, but are not limited to, supersessionism (mentioned), covenant theology, and dispensationalism.

With my tongue firmly in my cheek, let the fun begin!

[Arthur McGowan]

The proposition that the Old Covenant remains in force, and is a source of grace and salvation, is a heresy. It is currently held, as far as we can tell, by the Pope and a huge portion of the hierarchy. It will eventually have to be repudiated explicitly by a Pope and stamped out.

[RitaOK]

Thank you very much for the ping.

The Mattingly column was too laborious for me. Weeds galore to find the point, but I was up way too late last night, so maybe it’s really only me.

The Vatican issue here is typical word smithing that eschews clarity and exactness, coming off as one more example of *more noise*, for interpretation.

I quite agree with *Zionist that there is no existent evangelism through the Catholic Church, (they are barely trying to contain their own) and therefore that may be a great blessing, given that the agenda driven behaviors of the bishops, cardinals and priests would certainly un-do real evangelism anyway.

Vatican II was/is and will remain a disaster until it’s abuses are undone and the vandalism still occurring to the Holy Mass is swept out. One can not evangelize while knee deep in ashes, of the once pious and Holy Church. I mean, we can not even attract vocations, since Vatican II, never mind hope to evangelize devout Jews or anyone else.

If it were not for the Eucharist in Holy Communion, we would all make fine Episcopalians, it seems, under this pope.

The damage is untold and the results are grave. The Church is under judgement.

[Mrs. Don-o]

If you go to the Catechism,and read the paragraphs in this section (it'd take you less thn 3 min) you'll see why context is key (Catechism link)

That paragraph says, "In the first place"... OK, "in the first place" on what kind of ordered list? "In the first place" compared to what?

Context:

#836 discusses Catholics (first!)

#837 then, the Orthodox.

#838 then, the other baptized Christians.

#839 then, the Jewish People, in the aspect of being faithful to God's holy revelations and promises in the Old Testament.

#840 also discusses the Jewish people.

#841 then, the Muslims ("in the first place" in the sense of first in the list of the non-Judeo-Christian religions which nevertheless believe in the One Creator, i.e. Monotheists)

#843-845 lastly, the other non-Christian, non monotheistic religions.

What we see here (from a Catholic standpoint) is a list of the various faith communities, ranked in the order of what they have in common with us, from the most (Orthodox, then other Christians, then Jews) to the least (Muslims and others.) Muslims are listed as first.. in the list of non-Judeo-Christian religions! They are like us in that they believe in one Creator and adore One God, who will be Judge of all on the Last Day. It does not say they hold the faith of Abraham, it says they "profess" to hold the faith of Abraham.

Later on, after the brief discussion on non-Judeo-Christian religions, it says,

#844 "In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them: Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair."

Thus you have, in summary form, a sense that while we share some degree of alikeness with all men, even if it's only because "all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth," nevertheless, those who are "deceived by the Evil One" are headed for "ultimate despair" (the loss of their souls.)

So it's not like the Catechism is conferring approval on Islam. In fact, "Islam" (as a religious system) is not even mentioned: the point of reference here is "Muslims" --- the people themselves, not Muhammad, not the Koran, not their erroneous faith. Every religion has some garbled fragments of truth mixed in with it --- didn't Paul speak of this at the Areopagus? --- and we affirm only the fragments of truth: One God, Creator, Judge.

This is not blasphemy. This is like St. Paul (Acts 17) quoting fragments of Epimenides of Knossos and Aratus of Soli with approval, but without advocating or embracing their flagrant errors or their religious systems.

[aimhigh]

The Catholics work just like the Clintons, say one thing, then wait a day and say something else. Everyone hears and believes what they want. It’s call triangulation.

[Kolokotronis]

Mrs. D-o, this article is nearly as ridiculous as the original Times article and at least as disrespectful to Judaism.

Best advice, leave the Jews alone. They are the original Chosen People. Western Christians would do well to remember that.

[sasportas]

Your post is about what we would expect ‘ole Zionist conspirator to say. Someone who bashes the New Testament repeatedly on this forum.

Your tagline tells us the “end of history” will be a worldwide Judaic theocracy. No wonder you think it is a wrong to witness to such superior beings as yourself, you, after all, are slated to rule the world, over all Christians.

No wonder you trash the New Testament so much, for it says just the opposite. It says there is going to be a millennial reign of Jesus Christ - the true Messiah of the Jews - after his second coming, Rev. 20. A Christian worldwide theocracy, a Christian “end of history,” not an antichristian Judaic one.

[kinsman redeemer]

Also, I’d like to add: I know plenty of Jews who have excepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. They are Christians! They are Jewish!

[Hebrews 11:6]

There is ONE and only one way to heaven. It has been the same since the beginning of time (read Heb 11 for yourself)

Did someone mention Heb 11?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Actually, it wasn't the Pope who brought this up. The "freaking hack" in question was Cardinal Curt Koch, the head of the "Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews," on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Nosta Aetate.

For what is essentially a "diplomatic" document, it actually has a surprising amount of evangelical content, e.g.:

Confessing the universal and therefore also exclusive mediation of salvation through Jesus Christ belongs to the core of Christian faith. . . . [T]he Church and Judaism cannot be represented as "two parallel ways to salvation."

It literally says Judaism is not a parallel way to salvation. That's pretty on-your-nose for a product of the Vatican document-factory.

However I share your frustration with the sheer voluminous bafflegab.